Blason

In Antony and Cleopatra, Philo used Blason to describe Antony, a male, at the opening of the play in Act I Scene I:

O’erflows the measure. Those his goodly eyes,
That o’er the files and musters of the war
Have glowed like plated Mars, now bend, now turn
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front. His captain’s heart,
Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on this breast, reneges all temper,
And is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gipsy’s lust.

The blason used in this scene in Antony and Cleopatra may seem a little bit strange because blason, as described by Professor Little, is a term referring to the detailed description of the body part of a woman, or of one’s beloved. The long form of blason is called blason du corps feminin. Blason frequently appears in the idea of praising of women, for example, in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet:

I conjure thee by Rosaline’s bright eyes,
By her high forehead and her scarlet lip,
By her fine foot, straight leg, and quivering thigh,
And the demesnes that there adjacent lie.
Act II Scene I

Ching Kar Wong
Section 1C

The Empty Space

Professor Little has several times referred to Peter Brook’s “The Empty Space” and explored the idea of how a growing sense of existential nothingness manifest itself throughout Shakespeare’s later plays.
Peter Brook’s book is based on a series of four lectures is concerned with all aspects of theatre performance, but in the chapter named “The Holy Theatre” he focuses on the theatrical experience as ritual and how it can be argued that theatre is only meaningful as long as it fulfill this role and function as a mirror that somehow expose us to a deeper, perhaps painful truth about our lives.
Though Peter Brooks is speaking about Samuel Beckett in the following quote, from Professor Little’s many examples of conflicting hope and disillusionment in Shakespeare’s drama, it seems to me to be an interesting way of thinking of the plays we have read:
“Beckett’s dark plays are plays of light, where the desperate object created is witness to the ferocity of the wish to bear witness to the truth. Beckett does not say ‘no’ with satisfaction; he forges his merciless ‘no’ out of a longing for ‘yes’ and so his despair is the negative from which the contour of its opposite can be drawn.
There are two ways of speaking about the human condition: there is the process of inspiration – by which all the positive elements of life can be revealed, and there is the process of honest vision – by which the artist bears witness to whatever it is that he has seen. The first process depends on revelation; it can’t be bought about by holy wishes. The second one depends on honesty, and it mustn’t be clouded over by holy wishes” (p. 65).
Quote from:
Brooks, Peter, The Empty Space. London: Penguin Books, 1988

Susanne Wejp-Olsen

Virtus

Virtus is an important theme throughout the play Coriolanus. Virtus is represented through the city of Rome. Virtus is the overly masculine, and the first three letters of the word “vir” actually means man in Latin. It is in some ways ironic that Rome represents a masculine order considering Rome is in much hysteria. The play is full of stichomythia, and lots of motion-emphasizing words that promote the idea of panic and disorder. The idea of virtus is extremely important because men are always seen as the leaders, the rulers, but this play challenges this idea of male superiority.

Volumnia is the direct challenger of Virtus. Volumnia is the sole representation of Civitas, order and a feminine connotation. And, without Volumnia, Coriolanus is unable to function. As discussed in class, behind every man there is a great woman. Rome is in a state of uproar because Coriolanus desires this sense of control, order, and masculinity, but he fails at this and is completely held up by the support of his voluptuous Volumnia.In conclusion, Rome displays the virtus but deep down it is simply a hysterical nation in a masculine disguise.

Bridgette Wiener
142B, Section 1A

Introduction to 'Cleopatra'

I just thought I would post a couple of things the Professor wanted us to know historically about Cleopatra in the first "Antony and Cleopatra" lecture.

2 Things Cleopatra is famous for:
1. She has orgasms
2. She dies

Also...
1. Cleopatra was not presumably good looking
2. Until she met Pompey, she was probably a virgin
3. Not frivolous, actually smart
4. Didn't sleep around
5. She was a writer
6. She fought in her own military

Kimberly Solorio

Ekphrasis

An interesting term that Professor Little talked about in lecture today was ekphrasis. Professor related the term to the barge scene (2.2.196) when Cleopatra makes her grand entrance; however, the scene is told about in Rome and the audience is denied seeing it. Therefore Professor explained how Shakespeare stopped the story to create a picture and paint an image for the audience, but not actually act out the scene on stage. I was a little confused on this term still so I did some online research.
The word, ekphrasis comes from the Greek ek and phrasis, 'out' and 'speak.’ The verb form, ekphrazein, means to proclaim or call an inanimate object by name. Dictionary.com described the term in this way: “Ekphrasis has been considered generally to be a rhetorical device in which one medium of art tries to relate to another medium by defining and describing its essence and form, and in doing so, relate more directly to the audience, through its illuminative liveliness.” This description helped to make more sense of the term. Another student in discussion said, “It is art about art” which also aids in my understanding. Hopefully this little information will shed some extra light on the Egyptian iconic scene that is told and not seen.

