Speaking for myself, I probably will get more enjoyment out of Othello now with your excellent essay as a background. But that is part of the way I am constituted. I like knowing the "stories behind the stories." You are probably right, however, that the average theatre-goer is not so analytical. You are certainly correct in surmising that the tragedy of Iago's treachery does not require a prior knowledge of the political intrigues of the day to be perceived as deep, gut-wrenching tragedy.
I should have made my point more clear. (Pardon me, but by the time I was finishing this essay it was late at night and I was dying on my feet, and I needed rest.) It is not that one does not come to understand better what a catastrophe it is that Othello is ruined - a catastrophe for everyone. (A modern equivalent would be a story in which Winston Churchill is destroyed by similar means in 1936 - uh oh, plot bunny! Shut up, you.) It is rather that the same conditions might just as easily have given rise to a mediocre piece of writing; in fact, they probably did. An ordinary scribbler could even have found a lot of moving words about the danger Christianity was in; but he would not, like Shakespeare, have homed in on the story components that make this a story for all times and for all people. Contemporary circumstances, in that sense, certainly do not explain genius.
A great essay--I agree with lametiger but I see what you mean: context enriches our appreciation of a great work, but context can't transmute mediocrity into greatness (just like explanations can't make a joke funny--Lord knows I've tried that).
I think Beowulf towers over Maldon, for the most part, but those first two lines you quote are the greatest expression of heroic determination in any language I know.
I think the following lines are even better. They express in a few words what it was really like to be the member of the comitatus of one of those northern lords - that allegiance was not just duty but love, that belonging was not just following but admiring; all ending with a magnificent, heartfelt curse on anyone who even thinks of leaving that poor dead body for any reason. Greatness always ends up being simple. He was our lord and our friend; he died doing his duty; we shall either avenge him or fall by his side. Anyone who does not understand the power of a statement like that is dead.
As someone who is usually reluctant to analyse art, preferring to experience it. I have to admit that I think the historical context would make me look at Othello in a different way and probably enjoy it more
( ... )
The best gift one can have is intelligent opponents. You have actually managed to understand something which I would gladly rewrite now, since I wrote it while collapsing with sleep and felt I was almost incoherent. I think we have argued ourselves nearly into agreement, at least there is nothing I want to pick you up on.
You are right about gnornian, and my translation missed an important point; one, indeed, which ties up with my interpretation of the whole emotional impact of that great passage. If you look at my response to jamesenge, upthread, you will see that I argued that it reflects the personal quality of social authority in that culture. It has to do with something that came out a few weeks back in this same blog, when I was debating early European Christianity with eliskimo. She said:
...the everyday people pretty much could and did believe what they wanted because the Church was engaged in a trickle-down theory of conversion (opposite what it practiced in the early days). Monks went to the warrior-kings like Clovis, not Joe farmer
( ... )
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
I think Beowulf towers over Maldon, for the most part, but those first two lines you quote are the greatest expression of heroic determination in any language I know.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You are right about gnornian, and my translation missed an important point; one, indeed, which ties up with my interpretation of the whole emotional impact of that great passage. If you look at my response to jamesenge, upthread, you will see that I argued that it reflects the personal quality of social authority in that culture. It has to do with something that came out a few weeks back in this same blog, when I was debating early European Christianity with eliskimo. She said:
...the everyday people pretty much could and did believe what they wanted because the Church was engaged in a trickle-down theory of conversion (opposite what it practiced in the early days). Monks went to the warrior-kings like Clovis, not Joe farmer ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment