Commonplace Book

"She should have died hereafter;

There would have been a time for such a word.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."

Macbeth, act 5, scene 5, lines 17-28.

In this scene, Macbeth is told of his wife's death, responding with this short speech on how life is meaningless and nothing really matters. This is one of the most famous speeches from Shakespeare's works.

This is an interesting response on Macbeth's part, as he previously showed a great love for his wife and one would expect him to show some more emotion toward her death. However, as he has lost his love, his power, and nothing seems to be pointing to a happy ending for him, I can see how he might descend into numbness and apathy. His pessimism and claim that nothing matters can act as his explanation or justification for his actions, as his deeds that might be considered evil or corrupt actually "signify nothing," which is a good theory to live by if you're a villain.

Honestly, I don't blame him for his switch to "everything sucks and nothing matters" because if my badass wife died, I would also lose all hope. Not to mention I'm about to be beaten by men dressed as trees and lose my throne (that I stole in the first place, but that's besides the point). And I can't read this speech without thinking of Hamilton, so thanks Lin Manuel Miranda. Also, this gif is basically Macbeth in this moment.

“Have I not reason, beldams, as you are

Saucy and overbold? How did you dare

To trade and traffic with Macbeth

In riddles and affairs of death,

And I, the mistress of your charms,

The close contriver of all harms,

Was never called to bear my part,

Or show the glory of our art?

And, which is worse, all you have done

Hath been but for a wayward son,

Spiteful and wrathful, who, as others do,

Loves for his own ends, not for you.

But make amends now. Get you gone,

And at the pit of Acheron

Meet me i'th' morning. Thither he

Will come to know his destiny.

Your vessels and your spells provide,

Your charms and everything beside.

I am for th'air. This night I'll spend

Unto a dismal and a fatal end.

Great business must be wrought ere noon.

Upon the corner of the moon

There hangs a vap'rous drop profound;

I'll catch it ere it come to ground.

And that, distilled by magic sleights,

Shall raise such artificial sprites

As by the strength of their illusion

Shall draw him on to his confusion.

He shall spurn fate, scorn death, and bear

His hopes 'bove wisdom, grace, and fear.

And you all know security

Is mortals' chiefest enemy."

Hecate, act 3, sc 5, lines 2-33

In this scene, the goddess figure Hecate reprimands the Weird Sisters for interfering with Macbeth and steering him toward the destruction we see occur throughout the play.

I thought this scene was interesting not only because we see the powerful witches being scorned by a figure who is seemingly above them in both power and authority, but this is also one of the few times that Shakespeare uses a consistent rhyme scheme in a speech. I think the rhyme scheme here fits with the vibes and spell-like language of the magical beings, but it definitely draws attention to itself and the words Hecate is using. Overall, I just like this scene because we can see the power dynamics and how the magical beings view their interactions with regular mortals.

I just imagine the Weird Sisters as siblings being scolded by a parent for making a scene in public or scheming to dye the neighbor's dog green or something. Hecate has such a small role, but some of the most interesting dialogue when she appears, and good for her.

"How far is't called to Florres? What are these,

So withered and so wild in their attire,

That look not like th'inhabitants o'th' earth,

And yet are on't? --Live you? Or are you aught

That man may question? You seem to understand me

By each at once her choppy finger laying

Upon her skinny lips. You should be women.

And yet your beards forbid me to interpret

That you are so."

Banquo, act 1, sc 3, lines 40-48

This scene depicts the Weird Sisters being introduced to Macbeth and Banquo, who comments on their confusing appearance. They are described as having feminine features and habits, but also having facial hair, which leads the men to question whether the witches are truly women or not.

I think this is an interesting scene and introduction of characters, as we don't really get the ambiguousness of gender in any other Shakespeare characters, or at least not to this extent. And it could be due to their supernatural nature, but it brings up questions of what characteristics are inherently feminine or masculine and how those outward characteristics impact the response to a character. For a play as well, there's the question of how to cast this sort of character. There's the possibility to cast androgynous actors to keep from leaning to far to one gender over the other, but I think it would be interesting in a more "campy" version of Macbeth to cast drag queens in these roles.

Consider: Trixie Mattel, Katya, and Trisha Paytas as the Weird Sisters, featuring Brittany Broski as Hecate. A stellar lineup, I'd say.

"A plague upon you, murderers, traitors all!

I might have saved her. Now she's gone forever. --

Cordelia, Cordelia, stay a little."

Lear, act 5, sc 3, lines 325-27

Following Cordelia's death, Lear laments his loss and curses those responsible.

