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.