In this paper, I learned a lot about the prominence of vegetarianism in Hinduism along with justifications for both sides of the argument. It was interesting identifying the flexibility in interpretation of basic Hindu beliefs and how both sides of the argument justify their positions through the concept of brahman in all living things. I found this topic interesting and selected it for my first written paper because I’ve always been interested in the practice of vegetarianism both on a secular level and a spiritual level. I don’t necessarily agree with the dietary restriction due to the benefits of eating meats but I do see how vegetarianism aligns perfectly with Hindu practice. Through research and the class readings, I conclude that strict and traditional Hindus are right in practicing this diet because there are so many Vedic texts supporting vegetarianism and saving all life forms. I think those who don’t practice it have a very loose interpretation of Hinduism and have taken a modern approach on the religion, similarly as many religions have nowadays. I will continue this interest by presenting on the topic of diet and nutrition in my presentation of Traditional Chinese Medicine Diet and Nutrition in class. This topic holds similar justification in a specific diet plan and I can identify many parallels between the two.

When selecting a topic for the final comprehensive paper, I decided to select the topic on The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V regarding royal propaganda and the image of royalty due to the very distinct differences of characters when reviewing both plays. This topic was interesting to me because it portrays a comparison between father and son in such similar circumstances. The two kings begin their character development through an apprenticeship to their predecessors, learning the ropes of kingship and identifying the approach they deem most effective in sovereignty. Both Henry IV and Henry V have similar upbringings but differ in their approach towards kingship; Henry IV takes the more stoic and reserved approach, embodying the traditional and ideal image of royalty whereas Henry V appeals directly to the public yet still maintains his authoritative presence through established credibility and his ties to the commoners. After identifying the topic that I wanted to write on, I then investigated more in depth by finding sources elaborating on the royal culture of the early modern era. This provided background and a more clear understanding for the two different portrayals of kingship in Shakespeare’s plays. What I found most significant in my research is the “actorliness” embedded in royalty during this era and how royalty often presented themselves in a light that wasn’t entirely reflective of reality. I wasn’t aware that this was such a significant aspect of the state considering it is still an issue in politics today with mass media.

Throughout the early modern era, it was common practice for royalty and even clergy to create an ideal image of themselves for the state in order to further the crown’s agenda and encourage public adherence. Kings would often present themselves in an appropriately stoic manner and the clergy would promote the perception of perfection and infallibility. These images presented to the public can be coined as royal propaganda due to the false sense of reality they created in order to promote loyalty and obedience to the state. In his work, author Lawrence Danson focuses primarily on the complexity of the Chorus in Henry V, expanding upon their interpretation of King Henry V throughout the play. Danson defines the Chorus as guidance for the audience on how to respond to the play and the actions of the king by linking the theatrical and historical circumstances within the text. Danson draws many parallels between the Chorus and King Henry, calling them the “mirror of all Christian Kings”. He states, “…the King too is only a man trying with limited resources to turn intractable reality into something resembling imaginative success”, thus defining his actorliness similar to the Chorus (Danson 28-29). He also quotes James Calderwood, a critic of the play, stating that “to play the king is to play the actor, for the king must have many roles in his repertoire” (29). By interpreting this very nature of the king as an “actor” and comparing him to the Chorus in the play, Danson pinpoints the significance of royal propaganda throughout Henry V and exercised by Henry V through his acknowledgement and relatability to the people. This idealistic perception of royalty sometimes created complications and weaknesses within governance through the king’s failure to uphold that image presented. For example, belief in hierarchy was almost equivalent to the belief in God, which proved to be true through the fact that inequality of rank was “divinely ordained” (Morrill 174). In comparison to the unattainable credibility one would strive for through actorliness, some kings would utilize this persuasion of the state to present two images of themselves: one being an authoritative figure and the other being a relatable and understanding leader. Through this false image presented to the public, whether successful or inhibiting in the long term, royalty during the early modern era distanced their true nature from the commoners and promoted royal propaganda throughout the state to ensure credibility.

