In class the other day, we watched a particular production of Hamlet. The version was modernized; it took place in New York City with Denmark as a corporation instead of a country. When we watched the ending scene (the one where everyone dies), I was confused. In this particular version, it appeared that Gertrude knew that the cup of wine had been poisoned. Whenever Claudius tried to hand the cup to Hamlet, Gertrude made excuses or pushed the cup away. She seemed to be trying to protect Hamlet from Claudius' plot. And when Gertrude took a drink from the poisoned cup, it didn't seem to be an accident; it appeared that Gertrude knew what she was doing. In a sense, Gertrude was sacrificing herself for her son. However, this sacrifice would be in vain.
I turned to the last scene again to see if I had missed something. Maybe Gertrude had known what Claudius had done, maybe Gertrude was trying to protect Hamlet. However, the text didn't seem to indicate so either:
Claudius: Gertrude, do not drink.
Gertrude: I will, my lord, I pray you pardon me.
She drinks [then offers the cup to HAMLET] (5.2.233-234)
The fact that Gertrude offers the cup to Hamlet after she drinks contradicts the idea that she knew the cup was poisoned, or that she was trying to protect her son. After all, why would she offer the poisoned drink to her son if she was trying to protect him? Even though the production that we watched did not accurately follow this particular moment in the plot, the production was still really interesting. I wonder what caused the producers to make the changes that they did (portraying Gertrude as a mother who dies trying to protect her son). Perhaps they were trying to show Gertrude in a different light. Hamlet, throughout the entire production, accuses his mother of committing horrible deeds. Maybe, when portraying Gertrude differently, the producers were trying to give her a fair portrayal. Perhaps they felt that Hamlet was unfair to his mother when he called her a villain, and many other names. Maybe they felt they were righting the wrong. Regardless of their reasons, it was definitely a unique choice. I wish we had the time to watch the entire production so I could have seen whether this stylistic choice was carried out throughout the entire production, or whether it happened only at the end.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Gertrude the Villain?
As I was skimming Hamlet to try to find a quotation that I could reflect upon, one in particular caught my eye. I think that Hamlet's reaction to the ghost's news and request that Hamlet seeks revenge is particularly interesting. The part of Hamlet's reaction that I would like to reflect on is as follows:
One part that interested me was the end of this quotation, when Hamlet keeps repeating "villain". He seems to be referring to his mother as a "villain", because he states "O most pernicious woman!" (1.5.105) According to the OED, "pernicious" in this sense would have meant "intending or causing harm; villainous" (OED 2b). Hamlet seems to be indicating in two senses that a woman is a villain-whom I assume to be his mother. However, I have trouble picturing Gertrude as a villain. I don't agree with her decision to marry her late husband's brother, but as we discussed in class she probably didn't have much of a choice. There weren't any opportunities for Gertrude to make a living for herself on her own; it wasn't like she could have remained single and still lived in the castle. In order to continue to live in the same style, she had to remarry. But does this act make her a villain? I don't think so.
...................................Remember thee?
Ay, thou poor ghost, while memory holds a seat
In this distracted globe. remember thee?
Yea, from the table of my memory
I'll wipe away all trivial fond records,
All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past,
That youth and observation copied there,
And thy commandment all alone shall live
Within the book and volume of my brain
Unmixed with baser matter. Yes, yes, by heaven.
O most pernicious woman!
O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!
My tables,
My tables--meet it is I set it down
That one may smile and smile and be a villain
At least I'm sure it may be so in Denmark. (1.5.95-110)
One part that interested me was the end of this quotation, when Hamlet keeps repeating "villain". He seems to be referring to his mother as a "villain", because he states "O most pernicious woman!" (1.5.105) According to the OED, "pernicious" in this sense would have meant "intending or causing harm; villainous" (OED 2b). Hamlet seems to be indicating in two senses that a woman is a villain-whom I assume to be his mother. However, I have trouble picturing Gertrude as a villain. I don't agree with her decision to marry her late husband's brother, but as we discussed in class she probably didn't have much of a choice. There weren't any opportunities for Gertrude to make a living for herself on her own; it wasn't like she could have remained single and still lived in the castle. In order to continue to live in the same style, she had to remarry. But does this act make her a villain? I don't think so.
