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
Category Archives: Power struggles
Paulina’s Guise (The Winter’s Tale, Act III Scene II)
(The following post contains spoilers to the end of The Winter’s Tale)
While Paulina’s account of Hermione’s death may seem shocking and quite feverish in its delivery, with the later ‘reanimation’ of the Queen in mind, it is possible to read her delivery as a kind of act to disguise the truth of Hermione’s death. Even before Paulina has left and returned to announce the Queen’s death, she hints at the potential fatality, she states, “This news is mortal to the Queen–look down / And see what death is doing.” This foreboding warning to Leontes cannot be mere happenstance. Perhaps Paulina and Hermione have decided to take advantage of her sons death in order to escape from the rampaging madness and rashness of the king. This would also allow Hermione to live a (relatively) free life, until the events of the play would allow for her return.
Paulina’s sudden hysterical reaction to Hermione’s death can easily be interpreted as an expression of grief for her departed mistress. Yet, Paulina’s previous behaviour in the play depicts her as an observant and persistent person. Even when she playfully calls Leontes a tyrant when she attempts to present his new born child to him, she remains witty and logical in her banter and advice/condemnation. To suddenly turn so explosive, so explicitly brutal in her tone and speech, is a auspicious turn of character for Paulina.
“What studied torments, tyrant, hast for me? / What wheels, racks, fires? What flaying, boiling / In lead or oils?.”
Later when questioned about her explosive behaviour by one of the gentlemen at court, Paulina rationalizes her actions as “the rashness of a woman.” This posture of Paulina’s could further indicate her pretense of Hermione’s death. Paulina understands the benefits that this performance affords her. Socially, her role as a woman excuses her irrational behaviour, and by fulfilling that expected role of the over-emotional grief stricken woman, by conceding to these conventions (and hiding her normally rational behaviour–thus allowing Paulina to overcome this particular branch of madness, implying perhaps another win for the distaff sphere) Paulina can successfully hide the death of the Queen and convince the court of her sincerity.
Posted in Comedy, Life vs. Death, Love relationships, Power struggles, Psychological detail, Tragedy
Comments Off on Paulina’s Guise (The Winter’s Tale, Act III Scene II)
The Downfall of Giles Overreach
A New Way To Pay Old Debts is a play in which the audience finds themselves truly rooting for the downfall of the bad guy. This is different from some of the other plays we have read as most of the characters are all mixed up in circumstances that lead to terrible deeds being done by a multitude of characters. While A New Way To Pay Old Debts does have its share of bad things being done onto others, there is a clear distinction between who is right and who is wrong. The character of Giles Overreach feels entitled to whatever he sets his eyes on and has no moral limit as to what he will do to get it. In contrast to the characters of Frank Wellborn and Lady Allworth who are aristocrats, Overreach has climbed up the societal ladder through unsavory means. This connects to another major theme in the play, which is how the author portrays differences between the aristocratic class and the working class.
While Wellborn and Lady Allworth were born into money, Overreach lets the audience know fast that he has personally acquired his wealth over the years. However, he is no hard worker having earnestly earned his new status. This is important, because through this character choice, the author creates a clear distinction between social status; that those who are born into money are inherently better, both in morals and intelligence. Although Overreach was able to scam Frank out of his wealth, leaving him nothing but a poor has-been, Wellborn and Lady Alllworth are still able to outsmart him, playing on his own tactics to rob him of his riches. Overreach’s grandiose ambitions and sense of self blind him, making him not susceptible to only Wellborn’s plan, but to Lovell’s plan as well. In the end, we see the crash and burn of Giles Overreach, ultimately being left with the idea that although he was able to acquire a higher social status, he could never make up for what he was lacking on the inside.
Posted in A New Way to Pay Old Debts, Power struggles
2 Comments
Climbing the Social Ladder, Again
In Philip Massinger’s A New Way to Pay Old Debts, the primary focuses of the play involve class conflict and a tangled marriage between Allworth and Margaret. However, one aspect of the play that I found to be very interesting is the change that occurs in Wellborn. After reading The Changeling and The Duchess of Malfi, audiences can see how powerful character change can be, but in this work Wellborn undergoes a dramatic change in class rather than character.
Based on the exchange between Wellborn and Tapwell in scene 1.1, it is apparent that Wellborn was once a noble man of great wealth. However, he has now squandered his wealth away and has been degraded to being kicked out of the bar by Tapwell, who he had previously helped. This once powerful and wealthy man is now nothing more than a dirty bum. Despite being down on his luck, Wellborn does not resort to desperation to satisfy his needs.
When Allworth stumbles upon Wellborn beating Tapwell, he stops him and eventually offers him money to help in his situation, but Wellborn will not take the money. He refuses to accept donations from a youth and claims, “I’ll eat my arms first”( 1.1.176). Lady Allworth also offers Wellborn money after he speaks to her about the righteous acts that he had done for her late husband. In response to this assistance, Wellborn simply rejects the money and demands only the respect of Lady Allworth’s servants. As the play progresses, the only individual that Wellborn accepts money from is Overreach, which he uses to pay back his creditors who were ruined due to his negligent credit. Towards the end of the play Wellborn has reestablished himself as a noble man with strong values. He is not the wealthy man that he once was, but he is no longer the poor, run down man that he was at the start of the play.
Wellborn did not have a dramatic internal change as Bosola and Beatrice did in prior plays, but his change of class prior to and throughout the play shows his determined character. He kept his morals intact and worked from the bottom to once again gain good fortunes. He was even able to gain revenge against Overreach in the process.
Posted in A New Way to Pay Old Debts, Power struggles
2 Comments
Ethics of Service
In Massinger’s A New Way to Pay Old Debts, the role of the servant is captured in two differing lights. Firstly there are the servants that work in the home of Lady Allworth with great pride and fulfillment. These servants are absolutely necessary for the upkeep and normal function of the household. There is Order the steward, Amble the usher, Furnace the cook, Watchall the porter, and Waiting-woman and Chambermaid. Lady Allworth treats her staff with respect and shows them gratitude for their work, as when she gave Furnace money for new aprons and a summer suit: “In the meantime, there is gold / To buy thee aprons and a summer suit” (1.2.58-59). The staff shows great loyalty in return for Lady Allworth’s conscientious conduct. Overreach tries and fails to get Order to criticize Lady Allworth about her mourning rituals: “Sir, it is her will, / Which we that are her servants ought to serve it / And not dispute” (1.3.4-6). The staff also knows their place in the household and in society in general. In the presence of Lovell, Lady Allworth asks Amble and Waiting-woman for some privacy. Their reply characterizes both their social status and their respect for Lady Allworth: “Amble: We are taught better / By you, good madam. / Waiting-woman: And well know our distance” (4.1.173-174). The house servants’ compliance was imperative to the fruition of Wellborn’s plot (of the false engagement to Lady Allworth). Without the servants this plot would have never worked and Wellborn would not have been able to attain the same resolution for his debts.
Greedy and Marall are technically Overreach’s servants and parallel the loyal servants in Lady Allworth’s home. These two show their loyalty to their master by complementing his notorious schemes and in most cases carrying them out. However they do not show the same respect for Overreach as the respect that Lady Allworth gets from her servants. Marall and Greedy are in it for themselves and each one only serves in order to attain their personal desires. They interact in a way that befits common thieves and sell-swords. Overreach calls them fools and knaves while they reply: “You are all wisdom” (2.1.23), or “The best I ever heard! I could adore you” (2.1.43). Overreach realizes that he needs his servants : “Alone I can do nothing, but I have servants / And friends to second me…” (5.1.312-313). Unfortunately, Marall does not have much loyalty left for Overreach and he betrays him by changing the deed for Wellborn. He then offers his services to Wellborn :”If it please Your Worship / To call to memory, this mad beast once caused me to urge you to or drown or hang yourself; / I’ll do the like to him, if you command me” (5.1.335-337). To which Wellborn replies:
You are a rascal! He that dares be false
To a master, though unjust, will ne’er be true
To any other. Look not for reward
Or favor from me; I will shun thy sight
As I would do a basilisk’s. Thank my pity
If thou keep thy ears. Howe’r, I will take order
Your practice shall be silenced (5.1.337-344).
In the end, everyone gets what they deserve and those who were loyal to their masters retain pride in their loyalty, while those that betrayed their masters retain great shame. As Wellborn said: “His conscience be his prison” (5.1.347).
Posted in A New Way to Pay Old Debts, Comedy, Power struggles, Satire
1 Comment
A New Perspective
As discussed in today’s class Massinger illustrates a different point of view of the lower class. Overreach is a character full of schemes that would do anything just as long as it followed his hidden agenda. This is clearly different from other characters we have read prior to this play, in which characters of the lower class were often those that possess righteous personalities such as Simon Eyre in The Shoemaker’s Holiday. Massinger’s characterization of Overreach is relevant to modern society as there are countless individuals who are also as reckless as Overreach in order to climb higher on the social ladder.
However Overreach’s character is an important contrast to the relationship that servants have with their masters in the play. The servants of the Allworth’s household all have a genuine affection and dedication for Lady Allworth and her stepson Tom Allworth. As we have already seen in Act 1 scene 2, Order, Amble, Furnace and Watchall expressed concern as how to little Lady Allworth has been eating after the death of her husband. Similarly they express concern to Tom Allworth in Act 2 scene 2, as they continuous remind him to remember to eat. This form of dedication is unique, as we have seen from previous plays that we have read, servants often know the deepest secrets of their master and are easily bribed to reveal these secrets to interested parties as we have seen from Pedringano in The Spanish Tragedy. This type of betrayal would not occur in the Allworth household, when asked by Lady Allworth to refrain from overhearing her conversation, both Amble and Lady Allworth’s waiting-woman replied: “we are taught better / By you, good madam. / And well know our distance” (4.1.176-174). Such response from servants emphasizes the dedication evident in all of Lady Allworth’s servants.
Massinger’s close attention to detail to the personalities of all the characters captivates the reader. Although the storyline composes of details similar to ones we have read in previous plays, it offers a unique twist in perspective not only to the plot of the play but also to society.
“The Changeling”
I wondered what the title really meant for this play as I was reading through the scenes. I recognized that Antonio was listed as ‘the changeling’ in the cast list but from what I perceived, he was a minor character compared to Beatrice and De Flores. But it is clear by the end of the play that Antonio only serves as a faint parallel of the true changelings.
Beatrice’s working in cahoots with De Flores for their murder plots may not seem like an unusual situation for a Jacobean drama. What makes this unique is the fact that they have completely different image between themselves and the world. There are many examples where a switch in emotions is seen in Beatrice and De Flores, like their relationship; Beatrice went from despising him to seeking out his company and De Flores in changing his view of Beatrice from infatuation to controlling.
While these are obvious observations I noticed that their personalities never really changed. I felt Beatrice remained a spoiled and indifferent character throughout the play, from picking and choosing who her husband would be to killing people just for the sake of her well being. She blamed others on her misdirection, such as De Flores and Alsemero, rather than herself. Also, De Flores remained a trickster and a person in control throughout the play, even to the point of suicide. It is understandable that emotions will change day in and day out but I personally didn’t feel that these two characters genuinely embody the definition of a “changeling.”
Beatrice-joanna: Victim of desperation
Was Beatrice really a sociopath or was she just desperate? I sympathize with Beatrice because even though she was responsible for the deaths of two innocent people, it seems she didn’t really know what the consequences would be. Similar to Doctor Faustus, Beatrice was naive enough to believe her extreme actions would have no repercussions. She was so naive that she trusted De Flores, a man she loathes and has treated like dirt, without thinking he would use this information to easily blackmail her. From the start of the play, Beatrice seems to be acting out of desperation.
As the play starts off, I was immediately on Beatrice’s side because she was the victim of an arranged marriage. As we’ve witnessed throughout the semester with different plays, arranged marriages are very difficult or near impossible to get out of. Beatrice, like many strong women of her time might’ve done, decided to take matters into her own hands and get Alonzo killed in order to have her freedom. When her plan goes awry, she only gets more desperate and digs herself a deeper hole by getting Diaphanta killed. Beatrice’s reasons for doing what she did were in fact selfish, but at least they weren’t for the sake of greed or advancing in society. I could understand a woman scheming in order to marry the person they love. Beatrice felt she had no way out, and took extreme measures without putting much thought into how her actions would affect others (ie. Tomazo) and herself for that matter.
