Identity in Venus and Adonis

While initially I set out to write a lengthy post full of academic jargon discussing identity in relation to inheritance and family in Titus Andronicus, I was so struck by Shakespeare’s characterization of Venus in Venus and Adonis that I will instead turn the focus of this post to her. In doing so, I will walk the border between the topics of identity and sexuality, as the aspect of the poem that most struck me was Shakespeare’s bold reversal of contemporary perceptions gender roles.

Rather than describing Venus as she is typically depicted: the platonic essence of femininity, coyly posed on the half-shell awaiting a mate, Shakespeare depicts an entirely different character. Shakespeare’s Venus is in contradiction not only with her typical mythological manifestation, but she is also very different than the typical 16^th century woman. She is more masculine and powerful than the meek Adonis, while still entirely embodying sexuality and the battle for power that it entails. 

As I have mentioned previously in this blog, gender is very much part of one’s identity, including both components that are biological and fixed as well as ones that are fluid, performative, and influenced by culture. One would think that a figure such as Venus, whose identity is preconceived in the minds of most as the Roman goddess of love, beauty, and sex, has an entirely fixed identity that is wholly feminine. Shakespeare does not accept this: in depicting his Venus as older, stronger, less attractive, and more assertive than the more typically feminine youth Adonis, Shakespeare questions not only the identity of Venus the goddess, but gender identity as a whole. 

Courtly poetry of Shakespeare’s time is wrought with men seeking the affections (and sex) of a female beloved, and praising her beauty. Venus and Adonis does the opposite. Venus refers to Adonis as “Trise fairer than my selfe”, and proceeds to attempt to seduce him, despite his protests. This reinforces the idea that one’s identity is largely determined by how those surrounding them perceive their physical attractiveness, but questions the notion that beauty is more valuable in a woman than in a man that would have been even more prevalent in Shakespeare’s time than it is today.

This emphasis on the physical continues (it is a poem about a seduction, after all), in the form of Venus describing her own physical merits, and consequentially questioning how Adonis could not return her attraction:

 “Thou canst not see one wrinkle in my brow;

Mine eyes are grey, and bright, and quick in turning:

My beauty as the spring does yearly grow,

My flesh is soft and plump, my marrow burning,

My smooth moist hand, were it with thy hand felt,

Would in thy palm dissolve, or seem to melt.”

    Again, Shakespeare turns the courtly poetry of his time on its head. Venus' beauty is described, but by herself rather than a male admirer. Our own physical appearance, sexuality, and power dynamics largely shape who we are, both as determined by ourselves and others -- and Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis is a prime example of gender and sexuality shaping identity in atypical ways, using Ovid and classic mythology as a vehicle.

Venus as a Boy

Venus and Adonis derives much of its substance from The Metamorphoses, written by Ovid,¹ the great Greek-Roman mythomaniac who is responsible for bringing the (largely) concupiscent myths to the Early Modern inhabitants. At this time in history, a plague descends on the play-houses of Shakespeare's early career and so, while taking a break from plays, the Bard left us with with the ~1200 line poem dedicated to his sponsor, Henry Wriothesley. The main string of sexuality I would like to unweave comes from the tacit gender inversion threaded through out the poem, from the coy Adonis, out between the author and his reader (the Bard and Henry), and back to the masculine character of Venus — Venus as a boy.²

The trouble begins right from the start: here we are presented with a goddess of love and sexual desire — Venus — who not only has divine agency (she is a goddess, after all) but she also has sexual agency that becomes evident with her physicality: 

"With this she seizeth on his sweating palm,
The precedent of pith and livelihood,
And trembling in her passion, calls it balm,
Earth's sovereign salve to do a goddess good:
Being so enraged, desire doth lend her force
Courageously to pluck him from his horse."

and her libidinous banter: 

"Graze on my lips; and if those hills be dry,
Stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie."

Venus is a divine incarnate of sexual attraction, desire, love, etc.³ Although a woman, Venus is allowed to literally man-handle her beloved and attempt to "have her way with him" as made very clear by the poem. 

By now you must be thinking: What? A woman of sexual confidence and agency? You must be joking. I am not joking, but I would postulate that this "strong woman" is not just a strong woman outright, but that she is just a piece of a major gender inversion that Shakespeare has set into fluctuation.


The other character in the poem, Adonis, embodies the sexual potency of the verses. He is constantly censuring Venus for pursuing his when he is in his youth, his stage of sexual cocoon-ity.⁴ He is almost entirely passive; he tries to run away twice: the first time his horses run away so he lugubriously returns to the love goddess, but the second time he does get away to join the hunt. These attempts at escape and passive dismissal of love drive Venus into a sexually turgid cesspool of Petrarchan love — she tries to woo him with complimentary words, description of fecund nature; however, Adonis calls her on her trickery and does not fall for it, eventually costing him his own life. 

Well, wait. This does seem to be a Petrarchan romance, but doesn't it seem to be a little backwards? It does indeed. 

