Though we’ve only been assigned the first two acts of “The Revenger’s Tragedy”, several important themes seem to be prevalent. Among them are revenge, envy and incest(sort of). The play’s main character, Vindice(very subtle name), sets the tone for the play; carrying his former lover’s skull at the beginning of the play. Apparently, the current duke, lusting after Vindice’s lover, Glorianna, was denied in his lust and therefore poisoned her. Vindice is seen at the beginning of the play speaking to the skull and vowing revenge on the duke for his “Sin”.

Speaking of sin, this word is repeated constantly throughout the play. It would be wise to look for some religious theme to come to play here if it hasn’t already. Chastity and adultery are already used as a measure of sin. The sinner in the play seems to be he that commits adultery or is loose(Lussurioso) and the “purest” is also the most chaste(Castiza).

As far as envy is concerned, the Duke and Duchess’ son’s are all out to get each other killed. The Duchess’ son’s want Lussurioso dead and “the bastard”(what’s the story behind him? I think it turns out that he’s actually the Duke’s son, but of illegitimate birth. Of course) wants all of the children dead.

The incest here occurs with “the bastard” and the Duchess. Jeez!

That is what we call a play……….

I’m sure there will be lots more to come as we read(I haven’t even mentioned Junior Brother raping some woman at a masquerade and how it seems like he’s going to get away with it!). Revenge tragedy? Definitely a whole lot more……

I think I have the worst luck in choosing assignments for this class. Anyway, Epicoene (I can barely pronounce that), is written by Ben Johnson. The language is dated and the main reason why I am not at all confident in my assertions made about this play. The seemingly playful banter between the characters reminded me of The Homecoming, by Harold Pinter. If I am understanding correctly, the opening scene is supposed to be funny–and I find it to be. The idea that this old guy is sitting around his house listening to his servant sing. His buddy comes along and judges him for the sake of judging him. The most intriguing aspect to this reading, so far, has been the prologue–not because it is the first thing to read, but because of what is being said. Jonson is asserting that art is made for the people. Jonson makes an analogy to chefs preparing food not for himself, but for his clientele. The the chef puts all this time and effort to assemble ingredients in such a way that is pleasing for costumers.  And that not everybody is going to like what you cook, but there definitely will be some that will. Well, thats what I got from it.

The play The Shoemaker’s Holiday by Thomas Dekker was a very popular play during its times.  It is a play that gave the audience a taste of city life, a city comedy, a look inside the lives of its inhabitants.  It appealed to the public and its citizens, it is a play that is lighthearted and fun yet it addressed the various conflicts that Londoners faced during the 1500’s.  It gave the audience a look into the lives of everyday citizens as well as aristocratic lives.  The influx of immigrants that caused the population of the city of  London to quadruple within a span of fifty years came with its pros and cons.  On one hand, London was getting the benefit of trading with other countries as well as within England itself, it open the doors to commerce and gave London a better financial standing and an exposure to different languages and traditions.  Yet the city became very busy and it had to adjust to the sudden change in the population, those that lived in the city had to adjust to the population change.

The play appealed to an array of audiences because of its flexibility of its language and plot.  It’s full of stories of everyday people that were entertaining without ignoring any of the social classes and professions within the city, portraying them with their everyday  troubles, adventures and thoughts.  The fairytale of a nobleman falling in love with an average citizen is also very charming and a crowd pleaser.  The story of the impossible between the two families, although they may be comparable in the financial side, the major difference is that one family is an aristocratic family ( Rowland Lacy), he is the nephew of a Earl of Lincoln which is an appointed title given by the King, owning a piece of land.  While Rose’s father (Oatley)  although a very rich man is the Mayor of London which is only a temporary position is still considered a citizen because he is without title.  He needs to be elected to stay in that position.

The play pokes at the difficult issues about aristocrats and citizens and their never ending struggles against each other. As well as the sudden rise to riches by Simon Eyre with the help of Hans/Lacy when a mysterious cargo shows up.  Then the disguise of Lacy as a Dutch shoemaker, all for the love he has for Rose in hopes of one day meeting her.  It’s very magical yet real , about the everyday lives these people. The rise in immigration to London helped London develop and mature into a very busy and interesting city.  The happenings of the plays are a just a peek into the lives of its inhabitant.  Every person fighting for their own space and others trying to adjust to life with people with a different language and lifestyle there is bound to be conflicts with this way of life.

