Category Archives: Psychological states

Was Shakespeare an early Feminist?

Measure for Measure, Psychological states, Tragicomedy, ,

In Act 5 Scene 1 of Measure for Measure, I found the moment when Isabella kneels and pleads for Angelo’s life to be not only beautiful, but also particularly revealing of her character’s growth and development throughout the play.  In begging the Duke to pardon Angelo, I strongly believe that she was implicitly pardoning her own internal desires that never quite manifested themselves.  Although Isabella was originally planning on becoming a nun, we see throughout the play that she has exhibited a sense of sexual curiosity and feminine power that she may or may not be aware of. I would argue that by the play’s end, in the segment where she is shown kneeling, Isabella has become aware of not only her power over the men around her, but also the power of the human psyche and how it is often difficult to control.  She says, “For Angelo,/ His act did not o’ertake his bad intent,/ An must be buried but as an intent/ That perished by the way. Thoughts are no subjects,/ Intents but merely thoughts” (5.1, 453-458).  At this point, she senses that it is in our nature as human beings to think unclean thoughts; the text suggests that she may be forgiving herself for any such thoughts she has had in the past, for she herself did not yield to them. It becomes evident through these actions that Isabella will not be returning to the convent.  Her posture in this scene is highly religious, but rather than choosing to dedicate her life to God, Isabella has found peace in knowing that one can assert control over their actions and still manage to live a virtuous life, even if his or her thoughts aren’t necessarily pure.

The irony in all of this is that just as Isabella has this epiphany and is essentially granted free will, the Duke proposes to her.  Although the audience doesn’t hear her response, we are likely to assume that she agrees to the marriage because the Duke saved Claudio.  With this, her freedom of choice is revoked. This makes the play seem rather tragic in my eyes because just as Isabella is beginning to recognize her power and how it can free her mind, she becomes trapped within the confines of marriage.  And even if she rejects the Duke, it is probable that she will be shamed back to the nunnery, resulting in a Catch 22 of sorts.  In either instance, Isabella’s potential to become a powerful member of society has been hindered by the men around her.  With this being said, I cannot help but  begin to wonder if Shakespeare himself was a bit of a feminist through his portrayal of women in plays such as Measure for Measure.

“The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.” ― Oscar Wilde

Character types, Measure for Measure, Psychological states

Temptation is a key theme in Measure for Measure:  it’s a factor in discovering one’s true self. Angelo can’t resist temptation.  In many ways his proposition to Isabella makes the reader view him as an immoral or evil person. He has no issue with giving into temptation and using someone’s life as bargaining tool. Angelo proves himself to be extremely human, flawed and vulnerable. Isabella, however has many traits in common with Angelo, and yet refuses temptation wholeheartedly. Isabella’s refusal of temptation actually reflects the negatives she tries to hide in her personality. She is proud, pious, and selfish even when Claudio’s life hangs in the balance. Isabella is naturally viewed as a good person: what could be immoral about a future nun?

Isabella in many respects needs to yield to temptation to truly become whole. Here is a woman who is completely uncomfortable with her sexuality, and in her turn her feminine power. How can she reach that next level of becoming holy and righteous if she has never given into the rapture of sin to understand sacrifice?

The question remains are those who give into temptation weaker in character than those who will not?

Hamlet: Acting to Becoming Insane

Death and dying, Hamlet, Psychological states, Tragedy

At the very beginning of the play, Hamlet is a very clever and cunning character, who despises his uncle, the new King Claudius. Hamlet’s fatal flaw is  over thinking.  Hamlet starts to plot against the King as soon as the ghost tells Hamlet of the poisoning that King Claudius orchestrated. Hamlet also attributes Claudius with taking his mother away from him. Hamlet plans to act crazy in order to wait for the best time to kill Claudius. The only person who could actually pose a threat to Hamlet’s plans is fooled by Hamlet’s guise. Polonius our CIA equivalent, believes Hamlet is going crazy for his daughter Ophelia. However Hamlet has it in his mind that he will wait for the best time. He becomes so enveloped in his act that he forgets how much time has elapsed since his father died. He suggest its has been days, while Ophelia corrects him and says its months. At that point it doesn’t seem like Hamlet is in an act anymore. Hamlet literally forgets the lapse of time and at that point he seems to be no longer acting.

Hamlet becomes intrigued by the actors and their natural sense of acting. He seems to be even jealous of it. He wonders how they can cry as though they have lost kin. At this point I also get a sense that Hamlet isn’t as great an actor as he thinks he is. Being a good actor is becoming a part of your role, while staying true to yourself. Hamlet starts out on this dangerous pathway and becomes what he’s supposed to act as. The climax for Hamlet’s madness is when he passes Claudius’ room to Gertrude and strikes Polonius killing him. At this point Hamlet finally has made the first action while plotting for the past months. The unfortunate part is it’s the wrong person. Hamlet causes ruin in the lives of Polonius’ children, Laertes and Ophelia, in which Laertes shows what Hamlet could have done, which is, plot to kill his father’s murder, but actually follow through with it. Hamlet’s over thinking is the end of him, but his madness is the narrow edge that leads him to his fall.

Similarities between Hamlet and Claudius

Character types, Hamlet, Psychological states

In act 3.2 when Claudius delivers his monologue on the nature of his deeds, I was struck by how increasingly similar he and Hamlet grow throughout the play. Claudius’ language reeks of indecision, of a man who is trapped by the oaths he made to himself:

”     Pray can I not, /Though inclination be as sharp as will./My  stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, /  And like a man to double business bound/ I stand in pause where I shall first begin, / And both neglect” (3.3.40-3).

