Kyle E. Coons

ERH 250W

Responding to Student Writing

4/4/18

HR: Microsoft Word, Students Drafts/Examples of how to respond, Lindemann’s textbook

 

 

Response to Steve L.’s Draft:

            Steve, I found the topic you chose very inviting as you are well versed and excited when discussing Bass Fishing. You covered in large detail one of your experiences catching a seven-and-a-half-pound Bass. Moving forward in your writing process I would take specific note into what the assignment says as to who your audience is. The audience in this case is people reading the newspaper with little experience, if not any, in Bass Fishing. Although it is good to tie in personal accounts to verify your expertise, I would suggest focusing more on the basics and fundamentals of Bass Fishing.

 

Explanation:

            I chose to direct Steve to focus on his audience because he seemed to stray from the idea that he is talking to inexperienced people and went on to write in a way that only people who have fished for Bass would understand. For example “I felt it and set the hook hard”. People might not understand what setting the hook means. Lindemann talks about directing writers to focus on their audience in her text on page 240.

Kyle E. Coons

ERH 250W

Reading Response 2

2/15/18

Help Received: Microsoft word, A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers pg 86-108, course syllabus, previous RR for citation

 

In the reading for this week, Erika Lindemann discusses “What Do Teachers Need to Know about Cognition” in chapter 6. The section of this reading that appealed to me the most was the one on Creativity. In particular, Janet Emig’s view on creativity and Graham Wallas’ four stages of creativity. I personally believe writers need their own form of creativity to help encourage and support their writing process. Emig states creativity can be seen in two ways, “(1) as a tension or moment of intersection between two or more opposing variables, and (2) as a series of several aligned stages” (Lindemann, 87). I’ve never personally thought of creativity coming in “stages”, but Lindemann continues to include Wallas’ four stages of creativity. Wallas’ four stages include preparation, incubation, illumination and verification. When reading this I never saw my creativity in different stages, rather something unique to myself.

After reading Wallas’ explanation of these stages I gained a better perspective on my own creativity and that in fact I follow the same stages without noticing it before. When thinking about my own process of creativity, I find myself going through the preparation stage when I do research (i.e. reading texts and different sources for papers commonly assigned in my history courses). My incubation stage is present when I form my paper outlines and I debate which parts of information I want to include and which parts I find not useful to support my thesis. My illumination stage comes at different times for me, as Lindemann defines as the “Eureka moment” (Lindemann, 87). I typically experience this stage when I put pen to paper in my outline process but have also experienced this while writing my draft of certain papers. The verification stage in my case is typically reached at the conclusion of my outline but again also in my drafting process. It was interesting to break my own creativity process up and find how it fits in both Emig’s and Wallas’ claims included in this reading.

 

Works Cited:

Lindemann, Erika. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. “What Do Teachers Need to Know about Cognition” pg 86-108. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kyle E. Coons

ERH 250W

Reading Response 1

Chosen topic “Problem Solving: Language Problem”

Help Received: Microsoft Word, Erika Lindemann’s “A rhetoric for writing teachers”, class notes, handout on reading with group work (for ideas to build from) and the in-class discussion

 

I chose the topic of Problem Solving to go further in depth from the answer my group formulated during class, in specific the problem I face with forming thoughts into writing. Within this “problem solving” that Lindemann talks about on pages 28 and 29, she specifically discusses what every writer deals with, the “language problem”. “We may know what to say, but we can’t make the words work” (Lindemann, 29). I specifically wanted to talk about this problem because it is one I run into quite often. Reasons I believe writers run into this problem stem from over thinking what they want to say, frequently due to the audience they are writing for (which led to an overwhelming agreeance of the class that the issues discussed under the “Dynamics of Composing” (Lindemann, 28-29) theory are all interconnected). As a history major I see myself facing this problem when I attempt to translate what I’ve read in detailed history books into long thesis-based essays. One solution talked about in class that I find very useful is speaking (aloud) about what you want to say. This method has led to a solution for my “writers block” on numerous accounts.

