"Cymbeline" is one of Shakespeare's later written, and lesser known plays. It was probably composed around 1610, according to The Royal Shakespeare company. As with many of Shakespeare's final plays, it is harder to sort into tragedy or comedy, having aspects of both. The fact of being obscure and hard to categorize made it more interesting to read: unlike almost every other play by Shakespeare, which I know by pop cultural osmosis, I really didn't know what is going on here, and what the plot twists are going to be.
And this story has a lot of plot twists. We start out in Roman-era Britain, although with many anachronisms. Cymbeline is the King of the Britons. Despite the play being named for him, he is not the main character. He has a daughter, Imogen, who is the main character of the story. Imogen's mother has died, and Cymbeline is remarried to an evil woman, who has an equally evil son, Cloten, who is a mixture of every spoiled rich kid stereotype you can imagine. Imogen has married Leonatus, a poor-but-noble lord. Cymbeline and his unnamed queen disapprove of this, because they want Imogen to marry her step-brother Cloten for dynastic reasons. And yes, that is weird, even within the play. Meanwhile, one of Cymbeline's generals is raising Imogen's brothers in a cave in Wales, having kidnapped them when they were babies because he was falsely accused of treason. Meanwhile, Rome is demanding tribute from Britain and war is brewing...
That is the setting of the play. Got all of that? Good. So did I, which was somewhat of a surprise. Despite the complex political and personal background of the play, Shakespeare actually manages to work all of this backstory in quite naturally. The plot begins properly when Iachimo, a friend of a friend that Leonatus meets in Italy (which, of course, didn't exist yet), makes a wager that he can seduce the perfectly chaste Imogen, and Leonatus takes him up on it. (And you might be thinking, that sounds kind of messed up, a point that I will return to later). Then the plot is launched, a plot that involves, in true Shakespearean fashion, cross-dressing, disguised identity, mistaken identity, faked death, foolish wisemen, wise fools, side switching, sudden revelations, visits from ghosts and gods, comeuppance, reunions, etc. I won't spoil it for you. As in many Shakespeare plays, many of the plot devices are very contrived, and too coincidental, as disguised characters run into each other and have comedic (and sometimes) tragic misunderstandings. But of course, that is part of Shakespeare's charm.
After having established that the plot is convoluted, and not realistic, I want to say a little bit about what I got out of this play. For me, a large part of this play has to do with the difference between appearance and reality, and between role and person. The problem is, it is very easy to imagine that Shakespeare is saying something that modern readers would agree with, even when that isn't the case. Imogen is in the role of a princess, even though she doesn't want her royal privilege, but just marriage to Leonatus. Her brothers are in the role of "mountaineers", even though they are princes. The Queen is in the role of a loving wife, even though she is a devious poisoner. Her son is in the role of a prince, even though he starts out as a rude braggart and turns into an attempted rapist. Leonatus believes Iachimo has seduced Imogen because Iachimo has a bracelet he stole from her. (In the play, Leonatus' servant Pisanio tells Leonatus not to believe him, and even within the confines of the play, the type of man who gambles that he can seduce your wife really isn't the type of man you should be trusting.) So a modern reader might read this play and think Shakespeare is telling us "Treat people as people, and not as roles, and don't always trust your first impressions" and that is a good message that modern readers can get behind. But the problem is, Shakespeare might have meant that in a way that is much different than we would. While Leonatus is shown as foolish for doubting his wife's chastity, and for thinking violent thoughts against her...the general idea that women's value is tied up with who they don't have sex with isn't challenged. Imogen's main value is still promoted as being her "honor", even when she is falsely accused. The play presents a few reservations on the idea that violence is a way to control women's sexuality, but only a few. As well, in the play, Cymbeline's true sons are condemned to death for killing Cloten in self-defense, but are given a reprieve---not because Cloten was violent and they were acting in self-defense, but because it is revealed that they were actually princes too. Their crime was that they were violent against someone of higher social status, not that they were violent. The play seems to take it for granted that social status is the real and singular guide for ethics and morality, and that a transgressor can only be punished by someone of higher social status. So while I liked the play, and there were parts of it that still resonated with me, parts of its value system seemed bizarre to my sensibilities.