On the one hand there is a part of him that wants to absolve himself of his sins, perhaps by taking the punishment fit for his heinous crime. But on the other hand, he doesn’t want to give up all the things he acquired through this act. His guilt is stronger than his will to repent.

Similarly Hamlet has the “strong intent” of avenging his father’s death, but this intent is ever defeated by internal debates as to a mode of action. He too is to double business bound. By always weighing two courses of action against each other, Hamlet always ends up neglecting both courses.

A Highwayman and His Guilt

1 Henry IV, Psychological states

Shakespeare shows an account of guilt in 1 HenryIV and draws a picture of how it literally consumes a king for his past deeds throughout his ruling time.  Henry IV’s overthrowing king Richard II seating himself on the throne is presumably the source of his guilt. Once a strong and chivalric nobleman, Henry Bolingbroke now turns out to be a weak and aged king Henry in 1 Henry IV. We, the audience, can take a peek into his spooky soul through his words usage throughout the play.

 

In the beginning of the play, the audience hears the tension and hardship king Henry going through by the word “ shaken,” which echoes the sound of civil war across his kingdom. It can also be a reminder to the audience, those who have seen King Richard II, of Henry Bolingbroke and his usurpation of  the throne, followed by taking King Richard a prisoner and having him assassinated. As a result, we aren’t surprised at all seeing him tremble at the news of civil war, since it may bring King Henry back through flashback to Henry Bolingbroke. He may have foreseen another uprising and be terrified of another invasion to his illegitimate kingship.

 

Robbery, Rochester, Roads- all seem to symbolize the sick environment of king’s kingdom that gives rise to highwaymen. The robbery scenes in Act 2 Scene 2 and 4, to my mind, is an allegory of King Richard’s kingdom loss to Henry. Henry, in a sense, robbed this kingdom, like a highwayman, from King Richard. Falstaff, along with Gadshill and Peto firstly robs the travelers, and then he gets robbed by Hal and Poins. By this robbery scene Shakespeare maybe tries to give his audience a subtle hint that King Henry and Falstaff both act out of same motivation even though Henry hasn’t got robbed ( he still has his kingdom) in the play unlike Falstaff.

 

Shakespeare makes it more relevant to the plot of 1 Henry IV by creating the character the Highwaymen where the king himself holds one on the same skeleton.

Two Couples, Not Alike

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Psychological states, Romantic comedy

Though much of the comedy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream comes from the confusion that ensues between the four young lovers, I have to admit that their maturity and conviction at the beginning of the play is quite impressive to me. Hermia and Lysander seem so sure of their love for one another (that Hermia is willing to defy  her father and face potential celibacy or death to protect it.)

It is was when Lysander stated  “the course of love never did run smooth” that I felt it appropriate to take their characters and their love for each other seriously (as silly as it later becomes). Lysander expresses his understanding that the journey of love is never an easy one, yet he remains committed still. Knowing the hardships they will have to face, Hermia and Lysander make a vow of love to each other.

The next couple we are introduced to is Oberon and Titania who, while committed to each other by marriage, no longer seem a committed couple at all. As Puck explains, “And now they never meet in grove or green.” The two even come from separate entrances and seemingly cannot stand the sight of each other. Oberon even performs cruel tricks and spells on his once love.  By comparison the love between Hermia and Lysander seems far stronger than that of Oberon and Titania.

All that being sad, I think that these couples, being at different stages in their lives and at different ages, only reflect a common theme in reality: love is often  strongest when it is young .

 

Shakespeare disorients you in the most entertaining way.

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Psychological states, Romantic comedy, The role of the imagination

One of the things that I found the most compelling about A Midsummer Night’s Dream is how hysterically disorienting it can be. That goes for much more than the blatant confusions of the fairy-engineered chaos that ensues in acts two, three, and four. It really is not hard to catch yourself trying to figure out minor details, such as the moon position, and how it could possibly have such a prevalent theme of moonlight despite Theseus’ comments of, “four happy days to bring in another moon” to denote the time of the ceremonies.

Perhaps liberties were taken for the theme of moonlight, or there are alternate ways of interpreting what Theseus meant, but it would not be surprising if either were the case. Both fit into how disorienting it can be by adding to the numerous dualities in the play: sanity and insanity, civilization and wilderness, elite and commoner, and, of course, the confusion these dualities cause. I cannot imagine where we would be without the moon as a perfect scapegoat to explain the actions of the four youths in the woods and the mysterious disappearance of Bottom. Let’s also not forget about how disorienting of a time the players must have had trying to pull a performance together with their lead character off in the woods with a fairy queen and a horse head.

And, of course, what better to include in a play centered on marriage and love than a prominent theme of disorientation?  I would assume that it is safe to say that Shakespeare sought out to comment on the inner-complexities of love in this play in the same was as he did so with dreams and social standings. Whether it is Hermia and Helena caustically doting over each other’s opposing features, or subtle commentary on two men falling for the same woman, Shakespeare does not shy away from tackling dense topics in order to delve into social ideas that are certainly not unique or confined to the setting of the play. It makes these characters very real and believable in the cleverest of ways, and even gives a brief second of clarity, just as the last act of the play seems to do.