Category Archives: Power struggles

Trust

All the characters of this play are way too trusting. I mean honestly if I were in the shoes of these “heirs” I would’ve been questioning everything that Mosca told me. I wouldn’t be giving plates of gold or giving away my wife just because some servant told me that his master wanted me to be his heir. I mean just think about that for a second. Some servant comes out of no where and tells you, “Hey you’re the heir! Good job buddy! But you know there are other guys and honestly your odds of remaining heir aren’t too great. Why not give [insert item or service or person here] so your chances are even greater? [insert smiley face]” What is this? Are we playing a lottery or something? I mean I hope that anyone else would’ve paused at that moment and really questioned what was just said. [insert quizzical face here]But no, instead they fall over each other to be the “better heir.” They act as predators squabbling over a meal. You must hand it to Mosca, he certainly knows how to play with people.

Which leads to my questioning of Volpone’s intelligence. Why does he trust Mosca so? I mean if anything I would trust a man of his caliber the least. His name means fly for heaven’s sake! He’s a parasite and we all know what parasites do don’t we? Or at least everyone knows but Volpone. He just trusts the man! Mosca is in a position of great power over Volpone. I mean it’s HUGE. He essentially is the real mastermind behind the whole charade when it really comes down to it. Volpone just doesn’t see it and unfortunately wouldn’t see it until it was too late. Trust…you definitely need to be careful of who exactly you trust. For the person you least expect could be the one that sticks that dagger into your unsuspecting back.

Posted in Power struggles, Psychological detail, Uncategorized, Volpone | 2 Comments

The Shoemaker’s Holiday: The Wheel of Fortune

When finishing The Shoemaker’s Holiday, by Thomas Dekker, I was surprised to find it a very light play in comparison to the past ones we’ve read. Every character ended up in a favorable position, even the so called antagonists, Oatley and Lincoln. First, Lacy who rebelled against Lincoln and the English in general, was not only allowed to keep his marriage but also knighted by the King; Lincoln and Oatley got over their obsession over social standing because of this event. Simon Eyre changed from a lowly shoemaker into the high position of a Mayor, taking the place of Oatley. The shoemakers gained a holiday despite any actions of their own and the King was so pleased with Eyre that he obliged to his request for Leadenhall. Ralph was able to reunite with Jane.  It may seem that only Hammon didn’t come out favorably in this play; however that is not really an option for him since it didn’t seem he was very driven for Jane anyway. He wagered money over her and even before meeting her, he had his fickle mind set on Rose.

So what does this make for the purpose of this play? I wondered about this, seeing that many plays we’ve read already presented very serious messages, going as far as murder in order to get them across. Is this simply a grown-up fairy tale in that everyone has their happy endings with a multitude of crude humor mixed in? Well, it could very well be that this play was made for this reason, maybe because of tragedy-based plays being presented during the Renaissance Era or maybe it could be a voice for different social classes in the English audience; where characters like Firk and Ralph can shine as unexpected heroes and instigators despite the higher authority they might be facing, be it Oatley, Lincoln, or Hammon. Simon Eyre can also serve as an escape for older members of the audience who dream of changing their economic standing despite the odds. It’s funny to think that the kind of messages this play sends out was even performed in front of royalty, who would probably relate the least to the main characters in the play.

Posted in Comedy, Power struggles, The Shoemaker's Holiday | 2 Comments

Shoemaker’s Holiday

Thomas Dekker’s play The Shoemaker’s Holiday is based around the buying and selling of goods. His play is a working class success story showing that true human value is measured in honest work instead of high class and social connections. During the time the play was written England was going through financial expansion and capitalism was on the rise. Throughout the play, the labor of shoemaking becomes a disguise in helping Lacy and Eyre to succeed.

Simon Eyre began the play as a middle-class shoemaker. After luck and with the help of Lacy, he ends up the Lord Mayor of London. However, it wasn’t the actual shoemaking which caused him financial gain but from pretending to be wealthy and sneakily buying a very profitable ship of goods. Lacy had helped him to do this buy getting the ship’s skipper drunk and giving him a down payment. He was then able to make his social climb.

In the same way Lacy set Eyre up in gaining his fortune, Eyre also gave Lacy the opportunity to work for him. Lacy, disguised as a Dutch shoemaker, was able to reconnect with Rose and ended up fitting her for shoes. At that point they then planned out their marriage. Ralph was also another main male character caught in a romance plot. However, shoemaking did not take the same disguise as it did for Lacy; instead the aftermath of war did. Ralph went off to war and came back physically unrecognizable. Unable to find his wife, he went back to the craft of shoemaking. While working, a servingman comes acquiring a shoe to be made for Hammon and his bride. He also gave a shoe to fit for size and Ralph realizes it is his wife who is to be married. Realizing his wife is alive, he is able to find her and take her home where she belongs.

All three of these men were able to obtain what they wanted through honest labor but very different approaches. Eyre shows human value by being an honest shoemaker most of his career. Although his gain of the ship was sneaky, it was given freely. By him helping Lacy and hiring him, it brought him success. Lacy’s new job of being a shoemaker and working helped him to get the girl. Ralph was honest throughout the play and went off to war even when he was just married. Even after war he continued to labor making shoes and was connected with his wife again. Shoemaking in this play was used to symbolize honest work of the middle class and the triumphs gained from it.

 

Posted in Comedy, Power struggles, The Shoemaker's Holiday, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Shoemaker’s Holiday, Love, Fate, and No Bloodshed

Up to the point of scene 13, we as a class have taken a harmonious holiday from the bloody affair that is love in Renaissance drama.  Unlike The Spanish Tragedy, Dekker’s characters have proposed a dubious, yet non-lethal scheme to achieving inter-class love.  Rose is attempting to reclaim her affair with Lacy but through his new identity of Hans.  Rather than Rose killing off her father or herself for love’s sake, she has devised a romantic plan of deception and triumphant love.  Surprisingly enough, Lacy seems to agree, and exits scene 13 with Sybil to go see Rose.  Ironically, the two characters are not desperately searching for each other, but have shown that they desperately love each other.  They fatefully cross paths at a celebration for Eyre.  It seems to me that Dekker substitutes bloodshed for fate.  If fate achieves love, then bloodshed may be avoided.

Also adding an ironic twist, Dekker gives us Hammon.  He desperately seeks love but cannot obtain it from a woman.  Whether from Rose or Jane, Hammon just wants somebody to love.  He “will do any task at your command” he tells Jane (12.37).  Hammon is a “gentleman” and from descriptions a handsome man, but he cannot woo a woman to love him.  What seems like fate to him, Ralph’s name on the list of the dead, is actually a lie.  After seeing Ralph’s name, Jane forces herself to agree that if she marries another man it would be Hammon.

It seems as though Dekker has removed the bloodshed to project his opinion on fate.  In the case of Rose and Lacy/Hans, their love is true and not sought for class, wealth, or to fill loneliness.  On the other hand is Hammon.  He so desperately wants love, but everyone he seeks it with loves another person.  His persistence forces Jane to believe her love is dead but gains no love for himself.  I can only hope in the following scenes that fate brings Jane and Ralph back together to show that fate and true love prevail.

Posted in Comedy, Love relationships, Power struggles, The Shoemaker's Holiday, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dr. Faustus is a man.

Although the play centers itself very obviously amidst a fervent religious debate, that is, a conversation about the nature of redemption and damnation, a more pressing topic is implied. Dr. Faustus claims to be bored by his accomplishments, having obtained everything he wished to seek form academia and the safe sciences, and thus his interest in necromancy is fostered. But the root of this interest lies in power, and a desire to obtain such power as no man can compete with, committing the classic folly of reaching beyond his own capacity. His arrogance is betrayed by his blood oath, his inconsiderate use of Mephistopheles, and a constant wavering between Christian moral standards.

The futility of his plight is in Faustus’ inability to accept his own morality. Indeed, he seems to claim that his blood oaths are non-binding in the sense that hell is pure fiction, which might seem illogical considering who he is conversing with. In fact, it is apparent that he has no grand powers, only the terms of a business deal, in which Mephistopheles is the muscle behind his bizarre displays of occult prowess. This reaffirms the idea that he, as a mortal, is unable to contain such godly, or ungodly, powers in his own being. It is only his willingness to abandon God that calls the devils, and his human lust for power and acclaim that drive his decisions. One could even argue that his moral status is negligible, and that it is the paradox of being human with a penchant for the taste of divinity that unravels him, and rushes him to his end. It’s a funny thing, to want powers, that by their very definition, separate a mortal from humanity. In obtaining them they can no longer be used to propagate human desire, and instead come with the full consequence of removal from the realm of living. He is no longer able to repent like all other people, having wrapped himself so tightly in the arms of “sinful” strength, amongst the other demons. His academic learning, his scholarly colleagues, even the voice of wisdom is unable to reverse the damage incurred.

An interesting parallel is drawn to the story of Eve, when Faustus laments his misfortune, because although the serpent who distributed knowledge can be saved from wrath, there is no saving him from the depth of his betrayal. In an interesting twist, this forces Faustus into the role of Eve, another figure who eschewed the rules of Christian Morality to obtain beyond her supposed capacity. So the real concern becomes, what is the drive behind the human quest for inhuman power? The only escape for Faustus, as he acknowledges in his final moments, is to suspend reality. If the second runs on eternally, or he can absorb a half a drop of redeeming blood, his fate is less tragic. “Earth Gape!” he cries, “it will not harbor me.” In the final day of judgment there is only heaven an hell, and no earth, which on a surface level is solely the realm of the religious. But, in truth, it is a statement that reflects the predicament of Faustus, which he only discovers too late, that it is, and remains, impossible to combine divine creation (ultimate power) and human existence without an incomparable sacrifice at one extreme or the other.