Author Martin Gosman defines the roles of royalty during the early modern period in England in his work Princes and Princely Culture: 1450-1650. To depict the atmosphere of royalty during this era, Gosman defines the “princely culture” by laying out the debate between “king of the people” versus “king of the law”. To expand upon this comparison in leadership tact, “king of law” was the traditional and ideal view on how a king should carry himself, with stoicism and resignation along with impartiality adhering strictly to the law. “King of the people” refers to the compassion and association to the commoners, identifying oneself as the people within the state and maintaining those ties through fellowship with subordinates. In Gosman’s essay “Princely Culture: Friendship or Patronage?,” he states that, “royal propaganda likes to present people as mere ‘subjects’ of the realm, a thesis which, of course, does not always correspond to reality, since princely authority is not always and not automatically, acknowledged” (Gosman 7). This portrays the issue during the early modern period of credibility of authority and the image of royalty; people of the time varied on opinions of the friendly rule and the authoritative rule of kings, thus making it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of both. Author David Kastan further analyzes the difference between “subject” and “king” and the roles of both within society during the early modern period in England. Kastan discusses the shift between subjection and authority when identifying if a king can also be a subject during the 17th century. He goes on to analyze the progression of royalty, being separated from the rights and also the repercussions of the commoners, to a king of the people (Kastan 459-461). This is further exemplified in Shakespeare’s depictions of Henry IV and Henry V in both of his plays The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V. This shift, Kastan identifies, is the shift from the rule of royalty to the rule of the people; Shakespeare fully depicts this change in ideal governance through the depiction of King Henry IV and the development of Hal in the first play to King Henry V in the second. Kastan’s categorization of “king” and subject” along with his analysis of shift in ideal defines the roles of both Henry IV and Henry V in power, specifically identifying how they view themselves in comparison to the people. This contrast between the two characters formulated by Shakespeare will be analyzed and compared in order to identify the shift in royal ideals throughout the early modern era, ultimately concluding that King Henry V’s approach to the throne was most effective in persuasion due to the combination of both styles by then end of the second play.

Shakespeare, identifying this clear distinction between types of rulership and their effectiveness, utilizes the kings in his two plays The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V to embody these two distinctions. He utilizes King Henry IV to represent the traditional, “divinely ordained” king through his emphasis on credibility and maintaining that separation between royalty and subjects, thus becoming a “king of the law.” He then utilizes King Henry V, or Hal, to represent the new “individualistic” king through his lack of visible ambition to be that ideal figure to the public, but to be among the commoners and associated with them, thus categorizing him as a “king of the people.” Hal, however, utilizes this approach to not combat the hierarchical structure of the time, but to relate to the people and make them feel validated while still maintaining authority. In The First Part of King Henry the Fourth, Shakespeare presents the original and traditional type of rulership through the character King Henry IV; this character embodies the stoic and resigned ideal for a king which was prevalent in the more traditional authorities in England during this period. Shakespeare then presents the transition of Hal in The First Part of King Henry the Fourth to King Henry V in Henry V to contrast his father’s traditional rulership and use of royal propaganda with his “for the people” mentality by associating with and being among the commoners. Even in Henry V when Hal takes the throne, there are still elements of his commoner “for the people” rule in comparison to his father, though he does assume a more reserved and image-based role as king. Though the two styles are ultimately contradictory, they both present a type of front or falsehood to the public and promote royal propaganda for their own interests but just by different means.

Shakespeare first presents the traditional, “divine” image of hierarchy in his play The First Part of King Henry the Fourth through the actions of King Henry IV. Henry’s character is exemplified in Act III Scene ii when he confronts his son for his actions with the commoners, specifically Falstaff. As Henry addresses Hal for his misbehavior, he states how Hal is ruining his image and the throne’s image, which was incredibly significant to maintain during the early modern era.
The hope and expectation of thy time
Is ruined, and the soul of every man
Prophetically do forethink thy fall.
Had I so lavish of my presence been,
So common-hackneyed in the eyes of men,
So stale and cheap to vulgar company,
Opinion, that did help me to the crown,
Had still kept loyal to possession
And left me in reputeless banishment,
A fellow of no mark nor likelihood. (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth III.ii. 36-
45).

King Henry goes on to describe his strategy for obtaining respect among the people, stating that he “…dressed myself in such humility…” and his rareness in public in order to present himself with such credibility (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. III. ii. 51-59). He further describes the strategy of his predecessor, Richard II, who obtained his credibility through popularity and rabblerousing, similar to Harry’s current strategy. Yet in Act I Scene iii, Hotspur and Worcester speak of the king’s illegal assent to the throne, with Richard II naming Mortimer heir. Hotspur describes this illegal act by stating, “To put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose, And plant this thorn, this canker, Bolingbroke?” (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth I.iii. 175-176). King Henry IV’s fixation on credibility ultimately results in being his character flaw due to his ambition to promote royal propaganda and placing a positive image of his assent to the throne in the public’s mind. This demonstrates the ineffectiveness of this type of rulership utilized in the traditional practices in the early modern era, creating inconsistency and uncertainty due to the distance between the throne and public perception. Hal, recognizing how his father’s perspective on royalty and credibility grows to be his greatest character flaw, takes a different approach for his image on the throne: being the king of the people. These two diverging strategies while on the throne exemplify the influence of chivalric ideals placed on royalty and how it developed into a norm over time; Henry’s actions depict that which abide by a chivalric code of honor whereas Hal’s depict that which go against martial virtues (Hodgdon).

