Shakespeare by Chayne

l a n r u o J e r hakespea

s a m o h T e Chayn 1

Lane Community College Spring 2015 Eng 203, Prof. Jeff Harrison

Shakespeare Journal By Chayne Thomas

...had she been true, If heaven would make me such another world Of one entire and Perfect chrysolite, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d not have sold her for it. - Othello, (5.2.150)

Nothing

I already knew what to expect when I started this class. However, my nature got the better of me

early on. The composition-notebook style, penned journal just wasn’t cutting it. I originally had dreamed of carrying it with me everywhere, constantly jotting down notes on Shakespeare wherever I went. Unfortunately, my notes spread haphazardly beyond the bounds of the notebook, into the margins of texts, throughout our forums, and maybe even into a library book or two.

This typed and printed version is my attempt to do two things. First, reconcile the information

that I have written for this class into an acceptable format (I obviously can’t expect you to grade my marginal notes.) Secondly, I wanted to push the envelope a bit, create something that might go further than the average journal, both in presentation, layout and design, but also in the depth of content.

I had the idea late in the term to undertake creating a more formal journal, along with the digital

art I created for the cover page, as my creative project. Hopefully you find it satisfying, engaging and interesting.

You know by now that I have a sometimes-skewed, creative view on Shakespeare’s works. The

genius he inspires leads me to want to push the boundaries and limits of the play’s meanings themselves. Some of my arguments herein are downright dastardly, and I know this. It is with the sincerest intention that I write to hopefully raise further questions and inspire outside-of-the-box thoughts, as Shakespeare has done within me.

Chayne

Contents 1

Troilus and Cressida Act 1 pg 5

Troilus and Cressida

Troilus and Cressida Act 5 pg 13

Troilus and Cressida

Reread Acts 1, 2, and 3*

pg 15

Troilus and Cressida

Reread Acts 4 and 5

pg 19

Acts 2, 3, and 4

pg 9

Critical Essay: “Allure” pg 25

King Lear Acts 1, 2 and 3 pg 31

King Lear Acts 4 and 5 pg 33

King Lear

Reread Acts 1 and 2*

pg 35

King Lear

Reread Acts 3, 4 and 5

pg 37

10 Aristotle’s Poetics pg 38

Contents 11 The Tempest

Acts 1, 2, and 3

pg 41

12 The Tempest Acts 4 and 5

pg 43

13 The Tempest

Reread Acts 1, 2, and 3*

pg 45

14 The Tempest

Reread Acts 4 and 5

pg 47

One-Scene Play: “The Calm After the Storm”

pg 49

15 Sonnets pg 53

16 Othello Entire Play* pg 61

17 Othello, Orson Welles, 1952 pg 63

Critical Essay: “Abandon All Hope”

pg 67

* All first re-reads include reflection on Bloom’s critical

essays from Shakespeare, The Invention of the Human

(in lieu of comments on the Norton’s introductions).

ap.com

Troilus and Cressida Act 1

At the beginning of Act 1, we learn about Troilus through his conversations with Pandarus.

I originally thought that Troilus realized that Pandarus was egging him on, hence his self-deprecating reaction, although I now think that it is a serious insight into Troilus’ character -- the same thing that prevents him from stepping out of the shadows when he sees Cressida with Diomedes later. Troilus tells Pandarus that he is drowning his hopes (1.1.48). This is a direct relation to his love of Cressida, who he seems to be torn by. Is Troilus’ office the reason why he can’t openly be with Cressida? It seems that there is something blocking the two of them from the get-go, namely Troilus’ inner-struggle. His love of her could bother him because of the fact that her father has defected to the Greeks, although he never says this explicitly.

Pandarus’ intentions on the other hand are, as of yet, unknown to us. Is he acting benevolently

out of love for Cressida? Is he ploying politically to gain power or even to hurt Troilus or Troy? Is he himself in gay love with Troilus? Some combination of these things? Or something else? We are unsure. Also, Pandarus repeatedly says that he will “not meddle nor make no farther” (1.1.14); I counted at least four times in the first scene. What is he up to? I love how Shakespeare sets these kinds of ironic situations up early on in his plays. I saw this especially with Iago in Othello. Strangely, this really threw me for a twist the first time I read Troilus and Cressida, I had immediate expectations that Pandarus would somehow end up as an evil, manipulative character. It does not appear that this is the case. Although, as I deduce in my critical essay, Cressida ultimately leads Troilus to doom, and Pandarus is the panderer who pushes the two into bed together. He is very transparent in his meddling though, which sets him apart from villains like Iago.

Another interesting aspect of Pandarus early on in this play is how highly he seems to think of

Troilus. He almost wishes to be him, or be with him himself (1.2.228). By the close of the play, I had the impression that Pandarus may even be gay for Troilus, or, at the very least, so overcome by his

desire for progeny in the form of grandchildren that he is willing to push so much for the union.

There is an odd plot twist at the end of 1.2 that still kinda irks me. Paris is at first revealed as

injured, then later he is not. I don’t quite understand the meaning of this, although I suppose it has to do with the fact that Paris is a lover and not a fighter -- perhaps he left the battlefield early with an excuse, so he could go lay Helen, then he returned and revealed that he was actually unscathed, marching in procession with the other warriors. This would make a lot of sense with his character as far as I understand him, and with Shakespeare’s decision to portray the play in skewed terms. Neither the Trojans nor the Greeks are heroes here. Another thing to consider is that Aeneas is the one who originally reports that Paris is injured though. He is arguably one of the only traditionally heroic characters in the play, so why would he lie to Troilus? The fact that he is the reporter of erroneous information so early on is very odd and inexplicable indeed. I think this entire setup may just be a bubble-pop by Shakespeare -- we immediately think that this is about war, Paris is hurt, maybe retribution will come, but then he saunters by under Cressida’s watchful eyes and dashes our expectations.

Cressida lets us know right off the bat what kind of person she is. (1.2.277) She is more

conniving than her father, who is very openly so. I think this is a huge missight that a lot of modern interpretations and critique of the play have. She tells us that she is intentionally deceitful, so why make a victim or virgin out of her? Her summation is that she wants to get Troilus to chase her so that she ends up with more control. In a sense, she is manipulating her father to this end as well. I originally took this as possible sexist, Shakespeare seems to make a habit of having a lady at the root of all evil in the play. Taken in conjunction with Troilus’ earlier comment about a “woman’s answer” (1.1.106), seems to set this play up as such. I think in Troilus and Cressida specifically, this is done intentionally, connecting to the idea that Helen is the driving force behind the entire Trojan war. Hector’s challenge to the Greeks is a further extenuation of this idea (1.3.254). Furthermore, Troilus, in resisting Cressida (1.1.34) and the war (1.1.89) seems to imply a correlation between Cressida and war. 6

The Greeks want to spur Achilles back into fighting for them, and we can maybe even sympathize

with what Ulysses regards as “Degree”(1.3.125-137) or “the specialty of rule”(1.3.77). The Greeks need Achilles to fall into line, because he is infecting the Greek troops with insubordination and anarchy by he himself not following Agamemnon’s rule. I still find it interesting that Shakespeare chose to represent these classical heroes as somewhat conniving though.

Nestor and Ulysses are kind of kissing-ass to Agamemnon in Act 1 scene 3. They agree that

Achilles is being unreasonable, and Ulysses claims that the most important thing for their army is to stay cohesive under orderly rule by “degree” (of course, Ulysses has a lot of power in this setup as the planner for Agamemnon and thus, the entire Greek army). Thus, the plan to pick Ajax to spur Achilles back into fighting in an obedient condition. If Achilles just went and fought Hector himself right away, he would be doing it to prove his own strength and honor, an individualist goal, the opposite of the cohesiveness that Ulysses wants. Ironically, Ulysses’ plan to rig the random process is not true to a fair, orderly democratic rule, but rather reminds me of a dictator holding rigged elections. Ulysses wants the appearance of order, but is willing to do anything to hold his power, including potentially screwing over Ajax.

Is Troilus’ office the reason why he can’t openly be with Cressida?

Who originally tells Troilus that Paris is injured?

Troilus and Cressida Acts 2, 3, and 4

At the beginning of act 2, we meet Thersites, a vile fool, a bastard, and a coward.

“Here is such patchery, such juggling and such knavery! all the argument is a cuckold and a whore; a good quarrel to draw emulous factions and bleed to death upon. Now the dry serpigo on the subject, and war and lechery confound all.” (2.3.70)

Also, here is a definition for “serpigo” from thefreedictionary.com: “any progressive skin

eruption, such as ringworm or herpes.” I think this may be a reference to Pandarus, and/or Troilus and Cressida, Menalaus and Helen, and STD’s running around during all of these sex-triangles.

Thersites pushes and pushes (with words) while Ajx pushes and pushes with his muscles. In the

lines “I will beat thee into handsomeness.” / “I shall sooner rail thee into wit…” (2.1.14), we get a very clear distinction between the two characters. It is cool to note that Shakespeare often seems to have a simple kind character, such as the tragic Othello. I think Ajax is perhaps one of the only chivalric heroes in the whole play! Although, we immediately hear the voice of Ajax as dumb and brutish, like a giant hulk. His repetition of “Thersites” when we first meet him really sets the stage for this. When Achilles comes into the scene, we can throw off the critical view of him as a lazy jackass (at least momentarily) while he saves Thersites as an intermediary, although this may just be another symptom of his pride -- he wants to prove he is better than Ajax. Also, did Thersites do the whole act of rousing Ajax intentionally, knowing that Achilles would come to his rescue? Achilles puts Thersites right back into place in (2.1.97). Patroclus is also a peace-keeper in this scene and is the one who actually gets Thersites to stop provoking Ajax (2.1.127). Achilles also warns Ajax about fighting Hector, saying “‘Tis trash.” Ironically, this only agitates Ajax further to fight.

An odd thing happens in 2.2, Troilus flips sides -- he is no longer anti-war. It is odd because

of his earlier conversation with Aneas. Troilus’ argument here for the intrinsic value of Helen is what prompts Hector to actually fight. Helenus tells Troilus he is not using reason (2.2.32). Helenus is

constantly overshot in this play -- he can’t seem to get a word in edgewise with all these heroes talking. The only other voice for peace is Cassandra. Everyone writes her off as crazy early on. Sure, she comes on prophetic moaning and gesticulating, but what she says about Troy and Helen is true. They can either give up Helen and be safe, or die and burn with a misguided sense of honor. Hector finally gives in after “promised glory” (2.2.203). In short, to Hector, Helen herself is not worth the violence of war, but glory and honor are. This in turn, actually coincides with Troilus’ giving up Cressida later, because he places honor above even his love.

Thersites’ line in (2.3.5) sounds like a Faustus reference. Inline with his apparent omniscience

within the play. This idea of secret forbidden knowledge pops up in other Shakespeare plays, most notably The Tempest. However, Thersites isn’t completely all-powerful; he is upset because he forgot to curse Patroclus, and of course, he dies regardless of the absence of Thersites’ curse. Ajax seems smarter in 2.3 for some reason, he is able to connect with Achilles more. I think maybe this is because he is less-incensed now. Ajax has an interesting respect and disdain relationship with Achilles. Ulysses reiterates this in (2.3.96), when he says “He is my argument.” Ulysses and Nestor seize on Achilles absence to snag Ajax. Considering how conniving the Greek planners are, maybe Achilles is right in keeping some distance. It is sad, knowing the dramatic irony (that Ulysses and Nestor are planning to use Ajax), to see Ajax completely turn to them -- he even goes so far as to ask to call Ulysses “father”! (2.3.252)

One thing that is interesting in Troilus and Cressida is how the warriors from the two factions are

buddy-buddy, and even hang out at each other’s tents. I think it is supposed to represent the “dead” ideas of honor and respect, chivalry. “This is the most despitefull’st gentle greeting, The noblest hateful love, that e’er I heard of.” - (4.1.33) Paris, in regards to Diomedes and Aeneas.

This “hateful love” seems present within the factions as well, such as the relationship between

Achilles and Ajax. I think it also seems to represent the futility of the war in general, these guys are all 10

friendly, and even related (Ajax and Hector), but are fighting over some lover’s squabble (as Thersites says, between “cuckold and a whore”).

Did Thersites do the whole act of rousing Ajax intentionally, knowing that Achilles would come to his rescue?

What does Achilles say to Ajax about fighting Hector?

What is the context in which Ajax “knows” and understands Achilles?

Troilus and Cressida Act 5

Starts with Achilles’ Threat. It is interesting that he shifts between drinking and feasting

(presumably intended with Hector) to his scimitar. I think this is another good example of the love-haterespect relationship between the soldiers, even on opposing sides.

Thersites is a real dick in this scene -- is he intentionally trying to create discord, disorder

and chaos? He seems to utilize similar tactics as Ulysses, he is pushing Patroclus emotionally (like he did earlier with Ajax), getting a rise from him by attacking his manhood. Unfortunately, this works, and Patroclus dons Achilles’ armour to lead the Myrmidons into battle (a decision with terrible repercussions.) It isn’t clear what goes on between Hector and Achilles, his tent is a sort of no-mans-land, always offstage and out of sight. There seems to be an implication to a possible love triangle between Achilles, Hector and Patroclus though.

5.2 is nuts because Troilus is kicking it with Ulysses. The two spy on Diomedes and Cressida. Is

this another intentional ploy by Ulysses? It isn’t really clear what he has to gain by getting Troilus all riled up, although I think there is something to it. Maybe it is just meant to be kind of ironic and funny. Troilus at this point is so out of it that he can’t distinguish who he should even be loyal with -- hiding with one of his enemies and letting his love go.

When Cressida calls Diomedes back at (5.2.49) she is succumbing to her own ideals of the chase.

This is a call back to the idea from her soliloquy at the end of 1.2. Ironically, Troilus is defensive of Cressida -- he thinks that what he had with her was different that what he is seeing with Diomedes, even though she treats them both similarly.

After reading the entire play, I am still not sure what Pandarus’ motivations and intentions are,

however, I don’t think he is inherently “bad” or “evil” (which is what I originally expected). I think he generally just wants grand-kids, and he wants them to come from Troy’s royalty. I also think he is

gay for Troilus, based on many comments he makes within the play. Unfortunately, the tragedy of the play, in my opinion, descends wholly from Pandarusâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; meddling. He spurs Toilus in Love, Troilus in turn spurs Hector, who spurs the Greeks with his challenge, which the Greeks use to spur Achilles, which unintentionally spurs Patroclus, whose death spurs Achilles, who kills Hector. Whew.

Who kills Hector?

Is Cressida torn in 5.2, or just playing the chase with Diomedes?

Troilus and Cressida Reread Acts 1, 2, and 3

Bloom’s assertion as to the motives of the play not being performed may be completely incorrect.

What he calls the plays “intrinsic power” is not readily and explicitly handed to the audience. We are forced to search for it. In fact, this play intentionally lacks the deep personal introspective moments which Shakespeare portrays so powerfully in other plays, because they can’t exist in the world of T&C without destroying the play’s meaning; perhaps making us care for or understand a character too much. There is a lack of contextualized direction within the play. If it was there, then the play wouldn’t have the complexity that it does.

Thersites as hero? Perception isn’t heroic, action is. I agree with the realization that this is a

“botchy” world, in fact, as Thersites further puts it, “Agamemnon is a fool; Achilles is a fool; Thersites is a fool, and, as aforesaid, Patroclus is a fool.” (2.3.57) Basically, everyone in the play is a fool (and Not the good kind). However, Thersites’ ability to recognize this truth doesn’t make him a hero, but far from it. Because he fails to act on his knowledge. In fact, he pushes Ajax and Achilles harder than the rest, and allows everyone to kill each other while he wanders around the battlefield, fleeing from any danger. He also watches idly as Cressida falls to Diomedes in 5.2, just to laugh and call her a whore (5.2.114). If he promoted peace, he would be the hero. Instead, he is perhaps the most vile character in the play, because he is able to see what is going on, yet does nothing to stop it.

If we have to nominate some hero, I would probably nominate Achilles. He sees almost as

clearly as Thersites, and ‘checks’ Thersites from rousing Ajax, and prevents Ajax from beating Thersites to death. He is also against the war and unjust tyranny from the beginning, he warns Ajax to not fight Hector (2.1.122), and he only allows his men to kill Hector because of his love for Patroclus (maybe). Of course, Achilles has his flaws as well (narcissism, insubordination, love)..... So maybe this play about the classic “heroes” is ironically without heroes.

Achilles and Pederasty, The love between a man and a teenage boy, was not only common and

acceptable in Ancient Greece, but actually revered and “sacred,” especially in the military. It isn’t perceived the same way nowadays (until recently, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was the policy in the U.S. military). I am not sure about the Elizabethan era

Although social norms were different (men could and did show physical affection towards each

other), there was a lower classification of women, and thus, men who acted like women or hung out with them were seen as “unmanly.” Add to all of this Shakespeare’s own possible bisexuality, and it isn’t really clear what he is getting at through his portrayal of Achilles.

In 3.3 for example, Achilles states, “[I will get Ajax to invite Hector to my tent] after the

combat/ To see us here unarmed. I have a woman’s longing,/ An appetite that I am sick withal,/ To see great Hector in his weeds of peace....”(3.3.229-232) He knows the outcome of Ajax and Hector’s fight beforehand! Also, he is blatantly saying that he wants to “get with” Hector! No surprise, then, that Thersites (the rascal!) walks in and interrupts Achilles during this statement.

The last thing I would like to point out about 5.1 is that Patroclus in line 12, refers to Thersites as

“adversity.” Thersites, in my opinion, brings adversity (difficulties, misfortune) with him through his very presence throughout the play. In this sense, Thersites very well may be the “voice of Shakespeare” in this play, as a sort of bringer of “the end of the world.” With all of his skepticism and pessimism, it is no wonder. Even more amazing that Thersites doesn’t have to Act in order to bring about destruction, and this destruction itself transcends the very action of the play! The destruction of values, character, love, honor, justice, and most importantly, order.

Argument over Helen in 2.2, I found this scene very odd because first, Hector is arguing against

the war, he is the one who argues to “let Helen go”. Secondly, it is Troilus, who was arguing against the war in 1.1, who convinces his brother to fight.

My thoughts on this are that Shakespeare is setting a stage in which Troilus’ love of love leads to

the death of his brother at the end of the play, and then the eventual fall of Troy. The theme then being 16

a sentiment that echoes what we hear in the Sonnets - love is the ultimate folly of man! “But you are wise,/ Or else you love not, for to be wise and love/ Exceeds man’s might; that dwells with gods above.” (3.2.151)

I am finding it kind of interesting that most of the warriors in the play are peaceful! In 1.1,

Troilus disarms himself and says he has no heart for war, Achilles is refraining from fighting, Thersites in 2.1 is convincing Ajax that he is being puppeted into fighting, 2.2 Hector says the war for the sake of Helen is unjust, and in this scene, Diomedes, Aeneas, and even Ajax renounce fighting. Of course, so far none of the commanders are of the same temperament.

Achilles decides to support his own will and desires rather than to “toe the line.” I was thinking

today in class that Ulysses’ speech in 1.3 is prophetic in parts. Check this out: “The general’s disdained by him one step below; he, by the next; that next, by him beneath.”(1.3.129-131)

He goes on to explain because of this disorderliness, Troy still stands - the Greek army is “sick.”

In the play, Achilles is one step below Agamemnon, Patroclus is a step below Achilles, and Thersites at the bottom. However, Thersites puts it thusly later: “Agamemnon commands Achilles, Achilles is my lord, I am Patroclus’ knower, and Patroclus is a fool.” (2.3.51-53)

These lines mimic Ulysses’, but with the added effect of Thersites putting himself out of place

(changing places with Patroclus). He then goes on into Achilles’ tent with him, while they leave Patroclus outside to tell the generals and Ajax off.

I am not sure, but it seems like if Ulysses represents order (by any means necessary), Thersites

represents chaos (also by any means, or the lack thereof). Ironically, Thersites’ chaotic actions lead to the reparation of order, because once he convinces Patroclus to fight and die, and Achilles has Hector killed, the Greek forces are cured of their sickness - and they can go on to conquer Troy. Is Shakespeare showing the necessary give-and-take, push-and-pull relationship between Order and 17

Chaos? This goes along with many other themes, such as the Justification of War to Create Empire, the Honor of Passion in the Pursuit of Love.

Another theme in the play is debts: owning people, commodification of people. The play is about

owning and using people as things, not about using material things. A good example of overcoming this in the play is how Thersites is able to step out of his position as a slave, or how Cressida tries to own herself through her body.

Words pay no debts, give her deeds: but she’ll

bereave you o’ the deeds too, if she call your

activity in question. What, billing again?” - Pandarus, 3.2

“If to-morrow be a fair day, by eleven o’clock it will

go one way or other: howsoever, he shall pay for me

ere he has me. - Thersites, 2.3

There are some readings of the play that support the victimization of Cressida. Even in the scene

we read today (3.1), Paris calls Cressida his “disposer”, implying that he had already had her and was done with her? Or vice-versa? Helen also has a lot of power in this scene.

I think a really good argument could be made that Cressida is actually victimized within the play.

