A New Way to Pay Old Debts
Endymion
Historical Background Links
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- PBerggren on Comparison of Prodigal Sons
- PBerggren on A Very Modern Character
- PBerggren on Madness – the sign of villainy without the cover of rationality/humanity
- PBerggren on Judgement of Females in Literature
- peter d'antonio on Madness – the sign of villainy without the cover of rationality/humanity
Archives
Categories
Meta
Tags
- betrayal
- bosola
- Coercion
- conflicted
- cynthia
- damned but with a bit of saving grace
- dedication
- De Flores
- desire
- Doctor Faustus
- Dr faustas
- endymion
- eumenides
- Evil
- female characters
- gender differences
- good and evil
- Greed
- Helen
- human condition
- humanity
- judgement
- lawyers
- Lorenzo
- loyalty
- madness
- Madoff
- master/servant
- mephistopheles
- mirror characters
- Mosca
- Pedringano
- Power and Fear
- pragmatism
- queen elizabeth
- satire
- scene study
- survival
- symbolism
- the lesser bad
- The Spanish Tragedy
- too late for salvation
- video
- villains
- Volpone
Author Archives: J Gritz
Posts: 4 (archived below)
Comments: 3
Overreach’s Honesty versus Allworth’s Poetry
In A New Way to Pay Old Debts, two characters speak with a similar grandeur, yet with different connotations. One character speaks with confidence and snobbery, while the other lacks such confidence and substitutes it with poetic words. Sir Giles Overreach is pompous, ruthless and honest. He speaks in a shameless way as if he lacks a conscience. “Nay, when my ears are pierced with widows’ cries/ and undone orphans wash with tears my threshold/…Makes me insensible of remorse, or pity/ Or the least sting of conscience,” responds Overreach when questioned whether he is affected by his sinister actions (4.1.125-130). It is a poetic speech, filled with statements of arrogance, but concealed by the grandeur of his words. Each of his speeches have these certain points that give such great insight into the mind of Overreach with statements, such as “I am marble” (4.1.133), or when speaking to Lord Lovell about Lovell’s nobility, “the immaculate whiteness of your fame/ Nor your unquestioned integrity…” (4.1.94-95). His speeches are astounding because they exude so much confidence and are so beautifully worded that it takes a few readings to realize that what Overreach is actually saying is completely awful and brutal.
On the other hand, Tom Allworth lacks that confidence, which was on display during his conversation with Lovell in scene 3.1. Allworth feels that he would be unable to woo his love Margaret if Lovell would ever decide to take up Margaret’s father Sir Overreach’s offer to marry her. Allworth speaks with a desperation, yet the choice of words that he uses is mature and poetic, concealing his insecurities of being a young man without much to offer Margaret. Allworth describes Margaret with illustrations of her beauty, such as “Though mounted high, commanding all beneath it/ And rammed with bullets of her sparkling eyes…” (3.1.62-63), and also “But when the well-tuned accents of her tongue/ Make music to you…” (3.1.66-67). He is trying hard to sound wise beyond his years, making it difficult to read into what he is saying. His lack of confidence is masked by the poetic speech, which emits a sense of overreaching, while the character Overreach does not seem to try so hard with brutal words that illustrate how he truly feels. It is contrasting feature that I found interesting in both characters.
Ferdinand’s OCD
Ferdinand’s obsession with the Duchess is one of confusion in this play. Seeing the death of the Duchess’s children brings no remorse to Ferdinand. Yet seeing the Duchess barely moving and presumed dead (though she dies later on), he can barely look upon her dead body, saying, “Cover her face. Mine eyes dazzle; she died young” (4.2.262). He then berates Bosola for not defending her from Ferdinand’s orders. What was most peculiar during his berating of Bosola was his explanation of how he wished his sister would not have married and instead her inheritance would be given to him upon her death. My immediate reaction was as if he was trying to excuse himself for feeling such remorse, trying to appear as if he was a tough man who did not care at all for his sister.
