For Wednesday's class, read the following pieces of historical criticism on Othello:
* Rhymer, "A Bloody Farce"
* Gildon, "Comments on Rhymer's Othello"
* Johnson, "Shakespeare, the Rules, and Othello"
* Lamb, "Othello's Color: Theatrical versus Literary Representation"
* Hazlitt, "Iago, Heroic Tragedy, and Othello"
Then answer TWO of the following:
Q1: Rhymer is the most critical of Shakespeare, calling Othello "a bloody farce without salt or savor" (210). What does he find most "unnatural" or unsatisfying about the play? Is there any merit in his criticisms?
Q2: Discuss a specific point that Gildon responds to in his critique of Rhymer's negative assessment of the play. In general, why does Gildon find the play completely "natural" and indeed logical, unlike Rhymer?
Q3: Iago comes up as a subject even more than Othello for these writers. In general, do they agree about his role in the play? Is he a powerful, believable character for most of them? Who admires him and who reviles him?
Q4: Johnson talks about the "unities of time" in theater, which according to Aristotle, had to occur within a 24 hour span, in one location, without any digressions that don't contribute to the basic plot. Obviously Shakespeare breaks at least two--if not all three--of these unities. Does Johnson find this excusable or not? Can a great poet take the artistic license to bend or break these rules (according to Johnson)?
Mason Horanzy
ReplyDeleteQ1- Rhymer has 2 criticism that seem to stand out a bit more than the rest, in my opinion anyways. The first is that Othello, a military general, never conducts any kind of military activities in the play. The second is that the death of almost every main character in the final scene is a hasty and sloppy way to end a story. As for his first point, I do not see much (if any) importance in Othello's lack of military actions in the play. Any such actions would be irrelevant. However, I do slightly agree with Rhymer's opinion on the finale. I understand that one of the key characteristics of a tragedy is death, but I do not feel like it is a sophisticated way to tie up a story. It feels like a hasty "catch all" way to tidy the plot up.
Q2- Gildon seems to be refuting Rhymer's belief that all soldiers are exactly identical and submissive to their military duties. It seems that Rhymer does not take in to account that society is not homogeneous, and that people have their own private agendas. Just Because Iago is a soldier, does not mean he has to be the epitome of loyalty and honor. Gildon even claims that he could deny Rhymer to be a critic just because he does not agree with other critics. This is directly analogous to Rhymer's opinions of Iago.
Q1: Rhymer just didn't like the play at all. During his entire response, the only thing I noticed was that he named many things that he would like to change about the play. I feel like he isn't very open-minded. He also kept mentioning how somethings could have happened differently-basically that he didn't like how the events in the play happened. I feel as if his entire criticism was "farce". It was almost all opinionated without reason or acceptance that things could have been similar. I will agree with him saying that the ending was very abrupt and messy, but I don't think he credited himself as much as he could have.
ReplyDeleteQ2: On page 211, Gildon says, "Had our critic entertained but common justice for the heroes of his own country, he would have set Shakespeare's faults in their true light and distinguished betwixt his and the vices of the age." Gildon basically said that Rhymer had no respect for the soldiers in his own country, so why would he have respect for the soldiers in Shakespeare? It's almost as if Rhymer had already predisposed the soldiers to be a certain person that met his expectations, and when they didn't, he hated the entire play. Gildon also believes that the play is more natural. He says on page 212, "How 'tis certain there is no reason in the nature of things why a Negro of equal birth and merit should not be on an equal bottom with a German, Hollander, Frenchman, etc. He believed that "Othello" was groundbreaking, and it was a stance to keep all men equal.
Uh, I forgot to put my name. My bad.
Delete-Socorra Rider
Q1A:
ReplyDeleteRhymer is against Othello’s Shakespeare because he states it is a twist on a famous Cinthio fable. He says that the Moor should not be of such high esteem for he was called simply a Moor and that his Desdemona is also of too high of a class to make sense. He goes on to stress that a black moor would not have such a pretty wife nor would he even be allowed to go so high on the ladder of command – making Shakespeare’s play ridiculous.
He then goes on to say that the character’s do not act in a good way to fit their roles. A man with such esteem as the Moor would be expected to kill on his own, not command it. Rhymer then goes into a long speech about how Iago is intolerable because he should be acting like the other soldiers instead of a rascal.
In total, he thinks every bit of it is wild and unlikely.
Q4A: Johnson appears to appreciate Shakespeare’s deviation from the unities of time and accepts that he has unities of action in his play. Actually, Johnson applauds him for completely ignoring such an important thing and ‘going outside the box’ by allowing time to be meaningless in Shakespeare’s Othello. He quotes different passages and insists on their high quality; he is refuting most of everything Rhymer has to say negatively about the poem. He enjoys the play in the way Shakespeare wrote it – ignoring time and space but focusing solely on action. This is allowed to be broken, in Johnson’s view, and it was done so very well.
Q1) I think that there is merit in the criticisms that Rhymer gave. He is criticizing the fact that Othello is suppose to be this big hero and yet in this play we hardly see him doing anything heroic at all. He has his position because of some great tasks he has accomplished yet in the play all we hear about is the drama between him and his wife. It is not realistic that Othello would be a general because he was a moor. I think that he criticizes Shakespeare for his play not being realistic in that sense.
ReplyDeleteQ2) Gildon argues that Iago was suppose to come off as more of a funny character. On page 212 Gildon says " But I think the character if the Venetian state being to employ strangers in their wards, it gives sufficient ground to our poet to suppose a Moor employed by them as well as a German that is, a Christian Moor, as Othello is represented by our poet for from such a Moor there could be no just fear of treachery in factor of the Mohammedans."
This suggest that Gildon does not think that a Moor being in such a great leadership is unnatural at all.
Q1: When we first began reading Othello after having our class day of Shakespeare context, I wondered how this play would have possibly been seen by people who are, by today’s standards and morals, racist. Rhymer’s criticism gave me my answer with his view of the character of Othello as unnatural because of his race/skin color in relation to his level of authority as general, as well as his marriage to Desdemona. He also saw Iago’s behavior as ridiculous because a “real” soldier wouldn’t act in that way. Which I can understand, but at the same time when you already believe that a play is being “unrealistic” then why does such a thing as a drama starting soldier bother you? I feel like most of Rhymer’s problems with the play come from the ethnicity of Othello and an interracial marriage. I can understand having issues with a character if they end up doing or saying something that is completely uncharacteristic compared to how they acted when they were first introduced, that being if there wasn’t a reason given for that change in demeanor.
ReplyDeleteQ4: Johnson finds Shakespeare’s work on Othello to be genius and even says, “…Othello is the vigorous and vivacious offspring of observation impregnated by genius” (p. 217). He finds Shakespeare’s rule breaking in Othello to have given the play some realism and shows “proofs of Shakespeare’s skill in human nature” (p. 220). I also found his statement of Emilia’s character to be accurate to how I even saw her, “Emilia is... easy to commit such small crimes but quickened and alarmed at atrocious villainies” (p.220). Johnson believes that it is possible for a great poet to bend and break these rules to showcase the natural humanistic qualities of people and even says that he believes it is “vain to seek [that] in any modern writer” (p. 220).
Question 1) Rhymer finds it unbelievable that a moor could play a general or man of high social stature as Othello. In that time one would not catch a prestigious white woman such as Desdemona with a man of Othello’s race. Those kinds of things did not happen. To him that is one of the reasons the play is so unrealistic or “unnatural.” I don’t believe there is any merit to his critics because it is very racists and closeminded, but at the same time one I have to keep in mind Rhymer shared the same beliefs as everyone else in that period. When his criticism was first written, I believe it was found to be have a great deal of merit and just.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2) Johnson states, “…is a poet’s duty as he informs us to correct, and to represent things as they should be, not as they are.” He is basically applauding Shakespeare for breaking the boundaries and providing the opportunity for all people to represented in a just manner in plays or other works of literature. Johnson says Shakespeare, “…calls off this barbarity of confining nations, without regard to their virtue and merits, to slavery and contempt for the mere accident of their complexion.”
1. Rymer’s biggest critique of Othello is that it is entirely unrealistic. First of all, it isn’t realistic for Othello, a Moor, to be a man held in such a high rank. It might make sense for the Moor to “rise to be a trumpeter, but Shakespeare would not have less than a lieutenant-general.” In an era such as Shakespeare’s, putting a black man in a position of authority was more than ludicrous. Rymer mentions other characters and expresses his disappointment for their lack in fitting the mold of the Tragedy Unities, of which there are other errors that Rymer mentions such as the unity of time. Tragedies typically take place in the span of 24 hours, in one single location, and the tragedy is sparked by one single incident. Othello, on the other hand, takes place in the span of few days, in two locations, and the tragedy is sparked by one small incident with a dainty object of a handkerchief.
ReplyDelete4. Shakespeare certainly does break the barrier of the unities of time that make up a tragedy, but Johnson seemingly applauds Shakespeare for this endeavor and attributes it to his “comprehensive genius” regardless whether he “knew the unities and rejected them by design or deviated from them by happy ignorance”. A poet that always follows the rules can be objectively great if the rules set are a universal standard. But, if a poet deems his work great while adhering to every rule but gets no emotional rise from anyone – let alone the majority – how exactly is it great? Writing and creating isn’t following a recipe – the cake may taste delicious, but the same cake over and over will please only the most conservative of pallets. Anybody can follow the Unities and produce something objectively mediocre, but a great artist will understand art as a subjective entity – no art should ever be the same as anything that precedes it. We find evidence of greatness not in a cookbook, but in the daringness of someone to throw the cookbook away.
Q #1
ReplyDeleteRhymer's argument is that everything about Othello is no realistic. Othello is black. That fact that a black Moor is in high command is wrong. Also, the fact that a sophisticated white Venetian woman falls in love with a Moor. Rhymer can't stand that. He says that the characters view Othello as their own color when reading. They imagine him white. Othello is naturally evil. His jealousy comes from his background. From within. That's why he gets so aggravated at the end.
Q#3
I think that for Shakespeare, Iago is great because he is manipulative and nobody catches it. The only person who does a little is Emilia. I think Iago is a coward but he uses that to his advantage. HE is manipulative and he is self conscious and also fueled by anger towards Othello. (Sorry for the run-on sentence) He moves another human being with their own ways and thoughts to act exactly like Iago himself. How crazy? His worries and his fears are put on Othello so much that Othello cracks and goes crazy. I think if Othello and Desdemona had been in the matrimonial bed, this wouldn't have happened. Because Othello would have known! He would have seen how she loves him.