Shakespeare may, for his time, be highlighting the double-standard that you speak of, and maybe even going a step further with Cressida being abused and raped (although this isn’t explicitly portrayed, it is implied in various scenes).

I am a bit confused by Troilus in scene 2.2, is he only supporting the war in front of his dad?

Because he had earlier renounced it....

Is Cressida a victim in the play?

Troilus and Cressida Reread Acts 4 and 5

From rereading I noticed a couple key things. One, Achilles still “trims his tent” to spend

the night with Hector, even though his “plan” is “thwarted” by Polyxena’s letter (was this secretly planned?). This seems to suggest that he was really just trying to meet up with Hector in general, not for the expressed purpose of getting Hector wasted and then wasting him the next day. Ajax (to Hector) “I thank thee, Hector./ Thou art too gentle and too free a man.” (4.7.22) Hector “The issue is embracement. - Ajax, farewell.” (4.7.32) Hector (to Ajax) “ Give me thy hand, my cousin. / I will go eat with thee, and see your knights.” (4.7.42)

Act 4 scene 5 Ajax and Hector spar until they agree to a draw, then they embrace! (This is sort-

of similar to the Iliad, as I understand it, Hector is portrayed as a “peace-maker” and the two agree to a draw after dueling for one whole day). Diomedes and Aeneas both help to stop the fight. It is Interesting that Shakespeare may be both underplaying the role of Breseis while highlighting Patroclus and framing Achilles as a subversive agitator (through Ulysses’ speech). Patroclus’s death is pivotal.

Although Achilles does his “cowardly act,” he does it out of extreme passion, rage, and

retribution. Vengeance out of love for his slain friend. If we can watch Hamlet in the dark behind the praying Claudius, hoping he will bring down his fiery wrath, can’t we watch Achilles rallying his Myrmidons from the same frame?

O, courage, courage, princes! great Achilles

Is arming, weeping, cursing, vowing vengeance:

Patroclus’ wounds have roused his drowsy blood,

Together with his mangled Myrmidons,

That noseless, handless, hack’d and chipp’d, come to him,

Crying on Hector. (Ulysses, 5.5.30)

His deed is not “heroic,” at least in the traditional sense. Although, it isn’t entirely unexpected

or even unreasonable. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that one of the key themes is the absence of heroism, maybe even the death of chivalry. Shakespeare goes to great lengths to *Pop* Achilles in 5.6, 5.7, and (especially) 5.9. Interestingly though Achilles, through his act in 5.9, sheaths his “half-supped sword” then leaves the battlefield - he doesn’t (directly) kill anyone the whole play! He is the play’s biggest pacifist.

Shakespeare intentionally chose to not include the gods in this play as a physical presence (unlike

the Iliad, where Apollo, Hera, Aphrodite, etc are all present as characters). I think this speaks volumes. I would argue that this play is not only breaking the conventions of the Greek theism, but also Christian theism (because there are many points where a character also swears directly by “Jove,” or to the “Heavenly Father”).

Now, just for the sake of argument, Achilles’ oath is kind of double sided. Sure, he swore to

fight alongside his soldiers under the orderly rule of Agamemnon, and, presumably up until this point he has done so (this is where his fame has come from). However, like the waning moon, Agamemnon has reduced and changed - in T&C he is a week, broken leader, who looks to Ulysses for advice, and Ulysses wants rule and order through conniving and unjust means - so who broke this oath? It seems like the Greek generals are just as much to blame (if not more so) than Achilles. All oaths go two ways. In the same sense, if I make an oath to work for an employer, and then that employer fails to uphold their end by not paying me, is it dishonorable for me to quit working for them?

In this sense, I think Achilles’ new oath to Polyxena is perfectly reasonable.

Achilles’ tent seem like a magical place in the play? It is always out-of-bounds, offstage. No one

goes into the tent without Achilles bringing him in. It is even impenetrable by the Greek generals. What is going on in there? First Patroclus, then Thersites, and finally Hector each make their way into his tent for the night....

Pandarus is talking about actors at the end of the play? Maybe even recognizing T&C as a flop? I

don’t mean commercially (you could slap Shakespeare’s name on pretty much anything and sell it) and 20

certainly not the play’s “present day” value. What I was getting at is what Daniel Seltzer describes as the challenges with the play. Some of which, “stem from the consideration of the nature of the play itself, because critics have always felt that it is strange and untypical, and somehow flawed, expounding an approach to life which Shakespeare found uncongenial even as he set it forth.”

This play represents, at its heart, the inconsistency between objective purpose and reality. The

play is “problematic” precisely because of the values that it questions. If everything is relative, then this includes the action of the play itself - this has led to varying degrees in which it is performed and received. A good example of this is the many varying faces of Cressida throughout the play’s productions.

Further complicating the play is the fact that it seems to lack purpose and resolution, because

Shakespeare was questioning these through the haphazard motion of the interior of the play itself. He was experimenting with something new.

I think that, like some of Shakespeare’s characters, this entire play is able to step outside of

itself - it may well have gotten away from Shakespeare himself. This is the very thing that makes T&C so modern and relevant now, because it is able to change and adapt. It talked to us during the World Wars and Vietnam, speaks to us about Feminism, the Justification of War and the State, and the false, “botchy core” within all of humanity (collectively and as individuals) that leads us on towards our doom. However, at its time when it was originally published, it may have been too chaotic, without the resolution that Renaissance audiences needed and expected, and therefor, it flopped.

Pandarus’ speech at the end might be him stepping out of the play and talking about it directly,

not just making the intended puns and sexual metaphors, but a comment on the life (and death) of the play itself. For example, those whom he calls “traders in the flesh” might be “actors” and when he says to the audience “Or if you cannot weep, yet give some groans”, he might be referring to the “groans” of disapproval from an audience who, after sitting through a long play that proposes to be about war and love, are intentionally let down and *Pop* deflated. 21

Confusion has plagued directors of this play for years. For example, where should Ajax and

Hector be while fighting? Because if they are center, then it distracts from the real meaning of the scene, but if they are off to the side, it is potentially equally confusing. Also, Claire Tylee argues about whether or not the play should be “visually seductive” and that Cressida should be played by a man! She also argues about whether the scenes should be minimalistic and “natural” or realistic (with weapons, armor, chariots, etc). All of these challenges that affect modern direction of this play, in a time when we have a much higher means at our disposal (a movie version, for example, could be completely realistically immersive), were probably an even bigger issue in the early 1600’s.

I have personally read the play multiple times, and I cannot make up my mind, it is constantly

shifting and tricking me. Right when I think I have found a key, it unlocks a hallway full of locked doors, some of which lead me back in infinite circular loops. This play’s beauty lies in these hallways themselves, not at some treasure hidden deep in the catacombs. Shakespeare is forcing the viewer, performer, and the reader to ask questions over and over and over again. I think the play is a beautiful failure, an intentional failure - a destruction of exactly what “failure” itself means.

There are definitely references to debts throughout the play. I think that most of them seem to

revolve around ownership of a person (or their body) rather than commodities and goods. The sole exception being the armor that Hector hunts down first from Patroclus, then an unknown Greek. I was curious about something from the engraving that we looked at by George Chapman. At the top of the image, Mulciber and Apollo sit atop Achilles and Hector, respectively. Chapman was suggesting something here, because it even says “Mulciber in Troium”, maybe he was showing what drove the opposition between Achilles and Hector via these two gods. Mulciber, as Chapman’s engraving suggests, is a god of fire, metalworking, and the forge (he is holding out a helmet in the image.) This would explain Hector’s obsession with the Greek’s armor! Perhaps, it isn’t greed, but the symbol that nice armor represents in regards to this god. 22

Stand, stand, thou Greek; thou art a goodly mark:

No? wilt thou not? I like thy armour well;

I’ll frush it and unlock the rivets all,

But I’ll be master of it: wilt thou not,

beast, abide?

Why, then fly on, I’ll hunt thee for thy hide. - Hector, 5.6

Another interesting thing from the line about armor, is that Hector calls the Greek “goodly”

(sounds like “godly”) and he goes on to call him a “beast” and that he will hunt him for his “hide”. Maybe reaching a bit far here, but there is a famous story in which Apollo skins the beast-man Marsyus (Pan?) alive, taking his hide. This could be a subtle reference. Is the armored man whom Hector runs after in the play one of the gods?

“Frush” is a very interesting word choice. Seems to mean “to smash or break up completely,

break into fragments” (it also has an archaic use as an adjective for “rotting” and “decaying”). Also, since Hector says he will “unlock the rivets all”, seems like he is implying that he is going to completely and utterly destroy the armor, and decimate its wearer in the process. This goes along with the idea that the armor is symbolic, rather than sought for its monetary value. Armor in the play may also represent the body, or identity, as when we first meet Troilus, stripping his armor in Act 1 (warriors act differently when they are wearing their “armor skin” than when they are just hanging out in the flesh).

Who is Achilles’oath to?

What does Armor represent in the play?

Allure

There has long been a debate about the representation of Cressida in Shakespeare’s Troilus and

Cressida. In Claire Tylee’s critical essay, she describes the conundrum that has plagued producers for years: Cressida apparently portrays an impossible duality or a drastic shift in perception – she goes from grieving her separation from Troilus, to frolicking in the Greek camp in the very next scene. Tylee claims that Cressida is victimized, and that her actions reflect her will to survive after being kidnapped and molested. When she plays coquette with Diomedes, Tylee asserts, Cressida is using her sex to claim Diomedes as her “protector” rather than her “rapist”. Just as Cressida is defined by the men around her as a “whore”, she is in turn defining Diomedes in an effort to protect herself. Tylee claims furthermore that Cressida is not just harmed in this scene, but that, as a representation for women everywhere, she is a casualty to the dominant patriarchal culture. (Tylee)

It is hard to know Shakespeare’s intended portrayal of Cressida, but there are some clues that rip

her far and away from this victimized protofeminist to a much darker and sinister subject. First, we have to look at the influences to T&C. It would seem that a play relating the details of the Trojan War must have been composed in regards to Homer’s The Iliad. However, multiple sources suggest the opposite. The introduction by Hugo Buchthal to Guido de Columnis’ Historia destructionis Troiae, describes

Historia’s influence in England during the Renaissance. “Its success all over Europe was phenomenal; it was turned into practically every European Language, and the impact of these translations can be traced through the ages, to works as far removed in time as Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida”(Buchthal, 15). Historia, Buchthal explains, depicts the Trojan War in a jarringly different light than The Iliad, the primary differences being the portrayal of the Greeks as “brutal aggressors” barely defeating the “innocent” Trojans, and the inclusion of the tragic love story of Troilus to Cressida, which later becomes the “most famous love story of the Trojan War”(Buchthal, 13).