This gender inversion serves a plethora of purposes in the epic poem⁵  but modern readers are still left with questions of context: Shakespeare was writing this for a man; though it is only fantastic postulation to assume that the men were lovers (or whatever) of any kind, the gender inversion of the play puts the spotlight on love both romantic and homophilic, sometimes separating them (Adonis's speech about love and lust), but also, occasionally mixing them together. Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis was meant to arouse, it is evident in its content and language; that the poem was dedicated to a man adds another layer to the gender inversion and brings more into question on the topic of "love." 

Being that sexual identities were nowhere near conceptualized in this era, perhaps Shakespeare simply wished to entertain his sponsor and audience with a complicating fantasy of impossible love (and lust) shown from an alternative paradigm, complete with queer sexualities (female agency, homophilia, onanism) galore. 

---

1. Although in other contemporary retellings of the myth, Venus is not the suggested killer of her love Adonis (who it is suggested she only loves due to a mishap with Cupid's arrow). As classic Greek myths go, the original story is one of revenge, lust and confusion: some sources say a jealous Diana sent the boar to gore Adonis; other sources say the perpetrator was Apollo, avenging a love Venus had killed; some sources say it was Mars's boar. Regardless, the suggestion and transference of penetration in Shakespeare's rewrite is much appreciated.

2. I'm just going to leave this here: click. 

3. Her Greek name was Aphrodite, e.g. "aphrodisiac." Hint hint.   

4. Also of possible fervid masturbation. 

5. E.g., it sets up etymology of the Petrarchan romance ("Sith in his prime Death doth my love destroy, / They that love best their loves shall not enjoy."), lets Shakespeare play around with some determined, female heroines he's taken a liking to (think As You Like It or Twelfth Night), and, of course,  deeply and confusingly arouses us. 

A local look at Rank&Status

As I prepare to go downtown for Mardi Gras I thought that I would reflect specifically on some of the conversations that took place during Tuesdays Cluster Convos. I thought that this time of year specifically relates to my topic of rank and status and how it influences the way we treat others and how New Orleans is an interesting mesh of all different people.

Comparing this specifically to the way Shakespeare combines people of all different ranks and statuses of a society to show audiences how they look and interact with people who are different than themselves.

Rank and Status influences every aspect of our lives from language to specifically looking at Shakespeare the way he wrote a character's lines. One's of a higher class Shax wrote in poetry. Specifically looking at Merchant of Venice while Portia and Nerissa may be friends Shax wrote their initially introductions with Nerissa speaking in prose verse while Portia spoke in poetry.

Mardi Gras is a particularly unique event in which all people regardless of social class come together. It is much like the festival of Saturnalia where people wore masks and dressed up as someone different than themselves. Actors and average people get to play kings and throw gifts to their peers. It is one of the funnest times of the year because there is an immense amount of freedom that comes from being someone other than yourself.

Sacrifices of the Offspring

In Titus Andronicus, fate ties the fortune of both the characters of play and the setting itself. In this play, most of the characters face tragedies that ultimately leads to their demises, which appears to be fated occurrences of their lives. In the beginning of the play, Titus comes back from the land of the Goths and declares that one of her sons be sacrificed in place of the fallen sons of Titus. This action presents the idea of children having to play the sacrifices in their parent’s game, which is a similar occurrence in Romeo and Juliet. In both of the plays, the children of the adult figures in the play are tied into the same web the adults and forced into their unfortunate chains. The Capulets have been fighting with the Montagues for years over an issue that neither of them seem to remember, but still pervades their spaces. Romeo and Juliet are forced to blur the boundaries of the families and sacrifice themselves for the potential of a reconciliation of these groups. In Titus Andronicus the offspring of Titus and Tamora are also forced to sacrifice themselves in the name of their parent’s mistakes. Titus and Tamora are also from conflicting tribes whose children have to pay the price of their problems. In both of these plays, the younger generation operates in a manner where their fates are usually destined for tragedy because of the faults of the previous group.

Relating fate to offspring, Aaron’s child seems to represent the potential fate of a union in Rome. There is the idea that the child blends together two aspects of these groups that were once thought to be separate groups (Goths and Moors) that should not intermingle, yet their child represents the integration of these groups. However, unlike the above examples the child manages to survive through the end of the play (which given the horror-esque setting of the play is a welcome change of events). However, similar to the above events, the child’s life was endangered because of the opposing groups’s conflicts. The nurse who delivered the child saw that he was mixed with Moor blood and sought to get rid of the child because of this. However, Aaron breaks the pattern of children being sacrificed and instead uses the nurse’s life in place. This outcome is interesting to note since in the above examples, the two opposing groups were angry at each other for an offense they committed against each other. In Aaron’s case, the misdeed that he committed was not being the same color as the other characters, which relates a biological difference that he had no control over. This in a way absolves him of the similar fate that the other members are faced with. Because the conflict he had with the opposing group was out of his control, the child does not need to be sacrificed to right his wrongs.

#1 Sin

To sin is committing an act that goes against what you believe.  If you believe in God and the Christian belief's then you sin when you break one or many of the Ten Commandments.  There is also sinning against nature.  How could you possible sin against nature? Nature has no Ten Commandments or book of laws.  To sin against nature is to deny yourself.  I believe thats the biggest sin to commit.  Denying your own thoughts, dreams and ideas to the world.  We as human beings have a job and a commitment to ourselves to learn and grow to the best of our abilities.  Our greatest sin is not sharing what we know.  How else is humanity to survive.  

We will never know how many things we can do in the world if we don't explore our ideas.  My dream  and passion is music.  You explain this to someone when you are 11 years old they laugh because who can make a career in music.  To me, its a sin to go against what i desire and believe, no matter what anyone else says.  Everyone has a dream of what they want to be and not everyone goes after it.  

In Shakespeare's plays I believe that some of his characters commit their own acts of sin.  With this concept I'm going to step away from the religious side.

Identity for 2/27

Today, I’d like to examine identity in William Shakespeare’s tragedy Titus Andronicus, as well as his lengthy poem “Venus and Adonis.” The way that these two works incorporate identity presents the topic in a new light that I had not before considered. In Titus Andronicus, identity plays out in the realms of self, family, and society. In “Venus and Adonis” there is an interesting focus on identity in terms of sex (and therein, gender roles) and also the view of oneself.

            In Titus Andronicus, I think the most outstanding view of identity within the self comes from Titus. Titus is nominated for the emperorship in Rome and denies it in an act of humility. Titus’ speech in Act I Scene I,

“Rome, I have been thy soldier forty years,
And led my country's strength successfully,
And buried one and twenty valiant sons,
Knighted in field, slain manfully in arms,
In right and service of their noble country
Give me a staff of honour for mine age,
But not a sceptre to control the world,”

shows that he is content with his position in life, for he has served it long and well. Titus’ position is one that he knows and is satisfied in, and he would rather be praised for where he is, and where he has been, than put in a place where he cannot see himself serving.

            Identity is also important in Titus Andronicus for how it relies on family ties. With that also comes the aspect of society tied to identity. Within this play there are two camps: the Romans and the Goths. Titus’s family – all his sons, and his daughter, Lavinia – belong to the Roman side, along with the emperor Saturninus and his brother, Bassianus. On the other hand are the Goths, which include Tamora, Queen of the Goths, her three sons, and her lover, Aaron the Moor. Where problems arise between these two groups has to do with their families, and also how they interact within society. Titus kills Tamora’s eldest son in an act of revenge for all his sons that were slain in the war against the Goths (even though his sons were killed in battle, not in cold blood), and that spurs Tamora to seek revenge throughout the play. At different parts of the play Titus has problems with his sons and their differing ideals, as well as it being questionable if their allegiances lie fully with their father. Tamora uses her own sons as puppets for her revenge plot against Titus, conspiring for her two remaining sons to rape Titus’ daughter, Lavinia. It is quite tumultuous in Rome when the Goths come into their society, which is made all the worse by the revenge plotting. The way the Goths fit into and view Roman society is completely different than their own and they begin to reshape and influence the order of events that happen in the city. Rome is already on a decline due to the questionable order of rule, and all the craziness that goes down just speeds up the road leading to the city’s eventual downfall. In family and society in terms of identity in Titus Andronicus we see the decrease in culture and moral values not only in those two realms but also of the self.

In Shakespeare’s poem “Venus and Adonis,” I found it interesting when the character of Venus chose to express her identity by extolling her “virtues” herself, saying,

“Thou canst not see one wrinkle in my brow;
Mine eyes are gray and bright and quick in turning:
My beauty as the spring doth yearly grow,
My flesh is soft and plump, my marrow burning;
My smooth moist hand, were it with thy hand felt,
Would in thy palm dissolve, or seem to melt.”

In previous works studied for this course of Shakespeare’s, there’s never been this much blatant narcissism. Maybe that reveals more of the true identity of the goddess of love than any other description could.

            Most notable about “Venus and Adonis” is that Venus is the one perusing Adonis, and molests him. This is a strong reversal in gender roles and sexual identity by Shakespeare within his poem, and raises some points about how identity should be seen – as a complex spectrum or rather a locked form. What kind of traits or behaviors are responsible for dictating male and female identity, and how does that deviation from the normative tradition change a reader’s perception on the topic? This is something to think about while doing further reading.

#5

How far should one take their individual desires?

Society as a whole is only reestablished after both Romeo and Juliet, the individualists, are dead. However, this new reestablishment is more stable than before in that it the feuding between the Capulets and Monteguts have been put aside. The individuals that fought out for what they believe in made a change in the way society was run. Did they ‘win’?, They could only find what the wanted when it was too late, but it did however make a shift in the way the society would work there on out. Love was the way they individuated themselves from the confines of society. One’s freedom will always outweigh anything else. In Albert Camus’s Notebooks he notes, “In ancient drama, the one who pays is always the one who is right—Prometheus, Oedipus, Orestes, etc.”
Romeo wants love. Juliet wants love. This desire will withstand all—tromping family, disobeying society, and without it, the only other option is not live at all. Is it better to follow one’s individual desires even if their family and their community/society says it is wrong? How far can one’s own gut or desires be trusted?

Along with this deep-set desire in Romeo, we also see the death of a former desire for a new one in the Chorus: “now old desire doth in his deathbed lie…” in replacement for “young affection gapes to be his heir” which presents his new love for Juliet over his affection to Rosaline. One desire has replaced another.  While his love for Juliet is said to be stronger, this swift switch raises questions of temporary versus permanence in desire – how can one trust them?

