1. Traub, Valerie. The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. Print.

The above work is perfect for Twelfth Night and Gallathea. It is about the invisibility of lesbianism. We clearly see this with Olivia and Viola/Cesario. In Gallathea, the love between Phyllida and Gallathea is invisible lesbianism.

It focuses on the meaning of gay and straight since the lovers above do not know the true sex and gender of each other. How would one represent the women in the above plays? Are they really straight or lesbian? This plays right into the confusion of identity.

If you’re focusing on sex and identity, I highly recommend using Traub’s book as a source.

2. Morris, Ivor. Shakespeare’s God: The Role of Religion in the Tragedies. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1972. Print.

The second work is perfect for The Merchant of Venice or any other Shakespeare plays that has religious themes. You might be able to use this source for Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta since they are somewhat connected. Shakespeare did write The Merchant of Venice in response to Marlowe’s work.

Since learning of the scrutinous guidelines once maintained in film/television several years ago,  I have been unable to wrap my head around the limitations of portrayed sexuality, and in turn human nature. Several decades ago, a man and a woman, even if married, could not be presented has sharing the same bed. Instead, sets featured two separate beds and minimal physical interaction. Such faded decency laws allow for a sharp contrast to the blatant portrayal of sexuality (as opposed to merely the human form) of today’s media. The fact remains, sex sells. When, then, was sexuality rendered indecent?

The Greeks celebrated humanism and relations were hetero-flexible, albeit subject to some class structure guidelines. Roman bathhouses featured elaborate murals depicting vast orgies, including anachronistically-defined homosexuality and bestiality. Their myths/religious foundations were also heavily laden with sexuality–incestual, onanistic, zoophilic,  and so forth. Granted, they did not maintain a ‘free love’ society, and certainly one sex (or gender..) largely dominated the ability to maintain sexual fluidity. The fundamental issues arises with the constant rosy-eyed nostalgic ganders at days past, portraying them as having had more ‘class’ and ‘decency’. Are these then merely defined as ignorance? Kinsey’s ambitious studies shocked and appalled the nation, though it is hard to say if they did so out of mere shock/novelty, or its having shed light on taboo commonality.

Taboos seems to indicate man’s pompous to move away from nature. Our most prized, revered, and truly fundamental acts are inherently ‘dirty’. There is nothing pristine about diet, sexuality, or death. The very same organs are (ab)used for all such matters. To claim there is any sort of preparation, or ‘proper’ method of conduct is clinging to a delusional set of guidelines. Animals, as we are, engage in equally ‘appalling’ acts–including interspecies relations, onanism, necrophilia, and orgiastic dynamics. Our evolutionary structures indicates just that–we are animals who, in strictly a physical sense,  merely fabricated monogamy.

Ford presents the audience with characters and a plot that can only indicate our enjoyment of such topics. As crude as they appear relative to the religious constructs of a patriarchal divine figure, they are, again, fundamental to our nature. From a biological/genetic perspective, yes, brother and sister should avoid successfully exploring the baby-making process.  However, from an attraction perspective, this seems to make the most logical sense–if mirroring is a successful sales tactic, and we are already attracted to similarly looking individuals, a brother and a sister seem like ripe for an arable amorous adventure.

Within the context of sexuality, the goal of religion seems to be to withdraw us from the natural world.  Then, somehow, we may forget our interests. How, then, could there be so much in common amongst so many plays? Shakespeare’s plays, likely the first ones we have been introduced to (outside of the school production of Robin Hood), are conventionally held in the highest regard, appreciated by the proper and thoroughly refined upper crust. Surely immature sexual crudeness has been weeded out and replaced with more acceptable behaviors. That is, until we learn of puns on every page.  While Ford may not have been a staunch advocate of citywide orgies (a la Perfume), he certainly did not oppose admissions of inherent truths. Nor, apparently, did the audiences who attended his plays. Or is it only possible to present such themes in seemingly a farcical matter (despite the play being a ‘revenge tragedy’), through distance characteristic of the stage? If the very same phrases now deemed so exceptionally tasteless, crude, and altogether representative of sexual immaturity and the downfall of Western culture, were also used (almost verbatim) several hundred years ago, could this perhaps be a time to point our noses at a slightly smaller angle?

Hmm, I think I’ve found a bare-bones topic for my paper.

“‘Tis Pity She’s A Whore,” by John Ford uses many of themes we’ve seen in the plays we’ve read earlier in this semester. We see that this play is very similar to the revenge tragedies we’ve read which are: “Titius Andronicus,” by William Shakespeare, and “The Spanish Tragedy,” by Thomas Kyd. Some of the crucial themes that surround this play are: revenge, deceit, greed, and prejudice. As we discussed in class each of these themes comes to play an important part in the shaping of this story, and the message it is trying to send.

Revenge and deceit can be seen in the play vividly through the trio of Giovanni, Annabella, and Soranzo. Giovanni and Annabella’s relationship results in the pregnancy of Annabella, and in order to avoid being ashamed publicly she listens to the Friar advice and repents and marries Soranzo. However, she deceives him by not telling him of the pregnancy. Eventually when Soranzo realizes he has been lied to he wants to get revenge. At the same time, as we discussed in class, when Giovanni realizes that Annabella has repented he wants to get revenge on her since she has betrayed him by doing so. After that eventually Giovanni also stabs Soranzo and Giovanni gets killed by Vasques. All in all this fulfills the type of scenes we see in the revenge tragedies where basically everyone dies.

However, in the background there are many things that go on to the minor characters of the plot that reveal that greed and prejudice also play a role in this play. Greed was portrayed very well by the Cardinal in the play, and we see that most clearly at the end where he says “All the gold and jewels, or whatsoever,/Confiscate by the canons of the Church,/ We seize upon to the Pope’s proper use,” (V.vi.145-147). Prejudice can be seen when we see what happens to Putana. Her eyes get gouged out, and she gets “burnt to ashes” (V.vi.132) and this is all because she knew of the relationship between Annabella and Giovanni. While at the same time Grimaldi murders Bergetto in an attempt to murder Soranzo but he gets off free.

What other motivations did the characters have for behaving the way they did? Sometime it seemed that they were being extreme just for the sake of it.

In order to help get things started, please take a look at the text you’ve been assigned to review — skim through it, read the introduction, take a peek at the table of contents, and so on. Then, please post in the comments section (for this post) 1) the full bibliographic entry for your work and 2) a brief description of its contents. You might give some thought to the kinds of papers for which the assigned text would prove useful. Is it helpful for thinking through any of the suggested essay prompts? Is it helpful, more generally, for producing papers on the subject of race? What about questions of genre? What did you like / not like about the text? Remember that this annotated bibliography is your resource. You’re putting it together for one another, so be as helpful as you can, and be mindful of the uses to which your classmates will be putting this material.

There are a few things going on in the first two acts of John Ford’s “‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore.” In the note from Thomas Ellice to the author, found at the beginning of the play, we learn very quickly that there will be some sort of love affair between Giovanni and Annabella. Ellice is clear in naming Annabella the whore and referring to her infamy, while allowing Giovanni to remain “in his love unblamed.” While this quick note, on its own, seems like the consequence of an average love affair gone awry where one partner is the culprit and the other free from blame, we learn in the first act of the play that Giovanni and Annabella are brother and sister and that the affair is therefore much more complicated. In Giovanni’s discussion with the friar, he questions what society might say about his feelings for Annabella: “Shall then, for that I am her brother born, / My joys be ever banished from her bed?” (I.i.36-37). The friar, hearing and understanding full well Giovanni’s confession of this incestuous love, directs him to do penance, to lock himself in his room and spend seven days “cleansing the leprosy of lust” three times a day and three times each night. 

As the play progresses, it becomes obvious that Annabella is the most coveted young woman around. She discusses her various prospects with her servant, Putana, but they are interrupted by Annabella’s brother, Giovanni. Putana leaves the pair alone. While it would seem normal that Giovanni’s affections for his sister would be unrequited, we soon learn that Annabella feels the same for him. This presents a dilemma that is a bit difficult to resolve. The two confess their love for one another, focusing on the “naturalness” of it. This struck me as a bit odd, but Giovanni seems to have rationalized their affections: “Wise Nature first in your creation meant / To make you  mine: ‘else’t had been sin and foul / To share on beauty to a double soul. / Nearness in birth or blood doth but persuade / A nearer nearness in affection.”  (I.ii.226-230). These lines highlight their obvious connection as brother and sister, and Giovanni uses this link to claim that they have been “persuaded” by nature to this affair. In Act II, it appears that the brother/sister pair have consummated their relationship, and they then talk of marriage. When they part, Annabella faces the relative of one of her suitors, and she admits that she will not do to be his wife. Her father relays this information to Giovanni a bit later, and the scene ends with Giovanni jealously requesting that Annabella take off the jewel she was given by Signior Donado, whose relative she rejected. At this point, Giovanni has already returned to the Friar and confessed all, explaining that his sister loves him back. The two have a discussion about nature, virtue, and sin, and it appears that they cannot and will not come to  an agreement about the love affair between Giovanni and Annabella. The Friar exclaims that “a pair of souls are lost” (II.v.69). 

