New Paltz Shakespeare

2012-02-09T14:52:00.003-05:00

Posted for Malissa Arjoon-Jerry

In the scene between Portia andShylock, we see that Shylock denies Antonio of any medical help in case hebleeds to death. He says it is not in the bond so he is not providing help. Wesee Shylock’s revenge because he wants Antonio to suffer as much as Shylock hassuffered and will continue to suffer as we continue to read. Shylock later onpays for it when Portia tells him he is only allowed a pound of flesh and itdoesn’t allowed for any blood being spilled. If blood is spilled then he wouldbe conspiring against the life of a Venetian citizen and all his lands andgoods would be confiscated by the government. Time after time we see Shylockbeing brought down.

Many will consider him avillain, but is he a true villain? I don’t consider Shylock a villain becausehe didn’t do anything wrong. He is a person just like you and me, but becauseof his religion he is singled out and can’t live a normal life. Shylock hasrevealed before that, “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat, dog, and spit uponmy Jewish gabardine” (1.3 107-108), all because Shylock is Jewish. The onlywrong Shylock could have possibly done was asking for a pound of flesh fromAntonio. Shylock continues to put down when the Duke says whatever Antoniosays, he will agree with it. Antonio says that he can keep half of his propertybut when he dies he has to give it to his daughter Jessica and her husband,Lorenzo, while the other half of his property goes to the government. Antonioalso tells Shylock that he has to immediately convert to Christianity. If anyof us were in Shylock’s shoes and people were treating us the way Antoniotreated Shylock, we would want revenge on that person.

I believe the true villains in this play areAntonio and his friends. He took away anything that defined Shylock the man heis. Shylocks house, money, and religion are all taken away from him because ofAntonio. Antonio and the rest of his men are supposed to be Christians, butthey are not acting Christian like. I understand that Shylock wasn’t beingmerciful when he said he wouldn’t provide medical attention for Antonio.However, Antonio is using this time to get back revenge on Shylock and isn’tbeing merciful either and stripped Shylock from anything he owned. Now Shylockhas nothing to his name, while Antonio can continue with his business and getsto keep everything of his, meaning his pound of flesh.

In the end, Portia asks Shylockif he is content with the outcome and Shylock responds “I am content” (4.1,389). However, that is the only answer he can give because if says anythingagainst being content he could be killed. Also, he has nothing left to his nameand he has no other choice but to say that he is content. He is also justtelling the Antonio and his friends exactly what they want to hear because theyaren’t satisfied until they have beaten Shylock down to nothing. So afterreading this scene, I believe the true villains in this play are Antonio andhis friends because they enjoy seeing Shylock suffer.

The Taming of the Jew

2012-02-08T16:33:00.002-05:00

Though the audience is supposed to view Shylock as the villain through out the play, i believe that an argument could be made that he is more of a victim then any of the other characters. It is his heritage that makes him an outcast from the beginning of the play, this is what makes his beliefs different and his clothing seem odd. I feel that by forcing him to convert to Christianity at the end of the play they are not only defeating him, but completely removing all characteristics that make him an individual.

Shylock's motivation throughout the play is to get revenge on Antonio who mocks him publicly for his business and his heritage. I for one believe that this is enough reasoning to seek revenge, especially since Antonio shows no regret for his acts and goes so far as to say that he would do it again. Shylock is pushed to his breaking point when his daughter, his own flesh and blood, runs away from him and takes everything he owns that is worth something. Then to add insult to injury the whole town mocks his misfortune, and many even helped his daughter escape. This on top of all the abuse Shylock has suffered is enough to drive any man down a dark path.

After everything that Shylock has been through he finally gets the chance to get revenge upon a man that stands for everything that has gone wrong in his life, but he lets his anger screw him over in the end. Shylock refuses to show sympathy to Antonio, who has done nothing to earn this other then being a popular man within the town and the court. He says, "I cannot find it. 'Tis not in the bond" (line257 act. 4 scene 1). His poor choice of words gives Portia the ability to find the loophole where blood is not mentioned in the bond either, so if he draws any amount of Christian blood then his lands and goods are forfeit to the state. Since he refused the money in open court to seek his revenge instead, this means that he can no longer take the money that was owed to him. On top of this he must render half of his money to Antonio and the other half he can keep as long as he leaves everything to his traitor daughter Jessica and her husband Lorenzo. Shylock must also convert to Christianity, so he basically loses everything the case, half his money, and his heritage.

After the court has taken everything from Shylock they go ever farther by rubbing his defeat in his face by saying, "Art thou content, Jew? (act. 4 scene 1 line 388). What can a man say who has lost everything that has made him an individual and forced to accept a daughter who turned her back on him and took everything she could with her. Shylock's line, "I am content," (act.4 scene.1 line 389) is the only reasonable response. He can no longer fight back against the Christan majority which abused and mocked him for his ways, so he must accept defeat.

In the end the think the Christians go too far in humbling Shylock. They take away his manhood and everything that makes him an individual. I understand that they could not let him enact his revenge which would have killed Antonio, but at least let him keep his heritage.

Conforming to Shakespeare's Venice

2012-02-07T20:57:00.000-05:00

Shakespeare’sVenice is a place that is seemingly chaotic, but in truth, bound by strictsocietal rules. Although Venice is a point of commerce where people ofdifferent cultures co-exist, it is clear that the dominant people in power arethe Christians. It is ironic that conformity and identity is so important insuch a diverse city. We assume thatJessica feels shame for being Shylock’s daughter because he is a Jew, andmarriage to a Christian is the only way for her to become socially acceptable.There seems to be a considerable amount of tension between her and Lorenzo,however, so it isn’t certain that they will have a happy marriage. In scene 3.5 , Lancelot and Jessica have aconversation wherein Lancelot says that “the sins of the father are to be laidupon the children” and then tells Jessica “Marry, you may partly hope that yourfather got you not, that you are not the Jew’s daughter.” Jessica,understandably, is offended, and replies “That were a kind of bastard hopeindeed. So the sins of my mother should be visited upon me.” Jessica cannot help the circumstances of herbirth. She then reaffirms that she will be ‘saved’ by her husband. Inconventional terms, this means Christian salvation in the afterlife, butJessica can also mean that she will be ‘saved’ the discrimination that herfather suffers. Lorenzo tells Lancelot “I shall answer that better to thecommonwealth than you can the getting up of the Negro’s belly.” Here, thehierarchy is spelled out: Jews are considered to be subhuman, but Africans are onan even lower scale. Both men seem to consider their respective mates as lessthan worthy of them.

Portia is subjectto strict limitations, as well. She must abide by her father’s will byparticipating in the lottery that he has set up to determine her husband. Herportrait, which symbolizes herself and her future, has been locked into a leadcasket chosen by her father. This is symbolic her circumstances imprisoningher. It is interesting that the casket her portrait is enclosed in is lead, aheavy metal that is often used to describe reluctance, as in “lead feet”, or todescribe a feeling of dread “a leaden feeling.” Also, while a casket is anobject that holds money, it is also a word used to describe a container forholding corpses. Shakespeare was most likely aware of these connotations.

Portia does notfight against these limitations. She participates by setting her own. She tellsBassanio that if he takes the ring off of his finger, she will know that it meansthat he does not love her anymore. Portia puts her emotional and spiritualfaith into the object, and not the person. It is almost as if she cannot tellthe difference between material and spiritual, by putting so much of heremotional well being into the caskets and the ring.

Christian oppression: Shakespearean and Contemporary

2012-02-07T16:24:00.001-05:00

What I found most interesting inAct 4 was the portrayal of the importance of the law. Repeatedly Shakespeareseems to emphasize the importance of equality in the eyes of the law. Theimportance of maintaining the bond, despite its stipulations being extreme, areeven realized and accepted by the person it will impact the most: Antonio. This is indicated in the following quote, “theDuke cannot deny the course of the law,/For the commodity that strangershave/With us in Venice, if it be denied,/Will much impeach the justice of thestate.” (3.3.26-29). Antonio is commenting on the importance of equality in theeyes of the law. What he is saying is that if the Duke was to break this onebond, the upheaval that it could cause to the economic system of Venice couldbe catastrophic. The undertones of democracy and free enterprise in hisstatement are undeniable.

Shylock and Portia also bothacknowledge these same points: that the bond must be upheld, and the law is tobe held in utmost regard. Portia even states: “It must not be. There is nopower in Venice/Can alter a decree established.” (4.1213-215). The importanceof maintaining this bond may be the only thing that all of these charactersseem to agree on. What is ironic about this situation is that the law that issupposed to be obeyed with reverence is the same law that Portia and the Dukeuse to bury Shylock in court later in the play. It is important to realize thatalthough Shylock made a bond that some may view as unreasonable; it was stillthe bond that was agreed upon. It was entirely within the rights of Shylock todo so; he had committed no real crime in the eyes of the law. However, byexploiting a small loophole in the system Portia is able to take everythingfrom Shylock.

What Shakespeare is doing isdepicting the irony of the legal system. On one hand, the he is saying that thelegal system must be upheld and respected, while on the other hand he is sayingthat this system is unbelievably flawed. He is making a point to demonstratehow the majority of people who know the law, are able to exploit it at theexpense of others. Another point he is making, is that the legal system oftenhurts those that it is meant to protect: the minority. Also, throughout theplay there is certainly an emphasis on how the minority is treated by themajority. Shylock is dehumanized throughout the play and by the end of the playShylock is left without any of his identity left intact as a direct result ofhis Christian oppressors.

These concepts Shakespeareaddresses remind me of the more contemporary issues of the treatment of Muslimsin post 911 America. As Americans, there is very little distinction to the generalpublic between the radical beliefs of the Taliban in comparison with the peacefulviews of the average Muslim. This intense hatred towards all Muslims has calmeddown in the past few years, but initially even your local gas station attendantwho had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, was villianized. Often manyMuslims were harassed or judged by the Christian majority without ever even acknowledgingthat they were just living, breathing, human beings. This judgment is exactlywhat Shylock experiences in the play.

Playground Power Struggles

2012-02-07T12:53:00.000-05:00

Act4 opens with a trial scene in which the audience is led to believe that Shylokwill be claiming his side of the bargain- a pound of Antonio’s flesh. Theentire affair seems bound by the contract, with Shylock smugly over-satisfiedby his power over Antonio. The court hopes that Shylock will show mercy andremorse, but Shylock is filled only with a desire for revenge and a vengefulmalice toward Antonio. Even when offered twice the balance of Antonio’s debt,Shylock prefers rather to claim Antonio’s flesh, and exercise his power overhim. Shylock has the law on his side, and argues that the slave-owning Christianswould refuse to let their slaves free. His argument seems logical, but free ofmercy or humanity. He says, “I answer you: The pound of flesh which I demand ofhim is dearly bought as mine, and I will have it.” (IV.i.99-100) Portia enters,dressed as a young lawyer’s secretary, and finds in Antonio’s favor; claimingthat Shylock’s contract does not allow him to claim blood, only flesh. Shestates that if he cannot claim Antonio’s flesh without drawing blood, he mustnot only forfeit the bargain, but must also will his estate to his daughter andLorenzo.

Granted, Shylock is the villain in this play, but hispunishment seems a little harsh. Not only has he lost the money he loanedBassanio, his servant, his daughter, his ring, his estate (bequeathed to theman who stole his daughter), but he must also give up his profession and hisreligion. Throughout the play, Shylock is viewed negatively and clearly hatesAntonio, but that hatred seems justified. Shylock has been spit on, persecuted,and harassed by Antonio. Antonio and Bassanio are the mean kids on theplayground that pick on the littler, weaker kids like Shylock. He finally has achance to assert power over Antonio, however merciless and vengeful, andAntonio’s friends scheme to take it away from him.

Anothercharacter to consider in this scene is Portia. Because of her gender, she iscontinually stripped of power and choice, and instead at the will of her deadfather or potential future-husbands. However, stripped of these major powers,she asserts herself in other ways. Portia is continually surprising the audience,and the other characters, with her cleverness and ingenuity. If Antonio andBassanio are the mean kids on the playground, she’s the smart one that warnsthem when the teacher is coming and lies to keep them out of detention. Evenafter she saves Antonio’s life, she tricks Bassanio (who hasn’t recognized hiscross-dressing wife) into giving away the ring he swore to treasure. “An ifyour wife be not a madwoman and know how well I have deserved the ring, shewould not hold out enemy forever, for giving it to me.” (IV.i.445-448) Later,in Scene II, Portia schemes with Nerissa, eagerly looking forward to embarrassingBassanio and Gratiano about giving away their rings. Portia overcomes her lackof power by manipulating situations in her favor.

BothShylock and Portia attempt to manipulate situations to assert power overAntonio and Bassanio. While Shylock is driven by revenge, Portia is merelycompensating for the lack of power her gender is allowed. Regardless, theoutcome seems mostly to depend on who your friends are.

"The law hath yet another hold on you"

2012-02-07T11:34:00.003-05:00

In Act IV scene I, Portia not only releases Antonio from his bond but forces Shylock to give up his case entirely. Portia explains that because the bond did not specify Antonio owing an ounce of his blood, if blood is spilled by Shylock's hand, he will be guilty of conspiring against the life of a Venetian citizen. She goes further by saying that because Shylock is not legally a citizen, he faces a penalty for threatening the life of a Venetian citizen. Half of his estate must go to Antonio and half must go to the state. The state grants him mercy by not demanding him to pay them half of his estate, only a fine. Antonio then offers to return his half on the condition that Shylock convert to Christianity and give his daughter and her husband all he possesses upon his death.

I have consistently felt bad for Shylock throughout the play. He is made out to be the villain and yet he is humiliated and cut down at every turn by the supposed "heroes" of the play. This is a man who is not even considered a citizen because of his religion. A man who has been kicked spit upon and publicly humiliated by the Christians of the community. His daughter has run off with one of his tormentors, renounced her father's religion and stolen from her father. All Shylock has in the world is his money. It gives him the power to hold Antonio and people like him as he does. People come to him to borrow money and in that way he has some kind of control, some kind of power in a world where he otherwise is and has nothing. Of course he wants justice, of course he wants to exact his revenge on Antonio when given the chance. Shylock is angry. He's desperate. He wants to show people that he can not be pushed around forever and treated like a dog forever. He wants to prove that at some point, one of them will slip up and he will be able to avenge himself and he'll do it perfectly within the bounds of the law. This moment, where he takes revenge on Antonio was to be, probably the one time in his life where he saw any justice.

Even this moment was taken from him. He was not even allowed one moment of satisfaction. He was teased with the idea that he might possibly kill one of his Christian abusers and then it was swiftly taken away from him. They proved that he will not ever be in control. At any moment they might take all that he holds dear in the world and no one will ever side with him.

Although he does not lose his entire estate, he is stripped of his religion, his identity. And he must give his fortune, upon his death, to his daughter who betrayed him. Why kind of justice is that for a man? He has no say in his fate. He has no say in the goings on in his life. He thought that his money wielded some kind of power for him and in one moment, when he tried to truly exercise that power it was ripped from him and he was shown just how weak he really is. "I pray you give me leave to go from hence. I am not well," he says in line 391 of the first scene of Act IV. He returns to his home, shamed and defeated while his enemies rejoice at having shut him down once again.

Shylock is not the villain in this play. Shylock is the poor, downtrodden nothing that gets no justice and no redemption. He is doomed to endure the beatings and the public shaming and now, after his case with Antonio is closed, he is forced to endure all of this knowing that there is truly nothing he will ever be able to do about any of it.

Shylock and Bassanio

2012-02-07T05:01:00.001-05:00

Whatstood out to me most in Act IV of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, otherthan all of the incredibly confusing discussion between the characters aboutthe different deals being upheld and broken, was many of the passages in sceneone, around lines sixty to seventy on page 1160. After Shylock’s long speech,we hear Bassanio determine that his response “is no answer” (4.1.62) to whichShylock replies “I am not bound to please thee with my answers” (4.1.64). Thisinterchange to begin with was really interesting because despite how Shylockalready seemed, he just keeps getting worse and worse as it goes on. His speechfrom lines thirty-four to sixty-one completely circles around how he simplyrefuses to give an answer, and it seems like he’s just trying to waste time andfrustrate Bassanio enough so that he will just agree to anything as long as hecan be away from Shylock.

Whileall of this was intriguing, the quote that really caught my eye in this portionwas what came next, when Bassanio asks “Do all men kill the things they do notlove?” and Shylock responds, “Hates any man the thing he would not kill?” andthen finally Bassanio says, “Every offense is not a hate at first” (4.1.65-67).It just seems so much like this interchange shows so vividly what types ofpeople these two are. While I am not the biggest Bassanio fan either, it justshows how much more human he seems to be than Shylock. He is so incredulousthat this man just wants to take the life out of anything and everything thatever could possibly irritate him, as most people probably would be, and Shylockfeels like this is such normal behavior that it is chilling. Plus, to make itall even more of a moment, Bassanio is trying to make Shylock understand throughsimple terms what he is getting at and Shylock not only contradicts him butuses his own words to do so, which just really makes him seem awful. Finally,Bassanio’s final sentence almost seems like it could have been the end of theargument, with Shylock coming out on top, had it not been delivered powerfully,but the two do continue discussion in the story. Again, Bassanio just seems sooverwhelmed by Shylock’s mere personality; it is as though just for a momentBassanio and the reader have the same emotions.

Therest of Act IV had many other good moments and plenty of sections which Isimply could not wrap my head around, but this page in particular really stoodout to me just because of that last interchange between the two men. I reallyloved the first line Bassanio said which I mentioned about all men killing the “thingsthey do not love,” which was what made me stop and really analyze the passage,and I just felt like what I found offered such a glaring view of Shylock’s truecharacter. The fact that he does notimmediately realize that not everything warrants death, that he needs to betold this is just so indicative of so many things about him.

Ethical Dilemma

2012-02-07T00:05:00.001-05:00

While reading Act IV I found myself in the middle of an ethical quandary regarding the events surrounding Shylock's collection of his bond

In Act IV, Shylock is waiting for the go-ahead from the Duke to collect his bond of a pound of flesh from Antonio while many others stand audience pleading with Shylock to have mercy and instead accept monetary compensation.

Here is where things get blurred into a moral grey area and I am forced to question who is right and who is wrong here. In the beginning, the Duke suggests that Shylock take some small bit of on mercy on Antonio and reduce his debt. Shylock refuses, stating that if he were to change the terms of their agreement now, it would undermine the value of a written bond and the city's legal system as a whole. Antonio sees no point in reasoning with Shylock calling him hard-hearted. Shylock turns down Bassanio's offer of six thousand ducats and answers the Duke's question of how Shylock expects to receive any mercy when he himself shows none by asking, "What judgement shall I dread, doing no wrong?" (4.1.88) Shylock makes a valid point here: He is acting within the boundaries of the law in collecting on a contract whose terms both parties have agreed on. Sure, that's all fine, but one must consider the debt to be collected: human flesh. This makes things a little confusing. Is Shylock being reasonable here or does he develop a crazy blood-lust in refusing an arguably more reasonable and beneficial settlement? Which is worse, breeching the terms of a binding contract or killing someone even if they did agree to those terms? I am not really sure where I fall in this debate. Certainly Shylock's original instance upon a pound of flesh as payment is questionable behavior, I would call it insane and murderous. But then what does that make Antonio to agree to such terms? Confident, sure, but definitely around the same level of crazy/ suicidal.

