Identity and Divine Right

After reading Act 3, I am still unsure of how I feel about the character of Richard. Most of the time I feel bad for him, but once and a while he'll do something that bothers me. I'm curious to see what happens in the next act, and particularly, if he will be killed, or at least removed from the throne by Bolingbroke. I think he will be removed from the throne in the next act, as act 3 seemed to be moving towards that fate for Richard, but like all Shakespeare plays I'm sure there could be some crazy plot twist I wasn't expecting that changes everything.

Something I thought to be interesting while reading this play was the idea of divine right. I know we talked about this a little bit in class Friday, but reading Act 3 really got me thinking about it a bit more. I knew from history class that monarchs often got their power from the belief that they were chosen by God to be rulers, but I had never really thought about how important that may be. Richard says that "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm from an anointed king./The Breath of worldly men cannot depose/ The deputy elected by the Lord" (3.2.50-53), and this really reveals how much faith is put into the belief of divine right, and that a ruler is a ruler not only because they are a part of the royal family, but also because they have been chosen by God to rule.

Another thing I found to be interesting was the continued discussion of honor and familial bonds, which we talked about for a while in class. Bolingbroke talks about his banishment in Act 3.1, and says "From my own windows torn my household coat,/ Razed out my imprese, leaving me no sign,/ Save men's opinions and my living blood,/ To show the world I am a gentlemen" (3.1.24-27). These lines show us just how important Bolingbroke's lineage is to him, as well as his honor. This also reveals how these things contribute hugely to constructing his identity. The loss of these things devastated him, and I think that he wants revenge for the theft of his honor.

Richard's Doubts?

My views of Richard seemed to change a couple of times as I was reading through Act 3. At one point I felt as if he was still the greedy king from the first two acts. Yet, as the act went on, I almost felt sympathy for him.
Throughout scene two my views of Richard stayed the same. As Aumerle reminds him that as they waste time, Bolingbroke grows stronger as rules, Richard tells us that we have nothing to worry about. Through divine right he is still meant to be on the throne. Richard tells Aumerle "Bolingbroke, / Who all this while has revelled in the night / Whilst we were wand'ring with the Antipodes, / Shall see us rising in our thrown, the east / His treasons will sit blushing in his face, / Not able to endure the sight of day, / But, self-affrighted, tremble at his sin" (3.2.43-49). Although Bolingbroke is basking in his power, Richard will get his back. Richard goes on to say that "The breath of worldly men cannot depose / The deputy elected by the Lord" and "Weak men must fall; for heaven still guards the right"(3.2.52-53,58). I think I mistook Richard's belief in divine right as greed. I guess, may, I don't see how he can believe that the throne is solely meant for him and that he will definitely be able to regain it. I also believe that at this moment, Richard seems very sure of himself, yet by the end of the scene he’s doubting himself.
So soon after I felt that greed, I felt sympathy for him in that same scene when he says "For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground, And tell sad stories of the death of kings- / How some have been deposed, some slain in war, / Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed, / Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping killed, / All murdered" (3.2.151-156). Right away, the words "all murdered" stuck out. I felt as though Richard was seeming insecure at this point...he goes on to say "How can you say to me I am a king?" (3.2.173) I felt sympathy for Richard...would he get murdered too? Yet, would that be a bad thing? At the same time, is he foreshadowing his own murder/death? As Richard began to give up home, I thought maybe he was giving in too easily...How could Richard walk away from it all? It reminded me of the earlier scene where he was originally going to have Bolingbroke and Mowbray duel or fight but then simple banished them both.
I think writing this response has raised many more questions for me than before I wrote it. I wonder how Richard believes in divine right but seems to doubt himself as king and be indecisive. I look forward to seeing how Richard develops further as a character and also how the belief of divine right gets played out.