Friar Lawrence is an important weighted figure in the play. He also goes against these manmade rules, seemingly not for himself, for Romeo and Juliet though his true intentions seem to be a little unclear. He is the dominating religious figure who marries them, but also who, whether indirectly or directly, brings them to their demise by staging the poison. The friar desires to do what is ‘right’ in his eyes along with quell the problems in Verona.

Though the story uses love as its variable, it has much more to do with forbidden or individual wants than marriage or young/first love. Author Andre Gide, is quoted “The great danger is to let oneself be monopolized by a fixed idea.”

Shakespeare shows that the framework of society should constantly be questioned; constantly open, and that change can be a good and necessary agent.

Fate, Revenge, and the Body Politic

 

As we all have probably recognized by now, fate and genre work closely with one another in determining the course of events in Shakespeare’s plays. Put simply, conventions of genre determine fate. Titus Andronicus uses one of my personal favorite themes—revenge—to uphold this notion and doom many of its characters from the play’s opening act. Shakespeare’s grizzly tragedy opens with the return of Titus from war with the disgustingly barbarous Goths/Goats to civilized Rome where, filicide, adultery, and successional debate reign supreme. He brings with him "five and twenty valiant sons," many of whom died at the hands of the Goths/Goats. Titus has already lost much, then, and thus the seeds for the revenge plot are in place.

It is important to recognize, however, that the revenge cycle began to turn before the events of the play, as Titus’ sons (the ones that he does not murder himself, at least) died in battles that the play does not enact. This brings an element of preordination into the play from the outset, even though the audience does not become aware of it until well into the first act. Everything that transpires in Titus is the result of the Goth Goats answering for their crime of killing the sons that the audience never meets. Lucius confirms this in stating, "Give us the proudest prisoner of the Goths,/ That we may hew his limbs and on a pile/ Ad manes fratrum sacrifice his flesh" (I.1.99-101), demanding that a Goth be sacrificed literally "to the spirits of our brothers." The conflict in Titus, therefore, is one of two families (Romeo and Juliet, anybody?). They are spun into this process of taking revenge upon one another for ongoing transgressions, with the acts escalating to the rape and "trimming" of Lavinia and culminating into Titus feeding the Goth Queen/Roman Empress, (I know, sounds weird, right?) Tamora, her sons for committing this rape. Titus, Lavinia, Tamora, and Saturninus, the incumbent Roman emperor, all proceed to die and we are left with Lucius and Marcus Andronicus to "heal Rome’s harms and wipe away her woe" (V.3.148).

I don’t particularly enjoy using summary to get my points across, but the plot in Titus is too riveting to simply be overlooked, and it exemplifies the "revenge cycle" so well that I couldn’t just pass it up. The main question, though, is what does the play say about England’s fate? By the end of the play, Rome is a battered, raped, and scarred body politic, and while Lucius promises to "heal Rome’s harms," his first act in moving towards this is taking revenge upon Aaron the Moor, the Andronicus’ most dangerous opponent. Lucius has a chance to end the revenge cycle, but instead chooses to keep it in motion, giving it the potential to wreak destruction upon his family and Rome once again. With this choice, why should we leave this play thinking everything will remain stable in Rome? Though Lucius threatens to hang Aaron’s son earlier in the play, he says nothing about this in the end, so his fate could very well be to follow in his father’s footsteps as an ingeniously evil destructive force. Rome, in the end, is an weak and unstable body politic. England’s Elizabeth, though perhaps not weak, is aging and heirless, making her very much unstable. Will succession bring about another War of the Roses, essentially a real-life revenge cycle? Will England suffer the same fate as Rome, which eventually fell to outsiders due to lack of internal stability? Though we know four hundred years later that the answer is "no," it is important to recognize this question loomed over all of Shakespeare’s plays, and it should not be ignored.

Post #4 - Memory

Photo: http://aeolus13umbra.blogspot.com/

Romeo: I dreamt a dream tonight. 

Mercutio: And so did I. 

Romeo: Well, what was yours? 

Mercutio: That dreamers often lie. 

Romeo: In bed asleep, while they do dream things true. 

Mercutio: O, then I see Queen Mab hath been with you. 

She is the fairies' midwife, and she comes

In shape no bigger than an agate stone

On the forefinger of an alderman, 

Drawn with a team of little atomi

Over men's noses as they lie asleep. 

(50-58)

In the above passage, Mercutio uses a folkloric metaphor to illustrate Romeo's unstable memory of his dream. While this passage may first be read as figurative and fittingly cheeky for Mercutio's saucy character, these lines are actually indicative of how this text handles memory in relation to selfhood. Memory in this play is depicted as a malleable construct passed on through the Capulet and Montague lineages--a construct that plays a vital role in self-formation especially for the young lovers Romeo and Juliet. 

The feud between the Montagues and Capulets is most commonly referred to as "ancient" in the text. The use of this word invokes mystery and a certain loftiness that makes the feud's impetus inaccessible. Because the feud is so archaic, none of the living descendants have lucid memories of its catalyst. Rather than lucid memory, the rivals brandish internalized memories of conflict at one another--constantly grappling with the uncertainty and murkiness of their squabble. 