I think that for Shylock, this is more personal than anything. It's about getting revenge on someone who has tormented him and made his life more difficult. That is understandable, but I think that Shylock kind of goes a little off the deep end here.

Now as the Act goes on, more developments occur in this case. Portia arrives disguised as a judge and brings a lot of legal savvy to the situation. Portia points out that the threatening of another's life is to be paid with one's own life. After this is confirmed, Antonio comes in and suggests some terms for settlement: that Skylock promises half of his goods to Lorenzo and, most upsettingly, that he convert to Christianity. This was an absolute shock to me. I can understand the surrender of his goods and money, but to change his religion is an extremely low-blow. After this happens, Shylock is clearly destroyed, his debt was lost and his life as he has known it is over, effectively killing who is.

This is a tough call as to who is right and who is wrong here. Shylock is attempting to collect his debt for Antonio's flesh, is interrupted, and in the end has to relinquish half of his goods and change his religion. Shylock may be wrong for wanting flesh and having a blood-lust but everyone else may be wrong for destroying his contract and making him change his religion. Personally, I think Shylock went too far in his original terms but also that Antonio was cruel towards him for no reason. If Antonio weren't so bigoted this whole thing might have been avoided.

Justifying Skylock's Character

2012-02-06T17:11:00.001-05:00

Something that stood out to me throughout The Merchant ofVenice is how Shylock’s character is portrayed and how Shylock defends himselfmaking his character more justifiable. As we all know when we first areintroduced to Shylock he is portrayed through Antonio’s eyes as a mean moneyhungry character. Shylock justifies this with many reasons. He is resentfultowards Antonio because of the way he lends out money with no interest makingit hard for Shylock to make deals with people using his interest rates. AlsoAntonio acts harsh towards Shylock because of their difference in religion.Another part in the play where Shylock defends his character is Act 3, Scene 1.Salerio asks Shylock his reason for taking Antonio’s flesh if he doesn’t meethis bond. Shylock responds that it will if it does nothing else get his revenge on Antonio. This scene stuckout the most to me while I was reading and Shylock does a good job justifyingthe way he is with Antonio, “He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half amillion; laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwartedmy bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s his reason?—I ama Jew” (3.1.46-49). Shylock then proceeds to go on explaining how him andAntonio are really more similar rather than different and if a Jew does wrongto a Christian the Jew is punished but if reversed the Jew should forgive theChristian. “The villainy you teach me I will execute and it shall go hard”(3.1.60-61) Shylocks reasoning for his harshness towards Antonio is fueled bythe harshness Shylock receives from Antonio. This scene made me a little moresensitive to Shylock’s character because he is basically giving back what hegets. Which makes Shylocks character in Act 4 more justifiable when he is incourt with everyone because Antonio did not pay his bond. Shylock is stickingto his principles that he will not let Antonio just borrow money and not pay itback and get away with it. After all the scorn Shylock has received fromAntonio he is ready to get his revenge for all the awful things he has had doneto him. Antonio was so cocky that he would repay Shylock on time and braggingthat it would be paid back earlier that he now must stick to the bond andShylock must take his flesh. After reading the play I am now a little moresensitive to Shylock’s character because the harsh characteristics are broughtout because of the way he is treated by Antonio.

Logic in the Coffins

2012-02-06T13:24:00.003-05:00

      One of the most crucial aspects of The Merchant of Venice is the the three coffins that Portia's suitors must choose from in order to win her hand,one is gold, another is silver and the last one is lead. Each coffin comes with a small inscription that hints whether it is the right coffin or not. if the suitor chooses the wrong one than they are forbidden from marrying anyone for the rest of their lives. What is the most vital parts to this play is the logic that each suitor employs to choose the coffin they think is the right one. Finally there is how the function that this logic correlates with the overall themes of the play itself.
   Each one of Portia's suitors are given the chance to win her hand in marriage by looking at the quality of each coffin and inscription and determining which one will allow them to marry Portia, and subsequently gain all her wealth. The prince of Morocco is the first suitor to be shown choosing a coffin in an attempt to marry Portia. After some deliberation he chooses the gold coffin. This decision to choose the gold is based on the fact that he views gold as the most valuable object out of the three options. It is clear that money and gold pervade his thoughts and motivates a majority of his actions seen in, "A golden mind stoops not to shows of dross./ I'll then nor give nor hazard aught for lead." (2.7.20-21). Even though he is contemplating choosing the lead here, his mind is drawn even then to the idea of gold and its apparent greater value. Then there is when he dismisses the silver coffin, "Or shall I think in silver she's immured,/ Being ten times undervalued to tried to gold?" (2.7.52-53). It is clear from these passages that the prince of Morocco's failure to see beyond the outer worth of gold and the belief that gold is the most valuable thing in the world, he chooses the wrong coffin. Morocco's failure to see beyond the worth of gold is pointed out by the message inside the coffin itself, "'all that glisters is not gold . . . Gilded tombs do worms infold." (2.7.65-69). It is clear from the scroll inside the gold coffin that it is a moral about learning not to judge the value of something based solely on its outer appearance and that since he failed not to do so then the prince of Morocco failed. Then there is the Prince of Aragon who when given his turn chooses the silver coffin. Unlike Morocco, Aragon is not taken in by the gold coffin's inscription, "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire." (2.9.20), believing that this means that choosing gold means "the fool multitude, that choose by show,/ Not learning more than the fond eye can teach." (2.9.25-26). It is clear from this statement that Aragon, unlike his predecessor is able to see beyond gaudy apperances and judge more accurately the value of something. That being said he does fall prey to arrogance and pride, referring to those lower than him as "the fool multitude" and "I will not jump with common spirits/ and rank me with the barbarous multitudes." (2.9.31-32). Like the prince of Morocco the prince of Aragon is unable to look and judge things beyond what he thinks of as the true value of things that he views, something that he is mocked for by the contents of the coffin which present a picture of a fool to describe him. Finally there is Bassanio who chooses the lead coffin and not the other coffins because, "thou gaudy gold,/ Hard food for Midas, I will none of thee./ Nor none of thee, thou pale and common druge." (3.2.101-104). It is clear that Bassanio is able to accurately see the true value of the coffins presented before him and choose the right one, thus winning Portia's hand. It is interesting to note that instead of speaking about the value of the lead coffin as Morocco and Aragon does with the gold and the silver, Bassanio instead comments on the lack of value that the coffins have in true value, something that Baasanio is congratulated for inside the coffin, "you that choose not by view/ chance as fair and choose as true." (3.2.131-132). Because he was able to look at the true value of the coffins he was able to win the lottery.
   In The Merchant of Venice, the role that the coffins play is to determine which suitor is worthy of Portia. Each coffin is designed to show the true character of the suitors and thus the level of their worthiness for marrying Portia. The suitor choosing the gold and silver coffins show themselves to fools incapable of measuring the true worth of something and are concerned with appearances. Bassanio, who chose the lead, showed that unlike the others he was capable of looking beyond the surface of something and ascertain its true value. Thus the coffins help tho determine the best possible husband for Portia.

Religious Values or Religious Biases?

2012-02-06T12:44:00.000-05:00

In the remainder of the Acts of The Merchant of Venice, we are repeatedly reminded of Shylock’s inhumanity and his unwavering passion to carry out his deal. The Duke implores Shylock that perhaps he only means to carry out this bond till the last minute until mercy and pity overpower him. Bassiano also attempts to elicit some form of mercy from Shylock by stating, “Do all men kill the things they do not love?” (275) and offer him triple the wealth of the debt. What the Duke and Bassiano do not do is try to convince Shylock by humbling themselves in front of him. They resort to attacks on Shylock’s humanity and likening his behavior to animals. Perhaps things would not have gone so far if they had admitted their past mistakes (as didn’t Antonio spit of Shylock publically) and asked for forgiveness. Their sense of superiority over Shylock because they were Christian and he was a Jew prevented them from considering the idea of humbleness.

What comes to mind is the proper way of asking for mercy in Christianity and Judaism which is to humble one self, to repent, and then to ask for forgiveness and certainly not to demand mercy when one is at fault themselves. Rather, the Duke even goes further in his efforts to make Shylock feel horrible by asking him, “How shalt thou hope for mercy, rend’ring none?” (pp. 275) which brings about confusion because what is the Duke implying? Does the Duke intend to convert Shylock into Christianity or does the Duke accept Shylock as a Jew and his methods go from attacking Shylock to reminding him of his Jewish values? In general, what Shylock is doing is not at all that horrible as he neither compels nor threatens Antonio to agree to the bond in the first place. Rather, the one at fault is Antonio who agrees to the bond even after knowing that if he is unable to pay, a pound of flesh will be Shylock’s right. All this was placed in a contract, and by law, Shylock should not have to forfeit his right just because Antonio was foolish enough to agree to the “inhumane” bond. Yet, typical of the Christians in The Merchant of Venice, they would never dream of admitting the wrong they committed or got themselves into.

Furthermore, Shylock points out to the Duke the hypocrisy at play. He reminds the Duke that what he is doing is exactly what they already do, like how they purchase slaves and misuse them like animals just because they bought them. He states, “Shall I say to you, / ‘Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs! / Why sweat they under burthens? Let their beds / Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates / Be season’d with such viands?” and likens their treatement of the slave to his right over the pound of flesh which, unlike their slaves, Antonio agreed to willingly. This contradicting methodology which Antonio and his companions follow reveals that Shylock’s unduly intentions go hand in hand with their own, so why the biasness and hatred?

You Want To Do What?!?!

2012-02-06T10:19:00.000-05:00

In act four scene one of "The Merchant of Venice" we see around lines 112, (depending on your books) when Shylock is arguing with everyone over the bond, that Bassanio pleads to Antonio

"Good cheer, Antonio! What, man, courage yet! The Jew shall have my flesh, blood, bones and all, Ere thou shalt lose for me one drop of blood."

These lines immediately stood out the most over any other lines in the act because they just boggled my mind. Why in the world would would Bassanio offer to give Shylock his own flesh, bones, blood, and all over Antonio's when this whole debt was over him? Not only does Bassanio offer his flesh, but he offers much more than what was due in offering his bones and blood as well. He offers his whole entire being in order to avoid Antonio any pain. By Bassanio offering this to Antonio it makes the whole journey and debt to Shylock a complete waste. After all of the traveling, gifts bought, sacrifice of having children if incorrectly picking a box, winning Portia's love and other things, Bassanio could just throw it all away does not make any sense to me. It really makes me question Bassanio's sanity, and his true feelings for Antonio. Could Bassanio really just be head over heals in love with Antonio? It has been discussed several times in class and in others blog posts that there is a strong "bromance" between the two characters. This quote just furthers the theories of the relationship being homoerotic.

These lines also brought up some questionable motives of Bassanio's character. The lines had left me wondering why Bassanio really wanted to pursue this journey in the first place. Could this whole journey have all been for the benefits of winning Portia as a wife? This seems plausible since he owed so much money to people already, and that that there was little risk in trying to guess the boxes because he already had nothing to lose. Thinking about it, Bassanio would not have had any chance of getting a wife, and having children if he had chosen incorrectly because he already had nothing to go back to. It is also possible that if Bassanio had chosen incorrectly that his collectors would have eventually killed him if he did not own up to the money he owed them. I also thought about how I would feel if I were Portia and I knew my newlywed husband just offered his whole self in order for another man to live. I do not know if I would question their relationship entirely, or just think it was a noble act. It would bring up the thought however that I may have just been a pawn in the whole adventure. Could Bassanio really have loved Portia like he said he did if he so quickly would have killed himself and left her?

These lines made the character of Bassanio entirely unlikable to know that he could just let everything he went through with Portia and the sacrifice of Antonio's money go to waste. It is understandable that he just wanted no harm to come to Antonio because of his mistake, but he did also allow Antonio to agree to the bond in the first place. So really Bassanio, what were you thinking when you took the money to woo Portia if you were going to sacrifice yourself in the end?

The Good and the Bad

2012-02-06T09:56:00.002-05:00

For the sake of this post, I amgoing to focus mainly on the beginning of the first scene of act four, wherethe viewer sees Shylock preparing to take the pound of flesh from Antonio,despite the fact that Bassanio has double what Antonio owes him for Shylock. Itseems that the principle is the thing here for Shylock, and it also makes itappear as if the man wanted to take a pound of flesh from Antonio all along. Itmakes Shylock out to be the villain, being that he refuses to shake the bond andgrant any form of mercy to Antonio despite the fact that he had lost everythingbefore. Graziano says of Shylock after watching him sharpen his blade on hisshoe: “Not on thy sole but on thy soul, harsh Jew,/Thou mak’st thy knife keen.But no metal can…/half the keenness/Of thy sharp envy [malice]” 4.1.123-135. Thecontrast to Shylock’s soul and his malice is interesting, because isn’t the soulwhat is equated to religion? It is possible that here they are equating hiswickedness to the fact that he is a Jew.

Shylock’s wickedness continues asthe scene goes on and a disguised Portia enters the scene, pretending to be ajudge in attempts to get Antonio free of this bond he is currently caught upin. She speaks to him, trying to convince him to cut the bond, but he does notgive in to her reasoning, which is often quite clever indeed. Portia askswhether or not he has a surgeon to stop Antonio’s bleeding, and he says he doesnot which leads Portia to ask him if he do it for charity, Shylock answers: “Icannot find it. ‘Tis not in the bond.” 4.1.257. This shows Shylock as a personwho cares only for the bond and the deals that he makes, rather than focusingon the actual person before him who has lost everything due to his shipssinking.

Meanwhile, Antonio manages to,though Shylock was about to kill him by taking a pound of his flesh, get thefine he would have suffered reduced and get half of it in a trust for Jessicaand Lorenzo for after Shylock’s death. This paints out Antonio to be the hero.Shylock must basically get rid of all of his fortune—which the viewer has seen to be very important to him—due tothe fact that the bond has been broken after he was seeking to take Antonio’slife. Antonio, though he was nearly killed moments ago by Shylock before Portia’sreasoning saves him, is the kind and caring man who only wants to help reducethe fine, because that is what he must do, even if there is a bit of a secondmotive in it being that he helps get half of it secured for his friend who hasmarried Jessica.

Though earlier in this play, Shylockseems to be the victim to Antonio, it appears as if Shakespeare has turned thetables on this sympathy that the viewer might have been gaining for Shylock. Inthe beginning, Shylock accuses Antonio of calling him a dog and spitting onhim, to which Antonio does not deny and in fact states he would do again, andyet now he is reducing a fine on Shylock’s welfare even after Shylock attemptedto take his life. Shakespeare seems to really want to kill any feelings theviewer may have garnered for Shylock in order to paint Antonio as the hero here, and really get thepoint across that, as discussed in class on Friday, the Christians in this playare the generous ones, that would give up all for another man.

It's a Man's World

2012-02-06T01:20:00.001-05:00

“It’s a Man’s World”

One of Shakespeare’s favorite plot devices seems to beputting female characters into male attire to give them a sense of power. Wesee this in “Twelfth Night” as well as in “Merchant of Venice”. Not only doesJessica dress as a boy in the 2^nd act to escape her father, butPortia and Nerissa enter the 4^th act dressed as men. This is aninteresting development for Portia who had so little power in the previous actsof the play; she was bound by her father’s will and unable to choose her ownhusband.

However, when Antonio demands, “Most heartily I do beseechthe court/To give the judgment” (4.1. 238) Portia delivers the verdict. Shedetermines the climax of the plot. Her character has gone from having no powerand being subjected to a game of a chance to being the one that determines ifAntonio will live or die. Portia’s transformation is due to the fact that sheis disguised as a man. Although she showcases her wit in the 1^st actwhen she is listing the faults in her suitors and her education is obvious whenshe tells Nerissa, “You know I say nothing to him, for he understands not me,nor I him. He hath neither Latin, French, nor Italian” (1.2. 57-58) it is notuntil she is dressed as a man that these qualities are fully displayed. As shereads over the bond that Shylock and Antonio have she is able to think of a wayto save Antonio. She is clever enough to read between the lines and see thatthe bond does not account for Shylock taking Antonio’s blood, “There issomething else. /This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood” (4.1.300-301).The men who knew the circumstances of the bond failed to come up with a way tosave to Antonio. They were merely counting on Shylock’s mercy (even though herefused to show any) and the Duke giving pardon to Antonio.

Portia is clearly a strong female character in the firstacts, but her gender allows her to be controlled. When she puts on the maleclothes she takes control of the courtroom as soon as she enters it. Shedetermines the right justice to pass for the good of Venice; she knows that ifthe Duke pardons Antonio it will hurt Venice’s commerce. Economics is a spherethat women traditionally were not a part of, but Portia is smart enough to knowthe ins-and-outs of the Venetian market. She is also wise enough to spot theloop hole to stop Shylock from extracting his payment from Antonio. Portia wasthe one clever and cunning enough to save Antonio. It is ironic that she wasable to save him from his bond but could not save herself from marriage. ThankfullyBassanio chose the correct casket. Portia is not able to display these strongattributes until she is dressed as a man. She is powerless and controlled as awoman, but as a man she is in charge and able to show her intelligence.

Shakespeare's reoccurring "Debbie Downer"

2012-01-30T23:44:00.002-05:00

After reading Act I scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice myfirst thought was “Oh wow, another one of Shakespeare’s male charactersulking…what a surprise.” Antonio’s sour mood immediately reminded me of Romeo’s lovesickdepression in Act I, scene 2 of Romeo andJuliet, as well as Orsino’s glum demeanor in the opening scene of Twelfth Night. Though the reason for Antonio’s depression differs fromRomeo and Orsino’s, the readers are still introduced to an unsatisfied malecharacter at the start of the play. In fact, the first line of the play immediately informs us of thisdissatisfaction: “In sooth, I know not why I an so sad.” (1).

I find this reoccurrence of depressed,unsatisfied, or sulking men at the beginning of Shakespeare’s plays a veryinteresting topic of discussion. And what’s unique about Antonio is that he doesn’t even know why he’sfeeling the way he is. Itimmediately introduces his character as whiny, indecisive, and a bit of acrybaby. However, it seems thatShakespeare creates these characters just so he can later make fun of themthrough the mouths of his other characters. And I think that this is brilliant and hysterical. Shakespeare writes these heart wrenchingand soul quivering poetic passages that describe his characters’ depressed anddejected dispositions and then immediately mocks it. For example, in lines 77-79, Antonio says to Graziano: “Ihold the world but as the world, Graziano—A stage where everyman must play apart, And mine a sad one.” Graziano, in lines 79-104 , then proceeds to mock Antonio’s serious andover-analytical attitude. Myfavorite part of this passage is when Graziano proclaims, “With mirth andlaughter let old wrinkles come. And let my liver rather heat with wine than my heart cool withmortifying groans” (lines 80-82). Shakespeare is poking fun at Antonio and, more over, is poking fun athis own writing.

Graziano’saforementioned passage is definitely my favorite part of Act I. He basically took the words right outof my mouth and said exactly what I wanted to say to Antonio (yet in a muchmore eloquent way, obviously). Ithink that Graziano’s advice for Antonio is still so prevalent in today’sworld. A lot of people, likeAntonio, need a friend to sit them down and give them the “take a chill pill” speechevery now and then. Nobody wantsto be around the “Debbie downer.” It was very refreshing to have the Shakespearean version of the “Debbiedowner” put in his place. Examplessuch as this really solidify my enjoyment of Shakespeare’s sense of humor inhis writing. He can create abeautiful character with depth and poetic solemnity…followed by anothercharacter that makes fun of him and his somber poetry.

