The Duke enters, greets Angelo and Escalus, and thanks them for their service. Friar Peter brings Isabella forward, and she asks the Duke for justice. He lets her talk about her story and after she finishes speaking, he seems he cannot believe her. Angelo tries to interrupt while she is speaking, but she continues, calling him “an adulterous thief, an hypocrite, a virgin-violator.” Duke thinks that Isabella’s madness seems oddly reasonable, so he tries to find out the truth. And he finally finds out that Isabella begged Angelo to free her brother, but he said she needed to have sex with him to free him. She did eventually and gave up her virginity, but Angelo did not free Claudio and ordered his execution finally. However, the Duke cannot (does not) believe her at all, and he orders her sent to prison. After Escalus summons Isabella and with Lucio’s suggestion, the Duke’s overarching plan has been revealed. Escalus orders the disguised Duke imprisoned, and the Duke asks the provost not to cooperate. At Angelo’s behest, Lucio hurls insults and removes the disguised Duke’s hood, revealing the Duke’s true identity.

Angelo’s regret and shame are clear in this scene with his request for a death sentence. Also his earlier confessions of torment and his quick admission of guilt makes him a slightly more sympathetic character. However, the Duke does not listen to him and he orders to marry Mariana, and the Act 5 ens with Duke’s speech commending the characters’ virtue and hoping for a pleasant married life with Isabella.

I believe this conclusion brings a typical “marriage plot” resolution to the play and allows justice to be served, besides that Angelo is granted. Many of people might think that it is in many ways an appropriate “measure for measure” penalty for Angelo, but I don’t agree with them. I thought even though he has been punished by having to suffer the shame of what he had done, it is not enough. Consequently, he tried to destroy one’s happy marriage under the name of measure, which I think not fair enough.

In Act III, scene 1, we observe Claudio’s conversation with his sister, Isabella, of how Claudio can avoid being put to death. Isabella says, “Is’t not a kind of incest, to take life from thine own sister’s shame?”(3.1.138-139). I think from this quote she is comparing her virtues of being clean from fornication to Claudio’s unjustified actions in the eyes of the law. Isabella believes that if she was to give up her virginity to the Duke, it would go against everything she believed in. She reinforces this idea by saying, “I had rather my brother die by the law than my son should be unlawfully born.”(3.1.191-193). As we can see, Isabella is willing to die for Claudio but not risk losing her virginity. It is clear through her actions that not being chaste and having sex before marriage were not only frowned upon, but were extremely unlawful during the 16th Century of England.

In Isabella’s conversation with Claudio, it almost seemed as if she was testing her brother to see if he would defend her virtues of being pure. She gradually starts talking about death and how it’s not something to be feared; it is almost as if she is convincing him to want to die. At first, it seemed that Claudio did not want his sister to give in her virginity to save his life. After what seemed like countless unsuccessful attempts to convince her to say that she would be unclean, Claudio abandons what he said about her staying true to herself. As an audience, I feel for Isabella to be trapped in a decision involving her true virtues or her brother’s life. In my opinion, being one who abides strictly by the principles of the law, it will be easy to turn Claudio down because what he did was clearly wrong. In contrast, a woman’s pureness must have been practiced heavily during the time. So it wasn’t something that can be easily dismissed. I’m compelled to believe that Isabella didn’t give in to Claudio’s plead partly because she felt betrayed by her brother to tell her otherwise right after he agreed for her not to do it.

In the first act of Measure for Measure, the line “There’s not a soldier of us all, that, in/the thanksgiving before meat, do relish the petition/well that prays for peace” stuck out as being a sort of summation of how the characters feel about the situation with Lord Angelo in charge (1.2.110-114).  Soldiers understand that they are not supposed to want to go to war, but they do not try to pray earnestly to prevent it because there is a part of them which enjoys warring.  The characters of the play understand that, as Christians, they are not supposed to desire or engage in extramarital sexual encounters, but their overwhelming want for such encounters make them disapprove of attempts to prevent it outright, or punish it so harshly.  Like the soldiers, they understand the way they are “supposed” to act and feel, but the reality of their situation is at odds with what is expected of them.  They see lechery as only a minor crime, much in the same way that we would view jaywalking.  Isabella understands that her brother can be put to death from a legal and even (in her strict, rigid, virginal opinion) moral standpoint, but she does not want him to die because she loves him in spite of his actions, and because he’s ultimately still a good person who engaged in a mutually consensual act.  There is a divide between what the laws say, and what we recognize as “virtuous,” with the realities of human behavior and desire.  This divide permeates both acts of the play, from Claudio and Juliet’s premarital sex, to the legality of the brothel, to Lord Angelo’s own blackmailing of Isabella.