Posted in Doctor Faustus, Power struggles | 1 Comment

Dilemmas and Devils

Christopher Marlow’s Doctor Faustus deviated from the Elizabethan tradition of presenting plays on the subjects of love, war, or courtly transgressions. The prologue’s Chorus focused our attention on our “muse,” Faustus whose fate was of considerable interest to the newly protestant Elizabethan/Jacobean audiences. Faustus was a man of great intellect who sold his soul to the devil for god-like powers, only to waste both his powers and his soul for what seemed like trivial achievements.
Faustus was described as the son of lower class parents who had excelled tremendously at the University of Wittenberg and was granted a Doctorate in Medicine and Theology. In his first soliloquy Faustus informed the audience that he had reached the pinnacle of every subject that he had studied (including philosophy, medicine, law, and theology) and that the only thing left to expand his mind and abilities was necromancy. Faustus knew that pursuing necromancy was a fatal sin against his god but came to the conclusion that divinity was baseless because all humans commit sin and thus to adhere to a religion that punished sin was illogical. Faustus asked “What doctrine call you this? Que sera, sera” (What will be, shall be). Faustus focused his desires and decided through some contemplation (with spirits like the Good Angel and Evil Angel and the magicians Valdes and Cornelius) that he would sell his soul to the devil for ultimate power.
One of the most comical scenes was when Faustus first performed the incantations to summon the devil Mephistopheles who appeared as an ugly fiend, to which Faustus commanded that he return in the image of a Friar. This scene was both comical and heretical in Marlowe’s time and furthered what seemed like a highly secular, almost atheistic jest of a play. The pact that Faustus made with Lucifer enabled him to use Mephistopheles as his personal servant for twenty-four years. Throughout this period Faustus pursued and personified the seven deadly sins, that were also presented to the audience in a dumb-play, and achieved nothing of any worth. He managed to play a trick on the pope, summon the spirit of Alexander the Great for Charles the V, and garner fresh grapes for a German Duke’s wife.
In the end, Faustus stood the fool for his time ran out and Lucifer owned his soul. He was torn to shreds and dragged off to hell. Faustus achieved nothing during his time as a great necromancer except sleeping with succubi and performing party tricks, however a deeper issue was presented to the audience. The issue of eternal damnation which was and is a terribly frightening issue for devout Christians. I imagine that the audience, being very religious, was left with a sense of content at Faustus’ fate.

Posted in Doctor Faustus, Life vs. Death, Power struggles, Psychological detail | 1 Comment

Doctor Faustus: A battle between good and evil, The accepted and The Unaccepted

As mentioned in class Faustus is sometimes overcome with dual decisions or whether what he is doing is good or bad or whether he should continue his work. I would also like to point out the other phase in the audience perspective. During the time period practicing black magic or any form of magic was considered devilish and against religion. Yet the play allows the audience experience the study of magic, which I am sure many people were surprised by.  However curiosity led them to continue watching.

Beginning with the dual decisions in context Dr. Faustus is visited by the good angel and the bad angel when he decides that he wants to study witchcraft. In scene one act one the good angel says “O Faustus, lay that damned…” and the bad angel says “Go forward Faustus in that famous art.” If you think about it in literal terms an angel will not be on your shoulders telling you right from wrong. The angels can be seen as an inner conflict. One side is trying to convince him not to further his action because he knows that it is looked down upon in society. The other side I would say is his curious side which pushes him to challenge the wrongs.

In scene one act three Faustus himself speaks to himself and says “Then fear not, Faustus but be resolute.”  Then again in Scene two act one he says “Now Faustus must though needs be damned…Despair in God and trust in Beelzebub.” These two lines are him talking to himself trying to convince himself to move forward. But if you think of why people convince themselves it is because there is a part of them that is losing some type of motivation, understanding and even faith. I think these moments play along with the dual action of right and wrong.

To understand how the audience is affected by the good and the evil and the accepted and the unaccepted is based on the context of the historical time period. As mentioned before such practiced were condemned as evil and unacceptable. Many viewers may look down on such practices yet I am sure many stayed to see the outcome of the play. Even the audience has to come to make a decision of whether what they are seeing is right or wrong. Dr. Faustus challenges the norms of his society and now the audience is also faced with that dilemma as well.