Antonio

2012-01-30T20:26:00.010-05:00

While reading Act I of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, Antonio’s character stood out to me the most. In all its simplicity, the opening line of the play: "In sooth, I know not why I am so sad" (1.1, 1) set the focus for the entire first scene. In scene i, we see more characters than in scene ii and iii combined, yet we focus on the feelings/inner workings of only one person’s mind –Antonio. Antonio is inexplicably saddened. In exploration of his sadness, a friend Salanio proposes: "Nature hath framed strange fellows in her time:/ Some that will evermore peep through their eyes/ And laugh like parrots at a bagpiper/ And other of such vinegar aspect" (1.1, 51-54). Salanio states that this just may be Antonio’s natural disposition. Before this, Solanio suggested Antonio may be in love, but Antonio brushed it off in an oddly brief way. When most people are faced with the idea of love, their reactions are definitively “no” or they'll pause to take a moment or two to reflect. This seems like a topic Antonio prefers not to deal with. Another friend, Graziano, suggests, "You have too much respect upon the world./ They lose it that do buy it with much care" (1.1, 74-75). Antonio may be overly-concerned with his business ventures, and if he worries too much, he will cause his own bad fortune --in this case, his depressing mood. Antonio denies this, claiming he is confident in his business ventures.

Finally, Antonio declares that the world is "a stage where every man must play a part,/ And mine a sad one" (1.3, 78-79). He feels he cannot change his sadness because he simply plays a sad character in the grand scheme of things. This can be a dangerous view because it leads to learned helplessness. Graziano touches on this concept when he alludes to men who enjoy dwelling on their burdens; these men utilize their pessimism to convince others of their wisdom and experience, which is detrimental to the human experience. This part of the text reminds me of a quote by Stephen Colbert: “Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us.” Having read this quote helped me understand Graziano’s point, regardless of whether or not Antonio was responsive to it.

After his friends leave, Bassanio asks Antonio for a favor. Bassanio is in love with Portia, and the only way he can compete for this heiress is if he takes out loans. He asks Antonio to be his guarantor since he has such bad credit. This is the first time we see Antonio perk up and speak definitively about anything. Antonio scolds Bassanio for even remotely questioning his loyalty as a friend and declares: "My purse, my person, my extremist means/ Lie all unlocked to your occasions" (1.1, 137-138). This is a surrender of Antonio’s entire being to his friend’s pursuits. Throughout Act I, Antonio is particularly attentive to Bassanio. He finds the motivation and passion for Bassiano, yet not for himself. Critics suggest that Antonio may be in love with Bassanio, and if this is the case, such a hopeless love could partially explain Antonio’s sadness. With this in mind, Antonio’s depressing comment about the world as a stage and people as fixed characters could be in reference to the roles of husbands and wives in society. The institution of marriage was unmovable at the time and was heavily intertwined with Christianity, which plays a huge role in Antonio’s life.

The only other time Antonio expresses strong feeling is when he encounters Shylock. He is unexpectedly cruel towards him because he is a Jew. Antonio, earlier depicted as a thoughtful, loyal friend is now irrational and off-putting. When Shylock claims Antonio is only being kind because he needs money, he alludes to all the nasty things that Antonio has done and said. Antonio simply replies, “I am as like to call thee so again,/ To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too” (1.3, 125-126). Antonio steps up and passionately defends his distasteful actions. He continues with, “lend it rather to thine enemy,/ Who if he break, thou mayst with better face/ Exact the penalty” (1.3, 130-132). Antonio heightens their dissonance and derives pleasure (for once) in doing so. Antonio’s religious intolerance is a sign of close-mindedness. From a psychological perspective, this is often associated with depression. In addition to a hopeless love, his intolerance of others could explain his sadness.

Aphorisms & Language

2012-01-30T17:23:00.002-05:00

Molly Hone
1.2, lines 1-19. (I cut off the passage at line 19 for this post, before Portia’s predicament and suitors are fully discussed.)

In the first exchange between Portia and her waiting-woman, Nerissa, a simple expression of sadness by the former elicits advice from the latter in the form of multiple aphorisms. Portia responds to these aphorisms with aphorisms of her own that explain her inability and reluctance to follow the advice.

The aphorisms exchanged, such as “It is no mean happiness, therefore to be seated in the mean” (lines 6-7, 1.2.1125, Nerissa), and “It is a good divine that follows his own instructions” (line 14, 1.2.1125, Portia), could seem almost nonsensical to a reader because of their abundance and lack of segue. There are at least 5 clear aphorisms in this passage, and the language of the lines in between them are similar in structure, voice, and function (e.g. “They would be better if well followed” [line 10, 1.2.1125, Nerissa]), rendering the language of the passage mostly aphoristic.

This rapid delivery of the aphorisms, as well as the overall aphoristic tone, suggest that such general advice lacks meaning and importance. This setup could also serve to argue that general advice lacks an adequate applicability to reality. Shakespeare is playing with self-reflexivity in this passage, and instead of creating nonsense he is, presumably, foreshadowing the events of the play.

This self-reflexive setup also seems to comment on internal conflict and moral ambiguity. Portia remarks in the passage that it is not easy to do what one knows is right. Churning out aphorisms like an assembly line is very different from following them. Pondering the actions one may take in a given situation is very different from being in that situation and having to decide on a “right” or beneficial course of action.

When Portia remarks that the advice will not be able to help her in choosing a suitor, having already previously put the responsibility on herself, not the concept of general advice, she is using the passive voice. Is this an illustration of the alternately weak/strong power that general, aphoristic advice can have? Or is she simply being sarcastic? It seems that her language (“But this reasoning is not in the fashion” [line 19, 1.2.1125]) is playfully, but contradictorially, disowning her previously-stated responsibility. It is interesting, too, how Portia’s words in this line sound so similar to the aphorisms in their passivity.

This might be a total over-analysis of the passage, but I find that as I read, I have to remember that Shakespeare’s linguistic precision gives each word a lot of weight and purpose, and over-analysis may be difficult to avoid sometimes.

Why Shakespeare is seemingly putting the character of Portia at odds with her own language in this fragment is unclear to me. It might be just a flourish of language, or it might be an important foreshadow of events and themes. Again, I might be completely overanalyzing this short passage and its language.

Unlocking Shylock

2012-01-30T16:35:00.001-05:00

The Merchant of Venice is best known for its arguable antagonist, Shylock. In the shadows of the romantic babbling of the elite Antonio and his friends partake in the opening scene, Shylock works to make reality of their imaginings. Two scenes later, Shylock states, “Three thousand ducats. Well.” (1. 3. 1), establishing his identity through the loan request of Bassanio and Antonio. In the greater conversation between Jews and Christians, the perjury of the Jews through a long existing history of European religious reformations created a public character for society to use as a scapegoat. In establishing business interest with loans, Jews were demonized in their “unchristian” character in seeking economic benefits through the misfortunes of others.

The tension and explicate hate Shylock and Antonio have for each other seem to villainies both men versus creating a “good vs. evil” troupe. In detesting Antonio, Shylock says, “Cursed be my tribe if I forgive him” (I. 3. 46-47), alluding to the Christian ideal of redemption and how it’s beyond his Old testament vicinity. In contrast to the first scene, where Antonio friends try to soothe him with compassion and reasoning, this scene depicts a less empathetic side of Antonio. “I am like to call thee so again, to spit on thee again, to spurn thee too” (1. 3. 125-126), are not the words of your loving neighbor. In developing the character of these two men, it is impossible to separate their religious prejudices. In out right calling Shylock’s usage of the ram allegory as the working of the devil (1.3. 94-96), it seems exemplar knowledge of the Old Testament works against Shylock’s humanization.

In their compromise to give a loan, free of interest, under the promise that if not paid back in time will cost Bassanio one pound of his flesh reads as a violent and dated agreement. Like the hammurabi code and laws of the Old World, Shylocks “kindness” operates according to an economic exchange based off of mortality. Already we can see within the first scene that these men live in a material world distant from such realities, where their focus is on their emotions than on their physicalities. Living in the illusion of ports and transitions, Anotino lives in an international intersection of worldly goods, which may contribute to his stated unknown grievance. The introduction of such a fatal contract positions Shylock with a certain knowingness outside of Antonio and his men.

Of course under the humanizing lens of the 21^st century, we cannot help but attempt to pull Shylock away from his villainous characterture and shift him towards a sociological light, a man who acts according to circumstance. I’m excited to see how his character develops in accord to the stage.

Bromance?

2012-01-30T16:12:00.001-05:00

In the first scene of Act 1 we see Antonio asking his friends for help on how to get out of being so Melancholy. He seems to be wanting them just to sit and discuss with him his depression as if it is something of incredible interest. But he doesn't seem to want an answer. His friends suggest the ships he has out at sail, but he pushes that away as if it is insignificant and tells them his wealthy is not in one boat. But then they talk of love and he quickly rejects it and doesn't even give it a chance. He is asking there help but not giving much feedback for them to work with. Then when Bassanio comes over all their friends leave and they get to have alone time. When initially he was just looking out for any friend to help him, he clings to Bassanio when he comes by.

And not only does Bassanio not talk to him about his grief but Antonio moves the conversation over to Bassanio and his positive, secret, sexy conquest for a lady. His interest only wains when Bassanio questions Antonio's ability to help him. Antonio then goes into depth to show how much he will do to help Bassanio, even though much of the debt Bassanio has it to Antonio in the first place. And Antonio will vouch for Bassanio with his wealth that he doesn't currently have. It seems to me Shakespeare is trying to foreshadow the type of loving unhealthy relationship these two have. Antonio seems to love Bassanio while Bassanio seems to think of Antonio as a dear friend and not a love interest.

Then they go to Shylock where Antonio makes sure the loan of money needed is insured. But while they are talking about the terms, Shylock and Antonio start up their long going feud with each other, and it seems like they are going to sign as enemies until Shylock makes a proposition. He says they should do the loan on friendly terms with no interest, but if the money isn't given at the right time then Antonio will have to give Shylock "an equal pound of [Antonio's] fair flesh to be cut off and taken in what part of your body pleaseth [Shylock]." (1131) This to me seems quite phallic and lending it self to be seemed like he will cut off his penis. The whole conversation is about bravado and acting like the stronger, smarter, and more intimidating man. And again Shakespeare ends this Act with the thought of Antonio's penis literally being on the line for Bassanio. And with Antonio brushing it off and saying all his ships will return, and he's calm in the face of his friends fear. He is the rock for his friend to lean on in hard times. I'm interested to see how Antonio will try and win over Bassanio as Bassanio tries to woo Portia.

Stereotypes in Merchant of Venice, Act I

2012-01-30T15:25:00.004-05:00

(Posted for Darya Erenburg)

While reading the first act in The Merchant of Venice, I noticed Shakespeare’s stereotypical descriptions of certain cultures. The stereotypes, however, don’t match up with those of today’s cultural generalizations. For example, when Portia and Nerissa were discussing the suitors that had made their visit earlier, she mentioned how the German drank too much (which is now stereotypical of mostly Irish and Russian folk). She described the Neopolitan count as being too fond of his horse, the Palatine count as being too serious for her taste, and the Englishman as being too dull-minded to know any other romantic languages. I am personally not sure about the Neopolitan, Palatine and Englishman stereotypes, but in Act 1, Scene 3, when Shylock is introduced, the Jewish stereotype is pretty offensive in today’s culture. Shylock is very exact, in mind and speech. He thinks the deal through out loud, often repeating what Bassanio and Antonio say. He appears to have an accent, different from the rest of the characters in the play by the way he says “well?” after each repeated statement at the beginning of Scene 3. He is also very proud of his Jewish heritage, by the way he refers to his nation as “sacred” (1.3.42), and he holds a grudge over Antonio for the names he had called him; “You call me misbeliever, cut-throat dog,/ And spit upon my Jewish gaberdine” (1.3.109-110). He is harsh but fair in his business dealings, and agrees to lend the money to Bassanio in return for the exact sum of money, or a pound of Antonio’s flesh. Shylock also claims that Antonio had cursed and spat on his Jewish heritage in the past, which is not unusual for people to do in the present day, especially Christians. Towards the end of the third scene, when Shylock exits the stage, Antonio says to Bassanio that Shylock has become more generous, almost as though he has turned Christian. The generalization of the present day states that most Christians tend to believe that they are somehow more knowledgeable about God and heaven and the best way to get there, all the time hoping to convert more people into Christianity. It appears that Jews and people of other religions are more accepting of religions that are not their own, while at the same time remaining comfortable and confident with their own beliefs. I also noticed that in verbally stating what unfair actions have been committed against Shylock, and Antonio’s thoughts about his supposedly righteous way of behaving towards a Jew, Shakespeare is able to make fun of the Christian beliefs as well, at least towards other religions. I find this fascinating, in terms of the courage it must’ve taken on Shakespeare’s part to laugh at the Jewish and Christian religions by being so brutally correct in their beliefs, thoughts, words, and actions. Some of the ostensible stereotypes of the Elizabethan era stayed true to the present, and I marvel at how easily Shakespeare had written of them in his day, when some of us still cringe at the thought of making fun of another’s beliefs even today.

Portia and Bassanio: A complicated love affair?

2012-01-30T14:58:00.002-05:00

The character of Portia in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, is one that is particularly interesting. She is described as being a beautiful and wealthy individual, characteristics that are commonly seen in the female characters of William Shakespeare’s pieces. Once of Portia’s most entertaining qualities seems to be her witty nature. This can be seen when Portia is engaged in conversation with her waiting-woman, Nerissa.

In the beginning of the play, Portia is describing the conditions in her father’s will which are controlling her decision to find a suitor. Portia describes her inability to choose a husband when she states: “I may neither choose who I would nor refuse who I dislike; so is the will of a living daughter curbed by the will of a dead father” (1.2 20-22). According to her father’s will, in order for Portia to marry, the men must choose from three chests, each being made of gold, silver, or lead. In only one of the chests lies a portrait of Portia. The man who choses the chest which includes the portrait is the individual who will be honored in marrying Portia. In order to pay respect to her father, Portia agrees to adhere to the condition of her late father’s will, despite the slightly frustrating and tiresome process that she must endure.

When conversing with her waiting-woman, Nerissa, Portia is discussing the reasons why she will not marry a various amount of men. Portia provides several flaws that these men have, some being entirely shallow and humorous. These reasons include men who seem to be too consumed with themselves, men who are too serious and men who indulge in alcohol too frequently. Although the readers are given no reason to not believe Portia, it is fair to question if these reasons for not accepting the various suitors are entirely truthful, or if they are simply excuses made by Portia.

Regardless, Portia is fearful that she will never find a respectable man to marry. It is then, when Nerissa suggests that Portia consider Bassanio to be one of her suitors. Bassanio is one of the only men who Portia considered to be a respectable candidate for marriage, which can be seen when she says “I remember him well, and I remember him worth of thy praise” (1.2 100-01). This line serves in great contrast to Portia’s reaction to the other men.

At this point, it can be assumed that Portia is unaware of the fact that Bassanio is in the process of attempting to obtain a loan in order to woo Portia. Because of the wealthy status that the other suitors possess, Bassanio feels the need to borrow three thousand ducats in order to be considered as a suitor for Portia. In order to do this, he must obtain a loan from Shylock. The audience later learns that this agreement is more complicated than it first appears, as Shylock has a great hatred towards Antonio, whom is supporting the loan. This can be seen when Shylock says “I hate him for he is a Christian; But more, for that in low simplicity He lends out money gratis, and brings down the rate of usance her with us in Venice” (1.3 37-40). It is clear at this point in the play, that the relationship between Antonio and Shylock may have a great impact on Bassanio’s relationship with Portia.

Wolf in sheep's clothing

2012-01-30T13:40:00.001-05:00

Shylock, the Jew, is the man that is introduced as the character who will beplaying the role of the villain. All he is concerned about is money, whatAntonio is worth (apparently 3,000 ducats is worth that much ~ though I am notquite sure how much that would amount to in currency that I am familiar with),what his own money is worth to him, what Bassanio is worth and so on. He isdepicted as this cruel character that has no heart and could not possiblyunderstand that Bassanio is just trying to obtain the love of his life and hisbest friend is attempting to help him in such dire straits. The wolf isrevealed in such a way, but our hearts are opened for just a moment whenShylock is concerned about taking the offer. Again, we are aware that Shylockis of the Jewish faith and there doesn’t seem to be a great depiction of suchpeople. Antonio even admits that he has spit on him, he has called him adog/cut-throat/misbeliever and he goes so far to say that he would do thisagain when given the chance. Shylock at this point has done nothing but attemptto help this man out. As a reader I began to question the depiction of this villain,mostly can we consider Shylock to be one? There are readers who believe thatthis man has been given the role of the villain because of what he worships,not perhaps who he is as a person. This is where I myself am torn.

Offers of kindness are given out to Shylock. Bassanio offers “If it pleaseyou to dine with us” (27, 1.3), Shylock outright refuses to partake in any courteousadventures with these two men. Now is he being the cruel, evil self or someonewho has been tortured for his entire life because he must eat certain foods andthere are those who cannot seem to understand his faith. Not moments laterthere is an aside of Shylock who explains his hatred for Antonio because he isa Christian who gives money away without interest. Is the main source of hatredhis religion or perhaps is it the business plan Antonio has is, to say with allcliché intended, sinking. This constant unsure nature of the character Shylockis unearthed in, what seemed to me is, the most unexpected twist in a businessplan.

If Antonio goes back on his word with this loan, the price is a slab of hisown skin. Now we are starting to see the true evil nature of this one man. Aslab of the skin is the price to pay if Antonio does not pay back the debt toShylock, not taking the threat seriously Antonio is sure that his boats willreturn soon enough and he will pay. He goes so far to think that “the Hebrewwill turn Christian; he grows kind” (174, 1.3), and Shylock is doing this outof the good of his heart. I fear the worse for Antonio due to the fact thatthis poor Jewish man who we grow some compassion for is about to write out ablood bond for him. Stories of abuse and torture cannot derail the reader fromseeing the true evil nature that is lurking under the surface. I can onlyassume that this deal is foreshadowing something terrible for Antonio andperhaps Bassanio as well.

