Pride and King Richard II

King Richard of Shakespeare’s Richard II is portrayed as a very proud man, who cannot see that his cousin Bolingbroke would be a more fitting heir to the throne; Bolingbroke is more level headed and rationale than his cousin, therefore making him a better choice for ruler of a nation.

 

Richard’s pride dominates him so much he finds it hard to fathom how others could like Bolingbroke over or equally to himself, he also speaks of pride frequently throughout the play:

‘So proud that Bolingbroke was on his back!

That jade hath eat bread from my royal hand;

This hand hath made him proud with clipping him,

Would he not stumble? Would he not fall down,

Since pride must have a fall, and break the neck

Of that proud man that did usurp his back?

Forgiveness, horse! Why do I rail on thee

Since thou, created to be awed by man

Wast born to bear? I was not made a horse;

And yet I bear a burthen like an ass,

Spurr’d, gall’d and tried by jouncing Bolingbroke’ (Shakespeare,1595,A.5.S.V.L.85-95)

His proud nature and self-important mind set prevents him from caring about those he rules over, seeing them as somewhat unimportant, as Kenneth John Atchity points out:

‘Richard [has] a flair for self-dramatization that reveals only too clearly his ineptitude as a strong ruler. He plays to the wrong audience, seeking the approval of his court rather than that of the common people; he seems to shun the “vulgar” crowd in preference to the refined taste of a court that can appreciate his refined character’ (Atchity,2010,P.1-4)

Having no love for his own people leaves him an undesirable ruler, incapable of doing his job correctly; Bolingbroke on the other hand appears to have more of a level head in regards to the common people. While Bolingbroke’s motives throughout the play are questionable, he is certainly a better option for King when taking the masses into consideration; the real Henry Bolingbroke would have been known to Shakespeare at the time of writing, so this quote is likely to have possibly been considered during the writing of the play:

‘Pride defeats its own end, by bringing the man who seeks esteem and reverence into contempt’ (Henry Bolingbroke, 1366-1413)

This gives a very clear idea of Bolingbroke’s view on pride, thus highlighting part of why he and Richard do not see eye to eye.

 

To summarise, Richard has the right to become King but he lacks the basic fundamentals of a ruler, in that he is too proud to rule effectively; as with many tragic hero’s, Richard’s downfall is caused partly, or perhaps in this case mostly, by his pride. While Edward, the Duchess and Titus Andronicus all had a similar downfall, Richard’s is set within a dungeon cell as opposed to his normal surroundings, giving a sort of reflection on just how far he has fallen; Unlike the other three plays protagonists, Richard is very proud, which is overall the biggest flaw in his character.

 

 

Total Word Count: 500

 

Bibliography:

 

Atchity, K.J (2010) Richard II. Salem Press.

 

Shakespeare, W. (1595), Richard II. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardii/full.html

 

http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon34.html

 

Upper classes and romance in “The Duchess Of Malfi” and “Edward II”

In this post I will talk about Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II and John Webster’s The Duchess Of Malfi as they present the themes of love and betrayal in similar ways; I will aim to analyse how King Edward II and the Duchess neglect their duty as ruler to their kingdoms by having somewhat indecent, in the eyes of others, affairs that for the most part they do not try to fully conceal from their people. Moreover I will also look at how I feel that they themselves, Edward and the Duchess, cause their own misfortunes and downfall in doing so, regardless of the actions of others.

 

In Edward II, King Edward is so obsessed with his favourite, Piers Gaveston, that despite the man’s banishment by the former King, Edward is soon to call him back, much to the distaste of his court; Edward spends so much time and affection on Gaveston, even seeking to replace him after Gaveston’s death, that his own wife Isabella is void of his attention, leading to her betraying Edward towards the end of the play. This obsession with Gaveston eventually leads to Edward’s demise; this is mentioned in Jonathan Crewe’s article Disorderly Love; Sodomy Revisited In Marlowe’s Edward II:

‘Let us begin by recalling that Gaveston is killed in act 3, scene 1. His relationship with Edward is thereby terminated midway through the play, even if Edward does partially replace him with Spencer Jr. The play thus turns from the performance of a “homosexual” relationship to Edward’s deposition and murder, events in which the question of male-male relations returns with a vengeance’ (Crewe, 2009, P.392)

It is also problematic that Edward considered himself a kin to Gaveston, therefore proclaiming himself untrustworthy:

‘What, Gaveston, welcome, kiss not my hand

Embrace me, Gaveston, as I do thee

Why shouldn’t thou kneel? Know’st thou not who I am?