I feel zero pity for this man. It was his crybaby actions that led to her being effectively banished to France, and then she returned for his sake, resulting in her death. Basically everything that happened in this play is his fault. Or maybe I just hate him and think everything bad is his fault, but it seems pretty likely. He says he might has saved her, but he's the one who doomed her.

I just hate a man that doesn't take responsibility for his actions and cries when faced with the consequences of his own stupidity. Which is most men, it seems.

"Blow winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!

You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout

Till you have drenched our steeples, (drowned) the

cocks.

You sulph'rous and thought-executing fires,

Vaunt-couriers of oak-cleaving thunderbolts,

Singe my white head. And thou, all-shaking

thunder,

Strike flat the thick rotundity o' th' world.

Crack nature's molds, all germens spill at once

That makes ingrateful man."

Lear, act 3, sc 2, lines 1-15

In this scene, Lear shouts and rages at the growing storm around him as his Fool tries to get him to seek shelter.

Honestly, if this were almost any other character in almost any other play, I'd think this is a cool scene and a slay on his part. Basically telling the elements to fuck off can be a power move. But, because it's Lear and I have no investment in him or his journey, I think he's being dramatic and looks stupid shouting at the storm (based on the adaptations we've seen). If it were Titus Andronicus or even Richard III, I might be more interested because they were intriguing characters in their own right. But Lear has just annoyed me from the beginning and his decent into madness holds little to no weight for me.

Sorry king, but I literally don't care about you and you look silly shouting at the wind. Take a seat and stop being insufferable.

"You have begot me, bred me, loved me.

I return those duties back as are right fit:

Obey you, love you, and must honor you.

Why have my sisters husbands if they say

They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed,

That lord whose hand must take my plight shall

carry

Half my love with him, half my care and duty.

Sure I shall never marry like my sisters,

(To love my father all.)"

Cordelia, act 1, sc 1, lines 106-115

In act 1, King Lear announces his plan to divide his kingdom among his three daughters pending their declarations of love to him. Following her sisters' short speeches placing all their love on their father, Cordelia (the youngest and most favored) says this, denying her father of what he asks and in turn getting disowned and basically exiled.

I think this speech says a lot about Cordelia's character and her refusal to play her father's games like her sisters so willingly do. She makes a good point when she says that she can't give all her love to her father or she can't love the husband her father is trying to set her up with. She's telling him that she loves him the exact amount a daughter should but must reserve half her love for her husband. Because she won't put on a show like her sisters, Cordelia is shunned by the king. But her actions attract the King of France, who agrees to marry her despite her demotion.

We haven't gotten a lot of Cordelia so far, but I respect that she stands on business and doesn't want to play games. I hope it works out for her with the King of France, but I'm not holding my breath. It is a Shakespeare tragedy, after all. This scene also brings up the question of who is the villain or villains of this play? Lear? The older sisters? Also, the gif is basically Lear after Cordelia and Kent deny him.

"Soft you. A word or two before you go.

I have done the state some service, and they

know't.

No more of that. I pray you in your letters,

When you shall these unlucky deeds relate,

Speak of me as I am. Nothing extenuate,

Nor set down aught in malice. Then you must speak

Of one that loved not wisely, but too well;

Of one not easily jealous, but being wrought,

Perplexed in the extreme; of one whose hand,

Like the base Judean, threw a pearl away

Richer than all his tribe; of one whose subdued

eyes,

Albeit unused to the melting mood,

Drops tears as fast as the Arabian trees

Their medicinable gum. Set you down this.

And say besides, that in Aleppo once,

Where a malignant and a turbanned Turk

Beat a Venetian and traduced the state,

I took by th' throat the circumciséd dog,

And smote him, thus." (He stabs himself.)

Othello, Act 5, sc 2, lines 397-417

Following his murder of Desdemona and the reveal that Iago lied, Othello speaks to his countrymen to explain his actions before killing himself.

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I hate Othello the man and Othello the play. I did not have a good time with this one and I'm sorry to all that disappoints. But god this man was annoying. He really killed his wife over an alleged affair that she vehemently denied and then says "I loved too well." Bitch. I've read of other characters described to have "loved not wisely, but entirely and with everything he had" and they didn't kill the woman they claimed to love. One not easily jealous? Bro it took literally the presence of a handkerchief to convince you that she was unfaithful and you killed her for it.