Another interesting thing that I noticed about the play until this point is the association of age with wisdom. It comes up during the Friar and Giovanni’s first discussion, where Giovanni states that the Friar’s age “distils the life of counsel.” I wonder whether this is something that Giovanni really believes in or whether it is a ploy to sweet talk the Friar a bit before hearing his the penance that he will be assigned to complete. 

What I’d like to know most, at this point at least, is when exactly the lady becomes a “whore.” Why does Ellice only blame the affair on Annabella’s infamy in his note to Ford? Where is Giovanni’s role in this?

While reading King Lear, I couldn’t help but notice so many similarities in language and common themes between this play and other Shakespeare’s plays we have read. We could partly attribute this to the fact that King Lear was written after all the other plays we’ve read so far. Chronologically Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus, The Merchant of Venice, Twelfth Night, and then King Lear. Another way to approach this pattern is to think of the author’s works as his fruit of thoughts, which mature and evolve, and seep into one another; although all the plays depict different characters and events, they all developed from Shakespeare’s imagination, progressing at they were written.

The most recurrent theme is that of deception of sight, spoken language and letters, which is evident to a certain degree in all of the mentioned plays. This theme was especially prevalent in Twelfth Night, as clothing served as a disguise and a tool to forming new identities for Viola, and also letters were used to deceive and misguide Malvolio. We can say that words were used as actual weapons by Tamora and her sons in Titus Andronicus to mislead the authorities, and also to bring even more hurt to Lavinia (black humor). Similarly, King Lear is led into madness by his daughters, as well as his own poor judgment when they vowed their love to Lear, and in turn he rewarded them for it. Lear was blind to the fact of his daughter’s true nature, and disowned his most loyal child. Also, Gloucester was misled by Edmund’s false letters and pleas into thinking that Edgar, his good natured son, was the evil one.  Ironically, he was able to see the actual truth only after he was physically deprived of eyesight by Cornwall and Regan. Likewise, in Titus Andronicus numb Lavinia proved to be much more efficient at pointing out the enemy that all other able-bodied characters.

In comparison with Merchant of Venice , play King Lear represents the same idea of placing commercial value on people. The Merchant is thoroughly soaked with commercial undertones determine Antonio’s and Bassanio’s fates, as well as love matches. Portia is located at the center of this love-matching, since all the suitors come to her, and in order to even try to pursue her they have to demonstrate a certain degree of wealth. Also, she is constantly referred to as the “golden fleet”, and marrying her means inheriting enormous wealth. So right there a line between feelings and economic gain is blurred, as Portia is perceived not as a partner, but as a golden casket.  Also, in Twelfth Night Malvolio’s pursuit of Olivia was based on desire to advance his social rank.

In the same fashion Lear offers his power and riches in exchange for his daughter’s love, as they urge him to “price them” (I.i.70) based on their worth.  As Cordelia refuses to plead her eternal love to her father, not desiring to portray her love as something that can be matched monetarily, Lear gets angry and disowns her. By doing so, he isolated his daughter for being disobedient and not following the laws of society in which love and money go hand in hand. He tells Cordelia’s suitors “ When she was dear to us, we did hold her so [ worthy of inheritance], but now her price has fallen.”  (I.ii.196) This claim projects Cordelia as an object of trade, ignoring her any other qualities.

Despite all the similarities King Lear differs drastically form other plays mentioned above, because it introduces a whole new concept of aging, which involves both physical change and more importantly mental. There is a whole discussion almost in every act on the topic of who deserves best treatment and the wealth, the old or the young? Also, who is wise and who is plain mad, the parent or the child, who should teach/ govern whom? As the play progresses, the reader is exposed to more and more confusion as Lear slips into madness, and the answer to those questions seems to be even more complicated.