the fallacy of a ruling system

Throughout reading this play it has become more and more evident that King Richard is not a good king. At first I am not sure what to think about Richard, but once Gaunt is dying, I see a whole new side of Richard. At first we find out that Richard needs money to go to Ireland to see what is going on with the war. Then we find out that he is planning to take money from the rich people to fund his trip. He then finds out his Uncle Gaunt is dying. Richard then plans to take money from his dying uncle. Through this, the reader sees that Richard has no compassion for family or for the people he rules over. York gives a long speech to Richard stating how he cannot take money from his dying uncle. York states, “is not Gaunt dead? And doth not Hereford live? /Was not Gaunt just? And is not Harry true?/ Did he not deserve to have an heir?/ Is not his heir a well-deserving son? (2.1.195-199). This speech was very moving and I think was created to show the extent to how uncompassionate Richard is. Richard’s response to this moving speech is, “think what you will, we seize into our hands/his plate, his goods, his money, and his land” (2.1.210). He disregards everything that York has stated and plans to take all of Gaunt’s money, land, and belongings. This heir is rightfully Gaunt’s son, but Richard does not care. He doesn’t think Bolingbroke is going to come back after his banishment from England. And even if he did think he was coming back, Richard did not care. He does not respect the heir or people’s rights, not even in his own family. Richard inherited his thrown through the heir that was left him and the people respected that, but Richard does not give the same respect to the heir of his uncle.

So the question that comes to mind is why would Shakespeare make Richard appear to be a horrible king and leader? I feel as though Richard represents the fallacy with the ruling system that was in England at the time. It is clear that inheriting a thrown at the age of twelve, just because of last name and family rights, does not make a good ruling system for any society. Richard is not a good leader and this is clear throughout the play. Shakespeare is making fun of the ruling class? That is how I see it. Shakespeare see’s the issues and problems with the ruling class and Richard’s actions as king shows how that system clearly does not work.

At the end of Act III when Richard gets his thrown taken from him shows that wrong can be made right. Everyone liked Bolingbroke better than Richard, and the thrown being taken from Richard shows that justice can be made and change can happen

Fair? I think not.

As I read through act three of Richard the Second I noticed that multiple times actions (such as executions and the placing of curses) were taken on what seem like innocent people. I’m having a hard time understanding why this would happen? Why would innocent people be punished for thing they had no control over?

The first time in act three I saw this kind of treatment being played out was in the beginning of act three, scene one. When Bolingbroke returns to England, he already has a strong army. We find out later on that even Richard’s army has left him and joined the army of Bolingbroke. When he enters, he already has Bushy and Green in his custody. He blames the two of them for Richard’s bad ruling and for the reason he was previously banished. He declares that these two men are going to be executed. What I feel this boils down to is that Bushy and Green are being executed for staying loyal to the king. What makes me feel like this is so ironic is that Bolingbroke was the one who accusing Mowbary or not being loyal to the king in the beginning of the play. It seems like Bolingbroke can not make up his mind. One must take into account that Bolingbroke is angry at Richard for not giving him what is his—the property and title of his now deceased father—but how can one’s morals switch like this? How can one go from willing to duel with a man over not being loyal to executing other man for being loyal?

The second account I saw of this kind of unfair punishment was in act three, scene four when the queen curses the gardeners for informing her of bad news. To me, this is completely unfair. To start, when the two gardeners entered the garden, they had no idea that the queen and her two ladies were there. It was the Queens suggestion to hide so that the gardeners did not know they were there. I believe that if the gardeners knew that they were in the presence of the Queen, they wouldn’t of spoke so freely of the things that were happening to Richard. Secondly, the gardeners have no power over what happens to Richard or who hold the thrown. They are just gardeners with no real amount of power. I can understand that the Queen was upset—the king was captured by Bolingbroke and she must of known what was going to happen with the thrown—but why did she curse the gardeners? When reading the conversation between the older gardener and the queen, I didn’t feel as if he was rude to her—I felt that he was sympathetic about what was happening to Richard.

I guess things will never truly be fair, especially in the word of Shakespeare, but these two accounts really bothered me in this reading. I’m hoping in the following readings, some sense of this will be made.

To Measure a Ruler

Richard II seems at first to be a fair ruler. He tries to rule fairly, and exempts blood line from having an influence on his ruling, he says, "Such neighboring nearness to our sacred blood should nothing privilege him, nor partialize the unstooping firmness of my upright soul. He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou. Free speech and fearless I to thee allow" (1.1.119-123). Perhaps the king only appears to be fair at first because he is proclaiming his own fairness. With little spoken evidence on the case of either Mowbray or Bolingbroke, Bolingbroke (his cousin) is given far softer a punishment, being a mere six years of banishment while Mowbray is banished forever. The king is by no means impartial. His uncle, John of Gaunt, gives his fair warning of his rulings in a classic deathbed foreshadowing. While Gaunt is biased because the king banished his son, he still speaks truth. He says, "Ill in myself to see, and in thee seeing ill. Thy deathbed is no lesser than thy land, wherein thou liest in reputation sick; And thou, too careless patient as thou art...a thousand flatterers sit within thy crown, who compass is no bigger than thy head" (999). Gaunt's speech here is less straight forward than his more lucid one on the king given to York, but still it serves as a warning on the state of the kingdom. When he says that he sees Richard is ill, Richard argues his health, but what Gaunt is cleverly saying is that Richard is morally ill and his kingdom is sick with poor rulings.
An aspect of the Kingdom and its current ruler are interestingly still relevant today. In act II Ross, Willoughby, and Northumberland converse on the state of things and the state of the King, noting that a lack of finance has made "reproach and dissolution hangeth over him" (2.1.259). It is also reflected on by other characters that the taxing of the people to afford a war on another nation (or part of the current nation?) will only further remove the people from their loyalties to the king.
A punishment that is too harsh for the crime, or supposed crime, committed will also bring revolt, and there seems to be some foreshadowing early in the play. Bolingbroke's banishment, as seen by many as too harsh, serves as an example where he is assumed to take revenge later in the play. Many times in history we have seen this same occurance: punish a man too harshly and it leaves him seeking revenge, a man, or a country. WWI and WWII are good examples of this, as Germany's desperation in economic failure and national embarrassment led to further destruction of a continent. Surely, King Richard will reap what he sows, as Shakespeare almost always makes sure his characters do.

Measure for Measure, Disceit for Honesty?

Sorry it's late. I was ULTRA tired last week and couldn't do much school work.

The end of Measure for Measure leaves the audience with a question: How does Isabella respond to the duke’s marriage demand? One rigid interpretation would be to assume that she agrees, whether she wants to or not, simply because a man of such high social stature asked her to. That notion would only work in a perfect world where subjects never question an order from authority. Seeing as this play is full of characters that bend and break the law, the above assumption then proves to be quite flawed.

True, Isabella has two options as far as the audience can see. She can either go with the Duke’s desire and get married or she can complete her vows and become a full nun. Even though the answer is not clearly defined, Isabella would probably do whatever she could to become a nun, only yielding to the Duke under some extreme circumstance. Part of my reasoning comes from the Duke himself and part comes from Isabella.

First, we have the Duke. The very first official act we see him do is give his power to Angelo under the pretense of going away. Once it is revealed that he was the Friar the whole time, the whole city will know that there was something strange going on, even if they can’t discern his entire plot. Second, he tells his guards to arrest Isabella when she’s trying to testify. Finally he reveals that he was actually lying when she thought that Claudio was dead. To an outsider, some of the events in the play may be at least partially admirable. For Isabella, however, none of the above would make the Duke any more appealing to her as an individual. In fact, she may be a tad ticked off at a few of these. Add that to the fact that he says “Give me your hand, and say you will be mine” (5.1.486) and she has plenty of reason to refuse. This is a man that is willing to do anything to make sure that he socially looks good and then asks her to do something that, by the definition of her chosen lifestyle, means that he can’t possibly value her beliefs. I don’t even think these two have any history together outside of the whole executing Claudio fiasco.

Next, we have Isabella herself. We get no background information suggesting that there was a reason she is becoming a nun, so we can assume that this is purely her desire. This notion is strengthened as the play goes on. She does not make any statement that make it appear that she wants to repeal her vows in terms of striking up a relationship with anyone. In her conversations with the Duke in the guise of the Friar, she is very focused in her words; all she wants to do is free her brother. It can be understandable why the Duke may find this virtue charming but she does absolutely nothing to lead him on. Even though she does want Claudio to live, she is not willing to do anything to compromise her vows. She plainly tells Angelo that, if she has to lose her virginity to save her brother, it wasn’t worth it. She has absolutely no desire to be intimate with a man.

