“Ruling
culture does not define the whole of culture though it tries
to, and it is the task of the oppositional critic to reread
culture so as to amplify and strategically position the marginalised
voices of the ruled, exploited, oppressed and excluded.”
Use Othello and The Jew of Malta.
Abstract
This essay seeks to understand the authors of these two plays,
Othello and The Jew of Malta, as not specifically products
of Greenblatt's structuring of literary individuals of this
period, but rather as individuals closely involved in theatre,
the court and so the political and social changes taking place
in this period. So they will be perceived as artists inhabiting
that space that Greenblatt calls 'subversive submission',
but it is their plays that will be seen as of primary importance,
as it is the language that their characters speak on stage
that needs to be the focus. This is because language has a
multiplicity of meaning that goes beyond one playwright's
meaning, no matter who is speaking, whether they be oppressed
or ruled or whatever. That is to say, the tension between
individual purpose and audience reception will be discussed
as it cannot be seen that the individual playwright sees himself
as having authorial purpose, as in this period authorship
was not recognised as so important; as stage-plays it must
be seen that the different audiences and different performances
make the real difference in terms of perception. The author,
therefore, as voice for change, realising the Other, in order
to re-establish and simultaneously question the social order,
as explicated in Greenblatt, the forerunner of this kind of
criticism, is rather and conversely at the mercy of the multiple
voices that would have contributed to the play. These voices
affecting the play, which include the printer, other authors,
actors, the Queen (or the King), theatre managers and audience,
ultimately make the idea of the 'oppositional critic' to be
found in only one man, the playwright, questionable, as theatre,
as will be seen in the plays discussed, is primarily popular.
Marlowe and Shakespeare's 'serious' message is perhaps diffused
by this simple fact.
What happens when you put a black man on stage in 1603? And
does this make any difference to putting a Jewish man on stage
in 1590? Do the difference in authors make difference to the
meaning of a play? Or would historical period and the fact
of differing audience reception be the main factors in understanding
a play like these two, Othello and The Jew of Malta. At any
rate it will be argued in this essay that it is the fact of
language and its multiplicity of meaning that is the most
important when trying to understand what meaning for culture,
if any, these authors had in mind. The reasons for this would
be the unnerving tensions inherent in this period: authorship
was not established, the text was not seen as reliable, and
plays in themselves are open to meaning because of the diffusion
of opinion in an audience. Similarly authors cannot be fully
seen as they are not fully documented; so much of who they
were is myth or hearsay. So, it is in the language that any
cultural critique can be seen, but I will assert that this
too is no reliable way of viewing a culture, and like the
groups of voices contributing to a play, it is in the combination
of factors, that these plays should be read.
This is an essay written in response to Stephen Greenblatt
who importantly highlights the qualities of individuals in
the Renaissance period which culminate in the quality of 'self-fashioning'.[1]
I am arguing simply that the individual may not have been
as important as we think but it is the diffusing of their
ideas in their plays that reach other people that disrupts
the mainstream thought a little.The two plays, although they
seem different in terms of quality, Othello being a revenge
tragedy, and The Jew of Malta being less so, are both agreed
on, by critics, as 'theatre plays' [2].
The scenes are action-focussed; it is 'dramatic action' that
Craik[3] cites as
being the main good quality of The Jew of Malta. This is similar
to responses to Othello. The plays both open in mid-action.
Barabas the Jew in Marlowe's play, is viewed counting his
money,
'So that of thus much that return was made' (1) [4]
Othello opens with talk of hate in an image of money,
'…Iago, who hast my purse
As if the strings were thine…' (2-3) [5]
This is familiar language to an audience in London who lived
in a world based on commerce and economy, to the point of
life and death. As the majority would have been poor, it is
easy to see why the 'bad' characters are associated with money:
the poor see the rich as cheating them, as having selfish
characters and little morality.
More importantly, it is the sense of the individual striving
for his own gain seen in the image of money right from the
beginning, that asserts the character. So, fundamentally,
the Jew Barabas is, by critics today seen as silly, but in
Elizabethan terms, is a crowd-pleaser and in the quick succession
of events, hardly explained in terms of motivation, finds
meaning on a very real and social level. It is soap opera
to the audience and reinforces social stereotype.
So, it can be seen from the genre and the structure of the
play that the author panders to audience taste. However, it
is in the further presentation of the protagonist that the
author seeks to question or reinforce the stereotype. Othello,
for instance, speaks in a lyrical and eloquent way,
'I will a round unvarnished tale deliver
Of my whole course of love, what drugs, what
Charms,
What conjuration and what might magic-
For such proceeding I am charged withal-
I won his daughter.' (91-94)
Here is profound language, passionate and poetical, and conveys
a character that is visionary in thought and has great humanity.
