Aim: What is the cultural as well as the social context of Shakespeare’s othello?
Do Now: In yesterday’s lesson, we created a scene. If you had to select an actor to play one of the characters (protagonist/antagonist) who would you choose and why?
I would like Dane Cook to play the antagonist and Kat Williams to play the protagonist. These two comedians combined would produce a great play based on the dialogue and genre of our play.
Classwork
Who were the Moors?
“The Moors” is a term that refers to “a mixture of people, mostly derived from Arabs and Berbers inhabiting northern Africa. The term lives in the names of the two countries, Morocco and Mauritania. As a people the Moors traveled northward and conquered Spain. They also inhabited Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania. The term Moors remains ambiguous. Some authorities consider the Moors equivalent to the Berbers; others restrict the name to an admixture of Arab ancestry and refer to as Moors only the more settled Arabic-speaking population of the towns. In European history the term is applied loosely to the inhabitants of the Barbary states under Ottoman rule.”
Who were the Venetians?
"Venetians" is a term that refers to Italians that descend from Venice. In the late 1500’s and early 1600’s, the “Venetians were a wealthy and therefore powerful people.” This wealth stemmed from the income that the Venetians made off of their canals and trade. In relation to Othello, the wealth and power had made “Venice a city of high importance to military and political officials and also gave the natives a great pride in their background.”
What was the military duty of ranked officers?
General – Is it the “title and rank of a senior army officer, usually one who commands units larger than a regiment or its equivalent or units consisting of more than one arm of the service. Frequently, however, a general is a staff officer who does not command troops but who plans their operations in the field. General, lieutenant general, and major general are the first, second, and third grades of general officers in many armies. The United States Army, Air Force, and Marines have a fourth general officer grade, brigadier general (brigadier in the British Army). The highest U.S. Army rank, five-star general of the army, was created in 1944 and was conferred upon Henry Harley “Hap” Arnold, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, and George C. Marshall in that year and upon Omar N. Bradley in 1950. The four-star rank of general of the army of the United States was established for Ulysses S. Grant in 1866 and was bestowed later upon William T. Sherman and Philip Sheridan; the unique four-star rank of general of the armies of the United States, created in 1799 for George Washington but never held by him, was conferred upon John J. Pershing in 1919.”
Lieutenant- “A powerful position, is assigned by the General. Can give orders to other soldiers that have lesser ranks then him. This rank does not come with much social status but it is often used as a place to work from to reach higher ranks.” A lieutenant is usually in charge of 20 to 50 soldiers.
Marshall – It is the title “given to certain civil and military offices of varying rank. The origin of the term is closely related to that of England’s constable. In the United States the title “marshal” is employed to designate two types of executive legal officers. The most important of these is the U.S. marshal, an officer appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate for each judicial district. This officer executes the processes of the federal court in his district. The term is also used for temporary police who are sworn in to maintain order during periods of emergency. “Marshal” or “field marshal” is also used in several countries to designate the highest army rank.”
What was the military hierarchy?
Soldiers were paid through their victories. As a citizen, military duty becomes one's responsibility. The aristocrat class is on the top of the military; they are the richest and have the most political power in their society. Their position leaves them in charge of the navy, as well as initiating wars. The Calvary is also a responsibility of the aristocrats. They are the ones that are in charge of supplying chariots and horses and arm guards; usually they act as commanders of small units. Next are the soldiers of heavy-infantry. They need to be equipped and attain skills to fight in wars. The lowest in the military hierarchy are light-infantry soldiers that work under the leadership of generals and commanders.
What was the role of women?
In the 16th century, the role of women was extremely small. For a job, most women were housewives for the professions were closed to women. As for education, women did not go to school. If the family deemed it necessary and had the funds/time, the women would be home-schooled. “Prior to the 16th century society viewed women with the Christian and Aristotelian views which looked at them as sinful and imperfect. Writers such as Shakespeare challenged these views with their works and they were slowly changed. Women were mostly silent, they did not speak out much at all about their opinions, especially in public. Some women wrote, but mostly all they wrote about was prayer and meditation. The only real chance they got to write about their feelings was in poems.” At the time in which Elizabeth ruled, women gained much power. Though it is true women of nobility gained this power more often than women of a lower class.
What was expected of a daughter?
Daughters were expected to follow their father’s wishes. They had to marry who their fathers choose for them to marry.
What was expected of a bride?
In the Renaissance times a Renaissance Woman was supposed to marry well, be loyal to her husband and give birth to boys. Many women did not fit the mold of what they called a "Renaissance Woman." Many of them would fit in as more of a "Renaissance Man" or what we would call a "Renaissance Woman" in our day and age.
Girls were married for alliances between their families, not for love. Women were married with doweries that their family provided and they prepared household possesions to contribute to the new home. Brides were supposed to be virgins before marriage. Women were supposed had to be faithful and respect their fathers and the family over their wants and needs.
Women got involved in disputes about marriage, inheritance and property. In all these matters they had contact with officialdom, so they enter the record. What is particularly noticeable is that many women were familiar enough with the processes involved to use them constructively to their best advantage. It's no accident that women appear far more often in cases tried in the church courts (where even married women had a separate legal identity) than in the common law courts (where married women could not bring cases on their own account).
What relationships between men and women were considered beyond reproach?
It has been proven that there were forms of racism during the Renaissance. Therefore, a marriage between races or religions were probably considered beyond reproach. Also, because the class system was heavily used, only the rich would marry the rich and only the poor would marry the poor. You could not marry out of your class.
What rules for getting married existed at the time of the play?
"The institution of marriage in the Renaissance Period was both secular and sacred. Secularly, it served as a union of two parties interested in acquiring property, money or political alliances. Marriage was also sacred in that it bound the love of a man and woman and sought procreation. William Shakespeare's work vividly displays the sacredness of love and marriage. Popular critics of his time considered Shakespeare the greatest love poet of all time. It was once said "he represented in an inimitable and masterly manner all the phenomena and manifestations of love." A working knowledge of both marriage and inheritance procedures in the Renaissance Period affords a better understanding of Shakespeare's works."
Property ownership in marriage was important as well. "First, land descended to the eldest son to the exclusion of his siblings. But if there was no son, land went to the daughter. If there were more than one daughter then they were all equal heiresses. Common law gave a limited preference to males, as it gave daughters preference over collateral males, such as the nephew, or uncle, or male cousin. The younger son often received no inheritance after the bulk of it was given to the eldest son, so many times they sought higher education in order to provide for any family they might have in the future. The next to be considered for the inheritance of a deceased landowner was the widow. The widow had a large common law right which became very well protected in the 16th century. She was entitled to a third of her husband's land for life because of her right of dower. A husband could leave his wife less by specifying it at the time of his marriage.
The second form of courtship was handled for the most part by the parties involved. A man attracted to a certain woman would ask her family for permission. Keith Wrightson suggests in his documentation of 17th century marriage practices that "it seems reasonable to conclude that among the greater part of the common people marriage partners were freely chosen, subject to the advice of friends and a sense of obligation to consult or subsequently inform parents if they were alive and within reach." If the man was both financially and personally acceptable, permission was granted and courtship continued with visits, gifts, and expressions of love.
Before a couple could officially be considered married by the church and common law, there were four basic requirements. First, the bride's family had to consent and a dowry be offered. Second, both parties had to be of equal social class. The third requirement was for the parties to publicly declare the wedding and to have witnesses. Finally, the couple had to consummate the marriage.
Shakespeare's time period marked a time where marriage was an important aspect of people's lives. The ways in which people were matched and married was very evident in many of his works as he strove to depict love and the relationships that developed between men and women. The procedures to inheritance are an important aspect of marriage in that it gives people a better understanding of the reasons behind the way marriages were handled around the Renaissance era."
Who was the most famous Moor?
"The one famous Moor we all know about is Shakespeare's Othello."
What were the rules of courtship?
During the Shakespearean era, marriage was secular and sacred. When two people were married they had to think about the fortune they would inherit from their love. If the parents were to die the eldest son would receive most of their fortune and the youngest would usually receive the least. Marriage was also an important part of people’s lives because it bound the man and woman together and they were expected to have children.
Homework:
What rules dictate the behavior of men and women in relationships today?
Marriage and relationships in today’s society are much different than back in the 16th century. Back in the 16th century, men were essentially in charge and no one should ever question the man of the household. If the wife did speak up, for example, she might have been beaten/abused and the husband would have gotten away with it. In today’s society, both the men and women play an equal role in a relationship and should never be abused. Ever since we were young, we were told to respect one another and insist that we receive the same respect back. However, not all the time does this occur. If, for example, the woman in a relationship were abused, so long as she can present evidence, she would be able to obtain a restraining order or other assistance that would insure her rights are protected.
Name a situation in which the rules have been clearly violated? That is, what are things “nice girls” or “nice boys” just don’t do?
We see it everyday, especially with younger adults. The males are typically the ones who perform inappropriate acts that, although they don’t know, could be classified as sexual harassment. Everyone is entitled to his or her own personal space, and that person space should not be violated. Yet everyday, we see people or hear about people who unwillingly were either denied their personal space or sexually assaulted.
A specific example would be when women were walking through central park a few years ago. Because it was at night, they would not be able to see the stalkers hiding, and when they pounced, they took the woman and physically abused her.
Why do these rules exist? Do you think they apply locally or even just at your school? What are the possible consequences of breaking these rules?
These rules exist so that we are not abused or violated. We also trust that these rules will stimulate a properly functioning society. If these rules were not put into place, then the world would become a terrible place filled with sexual crimes. Now because most of us are brought up to respect one another, I do not feel as though anyone really thinks about committing acts that would cause them to be reprimanded by these rules. Even if they were, yes I believe these rules apply locally because we do not hear many cases of women or men being treated unfairly in relationships. Yes there may be a few cases of men or women being violated, but in the end the perpetrator is always punished and the victim receives assistance.
The most common consequences of breaking these rules is that you are put on a watch list, there is a restraining order placed against you or you are suspended from either work or school depending on the location of committing the act. Depending on the degree of the act, some perpetrators might even receive jail time. However, the problem with this is that the perpetrator is not corrected, just punished. Yes, the victim is protected, but the perpetrator has not learned right from wrong and may even be more tempted to recommit the act out of anger.
Do you know if these rules are applicable to other cultures or are they totally different?
Although there may not be any rules restricting inappropriate behavior, sometimes there are rules that limit who a person can or cannot have a relationship with in another culture. An example of this would be arranged marriages.
As for whether women have rights in their culture, I am not sure. I do know that in some cultures, women are still seen as insignificant people who are responsible for taking care of the house and children. However, if the wife or female partner in a relationship is abused, I am not sure if it is safe for the woman to speak up about it. Who knows? In some cultures, it might even be rude for a woman to speak at all about what takes place in the household. Their culture might see it as something only the family should discuss.
Think of scenes from ANY show/movie that adheres to these rules as well as shows/movies that violates these rules.
In today’s society, I do not feel as though producers concentrate on this area of rules that dictate behavior in relationships. However there are a few movies where there is a female role that is consistently being abused. The movies that I remember having the most rules broken are civil war era movies. There is always times where there are young children being traded as sex slaves. There are other times in these films where there is a woman in a relationship being beaten every day, and yet they cannot say anything for no one would protect them from their husband’s wrath after the wife told the truth.
Fortunately, to make up for these terrible films, there are love films in today’s society that demonstrate a true and perfect relationship. There are also TV shows where we see a couple “madly in love,” and they still manage to respect one another. In conclusion, I feel as though there is a fine balance between media that violates these basic rules and media that endorses these basic rules.
