In Acts IV and V of Measure for Measure, all hell breaks loose. The Duke makes the entire situation of Claudio’s death very complicated and frustrating as he continues to play tricks….and finds joy in his tricks. He prolongs the fact that he knows Claudio is alive to make Isabella reach the deep end of depression just to tell her that her brother is alive so she can be happy again. He attempts to give Angelo a taste of what “strict” law is when he threatens to execute him but again, he grants him mercy by allowing him to marry Mariana instead of punishing him with death.

I did not like the ending of the play because it was very unsatisfactory. It ended with The Duke forcing Isabella to marry him–which I thought was a form of rape–because she was a nun in progress and her virginity was a big deal to her. Even though Angelo was an evil character who obeyed the law very harshly, he was a hypocrite who realized his hypocrisy. The Duke on the other hand, I thought, was worse than Angelo because he knew all of his faults and completely tried to run away from the flaws in law that he caused. It was his fault that the law did not work so even when Angelo tried to enforce the law, it did not work because the characters went to The Duke to consult about mercy and he got in the center of the law anyway. He was also worse because even though he saved Claudio, he played games throughout the play and dragged on a situation he could have ended and he forced Isabella to marry him against her wish.

In my opinion, I thought Angelo and The Duke were evil characters who made the play extremely frustrating. The law was a complete joke in the play. None of the characters took it seriously, even ones who were in the process of being executed. Even a minor character like Barnardine did not take his punishment seriously and talked his way out of execution because he knew talking his way out would work. The law does not work when there is mercy involved, they don’t mesh together. The law does not exist if there is mercy.

“The very mercy of the law cries out” (Act V Scene I)

I found an image of Isabella kneeling on her knees to The Duke at the end of the play when she is begging him:

To me this is such a pathetic scene because The Duke is not any better of a character than anyone else in the play. None of the characters are extremely likable.

Measure for Measure

In the beginning of the play, the Duke of Vienna must leave the city and decides to leave Angelo in charge with full authority to enforce the law and punish those who disobey it. The Duke seems very confident in Angelo’s abilities to rule Vienna in his absence as he describes, “your scope is as mine own, so to enforce or qualify the laws” (1.1.64-65).  As to where and why the Duke must leave is unexplained. The Duke seems to be a well-spoken and noble figure that cares for his people, but in Act 1 scene 3 we see that his actions are questionable and a bit shady since he is actually in hiding to observe Angelo. The Duke speaks about how Vienna has had “strict statutes and most biting laws” (1.3.19) which he admits he has let slip for years. It becomes clearer that the Duke feels the people are out of control and order needs to be brought back. Since the Duke has always been so lenient, he does not want to seem like a tyrant if he starts to enforce the law, therefore he is hoping Angelo will do all the dirty work for him. The Duke comments “I love the people, but do not like to stage me to their eyes. Though it do well, I do not relish well their loud applause and aves vehement” (1.1.67-70). Although the Duke claims he does not enjoy the acclamation of his people, it seems that he is setting himself up for it because he’s worried if he starts enforcing the law the people will hate him and view him as a tyrant. Since the people are so use to leniency when it comes to the law, if Angelo starts to enforce the law, they will end up hating him and love the Duke even more when he returns.

In Act 1 we can already see that the Duke is untrustworthy and unfit to rule since he can not except responsibility. The Duke is aware that it is his fault the people are out of control and order must be enforced but, he decides to give that task to someone else while he just sits back and watches, only to return when all the hard work is done. All he seems to care about is the adoration and respect of his people without putting in the work for it.

These last two acts (like the rest of the play) had so many characters popping up, I kept getting confused. But in act 4 scene 4 I found the exchange between Queen Elizabeth and Richard very amusing.  Asking the mother how to woe her daughter seems like a gentlemanly thing to do, though I don’t think I would say it was so for Richard. You know, killing off the rest of her family and then asking her mother how to pursue her right after isn’t very classy. I actually thought Elizabeth was winning the argument when she kept cutting off Richard and bringing the subject back to his past actions. But in Richard’s dialogue from line 397~417 I found myself asking, “how does a power hungry, unfeeling person say such heartfelt words?” And could see how Elizabeth could be persuaded.  For a successful happy ending, I half wished that Richard would suffer and have someone deceive him back but at the same time it’s almost as if even if he survived in the end, we wouldn’t be all that disappointed.  All in all, beside being confused from all the different characters, most of all, my attitude toward Richard was just swaying back and forth even until the very end.

The lives of men are governed by interpretation. Interpreting the law is a very serious issue that Shakespeare feels the need to address. In Measure for Measure, we see the passing of the torch from the Duke to Angelo, “In our remove be thou at full ourself; Mortality and mercy in Vienna live in thy tongue and heart” (1.1.41-43). But with this shift in authority comes a shift in interpretation.  Where the Duke was lax for “nineteen zodiacs” (1.2.167), Angelo will “strike home” (1.3.44). A difference in an interpretation of the law is crutial as is displayed here in the first act. It means the difference between life and death for Claudio who believes he is being used to set an example in order for Angelo to build a reputation for himself; “and, for a name, now puts the drowsy and neglected act freshly on me:- ’tis surely for a name” (1.2.168-170). The idea of interpretation is also significant because it is other men doing the judging. This is problematic because the men doing the judging and interpreting are just as fallable, full of vices, as the men being judged. Even the Duke questions Angelo’s character suggesting that power can corrupt even the purest of heart, “hence shall we see, if power change purpose, what our seemers be” (1.3.57). I think we are being forced to consider the extent of which the law is flawed. We need to consider the complications that arise and the effects a flawed law has on those governing, the governed, and the society as a whole.

I think we must also consider the role of women within the law as we read further. It will be interesting to see how powerful they can be behind the scenes. Lucio certainly believes in their convincing capabilities:

“Go to Lord Angelo, and let him learn to know, when maidens sue, men give like gods; but when they weep and kneel, all their petitions are as freely theirs as they themselves would owe them” (1.4.76-81).

Richard to me is one of those  characters who I have little to no sympathy for, but I find him eerily entertaining throughout the play. The play starts out with a monologue by Richard, describing his motivation for the kind of schemes and murders he has planned, but it comes of like an excuse or a disclaimer. He blames his physical deformity  for the way people treat him, and for his lack of success with women too, but the fact that he can use his mind to convince lady Ann (of all the women), to marry him at the beginning of the play, shows that he is perfectly capable in talking women into being with him. so his excuse is just a lame ploy to get the sympathy from the audience, he’s not not even trying, because frankly he doesn’t really care, he is evil for the sake of evil. I found it interesting that Shakespeare portrayed Richard III in this way, since the real king was not considered to be this treacherous, despite the fact that there is evidence he killed The Princes in the tower. Despite having no sympathy for Richard, I still find him extremely witty and entertaining, and this mixed in with how cruel and manipulative he is makes for a very dynamic character.

In Richard III, our protagonist and villain succeeds in wooing (or killing) every character that threatens his royal ambitions. Through the supreme mastery of language Shakespeare has blessed him with, Richard effortlessly charms and tricks other into aiding in his elaborate scheme for the throne. Perhaps his ballsiest move comes when he confronts Lady Ann, the woman he has recently made a window, while she is in the middle of burying another relation that Richard has murdered, and bluntly asks for her hand in marriage. AND SHE SAYS YES. The bigger surprise, I think, is that despite (or, perhaps, because of) giving the audience full disclosure of his villainy, he somehow wins us over. Which is embarrassing given how ready I was to write Lady Ann off as an idiot woman for falling for his flattery.

I love how Richard commentates on his actions. Right before he is about to do something, he breaks the fourth wall and tells the audience his plans. Also, for me at least, I find this play to be comical. I love Richard’s sarcasm especially when he was justifying for murdering his brother. “Simple plain Clarence, I do love thee so That I will shortly send thy soul to heaven”

From the first two acts, the scene that intrigued me the most was when the murders were “trying” to kill Clarence. The whole time reading that scene, I was picturing the three stooges. Moreover, the conversation between the murders and Clarence made me realized how manipulative and sly Richard is and how deep did he got his brother to believe in his lies.

