Overview

In my term project, I continued my research on ghosts. I focused mainly on Shakespeare’s plays dealing with ghosts. I also looked at pictures dealing with deaths and what I thought to be a close resemblance of what I thought could be purgatory. There was also a pamphlet that dealt with ghosts that grabbed my attention along with a play by John Fletcher that used ghosts as a comedic relief.
The three plays that I dealt with dealing with ghosts by Shakespeare were Richard III, Julius Caesar, and Macbeth. In each play, these ghosts were ghosts of murdered victims of the main character. The ghosts came back to haunt the characters and to curse them. Each of the people visited by ghosts died in the end as the appearance of the ghosts leads the downfall of the character. Each ghosts brought guilt to the main character. In Richard III, even though the ghost appearance came at the end, the ghosts showed Richard III how lonely he is and how much he hates himself. In Julius Caesar, Brutus realizes that killing Caesar maybe wasn’t the best choice especially using the excuse that murdering Caesar would benefit Rome. Macbeth’s madness begins to show once he sees Banquo’s ghosts. Guilt kicks in and things begin to plunge for Macbeth. Having similar traits of the ghosts showed how big of a role ghosts played during Shakespeare time. Ghosts were used to get revenge and to bring guilt upon the murderer.
To continue on my research, I came across Hans Holbein’s artwork. It was called the Dance of Death. I found it interesting how the dead were depicted as skeletons. I explored around and found pictures dealing with the supernatural and thought it would be interesting to comment upon, as many were a little hard to understand.
I also looked at a pamphlet dealing with ghosts and haunting. I picked the one I did because of the skeleton cover. It matched the pictures from Holbein’s Dance of Death. The two stories that I read were about ghost hauntings but what I found interesting was how in both stories, ghosts caused physical pain to the living. I compared the stories to that of Shakespeare’s ghosts and found that Shakespeare’s ghost did not physically harm any of the ghosts’ victims. Yes they messed with the minds but didn’t actually hurt or pushed any of the victims.
Reading about ghosts becomes depressing after awhile so I decided to read a comedy where ghosts were used for personal gain. In The Night Walker by John Fletcher, the living pretended to be ghosts to scare people away. I guess during this time it is easy to scare, as people are very superstitious. Though the play wasn’t based on ghosts alone and the ghosts didn’t play such a major role like in Shakespeare play, it was nice to see how an author during this time made fun of people’s superstitious minds and quickly believed in ghosts and not question if it was a ghosts or not.
Through my research, I found that ghosts are used to bring guilt on a character. The ghosts are used against sinners and usually come back for revenge. There was a fascination on ghosts during the Renaissance period. Though ghosts most appeared to those who are depressed and not in the right state of minds, the people during the Renaissance age used ghosts to tell moral stories. Most of them told people to not kill or you’ll be visited by the spirit of your victim and will most likely die in the end. The afterlife will always be a mystery to us and seeing how ghosts is a fixture in tradition and culture, reading stories and looking at pictures dealing with death made me want to look more into the history of the afterlife. No one knows exactly what happens to us after we die. We do not know if there really are such things as ghosts or even purgatory but I do know that we will always be fascinated by different ideas of what happens to us after we die.




Bibliography

Fletcher, John, and Francis Beaumont. The Night Walker. Ed. Fredson Bowes. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon. Vol. VII. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of
the University of Cambridge, 1989. 532-611.

Shakespeare, William, Harold Bloom, and Burton Raffel. Julius Caesar. New York: Yale UP, 2006.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Ed. Nick De Somogyi. New York: Nick Hern Books, Limited, 2004.

Shakespeare, William, and Harold Bloom. Richard III. Ed. Burton Raffel. New York: Yale UP, 2008.

http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/macabre.htm

http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=38875913&FILE=../session/1229013713_18049&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR

Interesting sites you might want to look at:

http://shakespeare.emory.edu/illustrated_index.cfm

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/

http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/holdod/holdod.htm

http://www.godecookery.com/

Ghosts and Comedy

http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=99838154&FILE=../session/1229005338_16835&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&VID=2517&PAGENO=1&ZOOM=&VIEWPORT=&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR&HIGHLIGHT_KEYWORD=

The night-vvalker, or The little theife A comedy, as it vvas presented by her Majesties Servants, at the Private House in Drury Lane. Written by Iohn Fletcher. Gent. , London : Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Andrew Crooke, and William Cooke, 1640.

I want to now go to a play that uses ghosts as a comedy. It is known as The Night Walker, or Little Theefe by John Fletcher. The basics of this story is a woman named Maria to be married off but she loves another. Though she is married to Justice Algrip but doesn’t love him but loves Hartlove, Maria is virtuous and would not cheat on Justice with Hartlove. Maria uses any means she can to keep Hartlove away from her but Justice sees the two together and Maria’s reputation is ruin. She swoons and is thought to be dead.
In the meantime, a man named Lurcher plans to rob the house that Maria is getting married at. He has a boy (Snap) who is working for him to help him with his plan. Both decide it is best to terrify the guards by looking like a spirit. Snap first appears to Tobie (a servant ) and Nurse who is heartbroken as she thinks that Maria has died. They looked through the house to find a chest full of money and instead grabbed a coffin. They are making a lot of noise and everyone thinks the Devil is walking amongst them. Lurcher and Snap open the coffin to find that Maria is lying in it. They decide to bury the coffin but Justice and a Servant are around. They hear Lurcher and Snap and thinks it’s once again ghosts. Snap decides to pretend to be Maria. Justice and the servant leaves and as Snap and Lurcher and Lurcher’s Mistress tries burying Maria’s coffin, Maria begins to stir making the three scared so they run away.
The next scene, WIldbraine and Hartlove is arguing. Wildbraine was the genius behind Hartlove bedding Maria on her wedding night and now everything is going against him. Maria comes upon them fighting and pretends to be her ghost to prevent them from killing one another. Once Maria leaves, both boys make up.
In the meantime, the Lady, Maria’s mother, talks to Justice to restore her daughter’s reputation. Funny thing is, she arranged the marriage between Justice and Maria even though Justice is described as a rotting dog. Now the Lady is calling Justice names as she believed that Justice has Maria’s body. Lurcher and Snap comes in selling books that either one would like, such as a book on wronged maids for the Lady or books or a book of rude malicious women for Justice. They two entered Justice’s place where they gag him and look for the wedding chest.
While Justice is being gagged, the Lady and the Nurse comes upon Maria who is dressed as a country maid. Hartlove comes in apologizes to the Lady saying how much he loved Maria. Maria (as the country maid) keeps blushing and sighing when Hartlove talks and has to leave. The Lady and the Nurse realizes that it is Maria and decides to help Maria get back together with Hartlove.
Lurcher and Snap decides to drug Justice where Justice begins to see furies to fetch his soul. Snap comes in dressed as an angel and Justice begins to repent. In the end, Snap planned everything out and showed the whole group Justice’s first marriage contract which makes his marriage to Maria invalid. He also makes Justice give back Lurcher’s property as Lurcher is a fallen gentleman. It turns out that Snap is in fact Lurcher’s sister and also Justice’s wife.