Girl Talk in Merchant

2012-01-30T12:34:00.000-05:00

An introduction to the characters of Portia and Nerissa occurs while they ensue in Shakespearean girl talk. It is interesting that he opens scene II with such an intimate setting of two women speaking of marriage, lust, and love. Automatically one understands the importance of marriage in The Merchant of Venice and especially in Portia’s life. Shakespeare expresses her passion against her father’s law of the three chests through superb use of opposites, animal imagery, and word choice. By beginning the scene with Portia stating “my little body is aweary of this great world,” Shakespeare alerts the reader that Portia is a passionate and rather upset woman (1.2.1-2). Her weariness stems from her father’s “cold decree” and her “hot temper” clashing. “The brain may devise laws for the blood, but a hot temper leaps o’er a cold decree” (1.2.16-17). Portia’s zealous personality makes her a young woman disenchanted with the idea of being controlled by an order. She needs to love in her own way but is conflicted as she understands what is correct. She craves her passion to be a guiding light, not her dead father’s decree. Shakespeare places the words “cold decree” or wise ruling in Portia’s speech. Her father is dead, so he essentially is “cold” like his law, whereas his daughter is full of life and vivaciousness. The conflict between Portia’s warmth and her father’s cold wishes are brilliantly paired. By utilizing opposites, the reader distinguishes the severity of Portia feelings. Much like the sexes have confided in one another in regards to love in numerous Shakespearean dramas, Nerissa is notified of her lady’s feelings of impinged desires. Shakespeare places animal imagery in Portia’s dialogue by inserting “hare” – an image connected to lust and romance; two things this lady desires. The animalistic reference signifies human’s natural desire for sex. “…such a hare is madness the youth to skip o’er the meshes of good counsel the cripple” (1.2.17-18). Again, Portia understands what is right to do and knows she will get caught in “the meshes of good counsel” although she deeply wants to be that careless, frisky hare. An implication of her father as the “the cripple”- one who is prudent, but not alive in the fullest is referenced. Her father was on his deathbed, so he was not alive in the full when the rule of his daughter’s marriage was created. As Portia begins to ponder her status, she appears angered by the word “choose.” Choose has implications of freedom and one’s own will guiding them. “Oh me the word ‘choose’! I may neither choose who I would nor refuse who I dislike…” (1.2.21-22). There is no choosing for Portia. Her father essentially chose for her with his plan of the three chests. She is bored and distressed by this and at scene’s end she states: “Whiles we shut the gate upon one wooer, another knocks at the door” (1.2.110-111). Portia is “aweary” of her father’s scheme that she knows is sensible, but still cannot seem to make her abandon her passionate desires. She is done with the repetitiveness of lovers coming and going. She wishes for a permanent love that she can “choose.”

Antonio and Shylock

2012-01-30T11:29:00.002-05:00

In the opening scene of the play, the merchant Antonio is depressed but cannot figure out why. Salerio believes he is saddened because his "mind is tossing on the ocean,/ There where your argosies with portly sail..." (1.1.8-9) and Solanio believes it is because he is in love (1.1.46). Although Antonio never states why he is upset, I can't help but believe that he really has no reason to be upset. He is surrounded by friends that are trying to help him feel better, yet he does not seem to realize that. If anything in the first act of the play expressed a reason for Antonio to be upset it would be Shylock.
The two men clearly do not get along with each other, let alone respect each other. The terms of the bet also speak volumes about the mens' characters. Shylock states "If you repay me not on such a day,/ In such a place, such sum or sums as are,/ Expressed in the condition let the forfeit/ be nominated for an equal pound/ of your fair flesh to be cut off and taken/ in what part of your body pleaseth me..." (1.3.142-147). The fact that Shylock would love to cut a pound of flesh off of Antonio if he is not re-payed shows just how strongly he dislikes Antonio. A pound of flesh is not valuable in any way, nor will he gain any benefit from it. This shows just how much hatred Shylock has for Antonio.
Antonio also expresses a lot about himself through this agreement with Shylock. The fact that he is signing the bond alone ("Your single bond..." 1.3. 141) shows that he feels he needs no help to repay Shylock, even though the one benefiting from this agreement isn't himself, it is Bassanio. He also shows that he may be a little too overconfident by agreeing that he will let Shylock cut off a pound of flesh from what ever part of his body that Shylock wants to.Antonio is clearly so determined to pay Shylock back that is almost seems like it is a competition between the two. Even Bassanio, who is the person benefiting from this agreement, tells Antonio "You shall not seal to such a bond for me./ I'll rather dwell in my necessity" (1.3.150-151). Bassanio and Antonio close the scene by saying "Bassanio: I like not fair terms and a villain's mind./ Antonio: Come on. In this there can be no dismay./ My ships come home a month before the day." (1.3. 175-177). I can't help but feel like something bad will happen and Antonio will fail to repay Shylock. The fact that Antonio's last lines in act 1 are assuring Bassanio that he will re-pay Shylock forces me to think that Shakespeare is trying to foreshadow that something bad will happen. I haven't read the rest of the play, so I could be completely wrong in this feeling, but it just seems like it is too confident of Antonio to agree to this. It just seems like such a ridiculous agreement for anyone to make. The terms of the bond show many things about their characters.

How much for your foot? Merchant of Venice Act I

2012-01-30T11:22:00.003-05:00

In the first act of The Merchant ofVenice the characters seem to attach monetary value to certain emotions orhuman traits that cannot be measured. The characters in the story seem toconjure up specific sums for certain feelings that they have. This unparalleland unmatched comparison leaves the story pushing and pulling with itself. Thistheme creates a dramatic effect that carries through the entire first act (andI bet the second…) leaving the reader feeling like they should also know howmuch their love or flesh is worth.

Love is something that cannot bemeasured, however Bassanio swears that just 3000 ducats will help him getPortia. Antonio loves Bassiano and agrees to help him get the money. Antoniosays, “My purse, my person, my extremist means lie all unlocked to youroccasions (1.1.138)”. In that sentence Antonio mentions his money (purse), hisperson, and extremist (means which I think everything else falls into). Thissingle sentence holds so much value for Antonio. There is nothing about him thathe does not include in that statement. He is 100% rooting for Bassanio. Antoniois measuring his whole self and putting it on the table for Bassanio to see andinspect. Antonio wants Bassanio to know how invested he is. He wants to showBassanio how valuable he is in every way.

Shylock decides that if Antoniodoes not follow the terms of the loan he is entitled to a pound of flesh. Hesays, “Of your fair flesh to be cut off and taken in what part of your bodypleaseth me (1.3.146)”. Shylock wants whatever piece of ANTONIO’S body HIM. Asis he knows what that pound is worth to Antonio. A pound of flesh is somethingvery dear to Antonio, yet Shylock writes it into a legal agreement with noqualms. Shylock is assuming he knows how much a pound of flesh means toAntonio, but only Antonio can know that answer. The terms of the loan shouldhave been in the same currency as the actual loan, not skin and muscle.

Portia’s father left her with threechests. When we first meet Portia she says to Nerissa, “By my troth, Nerissa,my little body is aweary of this great world (1.2.1)”. Portia is comparing her“little body” to the “great world”. Portia is comparing the things that are notcomparable. If Portia looks at her body, which is in proportion to everyoneelse’s body, and then looks at the world as a whole she has to feel tiny andexhausted. This comparison demonstrates just how tired Portia is. She lost herfather and all that she has are the three chests he left her. Each chest ismade of a metal of varying value. By Portia’s father leaving behind thesechests he is assuring her that the right suitor will find her. Portia’s fatheris also implying that his daughters fate in love depends on the casketpotential suitors choose. While this is a very romantic thread in the story, itis another place where Shakespeare compares two incomparable things.

Characters

2012-01-30T10:39:00.004-05:00

Sam Montagna

Professor Mulready

Shakespeare II

30 January 2012

Characters

Antoniois saddened, yet he does not know why. His friends suppose that he isin love or his “merchandise” is making him upset (Shakespeare40.1122). Antonio denies all of this. Antonio reminds me of a personwho has everything going for them but is still depressed. He hasfriends who support him and he is not living in poverty. If I had toguess what was wrong with him, it would be that life has gotten himdown. I think he is a little lost. He states that he does not knowwhere the misery has come from and that he has a lot of learning todo inside himself (5-6.1121). Graziano's advice seems the best suitedfor Antonio's situation. He basically tells him to relax. “Whyshould a man whose blood is warm within sit like his grandsire cut inalabaster” (83-84.11230). Why should a man filled with passions anddreams sit still like a tombstone? Graziano, although there is littleto no description about him, seems very wise and sensible. AfterGraziano leaves, Bassanio has a talk with Antonio. Antonio is a greatfriend. Bassanio owes him money and love and Antonio still agrees tohelp Bassanio out in winning the heart of the fair Portia. Bassaniowants to be in the same league as the other men that chase Portia,who is so beautiful and good, she is compared to Brutus' wife.Portia, on the other hand, is tired of the losers that want to marryher. I do not understand Portia's father's conditions for hermarriage. Nerissa speaks of a lottery in which men choose their“meaning” (27.1126). According to Nerissa, the one who choosescorrectly will be the one that Portia falls for. Portia also hears ofBassanio and knows that out of all, he “was the best deserving afair lady” (99.1127). The fact that Portia mentions Bassanio isforeshadowing. It is clear, the two will eventually meet later inthe play. Bassanio and Antonio meet Shylock to borrow three thousandducats. I feel so terrible for Shylock. Shylock dislikes Antoniobecause he is Christian and he loans money for free. Also, Antoniohas called him names and spit on Shylock because he is Jewish.Shylock agrees to loan Antonio money after all of the abuse. Shylockeven offers friendship to Antonio. Shylock is a bigger person thanAntonio. Although Shylock is the “jew,” the very thing that manypeople despise, he overlooks the hatred even after Antonio admitsthat he would spit on him again. It is fair of Shylock to impose sucha harsh consequence on Antonio if he cannot pay him back. Antonioagrees wholeheartedly to the bond because he is certain that he willbe able to pay the loan back without any problem. I believe this isforeshadowing as well. It is obvious that Antonio's ships will not comeback in time and Shylock will have to take a pound of his flesh. Antonio's arrogance when it comes to paying back all the money will backfire on him.

Defending a Villain

2012-01-29T19:19:00.002-05:00

It is clear that Shakespeare’s the Merchant of Venice is ripe with anti-Semitism.Shylock, the Jew, arises as the villain, and those who speak to or refer to himoften only address him as ‘Jew.’ What I wonder is whether Shylock’s role as theantagonist arises from his Jewish sensibilities as Shakespeare portrayed him,or if his determination for that “pound of man’s flesh” arose from how he istreated by those in the play (I.iii.165).

There is no doubt in my mindthat, in the end, Shylock is stubborn in his demand for Antonio’s debt, yet inthe beginning he had no way of knowing Antonio would lay on difficult times. Thoughhe could wish it so, Shylock could not have predicted the shipwrecking of allAntonio’s ventures. Yet, Shylock’s obstinate demand for that pound of flesh comesafter he has lost his daughter and all of the wealth she stole from him whenshe eloped with the Christian, Lorenzo. After the discovery of their flight,Shylock bemoans his losses, and “all the boys in Venice” mock his shows ofgrief (II.vii.23). Feeding on Shylock’s distress, almost every character in theplay is against him.

Was Shylock born to be avillain? Was Shakespeare’s intent as anti-Semitic as it appears? I argue thatthe fact that Shylock is a Jew is not as important as the anti-Semiticatmosphere of Shakespeare’s Venice. Many of the characters in the Merchant of Venice express hatredtowards Shylock, and Solanio and Salerio laugh and make jokes at Shylock’sexpense, his own servant, Launcelot, cannot stand working for him, and Antoniowarns Bassanio that “the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose” and refersto Shylock as “an evil soul,” “villain,” and an “apple rotten at the heart”(I.iii.98-101). Shylock lists the ill will that Antonio has expressed toward him,calling him a “cut-throat dog” and “misbeliever” (I.iii.111), and Antonio notonly does not deny this, but states that he is “like to call” Shylock thosenames again, and “to spet” and “to spurn” him again (I.iii.130-131). Face withthis hatred and distain, is it that surprising that Shylock turns villain, andseeks revenge on the man who shows him no compassion and takes away customers?

By the time of the trial,everyone in town is against Shylock, and even the Duke, while forced to upholdthe law, fights with Shylock and asks for him to quit his bond and take the money.In the end, Shylock is tricked into losing everything. I argue that, thoughShylock ends a villain, he does not start as so, and his zeal to kill Antoniowas not born from the fact that he was Jewish, but rather a result of a seriesof incidents of anti-Semitism directed towards him, and the elopement of hisdaughter. I do not here defend what Shylock did and tried to do, but ratheroffer an explanation of the development of his character.

Quibbling over Shakespeare's Characters - Portia & Shylock

2012-01-29T18:16:00.000-05:00

SomethingI found interesting about the first act of TheMerchant of Venice is Portia’s characterization, which is demonstrated in thepredicament regarding her marriage. Itis very evident that Portia isn't exactly content with her father’s method ofchoosing a husband for her, and yet she is willing to go along with it, despitethe fact that her father is deceased and no longer holds authority overher. Nerissa tells her that her fatherwas a virtuous man and that “holy men at their death have good inspirations,”referring to the lottery idea he devised to choose the proper husband for her (1.2.24-25). The method behind it seems rather simple -her suitors will choose one of three caskets, one being made of gold, one made of silver, and the third made of lead. One of them contains a portrait of her, and whoever chooses the casket with her picture within it (most likely the lead one) will marry her. Her father’s assumption when hemakes this arrangement is that the man who chooses the correct casket will be the one whotruly loves his daughter, not seeking the wealth, but rather her love (which would suggest the lead casket contains her photograph). However, this grand scheme leaves no choiceup to Portia, who can neither choose who she likes or dislikes. She says to Nerissa with much disdain, “Sothis is the will [wish] of a living daughter curbed by the will [testament] ofa dead father” desiring to be in control of her life, but revealing her lack of strength and ambition to challenge her father's will (1.2.21-22). I know the time period for this play definitelyreflects the idea of the husband of the household being in charge of familymatters, especially their daughters’ futures, but I do wonder why Portia doesn't try to take hold of her life when she is given the opportunity to do so, especially since she finds each suitor (excluding Bassanio) detestable in one wayor another - the Neopolitan prince who talks too much of his horse, the broodingCounty Palatine, and the French lord, Monsieur le Bon, who she describes asbeing “every man in no man” and even going so far as to say that if she were tomarry him she should marry twenty husbands (1.2.35-36, 40, 50, 52-53). Her unhappiness with her father’s arrangedmethod of having her wed must not be as strong as her compulsion to remainloyal to him. I have my hopes thatPortia will break away from the mold of the societal expectations of femalesfor her time era, but only time will tell.

Asfor Shylock, he seems to be have been crafted from the old stereotypessurrounding people of the Jewish faith, especially in their emphasis on monetaryimportance. When Shylock says thatAntonio is a “good man” Bassanio interprets him as meaning a person with a goodhead on his shoulders. Shylock mocksBassanio and answers “My meaning in saying he is a good man is to have youunderstand me that he is sufficient [of adequate wealth]” (1.3.13-14). When Antonio first enters the scene we learnthat Shylock hates him for being a Christian, but mostly because he lends outmoney for free, which brings down the rate of interest for the people ofVenice (1.3.37-40). It makes me wonder ifShakespeare was anti-Semitic or if he just wanted to depict the beliefs andprejudices of that time period as realistically as possible. It seems a bit overdone in my opinion, but Iwant to know what someone else thinks about it.

Internet Resources for Studying Shakespeare

2012-01-24T09:53:00.000-05:00

The web is full of amazing resources on Shakespeare, his plays, and his early modern world. It is so full, in fact, that it can be difficult to separate the good from the bad, the reliable from the unreliable. With that in mind, I offer here some of the most useful and interesting web resources available on Shakespeare.

Please use the comments field to suggest others, and let me know if you come across any broken links.

First, a Word about Plot Summaries...

Perhaps the most commonly used internet resources for studying Shakespeare are the plot summaries offered by sites like SparksNotes and CliffsNotes. As long as they are correctly used, these plot summaries are great tools, especially for students who are new to the study of Shakespeare. How should you use them? Before you begin your reading assignment, read over the summary. (Students in my courses should then read over the questions I have posed on PBWorks). Beginning with the summary and questions will give you a basic understanding of what you are about to read and will help you pay attention to the language and how Shakespeare tells the story!

The interpretations offered on these sites are less helpful. In my experience undergraduate students come up with far more interesting insights on their own!

Shakespeare Hubs

These are sites maintained and updated by reputable institutions and scholars. They are a great first stop if you are beginning to explore a research topic, or just want to know more about a given subject.

University of Toronto's Records of Early English Drama (REED) WWW Links (For each topic, the good people at the REED project have assembled the best links and resources available on the web.)

University of Victoria's Internet Shakespeare Editions (Includes a search page for locating materials about specific plays)

Early Modern Resources (A thorough and comprehensive set of links to a wide range of topics relating to Shakespeare)

The Royal Shakespeare Company (Information about its productions, including interviews and behind-the-scenes video, as well as general information about Shakespeare)

Virtual Rare Book Rooms and Etexts

Once available only to scholars, the original texts of Shakespeare and other books from his time are now freely accessible in several places on the internet.

The best of these is the British Library's Shakespeare in Quarto site, where you can view all 21 of the library's quarto editions in an easy-to-use interface. You can even compare two quartos side-by-side.

The University of Pennsylvania's Schoenberg Center for Electronic Text and Imaging (SCETI) is the home to the Furness Shakespeare Collection, which includes digital images of Shakespeare's First Folio, Holinshed's Chronicles, and many other books of interest to our work.

Finally, the Rare Book Room is an amazing, one stop site that has most (if not all) of Shakespeare's original texts, as well as scores of other original editions of authors from all periods of American and British literature.

Dulwich College in London holds one of the world's most important archives of material relating to early modern theater. The founder of the college, Edward Alleyn, was one of the main movers-and-shakers in Shakespeare's theatrical world. His father-in-law, Phillip Henslowe, kept a diary of his business transactions that remains one of the prized documents in the field. Over 2000 pages of the archive (letters, deeds, leases, playbills, and much more) are now available online.

Another category of online texts are etexts, or full-text databases that give you access to complete texts of works by Shakespeare and other writers. These differ from virtual rare book rooms in that you are seeing not facsimiles of original books, but texts that have been converted into html or other text formats. This offers the advantage of being able to search texts easily by keyword and copy and paste texts for essays or other uses. Three of these sites are of particular interest for those of us studying early modern British literature:

Renascence Editions is a repository of texts assembled and maintained by the University of Oregon, organized by author's last name.

The Luminarium has an excellent collection of sixteenth and seventeenth-century texts, as well as texs from other periods and traditions of literature.

Finally, MIT hosts The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, which, as advertised, has all of Shakespeare's plays and poems.

British History and Shakespeare's Early Modern World

Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (This is a great information source on Shakespeare's life, the place he was born, and the early modern world.)

Tudor History from the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) (In addition to some good historical overviews of topics ranging from the Reformation to witchcraft, the BBC includes some fun activities, like cracking an Elizabethan letter and a virtual tour of an early modern room.)

Video and Multimedia
YouTube is a cornucopia for Shakespeare film clips and performance resources. In addition to fun clips like The Beatles performing the rude mechanicals' wall scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream, or Peter Sellers, as Richard III, reciting "A Hard Day's Night," YouTube has several "channels" posted by Shakespeare acting companies and institutions such as the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, the Folger Shakespeare Library, and the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, that offer clips, scene performances, and behind-the-scenes looks at producing Shakespeare's plays.

Sir Ian McKellan, the great Shakespearean actor who also happens to be Gandalf and Magneto, is featured in a wonderful multimedia site hosted by London's National Theater.

Search Engines and other "Metadata" Sites
The internet and digital media have allowed the creation of unprecedented tools for studying and creating new knowledge about Shakespeare. The British Library's English Short Title Catologue is an analog source (i.e., a book) that is now fully searchable online. Want to know what other books were published in the same year as Hamlet? What the most popular books were in Shakespeare's world? Which play of Shakespeare's was published first? This resource will answer your questions.