In addition to Historia, Shakespeare was influenced by other texts. In the critical essay “Voilà la

Belle Mort”, the author list and explains Shakespeare’s various other references. He focuses on the scene of the slaying of Hector by Achilles’ Myrmydons, a scene which “comes from a long-established tradition in which it is clear enough that Hector (and/or Troilus) is the magnanimous knight, and Achilles the felon” (Marrapodi 64). Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde is among the works that influenced Shakespeare’s

T&C. The poem doesn’t end with the death of Hector, instead, Achilles kills Troilus! (Chaucer 5.180510) He goes on to explain the reason why Troilus dies.

Swich fun hath false worldes brotelnesse.

And thus bigan his lovinge of Criseyde,

As I have told, and in this wyse he deyde. (Chaucer 5.1832-4)

I roughly take these lines to mean: He began loving Criseyde because of false words, and this led to his death. Criseyde’s betrayal is the reason why Troilus dies! Chaucer wasn’t the only author to relate this idea either, it is reflected in other works, including Historia, in which Troilus is slain after being surrounded by Achilles and the Myrmidons, knocked off of his horse, and beheaded while helplessly trapped under its weight.

It is really interesting that in T&C, Shakespeare chose to have Hector die instead of Troilus. This

is one of only three of his plays that is titled with the name of a couple, which insinuates that the couple is key and paramount within the play. Perhaps the death of Hector is supposed to represent the death of Troilus, in addition to the fall of Troy? If this is the case, Shakespeare was very cleverly finalizing an illation that he develops throughout – Hector and Troilus are analogous. This would explain the scene with Pandarus conflating the two, “Himself! Alas, poor Troilus! I would he were” (Shakespeare 1.2).

If Hector represents Troilus, what does Cressida represent? Helen is shown in a negative light

throughout the play. In Act two of T&C, for example, the Trojan princes argue over the intrinsic versus relative value of Helen – the conclusion, that she is only worth keeping because of the honor she represents. In other words, it would shame the Trojans to give her back. In fact, Thersites observes that the entire war is based on Helen when he says, “all the argument is a cuckold and a whore; a good 26

quarrel to draw emulous factions and bleed to death upon” (Shakespeare 2.3). The two women are similar. Cressida and Helen are both displaced women, captive to the opposing side. In fact, Troilus may very well be giving up Cressida so that he has something ‘honorable’ to fight for, as evidenced by his fervor for battle the day after he loses her (this is similar to the Greeks using Helen as their motive for war). However, Cressida takes things a step further than Helen, intentionally causing distress and ultimately, death.

When we first meet Cressida, she seems like a normal adolescent girl, watching the sweaty warriors

march into the sunset Troy. As soon as her pandering uncle steps offstage though, we get a glimpse of the real Cressida – a manipulative “angel”. When she says, “Achievement is command; ungained, beseech” (Shakespeare 1.3), she is highlighting her aspiration: to control those around her. This is a far step away from Tylee’s Cressida, who by contrast is an innocent victim. The true Cressida tells us directly what she is doing right off of the bat.

A big question in the play is whether or not Ulysses’s assertions are relevant to the truth of what

is actually going on. Early on, he argues at length about “Order” and “Degree” but fails to bring up the main issue at hand – the Greeks are fighting over a lady who apparently left her husband willingly. Helen is the root cause of their grief, not Achilles. Perhaps Ulysses’ most astute revelation is not tucked within a long oration, but rather, in an off-handed statement he makes when he confronts Cressida. Ulysses refers to Helen and says, “O, deadly gall, and theme of all our scorns, / For which we lose our heads to gild his horns” (Shakespeare 4.5). The woman is the poison that kills them! Ulysses goes on in frustration to define and thus dismiss Cressida as a “whore”.

The Greek camp kissing scene has been portrayed in various ways. This is a big point that Tylee

has a hard time reconciling, she wants a Cressida that is both a victim, and a paragon of feminism – turning her victimization against her captors while still succumbing to an oppressive-coercive cultural dominance. However, the real Cressida maintains a perfect sense of self throughout the exchange, and throughout the play she seems to be toying with the men. Cressida is in control, and not just succumbing 27

to the will of the men. How can this be?

If she is any angel, Cressida is the Angel of Death. Her ‘kisses’ spell the doom for those who dare

her touch. The most obvious example of this is Patroclus, who kisses her twice, and is the first to die. This also explains why Ulysses fears her. He says both, “I do desire it” and then, “Never’s my day, and then a kiss of you” (Shakespeare 4.5). He will kiss Death when he has no days left to live.

Cressida warns Troilus too. She tells him flat out as he forsakes her, “O, you shall be exposed, my

lord, to dangers / As infinite as imminent; but I’ll be true” (Shakespeare 4.4). These lines give a special sense to the scene where she gets Diomedes to wear Troilus’ sleeve into battle – she is condemning both of them to die fighting each other in vain. Furthermore, she isn’t suddenly acting out of her resourcefulness, changing and adapting to survive her situation, but rather doing what she has been doing the whole play – acting deceitful and manipulative! Finally, when Pandarus wraps up the play with his friendly gift, he tells us to give some “groans” for our “aching bones”. We are all going to die, so we might as well... embrace.

It is no wonder that Shakespeare names Cressida along with the likes of Juliette and Cleopatra.

Loving her results in death. Perhaps the greatest challenge of this play is that he doesn’t explicitly lay it out for the viewer. We have to imagine the deathly “putrefied core” that swells within Cressida as she fades ethereally into her father’s traitors-tent, and the death inside Troilus as he watches the mangled corpse of his brother – as it is indecorously dragged across the battlefield.

Works Cited Buchthal, Hugo. “An introduction to the text.” Guido de Columnis, Historia destructionis Troiae.

Colour Microfiche Edition, Helga Lengenfelder. 1987. omifacsimiles.com, Web.

Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. librarius.com, Web. Marrapodi, Michele Editor. Author Uknown. “Voilà la Belle Mort.” Shakespeare, Italy, and

Intertextuality. Manchester University Press. 2005. books.google.com, Web. Shakespeare, William. Troilus and Cressida: Entire Play. shakespeare.mit.edu, Web. Tylee, Claire. “From The Text of Cressida and Every Ticklish Reader: Troilus and Cressida, The Greek

Camp Scene.” Troilus and Cressida. Signet Classic. 2002

King Lear Acts 1, 2, and 3

Right off of the bat, we find ourselves smacking into a theme familiar from T&C. Goneril says to

her father in 1.1, “Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter” This begs the same question that we were asking earlier, can words create and destroy matter? Obviously, words have a very strong effect on Lear, because he is completely taken aback by his youngest daughter’s refusal to give him exorbitant praise. This also kind of reminded me of Sonnet 130, “My mistress’ eyes....”, because of how Cordelia rejects the false over-acclamations of her sisters. I think another recurring incident of words in this play is with all of the letters being exchanged. Do words matter? Titles?

I think that Cordelia is intentionally trying to get with France instead of Burgundy. Presuming

other, darker motives behind her action (and France’s) is interesting.

I really got the sense that Shakespeare is presenting us with two worlds. First, there is the dark,

ancient pagan England, a world in which Astrology and Hecate bend and force the will of man. The second world, is a world that we described in class today as “modern” or “post-machiavellian” - the world of the new man, who is not bound by the stars, but has unlimited potential (so long as he is willing to do what it takes to achieve it). This is the world that Edmund embraces, throwing off the old:

...we make guilty of our

disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as

if we were villains by necessity; fools by

heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and

treachers, by spherical predominance; (1.2)

Style NOTE I wanted to point out a powerful tool Shakespeare uses throughout this play -- the

personification of the elements. Particularly, in 3.2, Lear gives the wind and the rain consciousness, intent, design. This seems to suggest that he is bending to the “old ways” of the world, trusting in some 31

higher powers of nature and the gods to come to him.

Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire! spout, rain!

Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire, are my daughters:

I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness;

I never gave you kingdom, call’d you children,

You owe me no subscription: then let fall

Your horrible pleasure:... (3.2)

Here, Lear accuses the rain of serving his two daughters with its “horrible pleasures”, as if the rain

itself is enjoying beating down upon him.

Does Lear cause the storm?

Why doesn’t Cordelia just go along with her sisters in the beginning?

King Lear Acts 4 and 5

I think that Lear is a victim of his own actions. As much as Shakespeare helps us connect with

Lear, whether he is his own “villain” or not, he doesn’t go out of his way to make us care much for Goneril or Regan. Especially when you consider the love triangle going on with Edmund (who is arguably the most evil character in the play).

In 4.6, Lear says:

What, art mad? A man may see how this world goes

with no eyes. Look with thine ears: see how yond

justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark, in

thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which

is the justice, which is the thief? Thou hast seen

a farmer’s dog bark at a beggar?

I think this is begging the question of justice in general. If, for example, we assume Cordelia is

innocent, then her death is unjust, but if we assume that she is guilty, then does she deserve her death? In the same sense, does anyone deserve punishment? We talked about the underlying motives of the evil characters in the play; they all seem to have some pretty moving motivation for their actions. Edmund usurps to overcome his ostracized, bastard status, and Goneril poisons Regan out of love! Also, Lear’s punishment appears to be mostly self-inflicted, and he actually learns from it. Thus, a negative can turn into a positive.

I think that even Lear’s death can be seen in a positive light, because he is able to be with his

beloved Cordelia at long last. In this sense, even his death can be justified.

He is explicitly saying that if you change the role of a judge and a criminal, then the judge

becomes a criminal, and the criminal just. It is both a play with words, but also a profound statement about justice -- namely, that justice is completely reliant on position and perception. It is dependent on

not only who makes the rules, but who is doing the judging, and because of this, the value of justice is transmutable. We talked about Paradise Lost in class today briefly, and that is a great example. Since the Renaissance, people have read Satan as the hero of this epic! He is the hero because the story is told from the perspective of the fallen angels.

How does Lear define â&#x20AC;&#x153;justiceâ&#x20AC;??

What happened to the Fool?

King Lear Reread Acts 1 and 2

Bloom claims that King Lear “perhaps transcends the limits of literature” (476). This is a bold

statement. The “universal wound to familial love”, which is a forced love, “unavoidable and terrible,” is the backbone to the generational strife portrayed in Lear. Primary love is between parents and children, but this leads only to devastation.

Lear is a ‘paradigm for greatness,” and the image of male authority at the beginning of the play.

But the unknowable Lear, before the play transitions into a bewildering Lear and he falls into madness. I like the idea that Lear represents feeling, while Edmund is coldness, with a bare of affect. The two are an antithesis, yet they never speak to each other in the play. I didn’t realize that they did not communicate to each other until I read Bloom’s comments, but it is very fascinating.

