When it comes to Shakespeare, nothing is unworthy of noting.

Without a doubt, many readers of Much Ado About Nothing’s Act IV, scene i would “note” that it contains far more tragic elements than what would be expected from a comedic play. Indeed, the scene featuring Claudio’s public rejection of Hero at the altar is quite a shocking moment in the production, however essential it is to the plot’s development. Despite its negative tone, however, this scene brings forth a passage containing some of Shakespeare’s most brilliant wordplay. Shakespeare uses the irony of Hero’s name as the basis of several clever insults, all playing on the definition of “hero” and the common conceptions of the word. I’d like to examine this short passage to highlight the fact that, even within only twenty-five lines, Shakespeare is able to intersperse many nuance details in his writing.

The witty play on words begins in line 76:

Hero: O God defend me, how am I beset!

What kind of catechizing call you this?

Claudio: To make you answer truly to your name.

Here, Claudio is demanding that Hero answer to him who she really is. At first take, the line seems merely a rhetorical question for dramatic emphasis, but when taken figuratively, Claudio really wants Hero to answer true to heroic virtues. He implies that if Hero is her name, then a “hero” should answer him, that is, one who possesses the attributes of nobleness and honesty.

Hero, the character, then replies, “Is it not Hero? Who can blot that name / With any just reproach?” In other words, who can tarnish the reputation of a hero with such an accusation? Claudio is quick to reply, “Marry, that can Hero. / Hero itself can blot out Hero’s virtue,” another play on the name (IV.i.80–81). Claudio asserts that Hero “blotted” out the virtue of a true hero by committing her alleged misdeed. A little later, in lines 98–100, Claudio exclaims, “O Hero! What a Hero hadst thou been / If half thy outward graces had been placed / About thy thoughts and counsels of thy heart!” Here is an obvious play on “hero,” for Claudio is explaining that, if Hero was as pure and beautiful inside as she was outwardly, she would fulfill the definition of a true hero’s qualities.

            I found examining this scene important, for it is a prime example of the beauty of Shakespeare’s writing, and it also highlights the necessity to pay close attention to every little nuance of his writing. Prior to taking this class with Dr. Mulready, I never knew this particular play’s title to have anything to do with “noting”; now, I understand the importance of appreciating minute details even more than ever, in this one and all of Shakespeare's plays.

When it comes to Shakespeare, nothing is unworthy of noting.

Much Angst About a Misapprehension!

Dogberry & Verges

A connection was made in class between "Much Ado About Nothing"'s Dogberry and Verges and "A Midsummer Night Dream"'s rude mechanicals. Shakespeare is drawing comic relief from the lower middle class once more, this time also at their expense. The humor of these characters of "The Watch" is derived from their ignorant misuse of words and unwitting puns while Dogberry and Verges are speaking of their policing role that they take very seriously.

It was unclear in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" whether the audience is meant to pity or take humor in the mechanical's play they flub hopelessly and I felt the same conflict for the Watch as Act IV unfolded. Dogberry and Verges say absolutely ridiculous things, which was pure fun to read in Act III when they were on the beat, but when it came to discovering Don John's scheme and warning Leonato before the wedding, their verbal stumbling was cringe-worthy. Although they were the most enlightened two characters of the play at that moment, the two of them came off just as silly as always in the instance Dogberry "defends" Verges: "...an old man, sir, and his wits are not so blunt as God help, I would desire they were." (3.5, Lines 9-11) I myself would lose patience trying to sort through this type of backwards conversation, so I don't place blame on Leonato for brushing them off and continuing to his daughter's wedding. This was just such a terrifically ironic scene, placing the crux particulars of the play in the hands that don't know what to do with it.

My Contention With Claudio

The end of Act III and wedding-alter scene that followed left me feeling very malcontent with Claudio's conduct.

After falling for Don John's ruse, Claudio did not just decline marrying Hero quietly the next day, but went as far as to publicly insult her and deliver scathing remarks such as the following, "You seem to me as Dian in her orb...But you are more intemperate in your blood/Than Venus or those pampered animals/That rage in savage sensuality." (4.1, 55-59) The blistering insults and name-calling seemed very over-the-top and uncalled for, as I read it. Hero's response did not carry as much assertive objection as I would have liked or might have expected from a character like Beatrice if she were in Hero's place. Hero seemed demure and crumbling against Claudio's outrageous accusations. Of course, Claudio gave her a snowball's chance of defending herself by referring to her flush of shock as further proof to her guilt, "By these exterior shows? But she is none. She knows the heat of a luxurious bed. Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty." (4.1, 38-40) Claudio's behavior is exceedingly cruel and is the crown to a series of bizarre actions he has taken with Hero.

Claudio's first stint of weirdness can be traced to trying to woo Hero through the gestures of a friend. At first read, I chalked this up to severe bashfulness on Claudio's part, but in hindsight taking this disaster wedding into account, it was a sign of Claudio's distance and lack of intimacy for Hero. Claudio gave a lot of talk about love to his soldier bros, but there are scarce examples of Claudio being affectionate towards Hero. His snap-judgement of Hero's "sensuality" without attempt to question her or hear her side of the matter has made up my mind that Claudio may not have been Hero's match after all.

Liars, Pimps and Prostitutes

One of the aspects of Measure for Measure that I noticed while reading through the play so far is how much more corruption and sin/vice there is in this world compared with the world of The Merchant of Venice. In this play, anti-Semitism is non-existant (at least so far) and all the characters are presumably Christian, though many of their actions do not coincide with the beliefs of Christianity.

So far, the play has focused on the aftermath of Claudio's crime of impregnating a woman he was not married to. Although this is a frowned upon action during the time of the play, we are led to believe that it is a crime that usually goes unpunished. A case such as this, where both parties are consenting, would seem less likely to be enforced, but because of the recent change in power, is being punished with death. This, especially in today's world, seems like an extremely over the top punishment and is depicted as such by the characters in the play.