Other than the moral argument itself about sex, the play evokes the longstanding dispute between de facto and de jure in lawmaking and governance, with de facto being the state of things in practice and de jure being the written laws themselves.  Vincentio is obviously upset by the fact that the de facto state of affairs is to ignore the de jure laws which were instilled.  The kinds of laws which are ignored so widely are said to be in a state of “desuetude.”  Lord Angelo is introduced to implement a Draconian, letter-of-the-law style of governance.  He resolves to make the law something more than just a “scarecrow” which is eventually used by its targets as a perch (2.1.4).

Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night is abundant in humor, irony, and could very well be considered a possible offense to aristocracy and all those who would be dogmatic, arrogant and to throw it back for my Shakespearean scholars- cocksure. Even title of the play “Twelfth Night” seems to suggest a feeling of “trading places” as well as disorder. I don’t mean to say Shakespeare in the creation of this play had intended to suggest rebellion but as Sarah mentioned in an earlier blog post the subversion and inversion of class structure is undeniable.

One would assume that the role of a Clown in 16^th century theatre would be to act foolishly, yet in “Twelfth Night” the Clown is actually depicted as quite the wise fellow, suggesting that not everyone who appears foolish is actually a fool, and conversely, not everyone who would appear qualified to rule is. Further more Shakespeare would appear to be anti-establishment based on his sense of humor. You know how people say you can tell a lot by someone by what makes them laugh. Well it’s my opinion that Shakespeare was likely in opposition to the idea of social hierarchy and following the rules. For example if Shakespeare were a God fearing member of the Church he probably wouldn’t dare to make Malvolio, a devout puritan, the butt of the joke as we see during last acts. One would assume that if Shakespeare were to hold order or the church in high esteem he would have used his voice to convey a message of obedience; instead he creates a series of unfortunate events for the most “pro-rule” character in the play- Malvolio who’s name even suggest he “wants bad.” Looking back at Titus Andronicus we can see how he shared similar behaviors with Malvolio, having always followed the rules, which as we know didn’t work out so greatly for him. First Titus selects the wrong Emperor, chooses to sacrifice the future Queens first-born son, kills his own son, and eventually kills his only daughter all because he was following the rules. I’m no expert but I say, if Titus had loosened up even a little bit his life would have been just a tiny bit easier.

Okay back to “Twelfth Night” I believe Malvolio is having such an awful time because unlike everyone else in the play he clings to his identity, is resistant to change, and refuses to participate in the madness that we call humor. To wrap it up a lot of the themes in “Twelfth Night” question gender roles, advocate chaos, and challenge class structure. Despite my confusing thoughts one thing is certain, this classic light-hearted romantic comedy is coupled with all the plot complexities and character intricacies Shakespeare is known for.

When Malvolio goes to see Olivia after he finds “her” letter:

(Mark Rylance as Olivia)

In the climax and closing action of Twelfth Night, we see a rapid fire stream of action all stemming from miscommunication and mistaken identity. I wanted to examine the relationship between Viola and her brother Sebastian, as they are the crux of the action in the closing stages of the play. The fact that they are twins seems to be the biggest issue, as it confuses every person in the play that comes across them. I think something that we lose in reading and not viewing the play is exactly how similar they were in looks. For Sir Andrew to run across Sebastian and attack him, he would have had to been wearing something similar to what Cesario (Viola) was wearing during their initial encounter. This may be part of the comedic element of the play, to help along the plot and also create some funny moments for the audience. What is even more curious is the nature of Sebastian and Viola, often playing up the confusion or going along with it as opposed to trying to clarify what is going on. When Olivia sees Sebastian and mistakes him for Cesario, Sebastian accepts the invitation, writing it off as a really nice dream that he is going to play along with. In his defense, most men seeing a beautiful woman beckon might have a similar response. Even though this is a comedy, and as such sometimes you must suspend your disbelief, I couldn’t buy into Olivia mistaking Cesario for Sebastian, who she mistook for Cesario not long before. The way that it’s framed in the play, you would think that Viola and Sebastian are mirror image of one another. All this, not to mention that Olivia married Sebastian before, so she doesn’t even recognize her own husband.

This confusion reaches a fever pitch during the play’s final confrontation: Antonio is yelling at Cesario because he believes him to be a traitorous Sebastian, Orsino is also mad at Cesario because Olivia calls Cesario her husband, who isn’t even the person she married, and Sir Andrew is accusing Cesario of assault (again, it’s Sebastian that they are looking for), and this is only solved by Sebastian himself appearing and causing a revelation among the characters to occur. Afterwards, everyone almost seems to just accept the things that have happened in the play. Orsino, who was completely smitten by Olivia in the beginning, is rather indifferent to find her married to Sebastian and wants to see Viola as a woman (presumably to marry) almost as a consolation prize. It was certainly a bizarre ending to a bizarre play.