I also wanted to add on to what Dana said on the previous post about how Richard resembles Aaron. I think they are similar that they are both evil but differ in their intentions. For Aaron, I felt like he was being evil just because he can and felt like it and there was no end to his means, but for Richard he was driven by his need for power. Another thing is that we saw a side of humanity when Aaron was protecting his child, but for Richard, he is willing to kill his brother for the throne. Therefore, to compare the two characters, I think Aaron is more vividly gruesome whereas Richard is more like the Devil, a charming exterior and a sinister interior.

When reading Richard III did anyone else feel as though Aaron was reincarnated? Within the first two scenes alone it is very clear that Richard he evil for the sake of being evil and manipulative for the fun of knowing he is smarter than everyone else. He pits his brothers against each other so that he can eliminate them both, and then tries to woo Lady Anne, which delights him because he killed her husband and father in-law.

Both Aaron and Richard make clear the fact that they are evil Aaron says that though he’s done a thousand bad things “Nothing grieves me heartily indeed/But that I can not do ten thousand more.” And Richard declares to the audience, “I am determined to prove a villain” within his opening soliloquy. Also just as Aaron was physically marred because of his skin color, Richard is also physically marred through some deformity. Maybe their desire to show superiority is linked to their feelings of inadequacy.

It is also strange that Shakespeare chose to write this character as evil. After doing some research on Richard III (aka a quick Wikipedia search) I found that though there were some allegations that he (spoiler alert!) ordered the death of a couple princes, there is no real evidence nor reason to write a play in which he is, as Lady Anne put it, the devil. Though I understand that the play was written when another house was in the monarchy so there is no direct criticism of the queen, doesn’t writing a play like this lead the audience to question the validity and motive of any monarch?

I have some mixed feelings about this play. In general the whole play does not make much sense to me. Unlike the previous two plays that we read, the Merchant of Venice has some holes in the plot. Antonio comes across as a martyr. He repeatedly entreats the Duke to let Shylock have his bond. The play never explains why he is sad or why he is so quick to let Shylock have his bond. Portia sends Bassanio away to help Antonio and then follows him to Venice in secrecy to do exactly the same thing. As if, she is completely sure of her husband’s incompetency. It is almost like she has something to prove. This brings up the part where Portia and Nerrissa play every single male in Venice for a fool. Once again there is no context as to why they decide to do so. The ring fiasco is also strange. Portia and Nerrisa put their husbands into a silly situation, in which – Antonio and Grattiano – have to decide between compromising their wedding vows and granting the only wish of the people who saved Antonio’s life.  Also, Portia knows about the welfare of Antonio’s ships but chooses not to tell him where she got her information from. I think that, since there are so many loose ends in the play and the plot does not make much sense then it was meant to be that way. I think that the play was made for purely entertainment purposes.

1.  I find it interesting that in a play that is heavily concerned with the interactions between Christians and Jews, there are many references to Greek and Roman deities.
2. Portia, Jessica and Nerrissa dress up in men’s clothing. Some contrast can be drawn to the logistical aspects of Shakespearean plays where men always play the roles of women.

As a Patriarchal society, men are considered to be the dominant force, having the most power. Portia however, completely destroys this notion from her actions. We first see this when Bassanio learns of Antonio’s distress. While Bassanio was fretting on what to do of Antonio’s predicament, Portia handles the situation in a cool and collected manner. She asks Bassanio of how much Antonio owes Shylock and in response says, “What, no more? Pay him six thousand and deface the bond. Double six thousand and then treble that” (3.2.300). The way that she takes control of this situation, even when she is wed to Bassanio, shows that she has power over the traditional role of patriarchy.

Later in the play, Portia disguises herself as a judge for the case of Antonio v. Shylock. Using her wits, she traps Shylock into rejecting the ducats and demanding the “pound of flesh” from Antonio. After that, Portia brings forth a loophole where Shylock must obtain the pound of flesh without shedding “One drop of Christian blood” (4.1.309), otherwise he will be punished by the law of Venice. Because of her intellect, she not only saves Antonio from being executed but forces Shylock to pay the price of attempting to take another’s life by giving half his possessions to the defendant and the other half to the state.

After the trial, Portia tests her husband’s faithfulness to their marriage by demanding their wedding ring as a token for saving Antonio’s life. After receiving the ring, she confronts Bassanio back in Belmont about his actions. Although she does not mean much harm, this shows that Portia has led Bassanio around by the nose.