Chaos and Authority in King Lear

There are many interesting things that occur in King Lear that require careful attention. For example, it seems as though there is a constant conflict between authority and chaos that recurs throughout the play. This conflict can be seen on a micro scale (which is evident in the family of Lear), and it can also be viewed on a macro scale ( which involves all of Britain.) Throughout the play, it seems as though these two scales are interchangeable and often reflect one another. When Lear gives his kingdom to his two daughters, Goneril and Regan, it seems as though he is splitting his own family up. In reaction to this decision, Cordelia is disowned and Lear’s entire life begins to fall apart. While this is a micro view, meaning that it only involves his family, at the same time, he is placing all of Britain into extreme chaos. After this decision, Britain begins to struggle in the hands of two power-hungry sisters that refuse to behave civilly. Throughout the play, it seems as though authority fails to prevail over chaos in many situations. In the end, it is difficult to distinguish which side has won, making this play interpretable in many different ways.

Deanna Ashikyan
English 142B
Aaron Gorelik (Thur 5- 5:50)

Marriage in The Tempest

In The Tempest Shakespeare mentions briefly marriage, but it is enough to remind us about what was happening in Measure for Measure. In Measure for Measure we go back to when we discussed how the government was trying to have control over the people and saying that society cannot be married without following the rules set down my the government. And the play was a mockery of this, saying that the government cannot do everything it says it will do, it cannot be everywhere and do everything. In The Tempest the opposite is occurring. Marriage is shown to be incomplete without the traditions of society and the witness by the government. This is shown when Prospero is telling Ferdinand to hold him self back and not to have sex with his daughter, Miranda, until they have gone through with the marriage ceremony:
PROSPERO. Then as my gift and thine own acquisition Worthily purchased, take my daughter. But If thou dost break her virgin knot before All sanctimonious ceremonies may With full and holy rite be ministered, No sweet aspersion shall the heavens let fall To make this contract grow, but barren hate Sour-eyed disdain, and discord shall bestrew The union of your bed with weeds so loathly That you shall hate it both. Therefore take heed, As Hymen's lamps shall light you. (4.1.13-23)
We can see that through this quote the marriage ceremony holds a stronger bond with society then it did in Measure for Measure. And maybe this is Shakespeare’s way of telling his audience that marriage is defined by us and that whatever way one wishes to be married or whoever one wishes to marry, is of no concern to anyone but those who are being married. Marriage is a bond between man and heaven, not man and society.
Spencer Sohler

The genre of romance

Shakespeare wrote four romances at the end of his career, of which “The Tempest” is one. The genre of romance can be classified as a “tragic comedy” because it is driven by the demands of tragedy but ends with a comic resolution. There is a sense of the tragic in the play, but it is resolved in a comedic, highly superficial fashion. In “The Tempest” we can see this resolution in the union of Miranda and Ferdinand, which reinforces the idea that the “best girl gets with the best boy” and their union also conveniently joins the states of Milan and Naples. The play ends with a celebration of community and regeneration. The romance also tends to deemphasize the interiority of its characters, instead casting them as representative types. For example, in “The Tempest” the names tend to reveal characterization, such as Miranda (“one of wonder”), Ariel (“air”), and Caliban (“cannibal”). Romance also requires a suspension of disbelief. For instance, it is common for characters that are presumed to be dead to come back to life. Romances flaunt their theatricality and leave no mystery, in the sense that all the things we expect to happen do occur. Romances often make free interplay between the real-world and the fantastical and are set in remote, legendary, or fantastical spaces.


Darlene Lin
Discussion 1F (5-5:50)

Macbeth and the presence of Daemonolgie by King James

There wasn’t necessarily a date that was mentioned in class for my topic, however, there was a term given, and it was Daemonolgie by King James 1st. His book was about witchcraft and how it can corrupt power and about what the consequences are for following/using witchcraft are. Shakespeare plays with the idea of witchcraft interfering with mankind in one of his tragedy plays, Macbeth. In the play Macbeth is approached by three witches and is told his fate. Because of this encounter Macbeth takes a turn that he otherwise would not have taken. The acts that Macbeth commits changes who he is and what he would have become. Once Macbeth attains the throne he begins to believe that he has mythical/mystical qualities and that he belongs to the supernatural world. It is because of these thoughts that causes Macbeths downfall. He believes himself to be mightier than all and that no one can bring him down. He is specifically referring to one of the statements made by the witches, the statement implying that he shall not be killed by anyone born by women. It is because of this statement that Macbeth doesn’t worry about anything, and I guess you could say doesn’t try to fix any of the problem going on in the kingdom. Close to the end of the play is when Macbeth comes to the realization that he had misunderstood the words spoken to him, that he didn’t think about it thoroughly. It is later found out that MacDonald was not born of women but was ripped from a woman. This made Macbeth realize that he had thought too much of himself and didn’t take care in seeing what was going on around him. Macbeth was to have been written between 1603 and 1606, after Daemonolgie was published in 1597. So, Shakespeare used may have used what King James 1st wrote in order to show how following witchcraft leads to nothing but evil, that witchcraft will only lead to your downfall, like it did for Macbeth. The only thing that can be relied upon is fate and yourself.

