Performance Review

Comedic aspects of this production of The Tempest reigned strong and certainly left a lasting impression. This especially proves true in Act 2, Scene 2 where Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano are all introduced to one another. When reading the text, the satirical aspects were not illuminated for me. I did not read anything in jest, so this scene read stern to which I realize was clearly not the intent after seeing it performed. Trinculo, played by Trevor Fox, as a bumbling drunk worked for me in both the text and on stage. However, his costume did catch me off guard initially. When reading the play, I didn’t get the impression that Trinculo would be dressed as a jester. Admittedly, after I got adjusted to the flamboyance I truly enjoyed it. Trinculo capitalizing on his role as an entertainer was nothing less than amusing. His interaction with the audience also reflected the play’s status as a comedy. Crudely wringing himself out on the unsuspecting cast members as he initially took the stage was priceless to say the least.

His spectacle continued when meeting Caliban for the first time under his gabardine. Trinculo ponders Caliban’s physicality when we asks, “What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish. He smells like a fish, a very ancient and fish-like smell, a kind of not-of-the-newest poor-john. A strange fish!” (Shakespeare 77). After reading the scene, I felt Caliban’s true appearance to be ambiguous. It was difficult to discern whether or not Shakespeare depicted the character as a mutant or just a human that differed physically. This proves especially true when he is described as being “Legged like a man and his fins like arms!” (Shakespeare 77). Going into the production with uncertainty as to how Caliban would actually be portrayed left me pleasantly surprised with the choices the company made regarding the matter. James Garnon, who played Caliban, did an impressive job changing his posture and movements to resemble what one would consider less human and more animalistic. This duality is how Caliban is portrayed in the text, with suggestions pointing to the idea that he is being animalized. From the play I didn’t exactly pick up on fish, but rather ape. His posture and standing on the balls of his feet suggest that he is less refined and possibly hasn’t properly evolved as much as the other men. Thus, Caliban is less refined, fortunate, and less human than the other men.

Another character who doesn’t possess entirely human characteristics is Ariel. Colin Morgan, who played the nymph-like spirit servant to Prospero, was most impressive. After discussing a possible homosexual relationship between Prospero, among queer theorists highlighting this tension, I watched for it in the production. However, this idea came up short for me. Ariel’s relationship with his master seemed to be more of a young son and father scenario. Morgan’s mannerisms and facial expressions led Ariel to be seen as innocent and a character with childlike wonder when concerning Prospero. The makeup used on Morgan, accentuating paleness and lack of color helped to highlight this innocence. Ariel has had minimal exposure both figuratively and physically, possibly adding to his affinity towards Prospero. Since he does not know any better, Prospero takes advantage of this purity.

Another layer of Ariel’s character on stage is his eccentricity. He gallivants around the stage and makes his way through crowd almost elegantly. Cartwheels, climbing, and sashaying were a few examples of his movements. His nimble mannerisms were undoubtedly catlike, yet his expressions were those resembling the other side of the binary as Prospero’s loyal puppy dog who seems his approval and attention. This is especially true when Ariel delivers his famous lines, “Do you love me master? No?” (Shakespeare 123).  Prior to the play, I envisioned Ariel being much smaller in stature as nearly dwarf-like yet this didn’t translate in the play. However, it worked.

An additional interesting aspect of the play that worked for me was the minimal use of sound effects. The play’s opening was admittedly startling, with the abrupt clinking of the rocks to mimic thunder and lightning. After discussing this technique, it was pleasing to hear it being utilized in our production. It was also refreshing to enjoy the play without overcompensation of loud and intense effects. In addition, the actors also utilized the stage completely, which was highly effective. From the pillars, the rocks, and the hole under the rock that Caliban appeared from to the entrances and the balcony, the actors were anything but stagnant. One other simple, yet wondrous, effect was the scattering of the white pieces from the upper balcony. Their continuous fluttering and wafting through the air felt supremely magical, just as I’d imagined a Shakespeare performance should feel. Overall, I truly enjoyed my first Shakespeare production and left the Globe with minimal critique of its adaptation.

Pornos and Playwrights

Mammon, a man clearly interested in not only excess and sensuality but also sensual excesses, desires the finer things in life. Some of which include bedding that is not too hard and a plethora of pornographic photographs. A simple man, really. This idea is presented in Act II, Scene 2 where he tells Face, “I will have all my beds blown up, not stuffed: Down is too hard. And then mine oval room filled with such pictures as Tiberius took from Elephantis, and dull Aretine but coldly imitated” (Jonson 65).

To modern day readers the phrase “dull Aretine” may be lost; however, this was not so during the Renaissance. When Mammon references “dull Aretine” he is speaking of Pietro Aretino, an Italian who would become known as the inventor of modern literate pornography. Aretine was famous (or infamous, whichever way you choose to view it) during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in England as an author, playwright, poet and satirist.

Noteworthy examples of his work include his most known book Ragionamenti and sixteen sonnets I Sonnetti Lussuriosi. Ragionamenti portays two harlets recalling techniques and practices of sex through dialogue about the lives of controversial figures. These figures included nuns, married women, and courtesans. The sixteen sonnets dealt with modes of intercourse and also included graphics of accompanying sexual positions designed by Giolio Romano and engraved by Marcantanio Raimondi. Saad El-Gabalawy, author of Aretino’s Pornography and Renaissance Satire describes the impact of these texts by writing: “In many cases the references to Aretino’s “pictures” and “dialogues” become functional as a medium of social, moral, and political satire in the later English Renaissance” (El-Gabalawy).

While Aretino’s racy work has left its mark on society today, the saturation of his writing into Renaissance London culture undoubtedly affected the lives of the people experiencing it during the time as well. El-Gabalawy writes, “The obscene manuals of Italy led to bawdy actions which corrupted the religious beliefs and moral values of Englishmen” (El-Gabalawy).  However, the influence proved to be two-fold. El-Gabalawy continues, “There was in England, however, a love-hate relationship with Italy, manifest in the admiration for the literary ideals and models which were worthy of imitation as well as denunciation of Italian pornographic books which engendered moral depravity” (El-Gabalawy).

With this idea of moral depravity in the depictions of sex written and illustrated by Aretino, we see a connection to the characters in The Alchemist. Jonson’s text is littered with examples of corruption, greed, and sexuality so it is fitting that he included the topical allusion “dull Aretine” by utilizing the immoral Mammon.

Westminster Abbey: Notable Burials

Westminster Abbey, one of the most notable religious buildings ever constructed in the United Kingdom, was built in 1245 under the urging of King Henry III. The church possesses a diverse history that even strays from its primary use as a place of worship, especially during the Renaissance. While the English did not forego utilizing the church in it’s traditional manner, burials also took place on the property as well.

 
Westminster Abbey provided final resting places for monarchs and other important figures, to which our tour guide described as those adding to the richness of the history of England. Among the monarchs buried here during the Renaissance were Henry VII, Edward VI, Anne of Cleves, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Mary (Queen of Scots), James I, Charles II, and Mary II.

Thus, I would like to address when, possibly how, and descriptions of these burials for further clarification. So, I guess it is best to begin chronologically:

Henry VII died at the beginning of the Renaissance in 1509. Henry’s foundation stone was laid at the Lady Chapel at the east end in 1503, before his passing. He and his wife, Elizabeth of York, share a tomb. The historians at Westminster note that, “The gilt bronze effigies can be seen through the fine grille which surrounds the tomb. The heads of the effigies carried at their respective funerals still survive and can be seen in the Abbey Museum, that of the king being from a death mask” (Westminster).

Edward VI was buried beneath the original altar of Henry VII’s Lady Chapel after he died of tuberculosis in 1553. The Westminster history recalls that “the burial service from the English Prayer Book was used for the first time at the funeral of a monarch” (Westminster).

Anne of Cleves, who was Henry VIII’s fourth wife died on July 18, 1557 and according to the historians at Westminster “the funeral was conducted according to Catholic rites as Ann had wanted” (Westminster). After the ceremony, she was buried at the south side of the High Altar.

 

The fifth child of Henry VII, Mary Tudor, died in 1558. She was buried in the North Aisle of Henry VII’s Chapel where her wooden effigy can be displayed in the Abbey Museum.

The incredibly notable Queen Elizabeth I was laid to rest on April 28, 1603 where thousands viewed her procession. Elizabeth was the final monarch in the Abbey to have a monument erected above her.

Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed in February of 1587. While she was first buried in Peterborough Cathedral, James I brought her remains back to Westminster in 1612. Her tomb is among the one’s that most stood out to me. This was obviously the impression it was supposed to give. Westminster history states, “[James I] had erected a magnificent marble tomb for her in the south aisle of the Lady Chapel on which there is a fine white marble effigy under an elaborate canopy” (Westminster).

James I died in March of 1625, with his funeral taking placing nearly a month later. His remains are in the vault beneath Henry VII’s monument with a simple inscription marking his grave.

Charles II died on February 6, 1685 and was buried in the south aisle of Henry VII’s chapel. While no monument was erected for Charles, a life-size effigy was placed by his grave for over a century.

Lastly, Mary II (the eldest daughter of James, Duke of York) died from smallpox in 1694. Though a monument was designed for her, it was never erected. However, she is buried in a vault in the south aisle of Henry VII’s chapel.