Thy friend, thyself, another Gaveston.

Not Hylas was more mourned of Hercules

Than thou hast been of me since thy exile’ (Marlowe,1593,A.1,S.I,L.135-140)

In a similar way the Duchess in Webster’s The Duchess Of Malfi secretly marries her steward Antonio; while this marriage is not done for the wrong reasons or with an untrustworthy man, unlike in Edward II, the Duchess is fixated on a man she deems good of good character, making him, in her eyes, a fitting companion, however it is due to Antonio’s status this too is an undesirable union, resulting in those most unhappy with it falsifying Antonio’s true nature:

‘[…] who would have thought

So great a lady would have match’d herself

Unto so mean a person?’ (Webster,1623, A.3,S.IV,L.25-27)

I find Ariane M Balizet’s comment interesting in “Drowned In Blood”: Honor, Bloodline And Domestic Ideology as it presented a different take on this union that I had not previously considered:

‘The Duchess of Malfi provides two […] models for the family. One, attempted by the duchess and Antonio, resembles the emerging middle-class home of post-Reformation England: the household is imagined as a coherent body, of which the husband is the head and the wife, children, and servants are loving members’ (Balizet,2012,P.40)

To those around her the idea of the duchess settling into this type of lifestyle is highly problematic; it could spell the downfall of the kingdom or unstable reign leading to problems among the people. This could also be applied to Edward II; Edward is involving himself with someone of lower status while allowing them to influence his choices and reign as king. The most prominent issue within The Duchess Of Malfi is when the Duchess falls pregnant to Antonio; not only does this raise questions about her purity, it dilutes the pure blood of the dukedom, causing those under her reign to question her. While I understand that these ideas of love and obsession are common in tragic plays of the time, it is still shocking how strongly these two plays present them.

 

Because the Duchess and King Edward have such a binding duty and responsibility to their people, I find it shocking that they would become so carried away with their lovers, that neither of them are able to do their role properly; while I sympathise with the characters and see their betrayals as both shocking and unfortunate, I can understand why they came to pass. I do not think Ferdinand and Mortimer were purely seeking to overthrow their rulers; While they do not approve of the men their rulers have chosen, they would also have had the peoples best interest at heart. It is worse for them if their rulers are criticised and questioned in public, as it calls into question their ability to keep the peace between the rulers and their people:

‘LANCASTER: […] Thus, arm in arm, the King and he doth march:

Nay more the guard upon his lordship waits,

And all the court begins to flatter him.

[…]

LANCASTER: All stomach him, but none dares speak a word.

MORTIMER: […] [He] will be the ruin of the realm and us.’

(Marlowe,1593,A.1,S.II,L.20-32)

As these lines show there is a lack of trust towards Gaveston despite the people showing no outward signs of distrusting him.

 

To conclude, I found it hard to sympathise with Edward and the Duchess, on the basis of them being so blinded by their infatuations they neglected their duty to the people; it is understandable that their marriages are not fulfilling having been arranged, but this is no adequate reason for them to entirely overlook their positions and responsibilities. When looking at everything that occurs within the plays, mostly within Edward II, it is easy to see how betrayals occur when others do not feel the kingdoms best interests are being considered; While treason is a very drastic way to resolve the problems at hand, it is understandable that desperation would drive some to it. Faced with no other option it to dispel the infatuations, is likely Edward’s and the Duchess’s murders were inevitable; they chose their lovers over their people and eventually paid the price.

 

 

Total Word Count: 1000

 

Bibliography:

 

Balizet, A.M (2012) “Drowned In Blood”: Honor, Bloodline And Domestic Ideology In “The Duchess Of Malfi” And “El Médico De Su Honra. Pennsylvania State University Press.

 

Crewe, J (2009) Disorderly Love: Sodomy Revisited In Marlowe’s Edward II. Wayne State University Press.

 

Hayden, M.H (2010) The Duchess Of Malfi. Salem Press

 

Lee, M.J (2013) Classifying Early Modern Sexuality: Christopher Marlowe, Edward II, And The Politics Of Sexuality. Columbia Basin College.

 

Marlowe, C. (1593) Edward II http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/edward2.htm

 

Webster, J. (1623) The Duchess Of Malfi http://archive.org/stream/duchessofmalfipl00websuoft/duchessofmalfipl00websuoft_djvu.txt

 

 

http://www.maicar.com/GML/Hylas.html

 

 

Females and Femininity within “Titus Andronicus” and “As You Like It”

Here I will aim to look at and compare the feminine characters within Shakespeare’s As You Like It and Titus Andronicus, while subsequently analysing how these characters also present a destruction of the feminine by acting in more masculine ways, or having masculinity overcome them. The characters I will focus on the most are As You Like It’s Rosalind and Titus Andronicus’s Tamora and Lavinia; I have selected these characters as they present aspects of both femininity and masculinity in different ways, however I will also look at the other females around them such as Celia, Audrey and Phebe.

 

I would first like to start off by analysing what is feminine about these characters, before going on to explain how I feel they become de-feminised by undergoing, or falling victim to, acts of a more masculine nature. In Titus Andronicus Lavinia and Tamora are the only female characters to speak of, unlike As You Like It where Phebe, Celia and Audrey are present beside Rosalind; however these women are totally opposite and display rather different aspects of femininity. In the male dominant Roman setting of Titus Andronicus, Lavinia serves as the epitome of feminine charm, kindness and purity; after the tragedy of rape befalls her (I will go on to give my views of this particular scene later) it becomes clear how those around her view her in terms of femininity, for example here where Titus Andronicus talks in affectionate terms about the voice she has lost:

‘O, that delightful engine of her thoughts

That blabb’d them with such pleasing eloquence,

Is torn from forth that pretty hollow cadge,

Where, like a sweet melodious bird, it sung

Sweet varied notes, enchanting every ear!’ (Shakespeare, 1593, A.1, S.III, L.82-86)

After the loss of her hands there is still an impression of what she was she used to partake in before; she still wishes to interact with Young Lucius in the ways she did prior to the attack, indicating the strong nurturing nature that continues to remain within Lavinia. On the opposite side of this there is Tamora, queen of the goths who does not appear to have the same sort of maternal nature as Lavinia, most of her actions are fuelled by revenge for the death of her son Alarbus; I saw this as a means of settling a score with Titus Andronicus, as opposed to a maternal act of mourning. While Tamora is the only other female within Titus Andronicus, she is far from the embodiment of femininity that is Lavinia; possibly the only feminine thing about Tamora is the simple fact that she has son’s and is therefore a mother, however I will go on to talk about her more later.

As You Like It on the other hand presents four very feminine characters in Rosalind, Celia, Audrey and Phebe; At the beginning of the play Rosalind and Celia are together in the garden using very feminine words and terms of endearment with each other, much like Lavinia did at the start of Titus Andronicus:

‘I pray thee Rosalind, my sweet coz, be merry’ (Shakespeare, 1598, A.1, S. II, L. 1)

Even Audrey who is of a lower intellect and ranking than the other women in As You Like It, has very effeminate patterns of speech:

‘I do desire it with all my heart; and I hope it is

no dishonest desire to desire to be a woman of the

world.’ (Shakespeare, 1598, A.5 S. III, L. 3-5)

Rosalind is also very aware of hers and Celia’s vulnerability and feminine beauty:

‘Alas what danger will it be to us,

Maids as we are, to travel forth so far!

Beauty provoketh thieves sooner than gold’ (Sheakespeare, 1598, A.1,S.III,L.106-108)

Of the two plays, As You Like It is far more genteel and feminine; because As You Like It is a comedy it contrasts with Titus Adronicus’s tragedy, therefore making everything light hearted and jovial, unlike the serious and sometimes violent nature of a tragic play.

 

Now to look at how the plays de-feminise the women present, starting with As You Like It; while it is well known for it’s women dressing as men, all for comedic effect, this still presents de-femininity within the play. When Rosalind and Celia decide they are going to leave for the forest after Rosalind’s banishment, Celia is quick to decide that she disguise herself as a female of the name Aliena, while Rosalind decides to present herself as Ganymede; this is a very deliberate decision on Rosalind’s part as the name has connotations with Greek Mythology and the male lover of Zeus, she herself makes reference to this:

‘I’ll have no worse a name than Jove’s own page;

And therefore look you call me Ganymede.’ (Shakespeare, 1598, A.1, S.III, L.123-124)

Viewers of Shakespeare’s day watching the play would have also been aware of the connotations with the name Ganymede; Clearly she is deliberately making those around her subconsciously see her as unquestionably male because of this; I saw this as a very conscious decision to diminish her femininity despite the fact that she had the freedom to do as Celia did. As Valerie Traub points out in her chapter The Homoerotics Of Shakespearean Comedy, it is Phebe who notices Ganymede’s feminine features, despite loving the person she believes to be a man:

