Hello! I've been following your blog for quite some time now, and have been referencing it whenever I needed help for Shakespeare. Recently I've gotten an assignment to write two paragraphs on "What do you think Shakespeare’s stance on prejudice and discrimination is?", mainly regarding Merchant of Venice. I don't wish to ask for much, except, are there any quotes or specific pieces of evidence that display racism/not-racism? For example, the derogatory use of the term "Jew" for racism and the whole of Shylock's monologue for, uh, not-racism.

I'm planning to write one paragraph for Shakespeare being racist, and one paragraph about Shakes not being racist, if that is of any help. Thank you!

Hello there! Thank you for your question, and for following me. That's a good little assignment you've got there, but I think that interpreting the issue of 'Shakespeare's stance on prejudice and discrimination' as a question about whether or not Shakespeare was racist might not be the best way to reach an interesting and satisfactory answer. For one thing, it commits the fallacy of thinking that presentation means endorsement. Shakespeare's characters are not Shakespeare; his characters being racist doesn't make him racist. This isn't to say one can't argue that Shakespeare was racist, but what his characters say cannot be the only foundation for such an argument.

If you want to understand Shakespeare's point of view on prejudice and discrimination, then it's not enough to look at instances of prejudices and discrimination in the play, you have to think about why he chose to write a play containing both of these stances. Also, the play is so much broader in its representation of discrimination that talking about racism is also a bit of a limitation, especially given that a big part of the prejudice against Jewish people at the time and in the play has to do with religion more than race. The depiction of Portia as an intelligent woman frustrated by what her father's will and social laws will or won't allow her to do is part of the play's vested interest in this issue.

So while it's not wrong to look at how the characters malign Shylock in one paragraph and how Shylock is given that humanising monologue in your second paragraph, I'd urge you to think more about what a play that includes both of these perspectives achieves, and why it's interested in all sorts of discrimination as a whole. Why does Shakespeare show the Christian characters merciless and remorseless to another man just because he doesn't follow the same religion as them? He could have created Christian characters who were kind, generous and gentle in spite of everything Shylock does, but instead Antonio tells Shylock he'd call him a dog again, 'to spit on thee again, to spurn thee, too' (1.3.127). The stereotype of the money-loving Jew is subverted too, because the Christians in this play are just as obsessed with wealth, even if they won't admit it openly. The poetry is what's telling. For Antonio, 'my purse, my person' (1.1.138) are alliteratively, homophonically, almost the same thing, with his love expressed through giving Bassanio money. Bassanio too tells Antonio, 'In Belmont is a lady richly left, / And she is fair and, fairer than that word / Of wondrous virtue' (1.1.161-3): money is the first thing he mentions about Portia, then her looks and only third her qualities. The discrimination and prejudice in this play is all the more starkly expressed because Shakespeare goes out of his way to take away the distinction between 'which is the merchant here, and which the Jew'(4.1.171): little separates them other than the name by which they are referred. Why, when Shakespeare could have written a Jewish villain like Barabas in Marlowe's Jew of Malta, does he create a character like Shylock, who, with all of his vindictiveness, still shows his capacity for love? Shylock's humanity comes through not just in his famous monologue, but in his shock at hearing that Jessica has traded the ring his wife Leah gave him for a monkey, and his sense of his wrongful treatment is present in awareness of the unequal treatment he receives under a law that should promise equity.

There are a couple of posts I wrote in the past, and some by others I'll point you to, which may help you think about some of these questions. They'd be equally helpful if you do choose to answer the way you initially planned, but hopefully they'll raise some interesting questions about this very complicated play:

An old post on antisemitism in the play

A post by a Jewish person which addresses the issue excellently

On terms that are offensive by today's standards

How speeches sometimes go beyond characters

You'll see from these posts that, on the whole, I think that Shakespeare treats sensitive topics with remarkable even-handedness from an empathetic perspective. Though I've never considered The Merchant of Venice a pleasant play, it's one that really interrogates the meaning of prejudice and discrimination by staging a society rife with both. It invites people to come with their expectations of a Jewish stage villain, almost lulls them into a feeling that their expectations are being confirmed and then humanises a character that seemed to be designed to be hated. The fact, then, that the play contains anti-Semitic characters doing and saying hateful things to Shylock and the fact that Shylock has his great speech are both reasons to think that Shakespeare is questioning the role of prejudice and discrimination in a systemically unjust and unequal society.

Hi there!! I have my alevels soon, and I recently came across your blog! I'm doing Hamlet for my exam and all your analyses are super interesting. We have to reference productions in our essays. Do you have any particular favourite production for Hamlet that you think would be a really good production to write about? I'm not sure which one I should watch first. Thanks!

Hi there! I’m glad that my posts have been useful for your revision. Although it is a hard play, one of the benefits of having Hamlet as your set text has got to be that there are so many resources out there, and so many productions too. 

I find it very difficult to have favourite productions, because almost every production I’ve seen has its strengths and weaknesses. Hamlet is just like that, and that’s part of what makes it so good to watch. Besides, you don’t need to like it to see why it does what it does, and how it uses the text. And in that spirit, I would say watch as many as you can! There more you have in your arsenal, the easier it will be for you to reference different productions and choose one that fits the question you’re answering. It’s great revision too. 

Here’s a post with contributions from other Tumblrs from quite a long time ago that has a list of Hamlet films and performances. I suppose what you watch will also depend on what you can access.

I’ll just mention a couple of recent productions, some of which are mentioned on the list. The 2016 RSC Hamlet Paapa Essiedu Hamlet, which I’ve since watched, is really worthwhile, as is the Maxine Peake 2017 Hamlet. The 2010 Rory Kinnear Hamlet from the National Theatre is interestingly modern, with some great acting too. Andrew Scott’s 2018 Almeida Hamlet is, I think, still touring the US, but there’s a BBC recording that aired back in 2018 if you can find it. While I wasn’t especially enamoured with it, the 2021 Ian McKellen Hamlet can give you a few interesting things to say about casting choices, if relevant.

Also very interesting are the international Shakespeare productions you can find on the Asian Shakespeare Intercultural Archive and the MIT Global Shakespeares sites, both free, both full of amazing videos. They might give you a new perspective, or a different slant that could be to your advantage. On A|S|I|A there's a particularly radical Japanese production by Ryutopia which is pretty mind-blowing if you're interested in these different takes.

Although it is best to watch them in full (and live), even if you can find a few clips from different productions you’ll still be able to talk about the bits you saw. And if you can find a live show, even a local one that’s not by a famous company, there’s nothing saying you can’t mention it!

I hope that helps. Best of luck with your exams!

Hi,What tips do you have for a student who is about to do his GCSEs in a month. I managed to get a 8 once in the mocks but have never reached 9. Do u have any tips that like techniques ,structure or good points to talk about in macbeth?Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards ,Ben

Hello Ben! Thank you for your question.

The GCSE format is a very particular thing, and something your teachers are probably more familiar with than I am now. But the fundamental things that make a good English literature essay remain the same at any level of academic study.

First and foremost: answer the question, and plan. When you see the question, plot down the five most important points that come to mind. Put them into an order that makes sense (make them follow on from one another). These can then form the core of your structure. In other words, think of each point as a paragph, and don't be tempted to deviate from that core. If you include things that have nothing to do with the question, it really looks like you're just trying to write everything you revised instead of answering the question. Remember that an exam is there for you to show that you know the subject, so it actually looks better if you can show that you can tailor your knowledge to the specific point. It shows that you know more than you're writing down.

Second: think deep. A good point analysed carefully is worth more than a multitude of points made vaguely. So use the quotations you've studied and really think about the implication of each line, the choice of words, the wordplay. A key part of what a GCSE examiner looks for is evidence of awareness that there's a writer behind these words making deliberate choices. So think in terms of 'why did Shakespeare choose to do this?', 'what effect does this create?', 'what is the meaning of this line, and how does Shakespeare create that meaning?'. For this, it can be very useful to have some fluency with terminology. So if you can identify the iambic pentameter you might be able to talk about where the stress falls in the line, or note when a line is shared and think about what effect that creates, or you might be able to identify that the weird sisters talk in iambic tetrameter, more fairytale and riddle-like. You can show that you know Shakespeare used these techniques deliberately. It's also a chance to show off that you know a line can be interpreted in lots of different ways. At university level, people will want you to be more clear about what you think, but at GCSE level they really want you to show that you know there are many responses to a text, that there are opinions other than your own out there. If you happen to know any criticism, you can use it for this purpose, but it's not necessary at this stage.

Third: contextual information. I think many teachers stress the need to include historical information, but actually, contextual information is broader than that and can include things like your awareness that this is a play, written for an audience. If you know your history you can of course bring in things like King James' obsession with witchcraft, the fact that the play was written soon after the succession crisis created by Elizabeth being childless, the contemporary debates on the nature of tyranny, or even that the play seems to flatter James I somewhat as the descendant of Banquo. It can be vaguer too if you don't know your history. The fact that England was a monarchy, for instance, or the fact that Macbeth is set in a Christian world, where questions of the afterlife concern him. Or you can go more detailed and specific about the conditions of the existence of the play text: things like the fact that this is Shakespeare's shortest play or that recent scholars suspect it was edited and amended by Middleton might be relevant if you wanted to talk about, say, the sense of urgency, or the fact that the Hecate scenes have a very different feeling about them. BUT only bring in these things if directly relevant to the question. You can already see how I've connected the length of the play with a dramatic feature of the text (its speed). You shouldn't just drop facts for the sake of it. Ideally, context isn't a separate point but something you integrate into the rest of your response, but it can be a paragraph on its own if that works best for you.

As for points... You might find some curious things under my Macbeth tag on this blog, which has quite a number of strange points you probably won't encounter at school.

The best essays integrate all the aspects I've talked about here into a cohesive response that flows naturally from one point to the next, and that's why it's useful to have your key points and to stick to them.

And most importantly, though this may sound strange... Enjoy yourself. The best thing is to enjoy the text, and the chance to analyse the text, because that interest comes through in your writing. Turn any nervousness into excitement and take it as an opportunity to write and have your work read by somebody else.

Good luck!

I'd like to credit you for the Seven Degrees in a story. Would you permit? If so, what is your name or an alias acceptable to you? Thank you. -- Janet Morris

Hi there. If you send me a message off anonymous I'd be happy to give you my name in a private message, but I'm not keen on making this blog about me as a person so I'd rather not give my name publically. Please feel free to use 'noshitshakespeare' as my alias if you wish!

Not exactly ecocriticism, but here’s a timely and related (free) event organised by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. It’s next Wednesday, 8th December 2021:

https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/visit/whats-on/introducing-shakespeare-saving-planet/

Hi! What’s your stance on ecocriticism Shakespeare-wise?

I don't have a set stance on ecocriticism, and ecocriticism isn't a significant aspect of my scholarship. Still, I’ve read some excellent ecocriticial scholarship on Shakespeare, and I think it can be a very useful way of highlighting some aspects of the play that were not as evident to traditional criticism, which tended to focus on character and personality.

It's true, of course, that Shakespeare can't offer as much on questions about the Anthropocene as later literature, especially those written during and after the industrial revolution. But he does use a lot of nature imagery, and, more importantly, often registers the kind of instrumentalist thinking that led to later attempts to subjugate the natural world under human control. After all, in his plays, nature is often depicted as hostile and threatening to human life. A great example is, of course, the storm in King Lear. It seems to me that he shows how thinking of the natural world can lead either to a desire to control or to a recognition of the uncontrollable power of nature which remains oblivious to human suffering. Lear's initial attempts are to give himself the illusion of control by ordering the elements to do what they're already doing: 'Blow winds and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!' (3.2.1), but whatever Lear may think, the play shows nature as a power beyond human control and understanding. Insofar as Shakespeare is constantly interested in the way people attempt to divorce themselves from the wider social and natural world, all his works deal, to some extent, with the kind of thinking that led to what is happening in the world today.

So yes, looking at Shakespeare through an ecocritical lens -- whether the focus is on nature, weather, waste, or human conduct in the face of the forces of nature -- can be very rewarding. But even without the potential richness of such a study, I think we're at a point where literary studies more broadly, and indeed the world in general, can't afford not to think in ecological terms. Whether we want it to be that way or not, our effect on the natural world is one of the fundamental questions of human existence today, and it's difficult for it not to be at the forefront of our experience of works of art.

Hi! What’s your stance on ecocriticism Shakespeare-wise?

I don't have a set stance on ecocriticism, and ecocriticism isn't a significant aspect of my scholarship. Still, I’ve read some excellent ecocriticial scholarship on Shakespeare, and I think it can be a very useful way of highlighting some aspects of the play that were not as evident to traditional criticism, which tended to focus on character and personality.

It's true, of course, that Shakespeare can't offer as much on questions about the Anthropocene as later literature, especially those written during and after the industrial revolution. But he does use a lot of nature imagery, and, more importantly, often registers the kind of instrumentalist thinking that led to later attempts to subjugate the natural world under human control. After all, in his plays, nature is often depicted as hostile and threatening to human life. A great example is, of course, the storm in King Lear. It seems to me that he shows how thinking of the natural world can lead either to a desire to control or to a recognition of the uncontrollable power of nature which remains oblivious to human suffering. Lear's initial attempts are to give himself the illusion of control by ordering the elements to do what they're already doing: 'Blow winds and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!' (3.2.1), but whatever Lear may think, the play shows nature as a power beyond human control and understanding. Insofar as Shakespeare is constantly interested in the way people attempt to divorce themselves from the wider social and natural world, all his works deal, to some extent, with the kind of thinking that led to what is happening in the world today.

So yes, looking at Shakespeare through an ecocritical lens -- whether the focus is on nature, weather, waste, or human conduct in the face of the forces of nature -- can be very rewarding. But even without the potential richness of such a study, I think we're at a point where literary studies more broadly, and indeed the world in general, can't afford not to think in ecological terms. Whether we want it to be that way or not, our effect on the natural world is one of the fundamental questions of human existence today, and it's difficult for it not to be at the forefront of our experience of works of art.

in 2 Henry VI, Smith says: "We took him setting of boys' copies." What does he mean? Thanks!

Ah, how wonderful! A question about Henry VI! Jack Cade's rebellion is one of the most fascinating things about Part II and one of the more complex incidents. This is partly because Shakespeare makes it clear that Cade works for York, but also gives him and the rebels some truly remarkable things to say about hierarchy and equality. This might seem irrelevant to your question, but I promise you it frames my answer, because some context is needed to make sense of the line.

Smith the Weaver comes in with the Clerk of Chatham, who 'can write and read and cast account', which Cade says is 'monstrous' (4.2.78-80). Smith then offers the evidence, 'We took him setting of boys; copies' (4.2.81), which only means that they found this Clerk preparing writing exercises for young boys (Clerks often also worked as schoolmasters). So you could say that the Clerk is caught red-handed in the very act of writing.

But why this is 'monstrous', and why the Clerk should be hanged for it is less obvious. Shakespeare draws, for his source, not just on the actual historical rebellion of Jack Cade in 1450 which wasn't anti-literacy, but the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, with its wish to kill lawyers, and opposition to literacy. And of course, if an indication of what class you belong to is whether you have had enough education to be able to write, then literacy is damning from a commoner's perspective. Hence, Cade asks the Clerk, 'Dost thou use to write thy name? Or hast thou a mark to thyself like an honest plain-dealing man?' (4.2.93-95). When you consider the fact that Shakespeare's father marked himself by drawing a small set of compasses instead of his name, you can see how close to home this is, and how literacy was a social marker.

The theme returns later, in Act 4, scene 7, when Cade condemns Lord Saye for appointing 'justices of peace to call poor men before them about matters they were not able to answer', that is, because they were illiterate and couldn't understand what they were being called to court for. Cade concludes that, in effect, 'thou hast put them in prison, and because they could not read, thou hast hanged them' (4.7.38-41). There couldn't be a more powerful indictment of inequality, and that's why Cade's status as York's crony is not all there is to him, and why his seemingly ridiculous condemnation of the Clerk can't be understood without broader contextual awareness.

do scholars know the purpose, on a meta level, of the third murderer in macbeth? i've read theories that it's macbeth himself, but that's never stated... but having a random third assassin show up feels almost unnecessary?

This is one of those textual things people love to develop theories about and that theatrical companies like to exploit to try and add a twist. People have suggested, as you say, that it’s Macbeth himself, or that it’s Ross or Destiny... I’ve seen directors who have chosen to cast Seyton in the role in many theatre performances, no doubt partly because there is that Seyton/Satan homophone that’s so very tempting. 