Photo: http://chrisandelizabethwatchmovies.wordpress.com/

Juliet: Go ask his name. --If he be married, 

My grave is like to be my wedding bed. 

Nurse: His name is Romeo, and a Montague, 

The only son of your great enemy. 

Juliet: My only love, sprung from my only hate! 

(135-139)

Enter two "star-crossed lovers," just rebellious kids, really. These two Shakespearean teenagers are wrestling with the same problems that twenty-first century teenagers face--how and when will they find themselves? Sarcasm notwithstanding, Romeo and Juliet are born into a polarized landscape wrought with inherited hatred for one another. Animosity between the Capulets and Montagues is passed down through generations and begins to control the creation of selfhood for characters on both sides of the dispute. The names themselves become signifiers weighted with incorporate memory. Memory gives way to the illicitness of Romeo and Juliet's love affair, which in turn seduces the adolescents even more. Once they have established their commitment to the forbidden love, self-formation continues. 

Photo: http://www.realstylenetwork.com/

Juliet: They save Jove laughs. O gentle Romeo, 

If thou dost love, pronounce it faithfully.

Or if thou thinkest I am too quickly won, 

I'll frown, and be perverse, and say thee nay,

So thou wilt woo; but else, not for the world.

(93-97)

Romeo and Juliet's love affair gives both characters the chance to break away from their contrived selfhood--the selves that internalized memory has forced upon them. They are now free to embrace the untraceable opposition between their two families, and use that opposition as fuel for their fiery love. However, Shakespeare soon pokes holes in this convenient reading by exposing the disingenuous nature of Romeo and Juliet's love. In the above passage, Juliet anticipates Romeo's reaction to her ready profession of love. This anticipation comes from years of exposure to texts saturated with women's traditional roles as aloof figures to be desired and gazed upon. Juliet's learned understanding of love (mostly inspired by male hegemonic poetry) propels her in this scene. The same is true of Romeo--both perform their roles with the strict diligence that instruction provides. Genuine or not, this performance furthers both Romeo and Juliet's search for selfhood. Both trade in selfhood found on familial tradition for selfhood found on carpe diem, desire, and preconceptions of love. 

In keeping with Mercutio's musings on Queen Mab, Romeo and Juliet posits memory as an uncertain and fated construct. Memory can always be tampered with--in Romeo's dream, Queen Mab does the tampering. In Romeo's everyday life, his family's "ancient" baggage establishes the parameters for his memory. The same rules apply to Juliet and the Capulet lineage. In this play, Shakespeare exposes the causal relationship between memory and self-formation. In so doing, the play becomes an almost cautionary tale about internalized memory's dangerous (and deadly) ends. 

A Queer Reading of "Romeo and Juliet"

Queer theory emerged from tides tossed up by the ebbing and flowing of second-wave feminism throughout the late eighties and the nineties, gaining recognition through the voices of contemporary gender theorists such as Judith Butler, Eve K. Sedgwick, and Siobhan B. Somerville. The practice draws its name from the word "queer"; sometimes pejorative, sometimes innocuous, the word "queer" is used to suggest a curving of the rigidly constructed social lines boxing in gender, race, and (as you might have guessed) sexuality. The study sets out to "[call] into question the stability of any categories of identity based on sexual orientation."(1)

The two lovers, lost 

Rampant with sexual suggestion, carpe diem, forbidden love, and sodomy (in a nutshell), Romeo and Juliet is a play about the poor fate of the two titular star-crossed lovers, but it is also about their "queer romance" and how it proves as a critique of the "heteronormative" society surrounding them in Verona where, in opposition to what queer theory envisions as "good," everything is required to mean the same thing and abide by normative rules.

Romeo and Juliet, by falling in love, become the "queers" of the play; instead of sticking to their own respective kinds (e.g. the Montagues and Capulets) the two lovers transgress and fall for each other instead, which is, of course, strictly forbidden by their feuding families.

One important function of queer theory is to call formed "identities" (both hetero and homo identities) into question. In regards to this function, one of the most important passages in Romeo and Juliet comes within the balcony scene (Act II, Scene II), during which Juliet questions the philosophical weight of names and identity:

Jul. Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet[.]

Juliet is not just lamenting the happenstance that her beloved was born a Montague; she calls into question the fickle performativity behind all names, that Romeo would still be Romeo no matter what his family name would be--that her love transcends whatever constructed system gives him the name of an enemy.

This is an crucial component of queer theory: one main goal shared by all theorists is to break down the "sexual identities"of both of heterosexuality and homosexuality created by social culture, showing that the label are nothing more than the labels of sweet-smelling roses, that they serve no purpose but to police the line dividing what is "normal" or "natural" (heterosexuality) and what is "deviant" (homosexuality.) The love that Juliet feels is not just a result of Romeo being a male Montague; rather, it transcends both his maleness and his name, encapsulating a very queer function in the play.

Although acting through a heterosexual relationship, the queerness of Romeo and Juliet's tragic love story becomes obvious even after just the tiniest reading into the play's subtext. As we discussed in class today, the play gets even more "queer" later on by the way the text suggests sodomy (such as when Romeo claims he will cram Death's "detestable maw" with more "food" in Act V, Scene III). These sexual and sodomitical suggestions haunt the play until its very end, which happens to be the end of the eponymous Juliet and her Romeo. Their deaths function in two ways in two different readings: in one way, the two, by dying, rob their "normal" sexualities of the chance for reproduction, succumbing to a definite end of death. In another way, these two characters, surrounded by sodomitical or queer (rather than heteronormative) identities, have nothing left to do but die, being surrounded by a society that deems their romance "forbidden." The queer characters, as many queer characters seem to do, kill themselves because of the pressure of the normative. Though this double suicide takes on a haunting new weight in our contemporary world, it seems that Shakespeare too saw something dangerous in the construction of such rigid social categories.

____________________________________________

(1) Somerville, Siobhan B. Keywords for American Cultural Studies. Eds. Bruce Burgett and Glenn Hendler. New York, NYU Press, 2007. 187-191. 

Romeo's unattainable desire- blog 3

Emily Lagarde
Romeo's unattainable Desire



In the beginning of "Romeo and Juliet," Romeo is discouraged at love. His desire in Rosaline is not met and he spends a good portion of Act I and II mourning over how sorrowful he is, "Out of her favor, where I am in love" (1.1 line 167). From this beginning impression of Romeo he is a romantic without a lover and spends his time whining to his friends about it. Already, he is acquainted with how emotional he can be, that desire is not always mutual and that love is not fair,

Love is a smoke raised with the fume of sighs;

Being purged, a fire sparkling in lovers' eyes;

Being vexed, a sea nourished with loving tears.

What is it else? A madness most discreet, (1.1 lines 189-192).

Romeo is seen as very passionate and falls madly with desire at beautiful women, not using any thoughts, only emotion. It is interesting to note that all desire for Rosaline is forgotten the instant he sees Juliet, "did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight! For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night" (1.5 lines 53-54). This is a perfect indication on how fleeting but potent desire is for Romeo. He is wavering and flows with his desires, unaware of the consequences. Before, he was speaking of how quivering love is, how unjust, and now he is flowing to the next urge his heart has. Either Shakespeare is making jest at young love, or love at first sight in general. All Romeo sees is Juliet. He sees how beautiful, urging him to want her, an example of sexual desire. He gives up everything for this desire, even his identity, "Henceforth I never will be Romeo" (2.2 line 51). He is so impassioned he gives up his name! This gives way to problems when he is told he is banished from Verona, "There is no world without Verona walls. But purgatory, torture, hell itself" (3.3 lines 17-19). He loses his identity and his entire existence of what his 'world' really means. Since identity is key to the substance of people during this time, Romeo and Juliet are products of their family's on going feud. There is no one identity but rather what is bestowed upon you at birth. With Romeo's desire for Juliet he is throwing aside this very crucial center point in Renaissance society. Also, there is the idea of the fates and what happens to you is because of being a god's plaything. When Romeo and Juliet decide to kill themselves they are going against, 1) the duties of their families, 2) Romeo's lack of desire to leave an heir, 3) taking matters into their own hands, rather creating their own fates.
In 5.3 lines 46-48, "Gorged with the dearest morsel of the earth, Thus I enforce thy rotten jaws to open, And in despite I'll cram thee with more food," Romeo is going against the normalcy of leaving a piece of himself after he dies. He is going against that norm for his desire to be next to Juliet in death. Also, in 5.3 lines 110-112, "Will I set up my everlasting rest, And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars, From this world- wearied flesh," this is another perfect example of how Romeo and Juliet created their own fate. Since their desires could not be met in the earthly world they decide to be together in the afterlife, where identity and being played by fates will not get in the way of their desire for one another.
The irony comes when Romeo and Juliet are made into statues. They are almost god-like in themselves because of their resurrection and honor. Yet, they will also always stand on earthly soil, so apart of them will always remain true to mortal identity, yet immortalized with earthly stones and gold. It is interesting the parallels between life and death, and then they are made into statues, leading the thought that they are god-like because they made their own fate. Their desire, especially Romeo's leads to this weird lasting tale of Romeo and Juliet, of either how young desire only leads to bad outcomes or that real desire can prevail, although in strange outcomes, and that real desire is worth the monument.  

#3 For the Love of Money

“Do all men kill the things they do not love?” IV.I.66

In Merchant of Venice, the desire for materialism (is back again!) presents itself entangled among other desires, but this time it’s slightly more complicated. The play starts off with longing, through Antonio’s unhappiness: “In sooth know not why I am so sad,” but “my merchandise makes me not sad. I.I. 45.” Antonio has wealth (material), but is lacking something he desires on another level – love (emotional). His self-pity and depressive characteristics are put aside when Bassanio, in desperate need of money, comes to him for a loan. Antonio has an ambiguous connection with Bassanio that is so strong he is willing to risk a pound of his own flesh for him to retrieve the money, showing the value the character sets on relationships. But! Antonio will only loan Bassanio money if he pursues it for the Love for Portia, not just for her family wealth. In this way, Antonio’s character is representing emotional over superficial possessions.