Shakespeare's Sonnets
For my final project, I am analyzing a few of Shakespeare's sonnets. I am looking for constant themes, how Shakespeare's use of description presents these themes, and how Shakespeare did not follow the typical sonnet style. So for this blog post, I am going to look at a few of his sonnets, and try to figure out what Shakespeare is trying to say.
One sonnet that caught my eye in particular is Sonnet #3, which is as follows:
In my opinion, this sonnet is addressed to a woman, probably one that Shakespeare had a personal connection with. The words of this sonnet seem to warn the woman that she should have children; rather, "now" is the right time to have children (line 2). While I was initially confused by lines 3 through 8, a closer look helped me to at least hash out a possible meaning. I believe that lines 3 through 4 seem to suggest that by not having children, this woman would be denying other women the opportunity to have children. If the woman's child were to be male, she would deny another woman from marrying her son and having children with him. However, if the woman's child were to be female, she would be denying her daughter the opportunity to have children.
Lines 5 through 8 confused me even more. I began by looking up what "tillage" meant (line 6). According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), "tillage" in the sense of Shakespeare's poem means "sexual intercourse" (OED 1d). With this definition in mine, Shakespeare in lines 5 through 6 seems to broaden his guilt-trip. Not only would the woman be ruining the opportunities of future women by not having children, but she would also be harming her husband. For if she does not have children, her husband will not be able to have intercourse with her. I am a little shakey on this interpretation because it hinges on the fact that there was no opportunity for birth control in that age. But since I am unsure, I will continue with my analysis.
The footnotes provided in my textbook helped me to understand lines 7 through 8. According to the writer of these footnotes, these lines are asking "who is so foolish that he will selfishly deny posterity a child?" (p 1947). To me, Shakespeare seems to be asking if the woman is so selfish that she will deny her husband the opportunity to have children. But I could be absolutely wrong.
The final part of the sonnet I didn't need too much assistance on. In lines 9-10, Shakespeare tells the woman that her mother saw her youth and beauty in her daughter. The woman is her mother's reflection-she shows what her mother used to be. By including these lines, Shakespeare seems to indicate that the woman will be able to see her former beauty in her children. In fact, he states this exact idea in lines 11-12. In the final couplet, lines 13-14, Shakespeare warns the woman that unless she has children, she will be forgotten. If she has children, her children will be able to carry on her legacy, by telling others about her life and her stories. However, if she dies a widow, her legacy dies with her.
I don't know why this sonnet interested me so much. It reminded me slightly of Sylvia Plath's poem "Mirror", which I found interesting. I wonder if Sylvia read this sonnet, and got the idea for her mirror image from Shakespeare. But I think this poem interested me because I know a lot of girls who look like their mothers, my sister included. This sonnet makes me wonder if their moms indeed look at their daughters, and see their former lives and former beauty. Anyways, if you have any different interpretations, please feel free to comment.
One sonnet that caught my eye in particular is Sonnet #3, which is as follows:
Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest
Now is the time that face should form another,
Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest
Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother.
For where is she so fair whose uneared womb
Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
Or who is he so fond will be the tomb
Of his self-love to stop posterity?
Thou art thy mother's glass, and she in thee
Calls back the lovely April of her prime;
So thou through windows of thine age shalt see,
Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.
But if thou live remembered not to be,
Die single, and thine image dies with thee.
In my opinion, this sonnet is addressed to a woman, probably one that Shakespeare had a personal connection with. The words of this sonnet seem to warn the woman that she should have children; rather, "now" is the right time to have children (line 2). While I was initially confused by lines 3 through 8, a closer look helped me to at least hash out a possible meaning. I believe that lines 3 through 4 seem to suggest that by not having children, this woman would be denying other women the opportunity to have children. If the woman's child were to be male, she would deny another woman from marrying her son and having children with him. However, if the woman's child were to be female, she would be denying her daughter the opportunity to have children.
Lines 5 through 8 confused me even more. I began by looking up what "tillage" meant (line 6). According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), "tillage" in the sense of Shakespeare's poem means "sexual intercourse" (OED 1d). With this definition in mine, Shakespeare in lines 5 through 6 seems to broaden his guilt-trip. Not only would the woman be ruining the opportunities of future women by not having children, but she would also be harming her husband. For if she does not have children, her husband will not be able to have intercourse with her. I am a little shakey on this interpretation because it hinges on the fact that there was no opportunity for birth control in that age. But since I am unsure, I will continue with my analysis.
The footnotes provided in my textbook helped me to understand lines 7 through 8. According to the writer of these footnotes, these lines are asking "who is so foolish that he will selfishly deny posterity a child?" (p 1947). To me, Shakespeare seems to be asking if the woman is so selfish that she will deny her husband the opportunity to have children. But I could be absolutely wrong.
The final part of the sonnet I didn't need too much assistance on. In lines 9-10, Shakespeare tells the woman that her mother saw her youth and beauty in her daughter. The woman is her mother's reflection-she shows what her mother used to be. By including these lines, Shakespeare seems to indicate that the woman will be able to see her former beauty in her children. In fact, he states this exact idea in lines 11-12. In the final couplet, lines 13-14, Shakespeare warns the woman that unless she has children, she will be forgotten. If she has children, her children will be able to carry on her legacy, by telling others about her life and her stories. However, if she dies a widow, her legacy dies with her.
I don't know why this sonnet interested me so much. It reminded me slightly of Sylvia Plath's poem "Mirror", which I found interesting. I wonder if Sylvia read this sonnet, and got the idea for her mirror image from Shakespeare. But I think this poem interested me because I know a lot of girls who look like their mothers, my sister included. This sonnet makes me wonder if their moms indeed look at their daughters, and see their former lives and former beauty. Anyways, if you have any different interpretations, please feel free to comment.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Humors in Shakespeare
A couple of classes ago we talked about medical theory in Shakespeare's era. Specifically, we discussed the Humerous theory. The Humerous Theory is that there are four main liquids in the body, and that your temperment is a mixture of these liquids, or humors. If any one of the four humors (black bile, yellow bile, phelgm, and blood) dominates within your body, you have the particular illness associated with that humor. If you have too much blood, you are diagnosed with sanguine. This means you're happy, cheerful, optimistic, etc. If you have too much black bile, you have melancholia. Symptoms are sad, despondent, smart, etc. With too much yellow bile, you are choleric, which means you are easily angered and overly sensitive. Lastly, with phlegm you are phlegmatic. This means you are calm, self-possessed, and anti-social.
As I was reading Hamlet, I found a passage that mentions the Humerous Theory. The following quotation comes from one of Hamlet's speeches in Act 1, Scene 4:
Hamlet, in the aforementioned passage, is discussing Humerous Theory. He is talking about what happens if an individual has a disproportionate amount of one humor. But instead of stopping there, Hamlet goes on to discuss how this disease/infliction can become an individual's defect, and corrupt his or her "virtues". In other words, Hamlet believes that having a disporportionate amount of one of the four humors does not just give you the disease associated with that humor, but makes you defective and corrupt.
In class we were asked to think of people in our lives who might fit into the four categories of Humerous Theory. While I probably could go through and pick out people I know who fit into the four categories of Humerous Theory, I am much more interested in trying to figure out what Hamlet's diagnosis would be if in fact he had one of the four illnesses.
An obvious choice would be black bile because I would certainly classify Hamlet as melancholy. His father just died, and his mom remarried her husband's murderer. I think that would be enough to make anyone blue, and justifiably so. But in his quest for revenge, Hamlet takes melancholia to a whole other level when he contemplates suicide. In the famous speech that begins "To be or not to be;" Hamlet must decide whether he wants to live, or stop existing, which is Hamlet's more poetic way of saying that he wants to die (3.1.58).
