The Beggar's Opera

 Bertolt Brecht, a German dramatist adapted Gay's "The Beggar's Opera" as a critical view in a capitalist world during WWII in Germany. Both plays ridicule  the aristocracy in the nature of high and low class, using the opera as an event where many high class people would have the opportunity to view the satirical play.

The timing of both plays in regards to economical changes within each country is interesting. Brecht  was immersed in Marxist thought after he became a Marxist, which heavily influenced his adaptation of "The Beggar's Opera". He saw the capitalist society as hypocritical and corrupt and suggested that since drama had been defeated by capitalism, art should be an agent for social change.

I think it is interesting how true that statement has been since the very beginning of writing for art's sake. Each poem, hymn, sonnet, play and so on is written to applaud, appease, or appeal some sort of social norm or social change. Sometimes I do not understand why there are so many adaptations of different plays or even movies, but through Gay and Brecht it is easy to recognize that each adaptation serves a different purpose in different economical and political settings.

A Sentimental Journey

When I presented the extremely brief biography of Laurence Sterne in Izze's and my presentation on "High People and Low People," we didn't have time to go into a lot of detail about his book, A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy. This book was written after he was criticized for his bawdy humor in his first book, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman - his humor was considered so inappropriate because of his occupation as a clergyman. While a funny life fact of Sterne's, it's interesting to think about the standard we place on people based on their occupation, and how this would still happen today if a pastor or priest published a book that was seen as inappropriate for a church leader to write, but one that, say, a member of their congregation could get away with writing.

In covering A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy, there were some "fun facts" that I didn't have time to share. I also wanted to reflect on it because it was not what I was expecting at all when I started reading the section in the Norton Anthology. The protagonist in this piece is Parson Yorick, who is named after Yorick the skull in Hamlet, and who also makes an appearance in Tristram Shandy. This section included in the Norton Anthology is a scene of Parson Yorick interacting with a shopkeeper's wife, and through that interaction, comments on the consumerism culture and how different classes interact with each other, a good reflection on high people and low people. The tone of the narrator remains very innocent throughout the passage, but it also allows the reader to be suspicious and to read a lot into their interaction, because it does tend to be rather flirtatious. While it does seem innocent, it makes me curious how Parson Yorick flirting with a married woman wasn't considered scandalous, especially after Sterne got in so much trouble for his "bawdy humor" in Tristram Shandy. The piece ends with Parson Yorick "counting the money into her hand, and with a lower bow than one generally makes to a shopkeeper's wife, I went out," leaving behind the shop (2453). This is good commentary on social structure and norms, because the treatment of people in certain classes is reflected even in the depth of a person's bow. He is obviously crossing that boundary in this section, the quote seeming less innocent after reading the rest of their conversation earlier in the writing.

Gender Identity and Early Moden Literature

We saw obvious cross dressing in Twelfth Night. QE1 lived outside of societal gender norms being unmarried and childless. From a little bit of research it was easy to find reference to gender swapping, cross dressing and gender fluidity in renaissance England. Although it was highly frowned upon, people were explorative of their gender counterparts. Gender is a complex thing that was not as well understood or diverse as it is today. With many different forms of gender identity today, I am curious about the influence of Early Modern Literature in our own culture today. Would the use of male characters playing the role of female characters be offensive today? I don't think people would fret much at the cross dressing, but I wonder if the ideals that women hold themselves at today would influence the need to have men cross dress. Would it even work in a society that does not see cross dressing as being so awful anymore? The reasons that men played female characters, from what I understand, was because the theatre was attempting to protect the innocence of females in sexualized roles and such. Men could depict a woman as a sexual deviant, but women shouldn't play that role. Today, however, that is so obviously not an issue.

This is mostly a train of thought about how the many different gender roles in today's society would look at literature like Twelfth Night. I wonder if people who identify themselves as gender fluid would feel like this is progressive or if it is a mockery of their gender identity.

The Wakesfield Mysteries

Having little knowledge about biblical literature, I was hesitant to attend this show. Worried that I wasn't going to meet the criteria in understand the actor's perspective and trying to bare in mind the  readings of the Mystery Plays, I walked in overwhelmed by my responsibility as an audience member. I sat unknowingly about what was going to unfold on stage and looked for familiar faces in hopes to discuss the production after it was finished. No such luck. So, I sat and sat trying to remember everything we had talked about in class;  Liturgical texts, miracles, the role of the audience, mediocre and extravagant actors.

The production began and I was so relieved to be able to recognize the trinity (which was beautifully depicted), the sly modern-day Lucifer and his fall,  the Creation and Fall of Man, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood (my favorite), Abraham and Isaac, the Nativity, and the Raising of Lazarus. The adaption to modern day times made the production much more relatable and gleaned light on the texts we had read in class. It was easy to make references to conversations we had in class regarding depicted miracles and church authority.

Shakespeare and Oronooko

First, Oronooko was one of my favorite readings for this course. While the text is outright disturbing at times and hard to read, the underlying message of slavery and the psychology within each character was highly influential. I thought it was interesting to compare the descriptive language and behavior that characterized the protagonist in racially diverse literature.

The language used to describe Oronooko resembled Shakespeare's description of Othello in "Othello". The troubles and tribulations that Othello had faced were expressed in his long monologues throughout the play, explaining where he had been to draw from experiences that made him the man he had become. It was interesting to see Behn describe Oronooko as, "This great and just character... he spoke French and English... He was pretty tall, but of a shape the most exact that can be fancied"(2317). She continues to describe his physical attributes from his eyes and nose to the color of his ebony skin. Desdemona also described Othello's appearance in a similar way. His skin was dark, his nose was broad, his eyes were piercing, and he was well traveled and well spoken in more than one language. Obviously Othello and Oronooko have something else in common too, they both strangle their wife.

I know Shakespeare borrowed many ideas and developed characters from other works, but I wonder if he used Behn's character to develop his own. I also wonder if the love triangle in "The Tempest" with Caliban was borrowed from Imoinda, the king and Oronooko's relationships.

Chaucer in the HUB

The plays performed by the Chaucer class, first the “Nun’s/Priest’s Tale,” and then the Christmas play about the trial of Mary and Joseph, were performed well by the Chaucer class and added a lot of fun to the HUB on Thursday.

            The first play was about a rooster getting tricked by a fox, then having to use his wits to escape. The rooster has a dream in the beginning of the play that he is going to die because of a vicious fox. He tells his favorite wife about the dream, and she tells him to not worry about it too much, that a dream is just a dream. He ignores her, telling her that men have seen the future in dreams, and that she shouldn’t tell him what to do, especially considering how advice from women has been fatal before. There was a collective groan and hiss from the audience at this point. The rooster does end up getting outsmarted and captured by the fox, and the actors were very funny in this scene. In order to escape, the rooster in turn outsmarts the fox, and the play ends with the fox cursing himself for being deceived, the moral being to be careful of when and how much you speak.

            The second play was a Christmas play about the trial of Mary and Joseph. The class performed the play in southern accents, which, as we learned in this class, actually works really well with the rhythm and pattern of the words. The play describes the trial of Mary, an unmarried woman who is pregnant yet claims to be a virgin. The play was very funny, ending with the satisfying demise of the villain, with Mary and Joseph happy with the conflict resolved. This story is not in the bible, and it was an interesting take on an event that could have potentially taken place.

            I was working at the info desk during the plays, and it was really fun seeing the audience that gathered and listening to their reactions and participation with the plays. This was a perfect example of how the humor in these plays is still just as relevant and funny today as it was when they were first written and performed, and the actors did a great job making the plays funny and entertaining. It was very fun to be both an audience member and an observer of the overall event.

Beggar's Opera

Throughout the "Beggar's Opera" one of the most interesting parts of it is how Mr. and Mrs. Peachum treat Polly, their daughter. Even though this play is centered around a high people idea, opera, but is in a low people setting, robbers and thieves, Gay has successfully added this element even in the family dynamic.

For example Mr. and Mrs. Peachum chastise their daughter when she believes that she wants to get married. The terrible treatment of Polly is a common theme throughout the entire play. Constantly she is called a slut or a whore by her mother. The name calling by a parent is the first idea of high people and low people within in the familial ties. By calling her something degrading and something that is definitely below high class people, Mrs. Peachum automatically sets herself up as the high people. She is not an adorer of her daughter or one with constructive criticism, she only brings her daughter down and mentally makes Polly lower her idea of her own social status. 

Through this Gay himself through his writing has reached out and personified the dividing factor between the opera and the beggars. The parents are the opera, they are the high people in everyone's eyes while Polly is the low person, the thief. She has gone out to find love and through this adventure she has found Macheath. In a sense she is a thief of love because she went behind other's wishes. 

Gay's integration of the high people and the low people other than the initial in the title, "the BEGGAR'S OPERA" is interesting to watch and see progress throughout the writing. You can see each party shift and change throughout the writing and of course how each regard each other, Mr. and Mrs. Peachum to Polly and Polly to Mr. and Mrs. Peachum. Again also the bookends of the Player and the Beggar at the beginning and at the end of the play is of course also marking this idea of high and low people.