In this way, I found her character comparable with Mariam and Ophelia, although I also found it to be similar to Juliet in some ways as well. In fact, the whole ending reminded me a bit of an older, more mature, anxious, and sinister “Romeo and Juliet.” I was also reminded of other Shakespearean, and non-Shakespearean, characters by Iago. In particular, he reminded me of Salome, as he schemed behind the scenes. This brings me to the theme of masculinity within the play. It seems that threats to this masculinity evoked the action within the play, as well as the jealousy that was a by-product of these real or imagined “threats.” Iago, in particular, has his “purse cut” by Othello, by being passed over for promotion, and by sleeping with his wife. The first cuckolding is real, although I don’t believe it’s fully intentional, while the physical cuckolding is fake, the by-product of rumors, much like those Iago visits upon Othello.

Due to this cuckolding, Iago adopts what can be seen as an “effeminized” stance, where he plots behind the scenes. This type of plotting seems to reside mainly in the realm of females, such as Salome, and Lady Macbeth. Usually, the men take a more “honorable” route. I’ve seen it occur in male characters before, but usually in history plays, where the character is in a similar position as Iago. Iago manipulates people through cleverly planted suggestions, gaining power within the masculine realm much as the previously mentioned women did, while deferring to the men who remain above him. In the end though, Iago does not belong in this realm, as he is caught and punished for these crimes. There seems to be a curious dichotomy where females gain power through this approach, and are sometimes not even punished, while male characters who utilize the same methods will always be inevitably discovered and harshly dealt with.

Another curious note, is that it is Emilia, his wife, who undoes him. She thrusts him from this more “feminized” realm, and blatantly realizes male anxieties, as he loses complete control over her, and she speaks loudly against him. Her refusal to be silent is justified, but appears almost shrewish, and re-situates Iago within their relationship. Previously, he had been the one in power, and been an extremely jealous individual, who had physically struck her, and verbally abused her. Granted, this was within the rights of a man during the time, and his dialogue was part of his plot against Othello and Cassio. However, he does still come off as a little bit of a shrew to me… By the end of the play, the roles of Emilia and Iago reverse, although Emilia is shown to be in a much more “honorable” position, although she is also portrayed pretty much as a screaming housewife.

            Another thing to note within the play is homosexuality and homo-social relationships. Generally, within the plays we have studied, there are numerous aspects of male homo-social or homoerotic relationships. There are aspects of that in “Othello” as well, but what I found more interesting (due to its rarity within plays of that time period) was the female homo-social relationship between Desdemona and Emilia. There was a close connection between the two females that isn’t shown in many other plays of the time. Also intriguing were there conversations together about fidelity/infidelity, whether they would ever be promiscuous or not, and the fact that Emilia wishes to be laid down next to her mistress when she dies, since she loves her. There is also the connector of them both being murdered by their respective husbands, thereby juxtaposing them once again in a relationship with each other, as the men are eliminated.

            There are tons of interesting facets to this play, including issues outside of gender, such as race. This play is such an enigma when it comes to looking at race. I know we are looking distinctly at marriage and gender issues, however, Kelly’s version of “Othello” really interested me. The idea of reversing the ethnic background of the actors is wonderful, and makes one rethink the play. It makes me wonder, to what extent do the ethnicity and gender of the characters alter our perceptions of them, the perceptions of other characters within the play, and their own actions? Kelly’s approach seems to be a great way to explore this, and it would have been amazing to see that play, particularly with the good ol’ Picard (Patrick Stewart) as Othello.

Note: The picture labelled “Vesalius’ Homology” is a sketch from Vesalius’ Fabrica, showing the dissection of a women. The genitalia is depicted as inverse male genitalia.

