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.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Comedy of Errors
To be honest, I was unsure about going to see The Comedy of Errors. The last CRT production I saw, Galileo, did not meet my expectations. The Comedy of Errors was absolutely fantastic!
While the clips we had seen in class were great snapshots of what the action should look like, it was great to be able to watch the play from start to finish. One of my favorite things about the play was the actors' facial expressions. They did such a fantastic job-you could clearly tell what the character was feeling. For example, the Dromios were hysterical. I knew they were supposed to be the comic relief of the comedy, but I had never pictured them to be as funny as the actors portrayed them. One of the Dromios (I forget which one), clutched to a member of the audiences' leg. There was also a particular point in the plot where one of the Dromios did a summersault off of the stage. Long story short, their comic relief made the play really come alive for me. Even after a long day of studying, the actors held my attention.
Two of the director's choices confused me. First, throughout my reading of the play, and our class discussions, I never thought that Adriana was pregnant. In the CRT's production, she clearly was. I think this is an interesting choice. When you find out that Antipholus has either been unfaithful, or at least been tempted to be unfaithful, Adriana's pregnancy makes the unfaithfulness that much more powerful. It is one thing to cheat on your wife, but it is another to cheat on your wife when she is pregnant with your child. I wonder if Shakespeare meant for Adriana to be pregnant. She didn't appear to be in the film clips we watched in class. I guess this is just one of those stylistic choices directors make. However, I am curious as to what caused the director to choose this route. Were there lines in the comedy that he/she felt indicated that Adriana was pregnant? Or did the director simply decide on his/her own.
Another plot point that confused me was when the puppet came out of the Pinch's stomach. My impression of the scene is that Pinch was electrified, and that caused the puppet to be released from his stomach. But what was that puppet supposed to be? I don't remember anything coming out of Pinch in the reading. But then again, I don't remember Pinch having a close encounter with death. I wonder if I simply missed it in the reading, or if it was another of the director's stylistic choices.
All in alll, I really enjoyed viewing The Comedy of Errors. Because I learn best visually, it was nice to see the comedy performed. It helped me to understand the plot more clearly, and to really enjoy Shakespeare. I always enjoy reading Shakespeare in the end (after we begin to discuss and disect it as a class), but watching the play be performed made the effort I put into reading it worth it.
While the clips we had seen in class were great snapshots of what the action should look like, it was great to be able to watch the play from start to finish. One of my favorite things about the play was the actors' facial expressions. They did such a fantastic job-you could clearly tell what the character was feeling. For example, the Dromios were hysterical. I knew they were supposed to be the comic relief of the comedy, but I had never pictured them to be as funny as the actors portrayed them. One of the Dromios (I forget which one), clutched to a member of the audiences' leg. There was also a particular point in the plot where one of the Dromios did a summersault off of the stage. Long story short, their comic relief made the play really come alive for me. Even after a long day of studying, the actors held my attention.
Two of the director's choices confused me. First, throughout my reading of the play, and our class discussions, I never thought that Adriana was pregnant. In the CRT's production, she clearly was. I think this is an interesting choice. When you find out that Antipholus has either been unfaithful, or at least been tempted to be unfaithful, Adriana's pregnancy makes the unfaithfulness that much more powerful. It is one thing to cheat on your wife, but it is another to cheat on your wife when she is pregnant with your child. I wonder if Shakespeare meant for Adriana to be pregnant. She didn't appear to be in the film clips we watched in class. I guess this is just one of those stylistic choices directors make. However, I am curious as to what caused the director to choose this route. Were there lines in the comedy that he/she felt indicated that Adriana was pregnant? Or did the director simply decide on his/her own.
Another plot point that confused me was when the puppet came out of the Pinch's stomach. My impression of the scene is that Pinch was electrified, and that caused the puppet to be released from his stomach. But what was that puppet supposed to be? I don't remember anything coming out of Pinch in the reading. But then again, I don't remember Pinch having a close encounter with death. I wonder if I simply missed it in the reading, or if it was another of the director's stylistic choices.