 

Works Cited:

Lindemann, Erika. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. “Writing” pg 27-29. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cultural Aspects of Marriage during the Early Modern Period in England as shown through Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure

Reflective Tag

Help Received: In-Class Reflective Exercise

The topic of marriage in England during the early modern period first sparked my interest while watching the British Broadcasting Channel’s version of Measure for Measure. The actual visualization of the complexity the institution of marriage presented during the play intrigued me. I began my investigation in the topic of marriage through selecting it as my short assignment topic for Measure for Measure. Through this, I found that it was considered as the social institution of the time along with the overwhelming amount of gender inequality that surrounded it. When presented the prompt as to which the final essay was to be written I concluded that I would be able to find enough supporting sources to create an in-depth analysis on marriage during the early modern period in England. The most significant discovery I found surrounding this institution was the mass confusion during the conversion from church law to common law presented by Henry III when constituting whether the marriage is legal/not legal. My research into the subject lead to a better understanding of the occurrences in the play Measure for Measure. The institution of marriage during the early modern period varies with what my understanding of marriage is today in our culture, which I believe provided the main driving force behind my fascination into this topic.

 

Cadet Kyle E. Coons

ERH 321WX

12 December, 2017

Help Received: Microsoft Office, previous short assignment on this topic, Measure for Measure textbook, The Merchant of Venice textbook, JSTOR, Annotated Bibliography, sources included in Works Cited

The cultural view surrounding marriage in England during the Early Modern Period was prominently shown throughout the majority of William Shakespeare’s play writes, in particular, his play Measure for Measure. There are direct correlations with how both the man and woman are viewed inside and outside of marriage. Marriage during this time “was not merely a social institution, but, some would argue, the social institution upon which all others depended” (Kamps and Raber 181). The social institution of marriage was far from simple. The social status each person held during this time was directly related back to marriage. This was particularly true for women in the culture during the early modern period in England as they were viewed as property transferred from father to husband through the ceremony and law incorporated in marriage. According to Richards and Munn’s “New research has shown that more women remained single than married in early modern England, …” which lead to their conclusion “Thus marital status – as virgin, wife, widow or spinster – was one of the most important aspects of women’s identities and determinants of their options” (Richards and Munns 19-20). This excerpt from Gender, Power and Privilege in Early Modern England : 1500 – 1700 provides a solid point behind the importance of marriage in this culture and gives an interesting view as many people (particularly women) would choose to remain single then be subject to the extensive requirements behind a just and lawful marriage. To be included with the social implications marriage had, especially for women, the confusion from the shift to common law from church law sparked legal issues and implicated a stronger societal acceptance of a couple’s attempt to become bonded through the social institution of marriage.

William Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure provides strong evidence of how women’s social status weighed heavily on marriage during the early modern period and how it may be tangled in grey areas between specific status’s. Specifically, the character’s Juliet and Isabella provided play goers with different aspects women may find themselves in during this time along with the complexities and problems often faced when dealing with social law surrounding marriage. The play reflects the cultural views through the actions Angelo takes about Claudio’s supposed premarital sexual relations with Juliet. Angelo had been hastily commissioned in place of the absent Duke to carry out Vienna laws. This case was the first to be brought to him, and according to the law Claudio was not in fact completely married to Juliet, yet she was carrying their baby. As far as Claudio and Juliet had known they were in fact married but waiting for Juliet’s dowry. The marriage was known within their small group of friends but had yet to be approved by her friends and family. The approval was “remaining in the coffer of her friends, / From whom we thought it meet to hide our love / Till time had made them for us” (I. 2. 124-126). This uncertainty of social status led to Angelo’s decision to have Claudio killed, solely based around the cultural understanding of waiting for marriage to have sexual relations. This cultural understanding is derived from the distinct line drawn between a woman being pure as a virgin to the moment she becomes married to her husband and becomes a wife.

Isabella (sister of Claudio) provides play goers and readers a different social status women during this time held. Although young, Isabella’s social status as a nun in training would be viewed as both virgin and spinster (unmarried woman). According to Nancy E. Wright “these nuns asserted a right to ’spiritual property’ in the manuscripts that in some ways resembles later concepts of rights to ’intellectual property” (Wright 17). This position provided women “properties” which was important to gaining significant social status but in return these women were to devote their lives to God, and were not to be married therefore also not to be a widow. Isabella adds to the complexity of marriage in Measure for Measure in two different instances. The first is derived from when she attempts to defend her brother’s mistake.  Isabella attempted to seek mercy for her brother’s actions from Angelo. She asked Angelo “Yet show some pity” (II. 2. 104). Angelo then follows up with a stern stance on his attempt to reinforce the letter of the law by stating “I show it most of all when I show justice; / For then I pity those I do not know, / Which a dismissed offense would after gall, / And do him right that answering one foul wrong, / Lives not to act another. Be satisfied; / Your brother dies tomorrow. Be content” (II. 2. 105-110). It is after this that Angelo gives Isabella an option to save her brothers life. This was to sleep with him in return for the pardon, which is against not only her life devotion to be a nun and retaining her purity but also breaks common law through premarital sexual relations. She also runs into a conflict at the end of the play as the Duke asks for her hand in marriage. This again puts her in a complex situation as she would have to forfeit her devotion to becoming a nun.

William Shakespeare’s demonstration of including how marriage was viewed in the culture of the early modern period was not just limited to his play Measure for Measure. In his play The Merchant of Venice, the cultural implications of marriage were consistent to those in Measure for Measure. The concept of a male dominant culture stood true, as described as “a wife does not even own her body,…” (Kaplan 312). The idea of marriage being “a man’s voyage” is also described by Kaplan. He includes the work from Alexander Niccholes, an early modern writer, and a quote from Niccholes stating “a husband risks ‘his peace, his freedom, his liberty, his body; yea, and sometimes his soul too’” (Kaplan 314). Kaplan writes this in relation to Bassonio’s marriage to Portia, as in the play could be describe as an adventure with constant voyages back and forth to Venice and Belmont and with different relations being tested as he attempted to save his friends life from the Shylock.

This view of marriage being a ‘voyage’ is transparent in William Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure. In particular, the marriage between Angelo and Mariana. Although the marriage between Angelo and Mariana when compared to the marriage between Bassonio and Portia in The Merchant of Venice are opposite in many aspects, the ‘voyage’ the husbands risk to take are both present. This risk of marriage that Kaplan described was taken by Angelo before the play begins. The play viewer or reader discovers this as the play develops, as Angelo is portrayed to almost avoid the risk he took by marrying Mariana due to a dowry issue. Angelo knew he was risking giving up what Kaplan includes from Niccholes as his freedom, liberty and soul when marrying Mariana, but tries to escape from it. The Duke catches Angelo in this attempt, and with Mariana pleading for his life to be spared and saying “They say best men are molded out of faults, / And, for the most, become much more the better / For being a little bad. / So may my husband” (V. 1. 434-437). This dilemma ends with the Duke declaring Angelo’s life spared so long as him and Mariana were to carry out their marriage. This brings up the issue again of common law versus church law.

The cultural understanding of marriage during the early modern period had an issue with the shift from church law of marriage to common law. Marriage during the time Shakespeare had written this play had been tied into two different traditions. The first, that was presented through the trouble Claudio and Juliet got into, was the rejection of privately spoken vows. This was derived from the changes Henry III made on English common law during this early modern period in England. The contrast came from what was widely accepted through church law. Marriage through the revamped common law required the necessity to be widely accepted and approved from larger social groups. This led to an unaccepting view to be placed upon marital actions taking place before the common law was achieved. As discussed, the status of marriage was particularly essential to women. “Renaissance playgoers believed that women were highly sexual, and likely as the “weaker sex” to give in to their passions; marriage served as a control over this tendency to stray. Husbands were to “master” their wives” (Kamps and Raber 188). This widely acceptance of marriage between a man and a woman led to accusations of unlawful premarital actions. As shown in Claudio and Juliet’s situation, a more extensive marital process was in need to be considered married.

Church Law or Canon was “revised in 1604 to exclude clandestine marriages, that is, marriages that occurred without witnesses and without parental consent, which might describe Claudio’s pre-contract with Juliet” (Kamps and Raber 183). This was the main driving force for issues, as Kamps and Raber again mentions Claudio and Juliet, that arose with marriages during this revision period. The complexity is heightened when Claudio tries to explain that, although he sees the public approval as a necessary step for marriage, the more important part the solidifies the marriage and makes it true happens without the public in private between the two being married. Common law required “‘banns’ or public announcements placed weeks in advance so that marriages might be approved by the larger social group” (Kamps and Raber 182). This, along with “a ceremony with witnesses was necessary to guarantee that the marriage was legal” (Kamps and Raber 182), led to wide spread confusion during the transition from one law to the other.

Marriage in England during the early modern period had a complex structure, with noticeable key differences from what marriage is understood to be in other cultures including ours today. The leading cause behind this difference was the inequality faced by women during this time period and the confusion caused by a transition in marital laws.  The actions that took place in response to Claudio and Juliet’s marriage, which almost resulted in Claudio’s head (literally), is a clear and just representation of the issues faced by individuals during the early modern period in England. Women were viewed subordinate to men and in marriage were passed from their father to their husband with an inclusion of a dowry. This conflict with dowry was present in a few of Shakespeare’s plays, prominently in Measure for Measure but also The Merchant of Venice, and showed the vast complexity of marriage which went past just a bind between a man and a woman. Women gained more of a social status change from marriage then that of men due to a very select opportunities presented to them in this culture.

William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure provides an excellent look into the system of marriage in England during the early modern period. It presents different social status’s women held during the early modern period along with the understanding, or lack thereof, of common law versus church law people during this period were subject to understand in order to properly carry out the action of becoming married. Marriage was not only an institution, yet the institution that weighed heavily among all social status’s during the early modern period. Measure for Measure presented its viewers and readers with a copious amount of marriages, to include Claudio and Juliet, Angelo and Mariana, the Duke and Isabella, and Lucio and Kate Keepdown, viewed from different angles along with different situations adding to its’ complex stature during the early modern period.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Kamps, Ivo and Raber, Karen, ed.. Measure for Measure. By William Shakespeare. New York:

Bedford, 2004.  Print.

 

Kaplan, Lindsay, ed.. The Merchant of Venice. By William Shakespeare. New York: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 2002.  Print.

 

Richards, Penny, and Jessica Munns. Gender, Power and Privilege in Early Modern Europe :

1500 – 1700, Taylor and Francis, 2003. ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/vmi/detail.action?docID=1757020.

 

Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure,. Ed. Ivo Kamps and Karen Raber. New York:

Bedford, 2004. Print.

 

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice,. Ed. Lindsay Kaplan. New York: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 2002. Print.

 

Wright, Nancy E., et al., editors. Women, Property, and the Letters of the Law in Early

Modern England. University of Toronto Press, 2004. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442683600.

Kyle Coons

ERH-321WX-01

Short Assignment on Hamlet

11/30/17

Help Received: Hamlet, Microsoft Word, Class Hand-Outs

Part 1:

Revenge had an intricate part in the culture of Early Modern England. Not only was it viewed religiously, to be done by the hands of the Lord, but also as a way to self-incriminate within the confines of the laws in place during this period. The Bible during the Early Modern Period in England was viewed as divine law. In terms of seeking revenge on other individuals, the Bible preaches to let the Lord, not yourself, punish those deserving of it. Jordan includes a passage from Romans 12.19 “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord” (Jordan 204). The culture of this time would apply this to their day to day lives. If they were to take revenge into their own hands it would be viewed to be disobeying the word of the Lord and breaking divine law. The way most interpreted this was to pay the Lord would have his way and give the deserving their punishment on his terms. Kings and those in royal power were seen as divine figures, therefore they were granted the ability to carry out the Lord’s justice.

Jordan also includes an excerpt from Francis Bacon on Revenge that defines it as “Revenge is a kind of wild justice; which the more man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out” (Jordan 208).  This type of ‘wild justice’ wasn’t seen as justice at all. Instead it was viewed as way that even’s the one seeking revenge with his enemy. The only type of revenge that was viewed as just was the type that had “no law to punish” (Jordan 208). Revenge was something that was to be controlled in the culture of the Early Modern Period in England, with a sense of self-constraint and a strong trust in divine law to have its course.

Part 2:

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Revenge was a main driving force for a lot of the actions the character of Hamlet took. With the news of his father’s murder being committed by his Uncle, Claudius, Hamlet is driven to seek justice. This can be compared to what Francis Bacon calls ‘wild justice’, with no real justice being found. The audience during this play in the Early Modern Period would see this as an unjust action, but the complexity of Hamlet’s character makes the audience question if this would fall into a punishable act or a tolerable revenge due to the fact it was Hamlet’s father being killed for power. Hamlet’s situation was complexed even further with how his revengeful murder would be viewed amongst the divine law or how he would live with not standing up for his fathers’ murder. This situation arises in Act 1 Scene 5 when the Ghost (of his murdered father) approaches him and requests revenge upon his murderer. The Ghost tells Hamlet in response to his questioning of revenge, “Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder” (I. 5. 24). The Ghost goes on to identify his murderer as Claudius, and sets up the struggle Hamlet faces throughout the entire play.

Religion is brought up in Hamlet’s struggle to avenge his father’s murder when he has an opportunity to kill Claudius while he was praying, yet he hesitates and decides not to. It makes the audience question if Hamlet sees this as another crime beyond revenge in divine law along with his spiteful nature to make sure Claudius does not have a chance to have his sins erased. This revenge Hamlet seeks totally engulfs his entire purpose in life, with the conclusion leading to the death of not only Claudius but also his mother and himself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Jordan, Constance, ed.. Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. New York: Claremont Graduate

University, 2005.  Print.

 

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Claremont Graduate

University, 2005. Print.

Kyle Coons
ERH-321WX-01
Short Assignment on Measure for Measure
10/31/17
Help Received: Measure for Measure, Microsoft Word, Class Hand-Outs
Part 1:
The early modern perspectives in England on marriage are directly reflected in Shakespeare’s play Measure for Measure. There are direct correlations with how both the man and woman are viewed inside and outside of marriage. Marriage during this time “was not merely a social institution, but, some would argue, the social institution upon which all others depended” (Kamps and Raber 181). The social institution of marriage was far from simple. The social status each person held during this time was directly related back to marriage. This was particularly true for women in the culture during the early modern period in England as they were viewed as property transferred from father to husband through the ceremony and law incorporated in marriage.
Marriage during the time Shakespeare had written this play had been tied into two different traditions. One that was presented through the trouble Claudio and Juliet got into was the rejection of just spoken vows. This was derived from the changes Henry III made on English common law during this early modern period in England. The contrast came from what was widely accepted through church law, with marriage through the revamped common law needed to be widely accepted and approved from larger social groups. This led to an unaccepting view to be placed upon marital actions taking place before the common law was achieved. The status of marriage was particularly essential to women. “Renaissance playgoers believed that women were highly sexual, and likely as the “weaker sex” to give in to their passions; marriage served as a control over this tendency to stray. Husbands were to “master” their wives” (Kamps and Raber 188). Most viewed women as to hold one of three statuses, those being a maid, widow, or wife. Those not fitting into any of the three statues, i.e. a nun, were viewed as unnatural because they were unable to fill the role women were supposedly meant to fit.
Part 2:
Measure for Measure reflects the views early modern England had on marriage through the actions Angelo takes in reference to Claudio’s supposed premarital sexual relations with Juliet. Angelo had been hastily commissioned in place of the absent Duke to carry out Vienna laws. This case was the first to be brought to him, and according to the law Claudio was not in fact completely married to Juliet, yet she was carrying their baby. As far as Claudio and Juliet had known they were in fact married but waiting for Juliet’s dowry. The marriage was known within their small group of friends but had yet to be approved by her friends and family. The approval was “remaining in the coffer of her friends, / From whom we thought it meet to hide our love / Till time had made them for us” (I. 2. 124-126). This suggests that according to the church law defined earlier in Part 1 Claudio and Juliet were legally married. In contrast, according to common law, they had yet to receive a broader scale approval, especially from her side. Angelo, representing the bearer of common law during Shakespeare’s time, saw this as a clear-cut case that they were not in fact married therefore Claudio deserved the full force from the letter of the law.
Isabella attempted to seek mercy for her brother’s actions from Angelo. She asked Angelo “Yet show some pity” (II. 2. 104). Angelo then follows up with a stern stance on his attempt to reinforce the letter of the law by stating “I show it most of all when I show justice; / For then I pity those I do not know, / Which a dismissed offense would after gall, / And do him right that answering one foul wrong, / Lives not to act another. Be satisfied; / Your brother dies tomorrow. Be content” (II. 2. 105-110). Angelo’s mindset on going through with this punishment for the specific case, as to warn others so that it is not to persist, suggests that this was a common problem that was in the process of trying to be rid of. Not only in the play but also in the early modern period in England.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited
Kamps, Ivo and Raber, Karen, ed.. Measure for Measure. By William Shakespeare. New York:
Bedford, 2004. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure,. Ed. Ivo Kamps and Karen Raber. New York:
Bedford, 2004. Print.

Kyle E. Coons

ERH-321WX-01

Short Assignment on Othello

10/17/17

Help Received: Othello, Microsoft Word, Class Hand-Outs

Part 1:

During the Early Modern England period the perspectives on jealousy were closely tied into the perspectives on love and how both men and women expressed themselves. Kim Hall includes the views of Thomas Buoni, Benedetto Varchi, and Robert Burton that wrote during this time on jealousy and love. Each of these writers cover interesting points on how jealousy was involved in the culture during this time period. Thomas Buoni takes a focus on how the gifts love ones give each other tie to the emotions they hold for their significant others. He explored different reasons those who give these gifts might have done so, to include showing the loved one that they exceed the value of the gift being given. Benedetto Varchi and Robert Burton go more in depth with the ties between love and jealousy that were present in the culture during the Early Modern England period.

Benedetto Varchi in particular defines “jealousy rather circularly as ‘a kind of suspicious Care, or a careful kind of Suspicion’” (Hall 328). His view was that jealousy comes a man’s attempt to keep his reputation and honor in line. He continued to place the manner of jealousy to be brought by three specific groups. These groups included “1. The Party that is Jealous 2. His Mistress, over whom he is Jealous 3. The Person whom he suspecteth, and therefore is Jealous of him” (Hall 332). To better explain these three manners, Varchi tried to express to his readers that jealousy is presented to either the person expressing it, a man being jealous of his loved one or the man he is suspicious his loved one is involved with. As for Robert Burton, he describes love to be the most dangerous emotion we possess due to the jealousy that presents itself. Burton states “Of all passions… Love is most violent, and of those bitter potions this Love-Melancholy affords, this bastard jealousy is the greatest, as appears by those prodigious Symptoms which it hath and that it produceth” (Hall 335). For the terrible feeling of jealousy Burton believed there was but one cure, it didn’t include killing or divorce, it was simply to have patience.

Part 2:

Shakespeare’s ability to include the cultural view on jealousy of his time was clearly represented through the character Othello. When the play begins Othello and Desdemona’s shared love is questioned but proven and presented to the Duke and Desdemona’s father. The biggest issue that Iago tries and successfully convinced Roderigo to use to fuel his attempt to capture Desdemona’s love away from Othello was that the love was un-pure due to Othello being a Moor. Iago in turn puts this very thought into Othello’s head to play with his emotions, in particular jealousy, as he attempts to convince Othello that Desdemona does not love him. Rather, Iago conjures up a plot to make Othello feel that she is not loyal to him, and is having relations with Cassio. When Iago is in the process of making Othello believe his suspicions are true, he mentions “I know not that; but such a handkerchief – I am sure it was your wife’s – did I today See Cassio wipe his beard with” (III. iii. 452-454). Othello goes on to view Cassio with this handkerchief, whom Iago cleverly placed upon. This act verifies Othello’s burning jealousy that his beloved must be having relations with someone else (Desdemona with Cassio).

This specific action and conversation in Act III encompasses the views covered by all three writers of this time covered in Part 1. Othello’s gift to his beloved Desdemona, the handkerchief which was given to him from his mother and represents complete love and trust, was covered by Thomas Buoni in his writings on the importance behind gifts loved ones’ exchange. Othello’s jealousy also represents the three manners of jealousy Benedetto Varchi presents in “The Blazon of Jealousy” with Othello’s jealousy towards his mistress (Desdemona) and his jealousy towards the man she is having relations with (Cassio). Lastly, Robert Burton’s views on jealousy were also brought forward by Shakespeare in Othello. Othello let the poison of jealousy overcome himself and it resulted in him acting hastily and taking the life of Desdemona. He did not use the only cure that Burton mentions, which is that of patience. If he was to wait and be patient with his actions, the truth behind Iago’s plans would have been revealed before he took Desdemona’s life and his jealousy would have been resolved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Hall, Kim F., ed.. Othello. By William Shakespeare. New York: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 2007.  Print.

Shakespeare, William. Othello,. Ed. Kim F. Hall. New York: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 2007. Print.

Kyle E. Coons
ERH-321WX-01
Short Assignment on The Merchant of Venice
10/3/17
Help Received: The Merchant of Venice, Microsoft Word, Class Hand-Outs
Part 1:
During the Early Modern Period in England Religion was in the foreground of culture. The two prominent religions stemming from Christianity of this time in England were the Catholic’s and the Protestants. Both religions take reference to the religion of Judaism as mentioned in Chapter 3 “Religion” in The Merchant of Venice. As Kaplan states “Early Christianity formulated itself both within and against Judaism” (Kaplan 244). Christianity both recognized the Jewish faith as the origin of its creation but differed in opinions on how to view those practicing Judaism. The main focal point was the way both religions followed laws presented “in the Torah, the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament)” (Kaplan 244). The Christians took a more merciful approach (through the New Testament) with their prophet Jesus who was to take away all of their sins while the Jews followed these laws at a stricter approach. This difference lead to many of the disagreements between the two religions during the Early Modern Period in England.
The way the both the Catholic’s and Protestant’s approached this conflict it different ways. According to Kaplan, “Attitudes about the Jews themselves were frequently but not exclusively negative” (Kaplan 245). The differing point between the Catholic’s and Protestant’s comes from the Protestant’s attempts to legitimize their religion. The Catholic’s negative attitude towards the Jewish religion comes from the mercy versus strict view of religious law. While the Protestant’s don’t particularly disagree with this position, they approach the matter differently. According to Kaplan, “Protestants turned to the Jews, especially as the preservers of the Hebrew Bible, as a source of legitimacy by which they could justify their practices” (Kaplan 245). English Protestants went so far as to say that they identified with the Jews. Although viewed in this light, the Christian faith during the Early Modern Period in England viewed the Jewish faith negatively due to differing interpretations of religion in everyday culture.
Part 2:
Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice Act 4 Scene 1 embodies the strong differences between Judaism and Christianity in the Early Modern Period in England. In particular, the altercations between Portia (disguised as Balthasar) and Shylock when discussing the bond. Portia would have been designed to represent Christianity while she gives numerous opportunities for Shylock to show mercy and while doing so she was also showing mercy. Portia even went so far to say, “Then must the Jew be merciful” (IV. i. 177). Shylock had chances to show mercy upon Antonio, while even being offered double the shillings owed to him. Instead he chose to crave the law and what was written within the bond. This represented how Judaism was viewed during the Early Modern Period in England.
Instead of showing mercy, Shylock craved the law and in turn he received just that. Portia was well studied in Venician Law prior to this, and therefore found a loop-hole which found Shylock begging for his life. At first Shylock expected everything the law had in store for him but eventually begged for mercy. Portia asked, “What mercy can you render him, Antonio?” (IV. i. 373). Antonio spares Shylocks life for him to give half his belongings to him and the other half to his daughter and Lorenzo. Also, Shylock must then go ahead and convert to Christianity in front of the entire court. This treatment could be seen to represent the overall negative view Christians had on Judaism during the Early Modern Period in England. This scene also could be interpreted as Shakespeare’s attempt to show Christianity’s triumph over other religions at the time he lived. Act 4 Scene 1 of The Merchant of Venice clearly represents the understanding and attitude between Christianity and Judaism during the Early Modern Period in England.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:
Kaplan, Lindsay, ed.. The Merchant of Venice. By William Shakespeare. New York: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2002. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice,. Ed. Lindsay Kaplan. New York: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2002. Print.

Kyle Coons
ERH-321WX-01
Short Assignment on Henry V
9/19/17
Help Received: Henry V & Henry IV Part One books, Microsoft Word, Class Hand-Outs
Part 1:
During the early modern period in England the topic of Manuel of Honor was brought to light by various authors along with how it fit into military aspects. Different perspectives were given on this topic from authors of this time. One perspective comes from Sir William Segar where he discusses the chivalric code covered by princes, knights, and gentlemen that “he stresses both need to unite “Laws and Arms” and the intimate connection between personal and collective honor” (Hodgdon 335). Another view comes from Matthew Sutcliffe and Barnaby Rich who were “professional soldiers who describe ideal military protocol as well as disciplinary measures pertaining to captains and soldiers” (Hodgdon 334). And lastly the perspective coming from George Silver who had a similar view to that of Sutcliffe, and focused on “advice on the advantages of particular weapons” (Hodgdon 334). The three perspectives give the reader or a person studying the early modern period in England a better understanding of how honor was handled in the military aspect.
Sir William Segar perspective had a strong sense of tying in the overall sense of being a gentleman no matter what your position. He states some qualities a knight should possess to include being sober, obedient, vigilant, patient, faithful and loyal (Hodgdon 336). One of the most important characteristics he gives is that a soldier must be charitable “because wars are not taken in hand for the destruction of Countries, and towns, but the defense of laws and people” (Hodgdon 336). As for Matthew Sutcliffe, he presented a set of 8 and 25 military laws one has to follow to be rightful in what they do. An important highlight derived from the first 8 laws was a strong sense to base your actions around God’s judgement and from the 25 laws was a respect for your superior and maintaining military bearing (no stealing; keeping accountability of your arms, horse, etc.). Barnaby Rich continues on in more detail with what Sutcliffe states in his list of laws. George Silver shows a different perspective with a detailed look into the use of multiple weapons along with how they are to be used.
Part 2:
Manuals of Honor were challenged in Henry V, in particular at the battle at Harfleur by King Henry V in Act III Scene III. King Henry V had been laying siege to Harfleur relentlessly at this point in the Act, and just before he was to lay siege once more he proclaims to the Governor a statement that challenges the Manuals of Honor presented in Part 1. In his statement to the Governor he states that if they do not give up he will not have control of his men and their actions, he will burn Harfleur to the ground and will target and have no mercy on the defenseless. Within this it is clear that Shakespeare is challenging the Manuals of Honor in numerous aspects.
The King begins his proclamation by “How yet resolves the governor of the town? This is the latest parle we will admit: Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves Or like to men proud of destruction” (III. iii. 1-4). This challenges Matthew Sutcliffe’s laws within the military as the leader must keep and maintain control of his subordinates. “I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur Till in her ashes she lie buried” (III. iii. 8-9). This excerpt from the King’s proclamation to the Governor directly opposes Sir William Segar’s view that a soldier must be charitable and not target to destroy cities, rather to reinforce law. The last way Shakespeare challenges the Manuel of Honor of his time was evident when King Henry V mentions “Defile the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters; Your fathers taken by the silver beards, And their most reverend heads dashed to the walls; Your naked infants spitted upon pikes, Whiles the mad mothers with their howls confused” (III. iii. 35-39). This statement again challenges Sir William Segar’s view on honor’s place in the military. There is no honor to be had if King Henry went through with his proclamation to the Governor. According to Segar, the King was not following the set of qualities necessary for men of his statue to possess. Therefore, Shakespeare challenges the overall view on Manuel of Honor depicted during his time in his play Henry V.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:
Hodgdon, Barba, ed.. Henry IV, Part 1. By William Shakespeare. New York: Bedford, 1997.
Print.
Shakespeare, William. Henry V,. Ed. Claire McEachern. New York: Penguin, 1999. Print.