Posted in Doctor Faustus, Power struggles, Psychological detail | 1 Comment

The Internal Struggle

Christopher Marlowe’s “Doctor Faustus” is a dark theatrical piece that draws attention to conflict in the main character, Doctor Faustus. Many great works of literature involve a troubled main character or lead role who experiences some sort of conflict, whether it is internal or external.  In works such as “The Tell Tale Heart” by Edgar Allen Poe and “Hamlet” by Shakespeare, the main characters are tortured by the internal conflict of man vs himself in their troubling situations. Dr. Faustus also finds himself in a struggle with his own conscience, as well as with external forces in society as well. Many times, characters are torn between doing what is right and what is beneficial, and they often suffer the consequences of making the wrong choice. Despite his own skepticism of promising his soul to Lucifer and the warnings of the Good Angel, Dr. Faustus ignores his internal conflict and suffers at the hands of the devil.

Dr. Faustus, feeling bored with the world and seeking a new challenge, takes to the black arts and thrusts himself into a difficult situation. He enslaves a demon, Mephistopheles, with his newfound power and abandons God and Catholicism. In exchange for Mephistopheles’ service, Doctor Faustus promises his soul to Lucifer. This is where the conflict begins.

In act 1.1, the Good Angel and Evil Angel appear on stage and depict the classic battle of good vs. evil in an argument to influence Doctor Faustus’ decision to pursue the black arts. The angels are the external forces that are guiding Doctor Faustus’ decisions, showing the conflict of man vs. society. The skepticism that the Good Angel raises regarding the decision that Dr. Faustus makes to promise his soul to the devil raises Doctor Faustus’ own skepticism as well, showing the conflict of man vs. himself. However, in an entertaining instance of irony, Doctor Faustus’ soul is enslaved by the very devil that is at his service throughout the play because of his decisions.

The conflicts that arise in a story or play can add a strong storyline and sense of anticipation to a plot, but they often lead to similar outcomes. Like we have seen all too many times before, Doctor Faustus was torn between doing what was right and doing what felt right. He chose selfishly and paid the ultimate price with his soul.

Posted in Doctor Faustus, Power struggles | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Human and Goddess

John Lyly’s Endymion was a love play. Endymion was in love with Cynthia, the Moon Goddess. In the original myth, it was Cynthia that pursued Endymion. In Lyly’s version, the reverse occurs. However, there were obstacles in the way, including Tellus, who does not believe Endymion, and Cynthia, who holds unlimited power because she was a goddess. Tellus puts Endymion to sleep because he rejects her love and Endymion’s chances with Cynthia were over before it even started because Cynthia had power and knew that Endymion did not belong to her, however heartfelt Endymion was during the course of the play.

This play was written to Queen Elizabeth. However, Elizabeth was the role of the Moon Goddess in this play, while Endymion was one of her lovers, Tellus the loyal guard who believed Endymion was lying. Elizabeth died without a husband, so Endymion (the lover role) does not have Elizabeth’s love. Tellus was the guard who loves Endymion, yet he does not believe him. Love is blind, even if Endymion confesses everything, since everything was lost by the end.

Posted in Endymion, Love relationships, Power struggles | 1 Comment

The Spanish Tragedy: Lessons of Machiavelli

The Spanish Tragedy by Thomas Kyd encompasses many themes and motifs. One particular theme that stands out to me are the influential Machiavellian lessons. Niccolo Machiavelli was an influential Italian philosopher who’s work The Prince lists many political lessons that should be studied by state leaders. In The Spanish Tragedy these lessons are applied and used by the characters.

The one character who embodies Machiavelli’s lessons is Lorenzo. In class we discussed Lorenzo’s similarities to Iago from Othello. We considered these type of characters to be Machiavellian Villains. Generally a Machiavellian Villain is one who uses coercion and persuasion to manipulate others. They also would rather be feared than loved by their subjects. Lorenzo embodies these qualities. He is extremely calculated and almost always gets his way in the play. He is deceitful and  kills of those in his way. He uses his advanced verbal skills to manipulate everyone to further advance his closed minded aims.

When Balthazar declares his love for Bel Imperia, Lorenzo is extremely disinterested and seemingly just would like to arrange the marriage. His clear display of a lack of morals shows how he is just really interested in the ransom and not his sister’s possible new suitor. He was extremely quick to call out Pedringano for his role in Bel Imperia and Don Andrea’s relationship. Instead of reprimanding him he turns him into an asset to further his goals. By threatening to use force with Pedringano he creates a fear factor. Pedringano’s fear of Lorenzo forces him to go along with his plan. He then quickly betrays Pedringano with no hesitation and consideration.

Presently we view Machiavelli’s work as a positive masterpiece. But in the Elizabethan era the people actually felt the results of the writings. They experienced the coercion and fear. The audience would have been quick to identify Lorenzo as the Machiavellian enemy.

Posted in Power struggles, The Spanish Tragedy | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments