Miranda's sexuality in The Tempest

In Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Miranda is little more than an instrument. Caliban tries to rape her to populate the island and thereby take it over, and Prospero intends to marry her to Ferdinand to regain his power. Miranda even subjects herself to being an instrument for she says to Ferdinand “I am your wife, if you will marry me. / If not, I’ll die your maid” (3.1.83-84). Miranda is an interesting example of the servant in The Tempest’s prevalent power play between master and slave, server and served, because she willingly submits to her role in this form in her relationship to Ferdinand. Her willing submission seems to represent her sexuality. Upon meeting Ferdinand’s shipwrecked male companions at the end of the play, Miranda says “O wonder! / How many goodly creatures are there here! / How beauteous mankind is!” (5.1.184-186). The men she sees are “beauteous” to her, “pleasing to the sight” (oed.com), denoting her attraction to them. And because these men represent society as well, Miranda espouses her attraction to her place in this society as Ferdinand’s wife. For Miranda to equate the men that she sees with “mankind,” denoting the “human species” (oed.com), leaves women out of the picture of society, yet to do so is not far from the truth in regards to who holds the power in The Tempest.

Whitney Starks

Role of Blindness in King Lear

Blindness in Shakespeare’s King Lear is a vital motif, one that characterizes King Lear and Gloucester as gullible men. The motif of blindness seems to further expose Shakespeare’s sense of disillusionment so apparent in this play, and it reinforces the concept of the human tendency to ignore the futility of a life destined for death. Both men are blind to the true devotion of their good children (Cordelia and Edgar) and oblivious to the true duplicity of their evil children (Regan, Goneril, and Edmund), allowing for the tragic events of the play to unfold. Because they are unaware of the true affections of their good children and they believe the false words of their malevolent children, the two fathers end up making the bad children heirs to wealth and power, making the blindness exhibited by Lear and Gloucester the source of the abuse of authority.

As Regan states, Lear “hath ever but slenderly known himself” (I.i.294-5), signifying her father is old and completely unaware of those around him, and more importantly, unaware of himself. Lear literally demonstrates blindness in not recognizing Kent, the subject the king banished for siding with Cordelia. This illustrates that while he had power, Lear could not see in plain sight the loyalty of his subject, but the king later relies on Kent’s service as he pretends to be someone else. Edgar, likewise, later disguises himself as Poor Tom, and though Gloucester literally cannot see his son, he does finally realize Edgar’s good character.

As for Gloucester, when his bastard son Edmund shows him the letter that Edgar supposedly wrote, the Earl literally does not see that the document is forged, asking Edmund “You know the character [handwriting] to be your brother’s?” (I.ii.62-3). While there is no way to know if Gloucester could recognize the difference in handwriting between his two sons, he obviously is blind to the fact that it is Edmund who is the one plotting to kill him and hasten his inheritance. Cornwall malevolently plucks out Gloucester’s eyes, telling him “upon these eyes of thine I’ll set my foot” (III.vii.69); when Regan announces Edmund was the one who revealed the earl’s treason, Gloucester exclaims “O my follies! Then Edgar was abused [slandered]” (III.vii.94). Ironically, it is not until Gloucester literally loses his sight that he sees the truth concerning his two sons. Similarly, it is not until King Lear suffers by descending into insanity and enduring the storm, that he acknowledges he is a “very foolish fond [silly] old man” (IV.vii.61) and pleads for Cordelia’s forgiveness.

Michael Benitez

Ekphrasis

A painting inside a narrative. Words used to describe a picture. Language used to describe physical art.

An example would be in "Antony and Cleopatra" when Enobarbus describes Cleopatra on the barge in Act 2, Scene 2. This freezes the decadence of Egypt.

