Cadet Michael A. Banholzer

ERH-321WX-01

COL Miller

1 DEC 2017

Hamlet

Early modern English attitudes about revenge are based strongly on religion. (Jordan 202) There are many places throughout the bible that provide a sense of revenge as wrong. Revenge is considered to be wrong due to the fact that it says explicitly in the bible and is thought of as a wild man’s answer to a wrong done against you. (Jordan 208) On top of the main conclusion that religion is supposed to be the driving factor in how you act and therefore you shouldn’t act out of spite and revenge, it also says in this reading that it is an honor and a privilege during this time, to forget and revenge and move in. It is a superior and “royal” thing to be able to do this. (Jordan 208) It’s ironic though because most of the high-ranking people in different society’s during this time was that a lot of them focused on revenge if something along those lines happened in their lives. It’s almost like if you ask anyone whether revenge is right or not, they would say no, yet they seem to be contradictory in their actions.

Regarding Hamlet, he is debating within himself almost the whole play. In scenes like when he doesn’t kill Claudius it shows that he has the ideals of the Christian religion in the back of his mind, however, he still continues to plot his revenge throughout the entirety of the play. Just like in the “Texts and Contexts” you see contradictory actions to the bible and the “right” thing to do during this time, in Hamlet. The way that Shakespeare presents the temptation of the devil, regarding Hamlet killing Claudius to avenge his father, is by the ghost of Kind Hamlet. This ghost in the play presents a physical means that Hamlet is tempted to go against what the bible says about revenge, however, Shakespeare does it in Hamlet for a very specific reason, in my opinion. All literature and just accepted thinking during this time about revenge, states that revenge is unholy and that those who truly are royal and of “higher-thinking” will not avenge something that has happened to them. Shakespeare presents this play with a character, Hamlet, that goes against what the bible says, but he tries to present it in a way that might allow people to understand and be able to see a different viewpoint of revenge in someone else’s shoes. Overall, I believe Shakespeare succeeds in making people take a second look at when revenge is actually acceptable, which is quite an astonishing feat due to how religiously dominant both law and reasoning was during this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

• Jordan, Constance, ed. Revenge. Hamlet: Texts and Contexts. By William

Shakespeare. New York: Pearson/ Longman, 2005. Print.

• Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York:

Pearson/Longman, 2005. Print.

Part 1:

A lot of the actions in Measure for Measure, set in Vienna, seem to be far off for the audience watching them. In short, those viewing this play would not have been shocked by what they saw. (251) It wasn’t uncommon to have prostitution and thieves during this time. Many people went to these “bathing houses” for prostitution and what became known as a cure for the pox, sitting in there for an extended amount of time and sweating, sort of like a sauna. (252) Also, at this time were the prisons and a very specific set of “rules” that they all, more or less, operated by. Basically, if you could afford it or had the friends that could afford it, you could basically do anything in prison. Either from money or prostitution, or both, you had options in prison, if you had the money you could bribe your way out of whatever you needed to, and you had the access to even in prison. Those who could not afford any special services or living conditions were put in a place called “The Hole” where inmates slept on the ground without bedding, or anything else for that matter. (254) The law enforcement that oversaw these prisons and more specially, running these prisons either corruptly or justly. These people were looked down on quite often because they tend to be lower members of society.

 

Part 2:

Just like in society during this time, the characters in Measure for Measure were conducting a lot of these activities on a regular basis. Whether it was prostitution, stealing, or other illegal acts, many of them were not truly enforced the way they were written in the law. Just like the prisons during this time, you could bargain and bribe your way out of a lot of punishment. For the most part, the Duke was lenient on the laws that he was expected to enforce. However, when the Duke took a leave of absence, not truly going anywhere just hiding in plain sight, Angelo takes over and tries to change the way that things have been running for quite some time now. The irony of this story is that Angelo comes in and tries to use the law to put Claudio to death and eventually try to force Isabella to sleep with him in order to free Claudio. Then upon being caught by the Duke and the rest of the characters in the play is forced to marry someone he doesn’t want based upon the same letter of the law which he tried to use for his own personal agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Kamps, Ivo & Raber, Karen, ed. Ch. 3: The Underworld. Measure for Measure: Texts

and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004, Print.

