Mendacity and Crap

       While I was not particularly fond of the play Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, I did enjoy the underlying themes, backstory and the overall connection to King Lear by William Shakespeare. The most profound connection that I saw between the two plays, was that of Big Daddy and King Lear. Both men seemed to have favorites when it came to their children, however they seemed to have the most trouble with the child that was their favorite. For King Lear his favorite daughter Cordelia gave him trouble as she would not profess her love to him before everyone to get her piece of his kingdom. This thoroughly upset Lear and he banished her and no longer called her his daughter. For Big Daddy his son Brick was clearly the favorite when it came down to it. However, Brick was an alcoholic and was thought to have had relations with another man. While the other children were discussed in both the plays, Gooper in COAHTR and Regan and Goneril in KL, the men seemed most distraught when it came to their other children Cordelia and Brick. 

      A huge theme in the play was mendacity which means untruthfulness. Big Daddy stressed the importance of being truthful to Brick and how everything revolves around it. This was ironic as his entire family was being untruthful to him about his health and Gooper through this all was trying to swoop in to gain control of the family business for when his father died. Also, this theme is shown in King Lear as Goneril and Regan lied to their father about how much they loved him just to get bits of his land and kingdom for themselves. The girls and Gooper had ulterior motives when it came down to it and were merely looking out for themselves.

      Although I did not particularly enjoy the play, I thought that it was cast very well and that the scene was wonderful. I also enjoyed seeing the many parallels between Cat on a Hot Tin Roof by Tennessee Williams and King Lear by William Shakespeare.

--posted on behalf of Avery Postema

Fathers in Shakespeare: Less Mature Than Their Daughters

As mentioned in the prompt, we discussed the parallel of the openings of King Lear and Midsummer: both fathers cutting off their daughters and not using their power as a father and king for the greater good. Apparently, Shakespeare really loves to use a problem father with a great amount of power as a way to move the plot forward, because another line could be drawn between Egeus and Cymbeline (as well as Innogen and Helena).

I suppose the greatest difference between the problem of marriage in Cymbeline and the problem of marriage in Midsummer is that Innogen has already married the man she loves, whereas Helena simply refuses to marry the man that her father desires her to. Both girls face incredibly severe consequences as a result of their action, Innogen facing the banishment of her husband and Helena facing threats of death with the only other options being giving in and marrying or becoming a nun for the rest of her life.

            “As she is mine, I may dispose of her:

            Which shall be either to this gentleman

            Or to her death, according to our law

            Immediately provided in that case.” (1.1.46-49)

Both girls pose a valid argument against their father, but both are incredibly stubborn and refuse to hear any side of the conflict that doesn’t support their own. The plots of the plays are quite different, but in the end, both parents recognize their faults, although Cymbeline’s recognition is slightly more convoluted, as he nearly kills his daughter in the process.

            “So through Lud’s-Town march,

            And in the temple of great Jupiter

            Our peace we’ll ratify; seal it with feasts.

            Set on there! Never was a war did cease

            Ere bloody hands were wash’d with such a peace.” (5.5.470-474)

Through acts on acts of convoluted yet hilarious twists and turns, Helena and Innogen both end up happily. Their fathers, although stubborn, see the errors of their ways and realize that what is best for them, and often for most others, is the happiness of their daughters before the happiness of themselves.

--posted on behalf of Skylar

Runaway Love

We are presented with lovers who simply cannot be together in Cymbeline and Midsummer Night's Dream. Posthemus and Innogen, shown in Cymbeline, are married and Posthemus was sent away by King Cymbeline as he was not accepted as the husband of his daughter. Lysander and Hermia, shown in MND, are in love and wish to be married but Hermia's father Egeus refuses to let it be. Posthemus promises that he will see Innogen again and says he will remain faithful as he steals away into the wilderness; 

Remain, remain thou here
While sense can keep it on. And, sweetest, fairest, 
As I my poor self did exchange for you, 
To your so infinite loss, so in our trifles 
I still win of you: for my sake wear this; 
It is a manacle of love; I'll place it
Upon this fairest prisoner. (Cymbeline I.i.145-151)

Lysander and Hermia, on the other hand, decide to run into the forest together to escape the cruelty of Hermia's father and the decisions that they would be forced to make;

And in the wood where often you and I

Upon faint primrose beds were won't to lie,

Emptying our bosoms of their counsel swelled,

There my Lysander and myself shall meet;

And thence from Athens turn away our eyes

To seek new friends and stranger companies. (MND I.i.214-219)

These few characters were willing to do whatever it took to be together and to live happily despite what their parents (and more specifically, fathers) thought of their relationships. Also, they were able to overcome the odds and trials that were presented to them. For Innogen and Posthemus it was the belief that Innogen was being unfaithful and for Lysander and Hermia it was the fact that love spells were involved and they were led astray from one another. In the end, both couples made it through and were able to be together. 

posted on behalf of Avery Postema

Same Ending Different Play

While A Midsummer’s Night Dream is a rich comedy with many striking similarities to other Shakespearean plays, I found one small detail of similarity particularly interesting. In both A Midsummer’s Night Dream and All’s Well That Ends Well, a character comes onstage at the end of the play and directly addresses the audience. In the end of MND, the mischievous fairy Puck calmly states if anything in the play was offensive, simply imagine it to be merely a dream.

