Twelfth Night Act II

Something that I found very interesting in Act II of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is how Malvolio's attempt to raise his status is evident at the very beginning of the show. It is shown during the scene when Maria, Sir Toby, Feste, and Sir Andrew are downstairs, drunk and causing a ruckus in the middle of the night. This scene is very interesting to me in the fact that not only is this the beginning of Malvolio's downfall but it also shows how Malvolio thinks that his social status is higher than it really is.
This act of raising his status or not being in the correct mind to understand his status is the fact that he enters the room and states "My masters" (Act 2 Scene 3, 80). By using the term "masters" Malvolio has set up his social rank in comparison to the others that he is going to address. He notes that they are superior, at least Sir Toby and Sir Andrew, and by doing this he notes that he is inferior and yet he proceeds to take control and to make himself uplifted in his speech. He proceeds then to take control and to scold those he just claimed as a masters. Here Shakespeare is shaping Malvolio's character and setting up the audience for his fall. Because he believes that he can make those higher then him inferior and thus make himself  superior Shakespeare is drawing on the Puritan idea that they make things up for themselves. Malvolio believes that he is helping his lady and so in essence helping himself. Because he starts off and shapes his entire scolding around Olivia he believes that he is justified in what he is doing and what he saying against those higher than him.
Shakespeare uses this scene in order to put Malvolio's folly into a more prominent light later once he reads the letter written by Maria. Even though it is a sad thing that they did to him in a sense Shakespeare makes it justified in the fact that he brings it on himself. Malvolio frustrates those of higher ranking and so earns their wrath. It is an interesting idea that he causes his own downfall and yet demands vengeance against them.
This is a really interesting scene to me that is important for the rest of the show and the rest of sub plot of Malvolio, Maria, Sir Toby, Feste, and Sir Andrew.  

Till We Have Faces: Queen Elizabeth and Oraul

I am currently taking PH 261: CS Lewis as part of my Philosophy major. We read many of Lewis’s theological and philosophical works in this course (Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain, The Abolition of Man, etc). But, by running to the front of the class (and perhaps shoving people whilst I did so), I was able to sign up to read one of Lewis’s works of fiction for a group project. Till We Have Faces is Lewis’s attempt to retell the mythological story of Psyche and Cupid, but from the point of view of one of Psyche’s “evil” sisters.

This sister, and the protagonist and narrator of the novel, Lewis names Oraul. She, as opposed to Psyche, is incredibly ugly. Because of her appearance, she is treated rather poorly, despite her love for others. In order to combat her unfortunate appearance, Oraul wears a veil; the novel states, after her death, that no one saw Oraul’s face for an eighty-year period. She eventually becomes queen, and the way that Lewis describes her in the novel is suspiciously similar to Queen Elizabeth I.

Oraul was a virgin queen who, because of her veil, was rumored to be the most beautiful woman in all of Glome (her dominion). She assumes the role of queen without a husband, and makes significant economic and political progress throughout her rule. Does this sound familiar yet? Well, Oraul also was able to wield a sword and, because of this, she was able to win renown with her people and respect within the military of both her country and others. Oraul even kills two men in battle in the novel. Does this military prowess remind anyone else of Queen Elizabeth’s speech to the soldiers after the defeat of the Spanish Armada? She is called, “Queen! Warrior! My best scholar,” (Lewis, 220) by Bardia, one of her advisors. She is more than just a woman ruler, she is a capable, kick-ass woman ruler.

 It might be more difficult for us Americans to pick out this similarity between Oraul and Queen Elizabeth because, unless like we have done in this class, no one has any familiarity with Elizabeth or her nature as a ruler. But, perhaps Lewis, as an Englishman, purposefully included this correlation to further emphasize the greatness of Oraul’s rule.

Wittenberg and Individualism in Faustus

At the very end of the play, Faustus laments his time in Wittenberg: “O would I have never seen Wittenberg, never read book” (13.19-20, 1160). When I initially read this, I understood that Faustus was condemning learning, and ultimately condemning the Renaissance idea that learning could lead to the empowerment of individuals and a better world. But I also thought it was interesting that the second aspect so integral to the Renaissance—the idea of individualism—was so left out in this final scene, the culmination of the play and therefore the culmination on Marlowe’s critique of the Renaissance. It would make sense that Faustus would not condemn himself first (we all avoid taking responsibility for our actions sometimes), but I expected a critique of individualism in the form of Faustus blaming his himself for his demise to occur at some point. Instead he wishes time would stop (13.60-65, 1161) and bargains with God to save his soul after a hundred thousand years (13.92-93, 1162). In the end, he never blames himself for his mistakes.

However, I found a sort of blame on individualism when I went back and reconsidered the significance of Wittenberg. It wasn’t just a university city, it was where Martin Luther first posted his 95 thesis that initiated widespread Protestantism in Europe. One of the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is that Protestantism is much more individualist: it focuses on the priesthood of all believers and the idea that some or all individuals can interpret scripture. So when Faustus is wishing that he had never come to Wittenberg, he is wishing not only that he had never had access to knowledge but that he never had access to the individualism that stemmed from the city’s theological past.

Sonnet 116

           After our discussion in class about “Sonnet 116” I found myself wondering about the reference to the value of a ship being measured. I know that we presumed that Norton was wrong, and that Shakespeare did not mean the North Star. However, when I read the sonnet, it made more sense to me that the North Star was in fact what was being referenced.

              In the second quatrain, the “ever fixed mark” (5) seems to be the focal point, whereas the “wand’ring bark” (7) is simply being utilized to show the importance of the North Star. The constancy of the North Star allows ships to correctly navigate the open ocean, which in turn shows love as a guide to wandering hearts. I believe that Shakespeare would not have changed to the ship being the focal point in the middle of a quatrain; instead he would have maintained the star as the point of focus like he did for time in the third quatrain.

                The North Star can be measured by sailors utilizing a sextant. As seen in the sonnet, the star can be used as an instrument or guide, and can even be measured, but it remains a mystery and its true wealth is unknown. Shakespeare uses the North Star to show that love can be used as a guide, and even roughly measured, but its true meaning is mysterious to wandering hearts.

                I do not think that using either the star or the ship as the focal point detracts from Shakespeare’s intent in the sonnet. Each one portrays the folly of love and how it is never constant. Whether it be the wealth of a ship or mystery of a star, love is ever-changing. As we discussed in class, Shakespeare is taking what love is usually referenced as and displaying that love is not all these things. Love is not constant, nowhere near timeless, and does not “bear it out even to the edge of doom” (12).   

Thoughts on Dr. Faustus - Hanna A.

The play Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe was a hilarious but deeply disturbing play about a man who sells his soul to Satan to gain knowledge and magical ability. Faustus is a brilliant man who has apparently studied every subject known to man very thoroughly, and feels that his life will be subject to eternal boredom without entering into some kind of pact with the devil in order to gain new knowledge.

Central to this play is the question of whether it is ever too late to repent and be saved by grace from God. It seems that the angels always imply it is never too late, but it ends up being too late in the last scene. However, the question underlying all of the redemption or damnation themes is, if Faustus ever had doubts about giving up his soul, why would he ever choose eternal damnation if he was hoping to eventually be saved? Is it simply hubris that prods Faustus to continually choose damnation? Or is his character fundamentally unrealistic because any real person would—assuming the person had doubts like Faustus—choose heaven over hell, God over Satan.

It seems to me that Faustus’s fear and doubt, though he always suppresses it, would have won over his desire for the knowledge and power that damnation offered. No amount of power for two and half decades is worth eternal torture in hell. Why would Faustus, as a deeply logical person, not see this problem embedded in his choices? One passage where an old man comes and warns Faustus against his sin emphasizes this idea particularly strongly; Faustus responds, “Ah my sweet friend, I feel thy words / To comfort my distressed soul; / Leave me awhile to ponder on my sins” (Scene 12, 48-50). It is clear in this passage that Faustus is seriously struggling with his own sin and doubting the choices he has made. Why is it then that Faustus does not back out of his deal? He has lived into nearly all of his time within the pact he made with Satan, has satisfied his appetite for power, and yet he still chooses hell.

The illogical actions of Faustus are deeply puzzling to me because his choices, for one so learned, are foolish beyond belief. Is this Marlowe’s point? Simply that blind foolishness in relationship to power and wealth are ultimately damning? What really was the point of this play? Though it teaches against seeking such vain and earthly treasures, it also paints Faustus in such an unrealistically caricatured light that it is impossible to see what the lesson to be learned actually is.

If Marlowe simply intended to write a morbid comedy, he undoubtedly succeeded. However, if his hope was to have some kind of moral to the story, Faustus is too unrealistic and illogical to truly provide any sort of moral enlightenment for the audience.

Wakefield Mysteries - Hanna A.

The Wakefield Mysteries were a comical set of short one act plays that certainly awoke me to the theological state of Europe during the medieval period. The character that interested and disturbed me the most was Mary the mother of Jesus. Though she only appeared in the last couple plays, her appearance theologically was fascinating because she very much reflected the chivalric ideal for women through her purity and “sinlessness” even within her marriage to Joseph.

Joseph himself was portrayed as an old man who could not have children. However, the bible makes it clear that Jesus had brothers and so the plays were obviously written either by people who were not biblical scholars, or there was a theological point being made through all the omissions and additions. One of the profound points being made to women is clearly that women should be submissive in everything, but particularly to God. Also, it is clear that God’s blessing only comes to those who are pure and “sinless” and so Mary is definitely the ultimate womanly version of good to be striving for. Another biblical mistake is that Joseph and Mary were betrothed, not married, but were already long married within the play.

Perhaps the most astonishing thing in the play is the position that Mary holds theologically. The way that she is portrayed in works like “Adam Lay Bound” made more sense after watching The Wakefield Mysteries. Mary is given the highest of positions, even so far as to be able to call God her “other husband.” This creates a multitude of theological problems with Trinitarian doctrine, but it is primarily interesting because it gives Mary such a powerful role societally; she is not only the mother of Jesus, but she is also the chaste wife of Joseph, the most beautiful woman around, and the wife of God. This indeed makes her the Queen of Heaven as she is described in “Adam Lay Bound.” It also gives her the power to have more than one husband, one of whom is God, which is surprising and unorthodox in and of itself.

The experience of watching The Wakefield Mysteries was educational and enlightening in that it brought to life many of the ideas and beliefs that have been discussed at length in class. It was definitely worth the experience to go to the play since it really did clarify some theological points of the time and clearly portray the theological manipulation that was central to the church at the time. 

Oral Tradition and Memory

Memory Tricks I was thinking about how monks and scholars in the Middle Ages must have had amazing memories to have remembered all these oral stories and put them down in books. I looked into it and found this video on the TED website about memory tricks. One of the things he touches on is that memory used to be a much more studied art which has died since oral traditions have died. It's an interesting concept in and of itself. However, it also brings up points we don't often think about. The Middle Ages are seen as a kind of depression in creativity between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. However, things like memory tricks to keep track of long poems and stories are incredibly important to how our culture is formed. Before printing, which wasn't invented until halfway through this last millennium, oral tradition was the only way that history and literature were preserved. Without these memory tricks, we would have very little record of the cultures we are built on. The creative culture must have been extraordinary.

Thoughts on Grendel...

When I read Beowulf in high school, one of the things we talked about, and even did a project on, was how Grendel was never physically described throughout the tale. The poet talks about how Grendel walks and thinks, and acts, but never what he really looks like. It is just occurring to me how strange this is, especially considering that Beowulf was most likely a orally transmitted tale long before it was written, meaning that the person telling it would have wanted to put as much detail into as possible to keep people entertained, and the description of a monster is pretty entertaining. There is the possibility that there was, at one point, a description of Grendel in the story that just didn't make it into the written version of the story, however, other than that I'm not sure why there wouldn't be a description of Grendel.

Twelfth Night

The first act in Twelfth Night, like all Shakespeare plays, is the introduction of the characters. Specifically in Twelfth Night, I think how Olivia and Viola are portrayed and introduced is very interesting. The fact that they have both lost their brothers is what is comparable between the two. How each mourn for their brother is the part that is very interesting.
For example Olivia follows the traditional mourning style. She is in all black and has her face covered. Olivia's mourning is in contrast to that of Viola. She, instead, decides to take on the persona of her brother. She does not adopt his name but instead dresses like him and tries to embody his personality. The differences in how they mourn their brother can be related to the relation they have with their brother. As far as the text says Olivia has just lost a brother whereas Viola has lost her twin. The other part of her, in the sense that twins have a different connection than other siblings.
Also the relationship that Orsino has with both Olivia and Viola is very interesting because they are both very different and yet very much the same. He has an overzealous or an irrational view of a love for Olivia. She does not reciprocate his love and yet he still pursues her with the same urgency. Like whys this is seen in Viola in the fact that she loves Orsino and yet at this present time he will not reciprocate her love because she is a man in his eyes. It is a very interesting juxtaposition that is set up at the very beginning of the play and one that will last throughout the play until the end.
Twelfth Night has many different areas that are comparable and connected. There is a lot that happens that connects Olivia with Viola and how they are somewhat parallel throughout the entire play and so their comedic aspects are together along with their later love relationships.  
It will also be interesting to see how connected Sir Toby, Maria, and Feste are in the rest of the play. They were already set up in the first act and seem to be very prominent for the rest of the play.

Religioius and Pagan References

In Twelfth Night, I noticed that there were some interesting contrasting references throughout. Nearly back-to-back, Shakespeare writes references about religious characters directly following references to pagan myths. In 1.5, ll. 20-22, Shakespeare weaves in a pagan myth to illustrate his character's feelings: "That instant was I turned into a hart, And my desires, like fell and cruel hounds, E'er since pursue me." Soon after, another character refers to a "cloistress" (l. 27), or a nun. This is clearly a religious catholic reference. Later on, there are references to Elysium, Arion, and other mythological characters and places. I'm wondering what Shakespeare's purpose was in using both kinds of references. It would seem that Shakespeare pushed the societal norm on just about everything, and maybe this was his way of continuing to challenge his readers and make them a bit uncomfortable. Obviously, Shakespeare had a flair for the dramatic, so perhaps this just served to further the edgy quality of his work.

Another possibility could be that Shakespeare was making a statement arguing for the fact that maybe it doesn't have to be one other the other, pagan or religious. My guess would be that Shakespeare was an instigator, a person who liked to press boundaries and stir things up. It would seem likely that, whether or not he actually believed in this kind of philosophy, he would try to push two seemingly opposite things together in his writing to make people think. Maybe it was just for attention. Who knows?

Wakefield Mysteries

Miranda Cloyd

EL207

Sugano

10.20.2013

            The “Wakefield Mysteries” are a series of scenes written back in medieval times and adapted for musical theater. The musical casts a small group of actors who play a wide variety of parts. The production starts out depicting creation and Adam and Eve’s time in the Garden of Eden. The musical progresses through the Old Testament in this way, telling the stories in a simplistic and comical manner. Songs and dances are integrated for entertainment and illustrative purposes.

            The first story following the Fall is when Cain kills his brother Abel. Both brothers are presented as simple, rustic characters. They are presented in an interesting mocking manner, but as with the rest of the musical, the point of the story is expressed. The production goes on to tell the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, Noah and the ark, Moses freeing his people, and many other stories all leading up to the time when the angels came to announce Jesus’ birth to the lowly shepherds.

            I was anxious to see how things would be portrayed in relation to the piece we read, “The Second Shepherd’s Play.” It is very interesting that this was how people told the story of the Bible back in medieval times since so few people were literate. Preservation of traditions and stories came mostly through orally passing down the tales through generations. The way the Bible stories were portrayed seemed a little childish and simplistic, but maybe they were helpful at the time they were told. It makes me wonder how much has been lost or changed in translation from oral and theatrical productions to written stories. While it seems to me like there could be some consequences to only passing things down verbally, I think there could be some benefits as well. The passion and meaning behind the stories could be much better portrayed through theater and the telling of stories. The inflections and body language could be much more effective in these ways. 

Mikayla Ludiker

Doug Sugano

EL-207

22 October 2013

The Usual Suspects: Shakespeare and The Wakefield Mysteries

            The Wakefield Mysteries, put on by Whitworth’s theatre department, anticipates both Renaissance comedies and tragedies in several important ways. Since we will be studying Shakespeare for the next few weeks, I have interpreted Wakefield in terms of his works. Shakespeare’s dramatic technique of subverting authority is especially visible in Wakefield. In much the same way that Oswald disrespects King Lear, Lucifer imagines himself on Christ’s throne while an angel encourages his fantasies, Cain withholds the largest of his crops from the sacrifice, and Noah’s wife takes her dear sweet time getting aboard the arc, claiming she has more useful work to do than to escape a flood that will obliterate every human on earth. Other characters throughout display similar subversive behaviors, forerunning Shakespeare’s clowns and fools. (Interestingly, the lowly shepherds [fools] beat the wise men [authorities/nobility] to the stable to see the savior. As in Renaissance or Shakespearean literature, the so-called “fools” are the first to recognize the truth.) However, whereas Shakespeare employs subversion to illuminate the shortcomings of authoritative figures, The Wakefield Mysteries imparts moral instruction about the terrible consequences for disrespecting or disobeying authority figures.

            Another of Shakespeare’s comedic conventions is a progression that heralds the reversal of earlier conditions. For example, an unwed character will become wed or war will progress to courtship. In The Wakefield Mysteries, Lucifer and the angels begin in a state of order, happiness, and union with God that is dashed when Lucifer attempts to usurp his throne. Adam and Eve experience a similar fall from grace. From a state of confusion, discomfort, and separation, the characters in the play constantly strive to reconnect with God and restore their former conditions. While the play does not end in perfect union with God, the birth of Jesus heralds a coming age in which this is possible. Shakespeare employs similar story arcs when Malvolio’s plight is finally untangled, when Hero and Claudio are made happy in marriage, and when Viola and Sebastian are reunited.

            Just as Shakespeare’s comedies mirror the devices at work in the funnier moments of The Wakefield Mysteries, so do his tragedies recall its serious thematic material. The focus of Wakefield is on charismatic individuals—Abraham, Noah, Moses, and the like—with flaws often embodied by Shakespeare’s characters like Othello, who loves his wife so much that he would kill her for the “higher purpose” of preserving their reputations. Abraham would similarly kill his son for God’s higher purpose. There is a sort of domino effect as well: Lucifer is cast out of heaven, and the angels who side with him follow into hell. Eve tastes first of the apple, convincing Adam to do so, and as a result, all of humanity must face death forever. A parallel is found in Iago, whose bitterness convinces a number of characters to perform terrible deeds that lead others into horrible deeds until many are dead.

            If the characters are similar, so are the tragic worldviews of both Shakespeare and The Wakefield Mysteries authors and actors. Shakespeare was a realist, allowing for neither the optimistic view that everyone will live happily nor the pessimistic view that everyone is inherently evil and will fall. Similarly, Wakefield’s “holy trinity” takes a que sera sera attitude: God gives a character a mandate, and the character may or may not obey. Noah obeys and lives, along with his family; Cain disobeys and brings a curse upon himself. Shakespeare may have taken his sense of realism from the same source material as the play: the Bible. In worldview and in many other ways, The Wakefield Mysteries anticipates Renaissance comedic and tragedic conventions, especially where Shakespeare is concerned.