In both The First Part of King Henry The Fourth and Henry V, Shakespeare depicts the stark contrast between the rule of King Henry IV, the father, and King Henry V, the son. Henry V is much different in comparison to his father in the first play due to his lack of visible ambition for power, authority, and known credibility. This is seen as early as in the first play when Hal is befriending thieves such as Falstaff. In Act I Scene II, Hal reveals his tactic of becoming a “people’s king” by associating with these kind of people, thus setting the bar low so when he does take throne there will not be too high of an expectation. He states,
So when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off. (The First Part of King Henry the Fourth I.iii
161-168).
This quote already demonstrates the major contrast between Hal and his father; King Henry IV’s ambition was to establish a positive image of himself whereas Hal’s is to establish a negative one. Yet both are manipulating royal propaganda in their favors to further their interests and ambitions of the throne. In Chapter 4 of Barbara Hodgdon’s commentary in her edition of Henry IV, she discusses the significance of education in the development of a prince. She goes on to discuss the difference between the education of the public during the early modern period in comparison to Henry V’s “education” without any classroom or textbooks (Hodgdon 275-276). Instead, Henry’s education begins with his development through Henry IV and his interactions with his father, Hotspur, and Falstaff, along with the rest of the characters. These interactions allow Henry to independently develop himself into the king which he deems credible in the uncertain atmosphere of England during the time. Hodgdon’s focus on Henry’s unconventional education and development into royalty promotes an understanding of Henry’s approach to leadership in comparison to his father (Hodgdon 276-281). Henry actively decided to establish himself as a king of the people through his interactions and experiences in the first play, as Hodgdon highlights in Chapter 4. Henry’s approach is best highlighted throughout his St. Crispin’s Day speech, where he relates himself to the common man yet still maintains that authority of a king to persuade his people before battle. At first Henry V states, “Such outward things dwell not in my desires” and “For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother” yet asserts his authority by ordering them to fight stating, “All things are ready, if our minds be so” (Henry V. IV. iii. 28, 62-63, 72). In this speech, Henry V demonstrates his commitment to his people by fighting among them and stating that none of the superficiality of hierarchy is of his interest. Henry V uses this appeal to the public to build his credibility and then order them into battle, demonstrating his goal not to override hierarchy, but to validate and provide purpose for his men. This approach to royalty through a “commoner” image allows Henry to successfully lead and maintain his power, in comparison to his father who struggled to convince his men of his authority.

Shakespeare portrays these two types of royal propaganda throughout The First Part of King Henry the Fourth and Henry V in order to demonstrate the progression of the image of the throne throughout the early modern era; though it was a belief that the throne and hierarchical structure of England were “divinely ordained”, thus creating that divide between throne and the public, it was common in the later years of the era to see gentlemen and clergy establishing this commonality between the two and softening that divide. Shakespeare successfully depicts this through the comparison of King Henry IV’s and King Henry V’s image among the people, one being a “king of the law” and the other being a “king of the people”. Ultimately, King Henry V, utilizing the appeal to the public, successfully establishing his authority and credibility through this image.

In his works and specifically in the play Hamlet, Shakespeare focuses on the concept of revenge to emphasize the role of justice within a Christian society (Jordan 202). During the Elizabethan era, the Christian belief stood on the division between rights of resistance and lawfully instituted authority (202). It was a common belief that those who were victimized by authority cannot act upon revenge except simply through prayer. This view was exaggerated through dramatizations of revenge during the era, ultimately exhibiting the flaws within the legal system and the assurance of fair trials (202). As we will see with Shakespeare’s Hamlet, playwrights typically exemplified common social concepts and inner conflicts, such as justice and the law, to demonstrate flaws within the social and political constructs of the time which otherwise wouldn’t be as identifiable.

Editor Constance Jordan identifies sources for which people of the Elizabethan era aligned their beliefs of justice and revenge, beginning with justification within the Bible (Jordan 203). People of the Elizabethan era viewed the Scriptures ultimately as divine law, thought to provide positive law to the court and state through its foundations (203). Specifically, the Old Testament account on brothers Cain and Abel exhibits this universal prohibition against vengeful murder and the implications of law administered by the state and by God (203). In Genesis 4.9-15, it states “Doubtless whoever slayeth Cain, he shall be punished seven-fold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain lest any man finding him should kill him” (204). This excerpt explicitly demonstrates the source for the Christian belief on the prohibition of revenge during the Elizabethan era (204). Further expanding upon this Christian perspective is William Dickinson’s assertion that positive law is derived from the Word of God, prohibiting any individual from seeking revenge and promoting adherence to all prescribed legal procedures (204). He states, “Let everyone, whether he be a vessel of honor or dishonor, content himself with his place and submit his will to the obedience of those laws which his maker hath set down to be observed…It hath pleased God even from the beginning to rule and judge by men” (204). Jordan further supports this Elizabethan belief on revenge by taking excerpts from Francis Bacon’s work Of Revenge which affirms that the injured party who renounces revenge will benefit wholly (207). Bacon states, “For as for the first wrong, it doth but offend the law; but the revenge of that wrong putted the law out of office” (208). Through this analysis of works during the Elizabethan era that portray the common perception on revenge in a Christian society, Jordan relates this theme back to Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Jordan validates that the play specifically exhibits this Christian perception of justice by capitalizing on the motivations for revenge versus divine law preventing these impulses and through his analysis of the characters and their interactions (202).

This debate between lawful authority and justice poses a question within Hamlet: does Claudius’s crime justify Hamlet’s position and desire for revenge (Jordan 202)? This ongoing debate throughout the play becomes a situation between de facto versus de jure, which is defined as the competing interests of justice and the law. Based on the Christian perception of revenge and divine law, one can assume that though it feels justified to support Hamlet in his exploit for revenge against Claudius, he is wrong to accept this role contending positive law. For example, Hamlet illustrates that inner debate between what is just and what is lawful throughout his soliloquoy in Act 3 Scene 1, where he questions his conscience:
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them (Shakespeare III.i. 56-60).
Hamlet goes on to say,
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. (III.i. 83-88).
Hamlet’s hesitation with revenge on Claudius and the back-and-forth with his conscience demonstrates this social conflict of justice versus positive law. The emotions Hamlet is exhibiting at this moment in the play exemplifies the common inner turmoil that Christian individuals felt in this era, especially pertaining to their loyalty to the state. Hamlet’s hesitation for revenge continues throughout the play, and because of this, he never commits the act of murder for revenge but is instead successful due to Claudius’s pursuit of revenge against Hamlet. The conclusion of this play thus demonstrates the negative consequences of going against divine law and seeking personal revenge and justification. Shakespeare’s purpose of illustrating this inner debate between what is just and what is lawful through the interaction between Hamlet and Claudius is to emphasize the complication of the two ideals in a Christian society; though revenge may appear justified in every sense, the Elizabethan belief asserts that going against positive law is equivalent to going against God and justice.

In Chapter 5 of Kim Hall’s conceptual analysis of Shakespeare’s Othello, the author quotes Fancis Bacon disparaging romantic love stating, “The Stage is more beholding to Love, than the life of man…In life it doth much mischief: sometimes like a Siren; sometimes like a Fury” (Hall 327). This quotation embodies the view of love in early modern literature during Shakespeare’s era; it demonstrates the enjoyment within the relationship between mishap and romance, through the events of distances, illnesses, and chaos within the development of romantic relationships. This projection of love during the early modern era goes against the traditional and idolized view of love, dating back to Aristotle who ideally depicts love as “good” and “sublimely beautiful” (327). There was the common view held during this era that love solely based on sexual attraction or romantic inclination would result in unhappy marriages in comparison to virtuous love and emotional relations (327). This variance between physical attraction and emotional ties in a relationship often leads to instability, though, and can result in jealousy if there isn’t that balance between the two (328). Hall quotes Bacon again stating, “It is impossible to love, and to be wise”, and urges men in relationships to “…sever it wholly from their serious affairs and actions of life” (328). During this era, the question arose regarding the relation between love and jealousy; is jealousy a form of love or is it a mishap thrown into a pure emotion (328)? Authors during this era generally struggled to separate the two, with Benedetto Varchi defining jealousy as, “a kind of suspicious Care, or a careful kind of Suspicion” and Natasha Korda defining it as, “a symptom of the curiosity, greed, and covetousness that arise from the institution of private property” (328). These quotes demonstrate the era’s view on love and jealousy as intertwined emotions; one cannot experience the pure joys of virtuous love without the repercussions of lust and jealousy. This view is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play Othello by depicting virtuous love and jealousy as specific characters and exhibiting the repercussion between the two through the characters’ interactions.

In Othello, Shakespeare exhibits this variance in types of love, desire versus virtue, through the characters Othello, Desdemona, and Iago; he demonstrates the difficulties of maintaining an emotional connection over physical desires through this relationship, and he encapsulates the negative view of love and jealousy in the early modern era through Iago’s conspiring nature. At the beginning of the play, Othello and Desdemona are ultimately defined by virtuous love instead of shallow attraction; they emphasize their efforts in virtuous love by de-emphasizing their physical desire (Hall 327). Othello describes to the Duke and Brabantio how he and Desdemona came to love each other and eventually marry, stating that she would inquire about his battles and experiences and grew to love him. Othello states, “She loved me for the dangers I had passed, And I loved her that she did pity them. This only is the witchcraft I have used” (Shakespeare I.iii. 169-171). This demonstrates the traditional perspective of love embodying the ideal emotional and virtuous connection between two individuals, untainted by chaos or instability. Desdemona equally demonstrates this ideal by touching upon her “duty” to both her father and her love for Othello;
I do perceive here a divided duty.
To you I am bound for life and education;
My life and my education both do learn me
How to respect you. You are the lord of duty;
I am hitherto your daughter. But here’s my husband,
And so much duty as my mother showed
To you, preferring you before her father,
So much I challenge that I may profess
Due to the Moor my lord. (I.iii. 183-191)
Desdemona further describes her love for Othello stating, “I saw Othello’s visage in his mind, And to his honors and his valiant parts Did I my soul and fortunes consecrate”, which shows how the connection between their “minds” is prioritized over physical and lustful attraction (I.iii. 254-256). Othello also comments on this connection between their “minds” stating, “But be free and bounteous to her mind” (I.iii. 268). Through these examples, Othello and Desdemona ultimately represent true and virtuous love, an ideal viewed with skepticism during the early modern era and which Shakespeare later obstructs by introducing Iago’s scheme to manipulate Othello’s insecurities.

Towards the climax of the play, Shakespeare intertwines Iago within the relationship between Othello and Desdemona to exhibit the factor of desire and jealousy within a pure and honorable relationship. Iago is quoted talking about his love for Desdemona, “Now, I do love her too, Not out of absolute lust…But partly led to diet by my revenge”, demonstrating that he represents this opposing force against virtuous love (Shakespeare II.i. 271-274). Iago then triggers that self-doubt within Othello by touching upon his physical aspects and forcing him to realize he doesn’t deserve Desdemona. Iago tactfully initiates this uncertainty in Othello by stating, “Oh, beware, my lord, of jealousy. It is the green-eyed monster, which doth mock The meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger” (III.iii. 179-182). This forces Othello to identify his flaws in comparison to Desdemona, and question if he is truly worthy of her and her love; “Nor from mine own weak merits will I draw The smallest fear or doubt of her revolt, For she had eyes, and chose me” (III.iii. 202-204). This conversation between Iago and Othello regarding his suspicion of Desdemona and Cassio is the depiction of jealousy’s role in virtuous love; it is impossible to have one without the other and fostering the later will result in the downfall of an honest relationship, as seen at the end of the play.

Back in the early modern period, marriage was defined by competing motives of love and money, along with the competing interests of their significant others, families, and friends (Kaplan 311). Economic concerns were also significant factors when selecting suitability between a couple (311). Judgement of a couple from family and friends often came from class, property, and overall temperament of the couple (311). Laws and customs revolving around marriage in the early modern period prioritized the interests of men and often forced women into surrendering their legal identity for their spouses, demonstrating the limitations of female behavior, speech, and public involvement (311-313). Male obligations included consulting family and friends about possible suitors, marrying for moral reasons, and financially sustaining their families (312). Female obligations often included sustaining the household and fostering healthy families for the husband. Though marriage and partnership were viewed as fundamental building blocks within society during this period, same-sex friendships were frequently viewed as a more fundamental aspect to social order (312). Due to prominent segregation in social events and activities, these bonds of brotherhood often developed and surpassed family and spouse loyalties (312). Though marriage and homosociality competed for higher prioritization within society, the two social bonds provided means for developing social, economic, and political alliances during this era (312).

The primary differences between marriage and friendships during this period were defined as marriage securing financial and legal rights, and friendships embodying virtue and selflessness (Kaplan 315). Editor Lindsay Kaplan quotes Cicero’s treaty pertaining to the significance of friendship stating, “friends act without greed or foolhardiness and are characterized by liberality, constancy, and selflessness”, and that these bonds ultimately secure social order (315). Another quote mentioned in this chapter describes the bond between two friends, Titus and Gisippus: “…that they seemed to be on in form and personage,…[and] nature wrought in their hearts such a mutual affection, that their wills and appetites daily more and more…confederated themselves” (315, 318). These two quotes depict this commitment to friendship, demonstrating the emotional and personal connection in comparison to any relationship with a woman, and implying that marriage ultimately impedes these brotherly bonds (318). This tension between marriage and friendship is prevalent throughout Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, specifically between Bassanio and Antonio. Shakespeare exhibits this competition between, “the emotional intensity of male bonds as they were fostered by Renaissance patriarchy and the necessity of marrying to acquire full status within that patriarchy” (318). Both Bassanio and Antonio represent the two competing arguments in this significant debate between marriage and friendship within the early modern era, and they demonstrate where this tension can foster conflict.

Within the competition between marriage and friendship for societal prioritization, Antonio best represents the argument for friendship through his sacrifices for Bassanio throughout the play. This can be seen through his commitment to finance Bassanio’s appeal to take Portia’s hand in marriage. Though there is much uncertainty surrounding his wealth coming back with his ships, Antonio is still committed to upholding this commitment to Bassanio and agrees to take out a loan from Shylock, who threatens Antonio’s life if reimbursement is not followed through. When speaking with Bassanio, Antonio states,
I pray you, good Bassanio, let me know it;
And if it stand, as you yourself still do,
Within the eye of honor, be assured
My purse, my person, my extremest means
Lie all unlocked to your occasions. (Shakespeare I.i.134-138)
This statement to Bassanio demonstrates Antonio’s commitment to their undying friendship and willingness to give up everything to ensure Bassanio’s happiness. Later in the play, Antonio realizes he won’t be able to pay off the loan immediately to Shylock and must face the repercussions specified. He states, “For if the Jew do cut but deep enough, It’ll pay it instantly with all my heart” (IV.i. 275-276). As seen in these examples, Antonio embodies the argument for homosociality within society simply by identifying his imminent outcome and stating it’ll be paid for with all his heart for Bassanio. Antonio furthers this divide between marriage and friendship by encouraging Bassanio to give up his ring from Portia as a token of gratitude stating, “My lord Bassanio, let him have the ring. Let his deservings and my love withal Be valued ‘gainst your wife’s commandment” (IV.i. 444-446).

Bassanio, on the other hand, depicts the prioritization of marriage within society during this era at the beginning of the play, but slowly transgresses to prioritize his relationship with Antonio towards the end of the play. Bassanio, when requesting money to court Portia, expresses his love for Antonio stating,
To you, Antonio;
I owe the most, in money and in love,
And from your love I have a warranty
To unburden all my plots and purposes
How to get clear of all the debts I owe. (Shakespeare I.i. 129-133)
Though he expresses his love and commitment to Antonio, he prioritizes Portia by borrowing money from Antonio which then places Antonio under Skylock’s jurisdiction. Later in the play during the Antonio’s trial, Bassanio states, “Good cheer, Antonio. What, man, courage yet! The Jew shall have my flesh, blood, bones, and all, Ere thou shalt lose for me one drop of blood (Shakespeare IV. i. 111-113). This demonstrates the progression from Bassanio’s commitment to Portia to his commitment to Antonio, going as far as promising his life. He also states that if Shylock does not take the loan paid ten times over, “On forfeit of my hands, my head, my heart (IV. i. 206-207). The progression of Bassonio’s commitment from marriage to friendship is ultimately depicted in his statement to Antonio where he claims that life and his wife are in no comparison to his commitment and bond with Antonio.
Antonio, I am married to a wife
Which is dear to me as life itself;
But life itself, my wife, and all the world
Are not with me esteemed above thy life.
I would lose all, ay, sacrifice them all
Here to this devil, to deliver you. (IV.i. 277-282)
Towards the end of this scene, Bassanio hesitantly gives up his ring which Portia gave him as an embodiment of their commitment. Bassanio was encouraged by Antonio, displaying his prioritization of upholding his relationship with Antonio by abandoning his commitment to his wife. Based on the comparison of Antonio’s unyielding commitment to friendship and Bassanio’s slow conversion of priorities, one can assume that Shakespeare’s emphasis on friendships overrides the significance of marriage in this play, thus implying that the author may believe friendships play a greater role in upholding social order during this era.

To fully grasp the concept of early modern perspectives in England regarding the amalgamation of Honor and Arms, one must first grasp the traditional ideals of chivalry that fashioned the “lineage culture” Northern English countries, the symbolic and political forms of chivalry utilized in the Elizabethan courts, and the concentration on war and warfare as professions in the last two decades of this era (Hodgdon 319). These three variations and practices of chivalry do share one development over time; They demonstrate the fuse of military, noble, and religious beliefs into a unifying code of virtue to from the century’s defining concept of Honor and Arms. By defining each variation of chivalry during this era, one can identify this concept’s influence on Shakespearean theater and the character development within the plays.

During the early 15th century, the virtues of honor and family lineage often faced inconsistent interpretations, ultimately due to the coupling of honor and the family name even in circumstances where the two stood for different resolves. In order to mitigate these contradictions, London’s court attempted to combine honor with humanistic learning and the Protestant faith, as seen in Sir Thomas Elyot’s Book of the Governor (Hodgdon 320). Elyot attempted to incorporate these chivalric values into a universal religious system to codify “knighthood”, an unprecedented and undefined profession that was often overlooked before this era. Elyot’s focus on “warrior values, political autonomy, and individual will” gained traction among political activists of the time to justify their conduct within the courts and wars (320). These values laid foundation for the definition of chivalry at the time, and for Shakespeare’s incorporation of Honor and Arms throughout his plays, specifically in Henry V.

Towards the height and end of the Elizabethan era, war became greatest means of attaining honor and legacy; it was considered a “testing ground” for nobility and encouraged them to seek out military conflict in order to obtain reputations of honor and prestige (Hodgdon 326). During these decades, the civic codes focused primarily on “moral, spiritual, and paternal qualities of leaders that aligned with the chivalric ideals of knighthood” (333). Leonard Digges, author of An Arithmetical Military Treatise, Named Stratioticos, exhibited this ideal by stating a good general must be, “Religious, Temperate, Sober, Wise, Valiant, Liberal, Courteous, Eloquent, of good Fame, and Reputation”, which was then codified in Sir William Segar’s work, Honor Civil and Military (333). Digges shifted the focus on these defined traits towards leaders who are, “learned in Histories, and in those Sciences and Arts that may enable him of himself, without direction from others, readily to conceive and judge of military actions”, emphasizing humanist learning and the ability to fashion oneself into a professional soldier utilizing a scientific body of knowledge (333). This shifted the concept of honor into a more professional pursuit, almost identical to pursuing an occupation. This development of chivalry and honor over time can be exemplified in Henry V due to Shakespeare’s emphasis on noble ideals and character development, common themes throughout many Shakespearean plays that depict the concept of Honor and Arms.

In Henry V, Shakespeare utilizes King Henry V as the embodiment of the modern perspective of Honor and Arms. This becomes apparent in Act III Scene 1 and 2 when Henry lands at Harfleur and prepares his soldiers for war against the French. Henry states,
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility,
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger: (Shakespeare III. i. 3-6).
This line exhibits the virtues and ideals that are emphasized in knighthood during this era, such as modesty and humility. Henry wants his men to carry these virtues with them, even into war, for which he instructs them to mask them with ferocity. His concentration on an animal-like presence and absolute intimidation represents the concept of bravery and warrior ethos so heavily called upon during this era. Also, Henry unifies his soldiers by enforcing a sense of nationalism and eliminating the concept of lineage, ultimately encouraging his men to prove themselves regardless of their socio-economic class. This action deviates from the original and more traditional conception of chivalry in the early 15th century, where family and lineage defined an individual’s nobility. He states, “And you, good yeomen, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture” (III. i. 25-27).

Henry V’s valiance and attitude throughout this speech serves as the depiction of the early modern perspectives of Honor and Arms in England, only to be juxtaposed with the cowardice actions of his men in Act III Scene 2. Following his speech, Henry’s men show mixed emotions towards war, primarily fear. The conversation between Nim, Bardolph, Pistol, and the boy serves to contrast with Henry’s embodiment of the modern perspective of chivalry and to emphasize his true knighthood. Nim, Bardolph, and Pistol represent all that is opposite of the modern view of chivalry, whereas Henry is the true depiction of this ideal. This scene is placed directly after Henry’s speech to serve the purpose of possibly offering a more realistic view of what knighthood looked like during this era, as opposed to what the ideal should be.

By the sixteenth century, the influence of various chivalric codes of honor, for which were modified to meet the ever-changing sociopolitical norms of the time and were applied to the general public, began at with general public but poured over into military practice and strategy. The authors of these codes, such as Sir William Segar, Matthew Sutcliffe, Barnaby Rich, and George Silver, all uniquely interpreted these established ideals within the sixteenth century and shifted their application towards the morality of war and combat.
Sir William Segar, for instance, initiated this conversation regarding “heraldic arts” and “chivalric ideals and practices” by taking the very basic understanding of noble lineage and laying out guidelines for martial virtues through codes for which princes and knights should adhere to (Hodgdon 334-335). Segar’s code demonstrates the necessity of various virtues and characteristics a knight and gentleman must possess in order to lead effectively and instill honor within their subordinates. He stresses that obligation to “lineage, family, and kinship”, in comparison to individual honor, is the most significant act towards martial virtue (335). While listing out various characteristics necessary for a gentleman, Segar also asserts that cowardice is the worst characteristics to possess. He mentions characteristics such as charitability, faithfulness, forgiveness, reverence, military prowess, and discreetness, all of which King Henry exemplifies on throne in comparison to Prince Harry in The First Part of King Henry the Fourth by William Shakespeare.

Matthew Sutcliffe then takes this conversation on martial virtues initiated by Segar and executes these ideals by developing laws pertaining to the duties and responsibilities of both captains and soldiers. These ordinances dealt more on the line of rules that captains and soldiers must follow in order to adhere to the “Law and Arms’” stressed by Segar. This demonstrates a step towards application when defining chivalric ideals of the era. His primary focus, rather than identifying the very codes and virtues possessed by a moral gentleman, was reform within the military and instilling this idea of collective honor starting with the individual. His strict limitations over the actions of captains and soldiers were an attempt at exhibiting the image of “courtier-soldier” to refashion the military culture of the period (Hodgdon 335). They include various punishments for unvirtuous acts within the military, for example the punishment for blasphemy and disloyalty.

Following Sutcliffe’s work, Barnaby Rich takes a different approach when applying the codes laid out by Segar; he simply describes the characteristics of a virtuous captain and soldier, demonstrating the variance between the two. Barnaby’s approach can be defined as justifying the restrictions placed on captains and soldiers through Greek ideals and Natural laws. This approach further defines the connection and reliance on the two positions in order to establish a martial code of honor.

By evaluating the conversation between King Henry and Prince Harry in Act III Scene II of the First Part of King Henry the Fourth, one can identify the varying approaches to chivalric ideals on the throne between the father and son. Both have differing approaches in shaping their image for the public, which can be assessed through the codes of honor laid out by Segar, Sutcliffe, and Rich.

When King Henry approaches Prince Harry regarding his immature and discourteous actions as royalty, he calls upon his adherence to lineage:
Quite from the flight of all thy ancestors.
Thy place in Council thou hast rudely lost,
Which by thy younger brother is supplied,
And art almost an alien to the hearts
Of all the court and princes of my blood.
The hope and expectation of thy time
Is ruined, and the soul of every man
Prophetically do forethink thy fall. (Shakespeare III. ii. 31-38)
This statement embodies the obligation to lineage and kinship which Segar focuses on so heavily in his code of honor. It also demonstrates Harry’s lack of appreciation and commitment to upholding the reputation and loyalty to his family by acting out and setting a low standard for himself prior to obtaining the throne.

King Henry describes his strategy for obtaining respect among the people, stating that he “…dressed myself in such humility…” and his rareness in public in order to present himself with such credibility (Shakespeare III. ii. 51-59). He further describes the strategy of his predecessor, Richard II, who obtained his credibility through popularity and rabblerousing, similar to Harry’s current strategy. These two diverging strategies while on the throne exemplify the influence of chivalric ideals placed on royalty and how it developed into a norm over time; Henry’s actions depict that which abide by a chivalric code of honor whereas Harry’s depict that which go against the martial virtues laid out by Segar, Sutcliffe, and Rich.

Works Cited:
Hodgdon, Barbara, editor. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts, William
Shakespeare, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. ISBN: 0-312-13402-9.

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth: Texts and Contexts. Ed. Barbara
Hodgdon, Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 1997. ISBN: 0-312-13402-9.

Looking back on this semester, the best way to summarize the takeaways of IS301 Intro to Computer Analysis is gaining a better understanding for data collection and analysis. We began the semester by looking at the basic definitions for a research study. We studied Thyne’s book, Political Analysis for the Rest of Us, and had to identify variables, hypotheses and null hypotheses, theories, research methods, resources utilized, and conclusions in already published works to identify these definitions outside of the textbook. We reviewed specific rules on how to construct causal theories which would be later implemented in our research project. We then progressed to developing hypotheses from the construction of theories which required more simplified definitions of what we wanted to study in the project. We also discussed different methods of analysis to use in our studies and ways to compare variables and identifying statistical significance.

After obtaining a basis of political science analysis and research, the class shifted gears in learning how to use IBM’s SPSS program for political analysis. Pollock began by demonstrating how to download the program and editing data. After gaining a basis for how SPSS works, we actually began running tests and comparing variables in problems on the worksheets in the back of each chapter. This practice really reinforced the concepts and made it easier to learn how to analyze political and social research. We learned how to interpret measures of central tendency and variation, the different types of variables, and how to interpret different case summaries. After this introduction, we practiced recoding, binning, and computing. We learned how to do both cross-tabulation analysis and mean comparison analysis along with graphing various relationships into a line, bar, and pie chart and even box plots. We learned how to utilize control variables and their significance in a given analysis. Sample means were significant in making conclusions in the worksheets through one-sample T tests and independent-samples T test in order to compare relationships between variables and make generalizations. We dove into measures of association and statistical significance by defining chi-square and correlation and putting them into practice. Bivariate Regression, scatterplots, regression, and interaction effects were later practiced once we became more comfortable with the software. Pollock’s book on SPSS concluded with application to political analysis scenarios and placing all we learned throughout the semester into context. Overall, SPSS was good practice in this course but I don’t think I would have been very successful with conducting political analyses on my own for the project without my group, Prof. Sanborn, and Pollock’s walkthrough on how to work the software.

I was fully expecting this class to be statistics-based and out of reach regarding my comprehension and liking. But throughout the semester I gained a betting appreciation for the research practices and statistical analysis that goes into political science. One must do groundwork before concluding any type of theory and generalization. I realized this the most when we began conducting surveys for the research project; I never fully understood all the time and effort that goes into putting in data and finding the best way to compare variables. The amount of times I had to go back into SPSS to find the best way to verify our hypothesis, which ended up being statistically insignificant, was innumerable.

My favorite thing that I learned in this course would be the different tests to run on SPSS so you don’t have to compute correlation, regression, mean, median, standard deviation, and other measures on your own. I always hated statistics in high school and even during my first year here because in those classes you had to memorize all the equations in order to conduct any sort of data analysis. With SPSS, all you have to do is plug in the numbers and it does everything else for you. It is definitely IS Major-dummy proof.

My least favorite thing that I learned in this course would have to be the application of all that we went over this semester to our own data analysis. I guess I didn’t like it much because I wasn’t too confident on my knowledge of these skills, therefore making the research project very difficult to figure out.

All of this being said, this was only wetting my feet in data analysis, for I would be lost in the dark without Prof. Sanborn walking us through worksheets or if I didn’t have Pollock’s SPSS Companion to Political Analysis to reference when analyzing our surveys. This course definitely taught me different ways of data analysis but I would require a more in-depth course with individual work with SPSS in order to fully develop these technological skills to apply in political science during my education and even beyond in the work force.