While I greatly enjoyed Orgel’s article, I think there are a few points he should have provided further information upon. For instance, I would have liked more information about Galen. Orgel doesn’t really provide any information about him. I happen to know that he was born in 129 A.D., and acted as a physician to gladiators, but not every reader will know this. Having background information about Galen makes Orgel’s points seem more valid. For instance, dissection of humans was not permitted during Galen’s time. Indeed, the controversy over dissection has only really subsided over the last few hundred years. During the 1800s, the controversy actually rose, as anatomical dissection was accepted more, but no one wanted it to be done to their loved ones. This resulted in black market corpse-snatching, and in some instances, murder. Due to this, Galen took advantage of when the gladiators had wounds, to investigate them, and dissected animals, (mainly monkeys and pigs, as he believed they were more similar to humans) and extrapolated these results onto humans.This resulted in errors, such as the belief that we have a five-lobed liver, and a rete mirabile (a vascular network in the brain). Galen also (erroneously) believed that everything in the body had a purpose, and that there was a “life-force,” which could be equated with the soul. For this reason, the church loved him and his ideas, which may have contributed to his ideas and “teachings” becoming medical dogma for several hundred years. Because Galen was such an iconic figure within the medical community (and due to later religious endorsement), his methodologies and ideas were never really questioned until around the Renaissance, and then only tentatively.  This is why the belief, which Galen espoused, that the female genitalia is merely the reverse of a man’s (and is thereby a “lesser” form of a man’s) became so prolific within society.  This belief was even continued within Andreas Vesalius’ later revolutionary work, De humani corpus fabrica (1543), which challenged many of Galen’s earlier, erroneous assumptions. Yet it is curious that Vesalius left this error unchanged. He had conducted dissections himself of women, including the mistress of a monk, so he must have known that Galen’s assertion was incorrect. This may have been just due to the fact that he did not believe the public was ready for this information yet, and would label him a heretic. Before he published Fabrica, he published a smaller work, Tabulae Sex (1538), which did not challenge Galen’s five-lobed liver, or the rete mirable. In this way, a lot of scholars believe he was attempting to slowly introduce the public to new concepts without shocking them. People who did that tended to be burnt at the stake.

However, it should also be noted Gabriele Fallopio discovered the fallopian tubes in 1561. I would be interested to know if this was a discovery that virtually challenged, and possibly changed, the beliefs regarding “female genitalia as reverse male genitalia.” Would it have been something that would have eventually become common knowledge, and changed how people perceived females and males? Or would it have been a discovery that had no large impact, that was slow to convince many people, was known only among the medical community, and was not really connected to societal concepts of gender?

Maybe this is irrelevant information for this article, which seems to concentrate more on other areas, but I find it extremely interesting, and I believe that information such as this is integral for understanding the cultural milieu of the time, and the reasons behind it. This is the reason why I spent so much time looking at one thing that Orgel didn’t investigate quite as heavily -because I believe all the aspects have to be investigated in the minutia, and this is a subject that is not investigated heavily, in a vaguely medical manner, within early modern drama, but should be, due to its cultural effects. I also greatly enjoyed the information pertaining to female actresses, and was greatly astonished by it -for some reason, I had only really considered theatre in England during that specific time period, and I had this concept of no females being allowed to act in the theatre. This article greatly challenged that, and I was pleasantly surprised. Again, I really wish there was a bit more in-depth information about these actresses, but that’s only to assuage my curiosity. In reality, that would require a far longer article, which would become quite cumbersome.

I also enjoyed Comensoli’s article, although there are a few points I’m not sure I entirely agree with. I would love to see Moll as this highly idyllic figure, who lives outside of the culture’s “normality,” without fear or any negative consequences. I would love to see her as a character who is entirely in charge of her own life, and ignores society’s rules, and does as she chooses. However, unlike Comensoli, I do not necessarily see the fact that she chooses not to marry as a sign of her freedom and independence. Rather, it seems like this may still be a bit of society imposing itself upon her. It would not be able to accept her, or even tolerate her, in her transvestite form, if she married. Moll appears to recognize this. Maybe she chooses not to marry, because she doesn’t wish to, but I still believe she recognizes this societal factor, and places some importance upon it. Moll notes herself that she is too “mannish” to marry. If she was completely “freed” from society, I doubt she would be seeing herself through the same lens that the rest of society must see her through. Yet she appears to do so, otherwise, she would not have stated that she was too “much of a man” to get married.

Yet they did seem to contrast the characters of Mad Moll and Mistress Gallipot on purpose. At the beginning of the play, almost all of the characters view Moll extremely negatively, and assume that she is of “loose morals,” due to how she acts. She doesn’t follow the rules which dictated how a female should act, (i.e., she is her own master, dresses in men’s clothes, etc) and therefore, assumptions were made that she was uncontrollable sexually as well. Mistress Gallipot, on the other hand, seems to conform outwardly to the societal views of femininity, and although her desire for Laxton is revealed, she is initially not viewed as much as a “harlot” as Moll, who has no such desires for Laxton, and even challenges him to a duel, to defend her integrity.

