Lady Bertilak is an Antisexist Symbol

This epic poem contains several references to sexist ideologies that were commonly found during that era. Lady Bertilak, who is an antisexist symbol, strives to convince and show the readers at the time that such behavior should not be acceptable. Lady Bertilak had, “The fair hues of her flesh, her face and her hair and her body and her bearing were beyond praise,” and she, “excelled the queen herself, as Sir Gawain thought” (943-945). Clearly, she was more beautiful than any other woman, including Guenevere the queen. The Lady Bertilak is more dangerous than the queen is because her beauty is superior. Although the queen is supposedly a, “fair queen without a flaw,” Lady Bertilak’s beauty makes her more desirable to men (81). Both Guenvere and Lady Bertilak are symbols of sexual temptation. Lady Bertilak is also the only woman given a voice. However, she has been told what to say and do by her lord and husband. Thus, Lady Bertilak lacks an identity. As noted by Geraldine Heng, “The result is the emergence of a feminine example in the text of identity as plural, heterogeneous, and provisional, elusively reforming elsewhere just as it might seem most fixedly locatable” (Heng 502) Geraldine’s quote supports that all the females lack an identity. Within the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight women are not treated as equals, however, Lady Bersilak is an antisexist symbol because she, unlike the other woman in the poem, has a voice and is used as an example of all the things done wrong.

            On day one of the story, the first test was given to Gawain. Lady Bertilak says, “a truce we must make, or I shall bind you in your bed, of that be assured” and “my body is here at hand, your each wish to fulfill; your servant to command I am, and shall be still” (1210-1211, 1236-1240). She is clearly being sexual and tempting him to try something sexual. The lady is testing his character with her making all the moves. The gender roles have been reversed. The women are supposed to be tame, allowing the men to be the dominate ones. However, she cannot physically touch him without permission, demonstrating that Gawain still wields the power. The lady is in a balancing act that could go badly with one bad move. Elsewhere, her husband hunts deer. This correlates with the first test of his wife. The deer is not a dangerous animal and the risk of the lady is not high. The lady tests his virtue and manhood; she is hunting her prey by tempting him. Gawain says, “Mary reward you! For in good faith, I find your beneficence noble” (1263). Mary speaks for him. The lady also uses Mary and it becomes a battle for Gawain’s love. The ladies temptation proves to be too powerful. He never prays to Mary while in the castle.  This is a sign that he is losing trust in the opposite sex. Her husband in his twisted game is using the lady.  

            The test gets riskier on day two for the lady when she says, “Thus she tested his true intent, to entice him to sin” (1550). While the wife is administrating this test, her husband is hunting a boar. The boar is a dangerous animal and is able to kill many humans if it is not carefully killed. This animal is used on this day as a symbol to his wife playing the game a little more dangerously. She is almost tipping the balance almost over the edge. The boar is a good symbol for this day because Gawain could have been, “killed” by the lady. This would have the lady doing an act she would most likely not want to do.

            The last test is given on the final day. The lady came in with, “her bosom all but bare, and her back as well” (1741). This represents men’s deepest desires. Lady Bersilak is a sex object at this point. She is breaking all the rules of that time and making the relationship very complicated. The lady has no way to object at this point if Gawain was tempted. She is forced to show off her body to this man and it is unknown if she had any objections to this as well. While this encounter takes place, the husband is hunting a fox. The fox is considered a sneaky animal. It is appropriate that a fox would be used as a symbol here because Gawain takes the green girdle. He is being dishonest and is taking away something of the ladies. He is taking something that does not belong to him from her and is degrading her even more. By taking it, she has actually won because she got him to do something that Gawain did not want to and at that moment, she became the strongest woman in the poem.

            Morgan le Fay was an evil mastermind who was a woman within the play. The reader learns a bit about her when it is quoted that she wanted “to afflict the fair queen, and frighten her to death” (2460). The author depicts that a woman in power is only out to do evil. This is supported by the description when the reader first meets her as an old woman because her appearance is not described as being beautiful. Because of this, she is passed over. Her appearance made it so she was not the same as other woman. She only comes up in the world of the poem so she is restricted as a power figure. Bertilak de Hautdesert also supported this notion of evil by listing a bunch of women in power that caused evilness.