Spencer Sohler; Aaron Sec. 1F

Prefomativity of Culture

“Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows!”

Troilus and Cressida Act. 1 Sc. 3



In Twelfth Night the idea that the world we live in is heavily scripted is very much present. The characters in the play are caught up in the preformativity of culture in the sense that in order to be acknowledged they play the roles that society expects them to. The quote above helps in understanding the idea that if someone shifts out of place then the whole system falters. Malvolio is one of those characters that does not fit his role.
We see this as he changes when he discovers the fake letter from Olivia. He abandons his role of a person who conforms to society’s expectations and his self regard and takes on the new role of an ambitions suitor. His desire to wed Olivia is a dramatic change which shows how it is possible to differ from the roles that society expects you to play.
Lili Lozano
Aaron Gorelik 1F

The Father and Authority in Measure for Measure

Coming to Measure for Measure right off the heels of Othello, one of the first things I looked at was marriages. Remember how in Othello, marriage and consummation occurred before the beginning of the play. Othello, in that case was described as a beginning in a state of disarray, then resuming the status quo through destruction. In Measure for Measure I see something similar occurring, the play starting in a state of disarray through the perversion of marriage and comedic conventions, but the solution is to superimpose a 'happy' comedic ending, rather than ending in tragedy.

Marriages in Shakespeare's era always went through a certain sequence, Father giving permission, Marriage then Consummation. However in Measure for Measure, this doesn't quite occur in this order. Consummation occurs before marriage, and the marriages at the end aren't conclusive or particularly joyous occasions. We have already covered sex in the lectures, so I will focus my post on the first in the sequence, the need to attain permission from the father.

First of all, there is no father in the play. While in Othello, this was highlighted as the major breach of decorum, in Measure for Measure, this is more subtle, being simply not mentioned. As far as the events in the play have occurred Juliet, Isabella and Mariana's father was not asked to consent to their marriages. In fact the 'father' of these families is not even present in the play. If we decide to look at father as just being the partriarchal figure of the society, then perhaps we can choose the Duke. But right at the beginning we see he, the head of this society, or our closest alternative to this 'father figure' steps down, and relinquishes the power of decision making. We then see that marriages do not occur, and in fact are forbidden during the next few Acts without patriarchal consent. Angelo, as an unsatisfactory replacement simply prevents marriages from occurring.

Marriages only occur right at the end, when the Duke regains his position and arranges the marriages. However, while this is preferable to the period before without this process, the marriages in the end still do not feel quite right. This can be attributed to the fact that, troublingly, the Duke usurps the role of the father. I probably sound rather freudian at the moment, but while the Duke in a way can be seen as the figurative father of the society, he is not the Isabella, Juliet, Mariana or indeed the whore that Lucio marries' true father. Thus, in a correctly functioning society he should not be able to authorise marriages for them. What occurs in the end is a show of authoritarian power, the Duke imposes his authority, bypassing the natural order and takes control of the family unit.

In the context of Shakespeare's time it is easy to draw parallels between the play and events occurring. The Duke's assumption of authoritarian power, usurping even the father's right's as head of the family can be seen as a direct response to James I's interest in authoritarianism. the contrast between Angelo's unsuitable rule, and the Duke's conclusive reassertion of power could also be an interesting comparison between the fears of authoritarianism against the fear of lacking a king altogether, that was acutely felt during the end of Elizabeth's reign. In fact it almost seems as if Shakespeare's predicting Oliver Cromwell, but I'm straying off topic. There is a fear perhaps, of how although peace can be obtained through authoritarian rule, this might not always be a satisfactory peace. And the dangers of authoritarianism intruding on previously sacred tenets, such as the fathers right to control his family, can be seen acutely expressed in this play.

This is part of the reason that the ending to Measure for Measure seems inconclusive, despite the marriages seeming, on the surface, to satisfy the requirements for a joyous ending. The effect of an authoritarian imposition of a comedic ending can be seen in fact that two of the marriages are enforced as punishments. Angelo marrying Mariana, and Lucio marrying a whore were both used as punishments with Lucio indeed claiming 'marrying a punk, my lord, is pressing to death, whipping, and hanging'(V.i.515-516). Isabella's marriage is alike, simply announced by the Duke, neglecting to ask the opinion of either Isabella, or more importantly, her father. The Duke simply is unable to provide conclusive happy marriages through his power. That is because he is trying to perform a role that he is not meant to play.

The Duke's assumption of patriarchal authority is one of the things that create the troubled ending, preventing it from fitting neatly into the comedy genre. The ending itself is one superimposed by Shakespeare, on the far more tragic ending of the original source text. In a sense you see Shakespeare using the Duke in a similar way. (except of course, since Shakespeare, if you will, is the 'God' of the universe he created, by having the Duke also doing the same thing he is, he is in fact having the Duke attain authority he is not meant to have). The Duke is superimposing the marriages of comedy onto a situation that should be tragic. So all in all, in the Duke's appropriation of Fatherly Authority, we see him transcending the limits of his own rank in part creating the uneasiness of the ending.

Quincy Chuck English 142B - Section 1F 22/10/2008

Prince Machiavelli and Othello

During the previous lecture, Professor Little was mentioning many key themes in regards to the play, “ Othello.” Among the many interesting things that were discussed in class, one of them was the fact that the character of Iago functions as a “Machiavellian” character or stage figure. This term is one that is coined for Prince Machiavelli. Machiavelli is famous for his political treatise, "The Prince" which espouses, among other things, that the ends to power always justify the means. In drama, when stating that a character is “Machiavellian,” it means that this figure is using his ambition and will to do whatever he must do in order to succeed. It is evident that Iago’s constant plots and plans to destroy the relationship between Othello and Desdemona exemplify this. Through Iago’s ambition and will, he fools and manipulates those around him, in order to attain what he desires. Professor Little mentioned that in Miachiavelli’s discourse, he writes that the politician is an actor which, “must be a skillful pretender and dissembler, he must seem to have the virtues of good faith, charity, humanity and religion.” Therefore, the character of Iago functions as a stage figure who exemplifies this very philosophy. However, Iago’s behavior is a slightly exaggerated form of it.

Deanna Ashikyan
Section 1F
Friday (5-5:50)

Thomas Rymer's "A Short View of Tragedy"

Professor Little mentioned in lecture Thomas Rymer’s “A Short View of Tragedy,” which was written in 1693. This work is significant because it is considered to be the first book of literary criticism in English. In this work, Rymer mentions Shakespeare’s Othello, criticizing the play for being improbable and mocks the role of the handkerchief playing such a significant part in Othello believing Desdemona’s alleged infidelity. Rymer also brings up several points about the play. He reads the play as showing the consequences of not obeying parents (as seen when Desdemona runs off and marries Othello without her father’s approval, leading to her tragic demise), as well as a lesson that women should stay in the woman’s sphere (as demonstrated again by Desdemona trying to influence Othello by urging him to reinstate Cassio as his lieutenant, which provides the basis for Iago’s insinuations about an extramarital affair between her and the fallen lieutenant). Rymer also sees Othello as providing the lesson to husbands that “before jealousy be tragical, proof be mathematical.” In other words, make sure you have proof she’s really cheating on you before you do something drastic, like murdering your wife.

Darlene Lin
Section 1F
Friday 5-5:50

If music be the food of love, play on. Give me excess of it that, surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die.

Twelfth Night: Act 1 Scene 1 Lines 1-15


ORSINO
If music be the food of love, play on.
Give me excess of it that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so die.
That strain again, it had a dying fall.
5 Oh, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound,
That breathes upon a bank of violets,
Stealing and giving odor. Enough, no more.
'Tis not so sweet now as it was before.
O spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou,
10 That, notwithstanding thy capacity
Receiveth as the sea, naught enters there,
Of what validity and pitch soe'er,
But falls into abatement and low price
Even in a minute. So full of shapes is fancy
15 That it alone is high fantastical.


In this passage, Orsino reveals his indulgence in love when he continues to listen to music though it makes him sad. "Food" and "appetite" show that he is hungry for love, or rather his idealization of love. In his mourning for love, it seems like he is moaning since he keeps saying "O." Words like "dying," "ear," "quick," and "naught" show Orsino experiencing orgasm as he talks. (Professor Little also states that Orsino is "cumming all over the place" in the passage.) In Elizabethan time, ear represents a sexual organ; quick represents sex; die represents orgasm; and naught represents female genitalia. Because Orsino fails to regulate his own desire, he continues to excessively and festively indulges in his emotions.


Uyen Dinh
142B; Dis. 1F (Aaron 5-5:50)

1605 (Gunpowder Plot)

In 1603, James I becomes King of England and there is a sense of among Catholics that James is not sympathetic to Catholicism. In 1605, a group of Catholics—led by Guy Fawkes—decide to blow up Parliament. The Plot is discovered, however, and the plotters are later executed. The Gun Powder Plot is an example of equivocation; Guy Fawkes and his fellow plotters choose an inexplicit method to subvert their government. Henry Garnet, a friar at the time, wrote on this equivocation, as does Shakespeare in his play "Macbeth". "Macbeth" is a play of equivocations, as seen in the opening act of the play when one of the witches says the witches shall meet again "When the battle's lost and won" (Act I, Scene I). Throughout the play the witches speak equivocally as Shakespeare underscores the superstition and mysticism associated with Catholicism.

Matt Sigel (Waldo Disc. 1A)