Edgar becomes the heir instead of Cordelia. I found Bloom’s description of Edgar as legendary,

“rids Britain of wolves” fact interesting.

However, Edgar’s abnegation is “profoundly disproportionate,” it doesn’t really make sense that

he should go to such lengths to become “unaccommodated man” and hide from everyone, including his father.

Madness and blindness = Tragedy and Love, knit together the whole play

There is almost an assertion that this is somehow Edgar’s play and not Lear’s. I find this a bit

overblown.

Bloom also spends a lot of time comparing and contrasting to Hamlet. I think is this justifiable in

the sense that both are great plays, but they are so different from each other and it is frankly confusing and uninformative about Lear. Hamlet is much more introspective than Lear, and seems to control the action of his play, where Lear is beyond his scope and time, an old dying man of the apocalypse. The only relationship that Bloom supports between the two plays is Shakespeare’s critique of love, but he also asks the question of whether Hamlet actually loves anyone when he dies.

King Lear, Reread Acts 3, 4, and 5

Bloom claims that the authority of Lear over Cordelia is broken and not redeemed. I disagree with

this somewhat, I can see Lear defending Cordelia and then dying alongside her as an ultimate, infinite connection between the two, which Lear chooses to create with her corpse is notable. These deathpairings are a recurring theme of Shakespeare’s. In Othello, for example, the two eternally doomed lovers are left dead in bed together.

There is no redemption at the end of the play -- love becomes pain. Slaughter of the wicked, but

not redemption for the just. Meaningless death.

Lear may actually die with joy, but it is unclear whether this is because of his despair, and not

wanting to live without Cordelia, or if it is because of his madness and detachment from reality. Either way, it isn’t pretty.

“All that we can say must fall short of the subject; or even of what we ourselves conceive of it.” - Hazlitt

Aristotle’s Poetics

Poetics is the oldest surviving work on literary theory. Within, Aristotle outlines the context

of various forms of literature and poetry, including lyrics, epics, and dramas. He further defines and analyzes what makes up works of tragedy. This discussion revolves primarily on certain principles, such as imitation and genres. He also talks of aesthetics and rhetoric.

In part 2, Aristotle claims that a work must strive to emulate and express life. The artist can either

make the subjects better or worse that real life, or create characters who are “as they are.” He insists that this idea extends beyond the written word to include every kind of art, be it a painting or even music. Shakespeare especially seems to embrace this idea, as his characters are sometimes surprisingly real and human. He strays from reality usually to show us the dark side of man, fueled by ambition, conceit and ego, such as characters like Macbeth, or the inverse, the lightness within us all which allows man to embrace forgiveness, like Prospero. Interestingly, his most inhuman characters (devils and witches and ghosts) are often the ones lying outside of the more realistic characters.

6 defines Tragedy as a play which within parts of the action raise emotion which are purged

through the effects of pity and fear. This relies on action, driven through thinking and acting “agents.” He claims there are six elemental parts, Plot, Character, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Song which are primarily acted through their structure. Plot being foremost. I am not sure that Shakespeare (or I) agree with this. A plotless play, like The Tempest, seems like a reasonable endeavor, while modern works, like

Waiting for Godot, by Beckett, seem to completely reject this idea.

With 7, Aristotle takes this idea even further, claiming that the beginning, middle, and end of the

plot must all be complete and work together in harmony, and not “haphazard.” He compares art to a “living organism.” I really wonder what Aristotle would think of Burrows’ cut-ups?

In 9, he reiterates that Tragedy should inspire fear and pity, and talks about how the plot

should be complete versus “episodic.” Aristotle claims that by showing the audience the whole truth 38

and what could and should happen, they can relate to the emotions inspired by the play as a whole. I think Shakespeare rejects this idea, as he often hides action from the audience, such as what goes on in Achilles’ tent in Troilus and Cressida. In some ways, this not knowing can create more suspense and further the drama of a play.

He says in 10 that plots are either “Simple or Complex,” as is life, and that the drama that

unfolds should make sense based on what precedes and follows it. Seems reasonable. If, for example, a character is running around doing random things with no explanation, it can be confusing. But, isn’t that kind of what Iago does in Othello? The argument that things must make sense doesn’t seem to always be true. In fact, randomness may approach reality closer.

Reversal and Recognition - two key concepts are introduced in 11. Simply put, there must be

surprise and a turn-about, and it must be forced by the action and the situation. I think that Shakespeare especially embraces this idea, however, he tends to stretch the changes over a longer time and space, rather than shifting suddenly, as in Aristotle’s paragon of Tragedy, Oedipus Rex by Sophocles.

In 13-16, he further explains how to create the perfect Tragedy. He claims it should be arranged

with a complex plan, should have an immediate Peripeteia, or Reversal of situation from good to bad, and the character should have Recognition of this Reversal. Also, this should culminate with intense feelings of pity and fear in the viewer. As a form of catharsis, the artist should prey on the viewer. Finally, Aristotle defines Denouement, or the Complication and Unravelling that encompases tragedy.

xt2MindMap.com

The Tempest Acts 1, 2, and 3

I love that Shakespeare begins this play with a storm. Of course, the fact that it is intentionally

caused by Prospero seems to draw some correlation to the storm in Lear! What are your guy’s thoughts on this? I think that the weather in both plays is a reflection of inner turmoil and sorrow. Carrying on with my relation of Tempest to Lear, I found 2.1 interesting because of the overuse of the word “nothing.” The most notable moment, for me, was 2.1.68, when Gonzalo says, “Who, in this kind of merry fooling, am nothing to you;/ so you may continue, and laugh at nothing still.” He is speaking in response to the constant fooling and criticism given him and the king by Sebastian and Antonio. This is important for many reasons. For one, I found it very interesting to have these characters critiquing authority. This seems to echo a theme within the other two plays. What is the king when he is on a sinking ship? Or on a desert island? Just another man, or nothing!

This leads me to my second observation on the use of the word “nothing.” Gonzalo, in

saying that he is nothing to these men, is essentially questioning the human condition. Like the “unaccommodated man” of Lear, these stranded men are stripped of everything in an instant, tempest tossed and at the mercy of the elements. What is man in such a condition? In a certain sense, the play could have started with the death of everyone aboard the ship -- even the sailors believe that the end is imminent, because unaccommodated man is a helpless nothing.

However, Prospero seems to have transcended his nothing status through scholarship (ironically,

this same bookishness that allows him to control Ariel and magic is what leads to his usurpation). Not to give too much away, but his fall seems to mirror that of Faustus, who traded his soul for knowledge and power, or Adam and Eve who ate the apple -- maybe, despite his power, he is bound to suffer because of his transcendence, because it is a direct affront to the gods.

Authority seems to come up right off the bat in this play as well. The boatswain yelling at the

nobles is a great example -- who should have the authority on a ship that is sinking? It seems obvious

that the people in control are the actual workers. This idea is strikingly modern, reminds me of sort of Marxist ideology. But it goes further than even that: in our Democratic system, the people give power to elected officials, who in turn, theoretically, should serve the voters.

How do the travellers end up on the Island?

What does Caliban represent?

The Tempest Acts 4 and 5

I think the biggest example of the misappropriation of authority within the play is actually Ariel,

who seems almost omniscient, but is subject to Prospero’s authority. I find it really interesting that while the conclusion has Prospero granting forgiveness and embracing his humanity (although maybe humans are not supposed to be able to forgive and forget), he is once again denouncing the one thing that grants him authority and power -- his magic. I don’t think it is really clear that this is wise on his part. In 5.1, Ariel reports on the prisoners. I think the line when Ariel says to Prospero, if he could see them, his “affections/ Would become tender.” (5.1.18).

This moment is a critical epiphany for Prospero -- he realizes that to have sympathy is to be

intrinsically human. However, his forgiveness only seems to come if they are “penitent,” sorry for what they have done. It makes a lot of sense that this comes after the resolution between Prospero and Miranda, because until now, he has been distracted with her and the ceremony. Prospero seems to be obsessed with his daughter’s sex. In 4.1, he warns Ferdinand, “If thou dost break her virgin-knot before/ All sanctimonious ceremonies may/ with full and holy rite be minist’red,..” (4.1.15).

He is also placing a huge emphasis on the rites and ceremony, which is symbolic of his powers

and magick. The music/dance ceremony in this scene is really emblematic of the play in general. I think that more than any others, The Tempest is all about entertainment first and foremost. There are a ton of songs and music throughout the play. The singing with Juno and Ceres, along with the farmer’s dance, would have probably been pretty popular and fun. Interestingly, this scene is cut from the movie version by Helen Mirren that I watched. Apparently, it isn’t as powerful on-screen as it would have been in real life. This is really the culmination of the love story though, and is pretty darn important. The marriage of Ferdinand and Miranda is what makes this play a comedy.

The Helen Mirren film version. We touched on it briefly in class, but I specifically enjoyed the

portrayal of Caliban as a strange, aggressive, naive native. I think this is close to how I thought of him in my mind, except for one major point: his fish-likeness. I think that I had an almost “creature of the black lagoon” image in my mind from just reading. A couple different characters comment on his fishiness, and I think this is somewhat lost by having him appear as mostly earthy in this movie version.

Other than linking Caliban to the island and the sea, and perhaps making him seem a little more

otherworldly (as we discussed the idea in class than Caliban and Ariel represent Prospero’s evil and good spirits or conscious, respectively), I can’t really think of why Shakespeare made him fishlike?

As an aside, I am a little torn on the role of Prospero as a woman. I think she does a great job,

but it changes and downplays the whole usurpation theme a bit, in my opinion.

Why did Helen Mirren choose to portray Prospero as a woman?

What does Ariel say to get Prospero to embrace his humanity?

The Tempest Reread Acts 1, 2, and 3

Bloom is very critical of the modern interpretations of The Tempest. In his essay, he argues

that “Marxists, multiculturalists, feminists, nouveau historicists--the usual suspects--know their causes but not Shakespeare’s plays.” (662). He goes on to explain the gross misrepresentation of Caliban as problematic.

In some sense, I agree with what he is saying. I commented earlier on the lack of the fish-likeness

in most discussion regarding Caliban. He is sort of representative of natives, as we discussed in class. This is especially true given the nature, time, and setting of the play. Being as it was written during a time of expanding imperialism, and set in the bermudas (where the characters should not have reasonably ended up whilst traversing the mediterranean), it seems reasonable to attribute nativeness as the primary aspect to Caliban, and even to make him out to be a more central character to the play than he may be.

