Henry VIII

On Tuesday, we spent a lot of time talking about Katherine: how she seems more similar, in some ways, to Buckingham than to Anne; how she speaks for (?) the people in 1.2 and, in 3.1, insists on being spoken to and seen with her women "as at work"; and, finally, how she refers to herself not only as a "poor woman" but also as a queen, and daughter of no less a person than the King of Spain.

We also talked about the proleptic quality of the play -- how the present, past, and future seem to be collapsed together. More interestingly and provocatively, we asked whether the play invites us to perform the kind of (typically irresponsible) reading we as good historical critics don't like to do -- a reading that sees future events like England's Civil War being referenced in a play that was written well before those events have taken place.

Further thoughts on any of these points? Or anything else you'd like to draw our attention to before class this afternoon?

The End of the Leaky Ladies?

In a quite refreshing change from The Revenger’s Tragedy and many other plays we have read, the principal role of The Duchess of Malfi goes to its namesake female character. The Duchess does not seem to fit into the passive and frivolous stereotype of females, instead possessing a strong will and a sharp intellect. She questions the social obligations and underestimations of her position, asking why “should only I, of all the other princes of the world, be cased up, like a holy relic?” (3.2.140-142). But is she truly free of the “leaky female” curse? How strong is the defiance in her representation?

As the Duchess’s attendant, Cariola serves as her foil. While the noose and the idea of death troubles the poised Duchess “not a whit” (4.2.212), when it is Cariola’s turn to die, a desperate Cariola pleads for a way to escape her fate. The immediate contrast between the composed and dignified exit of the Duchess and the more expected, hysterical outcry of Cariola demonstrates the exceptionalness of the former in not succumbing to weaknesses like the latter did.

While I am inclined to say that the Duchess is an exceptional female character throughout most of the play, a few moments make me hesitate to deem her completely unaffected by uncontrolled or leaky female tendencies. A considerable “leak” occurs when she gets overly excited and reveals her secret marriage to Bosola, who is generally known to work for her brother, Ferdinand. This impulsive move puts her and Antonio in danger, more directly setting off the series of events that will culminate in her demise. Here, she seems to confirm the presumption that females cannot keep secrets, which is later echoed by Julia’s inability to guard the Cardinal’s secret.

Furthermore, (though this might just be a manner of speech) the Duchess frequently refers to things that “princes” should do, as opposed to using an equivalent female-oriented word. For example, she says, “I am making my will, as ‘tis fit princes should” (1.1.377). Combined with the presence of stereotypical females like Cariola and Julia, how does the way that the Duchess regards herself - as well as how we regard her - alter attitudes towards females within this play? Does this characterize her as more of an exception to the rule? Or can she still speak to more general perceptions of her gender? How might her unusual position of power and marital status complicate matters?


Other points to think about:

- The strong equalizing force present in many of the play’s interactions:
In the more obvious example, the romance of the royal Duchess with the lowly servant Antonio cuts across social rank, relying on goodness of heart and actions instead. Additionally, a sense of constancy is layered on top of equality, such as when Ferdinand effectively says at least all children are equal due to “compassionate nature”, regardless of legal standing (4.1.35-38). And while she is imprisoned and emotionally tortured, the Duchess retains her poise and defies the patronizing Bosola with her exclamation, “I am Duchess of Malfi still” (4.2.138).

- The visuality of death:
The play becomes very graphic at points, requiring the staging of a dead man’s hand or of the image of strangled children. The Duchess appears relatively unaffected during many of these scenes. How would this go over with a live audience? What is achieved by the visual articulation of the murders?

Questioning the Character of the Characters

On Tuesday's class, we covered in depth the meaning of the ending of the play and of the title "The Revenger's Tragedy" itself. It appeared very clear to us that this ending, where Vindice spits out a confession, presented a rushed feeling to the audience that seemed to come out of nowhere. We also decided that the title "The Revenger's Tragedy" presented a sentiment of blandness and expectancy when reading the play. The audience can anticipate what is going to happen next and who is going to come out alive in the end.

In accordance with this feeling of predictability when reading this play I felt as though I was unable to really connect with any of the characters. Vindice, the lead, has such an overwhelming desire for revenge that he makes himself difficult to relate to. And, when really thinking about it, he does not seem to dwell so much on his love for his murdered fiance, Gloriana. Although comical, it is pretty disturbing and awkward that he dresses up her skull to get the Duke to be poisoned...Do you think that there are sympathetic characters in this play? If so, why does the author give them the fate that he does?

Along with the strange treatment of Gloriana's remains by her fiance, the treatment of women in this play was very interesting. Throughout all of the play, male characters make snide remarks about the stupidity, carelessness, or frailty of women. Are there any other instances of this that are particularly shocking? Are there any redeeming men in this play that we can think of? Do the women of this play deserve this treatment or act in opposition of it? How does this treatment of women relate to other plays?

At the end of class, Professor Deutermann recommended that we consider who is really pulling the strings in this play. I personally think that during the play, all the characters think that they are in charge of what is going on around them. However, most are really getting scammed and tricked. Vindice, it seems, uses his power of manipulation well and usually has people following his plan. However the ending of the play really shows that none of these characters who were involved in this corruption came out on top. Only Antonio is left standing. What is the author saying about these characters, or more broadly human nature, at the end of the play? Also, where do loyalties lie in the play? Can anything good come from trusting another person?

Players and Bear-baiting and More (oh my)

Now that we know all about sex and marriage in "A Chaste Maid in Cheapside," lets look at some of the historical context behind this play and its place in London in the early 17th century and on the stage. Some interesting things to consider:

Middleton has been called a "realist" by some critics. Most the other city comedies that we've read have been dismissed as too unrealistic/ridiculous. What would you consider to be the realistic elements of this play (justifying these critics) in London 1613(ish)? [if you think that such critics are talking nonsense, why do you think "Chaste Maid.." is inaccurate]

• How about in a modern portrayal?
• Thinking on that, how might compare instances in this play to similar ones in the modern reality (ex. menage-a-trois, cultural capitol acquisition, jabs at education) In what cases are these considered "socially acceptable?"

Something interesting to notice, the resolution of this play disbands the wittoling/cuckoldry of the Allwits & Whorehound, but has planted the seeds for another to grow between Touchwood Senior & the Kixes. Might Middleton be suggesting something about society in London as a breeding ground for infidelity and blind-eyes? Do we see this new triangle following the path of the one that has just collapsed (to the benefit of the Allwits and demise of Whorehound)?

I will save most of the staging concepts and theatrical elements for class discussion, but (without looking it up) consider what sort of theatre might be ideal for this performance and why. After pondering that, for class, have a look at the image (given in class on Tuesday) of The Swan Theatre. Think about what a stage house like this means for the players and the audience (where are they located in relation to each other). Consider moments in the play where Middleton inserts an "aside" - comments directed at the audience which the other characters cannot hear. Note particularly moments that might be particularly comical when an aside is somehow heard by another character (ex. see 1.1.104-107 [Sir Walter. Here you must pass for... you mumble, Davy.], 1.1.128-132[Yellowhammer. Bless us all!... cannot see the top of 'em.] - my lines are slightly different from the anthology, apologies) Think about what this does in the performance: a character delivers a side comment to the audience and his peer alerts him to having perceived such a comment. How might asides be taken differently depending on the sort of stage house used?

Familiar Patterns and New Insights in A Chaste Maid in Cheapside

A Chaste Maid in Cheapside follows many of the patterns that we have come to recognize as characteristic of renaissance comedy. Another city comedy, the play shows us more of the hustle-bustle of London. The play boasts a shopkeeping father, in this case a goldsmith, who wants his daughter to marry a well-to-do gentlemen. She of course, is in love with the “less worthy” Touchwood. Characters like “Whorehound” and “Touchwood” have names that are as literally descriptive as those that we have seen in the Alchemist and the play comments on religion with the appearance of puritans, and presents corrupt mass promoters that again match the Alchemist’ Puritan “collectors”. All ends of the play seem to tie up neatly as the characters launch into celebration at the end of the play.
The play, however, provides new insight on the institution of marriage that has been only slightly touched upon in the previous comedies that we have read. Chaste Maid uses three marriages and two betrothals to show us the dynamic and sometimes corrupt nature of marriage. Perhaps the most fascinating of the relationships is the twisted triangle between Allwit, his wife, and Whorehound. Sir Walter Whorehound has taken Mrs. Allwit as his mistress, and to his delight, this leaves the lazy Allwit, a “cuckold” with no responsibility. He says of Whorehound that, “He’s maintained my house this ten years; not only keeps my wife but’ a keeps me and all my family. I am at his table; he gets me all my children; puts me to nothing”( 1.2.16 ) In speaking to Yellowhammer, Allwit relates his marriage to a sort of business deal a way to make a “ living as other trades thrive, butchers by selling flesh, poulters by venting conies” (4.1.236). In this instance, marriage is manipulated to turn a profit. This corruption seems bizarrely acceptable. When Yellowhammer is told that his daughter’s betrothed is having an affair with a married woman, he admits to that he has “kept a whore (himself), and had a bastard” (4.1.268), so as if this practice is “normal”, and almost dear to him, he will allow the marriage to proceed.
We then have two opposing couples, one that is unable to reproduce and one that is “too” fertile and must separate. The Touchwoods must remove themselves from the passion that has brought them so many children. Their plight has brought Touchwood Sr. to understand that, the “feast of marriage is not lust, but love and care of the estate”. The Kix’s seem to think passion must be more necessary than love. The two who cannot get pregnant, bicker and quarl about their situation. Their fighting leads them to compare marriage to death in saying that, “marriage and hanging go by destiny”(3.3.59). Ironically, infidelity brings about an answer to the couples’ problems, as Touchwood impregnates Lady Kix. In light of these relationships, the Welsh (who is betrothed to Tim) is not very believable in her assertion that “Sir if your logic cannot prove me honest, there’s a thing called marriage, and that makes me honest” (5.4.115). For the play has depicted the institution of marriage as anything but honest. These dynamic relationships may help us to further understand the theater’s portrayal of social and familial roles at the time.

Aside from the play’s commentary on relationships, the play provides us with a bunch of juicy new “tid-bits” for discussion. We can think about some of these questions for Tuesdays class:

• This is the first time we have seen “gossips.” What role do these peculiar characters take on in the play? Do they provide actual insight into the corruption that they try to sniff out?
• We hear a lot about the hoity-toity nature of Tim as a “Cambridge man”. He is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and tries to impress people by babbling in Latin. At one point he says obnoxiously, “Come I from Cambridge, and offer me six plums?” Is the play mocking higher education or just those who consider themselves above the less educated?
• This play ends, as do Shoemaker and Knight of the Burning Pestle, in celebration. Yellowhammer exclaims, “So fortune seldom deals two marriages with one hand, and both lucky. The best is, one feast will serve them both” 5.4.125. What can we say about the way in which these complicated plays are summed up by jovial gatherings? Is this a necessary aspect of a comedy, or is it a cop-out, a way of maintaining a “comedic stance”, sending audiences dancing out of the theater after being exposed to some serious issues.

The Citizen and his Wife are some very odd ducks...

Why would Beaumont choose to include them in such a strong and mocking fashion? There are times when the two of them are attempting to crack witty jokes between every line of 'The London Merchant,' a city comedy doomed to fail from the beginning of their involvement in its plot. We've discussed them in some detail in Tuesday's class, and with Nate Leonard, graduate student in Renaissance drama at UMass, attending Thursday's class to go over staging and audience culture in Blackfriars during this time, we'll be talking about them a lot more. (Sorry to those of you who find them obnoxious!)

These characters are guiding forces that manipulate the audience into following what Beaumont intended to be felt through the play. Nell has difficulty separating the players from their characters. This is shown through her obvious favoritism to Humphrey: "didst thou ever see a prettier child?" This and other mistakes she and her husband make gives us the idea that they are first-time theater-goers and blind to the culture of such plays. We had mentioned that this lent a feeling that audiences would come away more cultured and educated after attending such plays, but mainly it is meant to give the audience an idea of what they should NOT be thinking about the play. The Citizen and his Wife have views entirely opposite to what should be taken: Jasper should be favored over Humphrey, Mistress Merrythought and Michael should be thought of as irritatingly sober fools rather than protaganists, and the boy players should be given a bit more credit for making this entire thing up as they go along. By creating obnoxiously ignorant characters unafraid to speak their mind, Beaumont has effectively used a kind of reverse psychology to control how the audience thinks of characters and plots within this play.

A few questions to keep in mind:

• Who is the target audience of this play? Citizens such as this grocer, or higher class citizens? How would this affect the reaction of the audience?
  
• How would the Blackfriars theatre change the audiences' experience of this play? The Blackfriars is much like the Cockpit or the Phoenix in it's layout (refer to your handout of Inigo Jones' diagram of the theatre.) An indoor 'private' theatre lit entirely by candlelight may provide an entirely different feel than an outdoor naturally lit one. Could the effects of the lighting and the sense of privacy change the audience's experience?
  
• Most importantly, how is the city comedy of 'The London Merchant' similar to Dekker's 'The Shoemaker's Holiday?' What perspective does each take on city life, class, and mercantilism? How do the two plays differ and how are they alike?

I look forward to hearing your answers to these questions in class, and feel free to ask any staging or dramatic questions of Nate as they come to you!