‘what attracts Phebe to Ganymede are precisely those qualities that could be termed ‘feminine’ ‘ (Traub, 2001, P.138)

Although there are other points through out the play where Ganymede has a more feminine response to certain situations, for example when presented with Orlando’s blood upon a handkerchief Oliver is quick comment on “his” reaction:

‘Be of good cheer, youth, you a man! You lack a

man’s heart’ (Shakespeare, 1598, A.4, S.III, L.170-171)

This goes to show that no matter how much Rosalind tries to dismiss her femininity, she is unable to prevent the natural and somewhat expected, for the time especially, feminine response to blood; due to her upbringing, Rosalind is more accustomed being genteel and womanly, it is part of her being. Rosalind contrasts strongly with Tamora in Titus Andronicus who has a clear lack of a real femininity; Unlike Rosalind or Titus Andronicus’s Lavinia, Tamora has not had the same lady like upbringing, therefore she does not have the same deeply rooted feminine qualities shown by Lavinia or Rosalind. Lavinia is the first to really see Tamora’s true nature, a very significant point in the play that presents a clash between the genteel femininity of this Roman Princess with the rugged masculinity of the Queen of the Goths; Lavinia uses very strong wording and unfeminine language to describe Tamora and obviously seeing her as a very masculine figure:

‘No grace? No womanhood? Ah beastly creature!’ (Shakespeare, 1593, A.2,S.III,L.183)

‘O Tamora! Thou bear’st a woman’s face, –’ (L.136)

The only time Tamora presents herself in a womanly fashion is when she uses her feminine charm in order to get close to Titus Andronicus, fooling the royal court into thinking her intentions are pure; Tamora’s use of feminine language and a façade of genteel goodness are more noticeable when she is proposed to by Saturninus:

‘And here in sight of heaven, to Rome I swear,

If Saturnine advances the Queen of Goths,

She will a handmaid be to his desires,

A loving nurse, a mother to his youth’ (Shakespeare, 1593, A.1,S.I,L.339-342)

This façade earns her trust for most of the play, it is not until her crime, or rather her ordered crime, against Lavinia is revealed that Titus Andronicus and others of the court see her true nature. Tamora’s destruction of femininity is far more violent and horrendous than that of Rosalind’s, which is done for comedic and not dramatic affect; Not only does Tamora have little feminine character of her own, she commands the destruction of the pure femininity of Lavinia through the actions of her sons Chiron and Demetrius. The rape of Lavinia in itself is a very dominating and masculine act, seeking to take her pure virginity and leave her undesirable and sullied, however the worst part of the rape that they take her hands and tong; while this is done as a means to keep their identities safe from discovery, I saw it as a means of further destroying her femininity. Without the use of her arms Lavinia is unable to do, her previous genteel and womanly activities, or made to struggle in order to act them out, for example reading with Young Lucius. The loss of her tongue takes away her ability to use the feminine graceful language she was complimented on; Tamora’s actions are the more shocking because of how much she seems to purely enjoy causing such things to occur, there is also a nod to her affair with Aaron:

‘Farewell, my sons: see that you make her sure.

Ne’er let my hear know merry cheer indeed,

Till all the Andronici be made away.

Now will I hence to seek my lovely Moor,

And let my spleenful sons this trull deflow’r’ (Shakespeare, 1593, A.2,S.III,L.188-192)

Tamora is one of the truly dark female characters within Shakespeare, she appears to me of a very similar nature to Lady MacBeth, stopping at nothing to reach her end goals.

 

To conclude, I found both of these plays interesting in their take on female characters; While they are both very different in their genres, being a love comedy and a historical tragedy, the plays still manage to carry similar themes, for example there is a subtle underlying theme of betrayal within As You Like It when Rosalind is banished by her father. I found that comparing the females within these two plays gave me a different view of what is feminine, as well as where femininity stems from; Lavinia, Rosalind and Celia have all been nurtured and raised in a dignified, refined and regal setting, more than likely having had a tutor teach them genteel arts and lady like mannerisms. On the other hand Tamora has not had the same regal up brining, despite being a queen; Roman Goths were seen as a very barbaric and vicious group of people, with no religious standing. While Tamora is capable of displaying more cultured feminine mannerisms, it is in her nature to be very brutal and commanding; I considered her standing as Queen of Goths when writing this essay and have come to the understanding that, while she is Queen, there is no one else to take on the more masculine roles of a ruler and therefore she has taken them upon herself. Moreover her culture would not allow a feminine and genteel queen; Were she like Lavinia or Rosalind she would be a weak and ineffectual figure as queen to a barbaric race, making it easier for other cultures, for example the Andronici, to over come and defeat them. While I understand that Tamora is unable to be a feminine character because of her situation and standing, there is no true reason for her to destroy Lavinia’s pure femininity, even if it is part of her revenge on Titus Andronicus; perhaps in this case it would have been a kinder cruelty to have killed Lavinia, as Titus Andronicus was forced to do towards the end of the play, or taken her hostage. In a similar way Rosalind actively chooses to disguise herself as a male, seeking to test Orlando’s loyalty to her under the guise of Ganymede; personally I would have considered a female disguise better for this as it would test his loyalty to her as a woman. Overall I would say that these women do no appear to value femininity, unlike Lavinia who morns the loss of hers, therefore enabling them to destroy it without much conviction; Perhaps because of the times they are set in and the circumstances of these women they see their femininity as more of a hindrance rather than something positive, it is something that they have to over come in order to reach the desired end.