I think that Bloom seems to forget that without Caliban in the play, there would be no basis

for Prospero to express his power -- on a desert island, alone with his daughter, Caliban would be a completely different person when we first meet him. Sure, he orders Arial around, but this relationship is more symbiotic, and ultimately balanced than the imperialist conqueror-to-native relationship that exists between Prospero and his slave. Ultimately though, Bloom’s further assertion, relating Prospero to Faustus, is dead on. I found it especially interesting to learn of the similarity between the two’s names.

I mentioned in a previous journal on the relation I noticed between Thersites and Faustus. I think

it is a theme that Shakespeare goes back to time and time again, perhaps in reference to his own thirsting after knowledge. For example, there have been people who have drawn parallels between Shakespeare himself and Prospero. I find this a little lacking in contextual references, where Prospero’s power is extremely unearthly and magical. I am sure that, no matter how magical Shakespeare’s works may seem to us now, he didn’t feel likewise about them. This is most evident in his Sonnets, where he seems to both believe in the ever-lasting nature of poetry, but lament death and resolution. I think that his

purpose with the Sonnets was to try to create something that would stick forever, but he was probably pretty cynical about this reality (otherwise he wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need to reaffirm this idea over and over again -he is trying to convince himself that there is such a thing as immortality, even though he understood this was not the real case.)

I find it kind of funny that, for all of his criticism, Bloom spends a significant time discussing

Caliban and how he is missrepresented. I would have liked to read further into his thoughts on the Faustus relationship personally. I think that this play is an example where the Faustus character, instead of lead to an ultimate demise because of his unrelentless pursuit and abuse of power, presents us instead a Faustus guided by the angelic Ariel, who ultimately leads Prospero to peace and resolution. The whole play revolves around how in a single day, a man with limitless power ditches that power to become more human, and he realizes what is most important.

The lessons that Prospero learns are extremely important. Instead of being destroyed by his

controlling nature, he lets go; lets his daughter marry, forgives his enemies, and leaves in peace. Bloom refers to this idea as the â&#x20AC;&#x153;juxtaposition of a vengeful magus who turns to forgiveness, with a spirit of fire and air,...â&#x20AC;? (666). He claims that this is the reason why The Tempest has remained so popular and fascinating. I think that Bloom is not taking into account the real reason why people love the play, and the reason why I enjoyed it as part of this class: it is fun.

The play has numerous songs, dances, and enough humor and action to guide the reader through

in a single entertaining setting. Instead of long, preachy orations by men like Ulysses, we get a dance and a jibe. I think the main intention for this play was to simply entertain. This is one of the reasons the film version I watched was so successful -- there are so many entertaining elements written directly into the play that carry over beautifully to the screen, especially with the modern dynamics and special effects.

How many songs are in The Tempest?

Is Ariel an Angel?

The Tempest Reread Acts 4 and 5

We talked about how this is a plotless play in class. I think that it is pretty striking how all of the

action within takes place over the course of a single day. It is easy to forget sometimes that this would have been watched live and performed back to back to back. Setting the play in realtime is quite a feat, and also a pretty nifty tool that Shakespeare utilized in this case. I like to imagine the audience when I read, and I can picture the immediate excitement, the slow-building relationship between the virginal Miranda, and finally, by act 4, we are at the wedding -- which remains suspenseful because of the encroaching ‘danger’ represented by Caliban and the fools.

Almost hidden, right after the wedding ritual dance is a very important line, “We are such stuff/

As dreams are made on, and our little life/ is rounded with a sleep.” (4.1.156). I think it is important that Shakespeare chose to slip this in amidst the revelry. This is a point that everyone would be watching raptly -- and it is well said. It is also worth noting that act 4 is just this one single scene (albeit a giant dancing one). I honestly think that everything afterwards is just kind of wrapping up the loose ends of the play, although of course Prospero’s turn towards humanity and sympathy is of course important. As I noted before, this change comes right after the wedding.

Another important line we talked about was Miranda’s “O brave new world / That has such

people in’t!” (5.1.84). I think this is striking as a double-entendre, first that she is genuinely shocked and overcome by the men’s beauty (this reminds me of Cressida watching the warriors marching into Troy), but secondly at how we know that all of the people are kind of horrible in their own ways, specifically their thirst for power and willingness to kill to achieve it. This, ironically, is the same greed that ostracized Prospero and allowed his brother Antonio to usurp, and that led Prospero and Miranda into a life of exile.

I think at this point, it is worth noticing Miranda’s innocence, is she too to be overcome with the

negativity due to those with human emotion? She is already driven slightly against her father by just a

single man, but now she realizes that there is a whole wide world out there, fish in the sea, so to speak. I noticed another thing this last readthrough, the relation of dreams and sleep are very powerful in this play. It is almost akin to the darkness and blindness found in Lear, but with the addition of dreams, lends to an almost magical quality. The Boatswain describes in closing how all the while the play happened, he was in a dream, fast asleep. I don’t think Shakespeare took this idea as far as he could have -- characters could have had moments of enlightenment while asleep, for example, similar to how Gloucester finally sees once he goes blind. I don’t know if Shakespeare intended this metaphor, between sleep and seeing, but rather maybe a darker one, between sleep and death.

Finally, I want to break down the Epilogue a bit. I think that he is talking directly to the audience,

not as Shakespeare (as some propose, with Prospero claiming to give power away), but rather through puns. For example, the “gentle breath” could mean shouts from the audience and the “help of your good hands” could mean applause. I think this is more than reasonable. It also puts the end into context with the audience again, as I was saying, I think this play is mainly about entertainment. The spell being released in this context, is the audience’s imagination, used in conjunction with the actors to create experience. Finally, the closing statement “As you from crimes would pardon’d be,/ Let your indulgence set me free.” If read in direct context to the audience, seems to imply that the audience is guilty of enjoying the action portrayed in the play, but as long as they liked the play, then everything’s fine. Although, he could be insinuating that we are all guilty, and need to learn to forgive as Prospero did, and that one of the costs (and benefits?) of doing so is to let go of power, oppression, and control.

Who is Prospero talking to in the Epilogue?

What happens to Caliban at the end of the play?

The Calm After the Storm On a desert island, the still vex’d Bermoothes Lear:

Shine skies, shine! Open your bright eyes upon me merr’lly!

Blow your cool breeze betwixt my legs, you

ever calming, balmy blue carrier of the lightest wings to doves,

pleasantly grace my still-grey wires, bouncing temperately ‘bout

my cheeks – (to himself) oh nuncle, what a piece is this? A blackened tent,

set against the backdrop of serene navy waters. – Alas, sir, are you here?

Achilles:

How now! What’s the matter?

Lear:

Nothing.

Achilles: (limping towards Lear)

Marry this sir,

I can’t remember whence I came upon this island.

The boatswain had a long black robe as we rode ‘cross the Styx,

when, suddenly, an ocean of magnificent proportion, grander than

even the comely Aegean spread ‘round us.

Lear:

I too arrived here in a similar manner.

Achilles:

Well, you were here first, and your robes look the fresher for it!

What an enchanted place, there is surely everything needed

to support life. Why, is that a piece of cheese?

Lear:

No, it is nothing. I fed the last of the cheese to the mouse.

Achilles:

I see. Perhaps you would accompany me into my tent?

I’ll heat your blood with some Greekish wine.

Lear:

Sure.

(exeunt into the tent, enter Caliban, singing)

Caliban:

My island, my island, my island twangs around me!

The birdies chirp, chirp de dirp dirp,

dreaming clouds above my head,

dreaming dreams in my cozy bed!

Freedom! Freedom, freedom!

(he hears laughing in the tent and stops)

Oh no! What new devils here belie, shrouded

in the black of night, to wrench me from

my peaceful slumberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d day?

(enter Lear and Achilles, laughing, with bottles of wine in hand) Achilles:

What have we here? A man or a fish?

Lear:

Though well we may not pass upon him a form of justice,

look: how yond fish swims in the ocean, while neighboring

man stands and looks about; change places, and the fish suffocates,

the man drowns. He is no fish, but a man.

Achilles:

Surely no man, but a monster!

Lear:

An unaccommodated man at his best.

Caliban:

Is that a book! What sweet, sweet gods are these! Let me kiss you!

I will show you most pleasant waterfalls of the island, pick you berries,

climb for coconuts, and catch the crawling crabs to eat with butter. Oh

please, please. Caliban has a new king!

Lear:

What? Art thou mad? I merely retain the title, and all the

superflux which that entails.

Achilles:

You? King? You hardly know to stand; a wandering, drunken minstrel of sorts.

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll not have you for a king. Give me back my wine!

(snatches the bottle from him) Lear:

O sides, you are too tough. Is this well spoken?

Just a moment ago you spoke of splitting the wine and the island, fifty-fifty.

Achilles:

I pray you, dismiss the need. Here, you can have twenty-five percent of the wine.

Lear:

(splashes wine at Lear)

Five and twenty? Rather I to abjure all, and wage my place as this monster’s friend.

We will live off the land, breathe the sunshine air, and sleep under the cool,

ever-watchful moon. Caliban:

You will not be king of me! Caliban is a free! – the bottle, I’ll swear upon

that bottle to be thy true subject.

Achilles:

(grinning)

Sure, come into my tent. We’ll kiss the bottle.

(exit Achilles and Caliban) Lear:

That calf, which follows and seeks for gain,

and follows but for form,

will turn when all liquor is drained

and leave thee cursed and worn.

But I will tarry, the king will stay,

to rule this island in a peaceful way.

Sonnets

Sonnet 17 Who will believe my verse in time to come, If it were fill’d with your most high deserts? Though yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb Which hides your life, and shows not half your parts. If I could write the beauty of your eyes, And in fresh numbers number all your graces, The age to come would say ‘This poet lies; Such heavenly touches ne’er touch’d earthly faces.’ So should my papers, yellow’d with their age, Be scorn’d, like old men of less truth than tongue, And your true rights be term’d a poet’s rage And stretched metre of an antique song:

But were some child of yours alive that time,

You should live twice,--in it, and in my rhyme.

