Ok, so there are the two topics I want to discuss in my blog regarding Othello: first, the uncanny similarities between Othello and Christ; and second, the power of language in Othello.

Before I jump into the aforementioned, let me just say that Titus Andronicus thus far is my favorite Shakespeare piece. However, it seems that Othello might take the number one spot.  What I enjoy about Shakespeare’s craftiness is that the conclusions of his pieces are difficult to predict –unlike the crap on screen today. 

If you can’t see the similarities between Othello and Christ, I’m certain Lin or Tebow could help you out (Sorry, I had too).  Othello commences, like many of Shakespeare’s plays, with a group of guys in dialogue (doing the homosocial) or in gossip (like women).  We are dropped into Iago and Roderigo’s conversation about someone described as “him, he, the Moor, the Barbary horse and thick-lipped –names which alert the audient of his skin color”.  So, the events of the first scene intensify the viewer’s expectations of Othello’s initial arrival.  Comparably, before Christ’s arrival there was much dialogue which heightened the anticipation of his coming.  When Othello finally arrives, the unreliable sources Iago and Roderigo are proven to be even more erroneous.  Immediately, we see that Othello is his poised, generous in spirit and composed –all Christ-like characteristics.  A more direct connection of Othello’s likeness to Christ occurs in Scene 1: Act 2.  Iago and Roderigo stir up Brabantio regarding the disappearance of his daughter Desdemona and he storms over to confront Othello, her finance.  The situation escalates, they pull out sword, but friction is defuses when Othello says, “Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them.” This phrase is likened to Christ’s order to Peter in Matt. 26:52:”Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Evidently, Othello has the power like Christ to pacify a hostile situation with his words.  

Language is power.  Far-thinking Shakespeare comprehends this and teaches us how to value it.  The writer uses the power of language to create mayhem and then some type of harmony.   Shakespeare tactically uses syntax and character expressions to control the audience’s thoughts and emotions.  Before the audience meets Othello, due to language, they have already categorized him.  However, when Othello appears, his persona is contrary to what they’ve been told.  At this point, the audience must either accept or deconstruct their opinions -the later takes work.  When Othello talks, his persuasive and eloquent language speaks for itself.  Does the audience even care at this point?  Shakespeare teaches us that language is a convincing weapon (above: Othello’s word vs. swords) that can be used to build or destroy.

Without Christ, the word is Lin and Tebow won’t win this year. 

-Darren

In Act 3 Scene 1 of Measure for Measure, Isabella shows more of her selfish intentions to protect herself and only herself. It is clear that to give a woman such an ultimatum as she has received is quite ghastly; however her argument against sleeping with Angelo in order to save her brothers life is not even remotely reasonable. In the beginning of Act 3 she is clearly trying to convince her brother that ultimately he must die for the sin he committed, however, she does it in a cunning way. She attempts to make Angelo sound very evil so that Claudio would never ask her to sleep with him. “Yes, brother, you may live:\ There is a devilish mercy in the judge,\If you’ll implore it, that will free your life,\But fetter you till death.” (3.1.63-66) In other words, she is using adjectives such as ‘devilish’ to convince her brother the act is shrewd without allowing him to come to that conclusion himself.

Isabella’s reaction to the Duke’s plan, later on in the Act is probably what convinces me of Isabella’s selfishness.  The Duke thinks of a plan that involves another woman, Mariana, losing her virginity, instead of Isabella. Isabella makes so many arguments about how sinful it is to have sex before marriage throughout the first few Acts, however, here she is more than willing to allow another woman lose her maidenhood. Isabella’s reaction proves that her virginity is worth protecting more so than any other woman’s.

I was a bit disappointed to find out about this THE SAME DAY as the actual lecture via the “This Week at CUNY” email blast…but…luckily, I was able to get in to this evening’s lecture.  I wanted to pass this on to those of you interested in pursuing English and/or Shakespeare enthusiasts.  Professor Bloom will be giving a lecture on Shakespeare next Monday (3/26).  The event is already full, but, you have a pretty solid chance of getting in if you try for standby seating.  Below is the link…

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/News-Events-Public-Programs/Calendar/Detail?id=7645

-CT

In as early as the second scene of Measure for Measure, we are introduced to a very important theme of the play(or so I imagine): hypocrisy. Discussing the Duke’s trip, two gentleman explain that they hope hostility between Hungary and Vienna will not end. The First Gentleman says “Heaven grant us its peace, but not the King of Hungary’s” (1.2. 4-5) Noticing that the gentlemen, who are apparently soldiers, are being hypocritical by praying for the continuation of violence, Lucio compares them to a pirate crossing out ‘Thou shalt not steal’ from a tablet of the Ten Commandments.  The gentleman agree, explaining that though this attitude may seem contradictory to Lucio, they are not unique in having it as all soldiers pray for more battle.

I was reminded of this scene and the introduction of the theme of hypocrisy when Angelo tries to persuade Isabel to commit the same sin that he is sentencing her brother, Claudio, to death for in Act II Scene IV. Angelo asks if “there were / No earthly mean to save him but that either / You must lay down the treasures of your body / To this supposed, or else let him suffer. / What would you do?” (2.4. 95-99). Antonio is so drawn to the purity of Isabel and the possibility of sinning, that he gets angry at Isabel’s refusal and promises Claudio’s suffering before death. He even uses the logic of hypocrisy to try to further persuade Isabel, but in reverse. Angelo says “Were not you then as cruel as the sentence / That you have slandered so?” (2.4. 111-112). It is a pretty gutsy move for Angelo to ask a nun-to-be for pre-marital sex with the excuse that it is the same crime she is trying to save her brother from being executed for, but as we can see, Angelo was quick to let his newly gotten power get to his head.

By introducing such a powerful idea early on in the play and by means of a humorous dialogue, Shakespeare sets a specific, almost sinister, tone for Measure for Measure and brings into question many other important concepts. The questioning of authority and religion remind me a lot of Merchant of Venice, particularly the distinction between ‘mercy’ and ‘judgement’. These are especially important when considering Isabel’s rejection of Antonio’s offer in the promise of sanctity through religion. But considering how early in we are into Measure for Measure and how Shakespeare’s other plays turned out, I have a feeling Isabel’s sanctity will be prey to someone’s greed or hypocrisy.

We already have enough juice within Acts 1 & 2 to satisfy any gossip drinker, what with bodily bribes, marital accusations, and disguised authority; however, the tidbit I’d like to sink my teeth into is found in one line by Claudio before he is taken away: “Bid herself assay him;/ I have great hope in that, for in her youth/ There is a prone and speechless dialect/ Such as move men” (1.3 l. 65-68). Did he just call his sister sexy? 

The next line Claudio speaks almost puts the spotlight on her aforementioned skill: “BESIDE, she hath prosperous art/  When she will play with reason and discourse,/ And well she can persuade” (1.3 l. 68-70).  I take artistic liberty in capitalizing the first word, but that is because I think it’s the most important.  First Claudio says she’s got this ‘speechless dialect’ thing that’s sure to win Angelo over…. and BESIDE that, she can discourse with reason.  He’s totally pimping his sister!

Beyond the sleaziness of Angelo, it is what brings Isabella to confront him that makes me squirm: Claudio chooses Isabella, of all people, to speak to Angelo on his behalf, and why? Because Angelo is a man, and Isabella a hot youth about to enter sisterhood?  We cannot know how long or short Claudio thought before asking for this ‘kind service’ , but we can see it obviously works: after just one conversation between Isabella and Angelo, Claudio, who was set for execution at 9a.m. the next morning, was able to keep living until another conversation took place between Isabella and Angelo.

Richard is a symbol of plain, evil gesture driven to his downfall by his own manner in obtaining power and his conscience.

Acts 4 & 5 of Shakespeare’s Richard III deal with Richard’s fall as the first three acts dealt with his successful seizing of the throne. Richard wooed, schemed and killed to gain his throne in which he sat “falsely set.” Each deed he put into action was a level worse than the last and when he finally did claim the throne, he was left with a kingdom with a shaky foundation, built upon deceit and betrayal.

Ornstein, in his essay Richard III  found in the back of the Signet Edition of the play, points out that “His is the politics of faction and corruption. His plots feeds the intrigues and rivalries of the Court.” This can be seen in his court’s slow dwindling of members, symbolized in him having loyal Buckingham killed. Before long, he was alone and confronted himself as his own worst enemy. He doubts himself, an abrupt about face from the Richard we had gotten to know before Acts 4 & 5. He questions himself; “Who do I fear? Myself? There’s no one else by,” contradicting himself in being unable to answer whether or not he sees a murderer. His conscience “hath a several thousand tongues, and every tongue brings in a several tale, And every tale condemns him for a villain.” (5.3.183-196) His own multiplicity is bewildering to him, a steep fall from the confident Richard earlier in the play and a display of his lone nature being overwhelmed by the company of grief he had created, the Ghosts whom visited him a reflection of his guilt.

It is fitting his conscience is what does him in, as the lack of one prior finally catches up to him in the form of Richmond’s morally superior direction, orating to his troops that “God and his good cause fight upon our side.” (5.3.241) There is a strict contrast between the two and Shakespeare places the battle within a good vs. evil context. The play still centers around Richard III even at his very lowest, shambling through Bosworth field and faced with overwhelming odds, the same odds which propelled him to the crown initially. Richard excels against stiff challenge and that is the one things that never changes throughout the play, no matter if he’s doubtful or stalwart.

Compare and contrast;  a great literary tool that is often the foundation for any student. A love hate relationship in itself and a tool that brings sighs and frowns and various other sound effects upon reaching the ear. However, when your name is William Shakespeare, you can do whatever you like.

The opening monologue of Richard III is far off from the royal and triumphant processions at the start of both A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Titus Andronicus. The physical setting as well as the tone shifts drastically, evil intent is instantly thrown out into the open, there’s no talk of a play, marriage and a new king, that’s child’s play. Richard’s opening words, “Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York” are probably some of the most famous lines right behind “To be or not to be”. His speech echoes that of veteran, scarred from war and educated through blood shed. “Grim-visaged War hath smoothed his wrinkled front, and now, instead of mounting barbed steeds to fright the souls of fearful adversaries, he capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber to the lascivious pleasing of a lute.” He only thinks of furthering his own position, he’s cocky but he’s wise beyond his years.  He is but a soldier and not a lover. “But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks nor made to court an amorous looking glass; I, that am rudely stamped, and want love’s majesty to strut before a wanton ambling nymph.” I love this about Richard. He’s your stone cold killer warrior, not one of those lovey-dovey characters, he’s a manly man. He’s also ridiculously conniving, at least to those who don’t understand. A lot of people hate him for declaring himself the villain, but what’s so wrong in wanting to elevate yourself to happiness when you’ve given your all for the crown and have no one to love or love you and on top of all that, you are a cripple? “Unless to spy my shadow in the sun and descant on mine own deformity. And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover to entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain.”

What’s wrong with cheering for the little guy who’s trying to make it? I think too often we read Richard III and want to root against him, but why not root for him? This is just my little bit…

I’m just curious if anyone else drew a parallel to Richard as a “prince” to Machiavelli’s political theories?  Most importantly, the “will to power” and “virtu” aspects of Richard reminded me of Machiavelli’s The Prince.  Also, The Prince is released at around the same time as this play, but I have no idea if Shakespeare had read anything of the sort.

Below are links to two very different versions of Act 1, Scene 1: the first features Laurence Olivier; the second, Ian McKellen. We’ll take a look at both in class this evening, but feel free to share your thoughts in the meantime (and of course to expand upon them later).

Click here for Olivier’s Richard III

Click here for McKellen’s

In Act I and II, there is no mistaking that Richard is evil or has evil tendencies. At the onset of the play, in his monologue, Richard outlines his plans to the audience, he states, “I am determined to prove a villain/And hate the idle pleasures of these days” (1.1.30). Based on the reading assignment for this blog, I would say, readers will most likely have a dislike for Richard, but with any Shakespearean play a character can start off one way then turn into another by the end of the play, so Richard as the “devil incarnate” may still be up for debate.

Hmm… I guess I can continue to write about Richard, but what really peaks my interest is the women of the play. Lady Anne, Queen Margaret, and the Duchess of York, to name a few, who know exactly how evil Richard is, and confronts him, even calls him names, but yet he continues on with his plans. Do what women say not have any weight in this play, or better yet, during this period of time?

I’m somewhat mystified by the fact that the voices of the women go unheard, by the other characters in the play. Are the women just there to warn us of what is to come? Lady Anne calls Richard, the Devil or “fiend,” and accuses him of killing her husband and father, yet she accepts his ring (but that’s a whole other topic, which I’m sure we will discuss in class). Queen Margaret warns Buckingham, “Look when he fawns, he bites; and when he bites,/His venom tooth will rankle to the death” (1.3.296). Unfortunately, we find out later in Act II that Buckingham is conspiring with Richard. Even Richard’s own mother, the Duchess, has less kind words to say about him, “He is my son, ay, and therein my shame;/Yet from my dugs he grew not this deceit” (2.2.49). I’m anxious to see how this all “plays” out.

Another interesting aspect of the play is in Act II Scene iii, where we are privy to the thoughts of the citizens who, by the way, seem to know exactly how things go. Their lives are affected by the turmoil going on in the kingdom, and their “hearts are full of fear” over what is to come.