“If we shadows have offended,

Think but this, and all is mended,

That you have but slumber’d here

While these visions did appear.” [V.I. 409-412]

He then goes on in the last lines of the play to implore for the audience’s applause, saying “Give me your hands if we be friends…” [V.I. 423] This address to the audience is strikingly similar to the address given by the King at the end of All’s Well That Ends Well, in which the king practically begs for the audience’s approval.

“All is well ended if this suit be won,

That you express content; which we will pay

With strife to please you, day exceeding day.” [V.III. 335-338]

Then, just like in A Midsummer’s Night Dream, the final lines are a plea for applause: “Your gentle hands lend us, and take our hearts.” [V.III. 340]

The interesting difference between the two plays however, is why Shakespeare used a direct address to conclude the play. In All’s Well, an explanation to the audience and plea for applause makes sense, due to the troublesome nature of the play and unresolved ending. Contrarily though, MND has a happy, comical ending that is rarely viewed as “problematic”. It is interesting then that Shakespeare would choose to end two dissimilar plays in the same manner. 

While They Were Sleeping

While reading A Midsummer Night’s Dream, I couldn’t help but think of Cymbeline. From the beginning, Cymbeline has a fairy-like tone, with many of the conventions of a fairytale. As  it is so fairytale-like that there are actual fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, there is a clear distinction of the two plays that separates them from the rest of the works we have read. Apart from the strong affiliation to fairytales, the two plays both have major plot points based around people falling asleep or being put to sleep. Slumber seems to be when the most significant moments of the plays occur

For example, the major conflict in Cymbeline begins when Imogen falls asleep.  The lines

“Sleep hath seize me wholly,

To your protection I comment me, gods.

From fairies and the tempters of the night

Guard me” (2.II.9-13)

are strikingly similar to anything you would expect out of Midsummer.

 Of course, Imogen does fall asleep and that is when the trickery occurs. Similar to the fairies in Midsummer Night’s Dream, Iachimo commits this crime without realizing just how severe the repercussions will be.  A lover’s quarrel ensues, much in the same way that it happens in Midsummer, and is only after Imogen and Posthumous both sleep that anything can be resolved. When Posthumous is visited by ancestors and, conveniently, a god he is enlightened in much the same way as the lovers of Midsummer are enlightened by the magical nectar that returns them to their right minds. There is such a dreamlike quality to the resolution of  Cymbeline that the lines

“Are you sure that we are awake? It seems to me

That yet we sleep, we dream” (Midsummer 4.I.201-202)

seem like an appropriate ending to the play. There is no denying the dreamlike qualities that tie these two plays together. 

--Posted on behalf of Becca Williams

Jacqueline on Midsummer

To me, I saw parallels between Demetrius and All’s Well’s Bertram. Demetrius was quick to drop Helena when he met Hermia, just as Bertram was quick to try and seduce Diana, despite being married to Helena. Bertram and Demetrius both display qualities of being shallow, and, though the women’s reactions to the way the two men act are different, they both end up married to Helena in the end.

Midsummer also relates back to a lot of the plays we’ve read, as most have an element of force. Shakespeare seems to like to throw some of his views on what could be interpreted as “free will” and whether we have free will or not. Since there always seems to be an element outside of the person that is leaning them in one direction or another, or at least trying (for example, the potion in Midsummer or Helena tricking the king into letting her pick to marry Bertram), I think Shakespeare is trying to show he believes we don’t have 100% free will in our lives.

posted on behalf of Jacqueline Kiley

All's Not Well That Ends Forced

Deception is a common theme in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, which is not so surprising given the strong presence of fairies in the play. They cast spells on multiple characters in the story, creating false appearances and feelings. This includes Demetrius, a young Athenian aristocrat who is put under a spell so that he will love a woman whom he does not care for.

This is also seen in Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well. In that story, the heroine figure, Helena, tricks the man (Bertram) she loves into a forced marriage situation. At the end of the play, her would-be-lover realizes that he has been bested and reluctantly resents to marriage. 

In both situations, a fabricated marriage is created, and is not truly what the male in the relationship desires. Though both these stories have seemingly happy endings, (for all is well that ends well) the element of deception in the makings of these pairings seems to taint them and the very idea of love. 

