Perhaps one of the most interesting themes in Twelfth Night is the inversion/subversion of class hierarchy. Like we mentioned earlier today, the 12th night after Christmas was a celebration of “misrule,” when men dressed like women and servants and children were bestowed authority (although art history seems to suggest they all just got massively black-out drunk.)

Peter Paul Rubens, Twelfth Night or The King Drinks

Cross-dressing aside, the two lower-class characters in the play really push the boundaries of power relations in different ways, and in doing so, they reveal greater truths about the nobility.

The Clown somehow has the liberty to constantly mock the self-indulgent melancholy of the nobility – Olivia supposedly mourning her brother and father for seven years and Orsino narcissistically obsessing over his own heartbrokenness. The Clown gets away with this over and over again, calling Olivia the fool in a brilliant role-reversal – “The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother’s soul, being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen.” (1.5.69-71) – as well as calling the Duke out on his capriciousness, “Now the melancholy god protect thee, and the tailor make thy doublet of changeable taffeta, for thy mind is a very opal.” (2.4.73-75). Although the nobility dismiss his playful insults as nonsense, he actually makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, poor wet-blanket Malvolio is actually punished for violating class structure. Citing a precedent of “the Lady of the Strachy” (2.5.39-40) marrying below her rank, he dreams of marrying Olivia. Hilariously, this is not because he loves her – in his fantasy, he has just “left Olivia sleeping” (2.5.49) on some couch – but because he wishes to be able to tell his kinsman Sir Toby that he’s a drunken waste of space. That said, Maria’s letter-trick seems excessively cruel (I’m of the opinion that everybody in this play needs to chill) when humiliating Malvolio into wearing cross-gartered yellow stockings culminates in deeming him insane and “hav[ing] him in a dark room and bound” (3.4.141-142).

Maybe I’m being overly sentimental (har har), but it’s hard not to feel sympathy for Malvolio when he’s filled with such joy and hope and especially because he’s hardly an antagonist at all compared to Aaron, Shylock, or Richard III. When Malvolio storms out on his bullies, he says, “Go hang yourselves all! You are idle shallow things; I am not of your element.” (3.4.129-130). At the risk of sounding like a Marxist, aren’t the nobility idle? Aren’t they shallow? Is it worth being of their element?

Johann Heinrich Ramberg, Olivia, Maria, and Malvolio (1789)

So Malvolio is a party-pooper who doesn’t like getting sh**faced. So Malvolio desires social mobility. Are these really such huge crimes?

Richard’s opening speech endeared him to me even though in it he warns the audience that he probably won’t be likeable very long since he has sinister plans. I find him to be so relatable even today since there are many characters like this in movies on tv and in real life- people who feel cheated because of the way that they happened to be born, referring to his deformity.

I liked the lines “He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber, to the lascivious pleasing of a lute” which made me think of Safety Dance by Men Without Hats : “if they don’t dance well they’re no friends of mine…you can act real rude and totally removed and I can act like an imbecile.” I see Richard as feeling left out of all the fun and then deciding that those people having fun are prancing perverts, and so they must be punished. But he feels this way because he is deformed, ugly. And don’t most of our modern villains tend to be hideous? Richard seems to strive for power to overcome the burden of his hunchback, as power and money are great equalizers. Do we not see wealthy, aesthetically unpleasing men with beautiful wives in our world?

I think it also goes with this idea that our society has that beautiful people are trustworthy and more deserving of certain  benefits.

I know that later in the play we find out that Richard does not really think his deformity hinders him from acquiring a lover, but at the this point in the play, if we take his speech at face value, it contains an interesting social commentary.

So far, Portia and Anne can be seen as complete opposites of each other in terms of their development and their actions. At first Anne appears defiant and unfeminine in her acts of spitting at Richard and cursing him to die a painful death or to kill himself. However, Anne becomes a weak yet pious figure at the end of Act 1 thorough her refusal to kill Richard herself with a knife that Richard gave her and refusing to repeat her wish of Richard committing suicide. Anne demonstrates through her refusals her strict following of God’s commandment that “Thou shalt not kill” as Anne refuses to kill Richard either directly or indirectly and prefers to accept the ring from Richard, her worst enemy for having killed her husband and father-in-law, than commit one of the worst sins. Richard’s flattering may have also affected Anne’s decision to not be the person responsible for Richard’s death.

Portia, on the other hand, is not afraid to commit deeds that others look down upon such as cross-dressing as a male doctor of laws since women were not allowed to uphold these kinds of prestigious positions. Portia goes as far as to humiliate and reprimand Bassanio for having given away the ring she gave him. She creates this scheming plot of retrieving the ring to get back at Bassanio for talking ill of her in declaring that he would give her up in order to save Antonio’s life. Portia is successful in attaining the ring as the doctor of laws and then shows the very same ring to Bassanio as herself in Belmont while falsely declaring her infidelity towards Bassanio by having slept with the doctor by telling him, “For by this ring the doctor lay with me” (5. 1. 259). The last act of the play is mostly comedic with snide remarks such as “Ay, if a woman live to be a man” (5. 1. 160) said by Nerissa and a joke well received by the audience because they know of Portia’s plan and to make fun of Bassanio’s and Gratiano’s cluelessness and astonishment throughout this act.

It is interesting to note that rings are present in both plays and that the rings are used in a way to humiliate someone. Richard maliciously enjoys having been able to woo Anne while she was still mourning and burning with rage over Richard’s acts. Richard later mentions how easily Anne has forgotten that he murdered two of her loved ones and that she quickly accepted the ring especially after admitting that he murdered King Henry because “t’was [Anne’s] beauty that provoked me” (1. ii 180).

P.S Watch this video, which proves that Portia is misunderstanding God’s commandment by refusing to let Richard die. This has to do with the difference between the words “kill” and “murder”. I think this video provides solid evidence especially in the way the commandment has been mistranslated. http://www.prageruniversity.com/Ten-Commandments/Do-Not-Murder.html#.VP8HCLDF8rM

This other video is what the murderers accuse Clarence of committing. Find out the correct meaning of this commandment by watching this!

http://www.prageruniversity.com/Ten-Commandments/Do-Not-Misuse-Gods-Name.html#.VPzQj7DF8rN

What genre of play does The Merchant of Venice fall into? After reading Act 5 of the play, it certainly appears to have characteristics of a comedy, but I struggle to find humor in most of the play. After the tension of the court scene and the merciless sentencing of Shylock, Act 5 opens with gushing lovers Jessica and Lorenzo, and a comedic appearance of Launcelot. It closes with Portia and Nerissa joking about sleeping with the characters they played earlier in court. The jolly ending seems too light to fit with the preceding acts, and caused me to rethink how I read the play. Alyssa’s previous post made me shift my perspective on Shylock’s role from enigmatic depiction of a marginalized minority to obscene caricature of an exotic race. In my opinion, Shylock is meant to be the play’s fool, but the religious aspect hinders his effect to me as a reader. I can imagine that his impotent stature is highlighted in the on-stage portrayal and his greed and “blood lust” are comical to an audience that believes this stereotype of Jews. The play ridicules the Venetians, but Jews occupy an even lower position in the minds of the English audience. It might have been funny when it was written, but now it is definitely amongst the grossest examples an anti-Semitic work. Is it still a comedy?

Acts 3 and 4 of The Merchant of Venice have the two different plotlines of Venice and Belmont finally coming together, culminating in a very interesting court scene. As we learn in Act 3, Antonio has heard news that he has likely lost his ships in the middle of the ocean, and Shylock has gleefully come to collect on his debt. They go to court to meet in front of the duke, who asks Shylock to show mercy. Shylock replies rather coldly:

“You’ll ask me why I rather choose to have
A weight of carrion flesh than to receive
Three thousand ducats. I’ll not answer that
But say it is my humour. Is it answered?” (Shakespeare, 4.1.40-43)

Essentially, this is an eloquent and elaborate way of saying “because I feel like it”. As Shylock continues arguing his case in front of the duke, it is clear he is well-versed in the law of Venice. When the duke questions his inability to show mercy, yet expect it from others, Shylock exploits the legality of slavery in Venice, mentioning how no slave owner would suddenly listen to an outsider who casts judgment on their property:

“What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which—like your asses and your dogs and mules—
You use in abject and in slavish parts
Because you bought them. Shall I say to you,
“Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs!
Why sweat they under burdens? Let their beds
Be made as soft as yours and let their palates
Be seasoned with such viands”? You will answer,
“The slaves are ours.” So do I answer you.
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought. ‘Tis mine and I will have it.
If you deny me, fie upon your law—
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
I stand for judgment. Answer, shall I have it?” (Shakespeare, 4.1.90-105)

Shylock’s argument in this case stems upon the fact that if the courts show mercy and defy their own law of the land by nullifying the contract, then all the laws of Venice become questionable. The duke of Venice, fearful of anarchy, would very clearly succumb to such a plea, yet luckily for Antonio, Portia comes to the rescue. Within Acts 3 and 4, Portia very much begins developing herself as the hero of the play. While previously she was simply the daughter bound by her father’s will, in Act 3, her morality is exhibited when she first hears of Antonio, a complete stranger to her, and his impending fate. Portia demonstrates self-sacrifice, unconcerned about money, unlike the male characters in the play. Instead, she focuses her selfless efforts on saving the lives of those around her, willing to double the amount of money originally owed to Shylock in order to save a man she barely even knows:

“Pay him six thousand, and deface the bond
Double six thousand, and then treble that,
Before a friend of this description
Shall lose a hair through Bassanio’s fault.”
(Shakespeare, 3.2.298-301).

While the inhabitants of Venice all treasure their money and their fortune as their defining characteristic, Portia realizes that her wealth comes with a certain level of moral responsibility, and she does her best to provide happiness to those around her. Portia’s moral fortitude is then followed by her intelligence and wit, as she and Nerissa devise a plan to impersonate a male lawyer and law clerk and save Antonio. After offering Shylock a final opportunity to show mercy [“The quality of mercy is not strained. / It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven” (Shakespeare 4.1.173-174)”], her ability to manipulate Shylock using his own method of exploiting the laws of Venice is incredible:

“This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood.
The words expressly are “a pound of flesh.”
Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh,
But in the cutting it if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods
Are by the laws of Venice confiscate
Unto the state of Venice.” (Shakespeare, 4.1.297-303)

Portia’s ingenuity continues, as she legally is able to punish Shylock for conspiring to murder a Venetian citizen by taking away the most valuable thing to him – his fortune. While no woman at the time was allowed to even be an actress, let alone an educated lawyer, Portia showed true heroism by risking her life in impersonating a court official in order to help a stranger she hardly knew. Thanks to her intelligence, she not only manages to save her husband’s friend, but punish the antagonist of the play, breaking his will and teaching him a lesson about showing mercy; elevating her to a true status as the revered heroine of the play.

While reading the two acts, the character that caught my attention the most was Shylock. With the news that Antonio’s cargo is lost, it is joy to Shylock’s ears knowing he will be receiving Antonio’s flesh. When asked why, or if he can forfeit the bond, he explains that both Jews and Christians are the same biologically, but are not treated the same in society. Verbatim, “Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hans, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons subject to the same diseases,…” At this point, I couldn’t help but feel sympathetic for him because it is of course inhumane to treat another human being differently for their religious views. However, it is only after Shylock deviously insists that he will attain his bond that I begin to lose sympathy. When Antonio is detained, Shylock feels nothing but accomplishment, and that justice will be served. Initially, I believed that Shakespeare’s intent was to show the audience the scrutiny one may face due to opposing religious views. However, Shylock’s deep-rooted hatred for Antonio, and Christians alike, is exposed when he denies any money in return, and proves that it is more than just the repercussions of scrutiny that causes his distaste for rational negotiation. Therefore, it is clear to the reader that Shylock will be happy with nothing short of bloodshed. What type of human being desires spilled blood? A hate so strong proves that it cannot be the mere difference in religious views that would instill this–it is his sick, naked cruel characteristics that make him this way. Therefore, I believe Shakespeare’s intent of having the audience, at first, sympathize with Shylock, to soon see his true motives revealed as a way of showing that although religion may be an essential part of our existence, it can not merely define our character. Shylock’s intent to enact revenge on all Christians through Antonio is nothing other than his ill tempered, and irrational mentality. To have sympathy for someone who is ridiculed based on his immoral practices does not deem appealing.

Midsummer Night’s Dream-Act 5

In Act 5, we finally get to see the play within the play that will be observed by the Athenian lovers. This final Act led me to believe that Shakespeare requires us readers to contemplate the emotions and audacity of acting and the critical perceptions from the everyday theatre goer. While reading this, I kept thinking of society as a whole and how people perceive art. There are some who appreciate the arts and some who do not. Theseus defines what sounds like his duty as a viewer:
“Our sport shall be to take what they mistake:
And what poor duty cannot do, noble respect
Takes it in might, not merit.
Where I have come, great clerks have purposed
To greet me with premeditated welcomes;
Where I have seen them shiver and look pale,
Make periods in the midst of sentences,
Throttle their practiced accent in their fears…”(73).

As we read, Theseus and the Athenian lovers cease to stop their harsh criticism of the actors. This criticism of art is inevitable in society as well as things other than art. Every person is entitled to their own opinion about a title of work. Also in these lines, the word “rattling” appears and sounds to me like the abrupt conversation that happens after a play is finished. The snake is the audience. Before even appreciating the story’s morals, acting, or elements of the play, Shakespeare uses his characters as examples of the real people that criticize the fictional lives in plays instead of their own real lives.

Little do these once enchanted Athenian lovers know, they have been under the spotlight and have been tampered with, just as easy as a criticism could be made, by the fairies. In Puck’s final speech, we hear from the actor’s point of view, or in a way, the “art’s” response to the viewer’s criticism:
“While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gengles, do not reprehend:
If you pardon, we will mend.
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to scape the serpent’s tongue….”(86)

I think that Puck is saying that this play within a play is just a distraction for the audience to mingle over. It also provides us hope for our next distraction in art whether it is a success or a failure. Whatever form of art it may be, it will have to endure the criticism of the common people.

During Shakespeare’s lifetime, England experienced war, outbreaks of plague, terrorist attacks, unprecedented prosperity and the growth of conspicuous consumption, religious conflict, and—for the very first time—contact with the New World. These events vitally shaped Shakespeare’s plays. Reading a selection of his comedies, histories, tragedies, and tragicomedies, we will consider these works within their historical and theatrical contexts. Who went to which playhouses, and why? What did the stages look like? What sort of sound-effects did they use? We will also ask questions about Shakespeare’s continued cultural relevance, focusing on the topics of globalization, sex and gender, and race. Readings will be supplemented with film.