Measure for Measure. Spoilers.

I know the reading that is due for tomorrow's class is only Acts I and II. But I have the literary lingo assignment due on Thursday so I have read almost the whole thing. When I first picked up this play, I was thinking that it was going to be a hard read, but after getting into the language it has become easier and I'm now seeing why its a comedy. This play is hilarious.
This duke guy decides to step away from his role and to give it away to Angelo. But the whole time the duke never goes away, he is just in disguise as a friar. Angelo lets all this power rush to his head and starts enforcing rules that were never enforced to begin with. Claudio is imprisoned and sent to be hung because he has sex with his girlfriend, Juliet, before they were married. Claudio's sister, Isabella, is brought in the picture to talk to Angelo on her brother's behalf. Angelo wants to take advantage of the situation and tells her that the only way to save her brother is if she has sex with him. Isabella says that will never happen and tells Claudio to get ready for his death. The Friar, aka the original DUKE, comes up with a plan for Marianna to sleep with Angelo instead of Isabella. Angelo is a wuss and kills Claudio anyway. Then time goes back and Angelo never does Claudio and Isabella wrong.
This whole play is like a really cheesy day time soap opera with really bad acting that no one watches.

Why does the Duke need to step away to see how justice is done?

The duke, Vincentio, aka Friar Lodowick, thinks he has been too lenient on his people over the years. It is not fair for him to start punishing people for things he used to let them get away with. And I totally agree with him. For example, I have never had a curfew. EVER. And I now live on campus, when I go home every weekend, it would be totally unreasonable for my dad to give me a curfew. It just wouldn't make sense and I would not obey by his "new" rule. This is the same thing that Vincentio, aka Friar Lodowick, is trying to avoid. He is trying to be fair to his people, a good ruler, and not get over run by them as well. However, after seeing Angelo in power, Vincentio needs to come back ASAP because he has just gone crazy; killing people for having sex before marriage, when he is guilty of the same thing.

Next question: Why would Isabella rather let her brother die than to sleep with Angelo?

When I first read about the proposition that Angelo gave Isabella, I thought "Oh Man, its not an ideal situation, BUT she's going to be a good sister and sleep with this man really quickly so she can save her brother's life. But NOOOOOOOOOOO. She doesn't do that. She decides that Claudio can die before she sleeps with Angelo, which I mean in that time wouldn't really be tooooo bad because he is in power and has money. But maybe I'm just thinking like a gold digger. However, we have to remember that Isabella is a VIRGIN. And she plans to stay that way because she is joining a convent. The nuns are under strict rules at this convent. They cannot talk to a man without the presence of the profess and she cannot show him her face. The worst part is, is that Isabella wants stricter rules. This girl is tripping. She is an extremist. So, there are all these brothels and diseases running about in the beginning of the play. Maybe she is not trying to get all caught up and doesn't want to be corrupt. She wants to be all holy, which isn't a bad thing. But, Isabella can't even say the word sex. I'm not saying that there aren't people out there in the world like this, but it isn't common and a little funny to me, well her extreme ways. She would rather let her brother die than to save him. I'm pretty sure God will forgive her especially since her heart is in the right place, trying to save her brother. Shakespeare wrote this play based off of another story and in the other story, the girl that mirrors Isabella, sleeps with the man to save another life.

Why is it called Measure for Measure anyway???

The King of all Pricks: Lord Angelo

From the start, I knew I was going to hate Lord Angelo. My suspicions were rewarded when I began reading Measure for Measure. Usually, I don’t love or hate characters in books, plays or novels, but I’m stuck hating Angelo. I just want to take his big dummy head and squish it. I mean, come on, why does he think it’s remotely okay to execute a man whose girlfriend is about to have a baby? Does Angelo really think Isabella is going to hop in bed with him to save Claudio’s life when Angelo is condemning Claudio for the act he is asking Isabella to participate in?

The arrogance! The conceit! I just can’t take it. I haven’t despised a character this much ever. Angelo has a firm place on my literary hit list along with Don John from Much Ado About Nothing. Angelo reminds of an unemotional, stoic and arrogant man who cares only to maintain his reputation and instill fear in the people. He thinks with his head, not his heart.

When Isabella meets Angelo for the first time, it is not his heart but, ahem, other senses, that desire to take her for his own. I don’t believe him when he says in Act 2, Scene 4, line 152, that he loves Isabella. Angelo is just using that to get into her dress. I love the fact Isabella rejects him and can’t believe Angelo would ask such a thing of her. For the longest time, she had no idea what he was talking about with his innuendos.