If he does give in to the lady, which means sex with her, how would he handle the exchange when it became time to give up what he had won to the heavily bearded Bertilak? Derek Pearsall offers up an idea, “It may be, strictly speaking, that the conditions of a proposed exchange, in the romance value-economy, must be capable of fulfillment, otherwise there can be no satisfactory resolution of the plot” (pearsall). Therefore, it is possible that this is something that Gawain could not give back. The temptation that the wife is doing in the first place is wrong and Gawain should never have been in such a situation to start with. When Bertilak says, “And the wooing of my wife-it was all my scheme,” the reader learns her husband made her everything (2361). What kind of wife listens to his husband in this situation or what kind of husband puts his wife in this situation? The wife has no say in this situation and one has to wonder if the Gawain did try to have sexual interactions could she have said no? “Could one but learn to love, and not believe them not” (2421). This quote by Bertilak makes the reader wonder if one can love someone without trust and the answer is no. This is meant to show that you have to trust a woman and the only way to do that is to treat them as an equal.

In the end of the poem, the Green Knight directly acknowledges how women have been blamed for man of the world’s problems throughout history. In general, the whole poem has a sexist feel, because the poem revolves around those ideologies. The Lady Bertilak does have a greater freedom over the other woman within this poem. More importantly, Sir Gawain truly makes this an antisexist poem. Throughout, Sir Gawain gives the lady freedom and his leaving at the end is a symbol that he does not approve of the sexist acts occurring.     

 

               

Sources

Heng, Geraldine, May, 1991. “Feminine Knots and the Other Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”. PMLA, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp. 500-514

Pearsall, Derek, 2011. “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight:An Essay in Enigma”. The Chaucer Review, vol. 46, nos. 1 & 2, 2011 pp 248-258

Borroff, Marie, 2010. “Sir Gawain And The Green Knight”. A Norton Critical edition. 

What has Bohannan proved and not proved by the end of "shakespeare in the Bush"?

In 1966, a relatively unknown author published a story known as "Shakespeare in the Bush." This short essay is one of Laura Bohannan’s best known works and is often studied in educational settings because of its varying interpretations.  Bohannan’s point of view is stated very early within the essay when she states that, “I protested that human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over.” This sets the essay up for debate because it wouldn’t be difficult to find flaws in such a statement, so she covers up that statement with a rebuttal that says, “Some details of customs might have to be explained and difficulties of translation might produce other slight changes.” Yet, in the end, she established that there was only one possible understanding of Hamlet and it was universally known. However, as it may be, Laura Bohannan hypothesized that the meaning of Hamlet is straightforward to everyone who reads or hears it; many could argue that the Tiv tribe demonstrated that this was an incorrect assumption because of the differing aspects of how people comprehend the world.

The first aspect that needs to be addressed is how differing cultures treat and understand the supernatural world, such as omens, witches, ghosts, and zombies. From the start of the Hamlet story being told to the Tiv people there is already a clear objection starting to take shape. As it stands, the Tiv people do not believe that omens can talk, that there is survival after death of any individual part of the personality, yet they do believe that “zombis” are real and can walk around. This is demonstrated in quotes such as, “dead men can’t walk,” (pg. 30) or “one can touch zombis” (pg. 30). The culture of the Tiv people varies differently from that of Shakespeare’s generation or that of the western world. Cultures are interesting because they are passed down the generations with only slight change from generation to generation. Yet, this is not to say that the cultures are identical worldwide. The supernatural example of the Tiv is great because it demonstrates to the reader that what they know about the supernatural world most likely does not match with that of the Tiv people. Something to point out is that most of the world’s beliefs of the supernatural is based on religion, something that it would appear that the Tiv people lack. It would be a fair assumption to say that the supernatural aspect greatly changed the story of Hamlet. Suddenly, there were added supernatural aspects to the story of Hamlet which many cultures would argue do not belong.

Madness is a small focal point of the story, yet important enough to discuss. The Tiv people would not know much about modern medicine and how certain factors can affect the human body. Similar to many primitive communities, for lack of a better word, they try to understand what they do not understand. This of course could apply to the supernatural aspect as well. However, supernatural is different because even the so called “advanced” societies and cultures cannot agree on what is real and what isn’t. What is clear is that the Tiv do not demonstrate an understanding of western medicine. This is not to imply that they lack their own form of medicine knowledge that is based on nonsensicality. The Tiv people no doubt believe that only witchcraft or seeing “beings that lurk” (pg. 31) is a cause for madness because this is what they were taught in their culture and like most of what they know it is passed down from a past generation and it’s what they believe. So, this changes the story of Hamlet more and steers Bohannan’s understanding more off and even has her starting to question the story. (pg. 31)

Family is an aspect that offers the highest debate because it is the factor that offers the greatest variance. When it comes to differing families the culture boundaries getting a little fuzzier because as a culture there may be one overall belief that most, if not all believe, such as independence in the United States, whereas specific families may have a completely different belief and culture because that is what they were taught; such as a terrorist trying to destroy independence. There is a part where a great chief remarks that in terms of family Europeans are like us (pg. 29). This is an important statement because for the first time it offers a link between the Tiv people and where Bohannan is from, something that sort of brings the family aspect of cultures together between the two. This also makes the reader question if in fact cultures are the whole story as well or is it something else that makes understanding things different. The difficulties also stem on the idea that the Tiv were a verbalized community and did not rely on paper to tell such stories. Which could have confuse the Tiv community in a sense, but thinking about it, it actually most likely made no difference. Also, Bohannan throughout the story telling is modifying the story into the Tiv’s culture and changing aspects to make it fit into what they know which passively changes the story without her even trying to change the meaning, because word choice ends up drastically changing a story. 

Some other Tiv culture qualities is that fathers should not lie to sons, which most likely means that family in general should not lie to each other, which is a pretty common belief worldwide( pg. 31). Also the Tiv do not believe in a widow waiting, whereas, they do believe in polygamy (pg. 30). Which in terms of their culture makes sense because a wife where they live needed a husband to do work and the chief needed many wives and sons because it made things easier and better for them. To an outsider this may seem preposterous, but to them it was custom. They also believe that a man should not scold his mother and family should not fight, which is something that is common worldwide as well. Respect in the family is important to the Tiv and changed the story of Hamlet because they were not able to understand and look outside the box to see it was a story.

It is easy to suggest that the Tiv were not educated and even laughable to say the least that they believed drowning not real (pg. 33). Yet, this is the culture that the Tiv people know, and to them they do not know any better and to say that there culture is any less would be wrong because they are surviving just as well. On the flipside is it right for the Tiv people to change Hamlet to a new story just because it is not fitting into their culture, couldn’t they have just sat back and listened and not interrupted. Actually, no, because their culture does not think about the outside world as other parts of the world does.

   To add to the confusion, an old man actually argues that while he sees many differences between the two cultures, he believes “people are the same everywhere,” which is exactly what she believed in the beginning of the essay. The final paragraph is where the icing is put on the cake that states:

You must tell us some more stories of your country. We, who are elders, will instruct

you in their true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see

that you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who

have taught you wisdom. (pg. 33)

There is a parallel that forms between the beginning of this essay and the ending because at the start is was Bohannan that claimed she knew the true meaning that was known universally, whereas in the ending it’s the elders who believe they have the true meaning. So in the end it is fair to say that differing aspects of comprehending the world demonstrated that she failed to prove her theory that everyone who read Hamlet would get the same meaning out of it. Thus she has actually managed to prove with the help of the Tiv people that Hamlet or any other story for that matter is in fact differing for all who read Hamlet or any other source of reading.

Bibliographical references

BOHANNAN, Laura, 1966. “Shakespeare in the Bush”. Natural History, Aug/Sept.

Safran’s Dead Arm and Love, How it is Relevant to the Narrative Framework as a Whole. Why Was it Included in the Story?

“Without proper calcium, his infant body had to allocate its resources judiciously, and his right arm drew the short straw” (pg. 166). This bizarre malady of Safran was the groundwork of intertwined literature genius. In addition, he was “like a wagon with no breaks, he never stopped short,” which means that he never could reach orgasm (pg. 168). This was all a direct consequence of Safran having teeth at birth, a common occurrence that happens in about one in every 2,000 to 3,000 babies (Fotek). However, that notion the malnutrition would result in the consequences observed within Safran does not seem to be very likely, although it is possible. Within the story Everything is Illuminated the character Safran exhibits a couple irrelevant and inexplicable details with his dead arm and inability to orgasm. However, as random as it may appear, it is relevant to the narrative framework as a whole and it is included because of the love, death, lack of guilt, and the questions that arise throughout the novel.

Love and romance with Safran was a troublesome situation from a very young age. All starting with Rose W who, “thought it was pity that she felt for the crippled boy who had come on behalf of the Sloucher congregation to help clean the house” (Pg. 179). Rose W was his first lover at the young age of ten and this lovemaking would continue for four years. It is an interesting coincidence that he was visiting her under the name of charity. She herself happened to be an elderly woman, also presumed to be infertile and could be looked upon as being limited, like Safran, because of her age. These two factors made her the perfect candidate to get the wheels of the love story of Safran turning. The book mentions that her last thought was about his arm, a common lure to hook in many of the women with whom Safran had sexual encounters. In addition, this hook, in combination with his inability to orgasm, led to sexual experiences with 132 more women. This was all, of course, before he had met anyone he loved, because, “can one miss something one has never known? Besides, he never loved any of his lovers. He never confused anything he felt for love” (pg. 168). So is Safran able to love?

It is debatable if he ever truly loved a person, however it is suggested that the closes he ever came to loving a woman was between the Gypsy girl and Zosha. The greatest bit of evidence for whom he may have loved is, “Seven months later, June 18, 1941, as the first display of German bombing lit the Trachimbrod skies electric, as my grandfather had his first orgasm (his first and only pleasure, of which she was not the cause) she slit her wrist” (pg. 239). The bombing, in correlation to the orgasm, is an important detail because it is as if the orgasm is blowing up the one he did love. It is unclear if he is in love with the Gypsy girl or Zosha, who gave him his first orgasm. It is clear that his dead arm is what put him into this situation and that him being able to orgasm here is significant to the story because it shows an evolution of him having sexual encounters solely for entertainment to actually doing it out of love. A conversation with the Dial is what truly illuminates the individual that Safran does love:

                                   

                                        The Gypsy girl. What ever became of her? She was nice.

                                        What?

                                        The Gypsy girl? The one you loved.

                                        It’s not her that I love. It is my girl. My girl.   

                                        You love the baby in Zosha’s belly. (pg. 263-264)

This baby is the last remaining bit of the female that Safran did love. The baby may be within Zosha’s stomach; however, it is not Zosha that he loves, but the baby within. It was the Gypsy girl all along that he did love, and it was the Gypsy girl who was on his mind when the baby was conceived.

Love with Safran is a complex situation and it is hard to tell many times throughout the story who he does love, yet there is strong evidence that he loved the gypsy girl and thus the baby he conceived when he was thinking of her. However, it was the connection between his inability to orgasm and his dead arm that strung his story together. This is to say that had if he had a normal childhood, he would never have met Zosha or the Gypsy girl because he would have been content with the first few women that he met. Thus, it must be assumed that his life events would not have taken shape had it not been for is maladies.

The next great theme of Safran’s life is his overwhelming luck with escaping death because of his dead arm:

It was because his arm died that he never worked in the menacing flourmill,

but in the tannery just outside the shtetl, and that he was exempted from

the draft that sent his schoolmates off to be killed in hopeless battles against

the Nazis. His arm would save him again when it kept him from swimming back

 to Trachimbrod to save his only love (who died in the river with the rest of

them), and again when it kept him from drowning himself. His arm

saved him again when it caused Augustine to fall in love with him and

save him, and it saved him once again, years later, when it prevented him

from boarding the New Ancestry to Ellis Island, which would be turned

back on orders of U.S. immigration officials, and whose passengers

would all eventually perish in the Treblinka death camp. (Pg. 166)

The numerous times that his dead arm saved him is astounding. Some of the notable events that stand out is the Flour Mill, where it is not guaranteed Safran would have died, however, it is a good bet based on other occurrences there. Escaping the draft was no doubt fortunate because it would have surely been a death sentence. The drowning part ties in with the last theme of love because it talks about how his dead arm is what kept him from saving the thing he loved; one has to wonder if it were not for the dead arm could he have saved the baby? The most important one of all is Augustine saving him because that is the person trying to be found all throughout the book. Then lastly, his arm prevented him from boarding a ship that would have led to his death. It is clear that his malady saved him more times than once from death. Thus, it is clear why the author chose Safran to have such a hideous deformity because it needed to hinder him. This hindrance also needed to attract, such as in the case of having Augustine fall in love with him. Therefore, this alienates Safran from the other people of Trachimbrod and allows him to survive where he would not have otherwise.

“Wasn’t everything that had happened, from his first kiss to this, his first marital infidelity the inevitable result of circumstances over which he had no control?” (Pg 165). Safran’s life style was not in his control, thus he is not to blame for his actions. Looking back at some of these events, it can be seen that his dead arm and lack of orgasm led to this event because it is to say that if he lacked these, he would not have been in a sexual encounter with Maya. This quote is also an acknowledgment by Safran that everything from the start of his life was out of his control, in fact it is almost as if the situations he was given were put in place just with the sole purpose to make the perfect story. This is to say that Safran’s string of events is not realistic in the least bit; however, it makes for a great story.

Throughout the story, Alex offers up some great commentary. He says, “Why do women love your grandfather because of his dead arm? Do they love it because it enables them to feel strong over him? Do they love it because they are commiserating it, and we love the things that we commiserate? Do they love it because it is a momentous symbol of death? I ask because I do not know” (Pg. 179). As with many of his letters, it is clear that he is serving as the mediator of the two stories. It is clear through Alex’s questions, that even he is a little confused about why exactly women loved Safran’s dead arm. This is a great quote because for the first time, the audience is offered some great suggestions on why the author chose to use a dead arm over some other malady. Alex’s confusion mirrors that of the audience and makes them question once more, what the symbol of the dead arm could be and what it means.

Alex is also quoted as saying, “I could hate you! Why will you not permit your grandfather to be in love with the Gypsy girl, and show her his love? Who is ordering you to write in such a manner?” (pg. 240). This helps the reader to understand who Safran did love because it shows that even Alex recognizes that the story should have been Safran loving the Gypsy. Yet, at the same time, it serves to remind the audience that as much as this appears to be fiction, the author wants to give off the appearance of non-fiction. This is why Jonathan is careful to make sure what he writes is “true,” yet strangely, the stories do not seem to align.

 “Who you think saved your grandfather from the Nazis” (Pg. 60). In conclusion, this was a story that was about trying to find Augustine, yet what the audience discovered from the journey was so much more. “If there is no love in the world, we will make a new world,” this is to say that Safran evolved the story and kept it moving with his whimsical tale, he in a sense, is making a new world (Pg. 82). It is clear that while Safran’s dead arm and lack of ability to orgasm may be an irrelevant or inexplicable detail, the story as a whole would not have worked without it. The whole concept of love of Safran cannot happen without his arm and inability to orgasm. As he states, his whole life was a series of events that happened just right for them to take place. If just one event had fallen out of place, Safran would have died at the hands of the Nazi’s and his story may have never been told.

 

  

    

Bibliographical References

       Foer, Jonathan. “Everything is Illuminated”. Harper Perennial. 2002

Fotek, Paul. "Natal Teeth: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia." U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2013.

Wisdom and Sanity of Feste as Compared to the Other Characters

Many of Shakespeare’s plays often have a fool that is the wisest or sanest character. In Twelfth Night, the “fool that the lady Olivia’s father took much delight in,” is Feste (2.4.10-11). This would make Feste a mature man that was passed to Olivia after her father passed away. This supports the idea that he is the character of wisdom because Feste has been alive for a long time. Even Viola remarks on his wisdom when she states, “this fellow is wise enough to play the fool, and to do that well craves a kind of wit” (3.1.50-51). Feste within Twelfth Night shows wisdom and sanity with his wits, omniscient understanding, the atypical clown that he plays, and his truthfulness. Feste says that he is not a fool by saying, “I wear not motley in my brain,” or in other words, he suggests that he may dress like a fool, but he does not have the knowledge of a fool (1.5.46). I interpret it like this because only a fool would wear “motley,” and to say he does not have it in the brain suggests that Feste knows he is not a fool because there is no foolishness in his brain.

Feste’s first lines, “Let her hang me: he that is well hanged in this world needs to fear no colours,” starts the play (1.5.4-5). This quotation sets the tone of Feste for the rest of the play by signifying that he is not a normal character. A normal person would most likely look for mercy when placed in the shoes of Feste within this scene; however, Feste challenges Maria and then Olivia later on. A foreshadowing of Feste is seen in this quotation because even though he is witty, it underlines that Feste is “well hanged” or able to see the whole picture and that he does not need to fear “colours,” which is a pun on collars. The “colours” are the individuals found at the top of the social class that would wear collars, such as Olivia, whereas the poor in Shakespearian time could not afford such outfits, so the quote is a direct challenge to the upper social class (Maginnis). I interpret it like this because when someone is hanged they are strung up high and are able to look out and see everything in their final moments.

In the play when the captain utters, “her brother, who shortly also died; for whose dear God love (they say) she hath abjured the sight and company of men,” shines light on Olivia’s issues (1.2.38-41). This is preposterous because the captain’s words suggest that Olivia will not love or even look at another man because she is mourning over her dead brother who she loved. This is ridiculous, yet, none of this appears strange within the story.

The conversation below between Feste and Olivia allowed the whole Twelfth Night story to happen and is the most important for the play.

                                  Feste: Good madonna, why mourn’st thou?

                                  Olivia: Good fool, for my brother's death.

                                  Feste: I think his soul is in hell, madonna.

                                  Olivia: I know his soul is in heaven, fool.

                                  Feste: The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother's

                                  soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen. (1.5.54-59)

Feste is making fun of her and is using his voice of reason to show her that she should love a living man. He also starts the love triangle and makes it so that she will go after Cesario. Comparing Olivia to Feste, Feste is demonstrating that he represents wisdom and sanity because it is he that shows how ridiculous Olivia is being. It could be said, that Feste has a deeper understanding of the story because it is he that gets the story moving and keeps it moving.

A quote that in not directly spoken to Orsino, yet still connected to him and the story as a whole is, “Would you have a love-song, or a good life?” (2.3.30) This quote by Feste underlines the whole concept of love and in the case of Orsino, it questions if he would be better off chasing the love story with Olivia or having a good life. It is just a bit of wisdom offered up by Feste that can be contrasted with just about every character in the play. However, the comparison between Feste and Orsino comes in the quote:

                                       Feste: Now the melancholy God protect thee, and the

                                       tailor make thy doublet of changeable taffeta, for

                                       thy mind is a very opal. I would have men of such

                                       constancy put to sea, that their business might be

                                       everything and their intent everywhere, for that's

                                       it that always makes a good voyage of nothing. Farewell. (2.4.70-73)

Feste offers up this wise statement by speaking the truth to Orsino that he is always changing and is inconsistent in just about everything he does. He points out that he does not truly love anything except himself. This demonstrates his wisdom and sanity, because Feste knows Orsino’s true characteristics and is not afraid to call him out on it. This plays on Feste’s first line of the play.

Building on the theme that Feste seems to have a deeper understanding of what is happening leads to the next point. It is suggested that Feste may know the biggest secret of the entire play.

                                       Feste: I would therefore my sister had had no name, sir.

                                       Viola: Why, man?

                                       Feste: Why, sir, her name's a word, and to dally with that

                                       word might make my sister wanton; but, indeed, words

                                       are very rascals, since bonds disgraced them. (3.1.14-18)

This seems to suggest that names are only words. Cesario is just a name and that the true identity is still present. This offers a hint that the character is not being totally hidden. Feste seems to be suggesting that he knows her secret, but it does not matter because her name is only a word. If Feste does realize Cesario is a girl, then he is much wiser than everyone else in the play is because no one else until the end even suggests that they know her secret.

The final comparison with a major character is during the Malvolio prank where Feste has some fun. The quotation says, “she loves another-Who calls, ha?” (4.2.65-66) Which suggests that he is alerting Malvolio that Olivia is not interested in him, which is something that Malvolio could not comprehend. Yet, the audience can see that Malvolio is not the wisest person in the world because he did fall for the prank. Another great quotation which illustrates a clever pun by Feste is, “Then you are mad indeed if you be no better in your wits than a fool” (4.2.75-76). Some characters within the play cannot recognize the identity of Feste because there is a false sense of identity that Feste is portraying. Malvolio can only see Feste as a fool and is blind to the true role that Feste plays throughout the story, which is not hard to imagine since Malvolio is dense.

In act five Feste explains why he did what he when he says, “and thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenge” (5.1.353-354). Feste displays his dark side by attacking and participating in the prank by dressing up as “sir Topas”. People are not supposed to feel bad for this mistreatment because of the way Malvolio acted because as the first three letters of his name suggests, he is not a pleasant person. The combination of these scenes offers numerous glimpses into the character Feste and allows the audiences too fully appreciate the many aspects that he has to offer.  

Feste is a very depressed character throughout the play. This can be seen within many of his songs, but the main one is, “When that I was and-a little tiny boy…” (5.1.366). This is an unhappy and depressing song that sets a gloomy mood. While he is singing the song, he is all alone on stage at the end of the play without a partner. It is a tale of growing up and then old without ever finding love. It is a last bit of wisdom from Feste that contrasts the ending of the play to remind the audience that not everyone finds love and that sometimes the ones who we do love can disappear or die. In addition, Feste serves as a reminder that love can be painful and not always the way that society imagines it. However, it does remind the audience that nothing in Twelfth Night should be taken seriously, including his own tale that he had only seconds ago told. However, this is only because he is outside the world of Twelfth Night, merely checking in and observing. Feste is a middle point between the audience and the characters on stage and thus is an omniscient character. So while some may argue that it is nothing more than a traditional song, it is Feste speaking strait to the audience starting with, “but that's all one, our play is done, and we'll strive to please you every day” (5.1.384-385).  He is the only character that breaks the wall between the two worlds and is thus a character that breaks boundaries.   

In conclusion, the quote by Feste, “I am not her fool, but her corrupter of words,” is a final bit of evidence that proves that he is not a fool, because what fool could use words to his advantage (3.1.29).  Feste when compared to the other characters is the wisest and sanest character within Twelfth Night; he is clearly not a normal character within the story. He is an omniscient character that is able to really see all within the play and just keep the play moving throughout. Using his talent, which he commented on early in the play, “Well God give them wisdom that have it; and those that are fools, let them use their talents,” he can manipulate the whole world of the story to really any way he pleases and some may argue that Feste himself is a Godlike character ( 1.5.12-13).

Bibliographical References

Maginnis, Tara, 2010, “The History of Fashion and Dress”. The Costumer's Manifesto.

Gibson, Rex, 2012, “Twelfth Night”. Cambridge School Shakespeare.