This tarnishing of love is interesting in that it seems to echo Shakespeare's own love life. He himself was forced into wedding with his wife. Given this, ideas for the lamentable situations of Demetrius and Bertram might have arisen from his own personal life.

Lysander and Posthumous: A Parallel Between Midsummer's Night Dream and Cymbeline

When we first see these characters they are in love with the objects of their affections and are seen making sacrifices for them.  Posthumous has been banished by Cymbeline for marrying Imogen; Lysander, likewise is seen enduring Hermia’s father, Egeu’s, wrath.  Both men plan to see their lovers, despite the fathers warnings: Posthumous promises to see Imogen again, while Lysander devises a plan to steal away with Hermia.

Towards the middle of the play both characters change their attitudes towards Imogen and Hermia, respectively, albeit for very different reasons.  Convinced of his wife’s infidelity, Posthumous denounces Imogen, even going so far as to plot her murder – a stark contrast to the devoted husband he had previously.  Likewise, when placed under a spell that causes him to fall in love with Helena, Lysander spurns Hermia, treating her with the utmost contempt –at one point, he even tells Hermia he hates her.  Again, this a far cry from his previous behavior: before falling under the spell, Lysander spoke to Hermia lovingly and with respect.

Ultimately, I think these characters are distinctly similar, in demeanor and their storylines.

Timon's Fantasy

   At the beginning of Timon of Athens, Timon seems to live in a very altruistic fantasy world, one where there are no consequences to “taking care” of his friends. This provides a striking contrast to the misanthrope he becomes, having lost faith in the world after being tricked by the people he thought he could trust. Apemantus tells Timon, "the middle of humanity thou never knewest, but the extremity of both ends" (IV.iii.300).

    I thought of this contrast in particular while reading Midsummer, which also has distinct realms of fantasy and reality. Though it may seem this play is the most apparently odd, I find Timon’s actions in his own fantasy realm just as bizarre at times.

    Timon’s friends coveting of his wealth is not unlike Oberon’s coveting of Titania’s changeling boy. Just like Titania refuses, so do Timon’s friends when he asks for their assistance in his own time of need. Both of these events lead to the rising action in each of the plays, and link the realm of fantasy to a more realistic one.

    The difference is between each of these stories, however, is in the ending. Although the fantasy and magic in Midsummer ultimately assists in a happy ending and corrects all its former mistakes, Timon’s fantasy is his downfall.

Cloten & Bottom: To Laugh or to Cry?

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is arguably Shakespeare’s most popular comedies. Which is why the character connection between Bottom, the weaver in Midsummer, and Cloten, the oafish Prince in Cymbeline, seemed like the most fitting comparison. The most amusing character trait that Bottom and Cloten share is that both are arrogant beyond belief and overconfident to a fault. When reading the plays I couldn’t help but link the two characters together. Bottom suffered from blatant stupidity, which is riddled throughout the whole play. He misuses words and phrases often, and is usually corrected by his fellow troop members. Robin, the trickster, later casts a spell upon Bottom and turns his head into an ass, which is all too fitting. Bottom and Cloten are both asses, I wish Shakespeare had cast a spell upon Cloten much like Bottom was, “And I am such a tender ass, if my hair but do tickle me, I must scratch.” (MND 4.1. 26-27) the hilarity is unmistakable.

Cloten’s pursuit of Imogen clearly showcases his arrogance and lack of wit. In the 3^rd act, after Imogen verbally kicks his “ass” (because he’s kind of an ass…get it?), his rebuttals are the perfect examples of his wit. Imogen states “Fools are not mad folks.” Cloten replies” Do you call me a fool?” Imogen then states “As I am mad I do…” (Cymbeline 2. 3. 116-118) I honestly don’t think anyone could have said it better. Both Cloten and Bottom are arrogant and overconfident, which makes them the most amusing characters amongst their fellow characters. I also think they’re hilarious, stupidity can either make you cry or laugh, and I couldn’t help but laugh at these two.
--posted on behalf of Chelsea Mills

Jokes and Maps and the Interpretive Lens of Time

            In October, I attended two Themester lectures within only a few days of one another:  Adam Zucker’s “Twelfth Night and the Broken Jest,” and Janelle Jenstad’s “Networks and Neighborhoods in Early Modern London.”  Though these two guest speakers explored drastically different fields of study, I was struck by their common encounters with time and timelessness within Shakespearean studies.