The Database of Early English Playbooks (DEEP), assembled by Alan Farmer and Zachary Lesser, has more specific information about playbooks, such as where the plays were first acted, which authors appear on their title pages (or if an author appears at all), and whether the plays are categorized as histories, comedies or tragedies. The database has a powerful search engine that allows you to customize your searches in almost infinite ways.

Lexicons of Early Modern English compiles several dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other reference works that were published in Shakespeare's time. In addition to the Oxford English Dictionary, this allows you to have a better understanding of what words meant in the time Shakespeare wrote them.

Finally, Open Source Shakespeare allows you to manipulate the Shakespearean text in many ways beyond basic reading. Interested in seeing how many times a word appears in a single play? In all of Shakespeare's plays? OSS does it in a few clicks. You can also create a list of all speeches by a single character and compare two sonnets side-by-side.

Lesson Plans

For those of you who are destined to be teachers of Shakespeare yourselves someday (or are already), you will find these two sites of particular interest.

Folger Shakespeare Library's Online Resources for Teachers (Specific lesson plans and teaching ideas from the world's premier center for Shakespeare research and teaching.)

University of Pennsylvania's English Renaissance in Context (ERIC) project (A resource that is both useful and beautiful to look at, focusing particularly on print history and the text of Shakespeare's plays.)

The role of Prophecy in 'Macbeth'

2011-05-20T13:05:00.005-04:00

A question i always find myself asking when presented with a story involving a prophecy is, 'Would the results have been the same had they not known about the prophecy?' In all such stories, the characters tend to base all if their actions on the knowledge of the prophecy and these particular actions often lead to the fulfillment of said prophecies. This seems to be the case even when the subject is trying to avoid the fulfillment of the prophecy. The story of Oedipus is a prime example of how prophecies are inevitable.

In regards to Macbeth, I actually find myself conflicted when it comes to the prophecy. Normally i feel sure that prophecies will always be carried out despite anyone's actions; but in this play, the carrying out of the prophecy seemed so dependent on the fact that both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth were aware of it. In the beginning of the play i got the impression that Macbeth was a dutiful and loyal subject to the king who expressed no particular desire to take the kings place. He is approached by the three witches after having had some success on the battlefield and is at that point told of the prophecy.

Upon hearing the prophecy of his future as King, Macbeth is initially stunned and skeptical. His doubt in my opinion is key. I see it as expressing the fact that this is something Macbeth had never aimed for or even imagined for himself. Once Lady Macbeth is made aware of the prophecy it is fulfilled almost immediately. Macbeth kills the king while the true heirs (the princes) decide to flee in fear of their own lives. I believe that had Macbeth not known of this prophecy, he would have simply been grateful for his 'promotion' as opposed to being slightly angered by the prince's promotion. He would have never even made an attempt at the kings life, and the prophecy would never have been fulfilled.

King Lear: Act V (Make Up)

2011-05-19T14:41:00.002-04:00

Another post that seemed to slip by was the one I had to do on King Lear: Act V. This should be a little fun because this play had such a ridiculously sweet ending. I want to focus on a piece of dialogue that reminds me of something I saw on The Daily Show with John Stewart the other day:

EDMUND: I pant for life. Some good I mean to do,

Despite of mine own nature. Quickkly send,

Be brief in it, to the castle; for my write

Is on the life of Lear and on Cordelia:

Nay, send in time. (5.3.242-244)

The guest John Stewart had on was a man named Jon Ronson (author of The Men Who Stare at Goats). Ronson recently released his latest work, The Psychopath Test, in which he summarizes what he has found in pursuing interviews with psychopath's to get a more overarching view of their influence. Studies show, says Ronson, that 1 out of every 100 people in the world are socially integrated psychopaths, while 4 out of every 100 CEOs fall into this category. Now, he suggests, that the criteria for the psychopath is a recipe for ruthless success, in that some of the key characteristics include: lack of guilt; love of manipulation; ability to lie to peoples faces; bouts of bullying; superficial charm; unrealistic fantasies; and the list goes on and on. In reviewing King Lear, I would like to focus on Edmund's existence as a full blown psychopath, in that, he decides to walk the walk and talk the talk of a King (or at least one of significantly higher power than he—just or unjustly—deserves), regardless of what he was born into, and because he will do it by any means necessary, constantly. But I want to focus in that dialogue I quoted above on the line, “Some good I mean to do,” because this is where I see the most obvious parallel between Edmund and what Ronson sees as typical psychopathic behavior. Ronson states that a psychopath constantly constantly wants people to like them, is constantly in the business of manipulation, that Edmund, on his deathbed, proclaiming that he means to do good is a perfect example of this kind of action. I haven't read Ronson's book, but I mean to, and I also mean to revisit this idea with another reading of King Lear. This could turn into a really interesting paper for me in the future.

Midterm Blog Post: Make Up

2011-05-19T14:35:00.002-04:00

One of the blogging assignments that I missed was the midterm one which was supposed to consists of looking back onto our posts and writing some sort of response. Well, I've just read through them and I find most of the time that my opinions are pretty interesting yet, that I'm usually intimidated by Shakespeare, especially when required to post before beginning class discussion. I found that to be the most difficult thing about posting; I mean, it's tough to just come up with your own opinions about an incomplete reading of a work, but I guess it's an important concept. You can only read something for the first time once, and that may be the only unbiased reading that you can ever truly have. But I found one of my blog posts in particular to be really funny, because I saw that professor Mulready was the only one to comment on it, and you know, of course he has read the play before (a million times), but there I am making this conjecture that turns out to be the primary plot of the story:

“I have a question though, would I be correct in suggesting Claudio's desire for his sister Isabella to flirtatiously insinuate sexual desire for Angelo? I mean, the tick-tack comment is explained to us by the Norton Anthology's footnotes, but does he wish her to do absolutely anything she must in order to keep him alive?”

I think it's pretty funny to look back and see myself wrestling with this idea that ends up being the main conflict of the rest of the work. But as for other observations, I'm pretty satisfied at least with my ability when not able to grasp a work, to still look to those things which I can understand by focusing on little things in the dialogue and such, showing that I'm not inept because of my inability to understand things (I think it proves that maybe being a little confused doesn't mean much). It's comforting, in retrospect, that I can still make decent observations even when I'm stuck. And that's encouraging.

Women are Evil in Macbeth

2011-05-19T04:23:00.001-04:00

To me, Macbeth is a pretty misogynistic play. Most of the women characters motivate the male characters to do the evils they perform throughout. It all starts out when Macbeth and Banquo, after returning home victorious in separate wars, stumbling upon three witches in the midst of their rituals. They predict that Macbeth will become Thane of Cawdor, then King of Scotland, while Banquo's lineage will ascend to the throne after that. Macbeth tries to get information from the witches on how this will happen: “Say from whence / You owe this strange intelligence, or why / Upon this blasted heath you stop our way / With such prophetic greeting. Speak, I charge you” (2583). Despite this reasoning, the witches simply vanish, leaving the men in the dark about what this prophesy could've meant.

This presents a couple of problems, especially when King Duncan promotes Macbeth to Thane of Cawdor. Macbeth suddenly becomes fascinated by the prophesy and obsessed with the idea that he's becoming king. It's unclear of how the prophesy would have played out if the witches have never told it to Macbeth. Maybe King Duncan would've died of natural causes or something similar and somehow his son wouldn't be able to inherit the throne. Maybe it would've taken decades for Macbeth to ascend the throne. The witches leaving so suddenly seemed an evil act because it left Macbeth highly ambitious to become king.

Macbeth, of course, tells his wife about the prophesy, as a good man tells his wife everything. This however, leads to the revelation that the other major woman character, Lady Macbeth, is evil. In a monologue she claims Macbeth has too many feelings about the whole situation to act, acting would involve Macbeth murdering King Duncan. She says: “Yet I do fear thy nature. / It is too full o'th' milk of human kindness / To catch the nearest way” (2587). She later tells Macbeth to just suck it up and kill the king when he stays over their estate for a night of dinner and drinking: “O never / Shall sun that morrow see.…To beguile the time, / Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, / Your hand, your tongue; look like the innocent flower, / But be the serpent under't” (2588). So, even she is the convincing factor that leads to Macbeth stabbing King Duncan in the temple. He blames in on his Duncan's servants, and Duncan's sons Malcolm and Donalbain flee because they are afraid of being murdered as well. Their escape make the brothers an easy scapegoat in their father's death.

These actions lead to a chain reaction where more killings must take place: Banquo becomes murdered under Macbeth's order, and so does Macduff's family. Macduff being a character proclaimed to be an enemy of Macbeth through the witches. Macduff's wife is the only character who isn't evil in the play, and she dies before there's any real chance of character development.

A Difficult Scene: Gloucester's Eye Gouging

2011-05-17T12:56:00.003-04:00

Fast foward to 4:39 in this video to see the good stuff. I found that this clips takes stage direction high level. I was particularly fascinated in the eye gouging scene in King Lear not because it was gruesome, but because that sounds like a very difficult scene to portray well. This clip presents the scene as a dialogue-less flashback, but still work well to show the amount of horror meant to go into the scene. This makes me think of how more major productions of the play handle this particular moment, one of Shakespeare's most brutal.

Final Part II - "Don't Mention Macbeth"

2011-05-17T12:07:00.005-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0&NR=1

This clip titled "Don't Mention Macbeth" is taken from the BBC comedy Blackadder. It focuses on the belief that there is a curse on the name Macbeth. The two characters that are playing as two 'actors' speak in rhyme and take part in a seemingly silly ritual in order to avoid the curse of mentioning the name 'Macbeth.' I find that these 2 characters closely resemble the fools seen among various plays from Shakespeare's collection. The costume and presentation of the characters in this show closely resemble the styles of Shakespeare's time as well. I chose the clip for it's comedic display of the curse of Macbeth as well as for it's portrayal of Shakepeare's time.

An Insider Video look into a 1st Rehearsal of Shakespeare

2011-05-17T12:05:00.004-04:00

I have wanted to share this video all semester. It's an insider look into the first rehearsal of Cymbeline staged by Fiasco Theater and presented at Theatre for the New Audience in the city. I had an opportunity to see this production in January and let me just say that it greatly affected my ideas about ensemble theater, Shakespeare and dyamnic-actor driven performance.

I love how the first rehearsal is all about opening up a dialogue between the acting ensemble (which also includes the play's co-directors, designers, and the TFNA artistic director and staff.

They're just shooting the shit, and I love it. I hope you do too.

Merchant of Venice Video

2011-05-17T11:56:00.002-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTv6EKCxJ54

A guy named Dallas Bill discussing The Merchant of Venice. I think it's pretty interesting, he recites a few lines. Gives a little history surrounding the play. Plus I think it's always nice to see a guy in a cowboy hat talking about Shakespeare. He has a few of these videos where he addresses different plays by Shakespeare.

There is a little fault in his discussion--he refers to Portia as Shylock's daughter, but he apologizes in the little information box thing below the video.

Macbeth Video

2011-05-17T10:46:00.003-04:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=883718043846080512#

This link is a link to The Shakespeare Video's Society Production of Macbeth. As much as I enjoyed the movie we saw clips of in class of Macbeth when I had to watch the whole thing in a different class it put me to sleep. So this is a more theatrical version of the play. It is more colorful, sexualized, and a little over the top in some parts. I chose this video because I think that it is more entertaining, it's what one would see if they actually went to see a production of the play on stage. This particular production however, portrays Lady Macbeth to be more sexual than she seems in other productions and in the reading of the play, so maybe not appropriate for some high school levels if anyone was thinking of using this in the future for teaching. This clip illustrates the major themes in Macbeth and it also addresses the role of Lady Macbeth and depicts her in a different light. This video would be good to use in the classroom because it's not old and stuffy but at the same time it still follows the traditional Shakespearean language and doesn't go into modern realms that take away from the essence of the plot and storyline.

Kurosawa's Ran

2011-05-17T09:51:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbbfDntoRRk

This is a link to a pretty silly trailer for Akira Kurosawa’s Ran, which is based on King Lear. The trailer doesn’t do the film justice, but I couldn’t find any short clip that was better. I chose this film because I think Kurosawa offers an interesting take on the story of King Lear and perhaps gives credence to Ben Johnson’s claim that Shakespeare is for all time (as the film is set feudal Japan). The visuals are quite striking and Kurosawa maintains a raw dramatic energy throughout. For anyone who is interested in Shakespeare and Japanese cinema, Kurosawa’s a good director to look at. He also adapted Macbeth in Throne of Blood (and has adapted other works by western authors, like Maxim Gorky’s Lower Depths). For those of you who are interested, here’s a link to a pretty good quality (and free) streaming of the full length film:

http://stagevu.com/video/rdmdqyjoovry

Macbeth....animated

2011-05-17T09:15:00.002-04:00

http://youtu.be/LC9G_CZVAL8

I chose this video because I thought a cartoon version of Macbeth would be fun to watch. It actually turned out to be pretty great. I think turning Macbeth into a cartoon is a fabulous was to entice young people, especially those in middle school or high school. The simple fact that it's animated makes it more intriguing. I remember being in high school and seeing an old film that the teacher would put on and saying to myself "ugggggh not again". This is a version that will make younger crowd more apt to wanting to read Shakespeare. I'm going to continue looking to see if there are any other Shakespeare plays that have been animated in this way.

Akira Kurosawa's RAN (King Lear)

2011-05-17T09:00:00.002-04:00

First of all, you should all go watch Ran by Akira Kurosawa because not only is it an adaptation of King Lear, it's a fantastic and historically significant film. Also see Rashomon, The Idiot (Dostoevsky adaptation), Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood (Macbeth), Yojimbo, High and Low... what is this post about again?

I saw this film before I ever read King Lear, so a lot of these characters and settings looked like this film when I imagined them reading it. More than anything, the actor who plays "Lord Ichimonji" (King Lear) does a fantastic job of portraying his insanity. In this scene, we see as he sits in silence while being shot at it and while the building he is in begins to burn to the ground. At about the 3 minute point, he suddenly erupts into a fury, desperate to grab a hold of anything and escape the inferno, eventually sinking back down into his sitting position. This actor's portrayal is what I had in mind while reading King Lear, and I think it does well to add some depth to Lear's insanity that doesn't necessarily come through on the page.

Shakespeare for the illiterate!

2011-05-17T07:42:00.002-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZBS6e1msHs

I chose this resource because I wanted to find something out of the ordinary that might help someone who is Shakespeare "illiterate." This source is a decent starting block for those who find Shakespearean plots and/or language overly convoluted. This video in particular breaks down King Lear for us in manageable chunks, although it at times becomes unmanageably annoying. The major questions it raises for me are ones of Shakespeare's complexity versus his accessibility. Are Shakespeare's plots simple but portrayed in a convoluted way or are they convoluted inherently in the amount of levels they operate on? At least this puts the plot in terms that those of us who find the Elizabethan wordplay a bit much to start with. Is it best to understand the plot first and then dive into the text or is it better to derive the plot from the text to better understand it? I tend to believe the prior, or else Shakespeare would not give us all this exposition in the form of asides and soliloquy. This is a pretty useful resource for those just starting on reading King Lear, but becomes obsolete when one needs to consider deeper meanings in the text.

Two videos: One for awareness, one for fun

2011-05-17T00:59:00.003-04:00

I decided to post two videos. This assignment has made me aware of the wealth of videos out on the web that are related to Shakespeare - from educational, to satire, to documentary, to modern versions, and so forth - the possibilities are endless!

I was particularly intrigued by our reading of King Lear, however, so I chose two videos that relate to this play in very different ways. The first is a montage video of a woman dubbed "The Shakespeare Lady." The footage was taken by a woman named Ronnie Neuhauser, who was interested in The Shakespeare Lady (named Margaret Holloway), and chose to follow her. Ronnie states, "This is a video I created for Margaret Holloway, a homeless woman who prior to being stricken with schizophrenia had attained a BA from Bennington College and an MA from Yale University. She now performs classical literature on the streets of New Haven, CT, for survival. When I met her I was so touched I knew I had to create a composition about her...Half the proceeds go directly to her. I hope this touches you and make you think about how such a problem exists in such a powerful economic country."

The first several minutes of the video are very similar, but if you skip to the end, you will see a bit more of Ronnie's message. I thought this video was an important look into how deeply Shakespeare's words can effect someone, even after being stricken with mental illness. It was also ironic to me when thinking about King Lear, and its theme of mental illness. I wonder what led this woman to the mental state that she is currently in, and why she finds solace in speaking Shakespeare's words. Does his language have a therapeutic quality?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/60451/the_shakespeare_lady/

Secondly, this video is by a group called the Scottish Falsetto Sock Puppet Theatre, and is purely for absurd fun. It condenses the story of King Lear into 8 minutes, super-simplifying the plot with plain English language. Characters names are substituted, such as "Gonorrhea," "Ronald Regan," and "Edgar Allen Poe." However, it is not all nonsense. It pokes fun at the play in a way that is clearly aware of its themes and caricatures the characters by whittling them down to their essences. For example, Edmund the Bastard's puppet constantly mentions that he is a bastard, thus undermining the actual serious tone of Edmund's situation in the play. This video is silly, yet smart. It is made in jest, yet the man performing it appears to know his Shakespeare well. It is not necessarily kid friendly, just because it is done with sock puppets; there is adult language, and grown ups will appreciate the humor more than children.

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/1kwj

I think both of these videos illustrate that Shakespeare's work is eternally relevant, and can manifest itself in people's lives in many ways. Some people may not know how much it has affected them, while others choose to use their knowledge to bring both joy and education to others. Long live Shakespeare!

Final Post

2011-05-17T00:25:00.002-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb8wHTj6wAM

This video presents a very strange rendition of Measure For Measure in a stop motion picture. What was most interesting to me was the way that they were able introduce the main ideas of the play, but in a contemporary dialogue. This helped to show the way language has evolved, but there is nothing new that can be shown for it. The same words, phrases, and depictions are there, but there are only new ways of expressing it. These types of changes occur everyday, but it will be interesting to see how dated Shakespeare's language will seem in the future. If it does not already seem foreign, just wait.

Shakespeare: The Fun and Funny

2011-05-17T00:03:00.005-04:00

This video displays most crucially what can be done with the mode of Shakespearean interpretation. We can take his language, meld it with our own culture, make it relevant and funny, and interest those who may have been otherwise disinterested. Perhaps this isn't brilliant, but it's examples like these which add to Shakespeare's influence, importance, and fun. Why not praise it and enjoy the show? We can ask if such an interpretation misses the point of Shakespeare, as there doesn't seem to be much depth here, but the essence of Comedy, as we spoke about in class, consists of cheating death (focusing our attention rather upon life). And laughter accomplishes this, as it can press the depressed in all the right ways. That concept of laughter's satisfactions are what inspired Shakespeare's Comedic form, making this video appurtenant by default.