As time past, being an Earl, Lord, Noble does not seems to fly, for they are the rich players who just spends money without working for any of it.  Not reading the entire play “The Shoemaker’s Holiday”, I can only concluded that Lacy very much wants to change Rose’s father outlook of him, perhaps by obtaining a simple yet hard working trade such as a shoemaker.  He manage to live and work with the lowry people (beneath him) thus crossing the barrier from “high birth” to “gentle craft”  by living as one of them.  Also bringing him close to his love, Rose, whose father disagrees with the relationship, thus sending his daugther away.  Yet, surprising to find that Rose refuses to marry a rich Londoner against her father wishes, ironically she is her own woman and is in control of her life in that time era, but still unable to love freely for both sent away unwillingly.

In the play “Doctor Faustus” by Thomas Marlow, Faustus is a man who begins in the work of black magic. Two of his friends Cornelius and Valdes teach him about magic and show him how to do spells. Faustus has summons sprits and ghosts and one that we follow through the play is Mephistopheles. Faustus basically agrees the give his soul away to the Mephistopheles and Lucifer and in exchange for magic and Mephistopheles to be his servant. Faustus has his fun and travels all over. He went from messing with the Pope or going to see the Emperor and granting him to see “Alexander the Great”. Towards the end his magic becomes not as great like granting the man a horse but it turns into hay if the horse touches water.

In class we discussed if it was too late for Faustus to repent. Towards the end of the play it seems like Faustus wanted to repent but he was too weak because of Mephistopheles. I find it ironic because its Mephistopheles whose suppose to be the servant for Faustus and you questions who is really in control. But I feel like Faustus could have repented many times. The old man that came in and told Faustus to repent and that God would save him. Then there was the scholars who said that they would stay and pray for him. Faustus had the help of people that wanted to help and save him from his mistake. After the old man leave, Faustus is to intimidated by Mephistopheles and falls back into agreeing to go to hell. I think if that old man stayed and pushed Faustus to repent he could have been saved and would suffer in hell. In the end we see that Faustus admits to making a huge mistake in agreeing to sell his soul because he screams to be set free and not to do anymore magic ever again.

When I was finishing the play I really thought in the end that Faustus was gonna be saved. He dabbled in magic but didn’t really do any harm. He didn’t deserve to be taken to hell for the rest of his life. Many of the magical acts he did was actually nice like giving the grapes to the wife or at least trying to bring back “Alexander the Great”. I felt like he did more good than bad when experimenting with the magic. I felt bad for him when finishing the play and wished that the ending ended differently.

          Christopher Marlowe’s play “Doctor Faustus” is about an ordinary man who tires of conforming to accept the theological philosophies of God. Hence Faustus has a revelation that deems what he has been studying is no longer of use to him:” Is to dispute well logic’s chiefest end? Affords this art no greater miracle? Then read no more; thou hast attained the end. A greater subject fitteth Faustus’ wit(lines 8-11; pg.251).” This new found subject turns out to be “metaphysics of magicians(line51; pg.252)” which is deemed as heresy during the period in which this play was composed. In the play he’s flipping through a book of magic when two angels appear. Yet one is good and the other is evil. Since Faustus is an ordinary man seeking to obtain “divinity” in the most unrighteous of ways these two angels can be inferred as being a part of his conscience.

           As a result Dr.Faustus attempts to conduct  acts of  necromantic measure by using incantations to summon devious, diabolic and dubious spirits.The first diabolic spirit we are introduced to is Mephistopheles who actually is a devil from the underworld. This devil was sent to earth to  collect Faustus’ soul because he was denouncing the prophecies of heaven: “Is stoutly to abjure the Trinity, And pray devoutly to the prince of hell(lines 52-55; pg. 257).” Faustus thought he appeared because Mephistopheles was sent “To do whatever Faustus shall command(line 38; pg.257).” The first command Faustus makes upon the devil, assuming that he came to serve him was “I charge thee to return and change thy shape. Thou art too ugly to attend on me. Go, an return an old Franciscan friar; That holy shape becomes a devil best (lines 24-27; pg.256).”  Faustus used authoritative  power he thought he had to order the devil around, yet was also making a parody of the theology and philosophy regarding God. This was within respect to what was deemed as good and redeeming when it came to acquiring salvation through repentance because church figures like friars were seem as mediums.