However, the fact that how people begin to view Moll and Mistress Gallipot changes is one of the reasons why this play seems at one point more feminist than the others. While Moll is defined as “mad” due to how her society refuses to accept her actions, Middleton and Dekker portray her in a far more favorable light than many other playwrights of the time would have portrayed such a character. She is imbued with many masculine qualities, yet she somehow also retains some femininity, and it is also interesting to note that the masculinity that is contributed to her does not seem to discourage possible “suitors.” In fact, the character of Laxton almost seems encouraged by it, which gives the play a feeling of homosexuality at some points. (In this same vein of thought, the scenes between Sebastian and Mary when she is dressed as a boy should be noted, as well as the masculine qualities given to some of the other wives.)

Nevertheless, there are still negative qualities imbued upon the female sex within this play. The character of Laxton makes a statement on page 18 which is reminiscent of Constaburus’ negative views of women in The Tragedy of Mariam: “Their good qualities are so rare, their bad so common, I will have naught to do with any woman.” However, it should be pointed out that it is Laxton who says this, which might disrupt the “validity” of this sentiment within the play. Another negative portrayal of femininity is given through Mistress Gallipot, who is untrue to her husband, although she doesn’t actually sleep with another man. The fact she lies to her husband, and would have slept with Laxton if she was given a chance is what makes her guilty. Mistress Gallipot and her husband did remind me of the Otters at certain points, as it seemed to be a similar reversal of roles. He was given many “wifely” characteristics, while she was given those of a man at times, but her really negative characteristics were still seen as feminine faults. She was also originally of higher birth than her husband as well (or was that Openwork?).

Interestingly, I believe the men in the play tended to be the bigger “whores.” For instance, Laxton milks Mistress Gallipot for money, and in exchange gives her reassurances and promises. Trapdoor, as well, is paid by Sir Alexander for services. While sexual intercourse is not an issue in any of these instances (for men or women), it is only the men who get paid. This act of being paid for physical acts is an act of prostitution. Moll, on the other hand, is doing what she wants to do, which makes her quite problematic for everyone else in the play. Laxton is also an interesting character in his own right, because despite being one of the biggest “prostitutes” in the play, he is also deemed as “honest” at some points (or atleast as more honest then the women), which creates the paradox of “the honest whore.” (Although I couldn’t find myself seeing him as completely honest/honourable, although he makes a conscious effort not to sleep with Mistress Gallipot. He still seemed too skeezy to me. It seemed as if he had no real interest in her anyways, and he just knew how to work within the system, and what was acceptable within it.)

One thing I also found interesting, but also a bit disappointing, was the lack of lines for the character of Mary Fitz-Allard in the play. While it was refreshing to have her and Sebastian’s plight almost become a side-story, while remaining the moving plot for the whole play, it was disappointing that she almost seemed to fade completely away at times, even though we were still reminded of Sebastian’s existence. As well, during the scene where she is planning a course of action with both Sebastian and Moll, almost all of the dialogue is between Sebastian and Moll. Where did the strong individual from the opening act go? She clearly had a fierce will in the first act, but that seemed to disappear. One would think, if she was such a strong willed character, that would continue throughout the whole play, and she would be a key player in plotting to secure her marriage with Sebastian.

Green, on the other hand, I found quite cohesive and concise. I found while reading the article that I gained several insights I had not considered before. It was also an excellent source of information about background items, such as the cups. I found the pictures of the cups quite surprising. While it fit with their descriptions perfectly, I had expected some sort of beer stein, for some reason, although I’m not exactly sure how I came to that preconception. Green clearly showed within this article the social and economic importance of the cups pertaining to the Otters. Before I read this article, I had no idea of how intricate it was -the cups seemed to be more an expression of Mr. Otter, I had not really considered that they would in fact likely be considered Mrs. Otter’s property, although that assertion makes sense. Although the subject of this article appears straightforward and simple, it is quite complex, and I believe this may be my favorite article we have read so far, due to not only its subject matter, but its treatment of it. It approached the subject in a straightforward manner, that was quite concise, but provided dollops of information, whether it was intriguing historical background information, or connections within the play itself.