This play uses the ideas of ghosts to scare people. I find it funny how they use people’s superstitions against one another and I think Fletcher is making fun of how easily scared we can get of the unknowing. It’s a play full of disguises. Though it doesn’t have real ghosts, it’s a nice contrast to Shakespeare’s serious ghosts. It shows the different sides of ghosts and how they are used. Even if the ghosts weren’t real, the fake ghosts in The Night Walker does have some effect on the play as it scares people. The ghosts made Justice to start feeling guilty when they first appeared and Maria’s ghost reconciled Wildbraine and Hartlove.


Fletcher, John, and Francis Beaumont. The Night Walker. Ed. Fredson Bowes. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon. Vol. VII. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1989. 532-611.

Traditional Haunts

http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgimages.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=38875913&FILE=../session/1228986189_5776&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&VID=152423&PAGENO=1&ZOOM=&VIEWPORT=&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR&HIGHLIGHT_KEYWORD=

Strange and true news from Long-Ally in More-Fields, Southwark, and Wakefield in Yorkshire 1. The wonderful and miraculous appearance of the ghost of Griffin Davis (at the house of Mr. Watkins in Long-Ally) to his daughter Susan Davis ... 2. A more exact relation of the strruge [sic] appearance of the ghost of Mr. Powel near the Faulcon ... 3. The heavy judgment of God shewed on Jane Morris a widdow near Wakefield in Yorkshiere [sic] ... / the truth hereof is averred by Sir. Rich. Keys, Mr. Hare, and several other persons of quality ... , London : Printed for John Johnson, 1661.

There are two stories to this short pamphlet. I find these very interesting as physical pain has been inflicted on witnesses of ghosts. In the first story, a widow cursed the name of god and spirits overtaken her and her house. When people entered, such as the doctors, they were beaten back. So the doctors claimed that the Devil was in her but to keep the woman alive, they put porridge near her window where they found the next morning, the porridge was gone. This kept the widow a live for a while.
The next story is about a recent dead master who came back to haunt his house. He appeared to one of his living servants, first in the appearance of a cat, then another as a goat, and then the third as himself. Mr. Powell (the master) scared the poor woman out of the home which left her deathly ill. Mr. Powell was restless because a granddaughter was left un-provided for.
Some called Mr. Powell and told him to return to his resting place but Mr. Powell said “Woe to those that were the caused of my coming here”. It was then said that the “Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil”. Mr. Powell vanished like “a flash of fire” and actually hit a bystander’s leg which lamed him. Some people still stayed in the house though as money was claimed to be hidden.
I find these stories very interesting as in the stories I have read involving ghost, no physical contact occurred between the ghost and the witnesses. The ghost could not hurt somebody physically. Another thing I found curious was how these stories are like the true haunting we came to know today where spirits take over a house and stay there because they are restless or because someone has cursed the name of God. Some of the modern ghost stories I have heard of, evil spirits has consumed the house because in the past, someone has cursed the name of God and worked closely with the Devil. From reading these two stories, I came to realized that ghost ideas have stayed close to the original tradition of ghosts.


http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=38875913&FILE=../session/1229013713_18049&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR

Purgatory and Death

http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/holdod/holdod48.htm

XLVIII. The Last Judgment
Christ sitting on a rainbow, and surrounded by a group of angels, patriarchs, &c., rests his feet on a globe of the universe. Below are several naked figures risen from their graves, and stretching out their hands in the act of imploring judgment and mercy.

Text from the 1947 Sylvan Press edition

This picture is from Hans Holbein’s The Dance of Death. This picture does well to describe what purgatory is like. Purgatory is a place in between death and the living. It is where people need to be forgiven for their sins before they are to go to Heaven or if not, Hell. Some say, it’s a place where spirits are given the chance to solve things in the living world. From this picture, it shows that the spirits are begging for forgiveness. The people from below are the deceased and the man on top is God with his angels behind him.

http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery4/macbr95.htm

95. Infernal punishment for the Seven Deadly Sins: the envious are immersed in freezing water. From Le grant kalendrier des Bergiers, printed by Nicolas le Rouge, Troyes, 1496.

Even though the description of the picture says they are in freezing water, I kind of want to think that this could be hell, or if not, purgatory where the spirits are floating and wants to be saved from the emptiness. Their hands reaching up signifies to me that they are calling out to go which makes me think that they are wanting forgiveness and are repenting for the sins they have done in their lives. It really is a disturbing picture and an interesting way to picture hell or purgatory. It looks painful and not a place I want to be.
http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery1/macbr24.htm

24. Christ breaking down the gates of Purgatory. French, 13th century. Drawing after a miniature in a manuscript.

I found this picture to be very interesting. It does not look like a purgatory I imagined at all but it’s nice to see people in purgatory having forgiveness and mercy. There are many interesting aspects about this picture that I don’t know what to say about them. The rat creature in the corner looks like it is eating children or kept them as if that was the children’s purgatory and also, Jesus is stepping on a monster like thing. There are many things going on but it a very a cool picture to look at and try to figure out.
http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/gallery1/macbr30.htm

30. Condemned souls of sinners are carried by demons to their place of punishment. Milan, 14th century. Drawing after a miniature in a manuscript.

This is another interesting picture. I guess from being an earlier picture, it is hard to understand what exactly is going on but this picture explains the picture before this a lot. The rat like thing is a place of punishment which could be Hell or purgatory. The people looked depressed and the demons are very monstrous.


http://www.godecookery.com/macabre/macabre.htm

Richard III

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/gothicnightmares/images/works/richardiiighosts_large.jpg


Another Shakespeare play where ghosts haunt their murderer is Richard III. Richard III is a greedy, envious guy who does whatever it takes to become king. He reminds me of Macbeth in a way but more ruthless. He ends up killing many people for personal gain. It really surprised me that Shakespeare wrote a play on someone so ruthless but sadly, with him being so ambitious, I got caught up in Richard III’s plot to take the throne that I kind of wanted to see if he could make it. He is really smart and charming, though. He was able to get Lady Anne to accept his proposal in marriage. I can see Richard III to be a very greasy man and I kind of cringe when this happened.
To get back to the point, Richard III killed many to get to the throne. In one of the final scenes of the play, eleven ghosts appeared to Richard in his sleep in Act 5, scene 3. Though it is in his sleep, this scene holds a very important role. All eleven ghosts are ones that Richard III killed or had something to do with their murder. Eleven ghosts? He is definitely one of the worst off characters from Shakespeare especially if this play follows the same path as the other plays with ghosts.
All of the ghosts messages pretty much curses Richard. They tell “despair and die” and how he won’t survive in the battle the next day. Each ghosts speaks one at a time cursing Richard but then they would speak highly of Richmond who later becomes Henry VII. This foreshadows how Richmond will win the battle.

Enter the Ghost of Prince Edward, son to King Henry VI

Ghost of Prince Edward
[To KING RICHARD III]
Let me sit heavy on thy soul to-morrow!
Think, how thou stab'dst me in my prime of youth
At Tewksbury: despair, therefore, and die!

To RICHMOND

Be cheerful, Richmond; for the wronged souls
Of butcher'd princes fight in thy behalf
King Henry's issue, Richmond, comforts thee.

Enter the Ghost of King Henry VI Ghost (Act 5, Scene 3, 120-125)

The significance of the ghosts, even though it appeared in Richard’s dream, brought guilt, once again, to the main character. Richard begins to feel lonely after waking from this nightmare. He realizes that Richard doesn’t even love himself. What is power when you are the only one who cares? He rather hate himself than love himself.

KING RICHARD III starts out of his dream

KING RICHARD III
Give me another horse: bind up my wounds.
Have mercy, Jesu!--Soft! I did but dream.
O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!
The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.
What do I fear? myself? there's none else by:
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
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 (Act 5. Scen 3, 179-191)

Like in all the Shakespeare plays that I have read dealing with scene in ghosts, they usually being the downfall of the character. The character visited by the ghosts usually dies in the end. Guilt consumes them as the ghosts are usually one that is close to them and in most of the plays, ones that the main character killed.

Observations: 1) Don’t kill your best friend or anyone close to you

2) If a ghost haunts you, most likely you will die.

3) Revenge and power isn’t worth it.

4) Accept faith and don’t try to change it.



Shakespeare, William, and Harold Bloom. Richard III. Ed. Burton Raffel. New York: Yale UP, 2008.

Julius Caesar

http://shakespeare.emory.edu/illustrations/westall_caesar.jpg


To continue on with Shakespeare plays with ghosts in it, I want to move on to Julius Caesar. Though the play is named after him, Caesar is not a main character. This play focuses more on Caesar’s best friend and also one of his murderers, Brutus. Reading this, I’ve coming to a conclusion that killing a close friend just leads to bad things in the end. No good ever comes out of it especially if Shakespeare is involved.
Caesar dies in the middle of the play but we see Caesar a couple more times in the last half as a ghost. He brings bad news and is only seen by Brutus, the last person who killed him.

BRUTUS
It was well done; and thou shalt sleep again;
I will not hold thee long: if I do live,
I will be good to thee.

Music, and a song

This is a sleepy tune. O murderous slumber,
Lay'st thou thy leaden mace upon my boy,
That plays thee music? Gentle knave, good night;
I will not do thee so much wrong to wake thee:
If thou dost nod, thou break'st thy instrument;
I'll take it from thee; and, good boy, good night.
Let me see, let me see; is not the leaf turn'd down
Where I left reading? Here it is, I think.

Enter the Ghost of CAESAR

How ill this taper burns! Ha! who comes here?
I think it is the weakness of mine eyes
That shapes this monstrous apparition.
It comes upon me. Art thou any thing?
Art thou some god, some angel, or some devil,
That makest my blood cold and my hair to stare?
Speak to me what thou art.

GHOST
Thy evil spirit, Brutus.

BRUTUS
Why comest thou?

GHOST
To tell thee thou shalt see me at Philippi.

BRUTUS
Well; then I shall see thee again?

GHOST
Ay, at Philippi.

BRUTUS
Why, I will see thee at Philippi, then.

Exit Ghost

Now I have taken heart thou vanishest:
Ill spirit, I would hold more talk with thee.
Boy, Lucius! Varro! Claudius! Sirs, awake! Claudius! (Act 4, Scene 3, 264- 289)

Caesar’s ghost once again follows the basics of ghost in the Renaissance time period. He is someone who recently just died and he comes to bare bad news. Whether or not Caesar’s ghost is a demon or not, it cannot really be determined but my guts tell me he is a good ghost as he is restless and even though does not say, I believe Caesar’s ghost is in Purgatory. My reasoning for this is that he is restless and is only delivering a message to Brutus. He doesn’t speak of anything else but how Brutus will meet him at Philippi.
Brutus, like any sane person, goes a little crazy after this. He isn’t too sure if he is dreaming so he wakes up the rest to see if they saw anything or said anything in their sleep. They did not which gives more evidence that whatever Brutus saw could possibly be a ghost. If it was his conscious, why would his conscious tell him that he will meet Caesar again at Philippi.
Brutus is also not in the right state of mind. He just got in an argument with Cassius. Though they made up, one can tell that things are not the same. Brutus also discovers that his wife has killed herself by swallowing fire. Depression most likely has sunk into Brutus leaving him open to ghosts.
Caesar’s ghost appears once again but this time the audience does not see the ghost. We only know that Caesar’s ghost appeared on the battlefield was because Brutus claimed that he saw him.

BRUTUS
Why, this, Volumnius:
The ghost of Caesar hath appear'd to me
Two several times by night; at Sardis once,
And, this last night, here in Philippi fields:
I know my hour is come. (Act 5, Scene 5, 15-18)

Brutus is accepting death and what he did to Caesar was wrong so he ends up killing himself. This here just shows me that Brutus was definitely not in the right mind and maybe the ghost of Caesar was made up by his conscious. Killing himself, as I grew up learning, automatically puts him in hell. Yes, he was going to hell after killing Caesar but from what I was beginning to understand, Brutus was in a way repenting and regretting Caesar’s death even though the reason to kill Caesar was for Caesar’s benefit. I feel bad for Brutus as he believed what he did was right but in the end, he realized he was wrong and he felt like the only way to end things is that he would kill himself. The whole play of Julius Caesar confused me with everyone killing themselves.
Caesar’s ghost doesn’t have a huge role like Banquo’s ghost and Hamlet’s ghost. I wouldn’t say that it was a catalyst but I would say that it supports how ghosts appear to those who are melancholic. The ghosts usually ended up being seen by the main character and the ghost usually is a recent murdered victim and is close to the main character. I’m starting to feel bad for all the Shakespearean characters who are visited by ghosts as none of them lives.

Shakespeare, William, Harold Bloom, and Burton Raffel. Julius Caesar. New York: Yale UP, 2006.

Macbeth

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/5700/5790/macbeth_4_lg.gif


Since my earlier presentation was on ghost and I focused on Hamlet, I want to move on to another Shakespeare play that has a ghost. It is Macbeth, a tragedy of a general’s obsession with defeating fate’s set path. He becomes King of Scotland after killing the already king, Duncan, and his best friend Banquo who was predicted to have a child take the throne.
The scene that I want to focus on is the scene where Banquo’s ghost appears to Macbeth only. In this scene, there is a banquet being held with very important Scotland officials where Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are the hosts.

LADY MACBETH
My royal lord,
You do not give the cheer: the feast is sold
That is not often vouch'd, while 'tis a-making,
'Tis given with welcome: to feed were best at home;
From thence the sauce to meat is ceremony;
Meeting were bare without it.

The GHOST OF BANQUO enters, and sits in MACBETH's place

MACBETH
Sweet remembrancer!
Now, good digestion wait on appetite,
And health on both!

LENNOX
May't please your highness sit.

MACBETH
Here had we now our country's honour roof'd,
Were the graced person of our Banquo present;
Who may I rather challenge for unkindness
Than pity for mischance!

ROSS
His absence, sir,
Lays blame upon his promise. Please't your highness
To grace us with your royal company.

MACBETH
The table's full.

LENNOX
Here is a place reserved, sir.

MACBETH
Where?

LENNOX
Here, my good lord. What is't that moves your highness?

MACBETH
Which of you have done this?

Lords
What, my good lord?

MACBETH
Thou canst not say I did it: never shake
Thy gory locks at me.

ROSS
Gentlemen, rise: his highness is not well.

LADY MACBETH

Sit, worthy friends: my lord is often thus,
And hath been from his youth: pray you, keep seat;
The fit is momentary; upon a thought
He will again be well: if much you note him,
You shall offend him and extend his passion:
Feed, and regard him not.
[Aside to Macbeth] Are you a man?

MACBETH
Ay, and a bold one, that dare look on that
Which might appal the devil.

LADY MACBETH
O proper stuff!
This is the very painting of your fear:
This is the air-drawn dagger which, you said,
Led you to Duncan. O, these flaws and starts,
Impostors to true fear, would well become
A woman's story at a winter's fire,
Authorized by her grandam. Shame itself!
Why do you make such faces? When all's done,
You look but on a stool.

MACBETH
Prithee, see there! behold! look! lo!
how say you?
Why, what care I? If thou canst nod, speak too.
If charnel-houses and our graves must send
Those that we bury back, our monuments
Shall be the maws of kites.

Exits Banquo's ghost (Act 3, Scene 4, pgs 82-84)

This is the first time the ghost appears. Unlike the Hamlet ghost that appears and talks to Hamlet, Banquo’s ghost sits there and puts fear into Banquo without even doing much. Banquo sits in Macbeth’s place, which in my mind is the head of the table as Macbeth is king right now. Macbeth doesn’t see the ghost until he is asked to sit down. He noticed that the table is full.
As in my ghost research project earlier this year, I found that ghost appears to people who are mad or they appear to help solve a crime. No one at this point knows that Banquo is dead but Macbeth. Having the ghost only appear to Macbeth begins Macbeth’s madness and begins the downfall for Macbeth’s throne. Lady Macbeth, one of the causes of Macbeth’s madness, tries to keep everyone calm while her husband is seeing things that no one else can see.
Before Macbeth sees the ghost, guilt does not hit and it doesn’t seem like Macbeth would feel guilty for being the cause of his best friend’s murder. The ghost brings this emotion out. It would bring anyone’s guilt out if someone you killed come back to haunt you.
The ghost appears again.

MACBETH
I do forget.
Do not muse at me, my most worthy friends,
I have a strange infirmity, which is nothing
To those that know me. Come, love and health to all;
Then I'll sit down. Give me some wine; fill full.

Enter GHOST OF BANQUO

I drink to the general joy o' the whole table,
And to our dear friend Banquo, whom we miss;
Would he were here! to all, and him, we thirst,
And all to all.

Lords
Our duties, and the pledge.

MACBETH
(to the ghost)
Avaunt! and quit my sight! let the earth hide thee!
Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold;
Thou hast no speculation in those eyes
Which thou dost glare with!

LADY MACBETH
Think of this, good peers,
But as a thing of custom: 'tis no other;
Only it spoils the pleasure of the time.

MACBETH
What man dare, I dare:
Approach thou like the rugged Russian bear,
The arm'd rhinoceros, or the Hyrcan tiger;
Take any shape but that, and my firm nerves
Shall never tremble: or be alive again,
And dare me to the desert with thy sword;
If trembling I inhabit then, protest me
The baby of a girl. Hence, horrible shadow!
Unreal mockery, hence!

Exit the ghost

Why, so, being gone,
I am a man again. Pray you sit still. (Act 3, Scene 4, pgs 86-88)

Maybe it’s just me who notices this, but the ghost reappears around the time Macbeth says “health” and tries to give a toast to the party. To me this gives a hidden message that Macbeth is not healthy. His mind is not in the right place and guilt is starting to consume him.
Comparing this to the Hamlet ghost, the ghost of Banquo does not have to say anything to start the downfall. In Hamlet, the ghost consumes Hamlet’s mind and convinces Hamlet to take revenge. The Hamlet ghost is a revenge ghost and can be argued to be a demon instead of a good ghost. The Banquo ghost is someone who is recently dead and appears to the one who caused his death. He doesn’t say anything but his actions are greater than words can say. The ghost of Banquo isn’t a main character of Macbeth but does play an important role. The ghost of Banquo is the beginning of the domino effect. Once the ghost appears, dominoes start to fall. In Hamlet, the ghost of Hamlet is a main fixture of the play and everything pretty much revolves around him and what was said.
Before Banquo’s ghost appears to Macbeth, and only to Macbeth, things seem to go well for the king. Macbeth and his lovely wife murdered Duncan but it was blamed on guards. Banquo was murdered as well and all they need to do was kill Banquo’s son Fleance for the prophecy not be fulfilled. If the ghost did not appear, Macbeth would probably be able to go on without thinking twice about Banquo. But since the ghost appeared, it was a trigger in Macbeth’s head that he might be haunted by the ghost of his long time friend which to me is one of the worst tortures ever.
Even though the ghost of Banquo does not appear as much as Hamlet’s ghost, it holds the same effect and same end. They are very similar as they are recent murder victims and came back to have somewhat of a revenge. Both are catalysts to the play and create the downfall for both main characters.


Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Ed. Nick De Somogyi. New York: Nick Hern Books, Limited, 2004.

Harry Potter = Modern Renaissance Tale

Before I started reading Harry Potter again, I was trying to figure out if I remember any thing from the book that would relate back to the Renaissance time period. I knew there were magic and wizards and witches but other than that, I wasn’t too sure. The school of Hogwarts reminded me of an old time castle but it wasn’t enough for me to write a paper on the architect.
I started reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and as soon as the description of Harry came, I thought “HA! This is Red Crosse in modern day clothes!” It was too perfect. Harry was wearing over sized clothes and is an awkward eleven year old with odds already against him before the real adventure begins. Red Crosse from The Faerie Queene was first introduced wearing oversized armor and to me was very awkward. He wasn’t the typical hero type that we would expect. Both characters were the underdog and the audience would naturally root for them to win even though strong forces are against them.
There were so much similarities of both stories that made me believe that J.K. Rowling outlined Harry Potter after The Faerie Queene. But then as I looked more closely to the other Renaissance stories we read, most of the similarities were universal themes and human nature. Both Red Crosse and Harry Potter were trying to find their identity in life. Both had no idea who they really were. But then you can look at other themes that were throughout both stories. There was the very cliché theme of good versus evil. This was the main theme in Doctor Faustus. Greed and the idea of trying to achieve the impossible was also a theme, which was a theme in the Sorcerer’s Stone with the idea of living forever and trying to defeat death. And then there was the theme that tied most of the stories together and that was “things aren’t what they seemed to be”. Professor Quirrell seemed to be the good guy to the reader and to Harry Potter while Snape was just so evil. In the end, Professor Quirrell wanted Harry dead while Snape was saving Harry. In The Faerie Queene, there were many disguises especially dealing with Archimago and Fidessa. Dealing with Faustus, the deed was not what he wanted but he didn’t do anything about it. In the Witch of Edmonton, the evil one was not the “witch” but the rich people but the “witch” died while the “good” ones lived.
Themes from all story including Harry Potter connected everything together from class. It was nice to see that a modern day story was bringing back Renaissance ideas, morals, and a colorful tale filled with magic and superstitions.