While I am so tempted to classify Hamlet as having too much black bile, I cannot help but think that he portrays some of the characteristics of too much yellow bile. Hamlet does seem a little choleric (easily angered, overly sensitive) to me. Again, these traits seem to be justifiable. After all, his friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are spying on him for his murderous uncle. But as we discussed in class, Hamlet seems to have problems trusting others, and is overly sensitive to any hint that his trust or allegiance might have been betrayed. I am struggling to find a quotation that specifically shows how overly sensitive he his; the entire play gives me the impression that Hamlet is easily excited, and gets frustrated and mad very easily.
If anyone has any ideas, or any quotations, please feel free to post.
As I was reading Hamlet, I found a passage that mentions the Humerous Theory. The following quotation comes from one of Hamlet's speeches in Act 1, Scene 4:
So, oft itchances in particular men
That, for some vicious mole of nature in them--
As in their birth, wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose his origin,
By the o'ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason
Or by some habit that too much o'erleavens
The form of plausive manners--that these men,
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being nature's livery or fortune's star,
His virtues else be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo,
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault. (1.4 18.7-18.20)
Hamlet, in the aforementioned passage, is discussing Humerous Theory. He is talking about what happens if an individual has a disproportionate amount of one humor. But instead of stopping there, Hamlet goes on to discuss how this disease/infliction can become an individual's defect, and corrupt his or her "virtues". In other words, Hamlet believes that having a disporportionate amount of one of the four humors does not just give you the disease associated with that humor, but makes you defective and corrupt.
In class we were asked to think of people in our lives who might fit into the four categories of Humerous Theory. While I probably could go through and pick out people I know who fit into the four categories of Humerous Theory, I am much more interested in trying to figure out what Hamlet's diagnosis would be if in fact he had one of the four illnesses.
An obvious choice would be black bile because I would certainly classify Hamlet as melancholy. His father just died, and his mom remarried her husband's murderer. I think that would be enough to make anyone blue, and justifiably so. But in his quest for revenge, Hamlet takes melancholia to a whole other level when he contemplates suicide. In the famous speech that begins "To be or not to be;" Hamlet must decide whether he wants to live, or stop existing, which is Hamlet's more poetic way of saying that he wants to die (3.1.58).
While I am so tempted to classify Hamlet as having too much black bile, I cannot help but think that he portrays some of the characteristics of too much yellow bile. Hamlet does seem a little choleric (easily angered, overly sensitive) to me. Again, these traits seem to be justifiable. After all, his friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are spying on him for his murderous uncle. But as we discussed in class, Hamlet seems to have problems trusting others, and is overly sensitive to any hint that his trust or allegiance might have been betrayed. I am struggling to find a quotation that specifically shows how overly sensitive he his; the entire play gives me the impression that Hamlet is easily excited, and gets frustrated and mad very easily.
If anyone has any ideas, or any quotations, please feel free to post.
Blow Blow Thou Winter Wind
As I was reading 2.7 of Shakespeare's As You Like It, I was struck by Amiens' song that starts at about line 175. For some reason, the words of his song sounded familiar. Then I realized that I had sung those exact words my freshman year of high school, in a piece called "Blow Blow Thou Winter Wind".
Amiens sings:
A performance of this song by the 2005 Northwest Missouri State University Tower Choir can be found here. I really enjoyed listening to this performance. Surprisingly, even though I sang this song in 2005 as well, I can remember the words-one of my favorite things about Shakespeare.