Thickening the plot, Antonio is anti-Semitic, conflicting drastically with the Jewish Shylock that raises desire differences within and between religions. The play goes further to reveal a stereotype of the Christian characters (Antonio) valuing relationships through love and reoccurring theme of marriage, while the Jewish (Shylock) valuing material wealth. Antonio’s hassling of Shylock over his Judaism inflicts in Shylock a deep burning desire beyond wealth-- revenge. Here we see Shakespeare presenting desires in their ‘negative’ connotation. Despite risk of his own life, Antonio is willing to stick by the law or ‘justice’ of his deal with Shylock to give away a pound of his flesh. When Antonio is offered his share of the money in the end, his only wish is that Shylock converts to Christianity and that his will entitles Lorenzo and Jessica to his estate. This, religion and relationships, to him is more important than material wealth. Shylock constantly mentions mistreatment because of his religion – revenge particularly in the dialogue about Jews being humans.

Love and/or marriage is presented in The Merchant of Venice through the two women, Portia and Jessica, who each end up happily with their men. But both have placed such a high value upon their desire for the materialistic symbolism of a ring to signify their love. This desire complicates the pure love they have into something more societal influenced and tangible. These societal expectations versus one’s individual desires will be looked at more in depth in Romeo & Juliet. Love is beginning to appear as a social construct beyond just a ‘pure’ romantic relationship, even though we are still left with the cliché ‘happy ending’. The women’s desire for this material ring is so strong they use a manipulative advantage to trick Bassanio and Gratiano into breaking their promise and surrendering their rings out of some weird control static.: “I’ll see if I can get my husband’s ring, Which I did make him swear to keep for ever.”

The longing for love is very prominent throughout the story, furthermore the forbidden love story between Lorenzo and Jessica, despite her marriage boundaries (casket game) set by Shylock they are determined to make the love for each other work. In the end, Antonio’s ships turn out to be ok and his fortune secured, but his emotional discontent prevails.

Something Ventured in the Merchant of Venice

The Merchant of Venice embodies the fervor and excitement surrounding the birth of modern capitalism. And while it’s easy to look back with our revisionist goggles and identify Shylock as an early modern Gordon Gekko (their very names ooze sleaze), it’s important to see that everyone within the play is trying to capitalize on someone else, and that it works out just dandy for most of them. 

In order to understand this orgiastic embrace of capitalism, some context might be helpful. The play is centered in Italy, but at this time the most profound shifts in technology and society are occurring in Britain (I say this offhand, but I’ve read David Landes’s Prometheus Unbound, damn it, and he goes beyond insisting Britain’s status as the alpha and omega of early modern society). As such, there is a radical societal shift occurring moving people from the periphery to the center, to cities, and these cities are exploding as a result of one concept: capital. The formulation of a financial system based on speculation and interest created the first forms of venture capitalism. This unique moment in history represents a rupture with the past, a rupture with slow growth (or stagnation) for centuries. I’m not going to say whether this is good or bad, but in its earliest days it was all consuming.

One of the most significant outcomes for the individual in modern capitalism is the concept of upward mobility. With few exceptions, a person’s place in society pre-1500 was unlikely to change. However, In Shakespeare’s era we begin to see a modicum of fluidity in society; a fluidity concentrated in the classes of people above peasants and serfs, and below royalty. These are tradesmen, merchants, businessmen, etc. In The Merchant of Venice, this segment of society has yolked ambition and opportunism. 

While Shylock can certainly be considered something of a villain, he serves a larger societal purpose. He is opportunity—the financial locus of the play. None may get to the kingdom of riches except through him. To this end, he functions almost as a non-human entity. A bank of sorts. We can observe this even in the way he disposes Antonio, saying, “I hate him for he is a Christian; / But more, for that in low simplicity / He lends out money gratis, and brings down / The rate of usance here in Venice” (I. III. 43-45). Like any major financial entity, Shylock is endowed with personal prejudices (recall 2012’s Chic-Fil-A scandal, where a company owner’s personal beliefs became a public matter), but ultimately his largest issue with Antonio is how he effects the interest rate on loans. Meanwhile, Antonio is averse to any relations with Shylock, knowing that the dealings will not, in fact, be based on any morality, but rather on the impartiality of a contractual agreement. Nonetheless, Antonio will agree to the deal to help Bassanio achieve his ends. Portia will likewise try to capitalize on her inheritance, cashing in before it is her due, and doing so in a way which bends the obligations of her familial contract. 

None of this is meant to discount the clash of Christian and Hebrew culture. Antonio bears slight echoes of Jesus ousting the money changers, but ultimately everyone is attempting to gain something from the process.   