Identity Roles

Basically to be a witch, you have to follow these guidelines.
1. You have to be unmarried
2. Being a widow gives you a higher chance of being a witch
3. Poor
4. You have to curse as women were suppose to be pure and obedient
5. You have to be ugly.
All witches in the Renaissance period follow these guidelines. Everyone could accuse them, which surprises me. I wouldn’t trust a child’s accusation so much but they were allowed to testify.
Witches in this era had familiars, which were the animal partner of the witch. The animals were usually the Devil or some demon in an animal form. They would feed upon the blood of their witch.
Elizabeth Sawyer is the Witch of Edmonton. At first, she wasn’t a witch. She was just a woman who was a little crooked who just wanted sticks to keep herself warm. But by her appearance, she was called a witch. After being called a witch so many times, it’s not hard to start believing it yourself especially if you can’t change people’s perception of you. So, Elizabeth found herself a familiar and became a witch. It gave her power to attack the people who attacked her while she was defenseless and innocent. Who would beat a woman who just wanted to keep warm? This amazes me the most as religion was suppose to be a big part of this time period. Being charitable was taught to them and beating a woman who just wants sticks isn’t being a good Christian.
One question that was brought up in class was, why was Elizabeth Sawyer only in a few scenes? I believe it shows how identity plays a big part in this story. Elizabeth looks like a witch, so she was accused as a witch. In reality, she was one of the few and maybe only good people in the beginning. She just wanted sticks. But since she was poor and crooked, she was looked down upon. If we follow this formula where poor is evil and rich is good, the rich characters in this play should be good though. In fact, they are twisted and liars. Frank Thorney is marrying two women, lying to his father, and just wants money. Old Thorney is using guilt to get his son to marry for money. The rich people bring their bad fortune upon themselves and yet Elizabeth Sawyer is blamed for their bad fortune. They don’t even try to fix their problems. Winnifride is lower class, pregnant, and has two possible fathers for the baby. She married Frank Thorney and decides she won’t whore around anymore. She is strong to at least try and fix her wrongdoings. The rich people who are suppose to be good, won’t fix their problems but blame someone else. Poor Elizabeth Sawyer.

More lies?!

I’m just starting to read the Witch of Edmonton by William Rowley, Thomas Dekker, and John Ford. I haven’t gotten so far, just to Act 2. Through the little amount I have read so far, I find it very easy to follow and very interesting on what is going on.
As of right now , I find it interesting how the characters are already tricking other charactes. In the first scene, Winnifride seems to have the upper hand, though having an unwanted pregnancy isn’t fortunate, as she plays the two men in her life and yet fix her life. She gets married to Frank Thorney but is a lover of Sir Arthur. She promised (before the play) that she’ll stay with Sir Arthur even after marriage but Winni decides she’ll be an honest wife and stay true to Frank. Well Frank diminishes any “rumors” that he and Winni has gotten married to his father and promised his father that he’ll marry Susan, Old Carter’s daughter. Sir Arthur (before Winni dumped him) promised Frank that he’ll help Frank take care of things well since Winni dumped him, I’m pretty sure things will get even more difficult.
I find it very interesting how all the stories I’ve read this semester, the biggest problem most of the characters have is that they don’t tell the truth. Things would go smoothly, no one would die, everyone would be happy if they tell the truth and not hides things or be so deceitful.
From just the act that I’ve read, I can tell things are not going to go well. It’s the basic formula from all the other stories. Tell Lies=No Happy Ending. I’m already frustrated with the characters and I only read a couple of scenes. I just want to yell at them and tell them to stop being so sneaky and just come clean. Things will go a lot better. The truth isn’t THAT bad. So what if you life is ruined for a couple of days. You’ll get over it. But what you can’t get over is a lie turning into a bigger lie, transforming your life so much that you are living this lie and die. It’s a very depressing idea but all these characters make me depressed. Maybe I’ll just create my own story where people don’t lie. Then again, that would be boring, wouldn’t it?

Duchess of Malfi = Heroine

I feel sorry for the Duchess of Malfi. She’s a woman who isn’t afraid to get what she wants but everything is going against her till the end. She was really a woman ahead of her time. She married for love and without her brothers’ consent. Her husband, Antonio, has a lower social status than she does which is very rare to marry someone below you if you are a woman.
I see her as very heroic because of the actions she takes. She married on her freewill and had children by Antonio. The scenes where she is described as pregnant doesn’t make her less heroic at all. In fact, I see her as a stronger woman. Pregnancy is not the easiest thing to go through. Not that I’ve been through it but from what I heard. It brings her down to “normal” people’s level and not all glorious and beautiful. She is shown as a real woman going through nature’s beauty. Seeing a woman give up important things such as the Duchess’s political role to be a woman is very brave. She isn’t selfish; she is just doing what Mother Nature intended for her to do. I’m pretty sure the Duchess knew that the possibility of her getting pregnant when she remarried was very likely and that she had to put her political duties aside. That has to be a very brave thing to do though. She knew rumors would soon arise when she didn’t focus everything on her duties as a leader but as a woman and a woman with child.
The Duchess of Malfi is a very strong woman and I believe ahead of her time. She took her life in her hands which is very hard for women to do during this time period. I can see the Duchess putting her life on hold for her children. It is such a heroic thing for any women to do and most mothers do. I applaud the Duchess of Malfi for being herself and for answering to no one but herself. It’s just very sad that she lived then and not now as she would fit in so well in modern time.

Hamlet's Ghost

The Ghosts in Hamlet can either be good or bad. Signs are pointed to the Ghost of Hamlet (Sr.) to be evil. From research of the time period’s belief on ghosts, ghosts who roam the night, can’t be seen during the day, visit people who have melancholic minds, and cringe at the name of God or anything holy are demonic. The Ghost of Hamlet (Sr.) only appeared at midnight every night and leaves at the sound of a cock crowing. It also disappears at the word “heaven”. Also appearing to Hamlet, who is clearly depressed, doesn’t make the Ghost seem holy especially since the Ghost is feeding Hamlet what he wants to hear.
Hamlet’s anger towards his mother and his uncle is greater than his sadness for his father’s death. He questions more about the marriage than about the death. Hamlet wonders what were the motives behind his mother’s marriage to his uncle. Was it for sex? Hamlet became extremely focused on this fact. His mind is consumed with this thought and it seems like when Hamlet’s Ghost appeared, the Ghost only talked about this fact. He keeps egging it on and on and makes Hamlet believe that his ideas HAVE to be true. If a Ghost tells you that your uncle was after your mother for a long time and your mother is kind of a whore, you are going to believe it.
Hamlet’s mind isn’t in the right state to actually think things through. He’s very depressed, his mind is set, and he doesn’t think of the consequences of his action. He is very quick to judge. He dismisses all women from his knowledge of one. Hamlet’s mind is constantly thinking negative and constantly questioning people’s motives. He doesn’t see the good in life anymore. Having a Ghost tell him more negatives and give Hamlet more reasons why to hate his mother and uncle just adds more to this negativity in Hamlet’s life.