Shakespeare wrote his plays and sonnets so long ago, and yet people quote his phrases all of the time, to the point where some phrases have become cliches. I wonder if Shakespeare knew his writing would be a success. Shapiro, in his writing, seems to suggest that Shakespeare, while well known in his time, did not have the same celebrity status that readers today place on him. On page 240, Shapiro writes "Shakespeare played vastly different roles in London and in Stratford. In his hometown he was sought out not for his plays or poems but for loans for buisness deals:" (Shaprio 240). While this quotation does not mean that Shakespeare had no followers, it does seem to indicate that unlike modern celebrities, Shakespeare wouldn't have battled with paparazzi following his every move.
But let's get back to the text that Shakespeare is so famous for. Amiens sings the aforementioned song on Duke Senior' request. Bu wht does this song mean? The text seems to suggest that the winter wind is more grateful than man. In my opinion, the text, which compares bitter weather to man throughout, indicates that men can be colder than winter weather. How can they be colder? Amiens' song hints that men can be cold by being ungrateful or rude, and something about faking or "feigning" friendships (2.7.181). But as to how this relates to the comedy I am still trying to figure out. Could this song be a warning for other men? How can Amiens sing about men who are colder than winter weather, and still end both verses with "this life is most jolly" (2.7.183)? Is Amiens' being sarcastic when he sings these lines? I think so, but I am not sure.
If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, please feel free to comment. And I hope you enjoyed the song.
Amiens sings:
Blow, blow, thou winter wind,
Thou art not so unkind
As man's ingratitude
Thy tooth is not so keen,
Because thou art no seen,
Although thy breath be rude.
Hey-ho, sing hey-ho, unto the green holly.
Most friendship is feigning, most loving, mere folly.
Then hey-ho, the holly;
This life is most jolly.
Freeze, freeze, thou bitter sky,
That dost not bite so nigh
As benefits forgot.
Though thou the waters warp
Thy sting is not so sharp
As friend remembered not.
Hey-ho, sing hey-ho, unto the green holly.
Most friendship is feigning, most loving, mere folly.
Then hey-ho, the holly;
This life is most jolly. (2.7.174-193)
A performance of this song by the 2005 Northwest Missouri State University Tower Choir can be found here. I really enjoyed listening to this performance. Surprisingly, even though I sang this song in 2005 as well, I can remember the words-one of my favorite things about Shakespeare.
Shakespeare wrote his plays and sonnets so long ago, and yet people quote his phrases all of the time, to the point where some phrases have become cliches. I wonder if Shakespeare knew his writing would be a success. Shapiro, in his writing, seems to suggest that Shakespeare, while well known in his time, did not have the same celebrity status that readers today place on him. On page 240, Shapiro writes "Shakespeare played vastly different roles in London and in Stratford. In his hometown he was sought out not for his plays or poems but for loans for buisness deals:" (Shaprio 240). While this quotation does not mean that Shakespeare had no followers, it does seem to indicate that unlike modern celebrities, Shakespeare wouldn't have battled with paparazzi following his every move.
But let's get back to the text that Shakespeare is so famous for. Amiens sings the aforementioned song on Duke Senior' request. Bu wht does this song mean? The text seems to suggest that the winter wind is more grateful than man. In my opinion, the text, which compares bitter weather to man throughout, indicates that men can be colder than winter weather. How can they be colder? Amiens' song hints that men can be cold by being ungrateful or rude, and something about faking or "feigning" friendships (2.7.181). But as to how this relates to the comedy I am still trying to figure out. Could this song be a warning for other men? How can Amiens sing about men who are colder than winter weather, and still end both verses with "this life is most jolly" (2.7.183)? Is Amiens' being sarcastic when he sings these lines? I think so, but I am not sure.
If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, please feel free to comment. And I hope you enjoyed the song.
Monday, March 15, 2010
"All The World's a Stage"
One of my favorite passages from As You Like It so far has been in 2.7. It is the scene in which Jaques' famous speech "All the world's a stage" takes place. However, before this famous speech, Duke Senior has some, what I believe to be, pretty significant lines. Duke Senior states:
Duke Senior's speech is meant to lift Orlando's spirits. Orlando has come to Duke Senior looking for food for Adam. In this context, Duke Senior is trying to help Orlando to see that they are not alone; there are others who are unhappy and starving. There are more who are miserable like them.
