Author Archives: Rikki

Posts: 3 (archived below)
Comments: 3

The Blind Leading the Dead

“I know what ’tis to love;

And would, as I shall pity, I could help.

Please you walk in, my lords.” (4.4.10-13)

There is a tragic absurdity that runs through Troilus and Cressida. Paris, in the lines above, expresses his regret to Troilus that he cannot interfere in Troilus’ separation from Cressida. This line does not seem to be mocking and yet, as an audience, we know that what he says is untrue. Paris has all the power to help Troilus. He simply needs to return Helen to her husband and end the war. Paris seems totally unaware of the absurdity of his attempt to comfort Troilus. He takes no blame for the widespread pain he inflicts. Like Shakespeare’s caricatures of Menelaus, Ulysses, and Agamemnon, the portrait of a blindly hypocritical Paris serves to undermine the blind reverence that follows those in power. This theme is carried further in the hectic short scenes of act 5. Amidst the bloody chaos, Agamemnon says “march patiently on” (5.9.6). Not only are the leaders in this play out of touch with the human consequences of their actions, they are disconnected from the reality of events as they unfold around them.

Posted in Troilus and Cressida | Tagged , | 1 Comment

The Imagined Other

Like Petruchio in his war on Kate’s inner shrew, Henry V employs an “us v. them” tactic in an unexpected way. In addition to the requisite French bashing, Henry rouses the troops in the opening of scene 3 by inviting them into his noble circle. He talks about their fathers’ honor and valor insisting “there is none of you so mean and base that hath not noble lustre in your eyes” (3.1.29-30). Neither the emotional push nor pull of these arguments are unique. When at war, the enemy is vilified and the soldier is glorified. What is interesting about Henry’s speech, and also very relevant today, is the secondary other that Henry creates. It is not enough for the “us v. them” scenario to encompass one body of “them.” There are also the “men of grosser blood” who stand across the sand line (3.1.24).  Who is Henry talking about? Despite his grand linguistic gestures, the men whom he addresses in this speech are at the very bottom of the totem pole. This speech is not for his horsed noblemen but for the common foot soldier. There are no men of grosser blood. Henry creates a social fallacy to further manipulate his soldiers’ emotions.

Consider the stance of the poor white southern anti-abolitionist in the nineteenth century. For someone who didn’t actually own slaves and therefor had no economic stake in slavery, an anti-abolitionist stance is purely emotional. No group of people wants to see themselves as being the bottom of the social hierarchy and so they push another group beneath themselves. In the case of Henry’s soldiers, the social implications are far less disturbing as the men of grosser blood are an imaginary group of people, but the attitude is the same. Henry smoothly uses a complex model of “us v. them” to accomplish his aims, without actually alienating any English people.

Posted in Henry V | 3 Comments

Hearing between the lines

In the final act of Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare’s contrast of two sets of lovers comes to a head. “Thou and I are too wise to woo peaceably,” Benedick says to Beatrice. Contrary to Benedick’s claim. the road to Beatrice and Benedick’s union, when compared to Hero and Claudio’s, is decidedly smooth. What are a few sharp words compared to public humiliation, feigned death, and resignation of suicide? This is one of the wonderfully universal and timeless elements of Shakespeare’s writing. Shakespeare has his characters say one thing and display another. We are told that Claudio is honorable and yet he behaves in an unprincipled manner. We are told that Benedick is unquestionably a bachelor and then he changes his tune so dramatically that he agrees to duel his best friend at his lover’s behest. We are told that Margaret is “just and virtuous” and then, two short scenes later, we see her trading phallic jokes with Beatrice’s lover (5.1.305). Again and again we hear Shakespeare’s characters deceive themselves and others with that commodity that Shakespeare himself trades in. While the most immediate effect is comedic, the lasting message of contrasting words and evidence speaks to a larger message about patterns of human behavior. Again we see the relevance of the reception of a Shakespearian play. That the audience is expected to hear the play, asks that they listen and piece together verbal clues. In offering this exchange with his audience, careful listening for comedy and romance, Shakespeare also trained his audience to pull apart the speech of everyday life. The Elizabethan version of “leap frog,” Shakespeare provided educational entertainment, teaching his audience to hear between his lines.

Posted in Much Ado About Nothing, The Taming of the Shrew | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments