Benedick, the ever changing, is convinced to love Beatrice once he learns of her  supposed love for him. And Beatrice, the constant, is convinced to love Benedick once she learns of his supposed love for her.  Both of them discontinue in their long-held war, and instead become fast friends (with a few squabbles here and there). Deceit is used by their friends to get both of them to like each other.

Balthasar’s song, especially the line “Men were deceivers ever,” speaks of this  prominent theme. The villain, Don John, also uses false appearances to hide his deceit and fickle attachment to his brother.

And at the play’s end, who should be taking off a mask, but Beatrice. This mask could be symbolic of the way that both she and Benedick had been fooled about the other, they were both wearing masks which hid their true character, in a sense, from each other.

And Leonarto draws attention to the fact that men are often inconstant in that they give advice, but rarely follow it. In his speech to Antonio, he states “‘Tis all men’s office to speak patience/ To those that wring under the load of sorrow,/But no man’s virtue nor sufficiency/ To be so moral when he shall endure/ The like himself.”

And Benedick, at the play’s end, summarizes: “For man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion.”

BENEDICK…all women shall pardon me. Because I will not do them the wrong to mistrust any, I will do myself the right to trust none. And the fine is – for the which I may go the finer – I will live a bachelor.

BEATRICE: Not till God make men of some other mettle than earth. Would it not griee a woman to be overmastered with a piece of valiant dust? – to make an account of her life to a clod of wayward marl? No, uncle, I’ll none. Adam;s sons are my brethren, and truly I hold it a sin to match in my kindred.

BALTHASAR:

Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more./ Men were deceivers ever./ One foot in sea, and one on shore,/ To one thing constant never./ Then sigh not so, but let them go,/ And be you lithe and bonny,/ Converting all your sounds of woe/ Into hey nonny, nonny.

Sing no more ditties, sing no more./ of dumps so dull and heavy./ The fraud of men was ever so/Since dummer first was leafy./ Then sigh not so, but let them go,/ And be you blithe and bonny,/Converting all your sounds of woe/ Into hey nonny, nonny.

BEATRICE: I love you with so much of my heart that non is left to protest.

LEONATO: No, no, ’tis all men’s office to speak patience/ To those that wring under the load of sorrow,/ But no man’s virtue nor sufficiency/To be so moral when he shall endure/ The like himself.

~~

BENEDICK: And I pray thee now tell me, for which of my bad parts didst thou first fall in love with me?

BEATRICE: For them all rogether, which maintain so politic a state of evil that they will not admit any good part to intermingle with them. But for which of my good parts did you first suffer love for me?

~~~~

BENEDICK: Thou and I are too wise to woo peacably.

~~~

BENEDICK: Here’s our own hands against our hearts. Come. I will have thee, but by this light, I take thee for pity.

BEATRICE: I would not deny you, but by this good day, I yield upon great persuasion, and partly to save your life, for I was told you were in a consupmtion.

~~~

BENEDICK: For man is a giddy thing, and this is my conclusion.

It was the second play I ever read by Shakespeare, and I distinctly remember being surprised at its extremely sharp wit, expressly referred to as “skirmishes of wit” in the play. From the first dialogue between Beatrice and Benedick, I knew that I was in for some fun.

Now, I have not read the play in over two years, almost three. (But it is on my summer reading list.)

This was a play of “firsts” for me: the first time I encountered one of Shakespeare’s many strong women characters, the first time I experienced the biting sarcasm that I have grown to love, the first time I remember reading something I recognized as a famous Shakespeare quote.

About a year later, I watched the movie starring Emma Thompson and Denzel Washington. Although it was entertaining, I did not at all care to the portrayal of Benedick. I had pictured him as much different, but I cannot explain exactly how.

Anyway, I enjoyed my reading of the play better than the film version.

But I often wonder what exactly I think of when I think of characters. I always picture them in my mind when I am reading a book (or play), but it is an indefinite picture, blurry as in a dream. But for all that fogginess, I am always able to distinguish a film version’s portrayal of a character as being definitely wrong according to my definition of that character. I do not exactly know why this is, but it is one reason I prefer reading to viewing.

Some characters are admittedly more difficult to picture than others, but generally, it is not a problem for me to get caught up in the world of the characters, and so see them as living individuals.

Maybe that is what I so much enjoy about Much Ado About Nothing – its incredibly clear, incredibly alive characters. Their speech so completely distinguishes them, that one cannot help but feel that he or she has actually heard them deliever their speeches in person. Although Benedick’s actual physical appearance may be somewhat foggy, I can distinctly picture his attitude and mind with the words he speaks. For example, here is the first exchange between the two B’s in the play:

BEATRICE: I wonder that you will still be talking, Signor Benedick. Nobody marks you.

BENEDICK: What, my dear Lady Disdain! Are you yet living?

BEATRICE: Is it possible disdain should die while she hath such meet food to feed it as Signor Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain if you come in her presence.

BENEDICK: Then is courtesy a turncoat. But it is certain I am loved of all ladies, only you excepted. And I would I could find in my heart that I had not a hard heart, for truly I love none.

Yes, these are clear characters, which one feels rather than sees. I can hear them speaking as I read, tell by the words they say how they say those words. This is not always the case with Shakespeare, so I will enjoy it when I can!

Also adding much comedy to the play is the use of malapropism, which is the misuse of words. The “rude mechanicals” are the main characters who use this. One example of this element of language is the way Quince uses the wrong order of words in the sentences he speaks when introducing their play to the Duke in the final scene. By putting periods in the middle of sentences and mixing up the whole passage, using words in wrong order, thereby changing their meaning, he makes a humorous blunder of wording. There are many other instances in which both he, Bottom, and the other mechanicals use the wrong words, like when Bottom says “defect” when the correct word is “effect.”

All these misuses of words cause the mechanicals to seem significantly more ignorant than the other charcters. This is another way humor is conveyed in the play: we laugh at the absurdity of a powerful fairy queen falling in love with a stupidly ignorant, ass-headed mechanical, ignoring his misuse of language.

Ironyis the contrast of one thing in relation to another. It can be both verbal or dramatic. Verbal irony is where something is said while the speaker intends another meaning besides the obvious. Examples of this may be seen in scene 5.1 where Theseus and company frequently make fun of the mechanicals’ performance. They state the obvious, while often meaning something deeper that the mechanicals often miss.

Dramatic irony is when one scene, event, or line contrasts sharply with another. In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, there is a lot of this. The instant change in Demetrius’ attitude towards Helena is ironic – he says he cannot possibly love her, then becomes madly in love with her. Lysander likewise says he could never cease to love Hermia, then falls madly for Helena. In this example, irony is both humorous and tragic. Humorous because for Helena, the sudden change of events is good. Tragic because they are not so great for Hermia. There is also the irony of the audience knowing what is happening throughout, while the characters do not know about the fairies (Puck). When Puck mistakes Lysander for Demetrius, we know who is who, but he doesn’t. And of course, he does not realize his mistake. This is ironic because our knowledge contrasts with his ignorance (along with most of the other characters in the play) to give his actions special meaning to the audience.

Again, this use of irony is what makes A Midsummer Night’s Dreamboth comic and tragic. It is highly comical when confusion reigns, yet it is also sobering and tragic to realize the extreme chaos and randomness everything experiences in the play. When Lysander falls for Helena because of Puck’s mistake, Hermia is heartbroken and we are faced with the reality of this sudden change of fortune for the two women. Irony then gives deeper meaning to the words and events in this play. It serves to both lighten and make heavier the entire mood  of the play.

Gibson outlines the perspectives and defines them as follows:

Feminism:  A fairly new perspective concerned with a “women’s view” about gender equality in roles of institutions such as religion, politics, work, etc.

 Psychoanalysis:  Is preoccupied with love, hate, dreams, fantasy, and confusion. Seeks to make distinctions between the explicit and implicit meanings of a script. Psychoanalytics have a field day with Hamlet.

Structuralism:  Derived from a particular view of language, located in the theories of linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. A structuralist approach to a Shakespeare play assumes that certain structures or systems govern or explain each play. Example, a genre such as comedy is a structural category, because its literary and dramatic concepts strongly influence how a particular play is written, what its topic will be, how it will end, and how it is likely to be performed. Measure for Measure provides structuralists with a headache.

Deconstruction: Is derived from one of structuralism’s assumptions about language, that it is a ‘system with no positive terms.’  In other words, no word or thing has meaning in itself, but derives meaning from the relationships it has within the structure of language. Meaning is always deferred, never absolute. Deconstructionists look at what is missing from a Shakespeare play rather than focusing on the meaning of what is there.

New Historicism:  Is mainly concerned with the conditions of Shakespeare’s own time, and environment. It sees the plays and theatre of that time as strongly influenced by, and reflecting, contemporary politics, economic, and ideological conditions. Claims that Shakespeare’s plays are ‘centrally and repeatedly concerned with the production and containment of disorder.’

Cultural Materialism: Argues that culture and materialism, are always related. Shakespeare cannot be understood without reference to the economic and plitical system of his age, and that of our own. Says that studying Shakespeare is a political activity because Shakespeare is not separate from other social practices, but is shaped by politics, ideology, and economics.

Textual and Critical Scholarship:  Shows how Shakespeare texts have been constructed over the centuries. because every edition is a different one, no script has the coherence and stability it appears to claim. Claims that all interpretations are to some extent shaped by ideology and focuses on the social class of the critics and the particular circumstances of the time at which they wrote.

Reception Theory:   Sees reading as a creative, constructive process. It emphasizes the reader’s active role in ‘making’  any text or script, and therefore epitomizes those teaching practices which stress personal response. Readers are not passive,but actively make some sense out of what they read.

Obviously, each perspective has its advantages and disadvantages, some more than others. There is something to be said for the various perspectives, especially in teaching Shakespeare, but for the average enjoyer/reader of Shakespeare, they are not necessary. Basic familiarity is nice, and will probably be helpful in allowing the reader to gain multiple views of a play, but for the perspectives to be useful at all, the reader must first decide which perspective he or she agrees with and will stick to.

King Lear is a play particularly well-suited to various perspectives. Not only do all the characters have individual ‘perspectives’ on life, the play itself could easily be interpreted several ways through several perspectives.

The stately, wise, and seemingly thoughtful ruler of King Henry V is much different from the scheming, crude, less kind, and rowdy Hal in King Henry IV.

But who is the real one?

Is the rudeness, the unrefined manner of Hal simply an act, disguising the true Harry? Or is the  dignified Harry simply an act disguising the true Hal?

I believe that he is really Harry, not Hal.  But I also believe that he is a master of disguise and an excellent actor. Because of this, it is difficult to know when he is really being true to himself. For example, the lines spoken by Harry to Catherine in King Henry V are beautiful, more romantic than those in Romeo and Juliet. But does he really mean them, or is he simply pulling off yet another performance so that he can get what he needs?

He has shown himself to be a very talented and capable actor and performer – he has performed for armies, large crowds, friends, family members, advisors, politicians, clergymen, among others.

He always seems to have the right words to say, and know exactly how to say them.

He is also a highly intelligent man, look at his soliliquy in King Henry IV after tavern scene with Falstaff.  He is calculating, and scheming.