The Beatles are more connected to Shakespeare than we thought! (You know, besides both being English)

2011-05-16T23:08:00.005-04:00

Ever wonder what the dialogue was at the very end of “I Am the Walrus” by The Beatles? If you’re a Beatles fan, then of course you have because this song (album: Magical Mystery Tour) was released in the midst of their drug-induced heyday; which means that many things they did made absolutely no sense and us fans are left to be confused and wondering. However, the answer “they were just on drugs, this literally means nothing and holds no significance” is not good enough for a lot of people. Therefore, many devote much time and effort to try and analyze what the heck the Fab Four were thinking/doing during this phase. This of course leads to many foolish conclusions and far-fetched conspiracies, but here is one that is actually successful:

At the very end of “I Am the Walrus” (starting at 3:30) there is a chorus of people loudly chanting in high pitched voices “smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot…everybody smoke pot, everybody smoke pot!”. At 3:52, the chant decreases in volume and we hear voices that are slightly muffled. These voices are actually dialogue from the BBC broadcast of King Lear!

Here’s the exact part:

Act 4, Scene 6, lines 249-259:

Oswald: Slave, thou hast slain me. Villain, take my purse.
If ever thou wilt thrive, bury my body
And give the letters which you find’st about me
To Edmund, Earl of Gloucester. Seek him out
Upon the English party. O, untimely death!
Death! [He dies]

Edgar: I know thee well: a serviceable villain,
As duteous to the vices of thy mistress
As badness would desire.

Gloucester: What, is he dead?

Edgar: Sit you down, father. Rest you.

Link to Youtube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7uuLzSeyw4&feature=related

Why did The Beatles do this?
No one will ever know, but I believe that since the song is about death, this excerpt would be appropriate to include. Furthermore, this of course contributed to the whole “Paul is dead” rumor/scandal/conspiracy (many people started pulling out ridiculous evidence and claiming that Paul was dead. Instead of the Beatles stifling this bizarre rumor, they decided to have fun with it and do things to go along with it/screw with people’s minds). Or perhaps they were paying homage to their homeland’s most famous playwright. But above all, they used King Lear as a tool to demonstrate a point, and that’s pretty significant.

Why else does this matter?
It shows how Shakespeare is prevalent in popular culture, no matter what era. It’s interesting to see how his work has been incorporated in various forms of entertainment such as movies, literature, and music. His work has shown to be flexible: from basic adaptations, to videos like “Sassy Gay Friend”. If you don’t like Shakespeare, you’re S.O.L. because this man’s legacy has proven to never fade.

Even Sesame Street does Shakespeare

2011-05-16T22:13:00.004-04:00

Sesame Street does Monsters of Venice

It has been said that the work of Shakespeare is "for all time." I was skeptical of the accuracy of this statement until taking this Shakespeare course. In this course, I have learned that even now, thousands of years after Shakespeare's death, he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language! I believe this to be the reason why Shakespeare is still so widely studied and the reason why adaptations of many of his most famous plays can be found in different forms of media like television and film. For this reason, I wanted to share with all of you a modern adaptation of a play that we read during our coursework. I found, on youtube, a video of a parody that Sesame Street did of The Merchant of Venice.

This video, while filled with humor, also teaches us another very valuable lesson. That is, that Shakespeare is still relevant in our lives today and his works have truly transcended from his time into ours. I am very confident that this will continue to happen far into our future, and even the future of our children and grandchildren. It is amazing to me that through the vast language that Shakespeare used in his works, we turn to him for entertainment and to learn valuable lessons about our past that can be carried through to our present and our future!

Signed Shakespeare

2011-05-16T20:45:00.003-04:00

Translating Shakespeare, into a different language is always a challenge, that challenge becomes multiplied when that language is not even spoken. American Sign Language is a beautiful, kinetic and literal language how does Shakespeare's language so ripe figurative language translate?
American Sign Language is not just English codified into a manual form. It has its own grammar, vocabulary an anything else a language may have. Unlike English grammar, ASL grammar is loose and flexible. A simple example of an American Sign Language sentence is MORNING FINISH SEE I DOG BROWN RUN . Although to us it reads like caveman speak when really it translates to This morning I saw a brown dog run. In english this sentence would seem, elementary but the fantastic thing in ASL the descriptions can be worked in by playing with rhythm, fluidity, and hand shapes. It is due to this flexibility that while it is impossible to fully capture all the magnificence of Shakespeare's language, some of the poetry can still be translated!

Shakespeare's villians

2011-05-16T17:25:00.002-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeU6jpmiF4I

What can I say, I'm a sucker for Kenneth Branagh. I know we didn't read Othello this semester, but it was stated that we can post a clip that has effected our readings of Shakespeare on a whole and this bit from Kenneth Branagh has influenced me more then any other I've seen. The way he turns from jovial and flippant to totally sinister amazes me every time I see it and the suble change in the music score always gives me chills. It was this speech that made me so enthralled with Shankespeare's villians and has influenced the way I've read them ever since. Out of the all characters we've read this semester it was Edmond of "King Lear" I found most compelling and I have no doubt that it was this version of "Othello" and it's portrayal of Iago that influenced me to appreciate the chess master villains like those two in Shakespeare and many other fictional works.

Final Blog Post: Part II

2011-05-16T17:07:00.002-04:00

http://youtu.be/4e8avPkjRL4

I chose this video because I thoroughly enjoyed this monologue. I feel this speech is really rateable to real life, and as it was an issue back in Shakespearean times I feel that some still find it in issue today. What Macbeth is saying here is that life isn't always a bed of roses, and his case he is finally realizing he is no exception and never will be. And rather than living a miserable life, unable to escape hell he would rather but an end to his misery. The major theme being demonstrated here is that no matter who you are, you will always have struggles in life. As Shakespeare clearly illustrates, to be a king or a person in power is no exception to this rule. In fact, I feel as though Shakespearean works illustrate quite the opposite; meaning if you are a king or are in a higher power your life struggles tend to be that much more challenging than the norm.

Missing Blog

2011-05-16T14:07:00.002-04:00

During my confusion I missed a blog post for the course, and Professor Mulready was kind enough to let me post it before the final. For the fifth act of King Lear I am particularly taken with the confusion over the death of the Fool, and how it can be incorporated with the death of Cordelia.....was she ultimately Lear's fool? When one thinks of a stereotypical fool in Shakespearean literature Cordelia does not fit the part: she is not there for the king's amusement, and is not at the king's every beck and call. However Cordelia and the Fool have one great similarity, and that is their frankness with the aging king. Cordelia would not give into then naive nature of the king by refusing to fawn over him; unlike her sisters, Cordelia told Lear blatantly that she loved him like a daughter should love her father, no more and no less. The Fool also is blunt with Lear, telling the king that HE was the fool, more of a fool with the proper name, for believing his other daughters Goneril and Regan with their manipulative ways of flattery.

Another attribute that could suggest the Fool and Cordelia are one in the same is because the Fool vanishes from the play, and during the death of Cordelia, Lear holds her body and cries that his fool is dead: notes from the Norton Shakespeare suggest that Lear was speaking about Cordelia. Cordelia and the Fool have commented on the other, however, with each one calling the other a fool, respectively. It was common in Shakespeare's time for actors to play more than one role simultaneously, and since the Fool and Cordelia never had any time together on the stage it could be implied they may have been the same character.

A Modern Macbeth Restauranteur

2011-05-16T02:31:00.004-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO7vUrLIb1w&feature=related

Set in a high class restaurant owned by celebrity chef Duncan Docherty, with Joe Macbeth as the sous chef and his wife Ella as the hostess. Joe and his fellow chef Billy Banquo are annoyed that Duncan takes credit for Joe's work, and that Duncan's son Malcolm has understanding of the business. Then they encounter three supernatural binmen who prophesied that Macbeth will get ownership of the restaurant and so will Billy's children. Joe and Ella desire to kill Duncan, but the binmen warn that Macbeth should be concern of the head waiter, Peter Macduff.

I chose this video because it is a modern day take on the story of Macbeth and how ambition can ruin lives. I like when Shakespeare is performed with a refreshing modern take. I would have never thought to set this story in a restaurant but upon review of this video I think it works great. I think that Shakespeare stories are transcendental which is what we enjoy discussing a lot in class. A fresh spin on something that can usually be done so stale and classic. It raises the question of whether or not it is appropriate to call something the story of Macbeth when they are using new language. I wonder if this show could have worked if they did use Shakespeare's language. Even if it is slightly modified.

Here's another video that is just for pure satire's sake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWQX47spGr0

The Beatles' Take on Shakespeare: Final Part 2

2011-05-16T01:00:00.002-04:00

Need I say more? The Beatles effortlessly perform a Shakespearean skit from A Midsummer Night's Dream in this video clip from 1964.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y24geONER0k&feature=related

If you want to read along, this is Act V, Scene 1.

From the costumes, to the props, to the acting and the animals, this rendition of A Midsummer Night's Dream makes me wish that the Beatles performed every play we read for this course. Not to say that reading the plays or watching the more modern film versions weren't enjoyable, but I think watching the Beatles take on Shakespeare adds a whole new dimension to the play.

Final Blog Part II

2011-05-15T21:47:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC9G_CZVAL8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI2hiQNiyW4&playnext=1&list=PLA0D691518008D207

I had a hard time finding just one video clip for this assignment. I ended up choosing 2 clips that interested me, and the third is just for a good laugh. I hope to become a teacher one day and I thought this first clip, BBC Shakespeare Animated Tales, was great for teaching Macbeth to children. Children love cartoons, and they are more engaged in animations rather than just reading a book. I have never watched a cartoon of Macbeth, but this 9 min video does a good job telling the story. Some parts are too gruesome for children to watch, such as when Macbeth kills Duncan, so this may not be good for younger children. This is also great for anyone that has a hard time understanding Shakespeare.
I also chose BBC’s Blackadder “Don’t mention Macbeth” because I found it hilarious and Macbeth is one of my favorite plays we read. Blackadder is a historical sitcom on the British Comedy Channel. I remember watching this in another class and I thought it was hilarious. Saying “Macbeth” is considered by those involved in acting to be very bad luck. This legend started with the death of a boy playing Lady Macbeth backstage on opening night in 1606. In this episode, every time Blackadder mentions “Macbeth,” the two gentlemen scream: “Aahhh how potato, orchestra stalls, puck will make amends.” The men tell Blackadder that he is “exercising evil spirits” by mentioning the name of the Scottish play.

Understanding Shakespeare

2011-05-15T18:19:00.002-04:00

So for my blog post I surfed the internet tirelessly and couldn't pick something. So I went back into my scribe notes and decided to reuse a video from there. Aside from it being hilarious and straight to the point, "How to Understand Macbeth in 96 Seconds" shows us that Shakespeare's plays are easily broken down into major themes and actions. This is why Shakespeare is so popular even to this day. His stories are easy to relate to and completely adaptable to modern day. As we discussed on our first day of class Shakespeare has proven to be a master at showing his readers an exciting story. And so my clip just shows how even with the bare essentials of a Shakespeare play, we as readers can still get some meaning from it and understand the larger themes of the play. So enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHVzWxFW3cs

Stephanie Wexler

Out Darn Spotlight

2011-05-15T18:12:00.001-04:00

All right, no laughing (out loud anyway, because you don't want to hurt my feelings) at my pick for this final post.

This is a selection from one of my favorite children's shows, Jimmy Neutron. And, specifically, Jimmy Neutron's "Out Darn Spotlight" which is a Riff on Shakespeare's Macbeth. I say riff because it doesn't really include much from Macbeth, the episode is really about a school production of Macbeth called "Macbeth in Space," that includes some lines from Macbeth, but which really includes a number of other iconic Shakespearian lines from a number of other Shakespeare plays, including lines taken from Richard III and Romeo and Juliet. (It also includes a few Shakespearian sounding lines from Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz for flavor.)

For me this shows just how pervasive Shakespeare's works are in our society, especially when you consider that this is a kid's show and yet it uses so many well known lines from Shakespeare's plays.

Plus, I just love Jimmy Neutron.

Part 1

Part 2

Final Part II: Isabella's plea...through metal?

2011-05-15T15:22:00.002-04:00

I've always felt that Measure for Measure's Act II scene ii was pretty romantic. Isabella begs Angelo for help in the plea to save her brother's life. When searching for an adaptation of the scene, I stumbled upon an unexpected video, "The Ballad of Isabella" performed by the Metal Shakespeare Company. After watching this video and a few others, I realized that not only is this band outright ridiculous, they are also innovative and intriguing in some weird way. They adapt this scene using some of the lines while also changing it up a little bit. It is extremely strange to watch a "metal" band perform Shakespearean lines, but they do it in such a fashion that I highly recommend watching. I think clips likes this are oddly beneficial to Shakespeare readers because they add that modern viewpoint, but also show how universal Shakespeare is. The audience, in this live version, are definitely into the song, the band, and the overall act.

Also, one of the best parts is toward the end when the keyboardist begins to solo and the metal really "comes in" with the King.

I'm not exactly sure how Shakespeare would react to this. Would he be insulted? Or think it's somewhat clever and humorous? To me, it's just another way to look at the play and appreciate the timeless work.

Final Part 2 video clip

2011-05-15T14:16:00.000-04:00

I picked this video because I feel Shakespeare should be introduced to a younger age. This may be slightly too scary and raunchy for elementary school kids, but middle school kids would enjoy this. I thought it would be cool to share this video since a lot of us in the class are majoring in education. This cartoon video of Macbeth shows some main points to bring up in a class discussion. They take a lot of the language out and narrate it in modern english, but the words they leave in are important like "double trust." Bringing up these parts of the play can strike up different conversations and engage the students more into a Shakespeare play.These days a lot of poeple look over Shakespeare and don't appreciate the art he created for us. Some of us don't understand it and choose to give up before trying. Videos like these can help a person grasp a concept a little better. A lot of students are visual learners, so instead of shoving a written play in their face, they can watch it in a video. How would an animated film be more appropriate for a classroom? I think it gives a bigger picture in a students mind and helps them understand the play better. I think this video touches on a lot of great points about the play and is a good example of how a tragedy is played out.

Final Blog Post: Sparknotes Summarizes King Lear

2011-05-14T22:28:00.002-04:00

This is a brief (ten minutes) summary of King Lear that was created by Sparknotes. I chose this video because it is somewhat informative, and depicts the overall plot line of King Lear. That being said, I also chose it because I felt that it did not adequately do the play justice at all. To me, it is more an example of condensing a great work of literature into a brief and very boring segment. The video is dull, and the man narrating it speaks in a monotone. I never thought that death, betrayal, and the downward spiral of a king's sanity could be so BORING. I enjoyed the play immensely while reading it, but actually found myself drifting off while I watched this video. Shakespeare can be wonderfully entertaining and exciting when done properly, but this video is definitely an example of what not to do when trying to engage students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptXr7LKylpg

When studying Shakespeare, it is so important to utilize several different interpretations. Although this is clearly a valuable source, it must be used in accordance with studying the text and at least one other visual interpretation of the play. For me, this video brings to light how important it is to look at Shakespeare's plays from as many different angles as possible to garner the full experience, and draw your own conclusions.

Final Exam: Part II

2011-05-14T21:09:00.000-04:00

I picked this video simply because it is hilarious. I also love Hugh Laurie, he's a very funny actor and plays this skit well. The video is funny, but at the same time is exemplifying a possible editing strategy that Shakespeare had. The skit also pokes fun at some of Shakespeare's plays like King Lear and Hamlet, saying how long they are and how long the soliloquy's are. The editor also is making fun of the theater and how people do not want to sit for 5 hours on wooden seats with no bathroom. This video, even though mostly poking fun at Shakespeare's plays has us questioning whether Shakespeare actually had editors giving him this kind of advice about pleasing the King and the run time being too long. I, myself also question what Shakespeare actually liked people to call him because in this skit he is "Bill," sometimes he is "Will" and other times William. So which is it? Or maybe all three? This video most importantly somewhat helps us understand the reason for Shakespeare's writing and his strategy to it, which is something we have discussed in class. Just as the description says, this is a bit of comic relief which Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson play out very well.

Final Blog

2011-05-13T18:49:00.002-04:00

This is a performance of Macbeth done by the Reduced Shakespeare Company. What they do is they take an entire Shakespeare play and they condense it down into one small sketch. They also pay it out for comedic effects. I first learned of these people when I was a freshman in college and they were hilarious.

What makes this video, and this company, important is the fact that to all the people who are afraid of Shakespeare or they just are not into him, will be able to still learn about him and his plays through this company. By re-performing the plays in a small amount of time, they are making his plays easier to understand or more approachable for many people. When many people hear Shakespeare they might think difficult to understand language and bad clothes/costumes. They will completely miss the point of his plays and just how universal they are.

By performing these short scenes to comedic effects, the people that were once put off by Shakespeare, will find it funny and they may begin to notice the universal themes that many people can relate to - love, betrayal, comedy, lust, revenge, guilt, murder...etc. They will be more enticed to read his plays and they may find Shakespeare much more approachable because of this company.

Interview with Sir Ian McKellen on playing emKing Lear/em

2011-05-13T17:28:00.000-04:00

Interview with Sir Ian McKellen on playing emKing Lear/em

Featuring Ian McKellen speaking about his experience playing King Lear with the Royal Shakespeare Company for Trevor Nunn's film adaptation of the play, this clip includes McKellen's valuable insights about King Lear which are supplemented by carefully chosen excerpts from related scenes. Here, McKellen emphasizes King Lear's relationship to the gods that changes from from full faith to a loss of faith in the final scene where after hearing of Cordelia's death, he compares the human state to that of the lesser animals. By analyzing this progression of the ultimate devaluation of King Lear's faith, McKellen comments upon how we, the audience, must also notice the the advancing of Lear's aged state that his daughters Goneril and Regan take advantage of. In pondering upon King Lear's age, McKellen also imagines what he believes to be the "backstory" of Lear's life. While he understands that Shakespeare intentionally did not mention King Lear's past, since he is not creating a retrospective but a play that takes place in the present and causes the audience to accept Lear for who he is at this stage in his life, McKellen's interesting analysis as an actor needing to imagine a "backstory" in order to more successfully play his part, offers valuable insights into understanding King Lear's reactions to his daughters' actions. By imagining Lear as a man who has been widowed three times, with his last wife, the mother of Cordelia, being his true love, McKellen attempts to understand how Cordelia's refusal to publicly speak her love for her father could be taken as such an offense, considering that Lear would be metaphorically looking into the face of his wife, presumably the same age and image as her daughter when she died, as making her inability to express her love all the more burdensome for his aging heart. By finally describing his playing of this role as reaching the "Everest of Shakespeare" McKellen emphasizes the importance of the King Lear as a character, and King Lear as a whole, which gives great gravity to our reading of the play and our as both students and audience members either reading or viewing this monumental play.

Final Blog Post (Video)

2011-05-13T15:33:00.002-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKXQbIBt9C8

I am posting this video because it is simply hilarious, but also and mainly because I think it shows the collaboration that must have went into the work of each of Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare the man has become a legend that no other author has been able to supersede. What most of us forget is that he did not reach this status alone. He worked with an entire company of actors who during the process of performing must have discussed the changing of lines or speeches that are now immortalized in Shakespeare’s folio. It’s crazy to think that some of the most famous words ever written could have been someone else’s ideas but it does sound more realistic. After all, a whole troop of actors and writers are better than one. If nothing else it is ridiculously funny to think about a group of actors drunk in some pub in London fighting over lines.