Seidel Post 3: Identity

Identity comes into play in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice in a few interesting and dynamic ways. The way that identity is most noticeable in the play for me is through the inclusion and exclusion of certain characters. Within the play it is seen that there is a group people, the men, who band together: which falls in line with the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of comitatus – a body of companions. With this idea of comitatus relating to the text, I use it as a magnifying glass to look at the varying aspects of identity. In the idea of comitatus there is a structure, which someone is either inside or outside of. In The Merchant of Venice, the one most notably outside of the structure is Shylock. This is due to his “otherness”.  With comitatus, the requirements for someone to be excluded is their inability to be included with the group at large because of their unique characteristic traits. The idea of “otherness” stems from the medieval understanding of anything outside the realm of normal as monstrous. So for the group of men within the text, Shylock differs because of his religion and what affects that it has on his life and conduct, and he therefore is ostracized. Another interesting aspect within The Merchant of Venice of those who fall outside the structured comitatus are the women within the play. Though they are close to the men, and the men even rely on the women and their resources, the women still remain secondary to their male counterparts. In fact, the women even have to deceptively take on the role of men within the text to carry out highly effective action. I think this serves to highlight how outside the women are even when they are practically included – because they are women they are considered in the realm of “otherness”.

            With Romeo & Juliet, identity is thematic abound. The very reason for all the strife within the play is due to identity and the division it has caused “In fair Verona, where we lay our scene.” The Montagues and the Capulets are feuding, which causes problems when it comes to the romance born between Romeo and Juliet. Juliet herself expresses the problem familial identity is causing within the play when she says,

“O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet…

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.”

            I think this is an essential passage to break down when it comes to identity. What she’s saying here is key in understanding why the two lovers take the risk and disregard their families’ feud and proceed with their romance. What Juliet is asking is for Romeo to deny the name of his father, and how that identifies him as a part of that lineage. If he cannot do so she shall forsake her own father’s name. The feud has progressed so far that it is not the families who are truly enemies but rather the names alone. People can only be themselves, what authority do names even carry? A name isn’t something essential that is a part of a man, but rather something he takes on – that can be shed. People can take on new names and therefore create new identities (which Romeo and Juliet would do together with their love). Just because somebody has a name, it does not define them. The person is still the same person without it. A name is not essential in the make-up of a person. Like a hat, you can “doff” your name and easily put on a new one. For giving up his name, something that is not even essential to Romeo, Juliet will give all of herself to him so that they may forge a new identity together. Names are not important for they are not the reason for a person being who they are. This speech really pulls up a lot of good ideas about what qualifies as one’s identity and what does not, and how it is perceived and can be molded. Within this play I also find the repetition of celestial leit motifs interesting in having to do with the role of identity and Romeo and Juliet as “star-cross’d lovers”. Juliet is ascribed to the Sun – or light, also daylight – while Romeo is related to the stars, and also darkness (this is seen in his gloominess at the beginning of the play). In the play it was easy to see Juliet assuming the role of the light in the darkness of Romeo’s life. He says, “O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!” I think this employment of theme within this play is beautiful because through each other, and love, are they transformed and given new, meaningful (as they see it) identities.

Tale as old as time. Song as old as rhyme. (post #3)

Fate is an interesting concept to examine in Romeo and Juliet since both of these characters are thought to have been "star crossed lovers" whose destiny was to end up together, (whether in this life or the next). However, the idea of destiny in relation to this story questions the outcome of fate between these two characters. First of all, why are these two people fated to be together. What caused this idea of these two youngsters being in love? First let’s examine one of the most famous scenes in the history of theater drama to date - the balcony scene. 

Here Romeo and Juliet go back and forth about how much they love each other in poetic verse about their love for each other and obstacles and their plans and their love. In many of the passages there is dialogue about if only you could be another person, have another name, then we could be together. 

Juliet 

My ears have yet not drunk a hundred words

Of thy’s tongue’s uttering, yet I know the sound. 

Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?

Romeo

Neither, fair maid, if either thee dislike

Here Romeo is prepared to throw away part of his identity for someone he just met (probably) less than an hour ago. This calls into question the idea of what identity means on an individual basis and how this interferes with fate. If Romeo were but any other name, then the events of this play would not have progressed in the tragic manner that it did. But he was, and so it did advance as so. 

But is his identity could be seen as so insignificant in this action, then why couldn't they throw away such chains form the very beginning? Why couldn’t the two love birds just remain as they are? Because these chains that tie down the characters are the same ones that constantly reinforce the wheels of destiny. Although they feel they belong together, the society around them seeks to tear them apart because of ancient traditions that when examined, do not entirely make sense. For a modern parallel, this is incredibly similar to the movement for marriage equality, regardless of sexual orientation. Similar to Romeo and Juliet’s plight, the reasoning behind laws that ban same sex marriage also do not hold much reason behind them. However, because of older folklore that questions the morality of this arrangement, two people who could have had a peaceful ending are faced with unnecessary turmoil. Not being accepted into what they perceived as a place of consolation caused the ultimate personal devastation. In the modern counterpart, there are “30 and 40% of LGBT youth, depending on age and sex groups, have attempted suicide.” (Wikipedia: “Suicide Among LGBT Youth.) In both circumstances there are devastating effects of one’s fate inferring with societal pressures that causes the individual to be conflicted to the point of literally destroying themselves. Fate in this circumstance is tricky because although the individual knows what their identity is, they are not able to realize it because of outside pressures. 

However since identity was such a crucial component to this play, one has to wonder if death and destiny being linked in such a manner reflects a larger idea. Oftentimes dramatic changes are the result of a tragic consequence of an older rule. In this case, to bury the feud between two rivaling families, they had to literally bury their children.