If this woman would rather let her own relations die than be with a man, I’m sure she’d rather die herself than marry the Duke. Opposites may attract, but mis-matched pairs simply won’t mesh.

Isabella: Possessed?

*Sorry this is late. I missed this and class due to a Benadryl induced coma. It won't happen again!*

The character of Isabella has really interested me in "Measure for Measure". There was a post last week questioning the reason that Isabella would have listened to the idea the Duke gave her while he was disguised as the Friar. I had first commented that it was because of the fact that the Friar was a part of the clergy and therefore, in her mind, would not be giving her bad advice. I still believe this is true, but I have also come up with another idea.

I think that maybe, though this could be a stretch, that Isabella's morals are also being tested here. Even though it was a member of the clergy that was telling her this scheme, shouldn't she have realized that it was still wrong? I suppose that this argument could go on forever, but I think this is a convention of Shakespeare's comedy in a way: the questioning of morals.

What led me to this is the idea of Satan and deception. Not only is the Duke deceiving Isabella by putting on a disguise (of a Friar, no less) but Isabella, by listening to this proposition is going to deceive Angelo by having Mariana meet him instead of herself. Even though this is all to save her brother and expose Angelo for something good, it still goes against Christian morals.

Ultimately, I think that Isabella is definitely a wholesome character with just as many flaws as anyone else, and maybe I'm just pulling the Satan idea from thin air, but I did think it was important to the understanding of the law and the characters in the play as a whole.

Bias and Self-Interest in “Richard II”

The first two acts of Richard II have proven just how complicated things can get when family and politics interweave. A concept which I found of particular interest was how bias unavoidably contributes to the decisions one makes. When the argument arises between Mowbray and Bolingbroke, Richard claims that he is “impartial” and “vow[s]” that the “the neighbor nearness to [their] sacred blood” will not “privilege” Bolingbroke in his eyes or “partialize” him to Richards “upright soul”. Richard explains that like Mowbray, Bolingbroke is his “subject,” a status which Richard claims puts both Bolingbroke and Mowbray on equal ground and allows Richard to be objective. However in Act 1, scene 3, Richard seemingly contradicts this statement by giving Bolingbroke a much less severe sentence than he does Mowbray: ten years in exile in comparison to the life banishment Mowbray receives. Richard gives no real reason for this decision, and from an outside perspective it seems unjust, after all it was Bolingbroke who started the dispute by first accusing Mowbray of treason causing Mowbray to cry slander. Moreover, after Mowbray leaves, King Richard further reduces his sentence to six years after seeing the “sad aspect” of Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt. What has motivated Richard to be so lenient on Bolingbroke? At first it seems that Richard has taken pity on his cousin and has quickly gone back on his claim of being an impartial ruler. Richard seems to have been biased by his familial attachment to Bolingbroke, perhaps suggesting that it is impossible to be unbiased when dealing with family. This interpretation seems to be validated by John of Gaunt in 1.3, lines 229-35.4, whose decision is also colored by his bias as family relative. The saddened John of Gaunt wishes he could have “argue[d] like a father” but instead was forced to be “as a judge”. Although this at first seems to imply that he acted unbiased, he goes on to explain that he could not separate being a judge and father because fear of “slander” caused him to give his son a harsher sentence than he would a “stranger”. Thus, his attachment to Bolingbroke as is his son biased John of Gaunt to agree to a sentence he felt was too harsh for anyone. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to demonstrate that is impossible for people to separate biases, be objective, and thus act completely just. Instead, Shakespeare may be illustrating that people unavoidably act self-interestedly. We fine that Richard is also not impartial. He gives Bolingbroke the sentence he did for very calculated political reasons which biased the way he handled the dispute. In 1.4 we learn that Richard fears that Bolingbroke is after his thrown and cites Bolingbroke’s “courtship to the common people” as reason for concern. Whereas Richard views his people “as slaves” it is clear that Bolingbroke respects and even loves the people of England. For these reasons, Richard postulates that Bolingbroke thinks that “England” is by “revision his” and that he is the “subjects next degree in hope”. Perhaps Richard sentenced Bolingbroke the way he did in order to balance not upsetting the people of England as well as the rest of the royal family (who show favoritism toward Bolingbroke) while still being able to get Bolingbroke out of his way. Richard seems to be constantly biased by his own political self-interest which keeps him from acting as a just ruler (other examples might be his plan to tax the poor to fund his war in Ireland, or his involvement in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester’s death). Any thoughts about what Shakespeare might be saying about the role of bias and self-interest in decision making?

