Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Shakespeare’s Open Secret
- The Emergence of Character Criticism, 1774–1800
- Society and the Individual in Shakespeare’s Conception of Character
- Realistic Convention and Conventional Realism in Shakespeare
- On Expectation and Surprise: Shakespeare’s Construction of Character
- Shakespeare and the Ventriloquists
- The Rhetoric of Character Construction: Othello
- Characterizing Coriolanus
- The Ironic Reading of The Rape of Lucrece and the Problem of External Evidence
- The Unity of Romeo and Juliet
- No Abuse: The Prince and Falstaff in the Tavern Scenes of Henry IV
- Twelfth Night: The Experience of the Audience
- Plays and Playing in Twelfth Night
- Sceptical Visions: Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Jonson’s Comedies
- Shakespeare in Performance, 1980
- The Year's Contributions to Shakespearian Study 1 Critical Studies
- 2 Shakespeare’s Life, Times and Stage
- 3 Textual Studies
- Index
- Plate Section
The Rhetoric of Character Construction: Othello
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2007
- Frontmatter
- Shakespeare’s Open Secret
- The Emergence of Character Criticism, 1774–1800
- Society and the Individual in Shakespeare’s Conception of Character
- Realistic Convention and Conventional Realism in Shakespeare
- On Expectation and Surprise: Shakespeare’s Construction of Character
- Shakespeare and the Ventriloquists
- The Rhetoric of Character Construction: Othello
- Characterizing Coriolanus
- The Ironic Reading of The Rape of Lucrece and the Problem of External Evidence
- The Unity of Romeo and Juliet
- No Abuse: The Prince and Falstaff in the Tavern Scenes of Henry IV
- Twelfth Night: The Experience of the Audience
- Plays and Playing in Twelfth Night
- Sceptical Visions: Shakespeare’s Tragedies and Jonson’s Comedies
- Shakespeare in Performance, 1980
- The Year's Contributions to Shakespearian Study 1 Critical Studies
- 2 Shakespeare’s Life, Times and Stage
- 3 Textual Studies
- Index
- Plate Section
Summary
‘Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat, to scratch a man to death’, says Mercutio mortally wounded before being led off stage; and Hamlet, at the climactic point of the graveyard scene, faces Laertes in Ophelia’s grave with ‘Swounds, show me what thou’t do’. Modern producers are uncertain whether to keep the old-fashioned strong oaths (Christ’s wounds), or to accept the weak replacements suggested by the Folio versions, ‘What’ and ‘Come’ respectively, though there is no need today to take those precautions that the King’s Men took in their time. If the 1606 Act imposing a ten-pound fine on the actors each time a swear word or even mildly blasphemous expression was used on the stage were still in operation now, the contemporary London stage would be one of the major contributors to the British economy, and comfortable prospects would open up for professional informers, who were rewarded with half of the fines collected. I am not advocating a re-enactment of that law; on the contrary, I deplore that it was enforced, because it has deprived us of what I consider an important element in assessing one of Shakespeare’s most relevant rhetorical devices: the gradation in the use of oaths and interjections. Apart from Fluellen’s “Sblood’ in Henry V, 4.8.9 (but that’s Welsh, anyway), only the bastard Faulconbridge’s ‘Zounds’ in King John, 2.1.466, escaped Heminges and Condell’s overcareful expurgation of the texts – overcareful because the act applied only to performances and not to the printed page: but being actors themselves, it is likely that they had suffered personally from it.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shakespeare Survey , pp. 61 - 72Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1982
- 1
- Cited by