The Changeling
Beatrice and De Flores’ relationship in The Changeling was very peculiar to me. Throughout the play she was disgusted by him, but when taking him up on his service she was then almost attached to his fate. The first introduction the audience has of their relationship is De Flores coming to talk to her but then she cuts him off showing her dominating status over him. It wasn’t until her passion for another man led her to the beginning of her end.
Beatrice was flirting with her demise when she flirted with De Flores to get him to kill Antonio. At this point she shows a break in the social boundaries by telling De Flores to stand up, rising him to her level. After committing the act, De Flores comes back to gain his reward. Accept, contrary to what Beatrice thinks, the reward he seeks is much greater then any monetary value. I saw this as him outsmarting Beatrice and making her in debt to him.
By neither of the characters specifying the reward for De Flores’ servitude, it places him in the perfect position. As soon as she asked him for his help she sealed her fate. De Flores was then able to gain the upper hand and this is truly the point where they become equal. Him physically then taking her virginity enforces that she just gave away her power. Her virginity was in fact the thing that made her most desirable, and without it she was then portrayed as less then.
At the end when De Flores stabs Beatrice is again another peculiar scene. She cries out in a mixture of pain and pleasure confusing to those that hear it. De Flores was not only to blame for her loss of status but now her loss of life. As they died by each other it almost seems poetic, but the fact that he stabbed her just shows how desperate he was to be so truly equal if not overpowering her.
Two Characters–Similar in Situation but Different in Decisions
The subplot plays a significant role in dramas, particularly Elizabethan and Jacobean dramas. The subplot reinforces the theme/main idea of the play by presenting characters that are in situations parallel to those of the main characters, yet have contrasting personalities. For example, Isabella and Beatrice are both young women with prospective men in their lives. Three men are vying for Isabella’s attention and affection (Francisco, Antonia, and Lollio) and three men are also interested in Beatrice (Alonso, Alsemero, and De Flores). Isabella’s placed in a situation that limits her freedom and makes her an object of her husband’s authority, while Beatrice also initially lacks the freedom to choose whom she wants to marry.
These characters dramatically differ, however, in that Isabella remains virtuous and chaste, and does not succumb to the pursuits of the men attempting to win her over. In fact, she ironically beats them at their own game and wittily exposes their true intentions. Beatrice, on the other hand, takes a very different approach and loses her innocence in every way possible. The consequence of her actions is a serious one–death. Although she temporarily gets what she wants, the ends certainly do not justify the means.
Isabella and Beatrice are foils of each other, and the inclusion of Isabella in the plot of the play makes the audience see even more clearly how the selfish, immoral acts of a woman lead to a snowball effect of destruction.
Posted in Power struggles, Psychological detail, The Changeling
1 Comment
What price goes murder?
On the surface, The Changeling isn’t all that different from some of the other plays that we’ve read in that by the end, justice (in some fashion) has been meted out to those deserving of it. Bodies strew the stage, dramatic final words are spoken (“‘Tis time to die when ’tis a shame to live.”), and things seem somewhat right by the close of the final curtain (perhaps because the two principal villainous characters are dead). Yet this play is far from just another Renaissance tragedy.
When compared with some other of our readings, the play’s conclusion seems rather tame; the deaths are numbered, and De Flores and Beatrice depart seemingly on their own volition. Yet by the time Joanna breathes her final breaths, she has already lost something perhaps more valuable than her life, her reputation. And what’s more the loss of this intangible is not merely the result of a one time occurrence, but rather a repeated and consistent set of choices that she makes throughout the play’s five acts. In many ways, The Changeling signifies the vast difference in female characterization that we’ve encountered since the start of our readings this semester. From the start of the play, Joanna is neither the passive nor genteel character we might’ve expected out of a female character. Her degrading treatment of De Flores from the onset foreshadows in many respects the downward moral spiral that her character will undergo.
As a character whose status is of less than noble standing, Joanna is able to hold herself on her virginal purity and (dare I say) innocence. She sullies both of these beyond repair. So to return to the question that Alsemero originally posed to De Flores in the final scene, What price goes murder? The answer for Joanna is not merely her life, but her reputation, honor and purity, and by 5.3, she pays up.
Posted in Power struggles, Psychological detail, The Changeling
1 Comment