Yet Hal seems more calculating and hypocritical than Harry does. To me, Harry is a completely sympathetic character: he seems to do the right things, cares about people, accepts his humanity, and acknowledges the evils that exist in a fallen world. In effect, Harry seems in balance with his humanity and his political authority and position while Hal seems very unbalanced in that regard. He first tries to live only by satisfying his humanity and the desires associated with that, while denying his political authority and the responsibilities that come with that, but he later abandons his humanity for his political authority and power.

Harry, it is true, still has abandoned Falstaff, which is not commendable because it is traitorous. Even though Falstaff is not the best moral figure in the world, he was still Hal’s friend, and Hal used him quite a lot. So when Hal abandons Falstaff in King Henry IV, part ii, he is a back-stabbing friend. But, he seems to be loyal to his subjects now, especially the soldiers.

One thing philosophical discussion that comes up in King Henry V is that of divine right of kings and the morality of war – whose fault is it when soldiers die? The king’s for sending them to the war? Or the soldiers and opposing army? And when are wars just or injust – and who decides that: God of the king?

Anyway, the true “Hal” seems to be King Harry. He is at his best, both politically and humanely, and he seems most capable in the position of king.

Lear looks at the world that contains humanity, rather than the character/individual interior such as Hamlet does.

There is a primary philosophical/dramatic conflict between the “naturalists” and the “medievalists.” The one gives importance only to “facts,” while the other gives facts to importance.

The sense of smell is key in this play.

Gloucester’s situation with his sons  parallels King Lear’s relationship with his daughters, and both men’s situations parallel each other as far as their desperation drives them to madness and harm.

Is Cordelia an echo or representation of the Gospel or a divine figure? I do not see her as such…inless it is to show that she is in the right, because she is imitating Christ? Or is it the opposite – to show that Christ is bad, or a lie, since Cordelia dies, and seems merely an imitation? Either way, it seems to be a stretch.

Edgar wants to show his father how fate is not purely random – Dr. Gurney says he contrives a “fake miracle” for Gloucester. So does this show that miracles (which are associated with the Divine) are non-existent, and that men contrive them, that they are fake? Is this a comment on the perceived absence of God and the supernatural? It does seem to be…as Dr. Gurney mentioned, Gloucester’s physical fall leads to his spiritual rise. Interesting point…

Edgar has saved his father’s life by a necessary fiction.. And, all of Edgar’s disguises (he has several) are fictions, in a sense.

This whole play seems to be a parody of the real  and the divine. Fictions, disguises  seem to be real, despite their false appearance, but those things that seem to true and normally not able to be seen or have an appearance ( such as God or destiny,  moral order, hierarchy of design, etc.) are shown to be false, in the sense that they are virtually non-existent in the play. Yet, is this because they do not exist, or because the characters act as if they do not, and ignore them? Cordelia’s “I am” is again connotative of God…but is she meant to be overtly associated with God, because she says she “is” but, unlike God, at the play’s end, she is dead.

“Ripeness is all.”

Shakespeare uses many compound words in King Lear: pell-mell, handy-dandy, child-changed, tender-minded, full-flowing, villain-like, bare-gnawn, canker-bit, eldest-born, wide-skirted, self-same, emty-hearted, fore-vouched, still-soliciting, to name a few.

“O undistinguished space of woman’s will!”

“Pray you now, forget and forgive. I am old and forgetful.”

“Gilded butterflies” section….beautiful!

“I have a journey, sir, shortly to go; My master calls me, I must not say no.”

“The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices/ Make instruments to plague us.”

“Come, let’s away to prison./ We two alone will sing like birds i’the cage…/ So we’ll live,/ And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh/ At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues/ Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too -/ Who loses and who wins; who’s in, and who’s out;’ And take upon’s the mystery of things,/ As if we were God’s spies; and we’ll wear out,/ In a walled prison, packs and sects of great ones,/ That ebb and flow by the moon.”

The characters are both humorous and serious. King Henry, his court, and the men surrounding Hotspur are very serious. Northumberland, Worcester, and Glyndwr are the serious, authoritative figures of the rebels while King Henry, Blunt, and Lancaster are serious and authoritative figures of court.

In contrast, Falstaff and Hal are humorous characrers who provide comic relief throughout the play. The other tavern-buddies are also humorous, but Falstaff is the main comedian. Hotspur and Hal can both be very serious (as can Falstaff) but they can also be highly comical. Many characters are historical, but several are fictitiously added to the story.