The Private, the Public, & Legitimate Violence

Two things struck me about Measure For Measure. The first is that the words “public” and “private” are used several times throughout the course of the play, like in 5.1.72 when Lucio says “I think if you handled her privately, she would sooner confess; perchance publicly she’ll be ashamed,” in 4.6.26 when Angelo’s use of the word “particular” actually means “private,” and in 5.1.452 when the Provost says “It was by private message.” Each time “public” is used it is referring to Antonio’s position of power both as a man and as a member of the state: his decree that Claudio should be executed, his well known precision, his “unsoiled name”, and his position as lawful leader of Vienna in the absence of the Duke are all “public.” “Private,” however, is used when referring to the women — Isabella and Mariana – and Antonio’s dealings with them. Angelo's promise to Isabella to spare her brother is made in the private, so he doesn’t actually have to keep it; Isabella and Mariana are accused of hatching a plan to destroy Angelo's reputation in the “private” with the friar; Angelo's sexual acts with Isabella/Mariana are also in the private as there is no scene of the encounter (which I was anticipating, probably because of our previous reading of Lucrece.) The Duke operates in both spheres (as himself in the public and as a friar in the private,) so he is able to subvert and reverse the power relations of the two, making what is done in the private supersede what is declared in the public. (Or maybe he simply makes the private public?) All Isabella’s and Marianna’s actions take place in the private: all the characters who interact with them have to enter the private (like when Lucio went to see Isabella at the convent) except for in scene five when the Duke, who permeates both worlds, manipulates them and brings them into the public.
The second is the way in which the play functions as a kind of microcosm of how the state employs its legitimate use of violence to police its subjects. As a document of the early modern era it foreshadows the ways in which violence is legally and legitimately used by governments in the modern era operating within the nation-state paradigm. Just as later 20th century governments could exercise violence over their own subjects (policing) and against other nation-states (war) Angelo and the Duke are allowed to execute criminals. There is nothing that determines when then can and cannot execute people, they can just do it whenever they deem it necessary. No one questions the legitimacy of their actions: Claudio’s punishment is rejected not because it is an execution in and of itself, but because it seems too severe, and ultimately because it is hypocritical of Angelo. I can’t help but ask if Angelo hadn’t lusted after Isabella, if he remained precise, would the execution have gone through? This is very different from today, where the very existence of the term “cruel and unusual punishment” shows a radical shift in the perception of how much power the state should be allowed to have and how it can or cannot use that power. The most interesting thing, though, was that the head of the state, the Duke, starts to question the legitimacy himself, and starts to base legitimacy not on law, but on morality. Claudio’s execution is wrong not because it is against the law, but because it is immoral. This is being mirrored in today's society in the way that WWII is called a "just war." It's justness (legitimacy) comes from morality. The same argument could be made for the war on terrorism (though not by me.)

Question of Lust

Throughout each work of Shakespeare that we have covered so far in the semester, the idea of characters toying between “right” and “wrong” seems to play a prevalent part in both the plot and within the lives of the characters. It seems that many of the problems in Measure for Measure arise because the men in the play have little control over their lust clouding their vision when it comes down to what is “morally right” and “morally wrong.”
Right at the beginning of the play, we are introduced to Claudio, and his scandal of being imprisoned because he impregnates his fiancée, Juliet. Angelo is quick to point out Claudio’s wrong doing and wishes to persecute him, yet Angelo finds himself in similar moral dilemma of lust when it comes to Isabella, Claudio’s sister.
Isabella's demeanor and her values seem to represent the ying, to Claudio’s yang as she wishes to become a nun and wishes to save herself ultimately, as she lives a life of purity and without sin. Angelo wants to portray himself as a just and morally right person as well, but instead of dealing with her in a manner consistent with his station, Angelo offers to spare Claudio in exchange for sexual encounter with Isabella.

The Role of Virtue in Shakespeare's World

After our class discussion Tuesday, I found myself thinking about the role of virtue (virginity) in Shakespeare’s world at the time. After being asked the question of if we would sleep with someone in exchange for our sibling’s life being saved, I knew that most of us were secretely thinking, “Well, YEAH.” Most of us would do whatever it took. As immoral as it might seem, it is not enough of a hardship to prevent (most) of us from saving the life of someone we love dearly. However, it occurs to me that we are looking at the situation from a twenty-first century’s viewpoint. As I pointed out in class, Isabella was a novice nun. To have sex before marriage would be to prevent her from taking her vows and living the life that she wanted and had been envisioning for herself. Although I cannot understand the desire to be a nun, I can certainly sympathize with a woman who had one plan for the rest of her life and was suddenly faced with a situation that would prevent her from achieving all that she wanted in the world. Isabella’s situation is different from most women, in that having premarital sex would not just make her feel guilty, it would completely change the rest of her life. To ask Isabella to save Claudio’s life in this way also entails her giving up her life, in a sense.

Even with the knowledge that premarital sex could lead a person to be sentenced to death, I found myself still a little shocked at the way it impacts the lives of the characters. Isabella aside, Angelo’s entire plan for Claudio is overthrown by the fact that he has engaged in premarital sex as well. To punish Claudio would be to make Angelo a hypocrite or to make him susceptible to the same punishment that he issued to Claudio, aka death. Angelo even acknowledges that he will have to let Claudio go, and does so without a fight. I also found it noteworthy that after it is agreed upon that Claudio will not be sentenced to death for premarital sex, the standard is set that the punishment for the crime will be to have to marry the person who you impregnated. Angelo is sentenced to marry Mariana by the Duke, after he confesses his crime. The Duke also sentences Lucio to marry the woman he supposedly impregnanted. The fact that the next most horrible punishment next to death is to have to marry the woman is very comical, and I wonder if Shakespeare’s audience at the time would have been amused by this parallel and seen how silly it is to judge a person for premarital sex, or if they would not have even made the connection.

Setting a Bad Example

The Duke's final solution to all of the play's problem leaves me rather puzzled. It comes quite suddenly, and is a great surprise to both the audience and the characters. This is in itself really not so surprising, as many of Shakespeare's comedies end in a similarly deus ex machina fashion. What surprises me are the exact solutions the Duke comes up with, particularly regarding Lucio, Mistress Overdone, and Isabella.

When the Duke left he claimed he was leaving Angelo in charge so that he (Angelo) could enforce the laws which the Duke had let slide. He does so with a will, setting out to make a bloody example of Claudio in order to show that he had power and was willing to exercise it. By the end of the play the Duke decides things have gone too far, and steps in to set things right, as he sees it. However, some of the solutions he comes up with are arguably just as bad as what Angelo was trying to do.

He revokes Claudio's death sentence and allows him to marry Juliet, so jolly good there. However, he forces the rest of the characters into relationships they do not want. He condemns Lucio to a life of shame, unhappiness, and probably syphilis. He condemns Angelo (possibly the only one who deserved what he got) to a lifetime with a woman whom he had left and did not want back, and it was unclear whether or not she wanted him. Finally, while it never says in the script if Isabella actually marries the Duke, given his position and power it is highly likely.

All in all, the decisions he makes and presumably enforces might make Claudio and Juliet happy, but certainly nobody else is pleased. If his intention was to get the laws more strictly enforced, then that certainly is what happened, but he then turns the law around on his deputy who has done exactly what he was supposed to. If he eventually decided that Angelo had gone too far with his punishments and stepped in to stop them, it seems strange that he punished the rest of the characters while saving Claudio. It seems to me that he took the example Angelo set as ruler, which is pretty much universally accepted as a bad example, and continued it. If the Duke had any character development, it seems to have been for the worse.

Audience's Reaction?

So far during our readings for Shakespeare II, the plays have taken place away from England: Merchant of Venice in Venice, Italy and Measure for Measure in Vienna, Austria. Even during class this concept of taking place away from England has been a main idea in order for Shakespeare to distance himself away from the issues he raises to avoid conflicts with the people and rulers of England. Unlike the other two, his history play, Richard II takes place right in England. Obviously this is due to the fact that this play is supposed to be based on real events, but I wonder how the people took to Shakespeare’s view of what happened in the past?

In our society, history is constantly being made into books, movies, and plays. For example, the movie Pearl Harbor is based on real events but twisted into a love story in order to make it more appealing to audiences. Now I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge of European history is not very good, but Shakespeare had to have altered the content of the play a little bit in order to appeal to his own audiences. Such as the dramatized plot in Act 1 scene 4 for gaining money to go to war, as Richard says, “We are enforced to farm our royal realm, / the revenue whereof shall furnish us / for our affairs in hand” (1:4 lines 44-46) combined with the spectacular timing for Bushy to come with the news of John of Gaunt’s failing health. I realize that this idea probably did happen, but did it happen exactly like this, or is this something Shakespeare created to produce irony and to set the stage for later in the play?

But if the play was based in England and on England’s royalty, how did Shakespeare not get into trouble with this, especially since it seems as if the way Richard is portrayed here is not in a good light? From what I got from the reading it sounds as if Richard wants to get money from the wealthy people and then pay the wealthy people back with the taxes from the common people. Would that not make him a very unpopular king with the commoners? I’m not too sure whether or not he was considered to be a good or bad king yet, but it sounds like an unpopular idea to me. Would the audiences of this play agree that this is a bad idea and cheer Shakespeare on, or would the current King of England take offense to the idea that Shakespeare could be criticizing the past royal families? I know that Shakespeare writes plays on several of England’s kings, but after our discussion in class of him trying to avoid trouble and association, why did he become brave and create these plays? It makes me wonder that if he were alive and savvy to what was going on in America at any given time, what kind of plays and about which presidents would he write?

Cucullus non facit monachum

Shakespeare's subplots strike again with social commentary. I've found that while the plot serves to shed some light on society/religion/interpersonal relations, the subplot is often a commentary on the plot. In act IV, the Provost introduces Pompey, the clown, and the Abhorson, the hangman to one another. Pompey is to aid Abhorson in the execution of Claudio. Like the archetype of the fool, Pompey's seemingly meaningless chattering is saturated with wisdom unseen by the other characters. In Act IV scene II, Pompey compares his life as a thief and bawd to that of a hangman. The Provost too suggests the same when he says, "Go to, sir, you weigh equally; a feather will turn the scale" (4.2.23). They are equal in rank in society. In comparing the thief, as we might call Pompey that for argument's sake, and the hangman, they both steal, yet one is lawful and one is not. The thief steals a man's possessions, perhaps his clothing, and the hangman steals a man's life, and may be awarded his clothing after the execution. This is eluded to in footnote 7 after Abhorson says, "Every true man's apparel fits your thief" (4.2.34). Jokingly, Pompey remarks on his and Abhorson's similarities and Abhorson's thought that he is above Pompey in his trade. Pompey says, "I do find your hangman is a more penitent trade than your bawd-he doth oftener ask forgiveness" (4.2.39-41). This is in reference to a hangman's ritual of asking forgiveness for taking the lives of those they are executing.
Pompey's conversation with the hangman is a commentary on the plot, which combined are a social commentary that still permeates modern culture. All of the prostitution, premarital "relations," theft and trickery in both the plot and subplot are committed by every character. I feel that Shakespeare's commentary is that virtue is a relative term, and no one man is more wholesome than another in life because good and evil (for lack of better terms) exist in every man. Shakespeare speaks through multiple characters in saying that man is flawed, and perhaps a few sins can aid to right man's path in the end. When Mariana pleads for Angelo's life, she appeals to Isabella in saying, "They say best men are moulded out of faults, and for the most, become much more the better for being a little bad" (5.1.431-33). She is preaching here to say that a little taste of sin can increase the appetite for a more Christian life. Isabella agrees and says, "His act did not o'er take his bad intent, and must be buried but as an intent that perished by the way. Thoughts are no subjects, intents but merely thoughts" (5.1.43-46). Shakespeare, in my opinion, is all about second chances because man is undeniably flawed and naturally inclined to sin, yet he may learn the error of his ways through a little faltering.

Gaunt's Dying Words: an Exercize in Close Reading

John of Gaunt is a terrific character, if only because he makes a clever play on his name by way of insulting the king in 2.1. He argues that Richard II has made him "gaunt" by exiling his son, Bolingbroke, and forcing him to fast for want of looking on his child and heir: "And therein fasting, hast thou made me gaunt./ Gaunt am I for the grave, gaunt as a grave,/ Whose hollow womb inherits naught but bones" (2.1.81-3) He, like Queen Margaret in Richard III, with her curses and prophecies, is sepulchral even in life and fulfills the purpose of foreshadowing doom. The image of Gaunt, withered but fierce, on his deathbed denouncing the king and predicting the end of his legacy is a wonderful image that, I imagine, is a pleasure for film and stage directors to bring to life.
As is the case with Queen Margaret, Gaunt's predictions that the king's greed and thirst for power will be his undoing, are fulfilled. "[Thou] art possessed now to despose thyself," he says after foretelling the king's imminent demise, later adding, "Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee" (2.1.138, 136). We can see from the genealogy chart in the front cover of the anthology that Richard II does in fact die and fail to produce an heir. (What a spoiler.)
But this is something that readers and theater-goers are lusting to see play out. Richard II is a lousy king, to say the least. He covertly orchestrates his uncle's assassination, banishes his cousin from the country, steals that cousin's inheritance for the purpose of funding a war on Ireland, and imposes unfair taxation and "blank bonds" on his people (also for the war). Gaunt is justified in calling him dishonorable. In his soliloquy on page 998 in the Norton, Gaunt makes the case that Richard II is defacing England's heritage and reputation with his irresponsible ruling. Gaunt disposes endless praise upon the country, calling it an Edenic "demi-paradise" (42), a fortress "defensive...against less happier lands" (48-9), and, somewhat ironically, renowned for its chivalry (as exemplified in the Crusades, which are now touted at the Greatest Failure in History). Sure, Gaunt might have an over-romanticized image of England, but this is all by way of contrast to the neglect Richard II shows the land and his subjects. He is completely wrapped up in his own agenda.
I don't know about you all, but the big question in my mind right now is how anyone would name his or her son after Richard II and expect things to go well. It's as if Richard II's faults are compounded by time and result in the total abomination that is Richard III generations later. He too chokes his own legacy with greed and blood-lust. But just as Richard III was somewhat possible to sympathize with, for his physical deformity and outcast status, I predict that Richard II will also prove to have some redeeming, or at least pitiable, qualities. And I also predict that Gaunt's ghost, either in memory or in body, will haunt the rest of the play.

I found Measure for Measure an interesting yet complex play. The weird part about this Shakespearian play for me, was the ending. As we know usually the end of a Shakespearian play ends in love, marriage, hapiness and sacrifice. Even though Measure for Measure did end in these elements, the ending itself was strange and almost different to me than the other Shakespearian comedies I've read. I was surprised that marriage was used more as a form of punishment at the end instread of a symbol of love. I know back in Shakespeare's day marriage was not always about love and usually only about procreation. However, usually in Shakespeare's comedies the person or people at the end of the play who get married are in love with each other and their love is what they have been fighting for through-out the whole play. I didn't really think that was the case in this play. I feel like Shakespeare did represent the procreation part well. At the end of Measure for Measure Lucio as punishment has to marry the women that he has gotten pregnant. Angelo must also marry Mariana as punishment for what he did to her many years ago and for what he did to Claudio and Isabella. I also found it extremely odd that the Duke asks Isabella to marry him. I know we do not get a certian answer but it seems to me that Isabella is going to marry the Duke. I find it a little hard to believe that someone who through-out the whole play represents purity and who has a big commitment to God ( big enough to let her brother die ) that she would just willingly accept the Duke's offer. I also think that he'd be stupid to ask her to be his wife. The Duke knows she wants to become a nun. Usually in the end if Shakespeare's comedies most of the main characters ( especially the ones who are getting married ) live happily ever after. Yet Juliet and Claudio get to live happily ever after I feel like almost everyone else sacrificed something for these two people . I also feel like the ending should have been more about Juliet and Claudio and that the Duke and Angelo kind of took over the play. I'm usually happy with the way Shakespeare ends his comedies in a quick yet romantic quick fashion however, I feel like many things in Measure for Measure were left unsolved and that the ending was just a quick fix to fit everything together.