However, while comedic hi-jinx often ensue within plays, they are often put into action mainly by one character, with others acting as foils, sidekicks, or lackeys. Within Epicoene, however, Truewit, Clerimont, and Dauphine all prove that they are quite capable of scheming themselves. They scheme together in conjunction, but they also scheme separately at times, keeping things from each other until their plot is finally acted out. This brings me to the final twist that was acted out -that of Epicoene being a boy, which was not revealed until the very end. This seemed to be a common motif within comedies (i.e., a boy pretending to be a woman, or vice versa), however, within a play it is often common knowledge early on that the person is not of the gender they profess to be, especially within Shakespeare. This is why I found the revealing of Epicoene to be a boy at the end intriguing. It makes several facts stand out more, such as the fact that they’ve all been tricked, or cuckolded, and it provides statements within the play. Perhaps it is suggesting that there really is no such thing as a “silent woman?” In the end, the promises of such are false. 

This play seems to hold a lot of commentary within it, both social and gender-specific, as well as plays upon more literature and Latin that I am used to, even within Shakespeare. There also seem to be some similar motifs within the play that exist in other plays as well. For instance, Jonson seems to use the motif of cosmetics, which we discussed earlier in “The Tragedy of Mariam,” quite heavily within this play. This play also plays a heavy emphasis upon sexual ambiguity. Many male characters are given “female” characteristics, and there is much commentary about these characteristics, and many allusions as well to hermaphrodites, as well as the use of the “Otter,” which is an ambiguous animal, and the name “Centaure” also suggests sexual ambiguity to me as well, since it is given to a female, but centaurs are typically male.

While reading the articles, I found a wide variety of interesting points, especially within Miller’s article. In particular, I found her emphasis upon maternal roles intriguing, and when I considered it, it really does seem throughout the play as if many of the women (especially Doris and Mariam) are at odds with each other due to this maternal factor. The exception to me seems to be Salome, however. She seems to be a far more sexual character than many of the others. But this sexuality is shown mainly through her numerous husbands/lovers, and scheming. Why is it that the one female character who is shown in a more sexual nature is also shown in a more villainous light than many of the others? This seems to me that it might be a statement about views towards woman, and their conduct and piety, at the time. Originally, Salome does seem more liberated then the rest, because she seems assertive in what she wants, but is she really? One of the articles pointed out (I’m not sure which) that while Salome talks about liberating females, she doesn’t really do so, because she still conforms to patriarchal ideals by employing manipulative methods. On the other hand, they assert that characters such as Mariam and Alexandra are more liberating, because they speak out against patriarchal authority, and thus work in direct conflict with the male domain. (I.e., females are not supposed to openly voice dissent.) What occurs to me, however, is the thought that Salome may actually be less liberated because of the audience’s expected reaction pertaining to her. She is centered out due to her sexual nature, which is paired with villainy. Many people may not interpret her as a villain while modernly reading it, but it seems unlikely that that would have been a common interpretation during the early modern period. As well, Salome is not really punished by the end of the play. While this could be seen to either emphasize or underplay her villainy, is it possible that this might also minimize Salome’s power and role? By her not receiving a grand punishment in the end, it minimizes her crime, and her as a person.

The closest thing that seemed to be vengeance was the way in which Herod’s own guilt began to torture him at the end, but we don’t really get any physical compensation. It isn’t even very clear about what will become of Herod. No action takes place to him by the end of the play, and we do not have an epilogue at the end of the play which spells out what happens later. It seems as if his guilt will torture him, and may already be driving him crazy, but what will happen after that? Will he kill himself from guilt? Will he get over it and get a new wife, or take Doris back? Will he just continue on, but become consumed by guilt, and become either crazy, and/or more tyrannical? As well, Salome is the major instigator of events, and she is directly responsible for everyone’s death, but it seems that nothing definite happens to her either, except that she may have fled by the end of the play. This leaves the play with a highly unjust feeling at the end, and a sense of there being a moral lesson to be learnt. It also seems to be “teaching” us that it is not enough for a woman to be chaste -she must also be obedient, or her chastity will be questioned, even though she remains “pure.”