In Act 3 we see a couple of things happening. King Lear seems to have completely lost his mind and in some ways reminds me of other iconic Shakespeare characters such as Titus Andronicus. Lear cannot get over the fact as to how his two daughters (Goneril & Regan) are treating him. He begins to curse the weather and says that nothing could be worse than his daughters. He states “Nor rain, wind, thunder, fire are my daughters” (3.2.14).

At the very same time, Edmund continues on with his plan to inherit Gloucester’s fortune which is “rightfully” his, according to him anyways. He is obsesses with the idea that the old are obsolete and that the young should be in power especially when he says “The younger rises when the old doth fall” (3.4.22). He seizes the opportunity that Gloucester presents to him. Gloucester decides to go search for Lear in the treacherous weather but before he does, he tells Edmund of a letter he possesses which talks of how a French army is invading. Gloucester immediately exposes both of these things to Cornwall. Using the letter as evidence for his father’s support of the French, he gains trust from Cornwall and he is given the title Earl of Gloucester.

One of the most significant events to happen in King Lear takes place in Act 3 and that was the eye-gouging scene of Gloucester. This is due to Edmund’s plan of obtaining the inheritance. Cornwall proceeds to take out both of Gloucester’s eyes. It is not till after this that he finds out who Edmund truly is. He realizes he made a mistake with Edgar and tries to make amends with god.

In Act 3 we see the multiple story lines reach its climax and turning point. It is in this Act that we see King Lear for the first time lose his mind for a bit. In addition Edmund’s plan is finally carried out and Gloucester realizes his wrongs before. Ironically, he is able to see a lot more clear when his eyes are gouged-out.

Most of Shakespeare’s tragedies, such as Othello, the Merchant of Venice, and Titus Adronicus, have a character or set of characters that embody the immoral and depraved aspect of humanity. Such villains are often manipulative and scheming individuals who seek to bring sorrow and grief to other characters within the play for a multitude of reasons, some of which include pleasure, revenge, and social aspirations. The character of Edmund, the son of the Earl of Gloucester, is one that stands out in Shakespeare’s Tragedy of King Lear because of his embodiment of the characteristics typical to the Shakespearian villain.

Edmund is the illegitimate offspring of Gloucester. Society and to a lesser extent his father mock him for his secondary status within the social hierarchy. He resents society for shunning him due to his birth status, for branding him with the title of bastard and for preventing him from legally claiming the recognition he believes is his birthright. He further resents his legitimate half-brother Edgar because of society’s acknowledgement of his claim to their father’s title, wealth, and name. It becomes evident in Act I scene 2 that Edmund aims to ensure that he “the base shall top the legitimate” Edgar (I.2.15). This resentment, harbored for many years, is ultimately acted upon when Edmund seeks to breach the strong bond between Edgar and Gloucester. His purpose for this separation is made evident when he states “Legitimate Edgar I must have your land” (I.2.11). Since he cannot seize the land that has been allocated to Edgar through legitimate means, he does so by planting false evidence, manipulating many the characters within the play, and playing the part of the loyal son.  He states, “let me if not by birth, have lands by wit” and he does exactly that by setting father and son against each other and by convincing others of Edgar’s “villainy” (I.2.162).

Edmund’s schemes to implicate his half-brother in a false conspiracy against Gloucester’s life resemble those of other famous Shakespearian villains, such as Othello’s Iago and Titus Adronicus’ Aaron the Moor and Tamora. He is highly manipulative, easily able to control a situation and guide the thoughts of others in any direction he chooses. This is first made evident when he convinces Gloucester, simply through the use of a fabricated letter, that Edgar was after his life. By decrying the importance of the letter, he goads Gloucester to read it and sets off the chain of events that has Edgar running for his life. He is able to create and enact elaborate schemes, one such being the “sword fight” he has with Edgar, in which he garners sympathy, while solidifying Gloucester’s hatred against Edgar, by intentionally injuring himself. These examples can be compared to Tamora’s efforts to avenge the murder of her son, which she does by falsely implicating Titus’ sons in the murder of the emperor’s brother through the use of a letter as well and by entrapping them at the scene of the murder. Furthermore, his ability to remain the innocent bystander or to be the “hero” can be likened to the role that Iago played in Othello. Despite the fact that Iago blatantly admitted his crimes to those around him, he was trusted by all until the end, when his evil deeds were revealed. Similarly, Edmund gains the trust of not only Gloucester, but of Edgar, Cornwall, and Regan. Despite the fact that Edgar realized that “some villain has done him wrong,” he continues to blindly trust Edmund, a faith that leads to Gloucester casting him off (I.2.144).

