Think about what we discussed in class as far as the characteristics of an ancient Greek tragedy– we have a 5-act structure with specific times and places for scenes, odes, prologue, and epilogue; ideas of a unity of time, place, and action; a chorus / choragos who mediate for the audience; the “six elements” of drama, according to Aristotle (plot / conflict, character, thought, speech, song and dance, spectacle); a protagonist who is heroic, legendary, or otherwise noble, but for his hamartia (fatal flaw); and an expectation of catharsis for the audience…

Using what you’ve read in the Bedford Glossary and your knowledge of “Oedipus Rex,” I’m sure you can think of other characteristics of the Greek tragedy.

Do we see these carried through into a contemporary drama or tragedy like “Wit”?  In what ways is it helpful to think about “tragedy” as it is developed by the ancient Greek playwrights?  How do we see “tragedy” changing from “Oedipus” to “Hamlet” to “Wit”?

“Murther most foul” “Murther” is an obsolete spelling of the modern word “murder.”  I noted in class that the editors had modernized the rest of the language in the play, but this is actually not so.  Throughout, we still see contractions (“h’ath” for “he hath, or he has”) left in probably to maintain the rhythm of the speech, so in this way, the obsolete spelling of “murther” is not so strange.  Also, doesn’t this spelling of the term remind you of the word “mother”?  ”Mother most foul…” Hmmm.

Burning down the Globe:
During a performance of Shakespeare’s Henry VIII in June 1613, a cannon shot ignited the thatched roof of the theater, burning down the building. A second Globe Theatre was rebuilt on the same site by June 1614 and closed in 1642. A modern reconstruction of the Globe, named “Shakespeare’s Globe,” opened in 1997. It is approximately 750 ft from the site of the original theatre. (this from Wikipedia)

Shakespeare’s twilight years:
The final play written solely by WS is The Tempest, which is dated to 1610-1611. Shakespeare earned enough during his years as playwright in London to purchase a house and retire to Stratford in 1611 or 1613. He died 1616. This leaves us with 3-5 undocumented (at least, from what I’ve found) years between his theatrical life and his death.

Shakespeare’s Curse:
Sara is correct on this point! The following epitaph appears on WS’s tomb, though there is no way to know whether or not he actually wished it composed there, or if someone came along afterwards and added it:
Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust encloased heare.
Blese be y man y spares thes stones
And curst be he y moves my bones.

Converted to modern English, it reads:

Good friend for Jesus sake forbear
to dig the dust enclosed here!
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
and curst be he that moves my bones.

On the existence of Purgatory in Protestant faith:
Christine is correct on this point. When we talk about the Church of England (this is the Protestant, Anglican church established after Henry VIII’s break with Rome and upheld by Elizabeth I), we’re not going to see a single, uniform religious practice in Renaissance England. My understanding is that the Anglican church unofficially splits into “high church” (closer to Roman Catholic practice; retaining many Catholic beliefs and rites) and “low church” (further from the ornamentation and ritual of Catholic worship… closer to what we know of as the Puritan movement). Anglo-Catholic Anglicans (“high church”) generally hold to the belief that there is a place known as Purgatory. What becomes the Anglican “low church” in the 16th-18th centuries, as well as other sects of Protestantism, do not recognize the existence of Purgatory. (This is never simple, is it?) So we still have some room for further research here as to exactly what beliefs would have been held by Shakespeare, his contemporaries, theologians, and the common man / woman during the Renaissance… remember, even if you consider yourself a strict Protestant, the “cultural memory” of Purgatory and a Catholic view of the afterlife may remain part of your personal beliefs! (several of these details are from Wikipedia)

“Orange sellers” / prostitutes in the theater:
This is true. At least during the Restoration period (reign of Charles II, beginning in 1660) these “orange selling” girls were known to attend the theater, to flirt with patrons, and to sell more than just oranges (nudge nudge, wink wink). The most famous was actress / royal mistress Nell Gwynn, who began in the fruit-pushing trade, found her way onstage (women were breaking through the “glass ceiling” of performing during this period!) and became a well-known actress. She eventually became a favorite mistress of Charles II and had two children by him.

I find this detail—a chance observation in a class discussion—relevant to an understanding of Renaissance theater, culture, and Shakespearean studies. We need to get out of the mindset (if you are in this mindset) that Shakespeare = Lawrence Olivier in a doublet holding a skull. We also need to be aware that theater has not always been the “high art” cultural experience that we may think of now. Remember, you could get into a Renaissance play for a penny… compare that to the skyrocketing theater ticket prices one sees now for Broadway shows or even touring companies! The Renaissance theater was a meeting point of all classes and national backgrounds; so too was the stage itself. And SHAME, humility, and REDEMPTION were not off limits, whether portrayed onstage or witnessed in the audience. Shakespeare can make his heroes and kings awesome in their power and eloquence, yet he can also break them down and make us feel their humanity and weakness. Think of King Lear—Shakespeare takes this historical figure (he was a medieval king of Britain, and the story of the three sisters is documented!) from the pinnacle of power and, within several acts, has him onstage naked, yelling, and delirious. Shakespeare is not squeamish about showing us madness, nudity, sex, depravity, violence, or humiliation… and yet he will often temper these displays with mercy, forgiveness, or a redemption of nobility. This makes us revisit our perceptions of the “orange sellers” and groundlings at a performance: we may be aware of shame in their situations (whether from poverty, hygiene, or occupation), yet we see a common humanity among kings and clowns onstage and in the pit.

Guide to Literary and Critical Theory

He has introductions and information on gender criticism, Marxism, narratology, psychoanalytical criticism, New Historicism, and Postmodernis.  Several of these we won’t have time to discuss in our class, but just so you know… there they are.

We’ll also get well acquainted in this course, as I like to weight my classes heavily toward discussion.  You’ll be encouraged to express your (educated) opinions, try out interpretations of texts along with your classmates, and confront your own (and your classmates’) perspectives on the value of literature and art. 

Before we even get to know each other, though, I’d like to post a few random facts about me.  My name is Ilse Schweitzer and I’m originally from Baltimore, MD.  I did my undergrad work at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County and the University of Aberdeen in Scotland; I have an MA in Medieval Studies from the University of York in England.  I’m currently in my fourth year of the PhD in Lit program here at Western, and my specialty is in Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse literatures.  So for me to be teaching anything written after the year 1400 is just hilarious… yet most of the time I do manage to make these stories, poems, and plays make sense!  I’ve taught several sections of English 1100 at WMU, English 1050, a course on Tolkien and mythology, and, at UMBC, a class on Norse and Celtic mythologies.   

I’m also a cat person, I knit, and I enjoy tea.  No old lady jokes!!!

I’m very excited to meet all of you and hear your embarrassing confessions about YOUR hobbies.

BTW, here’s the image I was talking about in class:  http://www.ihasabucket.com