The other issue that is brought up in the video is the fact that Shakespeare was a successful play write that was out to make money. In order to make money he had to appeal to his audience and sometimes pander to the will of the masses. While there is nothing wrong with this, it does take some of the romance out of the myth that is Shakespeare. I am not trying to say that the man didn’t have integrity, but it is always interesting to think if there are other motives for writing. We have already seen this pandering when it came to impressing King James when Shakespeare presented his lineage in Macbeth. We also know that Shakespeare wrote an entire play for his popular character Falstaff mainly because his presence would fill the Globe. I’m not trying to portray Shakespeare as a bad guy, after all the man was just trying to make a living. I just think that there are more realistic views of him. He was brilliant and along with his acting troop made some of the most profound works to ever grace the written page. That being said it is still important to remember that Shakespeare was a man, a human being with faults.

David Tennant as Angelo in Measure for Measure

2011-05-12T16:03:00.000-04:00

I have never watched the show Dr. Who, but I have seen David Tennant in other films and while searching for them came across this little jewel:

It's Act two scene four of Measure for Measure, done using a hand-held movie camera. It's shot to look like the actors are just people in a private area, unaware that someone is watching them (sounds like an actual movie, I know; you will understand when you watch the clip).

I think this is a good video to share with people because this scene is crucial in Measure for Measure. This is a turning point for both characters -Angelo has to admit that he has sexual feelings (feelings at all) for a woman, and Isabella must confront her values over saving her brother's life. I think this take on the act is perfect: Tennant plays this slightly awkward but intelligent Angelo, and the actress who plays Isabella (can't find her name) is so strong and yet naive. It's important to see different actors and actresses playing these roles: every person brings something new to the character.

My question for the video in general is this: How exact can any actor be in portraying a character of Shakespeare's plays? He doesn't give much description or stage directions within his plays; are the characters not one fluid person? Is everyone's portrayal of the characters correct?

2011-05-11T18:04:00.000-04:00

For my final blog post, I chose the video "The Histories", performed by the Reduced Shakespeare Company. In this clip, the performers act out all of Shakespeare's history plays combined into a football game of a few minutes.

Not only is this clip comical, but it is a great representation of the major plot occurrences in the history plays. All of the overthrows of power are depicted, as well as the constant changes in familial rule that are the basis for Shakespeare's history plays. It supplements the family tree "A Shakespeare Genealogy" that is located in the beginning of The Norton Shakespeare. In just about two minutes, the fast speaking and "rattling-off" of names emphasizes the inconsistency and ever-changing nature of the throne. Of course, the characters we all now know so well--Richard II, King Henry IV, and King Lear--are all referenced.

Lady Macbeth Meets Sassy Gay Friend!

2011-05-11T17:40:00.000-04:00

When I heard about this part of the final, I immediately thought of Sassy Gay Friend. He is absolutely hilarious (aside from the shameless product placement which is not included in his older videos). For those who have never heard of Sassy Gay Friend, he is basically a character that visits many female characters of literature (mostly Shakespeare) in order to steer them away from their imminent doom. I chose this video of the Sassy Gay Friend because it had to be about a play we read this semester, but I prefer the Hamlet, Othello, and Romeo and Juliet editions.

I know this series of videos is more for entertainment than education, and I would sound ridiculous trying to seriously analyze these videos. However, I will say that the satire that Sassy Gay Friend brings to Shakespeare is important. For one thing, it is another way of making Shakespeare accessible to a larger audience. Satire sometimes helps in our understanding of a play and forces us to question it. But also, in all of his videos, he asks the questions that I always ask while reading Shakespeare; I know that part of theater is always about the suspension of disbelief, but sometimes I can't help but wonder how/why characters in Shakespeare's plays do what they do. Yes, Shakespeare's work is amazing, but really, it's also sometimes ridiculous and over-dramatic. I think a lot of Shakespeare's characters would benefit from a Sassy Gay Friend.

Final Exam Part II

2011-05-10T11:35:00.001-04:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOkyZWQ2bmQ

I mentioned this video in my last post about Lady Macbeth. Judi Dench plays an amazing role here. It shows just how creepy it really was to have Lady Macbeth up walking around, in her sleep, talking and spilling the beans about everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_5adzpdkdw

I like this because this is the scene where Shylock gives his famous speech. Shylock ends the speech with a tone of revenge: "if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" Those who see the speech as sympathetic point out that Shylock says he learned the desire for revenge from the Christian characters: "If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction."
I feel like this is one of the strongest parts in many of Shakespeare’s plays because it shows true humanity and it confronts all of the criticism he has ever received, especially for being a Jew.

Re: The Problem of the Witches' Powers

2011-05-08T14:14:00.005-04:00

I was going to simply respond to Steven Wagner's post, however it became pretty long and I figured I should post it instead. Here's the thing. . .the more I read Shakespeare, the more I see that sometimes his narratives have little holes which we always find ourselves debating over exactly what to fill them in with. I believe we have to forget that there may be these flaws, and look to what each of these instances represents holistically (dealing in absolutes). Every interpretation of the witches' existence deals with a single idea: Fate. Whether we can change it or not is a circularly unanswerable debate, because in Macbeth, like in life, we can never know the truth. So then, along these specific lines, what then do the witches absolutely represent? I think they are symbols singularly of the question of Fate, not possible answers. Moreover, I find them representing the reason why the concept of Fate exists. You see, there is a cause and effect here regarding Fate: we are conscious of our deaths, therefore we can question how it will come to be and why. I think the witches' existences create a parallel progression.

To me, Shakespeare is creating a universe and imposing a question upon it by creating these characters in the same way our own minds create Fate by being conscious. It reminds me of Marquez's "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings," where the entire narration is fun and crazy and pointless, however the point may just simply be, "look at me, I can create something fun and crazy, and who cares if it's pointless." Marquez is not telling us to write pointless fiction or anything like that (offering answers), he's just saying, look at us, we are humans, this is what we do, we tell stories, you can think about it or not, but neither changes anything (I am only a creator). In my opinion, Shakespeare says something similar: who cares if Fate exists or not, we are conscious and we're all going to die, we are humans, this is what we do, we can think about it or not, but neither changes anything (I am only a creator).

Final Exam Blog: Shakespeare Meets Sesame Street

2011-05-07T16:06:00.003-04:00

Call it being a bit immature, but while searching youtube for a video to post for the final exam, I could not refrain from posting a clip from Monsterpiece Theater. Aptly title "The Monsters of Venice", it's a Sesame Street spoof on the play. As you will see from the video (only 3:20, a bit shorter than stated on the requirements), Grover delivers a moderately similar version of Shylock's "Hath not a Jew eyes..." speech.

Of course being from a syndicated children's show, there's a happy ending, and instead of a pound of flesh the focus is on cake and balloons, but what made me submit this video for my final blog is because it shows that The Merchant of Venice (and Shakespeare's plays in general) can be adaptable throughout different age ranges and issues from the play can still be addressed in current times, such as prejudice and naivety. And finally, I wanted to submit this video because it was a different portrayal of the play than those we have seen in class (and because it's from Sesame Street, a favorite show of mine when I was a child). Enjoy!

Fall Of the Lady

2011-05-04T09:51:00.002-04:00

Lady Macbeth has finally lost her senses. After being the strong one in Shakespeare’s play, or at least the strongest woman, Lady Macbeth has lost her mind over the deaths. In Act 5, she is seen talking to her self and sleepwalking. While rubbing her hands, she says “Yet here's a spot. . . Out, damned spot; out I say” (27-30) “What, will these hands ne'er be clean. . . All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand" (37-43). The two men watching her are witnessing her recounting the events that took place at the time of Duncan’s death. She has the feeling that her hands are covered in blood and how she can’t wash them clean. She begins to hear sounds like Macbeth, the knocking at her door. A doctor visits Lady Macbeth and says that she needs a priest’s help as if she has be consumed with some type of evil and needs an exorcism instead of sleep or a slight of memory. In Act 5 Scene 8, King Malcolm III exploits that Lady Macbeth killed herself. Judi Dench conveys the overwhelming guilt and horror of Lady Macbeth. Here is the sleepwalking scene and I think Judi Dench does a great job or really taking on the character of Lady Macbeth.

YouTube - Shakespeare: "Macbeth" Sleepwalking Scene from Shakespeare's Work" (1847) by Gulian Crommelin Verplanck. Dir. Gulian C. Verplanck. Perf. Judi Dench and Denyse Alexander. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. 01 June 2007. Web.

Act 5.5, Seyton tells of the death of Lady Macbeth. Macbeth doesn’t seem to have a reaction other than she was supposed to die later. Lady Macbeth’s character ends when Macbeth gives a short excerpt about life:

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. (23-27)

Banquo

2011-05-03T09:22:00.001-04:00

Banquo come across as the most influential character in terms of defining Macbeth’s evil intentions. If there is to be a friendship between the two, then it would cruel to play along believing that a bond does in fact exist. However, Banquo presents a calm side to the play, especially since his character is full of poise and rationality. When Banquo says, “new honours come upon him, / Like our strange garments, cleave not to their mould / but with aid of use” there is a definitive trust that he feels toward Macbeth. He knows that in a righteous time such as this for what could be the new king, there needs to be an understanding and appreciation from his subjects, but there is still this question of as to why he would support Macbeth. As I continue to read there is not a single reason for Banquo’s devotion and support, and I even try to read his lines in a cynical perspective that maybe he could have been trying to plot against him, or that he even uses the slightest bit of sarcasm and wit, but he does not. The only section that I could find that might have the slightest hint of this attitude would be in 3.1, which states, “Let your highness / Command upon me, to the which my duties / Are with most indissoluble tie / For ever knit” (3.1.15-18). I want to think that he is not allowing Macbeth the satisfaction of have so much control over his actions. Macbeth follows these lines by saying, “We should have else desired your good advice, / Which still hath been both grave and prosperous, / In this day’s council; but we’ll talk tomorrow. / Is’t far you ride?” (3.1.21-4). It is Macbeth that is demonstrating his power over Banquo and there is nothing that can be done for him fight back, especially in the presence of Lady Macbeth who is also present throughout the scene. Regardless of the play that we read, there is always a character that is taken advantage of in one way or other. Two of the best examples of this type of treatment would be Edgar and Falstaff. I think Falstaff resembles this position more because there was a connection between him and Harry, which was destroyed by his new found power. By carrying on the way he does, it is only a matter of time before Banquo is gone.

The Problem of the Witches' Powers

2011-05-02T22:24:00.004-04:00

After the first reading of Macbeth, I was extremely skeptical as to whether or not the witches had any actual power. Were the witches actually able to see the future? Or were they simply able to effectively plant ideas in the heads of their victims that make their prophecies come true? For instance, it's clear that Macbeth, before meeting with the witches, had no intentions of killing Duncan. In fact, it seems that he had never even considered the possibility of being King. So could it be that there was not actually a determined future in which Macbeth became King, but that the prophecy merely fulfilled itself simply by its being suggested? This seems perfectly reasonable in this one case, but how does it hold up for the rest of their prophecies? It would be very hard to set up a self-fulfilling prophecy where both Macbeth becomes king and Banquo's line inherits the throne. While it could be foreseeable on the part of the witches that Macbeth would kill Duncan when presented with the prophecy, and they could even have predicted that Banquo and his family would be Macbeth's next target as a result of the prophecy, but how could they have known that Fleance would get away? Even less plausible, how could the witches have known that "Great Birnam Wood" would move to Dunsinane Hill? Those with the branches haven't even heard their prophecy. The only answer is that they actually do have supernatural powers of foresight. My problem then is this: What does this say of the free will of the characters? If the witches can see everything that will happen in the future, and these things are determined to happen, how could they even go on, knowing not only that their fate is destined but what they are destined to do? And to what extent is Macbeth responsible for the death of Duncan? He was destined to do so, and as an agent who is merely thrust into existence to endure his deterministic sentence, who exactly are we blaming when we say Macbeth is responsible for Duncan's death? It seems more likely to me that the witches don't simply have foresight of all events of the future, but rather that they are able to curse specific victims to fates which they can't avoid.

The Transmutation of Macdeath

2011-05-02T19:34:00.002-04:00

Macbeth is riddled with language of transmutation. From the series of murders that transform the organization of the state (not to mention the state of Macbeth’s soul) to the sing-song rhyming of the weird sisters, the play deals with the processes by which fate unfolds. Even the etymology of “weird”--from the Old English “wyrd” meaning fate--which is of course closely associated with witchcraft, points to the transmutation of supernatural forces into fate in the human realm. The weird sisters call upon dark beings to transmute the world of man. Indeed Macbeth comes under the spell of devilish powers which enter his soul and drive him deeper and deeper into damnation. As he descends he begins to perceive, through the chaos of his soul, the supersensible beings which have taken him prisoner. In this way, his consciousness is also transmuted into a twofold personality after the “deed that’s done” to Duncan (the done king). Macbeth double-crosses Duncan, who’s with him in “double trust,” (echoing the refrain “double, double toil and trouble”) which results in uncontrolled, spontaneous insights into other planes of reality. In other words, he’s being transmuted into a fiend of the lower worlds where his higher nature has scarcely any influence. He has stripped away the curative properties of sleep, “the death of each day’s life,” so that he’s left in a state of perpetual decay (2.2.35). The false face which must hide the false heart is eventually transmuted by its falseness so that fair becomes foul. Death perfects the imperfect words of the weird sisters, or rather Macbeth (or should I say Macdeath) interprets them to justify the macabre deaths that he unleashes. Like King Lear, this play also questions the nature of free-will and destiny. I don’t think these two things are mutually exclusive. There are certain events which through an act of fate present themselves to Macbeth, but he always has the freedom to decide how to relate himself to these events, how to interpret them and create meaning out of them. Of course, Macbeth’s will-power cannot stand up against the evil forces that take hold of his soul and spur him on to his doom. Once he begins to act in accordance with the fiendish greed that arises in him it becomes increasingly difficult for him to master the impulses that transmute his soul into a vessel for destructive demonic powers.

Lady Macbeth and Iago

2011-05-02T17:17:00.001-04:00

In our discussion in Friday's class, the question of Lady Macbeth's real power and control arose. Is she really the bad-ass that she claims to be, or is she just as insecure as poor Macbeth? While I can see how people could see her instability (ie: her descent into madness as seen in her "Out, out damned spot" speech), I don't think this character trait hinders the control she has over her husband. In fact, I can't help but notice a comparison between evil Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. Sure, these are my two favorite plays so I may be inclined to find similarities between the two, but the comparison is obvious: Both characters serve as the "little birdie" in the ears of the respective main characters; both characters feed on the emotional weaknesses of others and convince them to murder.

In both cases, the schemer's whispers are the driving force behind the action. While the source of manipulation is obvious in Othello, in Macbeth, one could argue that the witches' prophecies are what really inspires Macbeth to murder the king; after all, without this prophecy Macbeth would never suspect he could become Thane or King. However, in 1.7, we see Macbeth having second thoughts about following through with the act. First, he recognizes that he has the King's "double trust" and that he should "against his murderer shut the door,/Not bear the knife myself" (1.7.12-16). He also refers to Duncan as "meek" and "clear" (blameless), and describes him as a "new-borne babe" and "heaven's cherubim." It is clear that he is still clinging onto his conscience, while Lady Macbeth is ready to take this new-borne babe and "have plucked his nipple from his boneless gums/And dashed the brains out" (1.7.57-58). After this conversation with Lady Macbeth, Macbeth says, "I am settled." Whatever shred of humanity Macbeth had prior to this conversation has been lost.

Both Iago and Lady Macbeth use careful manipulation in order to achieve their hold over Othello and Macbeth, respectively. In the first interaction between husband and wife, Lady Macbeth addresses Macbeth as "Great Glamis, worthy Cawdor,/Greater than both by the all-hail hereafter." This doting address is obviously ironic to the audience, for it immediately followed her entire speech about how she wishes she could take over for Macbeth, have the spirits "unsex" her and "make thick [her] blood" (1.5.39-41). She also suggests how unmanly her husband is, and how unsuited he is to have such power because he lacks "the illness should attend it" (1.5.18).

This dual behavior is reminiscent of Iago's speech to Roderigo in 1.1 of Othello, when he disparages Othello's choice of Cassio over Iago for second-in-command: "But he (as loving his own pride and purposes)/Evades them with a bombast circumstance/Horribly stuffed with epithets of war,/And in conclusion/Nonsuits my mediators" (1.1.13-17). However hateful Iago is towards Othello, he constantly reassures Othello that he has his best interest at heart when suggesting Desdemona's infidelity.

Furthermore, I find it really interesting that, unlike Othello which focuses on the influence of bonds between men, Macbeth explores the control that a wife can have on her husband; that the female character in one play can be compared to an evil male in the other. I always find Shakespeare's evil characters - especially when they are female - to be the most interesting.

Shakespeare Defying Gender Roles

2011-05-02T16:27:00.002-04:00

Until recently it was very uncommon to hear of a woman controlling a relationships let alone a marital relationship. Yet, somehow Shakespeare got away with this way before his time. Lady Macbeth is the quintessential "new woman" which doesn't come about until the end of the Victorian Era and even when this new woman does begin to come about in society it takes several decades until the term or idea is no longer considered taboo or to be a foreign concept. Shakespeare however, had realized the power of the female centuries before the modern/ new woman had even been thought up. Lady Macbeth is portrayed as a wife however, at the same time she happens to be the more masculine one in the relationship at least when it comes to the unsavory and cruel tasks of murdering the king and his guards. A woman's intuition is definitely what gives Lady Macbeth the knowledge that her husband is too weak to kill the king in order to advance his own career yet it his this masculine "willing to get dirty" in order to benefit oneselves mentality that gives Lady Macbeth the strength she needs to kill Duncan. While at the same time Macbeth himself is almost skirmish about killing the king; he is reluctant and when he finally gives in and is stabbing the king is cries out and yells. In traditional genders roles the woman is seen as the fragile, skirmish, nurturing and docile one who never wants to get her hands dirty while the male is seen as the provider and the one who is willing to do anything at any cost; the sacrificial one of the two. Even today it is more unheard for a woman to kill someone, you usually hear about men committing crimes and murdering people but hardly ever do you hear about a woman doing these things. A woman is suppose to the voice of reason to their unruly and rash counterparts but in this case Lady Macbeth is encouraging her husband to do the wrong thing.

LADY MACBETH Give him tending. He brings great news.
	Exit SERVANT
30 35 40	The raven himself is hoarse That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan Under my battlements. Come, you spirits That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full Of direst cruelty. Make thick my blood. Stop up the access and passage to remorse, That no compunctious visitings of nature Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between The effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts, And take my milk for gall, you murd'ring ministers, Wherever in your sightless substances You wait on nature’s mischief. Come, thick night, And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, That my keen knife see not the wound it makes, Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark To cry “Hold, hold!”

She is just as rash if not more rash and unbeliveable because when Macbeth begins to have doubts it is she who re-convinces him that killing the king is a good idea, she is also the one who comes up with the plan of how to kill the king. Women during this time period aren't supposed to be sneaky and manipulative. Having finished reading the play and knowing from the last time I read Macbeth it begs the question if the conclusion of Lady Macbeth at the end of the play is Shakespeare saying that women can try and act like men all they want but in the end they don't have the stomach for the consequences of their actions like a man might. Shakespeare is saying that women can't play with the big boys, they can try all they want but in the end they just won't be able to handle it.