 

Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. Ed. Ivo Kamps & Karen Raber. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.

Part 1:

In early modern England, there were very clear cut norms about the household and marriage within that household. These norms were the basis for the positioning of each individual female character in Othello. Women were completely defined during this time period based on their relationship to their husband and family (Hall 262). That relationship totally painted their portrait of respect. In addition, that relationship defined a lot of the social and political perspectives of the household as a unit (Hall 262). Even though the man was the dominate portion of the household, it was the woman that was under strict scrutiny and observation for her actions (Hall 262). The actions, however, that were expected of a woman were standard and widely accepted. Women were basically expected to make an immediate and rapid transition from an innocent and obedient daughter to their fathers, to a loyal wife for their husband (Hall 262). Due to this expectation, much blame is placed on the woman. Specifically, the woman’s behavior doesn’t just affect her reputation, but at this time, more importantly, it effects the reputation of her father and husband (Hall 262). If a woman wasn’t passive with her actions, and openly disobeyed the social “norms,” she would be labeled as “disorderly” and shunned (Hall 263). Probably the most disobedient and non-passive transgression that a woman could do is become the subject of sexual rumors, whether true or perceived, and be labeled a whore (Hall 263). Those women who were talked about in such a manner, were perceived of no longer being under control of their fathers and husbands. Now, I say control for one specific reason. English civil law explicitly makes women property of their husbands upon marriage (Hall 263). Therefore, a woman not being obedient, is basically a defective purchase in the eyes of the law. Since the reputation of the household is based on the women’s faithfulness, if a woman does commit adultery, it’s not just a disloyalty to her husband, but also a crime against God (Hall 264). Now, regarding the household, there was a lot of hypocrisy. Women were judged much more harshly for crimes within the household than men. Henderson and McManus state that female sexuality is so powerful, it is unfair and can overflow a man’s restraint and cause him to cave in (Hall 265). All the emphasis was placed on a woman’s sexual traits, making that the basis of their outward sense of honor (Hall 266). These ideals are peppered all throughout the plot of Othello. There are also some foreshadowing effects of some of the actions throughout Othello. Most early moderns, according to Wiesner and Ziegler, waited to marry once they had their own household (Hall 267). This may have been Shakespeare foreshadowing problems in their marriage.

 

Part 2:

Obviously the most prominent connection of these ideals to the play is the marriage of Desdemona and Othello. I am going to focus on the scene with the Duke and his council, because it is jam packed with early modern English themes of marriage and patriarchy. Moving from the beginning of the play onward, we see right off the bat how the reputation of the woman, Desdemona, is secondary to the reputation of the father of the woman, Brabantio. Brabantio says when asked about what is happening with his daughter, “Being not deficient, blind, or lame of sense, Sans witchcraft could not.” (I. iii. 65-66) In saying this, Brabantio is trying to save his reputation. He is saying there is nothing wrong with his daughter and the only explanation of her doing something as egregious as marrying a Moor, is that she is under witchcraft. Again, those women who did not follow the norms of society were labeled as disorderly. The disorderliness of Desdemona is expressed by Brabantio as a complete contradiction of what she “should” believe in. He says, “To fall in love with what she feared to look on!” (I. iii. 100) The interpretation of this quote can be taken multiple ways, but I believe it is to show that Brabantio says she “should” fear to look upon the Moor, however she does not, which creates the sense of disorderliness. The next part of this play that reflects principles of early modern England is the explicit changing of Desdemona from obedient daughter to loyal wife. This happens almost instantaneously and through the help of the father, Brabantio. He joins their hands together upon being convinced by Desdemona’s testimony and says, “I here do give thee that with all my heart.” (I. iii. 196) Not only does this show how quick the women’s transition is expected to be, but also how this transfer almost seems like a transfer of property, which is how a woman was defined in these days, legal property of the father, then husband.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Hall, Kim F, ed. Ch. 3: Marriage and the Household. Othello: Texts and Contexts. By

William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.