The imagery he lends to the play linguistically creates depth
and interest, almost stopping the action. It can be seen here
that Shakespeare creates speeches for a character that can,
potentially, touch the imaginations of the audience. He seems
to be questioning the cannibal status that black men had in
this period.
Yet the language's meaning is rather dependent on the actor.
Would Othello's eloquence have seemed beautiful, would he
have been a comical character, as comical, for example, as
another 'savage' Caliban, who is taught the beauty of language?
When Othello's later speeches are compared it can be seen
that perhaps the spiritual beauty of his language, littered
with mythical references, only highlight his character as
superstitious and therefore as questioning the Christian order.
Here he speaks of Desdemona,
'Damn her, lewd minx: O damn her, damn her!
Come, go with me apart; I will withdraw
To furnish me with some swift means of death
For the fair devil.' (478-481)
His potential and actual acts of violence towards Desdemona
are reinforced by his language, making him seem, at the least,
an unsympathetic character.
A way in which Marlowe reveals Barabas's character is in the
use of asides. At first they highlight his intentions,
'And be revenged upon the- [aside] Governor.' (147)
The effect is pantomime. The asides also reveal Barabas's
opinion of Christians, although he is quite vocal directly,
'Use him as if he were a [aside] Philistine.
Dissemble, swear, protest, vow to love him,
He is not of the seed of Abraham.-' (232- 234)
All in all the strategy succeeds in creating a comical character
with anti-Christian convictions. He is also unsympathetic
as he uses his daughter and is cruel to her like Othello is
cruel. Yet Barabas's comedy and Othello's eloquence, which
are the main interest of the plot, show their importance.
It is in the presentation of a larger than life character,
using popular language and actions, that any critique of culture
can be found.
The language of the play is at the mercy of the staging, ultimately,
and it can be seen that any serious questioning of culture
is somewhat diffused by the culture of theatre in London in
the 1590s. A play was subject to cutting by the playwright
and the theatre manager and bad copying by the printer, but
more importantly was subject to the recipients of the play,
the audience, the patrons and the court. This explains why
the characters are primarily popular. But what must be considered
is the effect of the actor on stage. First of all, figuring
a character accurately on stage was very important so proper
dress and props were used, some even authentic items were
used. So it can be fair to say that Othello and Barabas would
have been attired in an exaggerated fashion to match the words
but hide any social meaning. This is of course important as
Marlowe and Shakespeare would not have wanted to be seen as
overtly questioning society. The important point here is the
'submissive subversion' that Greenblatt talks of is not in
the hands of the playwright alone, but in all these other
people combined, so really, the perception of character must
change as the times change. In other words, any critique made
will be strengthened by the change of attitude or awareness
made whenever the plays are performed. This change comes from
all the groups of people, and will eventually create a play
that overtly questions race and religion.
The Christians in The Jew of Malta are presented as self-righteous,
unreasonable and as money-hungry as Barabas. By equating the
two, Marlowe today succeeds in presenting a society that is
driven more by selfish interests in a growing and increasingly
commerce-focused world than by religious belief. We see now
how Christianity was used by Christians to assume their position
in culture. Marlowe reflects the uneasy religious dissension
that was beginning to emerge in this period. Yet, he presents
it as comical where Shakespeare changes comedy into unnatural
behaviour. There is a difference of intention here that conveys
the importance in the difference of ten years in an ever-growing
and changing society. In the 1590s it can be seen that awareness
of the Other or the alien grew as Shakespeare presents a humanity
in Othello that is not appreciated. Whereas in Marlowe, Barabas
is fixated on the awareness that Jewish people are not accepted
in Christian culture. Individual equality seems to be presented
much more in Othello while society as defined by religion
is the main focus of The Jew of Malta, even though the background
of commerce, suggests individual freedom is important. Ultimately,
it should be in the characters that we look for signs of 'self-fashioning'
as they suggest that not only are structures of society changing
but that the individual consciousness rather than the social
consensus is emerging.
- Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning.
1980.[Return]
- Honigman, Introduction to Othello,
1.[Return]
- Craik, Introduction to The Jew
of Malta, x.[Return]
- Marlowe, The Jew of Malta. New
Mermaids. 1996.[Return]
- Shakespeare, Othello. Arden.
1997.[Return]
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Craik, T. W. Introduction to The Jew of Malta.
New Mermaids. 1966.
- Greenblatt, S. Renaissance Self-Fashioning from
More to Shakespeare. University of Chicago press. 1980.
- Honigmann, E. A J. Introduction to Othello. Arden.
1997.
- Lockyer, R. Tudor and Stuart Britain 1471- 1714.
Longman. 1992.
- Marlowe, C. The Jew of Malta. New Mermaids. 1966.
- Shakespeare, W. Othello. Arden. 1997.
- Wells, S. (editor). The Cambridge Companion to
Shakespeare Studies. CUP. 1997.
|