Despite this “inadequacy,” Mariam is shown as a near perfect creature in many other ways, just as Salome is shown to be almost the epitome of evil. Women are drawn out in rather black and white terms in this play, and are hyper-accentuated examples of good or bad character. It does seem that there is also a bit of an undertone that all women are bad in the play, however. It is said that Mariam is the best of all women, yet fault is found within even her. It seems that a heavy emphasis is placed upon Mariam’s beauty and wit as well. When Salome talks of it, it is shown negatively, but when many of the male characters talk about these characteristics, including Herod, they are often portrayed positively. This large emphasis placed upon beauty in “The Tragedy of Mariam,” is also shown through the cosmetic motif, which also portrays falseness.

Along with falseness, inconsistency is also a large motif. It seemed to me that one of the most inconstant characters in the whole play was Herod. His attention forever remained focused on Mariam, but his feelings and actions towards her always swayed. He was obsessed with her, but he could never seem to make up his mind as to whether he should hate her or love her. This reminded me a bit actually of Alice, within “Arden of Faversham.” She consistently went back and forth between caring for Arden and hating him, and loving Mosby and not.  The same love/hate dichotomy is also echoed earlier on in “The Tragedy of Mariam” with Mariam herself, when she waivers between mourning Herod’s death and hating him. Salome also can’t be forgotten, as she is the most inconstant in her affections. The reason why I say “affections” instead of love, and segregate her from the other two, is because I’m not so entirely sure she was in love with any of her husbands or lovers. She seemed more of a creature of whim, who would have one infatuation, then tire of it, and procure a new play toy. Herod and Mariam, on the other hand, focus consistently on each other. While it is at points indefinite whether they love or hate each other, it is obvious that they are the only people in each other’s lives, and that they have very strong feelings for the other, regardless of whether they are positive or negative.

While useful, I found the articles far less intriguing then the original work (“The Taming of the Shrew.”) I also found them to be less organized, concise, and comprehensible then Chapter 3 in Othello: Texts and Contexts. I found that Chapter 3 was shown in a manner that I was able to more easily digest, and while it may have held some bias, it was far less than the biases held within these articles, because it mainly introduced and discussed original texts, and presented them. The articles were less orderly, and like many other articles, had authors who were semi-enamored with the concept of a fabulously large vocabulary. However, it was really neat that the articles both looked at the same concept, and came up with some widely varying views, even when using the same evidence (I.e., not only did they discuss the same general matter, but they both give the exact same quote from Elizabeth Poole.) Being able to read both articles greatly highlighted the biases within the other.

            Despite the biases, there were valid points in each (although they had to be taken with a little salt). Newman’s metaphor, referring to the bible, of a woman being her husband’s crown was a great metaphor -by itself, that term, and the further discussion centering around it, screamed of the concept “trophy wife” to me. Even today, although it is less of a social norm than it was in previous times, such things occur, and it all centers around social status, and possibly insecurity. “Trophy wives” are looked upon unfavorably and favorably in different social circles (although it is now socially frowned upon, at least by the politically correct) during this time period, however, this exact concept appears to have been the goal during the early modern era. Just the terms themselves -”crown” and “trophy”- infer a prize, an object which is socially coveted, looks beautiful, and makes no sound. Going with this theory of Newman’s, however, the term “golden retriever” may have been more accurate, because not only could it be construed as some of the previously listed things, but it is two thing the others are not -obedient and alive. Unfortunately, there were likely no golden retriever passages for Newman to draw upon from the bible.

This brings up a question though -were women truly objects, as Newman argues, during the early modern period? This question also seems erroneous, because it assumes that one view point prevailed throughout the society at that point in time. This seems to be quite false, from reading not only Newman, but Amussen as well, and Chapter 3 in Othello: Texts and Contexts. Within all of these texts, primary sources are cited, and all of these primary sources disagree. People are individuals by nature. There may have been a general trend in society, but it wouldn’t have applied to everyone. If we cannot all agree on something now (take for instance Newman and Amussen’s differing standpoints), why should the academia of the past have been any different?

            Another point that interested me within one of the works (I believe it was Newman’s, again, although it may have been re-iterated in Amussen’s) was the reference to the man being the head, and the woman being the body, with there being a positive connotation on the male’s position, and a negative one on the female’s. This seems similar to the dichotomy between the mind and the body, which has been debated for centuries, usually with the motif of the mind having to defeat and rein in the body. It also represented to me the conflict that is prevalent in so many of the sources we have read. Not necessarily a conflict between man and woman, but between two differing beliefs. I.e., the belief that the man was superior, and ruled his household, versus the contrary belief that everyone is equal in God’s eyes.