Plotting is important to this play’s combination of tragedy, comedy, ad history as well because through the various added events of the play that did nothappen historically, the audience is shown a more realistic picture of what happened. Instead of focusing on the purely historical perspective (because everyone would have known what happened), Shakespeare adds the whole “tavern” element, and embellishes the characters of Falstaff, Glyndwr, and Prince Harry and Hotspur. The whole incident of the double robbery serves as a very comic element of the play (as well as a rather symbolic foreshadowing of what Hal would do in the future), and the added strife between Hal and King Henry serves at first as a tragedy, then as a more comical element in their reconciliation at the end.

By including the fighting scenes, Shakespeare successfully incorporates historically accurate and embellished events which certainly seem tragic to the one sympathetic character of Hotspur and comic for the other sympathetic character Prince Henry. The fight between the two is charged with emotion and the audience is torn between who they will sympathize with the most. By giving equal development to Hotspur and Hal, Shakespeare gives the audience that tension: it knows someone will be the loser, but both Hal and Hotspur are now sympathetic to them. So when Hotspur dies, it is tragic, because we liked him. On the other hand, we rejoice when Hal wins because we liked him also. Both men are portrayed well; they are shown in their familiar surroundings and their comic natures make them endearing. So by using plotting to successfully develop these two most important characters, Shakespeare incorporates comedy, tragedy, and the historic elements of the story.

Some arrangement is also used to make elements of comedy, tragedy, and history combine. The battle scene, by being placed at the end of the play, makes this tragic because the finality of Hotspur’s death is emphasized. Audiences had earlier seen him joke with his wife, brag about his strength, attempt to compile a rebellion army, and then, after following his pursuits so closely, they see him die in the last act. Although, as previously mentioned, the “comedy” of Hal’s victory is also felt, it is marred significantly by the finality of Hotspur’s death. His death is the more tragice because it follows after the scene in which he learns that his reinforcement help (with his father and others) have basically deserted him and left him on his own. With Hal, his assumption of the “royal” role almost seems tragic as well. he turns his back on Falstaff and abandons his drinking parties at the tavern to become the serious prince and fighter his father desired him to be.  While this change in morality seems positive, it also is rather tragic because we have seen the fun times, the tavern has become familiar to us, so by turning his back on it, Hal seems to die to a certain aspect that we liked about him and with which we were well acquainted.

Does Falstaff really love Prince Hal?

Honor is keyword of play, according to Dr. Gurney. Time and history are also major themes.

Prince Hal is caught between two characters which represent the two sides of himself or his attitudes: Hotspur (representing the part of Hal that wants political power/has ambition, and desires honor) and Falstaff (representing the part of Hal that simply wants to live and enjoy life).

The Greek word for grace is charisma. Falstaff has lots of Charisma…although it doesn’t seem he has much grace.

Is Falstaff a combination of both Puck and Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream? Does Falstaff represent humanity, in how not everyone is on the road of politics?

Dr. Gurney sees these two sides as being fundamentally incompatible – how can one maintain personality, a sense of right and wrong, when they are involved in politics? He believes that politics force people to abandon themselves in a sense, and become forced to be a slave to power.

It is very obscene when religion is used for political advancement. God isn’t fooled, though. And yet, that does not mean that all “religion” in politics is wrong, does it? What does Christ say about following him? Humbleness, care for others, care for God, not allowing people to pressure you into anything, yet being incredibly aware of others’ interests and well being – more so than one’s own. SO this is compatible with politics only when it is done truly for the people, not the politicians.

But, in order to gain  following, a politician must play himself up as well as become controlled by those in power, even if he does effect positive change or help the people.  Sell your soul, basically…is that why Christ was so concerned with the individual? Personally helping the widow across the street instead of trying to eliminate hunger for all widows? We don’t need politics to enable us to help others, but can we still be in politics?

Daniel was, and he maintained purity of heart and integrity. Paul was, in a sense. David certainly was, but it often got him into trouble. All the Israelite judges (and Moses) were…

Is Hal a deceptive hypocrite? Or “politically accurate?”

Does he have a split personality? Or is he merely assuming his “political ruler” role? Is Hal’s soliloquy representative of his full/complete idea about his rule/ political intentions? Or is this just a part of Hal, which is later abandoned with his abandonment to revelry?

Is Hotspur incapable of disguising his motives in front of others in order to achieve his goals, as Dr. Gurney says? How do he and Hal compare? He has almost no control over himself and his emotions, while Hal has too much control, not only of himself, but also of others.

Line 15-20 of 2.2: The Percy’s/Northumberland and Bolingbroke are thieves of the throne and now are not true to each other…