True to Shakespearean form, with 14 lines, 3 quatrains and a rhyming couplet, and

ABABCDCDEFEFGG rhyme scheme. The meter is off. The word “heaven” seems to break, perhaps for emphasis, 11 beats in line 3; heavenly is off-beat, with an extra beat in line 8. There is an intentional repetition of the words “number” in line 7 (kind of ironic, because the Sonnets weren’t originally numbered.) The poet’s words will be unbelievable if he captures your true essence; work as a tomb (as in carrying beyond life) that only comes half so far as the complete, true beauty. If he could record this true form, others would call him a liar in the future, because his muse is so unbelievable, unearthly, and inhuman. The use of “yellow’d with their age” is great imagery of his written work as rotting pages in the future. The use of “stretched metre” ie, made up is funny because he stretched the meter here by epenthesis of the word “stretched” to make 10 beats. The conclusion of the poem is: if only his muse had progeny, then people would believe every word and love the muse and the poetry (and thus the poet). 55

Sonnet 18 Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate: Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer’s lease hath all too short a date: Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimm’d, And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance, or nature’s changing course untrimm’d: But thy eternal summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st, Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade, When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st,

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,

So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

This is about the temporary essense of physical beauty and nature. Line 12 breaks the meter

with “death.” Other than that, the poem is true to form, with a slightly higher average than normal of elision. In summary, the poem is saying that you are calmer and pretty than summer, summer is over too soon, days can be really hot sometimes, and the sun might not be very bright, because of the clouds, or nighttime. Everything fair ends either through randomness or nature -- death. But you won’t fade or lose fairness or die, even as you age into eternity, as long as there are still humans who can read. Because my poetry will live forever, and you shall live through my poetry.

Sonnet 19 Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion’s paws, And make the earth devour her own sweet brood; Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger’s jaws, And burn the long-liv’d phoenix, in her blood; Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleets, And do whate’er thou wilt, swift-footed Time, To the wide world and all her fading sweets; But I forbid thee one most heinous crime: O! carve not with thy hours my love’s fair brow, Nor draw no lines there with thine antique pen; Him in thy course untainted do allow For beauty’s pattern to succeeding men.

Yet, do thy worst old Time: despite thy wrong,

My love shall in my verse ever live young.

Sonnet 19 is about the personification of Time, and its relation to the muse. “Devour” and

“hours” both read odd to me, but I think this is only because of modern pronunciation. “Pluck,” at the beginning of the third line reads with an emphasis to me. “O!” at 9 is the same. Break in the middle of line 13 is pretty pronounced too. The punctuation is soft in this sonnet, there are only two periods. Time destroys all things created by mother earth, and perhaps even magical, mythological things, like the Phoenix. Time “fleets,” ie does what feel like doing on a whim, this implies that Time doesn’t necessarily make conscious decisions. It is also fleeting, “swift-footed” Time travels by too fast. The speaker says, Time do what you will to the entire world, just don’t carve (sculpt) or draw onto my love -- Time here is an artist. I think “succeeding men”, is referring to allowing his love’s beauty to live on in his progeny. The speaker concludes: but, regardless what happens, my love will always live through my verse.

Sonnet 20 A woman’s face with nature’s own hand painted, Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion; A woman’s gentle heart, but not acquainted With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion: An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling, Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth; A man in hue all ‘hues’ in his controlling, Which steals men’s eyes and women’s souls amazeth. And for a woman wert thou first created; Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting, And by addition me of thee defeated, By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.

But since she prick’d thee out for women’s pleasure,

Mine be thy love and thy love’s use their treasure.

Nature here is personified as an artist, who has painted the speaker’s “master mistress” radiantly,

gentle like a woman, but without their shiftiness. His “Gilding” gaze is so pure and bright that everything the muse looks at turns golden. “Hues” in line 7 is in quotes; I think “hues” in this case means all kinds of people, men and women. This is making a metaphor for people and perhaps the sexes as different colors, or as a spectrum of all colors. The speaker says, starting at line 10, that Nature (personified) fell in love with the you and she added you to me, thus defeating me. “By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.” This line has been interpreted to mean by adding a penis. This is a logical because of the following “prick’d” in line 13, however, I think it can also be read as, Nature added you (nothing) to me. The conclusion then, is that the muse is “prick’d” for women, but the speaker will have the muse’s real and complete love, but women can still treasure wanting to fuck the muse. Also, “treasure” could imply a thing sought after, not necessarily gained or had.

Sonnet 97 How like a winter hath my absence been From thee, the pleasure of the fleeting year! What freezings have I felt, what dark days seen! What old December’s bareness every where! And yet this time remov’d was summer’s time, The teeming autumn, big with rich increase, Bearing the wanton burden of the prime, Like widow’d wombs after their lord’s decease: Yet this abundant issue seem’d to me But hope of orphans and unfather’d fruit; For summer and his pleasures wait on thee, And, thou away, the very birds are mute; Or, if they sing, ‘tis with so dull a cheer That leaves look pale, dreading the winter’s near.

The rhyming of “been” and “seen” is a bit of a stretch with modern pronunciation. It is perfect iambic pentameter, the only word that personally lies a bit flat for me is “abundant” in line 9 (I read it the first time as u u u instead of u / u). Interesting to note that the word “I” in the 3rd line is down. Punctuation is unique in this sonnet, there are three exclamation marks for the first three lines! This poem starts out hard, and ends on a soft, dreadful note. He uses tons of elision in this poem: “remov’d” “widow’d” etc. All of the words like “freezings” “bareness” and “mute” create a sense of bleakness and desolation. In general, the sonnet leaves me with the sense of emptiness, coldness, and loneliness. I think the sonnet is capturing the speaker’s loneliness at being away from someone dear to him. The conclusion, that the leaves are literally pale and the birds mute (or singing sad songs), even in the middle of Summer is shockingly powerful! The speaker can’t appreciate any beauty and warmth without the person he loves around. 59

with Text2MindMap.com

Othello With Othello, Shakespeare might be highlighting the fact that humans are unreasonable by nature. Ironically, Othello abandons his reason because of jealousy. He has no real reason to suspect Desdemona of being unfaithful, but his feelings are overpowering. Othello is embodied with a very strong force -- he is a man of action and battle. When he turns this force in on himself, it leads to his destruction. Iago wants to be powerful, and wants to be his master (both literally and figuratively), so he strikes out like a snake. I have a hard time correlating Iago with demonic power though. Shakespeare could have made him extremely destructive and malicious. Instead of this all-powerful-demonic-monster, we are presented with a weak and malicious, sneaky little fellow -- he can barely pull anything off without others doing everything for him. He has to plead with Emilia over and over again to finally get the hanky, for example. He also barely wounds Cassio and runs away (if he were more powerful, he could have slain both him and Roderigo together then and there). Ultimately, I think Othello destroys himself.

Iago’s reason is similarly misguided. It seems like his ploy backfires on him in the end. He is left a

wounded prisoner to be tortured. This is the opposite of what he intended in the beginning, which was to rob under the guise of servitude, and then leave as his own master. Iago is just too caught up in his sense of retribution (for the reasonable suspicion he has of his wife).

This leads me to another observation. Women in the play drive men beyond reason -- Emilia

because she is possibly untrue to Iago (and why shouldn’t she be free to do as she pleases in her self interests, just like her husband?) and even more ironically, Desdemona, for all of her beauty and “cold chastity” drives Roderigo and Othello (and arguably Iago) way past reason. Even her name hints surprisingly at something demonic, and Othello’s death is sealed with her kiss of death -- an ongoing theme in many of Shakespeare’s plays.

I wanted to comment also on Desdemona’s death. I think it is really telling to have her set the

bed with the wedding sheets, her and Othello should consummate the marriage with blood. People back 61

in the day would hang the sheets outside, soiled with the virgin’s hymen, as proof of this. Failure to consummate would be grounds for annulment. Do the two of them share the ultimate consummation? It is no accident that Desdemona is choked to death -- no blood. Then, Othello penetrates himself and seals the union between them with his own blood. In Othello’s soliloquy starting at 5.2.258, he says how the two will be reunited in heaven, where he will be hurled down and snatched mid-air by demons. Will they will remain together eternally in Hell?

Larry replied in response to this idea that perhaps the Devil is primarily the deceiver, tricks man to

eat the apple, versus using direct force. This is indeed similar to Iago…

Style Note: Within this play, as in other Shakespearean plays, there is animal imagery.

Iago says, “Ere I would say I would drown myself for the love of a guinea-hen, I would change my humanity with a baboon” (1.3.312). He is implying that man is nothing but an animal, and should strive first and foremost towards life. (Ironically, Iago is arguably an active driving force towards death in the play). Othello later relates that a ‘horned man’s a monster and a beast” (4.1.59). He later calls himself a dog when he stabs himself through. The play seems to highlight the differences between what is natural, ie, animalistic, and what is human. The barbaric animal references made regarding Othello may also be related to the fact that he is black. Finally, there are references to Iago as a serpent, which may represent the link between him and the serpent or the devil.

Bloom describes Iago as having “terrible greatness” and enjoying a purely sadomasochistic

pleasure through his actions. I think this is a good way to think about him. However, I would note that the end result -- Iago being wounded and imprisoned, could not have been intentional and planned on his part. Although he does seem to accept his fate with a kind of dull silence. The fact that he says no more at the end is pretty telling.

What is significant about Othello choking Desdemona, instead of killing her some other way?

What is driving Iago to act like such a dick?

Othello, Orson Welles, 1952

I watched the Orson Welles version of Othello, 1952, with Micheál Mac Liammóir as Iago.

The film starts with the death procession for Othello, with church members and the cross prominantly displayed. This highlights his christianity in a certain way. I think beginning with this is somewhat anticlimactic, because the audience immediately knows the ending, instead of building up to it. Also, it doesn’t make sense that they would be treating his funeral respectfully, given that he had murdered his wife.

There is a great intro for Iago though, fast, fluttering music and throwing him into the cage. He

looks out upon the dead Othello and Desdemona with his cold, blank stare. I like the film’s portrayal of Iago as extremely evil, replete with hood, cloak, and shadows. He is even hidden in the shadows in the boat as he talks to Brabantio, and he has some uber-villainous facial hair. The actor highlights and emphasizes the “I am not what I am.” -- followed by ringing of a bell, a symbol of death and the passing of time. Ominous music accompanies him everywhere.

The movie skips the intro with just a summation, and presents some of the scenes a bit out of

order I think, however it is done to good effect.

I had an idea while watching this version particularly, that Desdemona’s father may have actually

been pretty reasonable, or even secretly allowed the relationship. This version has the father just reacting in face of negative opinion of Iago and the senate. He is portrayed as weak and feeble, and doesn’t push the issue of their love. In fact, most of his speaking is cut off such as the lines, “Come hither, Moor:/ I here do give thee that with all my heart

Which, but thou hast already, with all my heart/ I would keep from thee…” (1.3). It then

suddenly cuts to him warning Othello not to trust her, as he falls down and needs to be escorted by guards. I like the weak and feeble portrayal, it emphasizes his death later in the play (which doesn’t get mentioned in the film version), but it seems like he dies because he is so torn and worthless feeling after 63

Desdemona leaves him.