But as you say, it’s never stated, and if it was Macbeth or Ross, or any named character, it’s quite unlikely that it would go unmentioned because Shakespeare tends to be explicit about that kind of thing (when someone is in disguise). Nicholas Brooke, the editor of the Oxford edition is pretty dismissive, saying that ‘Speculation about the identity of the Third Murderer... is absurd’. His argument is that the opening lined when the first two murderers ask, ‘But who did bid thee join with us?’ and the Third Murderer replies, ‘Macbeth’ is sufficient to explain his presence. The Arden editors ( Sandra Clark and Pamela Mason) are less dismissive but agree that it makes enough dramatic sense because ‘as Dover Wilson says, the introduction of a further assassin shows that Macbeth, “tyrant-like, feels he must spy even upon his own chosen instruments”’. Given the overall paranoid feeling of the play at this point, I find this pretty convincing, and even if it’s not staged, you can imagine Macbeth having even more doubts and sending a spy to join the murderers. 

For the sake of the murder itself, the Third Murderer is not necessary, as you say, but there is something dramatically effective about having this other figure who’s not really acquainted with the other two. It means, for one thing, that when one of the other murderers (most likely the First Murderer) strikes out the light, the Third Murderer is not on board with it and can accuse the other two of messing up the assassination. This is quite a typically Shakespearean technique: he introduces a little bit of a dynamic even between minor characters to create drama. 

The presence of the Third Murderer is definitely something that theatre directors will continue to exploit to their advantage, and there are no doubt scholars who have investments in particular interpretations. Still, the general consensus is that there’s not much mystery here as the text provides a sufficiently convincing reason for the Third Murderer to be present. 

in julius caesar, when antony tells the crowd caesar made the public his heirs, are we supposed to believe him? i can't find a textual indication that it's a lie, but at the same time, he's not being particularly honest about his intentions in the speech, so i guess i'm suspicious? hope that makes sense lmao i love your blog & i appreciate your taking the time to answer questions!

Hello there! Thanks for this question. Julius Caesar is a difficult one for analysing intention, and you're quite right to question Antony's honesty in this speech.

I think, though, that it is likely we are meant to take the will as real. Part of my reason for thinking so is that the wording of the will is pretty much directly lifted from Shakespeare's source -- Thomas North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans -- which reads, 'he bequeathed unto every citizen of Rome seventy-five drachmas a man, and that he left his gardens and arbours unto the people, which he had on this side of the river of Tiber'. Shakespeare has

To every Roman citizen he gives, To every several man, seventy-five drachmas... Moreover, he hath left you all his walks, His private arbours and new-planted orchards, On this side Tiber. He hath left them you And to your heirs for ever... (3.2.234-243)

It’s reasonable to think that Shakespeare’s dramatizing information rather than playing with rhetoric. What matters more is what Antony does with the information.

There’s also an in-text suggestion that the contents of the will are genuine, and that comes later in the play when he tells Lepidus to go ‘to Caesar’s house. / Fetch the will hither, and we shall determine / How to cut off some charge in legacies’ (4.1.7-9). If Antony is trying to avoid paying out the full seventy-five drachmas per citizen, then what he read was true, and he now wants to change things to suit him and his war efforts. It’s one of the key moments in which Shakespeare undermines Anthony’s characterisation in a scene that shows him casually deriding Lepidus too. 

(URGENT) Explain how Shakespeare uses language in 'It is my lady, O, it is my love! O, that she knew she were!' and 'The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars, As daylight doth a lamp'. Please answer thanks in advance.

Hello there, I'm sorry if this is a little late, it's conference season, and I've been a little busy writing and presenting papers.

I don't quite understand what you want me to explain about the passages, but I can point out a couple of things about them.

When Romeo says 'It is my lady, O it is my love! / O that she knew she were!' (2.1.54), it's quite likely that Juliet has just appeared in the space above the stage. Early modern plays often contain no stage directions, and Shakespeare indicates that the actor appears here, or at the earlier line 'But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? / It is the east, and Juliet is the sun' (45-6). As for language more specifically, one of the really noticeable things about the line is that there's a lot of repetition: in just two lines, you have two uses of 'my', 'O' and 'she'. Because of the nature of performances in the early modern period, where there was no director and not many rehearsals, Shakespeare generally makes language do part of the work for the actor, to make them speak in a certain way and to force them to speak fast or slow. The repetitions here could be doing a lot. Repetition gives a sense of excitement, as does the simplicity of the words Romeo is given here. You might notice that there's only one two-syllable word, the rest entirely monosyllabic. Again, simplicity gives the impression of immediate, unstudied speech, spontaneity and, therefore, earnestness. The other interesting thing is those Os. An O is an exclamation, but it's also an early modern shorthand for a sigh or a groan. In any case, it's a sound that slows down the tempo of the speech and that adds the sense of a lover's sighing speech. This is further emphasised by the fact that the second line, 'O that she knew she were', is a half line, not a full iambic pentameter. So unlike the first line that has ten syllables, the second line has only six syllables. If this isn't a printing error (in Q2, it's printed as one long line), then it really gives the sense of a Romeo breathless and lost for words.

Your second quotation, 'The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars / As daylight doth a lamp' (62-3), is part of a hyperbolic extended metaphor (also known as a conceit; this play is particularly full of them). Before he says these lines, Romeo imagines that two stars have asked Juliet's eyes to shine instead of them while they're gone, and then wonders what would happen if her eyes were in the sky and the stars were in Juliet's head. He then says these lines, saying that if the stars were in her head instead of her eyes, the brightness of her cheeks alone would outshine the stars. The meaning is quite obvious: Juliet's beauty, expressed as light, is so dazzling that she outshines the stars. The difference is about as stark as a lamp and the sun: just as the sun makes the lamp redundant, Juliet makes the stars seem like they're giving off no light. The comparison between a lamp and the sun was proverbial, possibly stemming back to that old story about the cynic philosopher Diogenes lighting a lamp in the daytime, an image of pointlessness (though the story's more complicated than that). So the stars, personified, would be shamed by Juliet: they barely seem to be a light source compared to her. It sets up the lines that follow, in which Romeo imagines that Juliet's eyes in the sky instead of the stars would be able to light up the sky and confuse the birds into thinking it's the morning. If you take just those two lines out of context, it doesn't give its full meaning, but you can still get the sense that Romeo is saying Juliet is more beautiful than the stars. Just thinking about the language, I think it's really noticeable that there are so many light sources in those lines: the 'brightness of her cheek', the 'stars', 'daylight' and a 'lamp'. It gives a general sense of light and brightness. She's not just bright in comparison to the night but in comparison to other lights. If you speak the lines out loud, you might also notice that there's a lulling effect created by the use of words with rounded vowel sounds like 'stars', 'shame' and 'daylight' and extended vowel sounds like 'cheek'. You could interpret that in various ways, but I think it adds to that sighing sense, a lends to the feeling that Romeo is indulging in his admiration of Juliet.

I hope that helps!

When goes through your mind when reading stuff Shakespeare wrote that is racist by today's standards? Can we justify it by acknowledging that he was simply a man of his time? I've been finding it to detract from my enjoyment of plays that I otherwise love e.g. lines like "if I did not love her I would be a Jew" or the pejorative use of "Ethiope" in Much Ado About Nothing. And then just...Shylock. Is there evidence that Shakespeare was actually progressive for his time?

Thanks for this question, anon. This is an important point that’s worth thinking about in some detail, because, while you can’t really judge someone in the past by standards they didn’t even have a word for, Shakespeare is not just a past author but someone whose works continue to have meaning for people today. But it’s not as simple as a case of blame or justification, nor are those examples quite as straightforward as they may seem. 

Let’s think first about the question of pejorative uses of words like ‘Ethiope’, or ‘Jew’ in passing phrases. These are definitely offensive by today’s standards, but are more like set phrases in Shakespeare’s time, where ‘Jew’ is used as a shorthand for anything un-Christian, especially those things stereotypically associated with Jewish people, such as avariciousness. The same goes for ‘Ethiope’: since the beauty standards of the day dictated that white, gold and pink were the signifiers of beauty, anything dark is used as shorthand for unattractive, and calling someone with dark features an ‘Ethiope’ is then an exaggeration of those features. They’re lines that you have to either cut or bring attention to in modern productions because you can’t really justify their usage. But it’s really important to see that set phrases are phrases that have become common and therefore that people use them without necessarily thinking of their implications. To position ourselves as somehow better because we have the benefit of the many wonderful things that people have done to advance human rights and equality is a little wrongheaded. We need to be aware that we have similarly offensive terms that people use today that most likely won’t stand up to scrutiny in the future. I know when I was younger, people used the word ‘gay’ pejoratively without thinking about who that might offend, and people use ableist phrases like ‘I’m so blind’ without consideration too. In other words, as unjustifiable as it is that there are such phrases, there’s a difference between using them directly to injure and using them unknowingly. 

And that brings me to my second point: Shakespeare is writing plays, which means that these are phrases he puts into the mouths of particular characters. We don’t really know how Shakespeare himself spoke, but it’s necessary to distinguish between an author's position and his depiction of certain characters. Writers regularly write from the perspective of people whose views they don't share, and there's no way every single one of Shakespeare's characters is a mouthpiece for his beliefs. We can't attribute racism to Shakespeare any more than we can say he must have had thoughts about regicide because he wrote Macbeth. This definitely applies to The Merchant of Venice: the so-called 'Christian' characters mistreat Shylock, but that's not the same as saying the play condones that behaviour.

As for whether Shakespeare was progressive... Personally, I'm not sure about judging a work based on what one thinks of the author, especially if the author is long dead and no royalties are going to them. While I can understand that one's feelings about a particular author might hinder the enjoyment of the work, on some level, once a work is produced, it acquires a life of its own which is not up to the author's control anymore, especially for someone like Shakespeare who is surprisingly quiet about what he thinks of his own work (unlike, say, Ben Jonson).

So perhaps it doesn't matter very much, but I do think that Shakespeare writes in a way that shows something of the breadth of his view of life. As I've already said, we don't know what he thought. Still, the multiplicity of perspectives that is characteristic of his writing suggests he could think outside of the common understanding of his time. So, for instance, he really doesn't go in for low blows about religion the way many of his contemporaries do, and whenever there is a character like Aaron, Othello, or Shylock, he includes something that complicates the stereotype. Thus, we have Aaron being a more caring and loving father than anyone else in Titus Andronicus, and asking 'Is black so base a hue?' (4.2.73); Shylock's famous 'Hath not a Jew eyes' (3.1.55) speech; Othello's nobility, and Shakespeare's sonnets on the Dark lady, which really question the beauty standards of the day. This is far more than we get from the general use of stereotypes in city comedies, or in two-dimensional depictions of the stereotypical early modern Jew as in The Jew of Malta.

Though he often starts from the stereotypes he's familiar with and depends on the language of his time, Shakespeare shows an imaginative empathy that makes him consider what it might be like to be the characters he depicts. What could be more progressive than empathy? Shakespeare can write from the perspective of characters we'd consider racist now, but he also writes, and writes convincingly, from the perspective of those who are abused, regardless of their religion, sexuality or gender.

Do you know what's going on in the othello tag? There's a bunch of random posts tagged othello but it's random people or things. I didn't check any of the blogs since they seem like bots

I don’t really follow tags, but looking at it, it looks like many of the posts are about a character named Othello in the anime/manga called Black Butler? 

Hey, Idk if you can help me on this, but I have to do a creative writing on Othello and was wondering if you could help me with some ideas?

Hi there, sounds like a fun exercise! There are so many approaches you could take with an assignment like this, but here are some broad ideas:

A kind of ‘prequel’ - what happened before Othello? Do you think Othello wooed Desdemona the way he said he did? What was Desdemona’s childhood like? Or Othello’s many adventures?

An existing scene re-told from another character’s perspective: how does the relationship look for Lodovico, arriving on Cyprus? What do the musicians think are going on? Minor characters are a gem for this sort of exercise.

What were Brabantio’s last days like? How did he die?

Were Emilia and Iago ever happy together? What ruined their marriage?

If there’s a scene where the characters don’t voice their feelings, what might they be thinking? Try writing a monologue depicting a characters’ state of mind at a particular point.

What about alternative endings? What might have prevented this tragedy?

What happened to Iago after the events of the play?

Try rewriting a later scene in which the misunderstandings are solved.

What might Desdemona or Othello’s ghosts have to say about what happened?

Imagine a character is giving evidence in a court about what happened. How might they describe the events?

Could you modernise the story, and set it somewhere else: a school, an office, a theatre...?

I hope one of these prompts gives you a useful starting point. Good luck writing!

Hi so, this may seem like a stupid question, but what are the small numbers to the left of the text in a play?

Not a stupid question at all, my friend! Those are line numbers; they tell you which line of the scene you’re on. So if you’re writing an essay and you want to reference a particular line, you can write the act, scene and line number. It’s generally put in brackets after a quotation, like (III.ii.33), meaning Act 3, scene 2, line 33. It can also be written (3.2.33). I do this whenever I quote from a Shakespeare play even on this blog so people can find the line in context if they want to.

Considering the grave scene and how Paris dies defending Juliet's sepulchre, I think it's more explicit it's Paris rather than Tybalt who becomes some sort of Juliet's personal champion, though Paris wasn't assigned that role either and just acted like that for his own volition. I totally believe if anything happened Tybalt would be Juliet's champion without question, though. For how he behaves when it comes to the Capulets in general, but also for Juliet in particular: considering what Juliet and the rest say he died, they seemed to have been pretty close. It's a pity we never got to see them interact.

Funny how you mentioned Romeo becomes Mercutio's sort of champion when he is killed. It's true, and it's interesting considering it was Romeo's duel to begin with. I wonder if Mercutio would have been chosen as Romeo's own champion and thus the roles as were expected to happen were reversed. But, since Mercutio didn't really have a place in the feud and was the nephew of the Prince, who explicitly banned quarrelling between the families (not that he would care, but I imagine Romeo and Benvolio would), it probably would have been Benvolio. Besides, he is Romeo's kin, and Mercutio is also of higher status than either of them, something blatant in the way he talks and behaves despite his friendly flamboyance, which I imagine would make it unsuited or not very proper for him to be second or champion to anyone of lower status; but this point I'd have to check. In any case, the potential role reversal is very interesting.

This is a reply to this post, and functions, I think, as more of a comment than a question? I don’t have much to add. 

It’s a good point about Paris becoming a kind of champion for the ‘dead’ Juliet. But I was really just illustrating what a champion might be. As Shakespeare never uses the word ‘champion’ in this play, and since no formal champions are ever set up, what a character may or may not have done will have to remain speculation. If you were performing the play, it might serve as a way of thinking about characterisation, but as a textual scholar, I tend to stick to what is said or directly implied by the lines. 

The point about ranks and champions is an interesting one... I don’t think Mercutio particularly stresses his higher rank over Romeo, hence why he fights on his behalf to begin with (in that sense, Mercutio is Romeo’s self-appointed champion). I’m not an expert in duelling etiquette, but I know it was considered dishonourable to challenge a man of lower rank than yourself, so Mercutio isn’t really acting as someone of a higher rank in that. I’m not certain on the question of whether one could have a higher-ranking champion. I suspect you could if they agreed to it or wanted to. This might be a slightly odd example, but in Richard II, Gaunt does refer to ‘God, the widow's champion and defence’ (1.2.43)... God is a little bit of a different case, but He is obviously above everyone and can still be the champion of widows... 

Hi! I’m reading Romeo and Juliet and I was wondering if you could explain the idea that Tybalt is Juliet’s champion and what they means?

Hi there! I don't think Tybalt is ever called Juliet’s champion in the play, but I guess in a broader sense he does act like he’s the champion of the Capulet family. 

A champion is basically someone who fights on behalf of somebody else, either as a representative, or because the person is unable to do so themselves. For instance, in a traditional duel you would generally have a second person standing as champion just in case the main guy is hurt. In fact, Romeo fighting after Mercutio is hurt is a case in point: he becomes Mercutio’s champion. 

It’s often the case that someone will fight on the behalf of a lady, since they weren't generally trained in combat. But I don’t think it’s quite right to call Tybalt Juliet’s champion, since he’s not fighting directly for her or for her honour or at her behest. He definitely sets himself up as the representative of the Capulet family, challenging Romeo to remedy what he perceives to be a slight on their honour (Romeo gatecrashing their party). Still, it’s also important that he really isn’t the official champion, since Lord Capulet has told Tybalt to let Romeo be, therefore giving no permission for him to represent the family.