All in alll, I really enjoyed viewing The Comedy of Errors. Because I learn best visually, it was nice to see the comedy performed. It helped me to understand the plot more clearly, and to really enjoy Shakespeare. I always enjoy reading Shakespeare in the end (after we begin to discuss and disect it as a class), but watching the play be performed made the effort I put into reading it worth it.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Shakespeare and Sylvia
The blog prompt dealt with Richard the Third's decline; what led to his misfortune and downfall. However, I found Richard the Third to be a very boring play that I was glad to have finished. So, for this blog post, I will instead focus on a passage from Shakespeare's tragedy Julius Caesar that interested me.
In this particular passage, Cassius is speaking to Brutus about his lack of what I believe is self-esteem. Cassius believes that Brutus cannot see himself as he really is. Cassius says:
This quotation at first caught my attention because of the usage of reflection, and the word glass. I believe that in this quotation, Cassius thinks that he can help Brutus see his true identity; Brutus has things that he does not know about himself that Cassius can clearly see. In this quotation, Cassius compares himself to a mirror.
I believe that this is an extremely powerful metaphor, but it raises some questions. The metaphor achieves its goal because the reader will be able to easily understand what Shakespeare is writing. Especially in today's society, we depend on mirrors to show us how we look. My only question in regards to this comparison is this: do mirrors truly convey who we are as a person? Cassius seems to indicate that indeed, mirrors reflect your deeper personality; after all, he knows things about Brutus that Brutus does not know about himself. But in my experience, while mirrors are great at showing you your appearance, your appearance is only one part of your self-image. I question as to whether mirrors can accurately portray who you are-how can a mirror reflect your passions and whether or not you are a nice person?
But before I get too sidetracked, as I reread this quotation, it reminded me of Sylvia Plath's poem "Mirror". In this poem, Sylvia expresses the idea that the mirror reflects the truth of who we are. She expresses this idea in the following lines:
While Plath's poem seems to back up Cassius' statement that he reflects Brutus' personality accurately, by stating that the mirror reflects the image without distortion based on emotion, I still question whether a mirror can accurately be used to judge oneself. I also place this uncertainty on Cassius' remarks as well-can he accurately depict Brutus' personality? I guess time will tell.
In this particular passage, Cassius is speaking to Brutus about his lack of what I believe is self-esteem. Cassius believes that Brutus cannot see himself as he really is. Cassius says:
And since you know you cannnot see yourself
So well as by reflection, I, your glass,
Will modestly discover to yourself
That of yourself which you yet know not of. (1.2.69-72)
This quotation at first caught my attention because of the usage of reflection, and the word glass. I believe that in this quotation, Cassius thinks that he can help Brutus see his true identity; Brutus has things that he does not know about himself that Cassius can clearly see. In this quotation, Cassius compares himself to a mirror.
I believe that this is an extremely powerful metaphor, but it raises some questions. The metaphor achieves its goal because the reader will be able to easily understand what Shakespeare is writing. Especially in today's society, we depend on mirrors to show us how we look. My only question in regards to this comparison is this: do mirrors truly convey who we are as a person? Cassius seems to indicate that indeed, mirrors reflect your deeper personality; after all, he knows things about Brutus that Brutus does not know about himself. But in my experience, while mirrors are great at showing you your appearance, your appearance is only one part of your self-image. I question as to whether mirrors can accurately portray who you are-how can a mirror reflect your passions and whether or not you are a nice person?
But before I get too sidetracked, as I reread this quotation, it reminded me of Sylvia Plath's poem "Mirror". In this poem, Sylvia expresses the idea that the mirror reflects the truth of who we are. She expresses this idea in the following lines:
..................I have no preconceptions.
Whatever I see, I swallow immediately.
Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike,
I am not cruel, only truthful-- (1-4)
While Plath's poem seems to back up Cassius' statement that he reflects Brutus' personality accurately, by stating that the mirror reflects the image without distortion based on emotion, I still question whether a mirror can accurately be used to judge oneself. I also place this uncertainty on Cassius' remarks as well-can he accurately depict Brutus' personality? I guess time will tell.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Productions of Titus Andronicus
Although the acting wasn't fantastic in all of the film clips we saw in class last Thursday, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Titus Andronicus performed. Because I am a visual learner (I learn best by seeing things), it really helped me to understand the play. I think there were positives to both of the productions we saw. Let me explain.
The first series of clips we watched came from the BBC's production of Titus Andronicus. While the acting was not impressive, these scenes reflected a more realistic setting. I do not remember the specifics of the scenes we watched, however I know I was disappointed by the lack of facial expressions. As some of my classmates brought up in class, Lavinia showed little sorrow or pain, even once her hands were chopped off and she was mutilated. I understand that Lavinia could not speak, so her communication was limited. But she still could have showed facial expressions. I did like the realism of the scenery-which seemed to better portray what the Roman world would have looked like.
The second series of clips contained drastically better acting, but with a price. While I found these film clips more interesting, I was bewildered by the setting. For example, I could not understand the opening scene of the child playing with the action figure. And while the scene with the soldiers' marching choreographed was entertaining and visually powerful, it did not match the picture I had in my head when I read the play. I think Lavinia's acting in this production was much better-the actress used lots of facial expressions and body language to express her pain and sorrow. The one thing that I wasn't a fan of when it came to the portrayal of Lavinia's character was the usage of branches to replace her hands. Now I understand that there could be symbolism and meaning behind the choice, but all I could think of when I watched that scene was the movie Narnia and how the trees came alive. Lavinia's branch hands reminded me of magical worlds, and detracted from the empathy and horror at her demise that I think Shakespeare wanted the audience to feel.
When it comes to critique of productions, I think what matters is how closely the portrayals reflect the pictures we have in our heads when we read the play. Regardless of how spectacular a production might be, if it does not somewhat match up to how we thought the play would be, we will not be truly satisfied. I liked the setting of the BBC production better than the second because it matched what I thought it would be. And I liked the acting in the second production better because when I read of Lavinia's torture, I pictured vivid facial expressions-like the ones the actress in the second production showed.
Well, thats all I have. Please feel free to comment.
The first series of clips we watched came from the BBC's production of Titus Andronicus. While the acting was not impressive, these scenes reflected a more realistic setting. I do not remember the specifics of the scenes we watched, however I know I was disappointed by the lack of facial expressions. As some of my classmates brought up in class, Lavinia showed little sorrow or pain, even once her hands were chopped off and she was mutilated. I understand that Lavinia could not speak, so her communication was limited. But she still could have showed facial expressions. I did like the realism of the scenery-which seemed to better portray what the Roman world would have looked like.
The second series of clips contained drastically better acting, but with a price. While I found these film clips more interesting, I was bewildered by the setting. For example, I could not understand the opening scene of the child playing with the action figure. And while the scene with the soldiers' marching choreographed was entertaining and visually powerful, it did not match the picture I had in my head when I read the play. I think Lavinia's acting in this production was much better-the actress used lots of facial expressions and body language to express her pain and sorrow. The one thing that I wasn't a fan of when it came to the portrayal of Lavinia's character was the usage of branches to replace her hands. Now I understand that there could be symbolism and meaning behind the choice, but all I could think of when I watched that scene was the movie Narnia and how the trees came alive. Lavinia's branch hands reminded me of magical worlds, and detracted from the empathy and horror at her demise that I think Shakespeare wanted the audience to feel.
When it comes to critique of productions, I think what matters is how closely the portrayals reflect the pictures we have in our heads when we read the play. Regardless of how spectacular a production might be, if it does not somewhat match up to how we thought the play would be, we will not be truly satisfied. I liked the setting of the BBC production better than the second because it matched what I thought it would be. And I liked the acting in the second production better because when I read of Lavinia's torture, I pictured vivid facial expressions-like the ones the actress in the second production showed.
Well, thats all I have. Please feel free to comment.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Sympathies
While reading Shakespeare's tragedy Titus Andronicus, we were asked to keep track of which characters aroused our sympathies, and if our sympathies changed at all while reading.
At the beginning of Titus Andronicus, I felt bad for Tamora. She and her sons were held as captives by Titus Andronicus. If that weren't bad enough, her eldest son is sacrificed despite her pleas. Tamora begins her pleas, crying:
Titus Andronicus in this scene appears as an evil and insensitive man. He doesn't seem to be phased by Tamora's begging. He responds to her request:
Tamora's son must die in order to please the citizens of Rome, who are mourning for those who died in battle. Due to their religion, which is not specified, there must be a sacrifice. The eldest son is chosen to fulfill this need.
Contrary to my sympathy for Tamora's situation in the beginning of the tragedy, I soon began to see her as a villian instead of a victim. In Act 2, Tamora's sons Chrion and Demetrius express their lust for Lavinia. Aaron catches them fighting, and comes up with a solution: rape her in the woods (2.1, 115-119). Aaron takes this plan to Tamora, who agrees and voices her opinion:
Instead of trying to stop her sons, Tamora encourages them, saying that if they do not seek revenge she will disown them. Chrion and Demetrius take her words to heart, stabbing Bassianus (Lavinia's husband). Lavinia responds to the actions, stating "Ay, come, Semiramis--nay barbarous Tamora, / For no name fits thy nature but thy own." (2.3, 118-120) Lavinia then begins to plead, trying to appeal to Tamora as a fellow woman. Tamora refuses to listen, "I will not hear her speak. Away with her!" (2.3, 137)
Once Tamor refused to help Lavinia, and instead condems her to be raped and mutilated by her sons, I quickly lost any sympathy for her. Instead, my sympathy fell on Lavinia, who is most certainly the victim of that situation. However, I can't help wondering if, and this is merely speculation, if Titus Andronicus had spared Tamora's son, would Tamora still allow her sons to sexually assault Lavinia? Is Titus Andronicus' behavior in the beginning of the tragedy part of the reason Lavinia is hurt?
I don't know what would have happened, but I do know that I no longer am sympathetic for Tamora. Will my sympathies change again as I continue to read? Time will tell, and I will keep you posted.
At the beginning of Titus Andronicus, I felt bad for Tamora. She and her sons were held as captives by Titus Andronicus. If that weren't bad enough, her eldest son is sacrificed despite her pleas. Tamora begins her pleas, crying:
Stay, Roman brethren! Gracious conqueror,
Victorious Titus, rue the tears I shed--
A mother's tears in passion for her son--
And if thy sons were ever dear to thee,
O, think my son to be as dear to me! (1.1, 104-108)
Titus Andronicus in this scene appears as an evil and insensitive man. He doesn't seem to be phased by Tamora's begging. He responds to her request:
Patient yourself, madam, and pardon me.
These are their brethren whom your Goths beheld
Alive and dead, and for their brethren slain
Religiously they ask a sacrifice.
To this your son is marked, and die he must
T' appease their groaning shadows that are gone. (1.1, 212-126)
Tamora's son must die in order to please the citizens of Rome, who are mourning for those who died in battle. Due to their religion, which is not specified, there must be a sacrifice. The eldest son is chosen to fulfill this need.
Contrary to my sympathy for Tamora's situation in the beginning of the tragedy, I soon began to see her as a villian instead of a victim. In Act 2, Tamora's sons Chrion and Demetrius express their lust for Lavinia. Aaron catches them fighting, and comes up with a solution: rape her in the woods (2.1, 115-119). Aaron takes this plan to Tamora, who agrees and voices her opinion:
And had you not by wondrous fortune come,
This vengeance on me had they executed.
Revenge it as you love your mother's life,
Or be ye not henceforward called my children. (2.3, 112-115)
Instead of trying to stop her sons, Tamora encourages them, saying that if they do not seek revenge she will disown them. Chrion and Demetrius take her words to heart, stabbing Bassianus (Lavinia's husband). Lavinia responds to the actions, stating "Ay, come, Semiramis--nay barbarous Tamora, / For no name fits thy nature but thy own." (2.3, 118-120) Lavinia then begins to plead, trying to appeal to Tamora as a fellow woman. Tamora refuses to listen, "I will not hear her speak. Away with her!" (2.3, 137)
Once Tamor refused to help Lavinia, and instead condems her to be raped and mutilated by her sons, I quickly lost any sympathy for her. Instead, my sympathy fell on Lavinia, who is most certainly the victim of that situation. However, I can't help wondering if, and this is merely speculation, if Titus Andronicus had spared Tamora's son, would Tamora still allow her sons to sexually assault Lavinia? Is Titus Andronicus' behavior in the beginning of the tragedy part of the reason Lavinia is hurt?
I don't know what would have happened, but I do know that I no longer am sympathetic for Tamora. Will my sympathies change again as I continue to read? Time will tell, and I will keep you posted.
Will Kemp or Will Shakespeare: That is the Question
I apologize that the title is corny-ridiculously corny. And I need to give proper credit to Shakespeare, because my inspiration for the title was his famous line in Hamlet "to be or not to be, that is the question".
Well, now that that's over with....
I was amazed by the descriptions of Whitehall in chapter 1 of Shapiro's book A Year in the Life of Shakespeare. The amount of detail Shapiro is able to present-about the many different rooms and the paintings on the walls-especially the portrait of Edward the 6th, which influenced Shakespeare's work.
Shapiro contrasts the majestic qualities of Whitehall with Shakespeare's hometown of Stratford Upon Avon. Shapiro's description of Stratford as a "drab backwater, devoid of high culture" astonished me (25). All I could think of when I read about Stratford was my visit to the town in high school. My recollections of being hustled through Shakespeare's house because we got lost in the meuseum (which you walk through first) are filled with noise, chaos, tourists, and lots of different cultures. In fact, in our brief visit to Shakespeare's house, we met a group of French students. It's amazing to me the changes that took place between Shakespeare's Stratford Upon Avon, and my visit in 2008. I'm not surprised that there were changes, in that large time span I certainly hope a town would progress. It just makes me wonder if Stratford Upon Avon would have turned into a tourist attraction had Shakespeare not been as successful. What would have happened to Stratford Upon Avon without Shakespeare? Would the town have ceased to exist, or would it simply be another English town today? We'll never know.
One of the topics that most interested me in Shapiro's book was the argument between Will Kemp and Shakespeare. In particular, I found it amusing how sure Will Kemp was (when they first started working together) that he would become the most famous of the pair. Shapiro writes
What struck me most about this particular paragraph was how wrong Kemp was. My high school read various Shakespeare works, and I have read more in college, but Kemp's name wasn't mentioned until this semester. It seems that Kemp's belief that he would be the most famous Elizabethan actor and or name was very incorrect. Shapiro, in the closing of the first chapter of his book, states that without Shakespeare, we wouldn't know Kemp's name: "If not for Shakespeare, Kemp's legacy and verbal style would be long forgotten." (42)
Well, now that that's over with....
I was amazed by the descriptions of Whitehall in chapter 1 of Shapiro's book A Year in the Life of Shakespeare. The amount of detail Shapiro is able to present-about the many different rooms and the paintings on the walls-especially the portrait of Edward the 6th, which influenced Shakespeare's work.
Shapiro contrasts the majestic qualities of Whitehall with Shakespeare's hometown of Stratford Upon Avon. Shapiro's description of Stratford as a "drab backwater, devoid of high culture" astonished me (25). All I could think of when I read about Stratford was my visit to the town in high school. My recollections of being hustled through Shakespeare's house because we got lost in the meuseum (which you walk through first) are filled with noise, chaos, tourists, and lots of different cultures. In fact, in our brief visit to Shakespeare's house, we met a group of French students. It's amazing to me the changes that took place between Shakespeare's Stratford Upon Avon, and my visit in 2008. I'm not surprised that there were changes, in that large time span I certainly hope a town would progress. It just makes me wonder if Stratford Upon Avon would have turned into a tourist attraction had Shakespeare not been as successful. What would have happened to Stratford Upon Avon without Shakespeare? Would the town have ceased to exist, or would it simply be another English town today? We'll never know.
One of the topics that most interested me in Shapiro's book was the argument between Will Kemp and Shakespeare. In particular, I found it amusing how sure Will Kemp was (when they first started working together) that he would become the most famous of the pair. Shapiro writes
Shakespeare was emerging as an important playwright and poet. But at
that time their reputations were easily overshadowed by Kemp's. There
could have been no doubt in Kemp's mind in 1594 when he and Shakespeare
became fellow sharers, or even in 1599 when his fame was at its height, who
would be remembered as the greatest name in Elizabethan theater. (38)
What struck me most about this particular paragraph was how wrong Kemp was. My high school read various Shakespeare works, and I have read more in college, but Kemp's name wasn't mentioned until this semester. It seems that Kemp's belief that he would be the most famous Elizabethan actor and or name was very incorrect. Shapiro, in the closing of the first chapter of his book, states that without Shakespeare, we wouldn't know Kemp's name: "If not for Shakespeare, Kemp's legacy and verbal style would be long forgotten." (42)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Deception
Maybe I'm on the lookout for this particular theme, but when I glanced through 3.2 of Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors, I was struck by deception. In the opening of 3.2, Luciana is speaking to Antipholus of Syracuse, thinking she is speaking to Antipholus of Ephesus, her sister's husband. But the recipient of Luciana's speech is unimportant to me; I am concerned with the message.