I was mostly unsurprised as I read through the last two acts of Twelfth Night; it’s Shakespeare, so we know that we’re heading to a happy ending for Viola, ending in a convenient marriage. What did catch me off guard a bit was the end of Act V, when the Clown is left alone on stage and sings directly to the audience. We have seen this before in a different Shakespearean comedy when Puck is left alone on stage at the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Reading this made me wonder why these two comedies end with a minor character talking directly to the audience, but why the other Shakespearean comedy we read, The Merchant of Venice, doesn’t.

In class, we had discussed why Puck directly addresses the audience at the end of AMND: it’s to provide a disclaimer in case anybody is upset by the critiques of Queen Elizabeth through the character of Titania. The Clown’s song directly addresses the audience too, as it ends with the lines “But that’s all one, our play is done/And we’ll strive to please you every day.” While it could just be Shakespeare’s way of ending the show with something along the lines of “Thank’s for coming,” I think there could be more to it there. I say this because the song is sung in verses with four lines, and the fourth line until “And we’ll strive to please you every day” is sung “For the rain it raineth every day.” I interpret that line as life never really changes–and we know the life isn’t that great if it’s filled with a never-ending onslaught of rain (a more vulgar translation could maybe be “same old shit”). It’s also important to note too, that in Professor Deutermann’s earlier blog post about music in Twelfth Night, she linked us to a performance of the Clown’s song. That doesn’t sound like the Clown thanking what we assume to be a lighthearted and happy crowd, rather it sounds almost like a lament.

Unfortunately that’s all I really can say without going into theories that I have no support for. I’m still not even sure which theory I think I support: is this Shakespeare commenting on how he’s forced to continue writing comedies because they sell (Twelfth Night is one of Shakespeare’s later comedies), rather than focusing on a more “noble” historical play or a tragedy? Is this song just the Clown speaking about how tiring and miserable his life is to an audience that will actually listen to him as a human being, rather than dismiss him as a fool (despite the Clown being one of the smartest characters in the entire play)? Am I reading into this too much? Yeah, probably.

Twelfth Night ended with a wedding, and the absurdity of the love triangle…square… pentagon is one that finally gets a resolution. I for whatever reason have some unresolved feelings. I cannot help but question the motives of Viola. It’s a line she says to Olivia in Act 3 Scene 4, “Nothing but this: your true love for my master.” At this point we already know Viola, is hopelessly in love with Duke, so why does she still play along? Why does she insist that Olivia give her hand to the Duke? Is it that she could be so in love with the Duke, that she only wants to see his happiness come to fruition? Or is it something more sinister? Does she say this to Olivia, only because she knows Olivia will never do such a thing? I am also a little skeptical of the ending, in which Viola does end up with Duke. She oddly has little to no lines after the Duke claims her as his mistress/queen. For someone who has been the driving force behind the entire plot of this play, to suddenly be silenced seems odd.

For those of you who are wondering what some of these songs sound like: here is a link to “Hold Thy Peace,” the catch that Sir Toby, Sir Andrew, and the Clown sing while carousing late at night at Olivia’s in Act Two. It’s a kind of round (think “Row, Row, Row Your Boat”) that gets more intricate (and of course louder) as more singers join in. Also, this is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but the Clown’s final song can be heard here, as performed by the countertenor Alfred Deller.

In Twelfth Night, one of the central or crucial themes would be the fact of social status within the generation. Like Sarah has already mentioned and from the discussion in class, the switch of hierarchy/authority represents how “The 12th Night after Christmas” is a scapegoat for the younger individuals to rule or overpower the people in which are in a higher status than them. At first, when we first mentioned this in class, it seemed quite amusing to me to be able to just imagine what that would be like in our own shoes. If we were given a sense of authority towards our relatives or parents, it would change your lives, even if time of use were limited.

One of the characters in which I find very amusing to see appear would be Malvolio, who seems to be constantly confused and blamed to his actions. It’s almost like Malvolio is naive and doesn’t quite understand how his actions reflect how how his character is shaped. For example, the ring in which is in ACT II, Malvolio gives Cesario the ring that Olivia has sent with him. This has made Viola realize about Olivia’s deception and eventually plays along with it, pretending that she did indeed give the ring to Olivia and then she ends up telling Malvolio that Olivia took the ring and encourages her to keep it. This scene gives me a better view of how naive Malvolio can get when he is put to a task or has the sense of responsibility of something. Due to the fact that Malvolio throws the ring afterwards, give me a better sense of the person he is. He is in love with Olivia and isn’t happy with the fact that he isn’t able to have her. However, I do feel sympathy towards him and see how hes in a disadvantage when it comes in even liking Olivia in the first place since he is in a lower social class than she is. Take the play for instance, it doesn’t really show how Malvolio is in a disadvantage nor does it hinders any sort of sympathy towards the character itself.

Below is a version of the entire play, there are also several alter versions that are based on Twelfth Night. However, (not to be a spoiler) but, in this version Olivia here is portrayed so sensibly, so different from what I imagined, or maybe it’s just based on my own perspective or what not.