In the context of the play, I'm not necessarily against Claudio's death if that is what the law states, but we are shown during Act 2 that Angelo is not the most honest man either. He is willing to spare Claudio's life if Isabella agrees to sleep with him. I was unclear on a couple of things regarding this situation though. Angelo speaks at least twice of being in love with Isabella, but I was unclear if his request to sleep with her also involved them being married. Either way Angelo is being dishonest by essentially taking a bribe, but it would seem far worse to me if he only wanted to sleep with her, especially considering that's the very thing Claudio is being put to death for. At least Claudio and Juliet were consenting, even if Isabella agreed to sleep with Angelo it would be truly consenting because she would only be doing it to save her brother.

Also, despite how out of line Angelo's proposal seems, I was somewhat shocked to hear Isabella refuse, and even more shocked to hear Claudio ask her to essentially suck it up and take one for the team. So far, Isabella seems to be the only honest person in the play. Everyone else, it would seem, is either a liar, pimp, or prostitute. Even the Duke is parading around as a friar for his own benefit and sits back while Angelo rules with an iron fist. I'm not sure which is more unsettling, the fact that the Duke is pretending he is a friar or that the other friars are okay with this situation.

how will the events of measure for measure unfold?

One of the first questions I have after reading acts 2 and 3 of Measure for Measure is whether or not Claudio will live, and if so, what will have to be done to achieve this. Will Isabella have to in fact sleep with Angelo? Or will they be able to get Angelo to think twice about his request? I am interested to see the further development of the request between Angelo and Isabella, and what will come of it when a decision is made. I feel like Isabella will not go through with Angelo's request to sleep with her, as was discussed when they plotted to bring Mariana in. I believe that something will get Angelo to reconsider his options, and hopefully free Claudio.

Also, I am wondering if we will see more of the Mariana that was spoken of, and if her presence or even the idea of her will have a great impact on the way these events unfold. Maybe seeing Mariana will get Angelo to realize his request is uncalled for and hypocritical, and Claudio will be permitted to live. I feel like in a lot of Shakespeare’s works, there is often attention drawn to hypocritical characters and their choices throughout the play, and I definitely see Angelo as a hypocritical character from my reading so far. Reminding him of his relationship with Mariana and all that had happened with them may be what Angelo needs in order to think about his practices, and may make him realize that he is condemning someone (Claudio) for something he himself has basically done as well.

I also have been wondering what particular reason the Duke has for going into hiding and putting Angelo in charge. He could be doing it as a test to see how Angelo handles power maybe, or he could be doing it to teach Angelo a lesson about power. Maybe he wants Angelo to see what it is like to be in power and wants him to learn how to behave correctly in a position of power. At the same time, I can’t help but think that the Duke has done this in order to make himself look better as well. If he can get Angelo to strictly enforce rules and look like an unsympathetic leader, maybe he thinks that he can come in and “save the day” from the vicious Angelo, so that way everyone will be thankful to have such a wonderful, gracious leader.

The Unknown and Uncertain

While answering the question about how Claudio tries to convince Isabella to give herself up to Angelo, his powerful speech about death really stuck out. Claudio's first line "Ay, but to die, and go we know not where" reminded me of Hamlet's "to be or not to be"(3.1.118). Claudio is beginning to question the great uncertainty and unknown that surrounds death, just as Hamlet does. Does anyone really know what death is? What happens after death? Where do we go? No one lives to tell about it. Like Claudio says, it could be being suspended in nothingness or "to live in cold obstruction and rot"(3.1.119). It's as if reality has hit him that he may actually die. You don't realize the permanence and uncertainty of death until you're face to face with it.
These words are quite different from what he said in the beginning of Act 3 Scene 1 when talking to the Duke. It's as if he's gone back on his words. In the beginning he tells the Duke: "I've hope to live, and am prepared to die"(3.1.4) and "I find I seek to die, And seeking death, find life. Let it come on"(3.1.43-4). Claudio seems almost at peace with the idea of dying, but as the scene progresses, he's worried about the unknown. Will death mean blowing "with restless violence round about the pendent world"(3.1.125-6). At the end of his speech Claudio states "That age, ache, penury, and imprisonment / Can lay on nature is a paradise / To what we fear of death"(3.1.130-2). My take from this is that Claudio sees being old, living in prison, and/or being poor as better than having to face death and what happens after. Death has become unfathomable to Claudio, which I believe leads him to ask his sister to do the one sin that would be the worst for her to commit.
Lastly, it seems that Claudio is concerned with both what happens physically and while in purgatory. He talks about becoming a kneaded clod and the spirit bathing in fiery floods or "to reside in thrilling region of think-ribbed ice"(3.1.122-3). I think Claudio would feel as if he were a menace if he were killed. Obviously, Claudio wouldn't be dying gracefully and in his time, wouldn't be seen as deserving a place in heaven. What adds to this is that it seems that Claudio commits the ultimate selfish act by asking his sister to give her virginity to Angelo. In a way, I believe this would make Isabella the prisoner. Yes, Angelo would be free, but Isabella would pay the price and have to live with the sin she'd be committing. Isabella calls Angelo a "faithless coward" and ultimately tells him she'll pray that he dies. Claudio does seem like a coward...he's trying to escape death and his punishment by having someone else take the punishment. Claudio believes that Isabella's deed will be excused or inconsequential, when in fact, it won't be.
I think this all brings out Claudio's character more, and even leads Isabella's character to develop more. It's clear after their exchange that Isabella is determined and knows what she wants, much like Portia in Merchant of Venice. I'm interested to see how Claudio's character develops and how Isabella's plan to fool Angelo plays out.