 

Total Word Count: 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

Garner, S.N & Springer, M (1996) Shakespearean Tragedy And Gender, A Woman Of Letters: Lavinia In Titus Andronicus. Indiana University Press. Bloomington.

 

Giddens, E. (2010) Early Modern Literary Studies: Masculinity And Barbarism In Titus Andronicus. Anglia Ruskin University.

 

Shakespeare, W. (1598) As You Like It. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/asyoulikeit/full.html (1593) Titus Andronicus. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/titus/full.html

 

Traub, V. (2001) Shakespeare, Feminism And Gender: The Homoerotics Of Shakespearean Comedy. Palgrave.

 

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/ganymede.html

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/jordanes/a/GothOrigins.htm

 

http://www.lothene.org/others/womenrom.html

 

Traub’s chapter on the homoerotic

After reading Traub’s chapter The Homo Erotics Or Shakespeare’s Comedy, I found it to be an interesting take on the text, especially in regard to the role of Rosalind throughout the play; The homoerotic take on the text was something I had not previously considered and called to question my view of the gender roles within it.

The chapter overall has a very well structured argument, looking at the characters and their gender roles in great detail and from many different perspectives; this provides a more rounded argument allowing for different interpretations on the play itself, thus reducing the possibility of a biased argument. The focus given to the name Ganymede, and the contextual history of it, creates a different sense of understanding in regards to Rosalind; it calls into question how much of the plot and surrounding character’s actions she was desiring by choosing such a name. However I found the chapter lacking in historic context regarding the society of Shakespear’s time and how this might affect the play; while the relationship between Ganymede and Orlando may appear somewhat homoerotic to a modern day audience, to those of Shakespear’s day it may have come across somewhat differently, perhaps even more naturally than it would now.

To conclude, I find the piece as a whole very enlightening and a good secondary resource to be looked at beside the text itself, however I would take it upon myself to look more into the historical context of the play in order to look at the argument in a different light; I would consider it easier to get a good understanding of the play when having a better knowledge of the foundations of a society, as well as the mind set, it was written upon.

Total word count: 292

Bibliography

Traub, V (2001) Shakepear, Feminism and Gender: The Homoerotics of Shakespearian Comedy. Palgrave.

Shakespeare, W. (1595) http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardii/full.html

Role of Place in Richard II

While the play Richard II gives the impression of focusing entirely on Richard himself, giving the idea of a strong and imposing man, the actual character is presented as a struggling ruler and a tragic hero, as in many of Shakespeare’s works.

Act 1, Scene I presents the audience with the stereotypical representation of a king; he is a ruler of his nations and commander of men, the sole representative of God and power:

“Old John of Gaunt, time-honour’d Lancaster

Hast thou, according to thy oath and band,

Brought hithe Henry Hereford thy bold son” (Shakespeare, 1595, A.1,S.I,L.1-3)

However the true Richard is a lair and deceitful man, having had Mowbray kill his uncle, something uncovered later in the play, and then feigning ignorance and allowing Mowbray and Bolingbroke to attempt a duel; his willingness to allow Mowbray to partake in a life threatening fight shows the audience how manipulative and decetful he can be.

Overall Richard is set up to fall like the typical Shakespearian tragic hero; despite his flaws and wrongdoings, there is something pathetic in his demise, making it possible for an audience to

forgive and empathise with him. Had Richard been released or if he met a different end, it would be

somewhat harder to truly forgive him as a character. Richard II’s place appears to be that of the tragic hero.

Total Word Count: 225

Bibliography:

Shakespeare, W. (1595) http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardii/full.html