Orson Welles as Othello in blackface is notable, made me wonder if the first Shakespearean actor

was also white -- most likely. The portrayal of Othello as deep voiced, strong and maybe even brutish could be taken as cultural racism. However, in this film version, especially early on, Welles’ Othello is very well-composed, even right off the bat and under fire from the senate and desdemona’s father. This is opposite of how I envisioned him, because he doesn’t seem to have much political sense, rather he is blunt and forward. I think he should speak this way too. (Not as badly as Ajax, but…) Instead, he is presented in this movie as the first major speaker, with a long soliloquy. I like how his tone changes from defensive to light when he starts speaking about Desdemona within this soliloquy, but I think it was a bit pretentious to cut so much of the other conversation early on in favor of Othello alone. Another odd thing in this scene is that Desdemona is present and listening in on his speech, versus having to be fetched. I think this was a good choice, because it emphasizes her love and loyalty to Othello.

The storm scene really well done for not having any modern style special effects, lots of distressed

close-ups, wind, and quick shots of waves -- I was actually kind of concerned for some of the actors seeing how close they were to the bigger waves, and all in costumes too. No one speaks except Othello when he arrives at Cyprus, this really puts him in a position of absolute leadership, which is a bit misleading, but again works well.

I laughed aloud when I saw the jackass running by Roderigo neighing -- this is an extension of

the plays metaphors with animals, cleverly done. The Iago/ Roderigo relationship really stood out to me visually with this production. While reading, it is easy to forget about Roderigo, but he is constantly standing there, and the filmmaker had Iago pushing him around and physically invading his space constantly, this helps to place Iago as a provocateur.

They cut Iago’s song to drink which made me sad, because that moment really shows how clever

and multi-faceted Iago is, instead he is just kind of speaking these lines instead of singing. Also, so much of this play happens at night and in the darkness. This movie version has them outside partying with a 64

ton of people at this point, instead of a small, quiet group. I think this detracts from the way that Iago utilizes the darkness and solitude to pull off his trickery and manipulations. For example, a lot of people would have presumably seen him running around in this party scene with Roderigo, and that diminishes his ability to play coy later.

This version really highlighted the jealousy conversation, even cut it into three different locations,

implying that they spoke about it for a longer time, and thus, Iago affected Othello more. Certain lines stand out in this version to me, because of the inflection of the voice, setting, etc; such as, “I am bound to thee forever.” When Othello speaks of jealousy, his reflection is on-screen in a round mirror next to Iago -- he is hurting himself, but influenced and led through Iago’s meddling.

Othello then notices the empty, messy bed with Desdemona. He shows intense anger early on

and will not speaking with her, silence pervades. This shows his shift in mindset as a little more radical and immediate, whereas I like to think that it was a slow, pervasive kind of madness. However, it is very dramatic and suspenseful to see them going back and forth. The actress who played Desdemona does a good job of holding this dramatic irony, because every time she mentions Cassio there is a sort of loving inflection in her voice -- the audience knows that Othello doesn’t like this, and it even shows close-ups of Welle’s face, but we can see how she is ignorant to why he is upset until the very end.

The scene where Othello is listening in on the conversation between Cassio and Iago is well done.

He is inside of a echoey castle with them outside. I like this because it accounts for the way in which Othello misses the first statement about Bianca.

Othello watching the seagulls going mad, transitions into a hood and robe like Iago used to be in

after he says “he will chop her into messes”. This scene is a bit odd, but emphasizes his present madness. My least favorite part of the movie is the bathhouse setting, It is kind of confusing, death of Roderigo isn’t very clear, happens away from Cassio -- very villainous Iago in this scene though, because he murders an unarmed, naked Roderigo. It isn’t as clear what happens here because of the setting.

The line where Emilia says, “The ills we do, their ills instruct us so.” stood out to me as 65

exceptionally ironic, because she stole the handkerchief for Iago. Desdemona murder scene is super creepy, dark and well done. Love how he puts the candles out one by one with his hands. Kisses her while suffocating her at the same time which is intense. I think this is the most powerful scene in the movie. Very good.

The “Here is my weapon…” speech -- I have seen multiple versions and they always do it the

same, very somber and quiet, shaky, twirling confusion. I think it could be meant to be a very strong, powerful moment, maybe even yelling. Because Othello doesn’t break down and kill himself in sadness, but rather, in a frantic moment of vengeance. Where he “took by the throat the circumcised dog,/ And smote him, thus.” I might act out this in class the way I envisioned it. I like how Othello at the very end is completely surrounded in darkness in this version though. They also witness his death by looking down on him from above, and then close the hatch, leaving him to lie in bed alone with Desdemona in darkness below. I think this is pretty powerful, although it strays from the text at least in that Emilia isn’t there, very symbolic though. I kind of picture the bed as a bloody mess after all is said and done.

All in all, I was very pleased by this version of the play. I actually liked it better than I thought,

because I enjoyed reading the play so much and I was skeptical that it could be produced better than in my imagination. A couple things that really stood out to me is how much this play relies on the acting force of just a couple of people, it really comes down to Othello and Iago, and there are tons of one-onone moments that are very striking. I think this alone makes this great as a play, because with the right pair of actors, it could be extremely well performed. Orson Welles and Micheál Mac Liammóir are two such actors, who really nailed their roles. Iago is especially dark, villainous and creepy in this version, while Welles presents a powerful force that falls into darkness and despair.

Abandon All Hope Shakespeare, the genius dramatist, embraces the past while creating a brave new future for mankind. The influence of his works is unquestionable, perhaps even timeless and immortal, as he hoped for within his Sonnets. What is it that makes his work so powerful? There are as countless many reasons as there are stars in the night sky. However, one element within his Tragedies makes them specifically moving and frightening: hopelessness. The word “hope” is used in King Lear only four times, and three of them are lies. However, there are moments of hope, represented by severe tension throughout the play until the very end. First, when Lear hopes his daughters will obey. Later, Edgar hopes to prove his innocence. By the end of the play, the only hope left belongs with the audience -- wishing for the salvation of the innocent Cordelia. This shift of hope, from characters within the play, to the audience without is the most important aspect that Shakespeare wields. Aristotle, in his Poetics, lays out guidelines and definitions for creating the most perfect Tragedies. In it, he defines peripeteia and reversal as essential. He bases much of his argument from the viewpoint of the creator: the closer the artist or poet is to creating a noble hero who falls to a dire turn in fate, the better the Tragedy. He only really expands this idea to include the interpretation of the audience with his idea of catharsis. “Objects which in themselves we view with pain, we delight to contemplate when reproduced with minute fidelity: such as the forms of the most ignoble animals and of dead bodies” (IV.3). We like to see and contemplate on the reduction of the human form to death and hopelessness. I think Shakespeare takes this idea a step further by not only creating the basic tragic elements of a fall and recognition, but he steps the emotions beyond, off of the stage and out into the audience, and he pulls his audience into his plays as much more than passive viewers. After lear enters howling, holding the dead Cordelia, while watching Lear crumble and reject life itself, the viewer’s hopes are dashed into utter despair. Lear’s dying breath envelopes the audience:

...No, no, no life! Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life, And thou no breath at all? Thou’lt come no more, Never, never, never, never, never! (5.3.306) This extension of emotion, in the form of hopelessness and despair transferred off-stage to the audience -- to us, defines other Shakespearean Tragedies as well. For example, the same moment of transferal happens near the end of Othello. Desdemona is sleeping when Othello leans in to give her a final kiss goodnight, since she can’t hear him whilst dreaming, we can safely assume he is talking to us when he says, “When I have pluck’d the rose,/ I cannot give it vital growth again./ It must needs wither: I’ll smell it on the tree” (5.2.13). We gasp, hoping that she will awaken and convince him of her truth and loyalty in love. She awakes! Yet he trembles and bites his lip, and hope is dissolved into nothing as we realize Othello is enraged beyond reason. As his strong black hands wrap around her throat, we abandon all hope of salvation. Why would Shakespeare hurt us so? What is the purpose? There is not necessarily a purgation and release from this experience. Instead, Shakespeare invites us into the botchy core of his world to weep and whimper. In fact, this is a far cry from the kind of Tragedy as Aristotle understood it. Yes, there is a fairly-clearly defined moment of peripeteia and reversal in Othello. When he spies on and mishears Cassio speaking to Iago, Othello descends into madness, and is resolved to kill Desdemona. Othello, because of this moment and the clearly defined heroicness preceding this tragic fall, may be the most Aristotelian play of Shakespeare’s. However, the most spectacular moment of the play, the result of Othello’s hamartia, is when he actually acts on his intention and chokes Desdemona to death. Shakespeare, in pushing the action of his Tragedies to the extremes, and highlighting moments of complete and utter anguish -- moments without recompense, without even justification, breaks Aristotle’s boundaries. For a change, we could delete the scene where Othello overhears Cassio and replace it with one where Cassio learns that the handkerchief is Desdemona’s. Then, let a jealous and suspicious Othello walk in on Cassio speaking with Desdemona, her handkerchief in hand as he hands it back to its rightful 68

owner, Othello could reasonably misinterpret the action and fly into a bloodlust-fueled rage -- murdering them both. This would bring the play closer to Aristotle’s terms. However, Shakespeare drags the moment out, creating a tension that wrings around the audience in the form of hope. Shakespeare knows something about Fear that Aristotle fails to comprehend. In Troilus and Cressida, Troilus says that, “Fears make devils of cherubims; they never see truly” (3.2). Fear is blinding. We the audience, in appreciating and viewing our deepest and darkest Fears, acted into life before our very eyes, embrace the darkness. We forget for a moment that we are in the midst of a Tragedy where ‘everyone dies,’ and suspend ourselves in disbelief in the form of hope. Hope that there might be some redemption in the world; noble and Godly justice. Hope in nature, or in human kindness. Hope that good will reign and evil will perish. Hope in something. Shakespeare shows us that the truth is... nothing. Perhaps his views are summed up most powerfully in

Sonnet 71

No longer mourn for me when I am dead Then you shall hear the surly sullen bell Give warning to the world that I am fled From this vile world, with vilest worms to dwell: Nay, if you read this line, remember not The hand that writ it; for I love you so That I in your sweet thoughts would be forgot If thinking on me then should make you woe. O, if, I say, you look upon this verse When I perhaps compounded am with clay, Do not so much as my poor name rehearse. But let your love even with my life decay, Lest the wise world should look into your moan And mock you with me after I am gone. I like to read this out of context of the “Sonnet’s Story” of the young man and dark lady. Instead, it is comforting in the darkest way to hear Shakespeare speak these lines to me directly. He tells me the world is vile and full of worms, and asks me not to think of Him, the man behind the curtains, especially 69

if the thought should bring me woe. This is especially ironic, given the Tragedy that Shakespeare has wrought within my mind. However, the thought of his dead, long-decayed person is perhaps his greatest Tragedy of all. Shakespeare realises that he, the master of puppets, has been reduced to nothing. There is no hope.