A Play where the Women Rule

2011-05-02T16:20:00.001-04:00

William Shakespeare’s Macbeth is a play where the women overpower the men. In most of his plays the women are either background characters or are relegated to rather weak women that are only there to die, be good wives, or to backstab. With Macbeth, Shakespeare gives us some of his most developed female characters and gives them each a bunch of layers to make them real.
Who starts Macbeth’s need for power? The witches and his wife. If it were not for the witches then he would never even have the thought of kingship in his head. They are what put everything into motion. They are ambiguous in the play – are they good, bad, or neither? If they did not exist, would Macbeth still go on a conquest to become king? That is a question that is never answered.
More so than the witches, Lady Macbeth is the driving force of the play. She is the one who puts the idea into Macbeth’s head to kill the current king. She is not afraid to call him out on his actions and she is a rather tough woman. After Macbeth kills the king, he cannot take anymore and forgets to place the evidence on the servants. Lady Macbeth speaks to her husband:
Give me the daggers. The sleeping and the dead
Are but as pictures. ‘Tis the eye of childhood
That fears a painted devil. If he do bleed
I’ll gild the faces of the grooms withal,
For it must seem their guilt (2.2.50-55).
She seems to be disappointed in her husband and instead of making him do it, she decides that she will plant the evidence instead. She talks to her husband as if he is weak and is not worth her time. She seems to be angry and when she is done she states, “My hands are of your colour, but I shame to wear a heart so white,” (2.2.62-63). That is such a matter-of-the-fact thing to stay after planning a terrible murder of the king. She does not care at the deed she forced her husband to do. It is her fault that Macbeth becomes an evil and despicable human being.
I would say that Lady Macbeth is Shakespeare’s most developed and layered female character he ever wrote. I’ve read the entire play before and as it goes on she falls into insanity. She goes crazy because of her own actions and selfishness. She is the reason that Macbeth becomes who he is and she is the reason that the king is dead. Lady Macbeth is the catalyst of this entire play.

Who has the power here?

2011-05-02T15:49:00.001-04:00

What I enjoy most about Macbeth is the dynamic of the relationships. The relationship between Macbeth and his Lady is unlike any couple I have encountered in Shakespeare’s plays. Lady Macbeth is a powerful woman, one who is dominant over her husband publicly and privately. The third act reveals this truth nicely.

At first, it seems that Macbeth has control over himself, acting mournful about the deaths of the king and his son and planning the execution of his friend, Banquo. However, when he talks to himself about the reasons behind the need to kill Banquo, his speech implies that perhaps Macbeth is a little more shaken about the situation than he lets on (for now). His fear of dying because of the witches’ prophecy reveals the lack of power Macbeth truly has over the entire situation. He states in scene one,

“For Banquo’s issue have I filed my mind, / For them the gracious Duncan have I murdered, / Put rancours in the vessel of my peace / Only for them, and mine eternal jewel / Given to the common enemy of man / To make them kings, the seeds of Banquo kings” (3.1.66-71)

In this moment, Macbeth seems to be blaming these men for the things he has done. There is a repeated use of the term ‘for them’ –“Only for them…” –implies that Macbeth considers himself a martyr of sorts: he is acting out this way for their benefit, and he is willing to sacrifice his “eternal jewel” to the common man for his purpose. There seems to be a resignation within Macbeth even before the sightings of Banquo’s ghost makes him a little crazy.

Lady Macbeth, however, is a different story. Though unfortunately we don’t get any speeches from her in act three, we do have moments alone with her, moments that reveal her true self moreso than the moments with her husband. “Naught’s had, all’s spent, / Where our desire is got without content. / ‘Tis safer to be that which we destroy / Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy” (3.2.6-9): here Lady Macbeth takes on a realistic view of the situation she created with her husband. She knows that the way to power is not pretty, and she knows better than to think that she and her husband are safe because he is king. In four lines, Lady Macbeth has more power than her husband.

Her power over the situation is most obvious when Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo and makes a scene. Immediately, she gives excuses for Macbeth’s odd behavior, asking them to ignore it, because the king goes into attacks. She then turns to her husband and manipulates him by questioning his status as a man. “Are you a man?” she asks him in scene four, “What, unmanned in folly?” She belittles him for his fear in ghosts, and she verbally attacks him about it until Macbeth settles down, frazzled. By the end of the scene it is she, not Macbeth, the king, who convinces the lords to leave. Her power and strength as a woman in this play is outstanding.

Politics, Bait and the Prospect of a Good Marriage

2011-05-02T15:29:00.001-04:00

In reading one of last week's assigned readings from the Bedford Companion I was struck by a statement made on page 306 and its relationship to one of the story lines in The Merchant of Venice:

On taking the throne in 1558, Queen Elizabeth regularly presented herself as a possible partner in marriage. Using the prospect of royal alliance as international leverage, she welcomed suitors (or their brokers) from Spain, France, Denmark, and other European states for over two decades.

After reading that it was hard for me not to think back to the first weeks of this class, Portia, and the challenge that her father created at his death for anyone interested in marrying, and thereby forming an alliance with, his young daughter.

PORTIA

...O me, the word 'choose!' I may
neither choose whom I would nor refuse whom I
dislike; so is the will of a living daughter curbed
by the will of a dead father. Is it not hard,
Nerissa, that I cannot choose one nor refuse none?

NERISSA
Your father was ever virtuous; and holy men at their
death have good inspirations: therefore the lottery,
that he hath devised in these three chests of gold,
silver and lead, whereof who chooses his meaning
chooses you, will, no doubt, never be chosen by any
rightly but one who shall rightly love. But what
warmth is there in your affection towards any of
these princely suitors that are already come?
1.2.16-29

The Merchant of Venice would have been written somewhere near the end of Elizabeth's reign and it's hard for me not to see the relationship between Portia's plight and Elizabeth's political need. Holding herself up as a possible partner in marriage, she, like Portia, welcomed many suitors. Portia's lament, "Is it not hard, Nerissa, that I cannot choose one nor refuse none?" must have been the state that Elizabeth felt herself to be in. Her political well being and the well being of England would have ridden on her never really choosing a suitor, but always having to play the part of the suited.

It is interesting to think, as was implied in the Bedford Companion, that political expedience and financial necessities required that the monarchy of England had to dangle their children, and in the case of Elizabeth, herself, as bait to attract the attention, alliances, and finances of the surrounding countries.

We don't often think in these terms when it comes to the monarchy of England, especially with the recent Royal Wedding that seems to have had so little to do with political power and so much to do with our common notions of love and romance. What surprises me is how much this smacks of sacrifice on the part of the Monarchy. I've typically thought, in my American way, that the Monarchy was completely self-serving. I'm thinking now that my view of this may have been completely wrong.

The curse of the scots

2011-05-02T13:53:00.005-04:00

In my day to day life I am not a terribly superstitious person, I have my pre performance rituals. If my shoe squeaks upon an entrance I am hardly going to take it as a good omen nor am I going to freak if some one says good luck instead of break a leg. Yet, never will I ever (on purpose) utter the word Macbeth in a theatre space without being in the context of the play. As I shared in class my one experience with the curse was enough, I don't care to test fate! However bringing up in class made me pause as to the roots of the curse and the play? So many actors are petrified but where does it come from and what is it's history?
After poking around the internet the first thing I discovered was no one really knows! There are however two widely held beliefs, the first relates directly to the text of the play itself. This camp believes Shakespeare used a real witch's spell in Act 4 sc. 1 of the play:
"First Witch

Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

ALL

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch

Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

ALL

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble."

In the hyper christian society where Shakespeare lived, why would he do something like that? Because Shakespeare was a great businessman. Right before the play opened King James, Shakespeare's patron published a book on witch detection. Some believe the the incantation from above comes directly from King James's book. Well, this certainly backfired on Shakespeare after the play was performed King James banned it for five years!( )It is also rumored Shakespeare himself was forced to play the role of Lady M when the boy actor supposed to play the role died before he was able to perform. Though this may not be so extraordinary due to the poor sanitation and health care in Shakespeare's day.
Yet mysterious incidents continue to plague this play through out history. 331 people were killed at Astor place when riot broke out due to a theatrical rivalry between British Actor William Macready and Edwin Forrest who were both scheduled to play Macbeth on the same night. ( Professor Jack Wade, SUNY New Paltz)

Since the riot there have been film stars nearly crushed by stage weights, deaths, murders from prop switching, and a myriad of drama around this tragedy. Whether you believe it or not, all if it makes for some great commercial buzz and fun around the Scottish play.

Macbeth: Guilt from Banquo's Ghost?

2011-05-02T12:44:00.000-04:00

Fitting into Macbeth’s already supernatural elements with the witches and their prophecies, it only seems fitting that Macbeth would see Banquo’s ghost after he is murdered. In III.iv, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are at a banquet with guests, like Ross and Lennox. Macbeth begins the scene by saying, “Ourself will mingle with society,/ And play the humble host.” (III.iv.3) and then a murderer stands at the door to tell Macbeth about Banquo. Immediately following the murderer’s departure, the GHOST OF BANQUO sits in Macbeth’s place. Although his wife and others are around him, Macbeth is shocked to see Banquo and begins speaking to him: “Here had we now our country's honour roof'd, /Were the graced person of our Banquo present,/ Who may I rather challenge for unkindness/ Than pity for mischance!” (III.iv.39). Lady Macbeth tries to offer an explanation to their guests about Macbeth’s odd behavior, “Sit, worthy friends; my lord is often thus,/ And hath been from his youth. Pray you, keep seat./ The fit is momentary; upon a thought/ He will again be well.” (III.iv.52). However, Macbeth continues to speak to Banquo’s ghost beside him, although the ghost never says a word.

My main reflection on this scene is looking at Macbeth’s character in a different way than we had before – throughout the play he has been conducting murders and has continued on his quest to be king. Here, the ghost, or realization of what he’s been up to, is staring him in the face. The real question is, then, is Macbeth finally feeling guilty? Is the ghost even before him or is he hallucinating from the overall madman he is letting himself become? Because of the other supernatural elements of the play, I do believe Macbeth did see Banquo’s ghost. And, through fear and confusion, he is beginning to feel that sense of remorse I don’t believe he thought he’d feel. I believe this sense of guilt frightens Macbeth because he wasn't expecting to feel this way and his strength begins to weaken.

To go out on a contemporary limb, this scene reminded me a lot of the Woody Allen film Match Point. The main character has an affair with a woman who becomes pregnant and in order to keep his marriage, he decides to kill her and also her neighbor (to make it look like a robbery). After their deaths, he is haunted by their ghosts and is awakened with terrible guilt. Although he doesn’t tell his wife of his wrongdoings, it is interesting to see a character, who had been so strong in his decision, breakdown in such a way. This scene just reminded me a lot of this movie and I definitely feel a lot of Woody Allen movies are Shakespearean in themselves.

Lady Macbeth

2011-05-02T11:15:00.002-04:00

Lady Macbeth is one of my favorite characters in Macbeth. She is introduced as an attractive, charming, ambitious woman who is devoted to her husband. We soon find out that she does not think her husband is manly enough to become king on his own: “too full o’ the milk of human kindness” (1.5.15). She asks the spirits to “unsex” her and strip her of her femininity so she can kill King Duncan on her own: “Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the tow top-full of direst cruelty” (1.5.38-40). She becomes this manipulative and persuasive woman who manipulates her own husband into murdering King Duncan by questioning his love for her and his manhood: “When you durst do it,” she says, “then you were a man” (1.7.49). She knows this is the fastest way her husband will become king. It is clear that Macbeth does not want to murder Duncan, but she has him go against his conscience and does it anyway. I have read Macbeth before, and Lady Macbeth will always be my favorite character. She reminds me of many people today: power hungry and ruthless of her actions.

Supernatural Craze

2011-05-01T22:27:00.007-04:00

Did you ever notice that people put much faith and endow those with supernatural ability and supernatural events with too much value therefore disregard their own actions? Even if one does believe in fate and a predestined future, how we get there is entirely up to us. Why do you think that people have free will. We chose to do what we want with our life, even if we end up in the same place. People don't know what to make of the supernatural so it is something we either fear and shun or embrace entirely. Macbeth first wants to shun what the witches have told him, because lets face it their witches, it's hard to trust what they say. Lady Macbeth chose to entirely embrace the spirit world, that of which she knows little about, to aid her in her conquest for power. Obviously we can foresee neither one of these situations working out in their favor.

Macbeth does not agree with supernatural existence even though the witches prophecy works in his "favor." He at first does not want to believe in what they are saying because they are not a trusted source to make a prophecy of such power. Yet the moment one of their prophecies come true he embraces the world just as his wife does. I think that the thing that both Lady Macbeth and Macbeth do not yet realize is that this spirit world will not take care of you or be good to you unless you understand what the world is capable. Which truly is anything. The world may say that you can obtain all of this power but it does not mean that this will happen immediately. Macbeth was given the title of thane of Cawdor, he did no one any ill will toward anyone. So why did Macbeth have to force fate?

"I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself
And falls on th’other." (I. VIII. 25-28)

Macbeth seems to be very impatient about his future. Who is also to say that since the witches got one prophecy right that what they rest are sure to be true? It seems Macbeth catches the supernatural bug. After he kills King Duncan he starts to hear knocks and voices telling him "Sleep no more." It seems to me that Macbeth jumped to the gun and now has a guilty conscious about it. He is slowly driving himself insane and yet believes that all of this is just a supernatural occurrence.

Lady Macbeth on the other hand completely embraces the supernatural world right from the very beginning. I think that she respects this world and just wants to soak in any power that they are willing to give her.

"Come, you spirits

That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty..." (I. V.)

Her grandest desire is power and she clearly will do anything to get that. She wants what she feels that she is rightful entitled too. I believe the spirit realm is something that she has always been intrigued by an not until this moment was she able to invoke. I think that her fatal flaw that comes later in the play is that she does not know exactly what she has gotten herself into. She was intrigued by the darker side yet has no knowledge of this realm to control what is happening like the witches understand. I am also surely that it wasn't socially acceptable for Lady Macbeth to converse with these witches to gain any understanding.

It seems to me that with the exception of the witches, especially Hecate, everyone fears and admires the spiritual world without having any understanding of what this actually means.

Lady Macbeth: A Powerhouse

2011-05-01T20:20:00.003-04:00

A powerhouse of a woman is hard to come by in Shakespeare's plays, but Lady Macbeth is certainly the perfect example. Lady Macbeth’s strength of will completely overshadows that of the men surrounding her. This is so uncharacteristic of the women that Shakespeare normally writes about, and I find it rather fascinating. The audiences first introduction to Lady Macbeth is when she is reading a letter from Macbeth detailing his encounter with the witches. Upon reading the prophesy, and how much truth the first one held, she almost immediately jumps to the idea of assassinating King Duncan so Macbeth can replace him. Straight off the bat, Lady Macbeth is depicted as power hungry, tricky, manipulative and ambitious. Although Macbeth seems inclined to accept the fact that he has not been named King Duncan's heir, Lady Macbeth will not settle for less than what she wants. She bullies Macbeth into taking part in this murder scheme by insulting his pride, his manhood and calling him a coward, until he agrees to take part in her scheme. In doing so, she manipulates him into taking part of an act that he truly wants no part of. Although Macbeth feels that he is betraying his duties to the King by inviting him as a guest to his house, and then killing him, Lady Macbeth feels no such qualms. In fact, at one point she actually wishes she was a man so that she could do the deed herself and not bother with Macbeth. I got the impression that she finds him weak willed, and only seems to be using the fact that he is a man to gain power. If she were a man, she would not bother with Macbeth. I imagine she would seize all the power for herself.
When placed in this situation with her husband, Lady Macbeth seems remarkably strong willed for a woman of her time. However, she is not so dominant and powerful all the time. The audience is allowed the opportunity to see another side of Lady Macbeth. When she is alone she seems far more insecure, calling on other forces to help her. Her imminent weakness also becomes more and more apparent after the deed has been completed. Lady Macbeth becomes less and less domineering as she seems to be swallowed by her guilt.

Everything is Edmund's fault.

2011-04-29T02:00:00.000-04:00

Everything is Edmund's fault. That's what I noticed about King Lear. Edmund is the driving force that takes a kingdom that's already a mess and completely destroys it. He ruins his half-brother Edgar's reputation by convincing their father, the Earl of Gloucester, that Edgar want to kill him to get at his estate. Edgar now must take to wondering around in the wilderness disguised as a crazy beggar to interact with the principal characters. Next, since Edmund seems to like betraying his family members so much, he betrays his father. The Earl of Gloucester, upset that King Lear's daughters Goneril and Regan have been abusing their newly-gained power and have been treating their father horribly, sent a letter asking the King of France for help. Edmund shows this letter to Goneril and Regan, which leads to Regan's husband, the Duke of Cornwall, to gouge out the Earl of Gloucester's eyes. He, blind, is also forced to wander around in the wilderness. Eventually, both Goneril and Regan fall for Edmund, as they're all despicable people and I guess evil people like that have a sort of thing for one another. This causes Goneril to plot to kill her husband, the Duke of Albany, so she can have a dead husband like Regan's, as he was killed by a servant in retribution for gouging out the Earl of Gloucester's eyes. Eventually, the French and British armies fight, and King Lear and his third daughter Cordelia are taken prisoners, as Cordelia married the King of France, and King Lear fled to France. Edmund sends an order to have both executed. Finally, in a moment of retribution, Edmund tries to stop the order, but it's too late and Cordelia becomes hanged, with Lear dying shortly later of grief. Oh yeah, and Goneril, poisons her sister and then stabs herself because of Edmund. Fun stuff. Seriously, this guy Edmund is a bastard.

Why does he do all of this, though? Well, his feelings about his situation are summed up in his first soliloquy: “Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law / My services are bound. Wherefore should I / Stand in the plague of custom, and permit / The curiosity of nations to deprive me, / For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines / Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?” Basically, Edmund is saying that he rejects society's negative view of illegitimate children and says “nature” is his goddess. I think he's pandering to a more “survival of the fittest” approach, based on the actions he takes later in the play. Edmund's mind only changes after his brother finally reveals himself and gives him an ass-kicking that's eventually fatal. Edmund's reply to this beating is: “The wheel is come full circle!” Soon after, Edgar tells Edmund of how their father suffered and Edmund says “This speech of yours hath moved me, / And shall perchance do good...” I figure that what Edmund needed throughout the play was a good beating and a dose of reality to set him into place, as his merciless plotting only came down upon him in the end.

Sympathy for a Bastard?

2011-04-28T16:39:00.002-04:00

After spending the enitre play manipulating and desroying the lives of everyone around him Edmund spends his last few moments of the play repentant and looking to undo some of the damage he did. In the end, I feel bad for him. Maybe I'm just too soft but I did feel sympathy for the bastard (in both senses of the word). Maybe what saves him from being completely un-smpathtic is the fact that his evil is very machiavellian in nature. Yes it's selfish and bad, but bad in an opportunistic way. He feels he must act like this in oder to achive and station in life. Compare this to say, Iago from Othello who is just evil for the sake. Now that guy was a bastard.

One of my favorite moments in the play is when Edmond and Edgar exchange words of forgivness right before they fight. I felt it was very original and refreshing even when compared with modern stories. I can't think of another set of characters who, though rivals and enemies, come to terms with each other and agree to kill each other albiet in an atmosphere of undersanding and honor.