            For the most part, Dr. Zucker’s talk focused on coming to terms with our temporal limitations in understanding Shakespearean jest.  He pointed out several scenes in Elizabethan and Jacobean literature that, despite the most thorough scholarly research, still remain a mystery as to how or why they are funny.  However, even as he expressed his frustration with such enigmatic jests, he affirmed the timelessness of humor, which provides readers of any historical setting an access point to older literature.  Many of the funniest Shakespearean insults (“widdyshins” was a personal favorite of mine) have no linguistic history whatsoever, meaning that even four hundred years later, audiences can still find enjoyment in their slapstick absurdity.  We may not be able to fully understand every joke – and in some cases we are left, like Aguecheek, completely clueless – but we can find some satisfaction in knowing that something funny is happening, and according to Zucker, we should embrace this sense of stupidity (itself a timeless feeling) as part of the reading experience.

            Dr. Jenstad, on the other hand, has little room for the timeless in her construction of the Map of Early Modern London.  In fact, what stood out most to me in her lecture was her assertion that “there is no such thing as ‘Early Modern London.’”  Rather, she argued, the London portrayed by the Agas map is a medieval city under enormous pressure to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population – a task it fails to accomplish.  The definitive contemporary guide to London, John Stowe’s Survey, had to be republished twice within only a few decades, and its latest publication in 1633 was already out-of-date within a few years.  Dr. Jenstad aims reconstruct a picture of a city that existed for a mere blink of an eye between the end of the Elizabethan era and the Cromwell revolution, and thus every concept or piece of information she and her colleagues encounter must be understood in relation to a specific date and location.

            As I considered these varying treatments of temporality, I wondered (for my own amusement) which aspects of Shakespeare’s plays I find more engaging:  the timeless, or the time-tethered.  After thinking this over, I realize that I love discovering time-specific points within Shakespeare’s work (such as his critique of Jacobean bounty in Timon of Athens), but also that I cannot begin to understand these specific facets without being given access to the play by its universal elements (archetypal characters, Timon as a Christ figure, feelings of obligation and generosity, etc.).  I am now interested to learn if my peers process Shakespeare’s work in the same way, or if some reverse the process, starting with historically specific elements and allowing those discoveries to influence their understanding of the plays’ timeless themes.  My hunch is that no one fits squarely into one category or another, but that there is a varying degree of give-and-take between the timeless and the temporal in each person's interpretation.  Research like that of Dr. Zucker and Dr. Jenstad, in providing new insight into old plays, continues this dialogue between universal and particular as we strive to understand Shakespeare's work several centuries removed from his heyday.

Honor Doesn't Always Mean Obedience

Helena in A Midsummer Night's Dream is squarely comparable to Helena in All's Well That Ends Well in a number of ways, and a similar parallelism exists between Hermia and Innogen in Cymbeline.  From the viewpoint of the Hermia and Innogen, I think Cymbeline is a valid parallel. On the other hand, I don't think King Cymbeline and Egeus are very comparable. In Act I of A Midsummer Night's Dream, Egeus, Hermia's father, says:

Full of vexation come I, with complaint
Against my child, my daughter Hermia—
Stand forth, Demetrius.—My noble lord,
This man hath my consent to marry her.—
Stand forth, Lysander.—And, my gracious duke,
This man hath bewitched the bosom of my child. (I.1.23-28)

In Act I of Cymbeline, we get a taste of the king's opinion about Posthumus:

Thou basest thing, avoid hence, from my sight!
If after this command thou freight the court
With thy unworthiness, thou diest. Away,
Thou'rt poison to my blood. (I.1.126-129)

More like King Lear than Egeus, Cymbeline points blame to Innogen. Even Cymbeline's language suggests his difference from Egeus; Cymbeline is angry at his daughter, of course, and the above lines mirror closely King Henry IV's soliloquy in relation to his son in King Henry IV, Part 1, in which he portends, "He'll breed revengement and a scourge of me..." (III.2.7). Egeus, to the contrary, continues his tirade to place further blame on Lysander for Hermia's preference rather than to place blame on his daughter.

The primary parallel between Hermia and Innogen is their concern with propriety and honor.  In Cymbeline, Posthumus explains Innogen's purity to the courtiers in Italy: "Your Italy contains none so accomplished a courtier to convince the honour of my mistress, if in the holding or loss of that you term her frail. I do nothing doubt you have store of thieves; notwithstanding, I fear not my ring" (I.4.90-94). Hermia's own words and actions briefly reflect her own honor:

Now much beshrew my manners and my pride
If Hermia meant to say Lysander lied.
But, gentle friend, for love and courtesy,
Lie further off in human modesty.
Such separation, as may well be said,
Becomes a virtuous bachelor and a maid.
So far be distant; and good night, sweet friend. (II.2.60-66)

 In short, in spite of the ample ground for those wishing to contrast the two characters, in terms of character type, Hermia and Innogen are an excellent parallel between A Midsummer Night's Dream and Cymbeline, and analyzing this parallel can deepen understanding with regard to Hermia's character. This specific point of comparison highlights Hermia's dedication to Lysander, which is not a point I noted when reading the play initially.