While I am not sure whether Duke Senior's words actually comfort Orlando, the reference to them being actors in a scene causes Jaques to give his speech. Jacques' speech, a continuation of the idea that they are actors, begins with a very famous line:
What I find most interesting is the metaphor of life being a play/theatrical production. Jaques' speech might also be meant to comfort Orlando. He says that all men and women "have their exits and their entrances" (2.7.140), meaning that we all have to die at some time. In other words, no one lives forever. Perhaps this statement is meant to appease Orlando-that even in hard times of starving, the worst that could happen is death, and all of us will die at some day. Jaques goes on to state that "one man in his time plays many parts" (2.7.141), which has a different meaning if taken out of context. In the context of the speech, Jacques is dividing the life span into seven sections-or roles that a person plays within his life. These roles are apparently controlled by time. If taken out of context, this phrase could mean that a man can be many things in life; he will have many different jobs. It could also mean (out of context again) that men have may different faces or personalities, and they can put these on like masks, which would echo the theme of men and women being actors.
What I find particularly curious about these lines is that they draw attention to the fact that the characters in play are drawing attention to the fact that they are characters. By saying that "all men and women [are] merely players" (2.7.138), Jaques highlights the fact that he is indeed a character being played by an actor. In class we have discussed that Shakespeare tried to highlight the differences between the lives of the characters and reality. I believe that Jaques' speech, while very poetic and fitting for the scene, allows for the audience to distinguish between their lives and the play itself. Does this speech have other functions? Perhaps. But regardless of the role it plays within the play and for the audience, I believe it is a beautifully written speech.
Thou seest we are not all alone unhappy.
This wide and universal theatre
Presents more woeful pageants than the scene
Wherein we play in. (2.7.135-138)
Duke Senior's speech is meant to lift Orlando's spirits. Orlando has come to Duke Senior looking for food for Adam. In this context, Duke Senior is trying to help Orlando to see that they are not alone; there are others who are unhappy and starving. There are more who are miserable like them.
While I am not sure whether Duke Senior's words actually comfort Orlando, the reference to them being actors in a scene causes Jaques to give his speech. Jacques' speech, a continuation of the idea that they are actors, begins with a very famous line:
..................................All the world's a stage
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. (2.7.138-142)
What I find most interesting is the metaphor of life being a play/theatrical production. Jaques' speech might also be meant to comfort Orlando. He says that all men and women "have their exits and their entrances" (2.7.140), meaning that we all have to die at some time. In other words, no one lives forever. Perhaps this statement is meant to appease Orlando-that even in hard times of starving, the worst that could happen is death, and all of us will die at some day. Jaques goes on to state that "one man in his time plays many parts" (2.7.141), which has a different meaning if taken out of context. In the context of the speech, Jacques is dividing the life span into seven sections-or roles that a person plays within his life. These roles are apparently controlled by time. If taken out of context, this phrase could mean that a man can be many things in life; he will have many different jobs. It could also mean (out of context again) that men have may different faces or personalities, and they can put these on like masks, which would echo the theme of men and women being actors.
What I find particularly curious about these lines is that they draw attention to the fact that the characters in play are drawing attention to the fact that they are characters. By saying that "all men and women [are] merely players" (2.7.138), Jaques highlights the fact that he is indeed a character being played by an actor. In class we have discussed that Shakespeare tried to highlight the differences between the lives of the characters and reality. I believe that Jaques' speech, while very poetic and fitting for the scene, allows for the audience to distinguish between their lives and the play itself. Does this speech have other functions? Perhaps. But regardless of the role it plays within the play and for the audience, I believe it is a beautifully written speech.
Threat of Catholic Succession, and Other Shapiro Excerpts
While I was unsure when we first began reading Shapiro's book, I have enjoyed the readings we have done recently. It is nice to have a little bit of insight into Shakespeare's world. These insights help me to make sense of Shakespeare's work, since he appears to incorporate a lot of historical refrences into his writing.