Monstrous Births

In class, we started to talk about monstrous births. I was surprised to see that most of these incidents, it wasn’t blamed on the sins of the parents. It was God’s message to inform the town that they all have been sinning or it’s the mother’s thoughts that transforms the child. The mother could be so interested in fashion that the baby will have a body that takes on the fashion such as a baby having a neck that looks like ruffs.
I find all this interesting because I just finished a book Philippa Gregory called The Other Boleyn Girl. This book is a fictional history on Anne and Mary Boleyn. Anne was married to King Henry VIII but Mary Boleyn, her younger sister, was actually one of King Henry’s mistresses and bore him two children in the book. Anne married King Henry a couple of years later but could not bear him a child. Bearing a son was one of the duties of a queen. Anne had many miscarriages and it was rumored that Anne couldn’t bear a child because she was sinning with her brother George and a couple of the other loyalist. One of these miscarriages actually was a monstrous birth and it was hinted that George and Anne actually had an incestuous affair. This baby had a flared back, hunched, just a horrid looking baby and the midwife knew immediately that Anne sinned as no good person would give birth to a monster.
This contradicts everything we talked about in class. Everyone knew that the mother sinned and that it was a message from God saying that Anne sinned but not a message to warn all of England that they are ALL sinning. It was blamed on the mother that this child was born this way and not because Anne thought about anything. It could be because Anne wanted to have a child so bad that this happened but that wouldn’t make too much sense. Why would you think about giving birth to a monstrous baby? The only explanation was that Anne ultimately sinned with her brother that created this monstrous baby.

Magical Help?

I find it funny how things turned out in Canto 11 of The Faerie Queen. Redcrosse and Una finally finds the dragon that is holding Una’s parents captive. Redcrosee is the underdog in this fight. The dragon is extremely strong and breathes out fire. Well Redcrosse gets hurt and magically, an unnoticed well with healing powers was around and Redcrose happens to discover it before he was about to get finished. Redcrosse gets healed and comes back stronger. Redcrosee strength surprises the dragon and it seems like the dragon would lose but then he gains the upper hand again. Well magically once again a healing tree appears and heals Redcrosse. What are the odds, seriously? And to make it even funnier, both times, he fell and there at the bottom were these amazing things to heal his wounds and make him stronger.
It’s just hilarious how these things turn out. Even though the hero really has no chance to win on his own, the author sets it up where the hero wins and the bad guy has no chance because there aren’t any magical things helping him out. I think it was in The Once and Future King by T.H. White where Arthur breaks his sword but he gets a new one right afterwards. Throughout the story, Arthur, aka Wart, gets magical help. It seems as if Arthur can’t be a good king without this magical help. In The Faerie Queen it seems just the same thing. Redcrosse cannot win without this help. It’s just the way the writer creates these worlds and events so there’s no way for the hero to lose. In reality, though, this will never happen. I guess that’s why they call this fiction or a fairy tale instead of the real world.

These Fairies aren't my fairies

I found it interesting how this was not the same fairy stories I remembered. I was expecting cuteness and tiny creatures. The Faerie Queen isn't this cuteness story I know of. It's a little gruesome and the fairies are not tiny sized. Instead, they are human sized (or from what I am understanding).
In class it was said that this was an epic romance. I think you can throw comedy in it. As I read the story out loud, I have these very comical pictures in my head. I can see Archimago with a huge mustache and as he is scheming rubbing his mustache. I can imagine that he has this very menacing laugh. Sansloy to me is just a character who wants to constantly fights and even though he might be the underdog, he believes he can win. I kind of see him as a Chihuahua who constantly barks. He does seem like a worth foe but for some strange reason this is the image I get in my head. The trees remind me of The Wizard of Oz with the talking trees except these trees are depressed and bleed.
Though I think it's very comical, I really do see the romance in it. It's just funny how things turn out with Redcrosse thinking that Una slept with another man which wasn't really Una but someone disguise as Una. Una thinks that she found Redcrosse but in fact it was Archimago disguise as Redcrosse. Redcrosse found someone else to defend, Fidessa who was in fact Duessa who turned the Fradubio and Fraelissa into the talking trees. There are a lot of disguises in this epic. And it just amuses me to see if the main characters will figure out these disguises and how they will do it.

Paradise Lost's Satan

Lucifer is seen as the hero in Paradise Lost. Even when I’m reading Satan’s first speech, I feel sorry for him and listen to every word he says, believing he could win. Then after the speech is finish, I think, oh wait, he’s the bad guy.
In class we talked about how movies, the underdog is who the audience roots for. I can see this as a movie where Satan is a solider. I see him standing on a chair or on a mound in the middle of the field giving this very heroic speech. The fallen angels are the townspeople listening to this strong soldier who’s telling them to revolt. In Paradise Lost, God is described as something like the king. To me this mean that everyone is only follow the “king” because they have no choice. Lucifer is the solider giving the people a choice.
As I read and seeing Lucifer as the hero, it actually makes me wonder why Milton would do this. It completely surprised me when I was told that Milton was a puritan. I first thought he was an atheist. But as I look closer to the text and thought about it, maybe this was Milton’s intention. Satan is suppose to be the best tempter in the and using words to make him seem human, to make people feel sorry for him, to make us root for him makes us like him. Milton uses words to make God seem very intangible. God is “All Might” and “Most High”. We can’t relate to God but we can relate to Satan which makes Satan the tempter.