In her speech, Luciana tells Antipholus that if he cheats, he should do so secretly to avoid upsetting Adriana. She tells him to look the part of a saint, or in other words to pretend to be innocent in front of his wife. Her exact words are:
The theme of deception is not only present in this particular scene. While it is not always direct, deception is a major part of the entire play. For example, the comic elements of the play depend upon the fact that the Antipholus and Dromio brothers are continually mistaken for each other. Even though they don't mean it, the deception leads to most of the plot. Without the mix ups, Antipholus and Dromio wouldn't be arrested, Egeon wouldn't find his sons, Antipholus of Syracuse wouldn't find his brother, and Egeon wouldn't be reunited with his wife. Thus, The Comedy of Errors hinges on the deception.
This theme of deception makes me wonder, why would Shakespeare include it in a lot of his plays? Iago in Othello deceives almost every character in the play in order to achieve his end, and tricks Othello in to murdering his wife. If I'm not mistaken, Hamlet also includes deception as well (it's been a while since I've read it, so forgive me for not including details). Why the recurring theme?
Perhaps Shakespeare's inclusion of deception reflects a popular topic of his time. After all, if he wanted his works to be read, he would need to include ideas that appealed to the readers and viewers. Or maybe he includes deception for the comic effect. In class yesterday, we learned that Aristotle viewed comedy as successful because the characters are inferior to us. If Shakespeare knew of Aristotle's ideas, perhaps he included deception to make the characters inferior to his reader. I mean, most people I know wouldn't own up to deception, and tend to categorize those who lie and trick others as beneath them. While they might not be physically or intellectually inferior, these deceitful people are often considered morally inferior. Could this be Shakespeare's reason?
Whatever the reason, I thoroughly enjoyed the elements of deception in the play. The mistaken identities of the Antipholus and Dromio brothers made me laugh pretty hard (my roommate probably thinks I'm crazy because of it); I don't think The Comedy of Errors would have been a successful comedy without it.
If you have any comments, please feel free to respond.
In her speech, Luciana tells Antipholus that if he cheats, he should do so secretly to avoid upsetting Adriana. She tells him to look the part of a saint, or in other words to pretend to be innocent in front of his wife. Her exact words are:
Or if you like elsewhere, do it by stealth:Luciana doesn't seem to care whether or not Antipholus cheats, as long as he hides it. Luciana urges him to be "secret-false", and "become disloyalty" (3.2, 11, 15). This seems like very strange advice from a sister-in-law. If she really cared about her sister, wouldn't she tell Antipholus to stop cheating? Why would she basically tell him it was okay, as long as Adriana didn't know? My theory is that Luciana knows that the knowledge will hurt Adriana, and as long as Adriana doesn't suspect anything, the truth would only make things worse. In other words, ignorance is bliss and Luciana is trying to protect her sister.
Muffle your false love with some show of blindness.
Let not my sister read it in your eye.
Be not thy tongue thy own shame's orator.
Look sweet, speak fair, become disloyalty;
Apparel vice like virtue's harbinger.
Bear a fair presence, though your heart be tainted:
Teach sin the carriage of a holy saint.
Be secret false..... (3.2, 7-15)
The theme of deception is not only present in this particular scene. While it is not always direct, deception is a major part of the entire play. For example, the comic elements of the play depend upon the fact that the Antipholus and Dromio brothers are continually mistaken for each other. Even though they don't mean it, the deception leads to most of the plot. Without the mix ups, Antipholus and Dromio wouldn't be arrested, Egeon wouldn't find his sons, Antipholus of Syracuse wouldn't find his brother, and Egeon wouldn't be reunited with his wife. Thus, The Comedy of Errors hinges on the deception.