Whatever feelings he had for his sister would not be distinguished as family love, but possibly more incestuous in nature. He wants to control her, force her into submission. When he hands her the dagger to push her into killing herself, he wants to have complete control by forcing someone out of their own will into what he wishes them to do (3.2.73). Yet the Duchess is such a strong-minded character that she is able to realize what her brother is attempting to do. After she shows Antonio the dagger, who states matter-of-factly what Ferdinand wishes the Duchess would do with the dagger, she responds, “His action seemed to intend so much” (3.2.154-155). She is clearly aware of her brother’s intentions and may even be hinting towards his obsession over her life (and death). The Duchess is an immensely strong-willed character, while her brother proves himself to be a coward, unable to be fully satisfied with the forces out of his control.
Posted in The Duchess of Malfi
2 Comments
Mosca’s Genuine Grief
Mosca’s character develops throughout the play as seemingly devoted to his master, a “parasite” attached to his host. Yet in the final scenes of Volpone, the parasite decides to suck the life out of his master by asking for half of Volpone’s wealth (5.12.63). Of course, since Volpone is greedy and wishes to keep all his money to himself, he shoots the offer down and decides ultimately to reveal himself in front of the judges as a non-sick or non- dead man. Mosca’s dedication to Volpone’s schemes was proven to be hope that they would somehow lead him to be the actual heir of the inheritance. Though he knew Volpone was still alive, he assumed his boss’s arrogance would lead Mosca’s own scheme to be unrevealed. Yet it was and they all paid the price for their greed.
Mosca seemed to genuinely “grieve” for Voltore during Act 5, scene 3, when he explained to all four “heirs” what they did wrong to lose out on the inheritance. He is speaking in such a moral voice that it becomes a contrast to his own scheming; all the while Volpone is watching and praising Mosca for his “villainy” (5.3.61), which will eventually bite Volpone in the end. Mosca seems to feed off the praise from Volpone, but also sensing that Volpone’s scheme cannot be prolonged further and feeling the guilt of carrying out the ruse. He does not speak up to Volpone throughout the play to voice his concern. He continues to be a pawn because of his social status and does not tell Volpone that they probably should not do this or that because it might lead to an even bigger problem. Instead, he helps Volpone create more schemes. His lack of ability to speak up may be why he is condemned for life as a slave. Mosca is the character, which drives the play’s story, yet also forces the audience to wonder whether his words are trustworthy at all.
Doctor Faustus: Role of Religion and Morals in a Theatrical World
In Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, the audience is enthralled by a classical version of good versus evil battling for the soul of a disgruntled scholar. As the play continues, we understand how much symbolism is displayed in the words of Marlowe’s Mighty Lines. Is desiring the world’s most precious gifts condemning one’s soul to hell for all eternity? This is the message that is being delivered, the same message that is delivered even in modern times. Though God barely plays a role and is merely mentioned once or twice, the audience is made to understand that the sinners will be condemned for wanting more than their means. Yet Doctor Faustus, who was born a commoner, is trying desperately to attain a higher level of possessions and knowledge. It is as if the Church, written from the perception of Marlowe, is trying to convey the message to not wish for this classified knowledge that only God, and apparently Lucifer, knows. It points a finger to those in the audience during the Elizabethan era that lived richly and may desire more power above their earthly capabilities to feed their boredom.
This same message is constantly delivered now a day, and even in recent history, through films and books. When parents teach morals to their children, they let them watch Disney movies and television shows that communicate to them the Seven Deadly Sins. Even novels and children’s books have some moral to the story that teaches what is right and what is wrong. Yet there is always a happy ending to the story where the person learns their lesson. Doctor Faustus repents in the end and prays God for forgiveness, yet there is no happy ending. He still goes to hell.
Though Doctor Faustus digs deeper into the mind of a person encompassing every part of the deadly sins, Marlowe seems to be rejecting a part of the religion though, sometimes even clandestinely mocking Christianity. Doctor Faustus and Mephistopheles play tricks on the Pope, sort of pointing that he is a mere mortal man and has no protection from bad spirits. It undermines the Catholic religion, one that believes the Pope to be a saint above mortals. Another hidden key in many plays, novels, and films that is open to interpretation is the writer’s own viewpoint masked by the grandiose of his words. The audience would assume Marlowe was praising religion, but others, like myself, will believe he was mocking it. Yet whatever morals or enlightenment Doctor Faustus conceives in the mind of the reader, Faustian literature throughout the ages will always be either conceptually right, morally wrong or both.
Posted in Doctor Faustus
1 Comment