The End

There are two different texts for Faustus, a A text and a B text. In the A text, the main difference I noted was that the devils entered on stage later. In the B text, the devils are on the stage during the whole final scene. Also the B text was a little more graphic than that of the A text.
To be honest, I don’t like the B text at all. Yes it would be more entertaining to watch but I like to give people chances and likes to see that final hope and the B text does not give that to you. Since the Devils are on stage the whole time in the B text, this gives the audience the impression that Faustus is damned no matter what. In the A text, the devils enter at the very last moment. This shows me that Faustus still had a chance to repent. It makes you wonder, will he repent or will he be damned.
Of course Faustus will be damned because he has been a fool this whole time. If I was Lucifer, I would have damned him a long time ago. As in my earlier post, Faustus just irritated me what he did with Helen, still I have to ask, why? And also another thing in class we discussed was Faustus’s use of powers. Faustus does not use his universal powers to it’s fullest. Instead he played tricks on people high in status like the Pope or low in status like a horse courser.
The scene of the horse courser represents and recreates the scene with deed between Faustus and Mephastophilis. Faustus takes the role of Mephastophilis in the scene of the horse courser. He becomes the tempter and tells the horse courser not to ride the horse in the water. This reminds me of when Mephastophilis told Faustus he doesn’t want to sell his soul to the devil. Well like Faustus, the horse course did not listen and rode the horse into the water. This is what Faustus is using his powers on. He is playing pointless tricks on random people and they aren’t even good tricks. Subconsciously he is recreating his life but with different people playing the roles.
What I found very interesting though was with the horse courser, Faustus played a joke on him but making the horse courser think that he tore Faustus’s leg off. This kind of gives a glimpse in the damnation scene. In the B text, it says that Faustus will be tore from limb to limb. Since the horse course scene represents and recreates Faustus’s life, it foreshadows that Faustus will be ripped limb by limb. And we find that he was.

Idiot Faustus

I think it’s funny how Faustus keeps going back and forth with himself. He seems to get a glimpse of good and begins to argue with himself if there is a chance for him to repent or if he’s clearly damned no matter what. Even though he goes back and forth with himself, he always makes the same decision that there he is damned. Even if he doesn’t say, “I’m damned” he sticks with the Devils.
With this, I think Faustus is a fool. I can’t see him as a “tragic hero”. To me tragic heroes do great things without really knowing about it or do great things but no one knows it or his flaws are greater than his heroic acts. Hamlet to me is the absolute greatest tragic hero. He is trying to get revenge on his father, a great thing to do, but becomes crazy on the way which is his flaw. Everyone sees how crazy he is and doesn’t see or know that Hamlet wants revenge for his father’s death. Faustus, he does no great deeds. He does idiotic pranks when he has such great power in his hands. He doesn’t try to change. Yes he argues with himself, but he doesn’t really try his hand in goodness. If Faustus tries, at least once, to do good acts, to repent, and whatnot, I would say Faustus then would be a tragic hero. He doesn’t even try and in that I call Faustus a fool more than anything.
I really do not like Faustus. I can only pity him because he’s stupid and he is human. But even regular humans will listen to an old man telling him you still have a chance. Why not take a chance? Faustus took a chance with the Devils, why will he not take a chance with the Angels? Instead, after the Old Man speaks with Faustus, Faustus sins and goes off with Helen. WHAT?! Idiot! That was all I was able to say when reading the last scene. He deserved to be damned and like the Old Man said, laughed at.

God's Presence in Faustus

The discussion we had on Tuesday Sept. 2nd brought many ideas to my head. I would like to point out one that kept me thinking. In Marlowe’s play, Dr. Faustus, Faustus sells his soul to the devil. Faustus wants knowledge, servitude, and power. Mephastophillis, a demon, goes along with Faustus and serves him. He is to answer Faustus questions but sometimes he doesn’t answer fully.
This is where one of our discussion went to. In the play, the Devil seems to be present everywhere and God is no where to be found. The evil takes a major part in the story while good hardly exists. Even the good angel doesn’t represent the good parts of life. He threatens Faustus by telling him if he continues doing what he is doing Faustus will lose God. Well one thing that interest me, if God doesn’t seem to be existent in this play, how is it that the Devil can’t say certain things?
Faustus asks Mephastophillis who created the universe and Mephastophillis could not say. I believe this is because since God is holy and good and the Devils are the opposite and are against what God represents, Mephastophillis can not tell Faustus that God created the universe. Which, in my opinion, if Mephastophillis was able to tell Faustus that God created the universe, Faustus may decide to repent if he realized that the Devils were weaker than God and God had more power than the Devils. Having the Devil not being able to speak about certain things ties God to the play more than you expect as God is all around and is an unspoken thing to the Devils.
I also want to go back to another idea of how the Good Angel didn’t represent all the good things in life. The Good Angel kept saying things like how God would be mad, how much Faustus would lose if he didn’t repent, etc. The Evil Angel focused on the glories and things Faustus would gain if he went with the Devils. Faustus would gain so much but if he went with the Good Angel, he would be sacrificing a lot. Also, since Faustus studied theology, he already heard what the Good Angel told him many times before. It was nothing new while with the Evil Angel everything was new.
My thoughts on Dr. Faustus are kind of torn. Faustus is a very greedy person and never seems satisfied but he falls for very human ideas and emotions. For instance, with the Good Angel and the Evil Angel, any human would consider going with what you would gain that is while the Evil Angel got to Faustus easier than the Good Angel. Faustus is just being human but every time Faustus speaks in third person or when he doesn’t listen to the Mephastophillis when Mephastophillis is telling him how he hates Hell and not having God really irritates me. Hopefully Faustus will be able to repent before it’s too late.