In conclusion, I have no pity for Othello and I'm glad he died in the end. Desdemona deserved better. Emilia deserved better. Iago honestly was not the most annoying person on that stage, and despite the fact that he wasn't as goofy of a villain as Richard III, he was smart and I'll give him that. Anyway, don't let men get away with abuse or murder because they claim they "love too well." They're just men and they deserve to suffer.

"Yes, a dozen; and as many to th' vantage as

Would store the world the played for.

[But I do think it is their husbands' faults

If wives do fall. Say that they slack their duties,

And pour our treasures into foreign laps;

Or else break out in peevish jealousies,

Throwing restraint upon us. Or say they strike us,

Or scant our former having in despite.

Why, we have galls, and though we have some grace,

Yet have we some revenge. Let husbands know

Their wives have sense like them. They see, and

smell,

And have their palates both for sweet and sour,

As husbands have. What is it that they do

When they change us for others? Is it sport?

I think it is. And doth affection breed it?

I think it doth. is 't frailty that thus errs?

It is so too. And have we not affections,

Desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?

Then let them use us well. Else let them know,

The ills we do, their ills instruct us so.]"

Emilia, Act 4, sc 3, lines 94-115

Desdemona and Emilia debate the occurrence of unfaithful wives. Desdemona can't believe that a woman would cheat on her husband, but Emilia assures her that this is a common practice and that she herself would partake in it if warranted.

Emilia's argument revolves around the idea that it is the husbands' actions that result in the wives to stray. She talks about the reasons a husband would change his affections and says that women can have the same reasons. Her argument ends with her saying "The ills we do, their ills instruct us to" (4.3.94-115). This is basically a girl boss way to say that women learn how to have affairs from men. And she's right for that.

Emilia KNOWS the double standard of wives cheating vs husbands cheating. It's what ultimately ends with the deaths of Desdemona and herself. And if you watch the Globe version of this play, you know that there is definitely some homoerotic tension between these women that should have had more stage time. They would have been so much better off had they actually had an affair with one another, and I stand by that. Also fuck Iago and Othello. Men ain't shit.

"She swore, in faith, 'twas strange, 'twas passing

strange.

'Twas pitiful, 'twas wondrous pitiful.

She wished she had not heard it, yet she wished

That heaven had made her such a man. She thanked

me,

And bade me, if I had a friend that loved her,

I should but teach him how to tell my story,

And that would woo her. Upon this hint I spake.

She loved me for the dangers I had passed,

And I loved her that she did pity them.

This only is the witchcraft I have used."

Othello, Act 1, sc 3, lines 184-95

When speaking before the Duke and Desdemona's father, Othello explains how he and Desdemona met and fell in love.

What's interesting is how the lines "She wished she had not heard it, yet she wished/That heaven has made her such a man" can be read a couple different ways. The first way is that she wished that there was a man made FOR her that fit the description Othello was giving. But the more intriguing interpretation is that she wishes SHE were such a man. Here we can see her desire to have adventures and do things a man can do. Part of the reason she fell in love with Othello was so that she might have a chance to go with him on adventures.

Is this the best reason to fall in love? No. Does she pay for it? Yeah. And she deserves better. She deserves Emilia. And she so would have a crush on Elizabeth Swann, Pirate King.

"Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am.

Then fly! What, from myself? Great reason why:

Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself?

Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good

That I myself have done unto myself?

O, no. Alas, I rather hate myself

For hateful deeds committed by myself.

I am a villain. Yet I lie; I am not."

Richard, Act 5, Scene 3, Lines 196-203.

Before going into battle the following day, Richard's dreams are haunted by the ghosts of his victims who curse his fate in the war. He awakens and seems to struggle with his morality and mortality.

I thought Richard's thoughts in this scene were intriguing because he seems to be struggling with his role as the villain if only for a moment. In the very beginning of the play, Richard declared himself the villain and seemed to have no qualms about being so. Here, after being haunted by his misdeeds, he seems to have a battle with himself on whether he actually is a villain or not, and whether he loves himself. Though a very brief tussle with his conscience, it's enough for us to consider the hesitations Richard might have felt in his quest to become king.

"The tyrannous and bloody act is done,

The most arch deed of piteous massacre

That ever yet this land was guilty of.

Dighton and Forrest, who I did suborn

To do this piece of [ruthless] butchery,

Albeit they were fleshed villains, bloody dogs,

Melted with tenderness and mild compassion"

Tyrrel, Act 4, Scene 3, Lines 1-7

The man that Richard hired to kill his nephews reveals that he passed on the deed to two other men. These "villains" completed the murder but felt remorse for their actions.

I thought it was funny how this guys was hired to kill the Princes and then decided he didn't want to do it, so he gave the responsibility to two other dudes. I think it's interesting how we see the villains show remorse, because the villains we have come across in other Shakespeare plays don't take the time to feel bad about their actions. In fact they are usually proud and have no regret, as in Aaron's case in Titus Andronicus. This seems to demonstrate how Shakespeare felt about the historical events and adds to the hate against Richard.

"Why, so. Now have I done a good day's work.

You peers, continue this united league.

I every day expect an embassage

From my Redeemer to redeem me hence,

And more (in) peace my soul shall part to heaven

Since I have made my friends at peace on earth.

(Rivers and Hastings,) take each other's hand.

Dissemble not your hatred. Swear your love."

King Edward IV, Act 2, Scene 1, Lines 1-8.

Following a (brief) return to health, King Edward gathers his court and friends to attempt to broker peace between at odds parties. He claims that he will have peace in heaven if this is accomplished.

This scene was interesting to me, mostly because of how easy it was for foes to "forgive" and make peace. It can be difficult to tell from the text alone, but the way the characters are acted will say much about whether the peace is real or just a show for the king (which seems more likely). It seems like this is a typical pursuit for sick and aged kings, as it reminds me of King Viserys Targaryen from House of the Dragon wishing for his children and grandchildren to get along before he dies. Perhaps this is one good they can attempt after an uneventful or failed rule.

"Sooner this sword shall plow thy bowels up!

Stay, murderous villains, will you kill your brother?

Now, by the burning tapers of the sky

That shone so brightly when this boy was got,

He dies upon my scimitar's sharp point

That touches this my firstborn son and heir.

I tell you, younglings, not Enceladus

With all his threat'ning band of Typhon's brood,

Nor great Alcides, nor the god of war

Shall seize this prey out of his father's hands.

What, what, you sanguine, shallow-hearted boys,

You white-limed walls, you alehouse painted signs!

Coal black is better than another hue

In that it scorns to bear another hue;

For all the water in the ocean

Can never turn the swan's black legs to white,

Although she lave them hourly in the flood.

Tell the Empress from me, I am of age

To keep mine own, excuse it how she can."

Aaron the Moor, Act 4, sc 2, lines 91-109

This speech occurs after the birth of Tamora's son, when Aaron, Chiron, and Demetrius discover that the child's father is Aaron. The sons of Tamora are outraged and threaten to kill the child, but Aaron comes to his defense, declaring protection over the baby and defending his skin color as well.

This speech made me pause for a moment and sit in the words Aaron says. This is so different than what we have seen of Aaron before, with little of the villainy he so loves being obvious in the words he speaks about his son. Let's start there. In the beginning of these lines, Aaron fiercely defends his child, threatening death against those who might harm him, even the other sons of his lover, Tamora. He even claims that not even gods could take his son from him, which at the time could prove dangerous as many believed gods could retaliate for such an insult. He also calls the brothers "murderous villains" for wanting to kill his child, which is ironic considering Aaron himself, also a self-proclaimed villain, planned the deaths of Bassianus and the consequential deaths of Titus's sons (not to mention the rape and dismemberment of Lavinia). He was ready to throw hands for his son. In this speech, Aaron surprisingly cements himself as the best father in the play.

Then he gets around to the color of his child's skin. First he insults the brothers' alabaster skin, comparing them to walls and painted signs. He follows this by taking pride in his own skin tone, declaring that "coal black" is the better hue because it takes on no other color and cannot be changed. I was particularly stuck by his analogy of the swan's black legs in the ocean (partially because I just love an ocean metaphor and any ocean imagery). The ocean is such an overwhelming force, and him saying that even the ocean cannot change the color black is such a powerful statement to defend the hue.

Though he is a true villain that does evil to other characters, Aaron does deserve some recognition for his role as a father, his refusal to believe his skin makes him lesser than others, and his dedication to protecting his son from that belief as well. As Tupac said, "The Hate You Give Little Infants F---s Everybody."

"The crying babe controlled with this discourse:

'Peace, tawny slave, half me and half thy dame!

Did not thy hue bewray whose brat thou art,

Had nature lent thee but thy mother's look,

Villain, thou mightst have been an emperor.

But where the bull and cow are both milk white,

They never do beget a coal-black cal.

Peace, villain, peace!' --even thus he rates the babe--"

Second Goth, Act 5, sc 1, lines 26-33

In this scene, Goth soldiers apprehend Aaron the Moor and his child. One of the Goths is telling Lucius how they found the baby due to the way his father was trying to calm him.