       However within the  scenes of Act Two we see Faustus buying into the ‘priviledged and divine life’  gimmick that Mehisopheles offers so that he can obtain Faustus soul and give it to Lucifer who wants to “expand his kingdom” in hell because “misery wants company.” Regardless of the advice from the Good Angel , Fuastus still provides mutual assent for the devil’s soul catching, transaction by cutting his arm and writing about giving his soul to Lucifer in his own blood.

     Even so we are also reminded of Faustus denouncing God and his will which appears a couple of times up to this point within the play. Faustus believes that religion is arbitrary because humans are all sinners and will be condemned by death so he doesn’t see how individuals like himself will be saved if death is inevitable and considered as a penalty: “Despair in God and trust in Beelzebub” (conveyed within the first 21 lines of Act Two; page 260).

     In spite of that Faustus cannot speak of heaven or God’s creation of it because the devil’s contract states that he shall solely “think on the devil (line 172; pg 268).” Doing otherwise would be considered breaching it and sending himself [Faustus] into the bowels of hell to burn forever. Thus the beginning of this play renders that there is a theme of religious prophecies of God versus necromantic antics of the devil (heresy); what’s Good versus what’s Evil within the Renaissance period. Therefore the Good and Evil Angels are not only a part of Faustus’ conscience but represent two different ideologies regarding the good versus evil theme. Hence the Good Angel expresses the theology of devout believers in God and the Evil Angel represents how  followers of Lucifer deem theology as containing “fruits of lunacy (line 18; pg.260).”

<- Image from Hubpages.com

Arden of Faversham is an anonymously written play based off the real-life murder of Raphael Holinshed. As we previously mentioned in class, this play can be compared to a modern day soap opera with major comedic relief. Throughout the performance, the audience is on edge, watching/reading the many failed attempts of murdering Arden, by his wife Alice, her lover Mosby, as well as the hired hit men Black Will and Shakebag. Though there seems to be an angel keeping Arden safe through most of the play, his guardian fails in the end. After Black Will hold Arden down with a towel, Mosby hit’s him with an iron, then Shakebag and Alice stabs him.

We, the audience, knows that Alice is of highest social status. She’s a descendant of a noble house and also holds highest status in her own home as head of the household. Throughout the play, we see a theme of social status taking precedents. We see Alice is in charge of the home, due to the fact that Michael and Susan take orders from her over Arden. Of course we also see she’s in control, because she murders her own husband, Arden. Mosby is also one of the “new gentlemen,” who was unhappy of the status he was born in. Once a tailor, he continued on to become a steward in the nobleman’s house. This allows him to be wealthier and more prestigious than if he was just a tailor.

I believe this is why Arden, called a cuckold by Mosby, chooses to ignore the fact that Alice are having an affair with him. Arden, unaware of his wife’s plan to murder him, enjoys being apart of the upper status that comes with the marriage of his wife. Greene also wanted to have Arden murdered because the King gave his land to Arden, and without it, Greene has nothing for himself or his family. Which once again comes back to the status theme, because Greene is only a farmer, he has no ownership of the land that was once his.

However, as the play comes to a close, we see the true meaning of social status. In the long run, it means nothing if you’re morals are non existent. Land, money, and power means nothing when faced with death by execution. In a sort of comedic way, everyone blames the other, and Mosby curses women off all together. However I do feel bad for Susan and Bradshaw. Though they had almost nothing to do with Arden’s murder, they’re sentenced to death as well. Truly making this Elizabethan play a domestic tragedy.

In the play Arden of Faversham, Alice who married to her husband based upon her parents’ order.  Her parents believed their arrangements were the best to her and they were the only persons who had the authority to do so.  Alice was not happy about it just because her marriage was not based upon her own will.  She married to her husband Thomas Arden was solely because her parents wanted her to.  Did she love her husband?  Perhaps she did but not faithfully.  She had an affair with Mosby to show her rebellion to her parents’ decision.  The author’s purpose was to make the other parents aware and warned them what the consequences would be if they did what Alice’s parents did.

In addition, Thomas Arden often insulted Mosby because he was a clothes repairer.  He was in a lower social class while Thomas Arden was in the higher social class.  In this play, Mosby had said repeatedly that he would revenge.  Also, he jealous Thomas Arden because he was in a better position; Arden could have anything he wanted but he could not.  Mosby was hoping that if he could get rid of Arden, he could take over his place and replace him.  He already had the love of his wife, Alice; he was hoping that if he could replace Arden, he could be as wealthy and popular as he was.  However, on page 454, Scene 8, line 59, Alice said, “It is not love that loves to murder love.”  Alice had a conflict within herself:  Alice had feeling with her husband and she did not want to kill Arden; but she did not want to be controlled by her parents because this was not what she wanted.  That’s why she conspired with Mosby and killed her husband.  They neglected human rights and taken away Arden’s freedom to live.  Finally, the legal system did not allow them and they were caught by the government.  Both Mosby and Alice were penalized by the law and executed.

 “that love conquereth all things but itself, and ladies all hearts but their own”

The last line of the play is (I think )Gallathea’s justification for what happened in the play. We have two girls who are both virgins, dresses up as boys, and they begin flirting with each other. At first, I think that they are unaware that the other is also a girl. However, at some point they realize this truth and continue to flirt with each other. The one thing that stands out for me is that even after they go into the woods to “make much of one another”, Gallathea and Phillida continue to pretend that in a sense one of them is a boy. At this point they should know that they are both girls but they continue with their flirtation. One example of that is when Phillida is taking to Gallathea “I pray thee, sweet boy, flatter me not.” She is still referring to Gallathea as a boy, when I am sure that she knows otherwise.

One explanation of why they continue to refer to each other as boys is because the society does not accept such relationships and they wished that one of them was a boy so they can enjoy each other’s love.  This will support the conclusion of the play, when Venus decides to make one of them a boy and both agree to it. The only two people who are against it are their fathers.

Another explanation that came to mind is that since both of them were a virgin before this. They are unsure of what a male looks like physically. However, this explanation seems less likely because both Gallathea and Phillida know that they are girls. I think at some point they would figure out that  there is a lot of similarity between each other.

However, one can think back to Thomas Laqueur “Making Sex” and remember the one sex model. In that case Gallathea and Phillida are in the category of women and boys, which means that they are all the same. This can explain why Gallathea and Phillida continue with referring to one another as boys. They continue this because girls and boys look the same.  Moreover, the wedding is the symbol of one of them crossing to the right side and becoming a man. “The heat” can be looked as the act or feeling of love that is needed for a women or boy to cross over to the men side.

This brings me back to the last line of the play which one can look as an explanation to everything that happen. Gallathea points out that love can overcome anything, even the possibility of being the same sex. The one thing that it cannot overcome is itself, which means that Gallathea and Phillida cannot deny the love that they feel for each other.  I think that love and ones heart is presented as “the heat” needed to become a man, which at the end makes their love possible.   Diagram

As a person well versed in modern science, I often find that I look back at the scientists of centuries past in a very unforgiving manner.  Reading how a woman must be pleasured to conceive (what about rape victims who are impregnated, must they live with the stigma that they enjoyed their rape?), or later that women need not feel pleasure at all so its obviously time  to change our entire social views (these men must have been chauvinists) makes it very hard to feel any sympathy for their ignorance.

Laqueur has a very important point when he says that social views of males and females must depend on more than scientific ‘discoveries,’ whether those discoveries are accurate or not.  Much like when science was used to justify racism,  these men used it to justify sexism.  I took an anthropology class freshman year and my professor, when teaching us about gender roles, repeated this line over and over: “Sex is real, gender is a social construct” and these societies, without any clear sense of the anatomy of the sexes, needed to rely solely on their concept of gender, which they could make and revise as they saw fit to, with half baked scientific discoveries and skewed political movements designed to meet an end beneficial to those in charge rather than garner the truth.

The idea of gender as a construct popped out at me in Gallathea when Phillida responds to being told that she must masquerade as a boy by complaining about the way she must act because of it. There were very different social expectations of a boy that she didn’t want to have to fulfill and I got a silly image in my head of her stomping her foot and whining “But boys have cooties!” during those few lines.

Both Phillida and Gallathea seem to think that acting as a man is very unseemly.  They both obviously think themselves members of the better sex, and I’m fairly certain that both of them would rather let the sea monster do what it will with them than spend eternity as a man.  They both seem to be of the belief that being a certain sex means that you have certain specific behavioral attributes. I get the feeling that their society didn’t have much variation in personalities based on these girls beliefs on what their lives must be until Neptune is sated.

Of course, today we still certainly have specific ways that women act today as opposed to how men act. Stereotypes that dictate that women are more timid, ditsier. But overall I don’t think that my behavior would have to change that much were I to need to impersonate a man, which once again leads me to a rather exasperated view of their society.