One of the most intriguing sections for me was in chapter 8, where Shapiro discusses the problems caused by Queen Elizabeth's lack of a heir. There was a lot of commotion over who would succeed, as Shapiro writes:
What interests me so much about this passage is the relationship between Catholics and Protestants during Shakespeare's life. It intrigues me that there was such a controversy or dislike between the two sects that they would choose a "quasi-republican" government over a monarchy, to make sure Protestants still rule. While I cannot imagine how bad the tensions would have been during Shakespeare's time, I have experienced the contrast between Catholics and Protestants that exist in England today. When I traveled to England during high school, it was during Lent (a time of the year when Catholics are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays). On Friday, the tour guide set up the menu to include chicken. When I asked for a vegetarian option, even though I had told her I would eat chicken, she was frustrated and said that I should have seen it coming, and not put down chicken at all. It is interesting to me that the differences and dislike between Catholics and Protestants continues today, although certainly not at the same levels of Shakespeare's time.
Another excerpt from Shapiro's book that interested me was the discussion of political assassination, and why it was so feared. According to Shapiro's text, political assassinations were considered great threats because these actions "could not be predicted or controlled" (Shapiro 144). Shaprio continues:
To be perfectly honest, until I read this chapter of Shapiro's book, I was one of the "critics" who felt that the final two acts didn't match the preceeding ones (144). I was confused by the rapid switch from assassination and murder plots to a civil war where almost all characters die. However, Shapiro's discussion of political assassination makes the entire play more cohesive in my mind.
One of the most intriguing sections for me was in chapter 8, where Shapiro discusses the problems caused by Queen Elizabeth's lack of a heir. There was a lot of commotion over who would succeed, as Shapiro writes:
Once it was clear that Elizabethwas not going to marr or bear children, her
advisers were worried enough about the possibility of Catholic succession to
fall back upon quasi-republican positions to ensure Protestant rule.
Elizabeth had to be offended by what their argument implied: that the people and not just their monarch had a say in such matters. (Shapiro 139)
What interests me so much about this passage is the relationship between Catholics and Protestants during Shakespeare's life. It intrigues me that there was such a controversy or dislike between the two sects that they would choose a "quasi-republican" government over a monarchy, to make sure Protestants still rule. While I cannot imagine how bad the tensions would have been during Shakespeare's time, I have experienced the contrast between Catholics and Protestants that exist in England today. When I traveled to England during high school, it was during Lent (a time of the year when Catholics are not allowed to eat meat on Fridays). On Friday, the tour guide set up the menu to include chicken. When I asked for a vegetarian option, even though I had told her I would eat chicken, she was frustrated and said that I should have seen it coming, and not put down chicken at all. It is interesting to me that the differences and dislike between Catholics and Protestants continues today, although certainly not at the same levels of Shakespeare's time.
Another excerpt from Shapiro's book that interested me was the discussion of political assassination, and why it was so feared. According to Shapiro's text, political assassinations were considered great threats because these actions "could not be predicted or controlled" (Shapiro 144). Shaprio continues:
Assassination was linked with chaos, bloodletting, and potential civil war
because this was what in inariably led to. However noble Brutus' motives,
howevver morally and politically justified, it would have been clear to many in
Shakespeare's audience that he hadn't thought things through. Critics who
fault Julius Caesar for being a broken-backed play, who are
disappointed by the final two acts, and who feel that the assassination takes
place too early in the action, fail to understand that the two parts of the
play--the events leading up to the assassination and the bloody evil strife that
follow--go hand in hand. (Shapiro 144)
To be perfectly honest, until I read this chapter of Shapiro's book, I was one of the "critics" who felt that the final two acts didn't match the preceeding ones (144). I was confused by the rapid switch from assassination and murder plots to a civil war where almost all characters die. However, Shapiro's discussion of political assassination makes the entire play more cohesive in my mind.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)