This theme of deception makes me wonder, why would Shakespeare include it in a lot of his plays? Iago in Othello deceives almost every character in the play in order to achieve his end, and tricks Othello in to murdering his wife. If I'm not mistaken, Hamlet also includes deception as well (it's been a while since I've read it, so forgive me for not including details). Why the recurring theme?
Perhaps Shakespeare's inclusion of deception reflects a popular topic of his time. After all, if he wanted his works to be read, he would need to include ideas that appealed to the readers and viewers. Or maybe he includes deception for the comic effect. In class yesterday, we learned that Aristotle viewed comedy as successful because the characters are inferior to us. If Shakespeare knew of Aristotle's ideas, perhaps he included deception to make the characters inferior to his reader. I mean, most people I know wouldn't own up to deception, and tend to categorize those who lie and trick others as beneath them. While they might not be physically or intellectually inferior, these deceitful people are often considered morally inferior. Could this be Shakespeare's reason?
Whatever the reason, I thoroughly enjoyed the elements of deception in the play. The mistaken identities of the Antipholus and Dromio brothers made me laugh pretty hard (my roommate probably thinks I'm crazy because of it); I don't think The Comedy of Errors would have been a successful comedy without it.
If you have any comments, please feel free to respond.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Blog Post Numero Uno
Ah, do not tear away thyself from me;I chose to reflect on this passage for a number of different reasons. First, I think that there is beautiful imagery in these ten lines. Secondly, I'm not sure what all of the images mean; I'm hoping that by further examination it will make more sense. On that note, please bear with me as I try to interpret the passage.
For know, my love, as easy mayst thou fall
A drop of water in the breaking gulf,
And take unmingled thence that drop again
Without addition or diminishing
As take from me thyself, and not me too.
How dearly would it touch thee to the quick
Shouldst thou but hear I were licentious,
And that this body, consecrate to thee,
By ruffian lust should be contaminate? (2.2 124-133)
Adriana, in these ten lines, speaks of the imagery of water. On first glance, I interpreted Adriana's inclusion of the image of water as her way of reminding her husband that there are other fish in the sea. I thought she was telling him that he is unimportant to her, like one drop of water is unimportant to a gulf (2.2 126). You don't notice that the drop is there, and you don't know if that drop is missing. Applying this image to Adriana's love life, she doesn't care if her husband is around or not; he is unimportant to her well being. Regardless of his presence, she will remain the same and unaffected.
However, there are a couple of things wrong with my interpretation. First, Adriana in lines 124 through 133 is speaking to her sister Luciana, not her husband. So she can't be telling her husband that he's unimportant to her. Secondly, her entire speech is about how her husband isn't treating her as his wife. And it seems to me if a person spends so much time dwelling on one subject, it's bothering them. This all makes me wonder if Adriana really is upset by her husband's behavior, and is making this speech in order to put on a brave face for her sister. What if Adriana is saying she doesn't care about her husband so that her sister doesn't realize how hurt she is? This is just a guess, and doesn't seem any more probable than my first interpretation. Any ideas as to what the water image could mean?
I loop the last two images, of a candle and a body, together because I believe they are referring to the same concept. In these lines, Adriana says that it would make her husband upset if she were to ruin their marriage by cheating on her. She seems to be saying, if it would upset you when I did it, why would you do it and upset me? Because Adriana is talking about her marriage, I view the images of a candle and a body in the light of church and religious ceremonies. At least in my experience, candles are frequently used symbolically and functionally (they provide light and decour) during services. As far as the body is concerned...in the Christian religion marriage is considered a sacred union between two people. They become one-almost as if they are one body. So Adriana's reference of a body probably stands for her marriage.
Shakespeare's inclusion of the phrase "consecrate to thee" bewilders me (2.2 132). From my experience, consecration in the Roman Catholic religion refers to the part of the mass when the Eucharist (the bread or wafer) is turned into Jesus' body. By including the word "consecrate", does Shakespeare again mean to reference Adriana's marriage? If Shakespeare is indeed trying to compare Adriana's marriage to the consecration, does he mean to highlight the sanctity of marriage? But their marriage was falling apart-how would that be holy?
Well, that's all I have. If any one has any ideas, please feel free to comment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)