-Michelle Gonzalez
Gorelik, 1C

Language as a Source of Power in The Tempest

As Caliban attempts to convince Trinculo and Stephano to murder Prospero, he urges them to first destroy his books, which seem to be the main source of his power. Caliban instructs: “Remember / First to possess his books, for without them / He’s but a sot, as I am, nor hath not/ One spirit to command…Burn his books” (3.2.100-104). He implies that the books are endowed with some sort of magical ability that help their possessor to rule over others in an authoritarian fashion. Conversely, the absence of these books makes one into a “sot” and seems to degrade the individual, just like Caliban. This connection between books and power is also made by Prospero himself, when he decides to renounce his powers: “deeper than did ever plummet sound / I’ll drown my book” (5.1.65-66). He claims he wants to “drown” his book, which suggests that his powers are contingent upon his possession of it. Othello also makes a similar remark when he exclaims that language is like “witchcraft,” suggesting that it can be used to control people’s behavior (1.3.170). In The Tempest, Shakespeare seems to underscore this power of language upon others, which can often lead to harmful effects since language can be used to deceive and to keep others them in a base and subservient position. Moreover, there seems to be a master-slave relationship between those who master the use of language and those who lack this ability. From a metatheatrical perspective, those with special linguistic abilities, the playwrights, have complete control and over their subjects, the audience, since they dominate the story in the play. Prospero’s speech seems to disclose Shakespeare’s discontentment with language, his ultimate renouncement of his writing career and his forsaking of the authoritarian power he once held as a writer.

Rossely Amarante
Aaron Gorelik

Michel de Montaigne's "of the cannibals"

"Of The Cannibals" was an essay originally written by the French writer Michel de Montaigne. His essay was from his massive book of "Essais" or "attempts". Montaigne is important in our Shakespeare realm because Shakespeare used his "Of the Cannibals" essay when Gonzalo is giving his famous speech of the island (2.1 : Line 147)in "The Tempest". John Florio translated Montaigne's essays in 1603 into English, as Montaigne was one of the most influential writers of the French Renaissance.

Brian Casillas
Aaron Gorelik
Disc 1C

Menenius and Failed Storytelling

I was really drawn to the character of Menenius from the very beginning of Coriolanus. I found it both amusing and troubling that he was able to quell the plebians of Rome, who are presumably hungry, by telling a story. And he doesn't just tell a story, he uses rhetoric, and dramatic pauses to catch and control the attention of the citizens. We can liken the citizens to the audiences of Shakespeare who came to "hear" plays and not see plays. At the beginning, there is definitely a controlling aspect of speech, which reminds me of earlier plays we read such as Othello where Iago manipulates Othello with speech.

However, later in the play (precisely 3.1 beginning line 179), Menenius' speech is troubled under the demands of the citizens. He says, "What is about to be? I am out of breath; / Confusion's near, I cannot speak." (3.1 187-88). Menenius, who was so gifted in speech, is losing his influence. His lines in this scene are now only about one to two lines long. This confusion is reflective of Rome's confusion regarding its identity. There's the whole issue of virtus and civitas being incompatible. But I find the idea of theater falling into the spectacle, more interesting. Menenius had so longed relied on speech, and now his speech is futile under the demands of the plebians/audience for visual.

Rachel Humphrey
sec. 1c

Coriolanus as a Scapegoat (Pharmakos)

Caius Martius, later surnamed Coriolanus, can be interpreted as the pharmakos of Shakespeare’s play, Coriolanus. The play must conclude with a death in accordance with the genre of tragedy. Coriolanus’ death fulfills this requirement. However, unlike most of Shakespeare’s other tragedies, he stands as the only character who dies in the play. This places a great deal of importance on the seemingly “lonely” death of this tragic hero. As Professor Little has said many times in lecture, the characters are not the literal focus of the play, they are merely conduits of what the play is trying to communicate. The characters are essentially indentured to the plot. They are only as important as the purpose Shakespeare composes them to serve. The tragedy of Coriolanus is about a world of confusion, specifically the confusion of Rome. As the protagonist of the play, Coriolanus is caught in the middle of this Roman crisis. The city is stuck in the midst of a chaotic transition from a society based on virtus to a society based on civitas. Coriolanus embodies the masculine and violent qualities of virtus as a successfully Roman general. We are reminded of this frequently and the plebeians of Rome long to see his battle wounds as a proof of this masculinity. Coriolanus has no affiliation to the civil concept of civitas. His death in the end does not simply signify the death of his character, but rather the death of this virtus era in Rome which he represents. In order for Rome to move on, Coriolanus and the type of Rome he embodies has to die. With this interpretation, he is the official scapegoat of the play. He is a totally virtus character and there is no place for someone like him in a civitas state. In death, he takes the poisons (virtus) of his society with him and all appears to be solved. Rome wishes to make the transition from a barbaric culture to a civil culture. Coriolanus has to die for this transition to take place.

Chris Shelton
Aaron Gorelik
Section 1C

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

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

Claiming Spanish Armada 1588, hehe

Previous post done by Whitney Starks, Gorelik, Section 1C

Spanish Armada 1588

The king of Spain at this time, King Philip II, had been king consort of England until the death of his wife Queen Mary I of England in 1558 (also known as “Bloody Mary” for the many religious dissenters she burned at the stake – she reinstituted Roman Catholicism in England), and he wasn’t a fan of the policies pursued by her successor, Queen Elizabeth I, his sister-in-law. The aim of his expedition was to invade and conquer England, thereby ending attacks on Spanish possessions in the New World and weakening support for Dutch-controlled provinces in the Spanish Netherlands. The king was supported by Pope Sixtus V (who had renewed Elizabeth’s excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church), who treated the invasion as a crusade, and promised money should the Armada make land.

The intention was to set out from Spain and meet with more ships off the coast of Flanders, mustering an army of altogether 55,000 men, a huge amount for the time. However the English drove the Spanish from the coast of the Netherlands before they met the second fleet, and eventually forced the Spanish to retreat. Though they planned on returning to Spain, the Spanish were driven off course by severe storms, wrecking many of their ships on the Irish coast. In the end, only 67 ships and around 10,000 men survived.

The defeat of the Spanish Armada strengthened the Protestant cause across Europe and suggested that God was on their side.

Whitney Starks

Lucio and Lucifer as Anti-authoritarians

After hearing Lucio being compared to Lucifer our Measure for Measure lecture, a thought crossed my mind about what Shakespeare might be criticizing: God’s authority. To put it in perspective, we established that Lucio is the character that is attempting to reveal the truth, shedding light on matters as his name suggests. On a thematic level, we realize that he is “exposing the fallacy of absolutism” as Anna-Claire phrased it (sorry if I spelled your name wrong). Since we didn’t discuss what Lucio’s connection to Lucifer is, I thought about it to myself and came to the conclusion that they both are critical of the established figure of authority in their respective realms. That being said, I can’t help but believe that perhaps Shakespeare was attempting to communicate not only an anti-authoritarian message but also perhaps an anti-theistic message, claiming that it is fallacious to believe in the omnipotence of God. And for further clarification, I am not suggesting that Shakespeare is advocating atheism, but rather that he is promoting the idea that God can always be present but that doesn’t mean we should allow God’s will and authority to dictate our lives. I think we have made it pretty clear that Shakespeare wasn’t afraid to take on the state’s power in this play, but wouldn’t it be even more profound if he was actually also taking on God as well? Now I’m basing this idea merely on my reading of the play, not on any factual information about Shakespeare’s religious beliefs. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Michael Benitez

Language: Vehicle to Persuasion and Deception

In Shakespeare’s plays, language holds the power to both seduce and deceive an individual. It is an effective tool used by characters to persuade and influence others. It is the key to a person’s heart and mind and has the power to control one’s actions and behavior. Hence, those who retain a masterful use of language are often the ones who can deceive and trick those around them.

For instance, in Twelfth Night, Viola (pretending to be Cesario) resorts to rhetoric as the vehicle through which to express her master Orsino’s passion and desperation for Olivia. Ironically, however, it is Viola’s eloquence that leads Olivia to fall in love with her, claiming that Viola’s speech is a type of “enchantment” that has bewitched her. She declares her love for the one whom she believes to be Cesario, requesting: “Let me hear you speak” (III.ii.111-122). Though Viola did not intend to seduce the countess, it is the beauty of her tongue that proves an irresistible attraction to Olivia.

In a similar fashion, in Othello, the protagonist is able to magnetize and captivate people around him through his speech. Recalling the time that he and Desdemona fell in love, Othello asserts that he “often did beguile her of her tears,/ When I did speak of some distressful stroke/ That my youth suffered…And bade me, if I had a friend that loved her,/ I should but teach him how to tell my story,/ and that would woo her…” (I.iii.155-167). He is conscious that his words would “beguile” and “woo” her, so that his dialogue became alluring and would instigate interest and desire in Desdemona’s heart. “This is the only witchcraft I have used,” claims Othello of acquiring Desdemona’s love.