Book of Hours

Recently I’ve found myself more and more interested in the portrayal of women in literature. I think I can attribute that one to Dr. Kirkpatrick and all of her feminist expertise. With this, I wasn’t surprised at all that a text from the Sir John Ritblat Gallery (in the British Library) about a female virgin martyr who was swallowed whole by Satan disguised as a dragon caught my eye. The text I’m talking about is the Book of Hours—specifically the one created in Bruges, which is now Belgium.

The gallery cites that this particular book was created in 1500 towards the beginning of the Renaissance, but it wasn’t the first or last of its kind. “Books of Hours are prayer books, made for wealthy lay people, which present prayers to be recited at specific times of day, or hours”(Christianson). One of the aspects that makes the Bruges edition literarily unique is that it follows the “use of Salisbury”. Essentially it means that it “follows the modification of the Roman Catholic rite begun by the Bishop of Salisbury in England in the eleventh century” (Christianson).

As I mentioned before, the visual and concept that sparked my interest revolved around the virgin martyr. This figure is known as St. Margaret of Antioch. In Latin, the text describes St. Margaret’s “punishment” for refusing  to marry a Roman governor and refusing to renounce Christianity. While she was said to have been swallowed by Satan disguised as a dragon, the text adds that she emerged alive but was eventually executed.

In other words, it is acceptable to punish women during the time for not taking orders from men. Were women of the Renaissance often portrayed as passive and not only unable, but incompetent, to make their own decisions? This is something I would like to explore more, especially while continuing to read the Skakesperean texts. However, I’ve made one connection that ties St. Margaret to Shakespeare and the Renaissance. The story in the Book of Hours is especially interesting when considering it in conjunction with our discussion of Miranda’s character and situation in The Tempest. Shakespeare portrays her as a girl who, for lack of better phrasing, takes what she can get. She proclaims her love for Ferdinand immediately and admits to having never even seen someone of the opposite sex previously. Prospero inherently marries her off as a means of social climbing and we have to wonder if she really feels love for Ferdinand. Or is she just following the expectations of the men in her life (Prospero and Ferdinand)? The idea isn’t fully developed, but I feel as though it can continue to be explored and I plan on examining the Renaissance through a critical feminist lens.

On a final note about the Books of Hours is that they were highly decorative. Many of these books were also produced as girdle books. The traditional of passing them down through the family was also employed. They often fell into the hands of the rich and aristocratic, which instills this idea of literature as luxury during the Renaissance.

Playhouses 1500-1700

"Churches, theatres, markets—these were among the places John Norden assumed a visitor to London would want to see. They were among the destinations of Londoner’s daily lives as well. These were the places where people mixed with different interests, agendas, and roles. From those mixtures emerged a new sense of community, new ways of doing business, and new beliefs and outlooks" (Open City). 

During the 16th and 17th Centuries, London’s theatres served as booming hubs where all of those in search of drama came to enjoy the works of timely playwrights. Performances took place in open air playhouses where the rich and poor gathered in the “earliest purpose-built spaces for English drama” (Playhouses). However, the celebration of English drama and popularity was fleeting, but the manuscripts and texts that survived even presently shed a great deal of insight on the theatre itself (some of which we are analyzing in the course).

London’s outdoor, public playhouses began being built just before Shakespeare, one of the most renowned playwrights, started writing his first plays in the 1590s. Generally being considered the first of its kind is the Theatre, which was built in 1576. Along with being recognized as the first public playhouse, the Theatre also possesses a history rich in change.

“In 1598, Shakespeare’s acting company was threatened by difficulties in renewing the lease on the land occupied by the Theatre, its first theater” (London Playhouses and Other Sites). These complications led to it ultimately being torn down and rebuilt as a new theatre across the Thames. What was once known as the Theatre became recognized as the Globe with plays beginning at its new location just a year later.  In fact, the Globe that we are going to see The Tempest and Macbeth at was burned down in 1613 but was thankfully rebuilt immediately after.

Of course the Globe isn't the only notable theatre of the time. "[The Rose], another open-air playhouse, was built by Philip Henslowe in 1587. In the course of the 1590s , the Swan and the Globe would follow, with the Hope opening in 1614" (Open City). 

    

The location of public playhouses is also something that should be noted. “Playhouses were built outside the city of London because many civic officials were hostile to the performance of drama” (London Playhousesand Other Sites). Popular public playhouses include the Curtain, the Fortune, the Rose, the Swan, the Globe, and the Hope. These are either located north of London or on the Bankside south of London. With playing being banned in 1584 (inside the city's jurisdiction), the benefits of the playhouses being located outside of the city were obvious. 

While the public playhouses enjoyed a brief (yet lively) peak, many different factors contributed to the lessening in popularity. Some of these factors included: “crowd control”, “moralists condemning the pretense at the heart of acting”, and “the bawdiness and innuendo for which the drama was known”. (Playhouses). As a result, these playhouses began to get shut down in the 1640s due to a series of parliamentary acts.