 

Henderson, Katherine Usher, and Barbara F. McManus. Half Humankind: Contexts and

Texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1985.

 

Shakespeare, William. Othello. Ed. Kim F. Hall. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s, 2007.

Print.

 

Wiesner, Merry. Women and Gender in the Early Modern Europe. New York:

Cambridge UP, 2000.

 

Ziegler, Georgiana. “My Lady’s Chamber: Female Space, Female Chastity in

Shakespeare.” Textual Practice 4.1 (Spring 1990): 57.

In early modern England, there was a clash of ideals, beliefs, and interpretations of the Bible, regarding usury and charging colossal interest rates. Most of the time the act of usury was linked to poverty. Usury then becomes the only means of income for those people. The Reformation altered some of the attitudes towards the poor. The new belief, rather than misfortune as the cause of poverty, was the ideal that poverty was a direct result of your sin and thus deserved (Kaplan 187). The attitudes specifically regarding lending and the ability to charge interest, changed drastically during this period. The negative connotation that many people have regarding Jews and usury, stems from Hebrew laws that regulate interest (Kaplan 187-188). It also comes from history, when the Jews could charge interest in medieval times. Until around the beginning of the modern period, charging interest and the idea of usury was severely unaccepted and criticized. Towards the late sixteenth century into the early seventeenth century, many of these beliefs despising usury and interest rates, started to fade due to the economics strains placed on citizens (Kaplan 188). This caused more of a need for people to charge interest to make a living and feed their families, making the damnation of usury more lenient. The true definition of usury is not just anyone charging interest on their loans. It is specifically interest being charged with a ridiculously excessive rate (Kaplan 188). The usury issue was directly placed upon one people group, the Jews. Sir Edward Coke claims that it was the Jewish usury which lead to housing crashes and a sinful nature in the early medieval period in England (Kaplan 189). According to the statute of 1290, Jews are prohibited of charging interest on loans. Coke says that because of this statute, it made it impossible for the Jews to live and provide for themselves, because it took away their main source of income (Kaplan 189). The Rabbis reached a conclusion that the only acceptable way of lending with interest, without disobeying God, was if it was absolutely necessary to provide your “basic needs” (Kaplan 190). The biblical law, based on the Hebrew Bible, is somewhat controversial. Both the books of Exodus and Leviticus say no usury to either a brother or a stranger. Exodus 22 says, “If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury” (Kaplan 194). Deuteronomy, however, says you can charge interest to a stranger but not to a brother of God. Deuteronomy 23 says, “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury” (Kaplan 194). The disapproval of usury and those who conducted it, eventually morphed into the idea that it is just necessary for some people to survive.

Obviously, the prime example of usury and how those involved in loaning money with interest were treated in this play, is Shylock. First off, comparing the cultural aspects to the play, the idea of poverty playing a role in whether people need to be a usurer, is prevalent because Shylock was not well off. On top of that the stigma for Jews during this time was that all Jews would maliciously charge you high interest rates to make a huge profit. Shylock during this play was shunned and spit on during multiple occasions because he was thought to be committing usury. Antonio specifically has disrespected and degraded Shylock multiple times for usury, but, just like the changing thought pattern going into the seventeenth century, Antonio has changing thoughts as well, and comes to Shylock for three thousand ducats. Shylock says in Act I, “Fair sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last, you spurned me such a day, another time you called me dog, and for these courtesies ill lend you thus much moneys?” (I. iii. 117-120). The issue with the bond created between Shylock and Antonio is that eventually in court later, it doesn’t truly matter who is right, in the sense of the contract, because it is always going to work out in the favor of the non-Jewish person, because of the stigma during this time-period. The Jewish people have basically no representation in a difficult situation like Shylock was in and, therefore, end up repeating the cycle of poverty which leads them right back to usury as their only means of income and to stay alive and well. Specifically, how Shylock lost half of his wealth and had to give all of it to Lorenzo and Jessica when he dies. Shylock projects the stigma of Jews, specifically regarding usury, during this time, and the ultimate consequences when something like a contract that needs to be fulfilled is brought before a judge. The Jewish person is wrong before the trial even begins.

 

 

WORKS CITED:

 

Kaplan, Lindsay M, ed. Ch. 2: Finance. The Merchant of Venice: Texts and Contexts.

By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002, Print.

 

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Ed. M. Lindsay Kaplan. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. Print.

Part 1:

The ideals of civic order and rebellion, with respect to the ruler or king, were controversial topics in the 16^th century. The first and most widely accepted concept of political order was natural law. Natural Law says the ruler or king gets their power directly from God, and that authority is “independent of a ruler’s individual will.” (Hodgdon 170) Natural law is a definite entity and doesn’t change. This idea was becoming increasing popular during this century, because it meant that rulers could get away with a lot more without being checked. Everything they did was a direct reflection of God’s will. During this time, many also wanted to unite the entire state based on these Christian principles. Following these thoughts, however, is a push-back to absolute ideas like those stated previously. The emerging idea was based on the social structure of an obedient servant. At this point to only clear example of an actual rebellion during Queen Elizabeth’s reign is the Northern rebellion. (Hodgdon 171) Regarding church, there was strict scrutiny on who attended. You could be either fined or imprisoned for not attending church. “An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion” was a specific Homily concerning correct behavior and discipline. The Homily is split into five parts. The first part has to do with the beginning of time. More specifically, the creation of heaven and hell, and explicitly lays out the rules and regulations of good order. Lucifer was actually the first “rebel” and God made his Ten Commandments centered around reestablishing good order because of what Lucifer had done to disobey him. The second part gives specific and clear examples of obedience to superiors. It also provides the broad definition of “good vs evil.” The third part paints a crystal-clear picture that rebellion itself is the “most dangerous violation of all God’s commandments.” (Homily 173) The fourth part zones in on the other side of the argument i.e. calling for the excluding of rebels and not acknowledging them as a valid argument. The fifth and final part basically says how those who are easily lead into rebellion are weak minded and ignorant. Referring to the third part, rebellion is not only unacceptable but it will flip upside down your social and family structures. In other words, it will curse everyone within the family with the wrong mindset, therefore cursing the children yet to be born as well. Not only will it curse them but it will bring dishonor to anyone around them, and anyone who knows them. Even worse than civil war, rebellion is the worst of all war, and the most gruesome. You must be weary of how close rebellion can infiltrate into your life, because most of the time it will be a close friend or advisor that are the partakers of rebellious thoughts and temptations.

 

Part 2:

Regarding Henry V, the ideals and temptations of rebellion can’t get much closer than where they ended up. There is not only rebellion outside of Henry’s circle in other countries, but also within Henry’s nobility and closest advisors. There are two main connections between Henry V and the culture of this time that the play brings to light. The most notable themes are the close proximity that rebels ultimately are to you when they are exposed and the extreme violation of the Ten Commandments and how unacceptable rebellion is. The first part of rebellion in Henry V was, in Henry’s eyes, the parts of France that he claims is his. Henry says that he has the rights to this land so when the Dauphin and France laughs off the fact and mocks Henry for saying it’s his land leads to war. However, the main, and most important portion of rebellion that reflects the cultural aspects of this time, is the rebellion with Henry’s people. First, is the plot to kill Henry amongst three of his people, including his old friend Scrope. This reflects perfectly the ideal that rebellion happens closet to home. Another portion of rebellion, not against Henry himself, but did rebel against the ideals that Henry was standing for, was Nim and Bardolph being caught looting. Although it wasn’t directed at Henry himself it punched holes through the values Henry was enforcing and expected so it was taken as rebellion against him. Going from that ideal is the last point, that rebellion is the most extreme violation of God’s Ten Commandments. It’s very cut and clear how unacceptable rebellion is at that time. That idea is expressed explicitly in Henry V. Shakespeare does this by having Henry immediately execute the traitors threatening his life and the looters. The ironic part, however, is not only does Shakespeare have Henry be ruthless and unwavering in his punishments because of the values of that time, but also because Henry himself, used to participate in those “rebellious” activities when he was younger.

 

 

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William. The Life of King Henry the Fifth. Ed. Claire McEachern. New

York: Penguin, 1999. Print.