The main part of this quote I want to focus on is the use of the term "villain." We have this word used in the way of describing someone "low-born" and also to describe someone who commits crimes or has evil intentions. Usually the word is applied to a grown character, someone who has had the opportunity to make evil decisions or is obviously of a poor upbringing. In this case, it is a baby that is being referred to as a villain. They baby is the child of Aaron and Tamora, who stands as Empress of Rome, so it seems unlikely that he would be referred to as low-born due to his parentage. Then we can infer that it is the child's black skin color that makes him a villain.

The issue of race is one that permeates the whole of this play, and none speak so clear on it than Aaron the Moor, who is known for his dark skin. I'm going to talk more about him in another post, but I wanted to make note of this usage of "villain" first, to begin the discussion of how race is viewed in Shakespeare's time. Justice for the baby.

"So should I rob my sweet sons of their fee.

No, let them satisfy their lust on thee."

Tamora, Act 2, sc 3, lines 179-180

In this scene, Bassianus has been murdered by Chiron and Demetrius and Lavinia is now taken captive by the brothers and Tamora. Lavinia is to be raped by the brothers, and she begs to Tamora to show her mercy or kill her rather than allow this to happen. Tamora denies her, stating that she wouldn't want to rob her sons of their reward for killing Bassianus, before giving the boys full permission to continue with their vile plan.

The first thing I wrote down when I read these lines is "she is not a girl's girl." Tamora is the worst type of woman because she allows and even encourages the rape of another woman. This is a different type of woman that I don't think we see often. Usually women in these plays won't interact or if they do their interactions will be civil or non-violent. It's shocking to see women treat each other this way. I guess allowing her sons to do this is a way of solidifying her villainy without making her perform any violence. But I think we would've understood just by hearing her help plan the murder of Bassianus and the downfall of Titus.

Overall, Tamora was for sure a villain because we hate her, but she's not a villain that we "like" or "love to hate." She's just like the pink toad from Harry Potter, not like Hades from Hercules. And listen, I get that she lost her som at the hands of Titus. Had she just killed people, I would’ve supported her. But she went too far. Even if you're evil, you can still hate rape.

BENEDICK: A miracle! Here's our own hands against

our hearts. Come, I will have thee, but by this light

I take thee for pity.

BEATRICE: I would not deny you, but by this good day, I

yield upon great persuasion, and partly to save your

life, for I was told you were in a consumption."

Act 5, sc 4, lines 96-101

This is following the final marriage of Hero and Claudio (bleh), where the attention moves to Benedick and Beatrice, who continue to deny their affections for one another. Even after Hero and Claudio present notes that were written by the "merry warriors" professing their love, they say they will accept the other only out of pity or to "save them."

The relationship between Benedick and Beatrice was my favorite part of the play. Their banter was so funny and real, and made their love for each other all the better. It's obvious that they both respect one another and love each other, but they are both too prideful to admit it fully. I just think it's funny that even after everything has been revealed, they are like "Wow I can't believe my hands wrote that I love you when in my heart it's not true. Oh well, guess I have to marry you." They're funny for that, especially when Benedick is like "oh my god, shut up" and kisses her to get her to stop talking. Love-sick little fools, they're so cute. Once again, F- Claudio, and long live the merry warriors.

CLAUDIO: If I see anything tonight why I should not

marry her, tomorrow in the congregation, where I

should wed, there will I shame her.

PRINCE: And as I wooed for thee to obtain her, I will

join with thee to disgrace her.

DON JOHN: I will disparage her no farther till you are

my witnesses. Bear it coldly but till midnight, and

let the issue show itself.

Act 3, sc 3, lines 116-123

Following the rumor of "Hero" being unfaithful, Claudio and the Don brothers discuss what should be done if it is found to be true. All three men comment on how they will confront and disgrace her at the wedding.

Honestly, this just made me mad. Claudio hears that his bride might be cheating on him and instead of choosing to confront her privately, he says "No, I'm going to publicly humiliate her on her wedding day." And then his "buddies" Prince Don Pedro and Don John say that they will support him and join him in disgracing her in public rather than do anything about it privately before. I know that this is a play and things are dramatic, but I wouldn't put it past real life men to do this same thing. It makes it worse that Claudio goes further than verbally berating her at her wedding to physically throwing her around (at least in the Globe production). They don't even allow her to defend herself truly, as when they ask if it is true, they really just want her to say it is and don't accept her words. Truly, this just made me hate Claudio and hate men (more).