Although Edmund is as much a villain of the play as are King Lear’s eldest two daughters, Goneril and Regan,  and he follows the guidelines of the typical Shakespearian Villain, one who is cunning, highly intelligent and influential, and easily able to asses a situation and maneuver it in his favor, his motivations seem to shed a new light on his character. They are not fueled purely by a desire to acquire and retain immense wealth and power, such as Shylock’s were in the Merhcant of Venice, nor does he derive outright pleasure from his heinous deeds, as did Aaron the Moor in Titus Adronicus. Rather, from what has been explored thus far in the first two acts, he has a great desire, even a need to be recognized by his father and by society and to receive the love that has been showered on Edmund throughout his life. This wish for acceptance, for love, a concept not accepted by most of the other villains, somewhat sets him apart from them.

Upon surfing the net I stumbled upon this article and immediately thought of our class, so I thought I’d share it here:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/11/j-crew-plants-seeds-gender-identity/

Responses?

 Act 4 is important because that is when we see shylock’s downfall and the ridiculous offer the court gives him regarding his bond with Antonio.

In act 4 scene 1, the exchange between Portia and Shylock is important because I get the impression that Shylock uses the broken oath as an excuse to revenge. I think it’s not about the money he lost but something much deeper, which is his hate for Antonio, therefore this is his chance to pay him back all the nasty things that Antonio did to him. Portia says to him “Shylock, there’s thrice thy money offered thee” (4.1.224) and he replies “an oath, an oath! I have an oath in heaven. Shall I lay perjury upon my soul? No, not for Venice” (4.1.224-227). This shows that he is only interested in revenge and not the loss of the 3000 Ducats.

In the same act and scene, we also see more evidence that perhaps Antonio is hopelessly in love with Bassanio, which is the cause of his melancholy in the beginning of the play. When he thinks that Shylock is going to kill him, he says to Bassanio “give me your hand, Bassanio, fare you well…commend me to your honorable wife. Tell her the process of Antonio’s end. Say how I loved you, speak me fair in death…bid her be judge whether Bassanio had not once a love” (4.1.261-274). He mentions love again when the disguised Portia asks for Bassanio’s ring. He says “let his deserving and my love withal be valued against your wife’s commandment” (4.1.446-447). 

Going back to Shylock, it is ridiculous when Portia tells him “take thou pound of flesh. But in the cutting it, if thou dost shed one drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods are by the laws of Venice confiscate unto the state of Venice” (4.1.305-309). It’s obvious that one cannot cut someone’s flesh without making them bleed, therefore limiting Shylock’s revenge to this, puts him in a position that he will lose this battle either way. It represents the unfair treatments Jews were exposed to in a world dominated by Christians.

This act is also where we see more similarities between Shylock and Barabas. After he learns that he cannot avoid shedding Antonio’s blood, he decides to take the offer he was proposed earlier, which is to take three times the money he gave to Antonio, but he learns that it’s too late for that because he has already refused the offer. ‘The Jew shall have all justice…He shall have nothing but the penalty” says Portia (4.1.318-319). “He hath refused it in open court. He shall have merely justice and his bond” (4.1.334-335). This is exactly what happened to Barabas when the government came to confiscate his wealth. When he refused the offer they gave him, he could not change his mind about it.  The Jews in both stories are manipulated when it comes to their wealth and are asked to give up their religion. Poor Shylock converts, while Barabas does not, because he has better vengeance tactics, unlike Shylock who easily gives up to Antonio’s desires.

Finally, I believe that Shylock’s punishment is too harsh because after all, Antonio and Bassanio started this mess. He was minding his business until they came to him, borrowed his money, failed to pay him back on time and now ruin his life. He lost all of his money and converts to Christianity, which is probably the worst thing that could happen to him.

I don’t find act 5 to be important because it just a happy ending for all of them except Shylock. To me it’s an entertaining act but it has so significance.   

Below is a clip of act 4. I found it interesting!

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