 

Hodgdon, Barbara, ed. Civic Order and Rebellion. The First Part of King Henry the

Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

 

“An Homily Against Disobedience and Willful Rebellion”. The First Part of King Henry

the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

Part 1.

The required “education” of a Prince, or the knowledge necessary for kingship, changed from the 15^th to 16^th century, almost in the complete opposite direction. At first the “tradition” was strictly through experience with little or no professional education. Experiences were gathered through the bar scene, society, and passed down from a prince to his apprentice. The “literature” that was necessary to qualify a prince for kingship was simply the father’s advice and wise words to his son (Ascham 276). The common thought, or consensus, was that professional education was not highly valued. The foundation or a prince’s “education” for kingship was a “traditional chivalric upbringing,” which consisted of riding, jousting, and wearing armor (Ascham 278). Moving into the 16^th century, however, society begins to recognize that the nobility was lacking basic common sense and educational training in school. Thomas Starkey used the expression “very true commonwealth” to describe the entire state being enlightened and educated, especially the nobility (Ascham 278). The thought was that educational training would make citizens more godly and loyal. Sir Thomas Elyot also called for an improvement in the base of knowledge and understanding for “society as a whole.” (Ascham 278). Roger Ascham called for citizens to have actual practical skills that were useful for society (Ascham 278). Both Elyot and Ascham wanted to guide the future kings and counselors. They believed the best way was to set aside the “nobility” aspect and become educated and competent (Ascham 279). Juan Luis Vives says that even the nobility should be trained and correctly educated to become lawyers, statesmen, and soldiers (Ascham 280). Baldessare Castigliones has the same idea but just refers to it as a type of “renaissance or all-around” man (Ascham 280). This type of man is well versed in all aspects of both practical and professional education. The prince will use this skill and education to, instead of fall back on his father’s orders and guidance constantly, adapt and overcome issues on his own. In Ascham’s “The Schoolmaster,” he breaks education down to two parts, bringing up the youth in the correct manner, and then teaching the correct professional education of Latin tongue (Ascham 281). Ascham, however, implies that this education should only be for aristocrats, because it might mess up the social order (Ascham 282). He believes that the foundation of any professional education is an expertise in both Latin and Greek. Not only have this information, but be able to execute skill and whit with ease, “con sprezzatura.” (Ascham 283). These things must be taught as young as possible, because ages 17-27 are the most dangerous time for learning the wrong ways (Ascham 284). The argument for proper education through books and school is this. Experience is essential and can make you capable, however, to get to the same knowledge and competence you can reach in 1 year of professional education, you would need 20 years of experience alone (Ascham 287). The other issue is there is no guarantee of those experiences being beneficial in the long run, however, education will always benefit you.

 

Part 2.

The poster boy for everything having to do with “educating of the prince” is obviously, Hal. All of Hal’s actions are based on those passed down from his father, which is part of the reason that he begins to misbehave. He begins to look at Falstaff as a sort of father figure. This is in direct comparison with the cultural attitudes of this time period. Hal is having almost no professional schooling, learning almost everything from his surroundings. He claims to be doing low-life activities like robbing to ultimately change himself and restore honor with his father (I. ii. 148-170).  These activities are perfectly consistent with what Ascham says in “The Schoolmaster,” about 17-27 being the most dangerous age for formation of the wrong habits (Ascham 284). These wrong habits not only look bad for Hal himself, but also bring dishonor and the wrong political image to his father. Another point of comparison is Shakespeare’s Hal seems to gather all his skills and norms from the society and environment around him, while the historical Prince Henry read many books in Latin, studied law, ancient history, and cornicles of the Crusades (Ascham 279). Hal also uses the things he learns to adapt himself to political agendas. For example, the way he does some untasteful things just to adapt to the correct way of thinking and show everyone, including his father, that he can change for the better. Hal is a great example of this century’s type of thinking, and starts to exemplify the next century’s enlightened type of thinking, making him an all-encompassing character for that time period.

 

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston:

Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.

 

Ascham, Roger. The “Education” of a Prince. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts

and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Barbara Hodgdon. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997.