Candace Scalise, Discussion 1A

Kent as Everyman

One character that really intrigued me in King Lear that we didn’t cover too much in lecture was the character of Kent. Professor Little did mention in our first lecture on King Lear, that Kent was a throwback to the morality plays, a kind of ‘Everyman’ character. I would like to expound on this a little bit. Kent seemed to be in some form outside of the tragedy while being very participatory in the world that suffered through it. He is exiled at the beginning of the play for speaking the truth to the King, and instead of leaving the country he stays and ends up disguising himself as a servant in order to continue serving his king. Not normal behavior for someone who is exiled, especially considering that he is possibly risking his life to do so. Then, at the end of the play after everything completely collapses, he does not partake of the tragedy, and we are left with him saying “I have a journey, sir, shortly to go; / My master calls me, I must not say no” (sc 5.3 line 320). It is as though he has just been along for the ride, or perhaps more appropriately the journey.

I have not studied Everyman in depth, but from what I understand (please correct me if I’m wrong) it is one of the Morality Plays, and the gist of what happens is that God is unhappy with the world, so he sends Death to call Everyman to judgment. This then sends Everyman on a little sort of quest to find someone who will ascend with him to reckoning. He is denied by Fellowship, Kindred, Goods etc and ends up with only Good Deeds that will be taken with him.

This seems to be significant to the character of Kent in the sense that throughout the play he has been this helping hand. And then, in the final lines play his ‘Master’ is now calling him away, when it had been previously implied by his actions that his master was the king, who is now dead. Does this mean that Kent will now follow the King into death? Or perhaps his work in that place is completed now that the journey is over? Or maybe he just has decided to move on now that his ties of loyalty to Britain are gone. It somewhat baffles me, but just like Everyman, Kent is only left with the memory of his deeds when the play is over. All of the people he had been serving, or tied to in one form or another, are now dead. He only has the memory of his actions and loyalty, and not even a single living person to be a testament to what he has done. Combine this with the fact that he does not personally suffer from the tragedy, which removes him from the tragic elements of the play, and in this way he seems to have been allowed to assume the role of Everyman within this work. An astonishingly moral character, from a Morality play at that, within this chaotic, empty and crumbling amoral universe.

Dawn Reid

discussion 1b; King Lear

For my post I am going to to a close reading of a passage from the 1.2 of King Lear. I am writing about this passage not only because of its importance to the larger themes of the play, but also because it deals with theme of familial relationship found in many, if not all, of Shakespeare's plays. The following passage takes place in 1.2.96 and is of Gloucester speaking to Edmund:

These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend
no good to us: though the wisdom of nature can
reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself
scourged by the sequent effects: love cools,
friendship falls off, brothers divide: in
cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in
palaces, treason; and the bond cracked 'twixt son
and father. This villain of mine comes under the
prediction; there's son against father: the king
falls from bias of nature; there's father against
child. We have seen the best of our time:
machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all
ruinous disorders, follow us disquietly to our
graves. Find out this villain, Edmund; it shall
lose thee nothing; do it carefully. And the
noble and true-hearted Kent banished! his
offence, honesty! 'Tis strange.

Gloucester believes that the hatred he feels for his son to be natural. Not only does he believe that his sentiments towards his son are natural, but that all villainous thoughts in general are natural as well, "love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide". Gloucester cares not for any logical explanations for these ill feelings; he simply writes them off as being of the "moon" and "sun". This way of thinking excuses any wrongdoings. Any "discord" is simply natural. This philosophy allows people, then, to excuse their ill intentions as being part of the very fabric of human existence. Evil is natural, "machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all ruinous disorders, follow us disquitely to our graves". "Disquietly" emphasizes the prominence of this theory - one need not shy away from evil but embrace it as part of life. This framework of thought is important because it excuses evil doings, and serves as a reason for King Lear's actions throughout the play.

- Michael Dacks Milliken

Pre-lapsarian and Post-lapsarian

"Before and after the Fall"
One example of pre-lapsarian world is the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve were banished. It is an ideal world with no misfortune or tragedy. In King Lear, it is the world before Lear lost all his powers as king to his daughters. After Lear was kicked out on the heath by Regan, he completely broke down, and the storm also helped to signify the start of the post-lapsarian world, or the Fall of Lear, where Lear had no control over anything. The post-lapsarian world is opposite from the pre-lapsarian world, and it reminds the audience that they are also in a post-lapsarian world while they are witnessing that world on stage.

Trang Nguyen
Discussion 1A

Schadenfreude

Schadenfreude is a figure who takes pleasure in inflicting pains on others. King Lear has many characters with this characteristic. For example, Regan and Cornwall enjoy poking Gloucester's eyes out, and Edmund was happy that his plan to betray his father and half-brother was working out, so he could be the new Earl of Gloucester. Iago in Othello can also be considered as a Schadenfreude character, not only does he take joy in what he was doing, he also mocked Othello's suffering.

Trang Nguyen
Discussion 1A