Language is perhaps most deceiving in Macbeth, as its main character is tricked by witches who foretell of his future Kingship. He is completely enraptured by their words and his behavior is determined by the words he hears them utter: “Hail Macbeth that shalt be king hereafter!” (I.iii.53) The plot of the story is dependent upon the words uttered by these witches as they incite ambition and a hunger for power in Macbeth. He is further deceived by the supernatural apparitions invoked by the witches, for they tell him that “none of woman born shall harm Macbeth” and that “Macbeth shall never vanquished be until/ Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill/ Shall come against him” (IV.i.90,105). Macbeth’s dependency upon language is what ultimately brings about his downfall, he is led astray by ambiguous and equivocal statements.

Finally, from a metatheatrical perspective, the audience too is deceived and enticed by the language of the playwright, which transports them into the world of the play.

Rossely Amarante
Aaron Gorelik
Disc 1C

The Lord Chamberlain's Men

The Lord Chamberlain's Men was a play company that Shakespeare contributed in as a playwright and as an actor. It was originally founded during the rule of Elizabeth I in 1594; the play company was funded under the patronage of Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, who carried the title of Lord Chamberlain (thus the play company’s name as “The Lord Chamberlain’s Men”). In 1603 the company became known as the “King's Men” under a royal patent from James I. The company continued to thrive until the closing of the theatres in 1642 due to the Interregnum.

Brian Casillas

Why then, alas, Do I put up that womanly defense to say that I have done no harm?

Wither should I fly?
I have done no harm. But I remember now
I am in this earthly world, where to do harm
Is often laudable, to do good sometime
Accounted dangerous folly. Why then, alas,
Do I put up that womanly defense
to say that I have done no harm? Spoken by Lady Macduff (Macbeth 4.2.73f)


The act of forsaking ones femaleness is charged with such metatheatric intensity that resounds to the existential dilemma at the heart of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”. Not only does this attempted abandonment of social constructs echo the actor/player dichotomy it represents a moment of renaissance self un-fashioning. To be on stage assuming the role of female and to then to subsequently undress is to play quite disturbingly with the idea that man, or woman, is not, and, must not be constrained by external narrative agencies. Lady Macbeth refuses to commit to her assigned role and consequently becomes a marginalized reification of the ambitious and remorseless self that she had meant to be. From the moment of self-denial in act 1 scene 5 Lady Macbeth deteriorates to the point of non-existence. She dares to challenge literary authority and subsequently becomes a victim to narrative constructs. Lady Macduff the only other female voice hauntingly realizes that an inhabitant in “earthly world” (4.2.75) one is powerless to dissimulate true realities. The concern with identity and theatricality lends itself to a study in authoritarianism as well as authority transforming the notion of “borrowed robes” (1.3.107) into a discussion of individual agency.

Though Lady Macbeth attempts to assert her agency by abandoning her habiliment she is inherently constrained by her femaleness; the rejection of the self challenges the conception of the narrative construct ultimately undermining the authority of the playwright. What Lady Macbeth wishes to forsake is her capacity to remorse; “Stop up th’access and passage to remorse” (1.5.42). Here, she prays to an unknown external agent to halt her moral processes, to clog and to obstruct the exchange between reception and interpretation, between action and reaction, creating a tautological system of though. Strengthening the notion of tautology is the recurring defense of act and consequence; “What’s done is done” (3.2.14) and “…What’s done cannot be undone” (5.1.58) are two statements that blindly support previous action and arrogantly await anticipated reactions. Considering the narrative frame-work of the play the speaker (Lady Macbeth) speaks to a unidirectional projection of action and reaction. The spatiotemporality of the play does not allow for remorse; existence itself does not allow for remorse. Lady Macbeth latches onto this requisite to argue that a life is lived in vein if confined by questions of temporality and of external authorities. She denounces authority and thus tragically precipitates her fall.

Lady Macduff follows an equally tragic suit of tragic realizations. When confronted by death she comes to the realization that this “earthly world” (4.2.75) is raw and unreasonable space beyond the limits of the good and the bad. Lady Macduff expresses the futility that defines the existence on the mortal stage. When oppressed by the constructed narrative, she accepts that she has no individual agency, “…Why then, alas, Do I put up that womanly defense/ to say that I have done no harm?” (4.2.77f), the defense system presented here is a manufactured construct. The externalization of the self is reduced to a being a simulacrum of the self, belittling the man subject to external complots. One can easily inject an economy of free will and predestination into this existential envisioning of the mortal stage, or play with the notion of equivocation and metatheatre. Questioning and renounce that which defines the self becomes pivotal to the denouement of the play “Macbeth” and is therefore a very intriguing focus to hone in on.


Hector Cueva section 1C

Duke's Impotence in "Measure for Measure"

The passage at the beginning of 3.1, where the Duke is speaking with Claudio is significant, because it reveals more about the Duke than the story. The fact that he is "trying" to make Claudio feel better about his execution sounds irrelevant, and thus appears as a form of impotence.
Also, as the climax of the play, it further underscores the Duke's impotence as the Duke's lack of power. After all, the Duke leaves his office, because he does not have the power to enact his own laws.

Kimberly Solorio
Section 1C

Interrogatives? In Macbeth? Spells out Toil and Trouble

As Professor Little pointed out in class, the first four scenes of Macbeth begin with questions. These interrogatives let the read know that something is seriously wrong. The characters themselves don’t know what’s going on, which spells out panic and chaos for the rest of the play.

King Duncan particularly is introduced as a character by asking questions about his own battle. This emphasizes Duncan’s effeminate nature in Macbeth’s masculine society and establishes a weakness in what is supposed to be King Duncan’s supposed “rule of absolute authority” (a nod to King James I and his doctrine). How can a king rule absolutely if he doesn’t even know what’s going on in his kingdom?

The play opening interrogative mode, combined with other elements like bad weather and dodgy politics spell out to the reader though the first few scenes that the world of Macbeth is unstable and in a panic mode.

-Michelle Gonzalez

"If thou dost love me, Show me thy thought" (3.3)

“If thou dost love me, show me thy thought” (Othello 3.3.118).
The theme of theater as both personal and public turns problematic when the play becomes so private that Othello needs to know Iago’s thoughts, supposedly his most private assets. It opens up the question of how personal drama should drama be? In the case of Othello, there is an implication that theater goes so far as to cut a character open in order to get to his insides, which may account for the plentiful digestive imagery in the play: “I stand accountant for as great a sin—But partly led to diet my revenge” (2.3); and, “’Tis not a year of two shows us a man. They are all but stomachs, and we all but food” (3.4). References to this specific inner working of the human anatomy conjures up the images of bile and blackness, which also parallels the idea of Othello become black on the inside as well as on the outside.

Heather Finch
1C

Identity in Twelfth Night

What is perhaps most interesting about this comedy of mistaken identity is how identity seems to work in two, seeming incompatible ways. First, there is the element of self-creation. After a ship-wreck, or a sort of rebirth out of the waters, Viola is able to become Cesario. She is entirely capable of convincing Olivia and Orisno that she is a man, which is easily achieved. What complicates it is the second aspect of identity, that is, how identity is very often determined by one's relations to other people, to their society. Viola's character takes on both masculine and feminine qualities at once when she feels woman's love for the Duke Orsino, but then is perceived and loved as a man by Olivia. Finally, when she is revealed to be a woman, she cannot go and retrieve her female clothes so easily and must wait for others to lead her to the clothes, suggesting that without her woman's clothing, she is still in this androgynous area where she can be "created" based on how others perceive her. A simpler example of this would be how Olivia plays to the role of the "mourner" simply because the circumstances of her life have provided this identity for her.
This problem with identity most certainly speaks to the idea of metatheatrics. Boys dress up as women, and while the audience is capable of understanding this, it is in the actor's relation to the script, to the other actors, to the entire context of the theatre itself, that they can become these women.

Rachel Humphrey

"Doubling" In Twelfth Night

The Twelfth Night marks the end of the festive culture. The title is speculated to come from the Epiphany which is on January 6th, twelve days after Christmas. The twelfth night marks the last day of the season. The last days are the beginning of the end of the last days of festivities. To underscore the end of the “festive culture,” Shakespeare utilizes the character Feste the Clown. Shakespeare is able to create a “doubling” effect or give duel symbolism to Feste indicated by his name and the attributes given to the character. His name, Feste, means a festive one or festering. Shakespeare’s double meanings cleverly add to the important themes or in the play.

Margarete Villalobos