This being said, I think Lord Angelo and Isabella are foil characters. While he is merciless, cruel and stoic, she is virtuous, caring and loyal. Though Isabella does not condone what Claudio did, she still intercedes on her brother’s behalf to save him. Angelo has a hard-fist and stands firmly in the decisions he makes whether or not they are moral. He doesn't consider the reverberations or consequences clearly.

Angelo sees Claudio’s execution as the beginning to a new reign in the state, where before the people ignored the laws. He wants to put fear back into the crowd to stop the unclean and improper lifestyles that have arisen over time. He chooses Claudio to make an example of him so others will stop or not attempt what put Claudio in prison. I find Angelo’s reasoning to be faulty and undignified.

 I agree with Isabella when she told Angelo to punish Claudio for the sin, not the deed. Why should Claudio lose his life when he can spend the rest of it atoning for what he did? Is that not punishment enough? But I doubt Lord Angelo will change his mind as the play continues. He is a jerk and so a jerk he shall remain, unless, by the grace of God, he is a dynamic character. I find that to be highly unlikely though. 

A Damned Deal with the Damn Devil

Christopher Marlowe's play Doctor Faustus deals with the themes of sin and repent. Throughout sections of the play the main character Doctor Faustus struggles with the choices that he makes. Specifically (and I believe most importantly), over the pact he decides to make with Lucifer (or the devil or the fallen angel or prince of devils ("What's in a name? that which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet")). When I think of Doctor Faustus deciding whether to make a deal with Lucifer or not, I immediately think of angel and the devil that were always trying to persuade Pluto from the mickey mouse cartoon (if you do not know what I am referring to, please see the images below). However, unlike in the cartoon where Pluto is struggling with his self- conscious, in the play it is the servant of Lucifer (and later Doctor Faustus himself), Mephostophilis, who tries to subtly persuade Doctor Faustus from selling his soul to Lucifer in exchange for Mephostophilis' temporary servitude to him. When Doctor Faustus requests Mephostophilis' servitude to him, Mephostophilis replies "I am a servant to great Lucifer/ And may not follow thee without his leave./ No more than he commands must we perform" (ll.39-41).

Thinking about what I would do if I were presented with the same opportunity that Doctor Faustus was offered. I believe that I would turn down Lucifer's offer.  What would you do? However, one of the reasons that Doctor Faustus accepted Lucifer's offer was because Mephostophilis had knowledge that Doctor Faustus wanted to obtain. most scholars strive to know as much as possible, they get a thrill out of learning and expanding their knowledge and Doctor Faustus was no different. the knowledge that was available to him to obtain was too great for him to pass up. It was his own ambition that led him to ultimately make the decision that he made to sell his soul to Lucifer. Was Doctor Faustus so driven by his yearn for knowledge that he chose to be eternally damned or was it purely his pride, that he could know more than the living human should, that led him to ultimately make the decision that he did?

http://www.bartleby.com/70/3822.html

Deal or No Deal?

I've been faced with the question of making a deal with the devil in high school. I attended one of those strict catholic schools where God was glorious and Lucifer was a bad spoiled brat with daddy issues. During a lesson on morals, my teacher asked if people would make a deal with the devil if they had the chance. As you could’ve guessed, most the class said no deal. The pride on my teachers face was evident.

           

Yet, when the moment had passed, I questioned the truth behind our words. To this day, I still don’t know what my answer should be. Not until the moment presented itself, would I. The decision is the greatest act of selflessness or selfishness. I can understand when people say they’d volunteer themselves to save someone they love. It is a selfless act. Then again, I can also understand when someone volunteer’s their soul to become immortal, powerful, intelligent beyond human ability. It reflects the selfishness in humanity.

This war between selfishness and selflessness manifests around Faustus with his visits from the good and bad angels. Both sides have valid points for Faustus to consider before he makes the deal. On page 20, the good angel tries to keep Faustus from hell by saying, “Sweet Faustus, think of heaven and heavenly things” (ll. 21-22). Meanwhile, the bad angel tempts him to think, “No Faustus, think of honor and of wealth” (ll.23). Their external appearance signifies the internal war Faustus fights regarding what is right and what is wrong.

Faustus is a confused man too easily tempted by power, vengeance and desire. He thinks it’s possible to change his life for the better by hiring a demon servant to do his will without considering the consequences behind it. Does he actually know what he’s gotten into with Lucifer? Hells-belles no. Lucifer is a tricky bastard as far as I’m concerned. He’s going to get you one way or another because that’s what he’s known to do.

I find it funny that the demon Faustus calls upon, Mephostophilis, tries to make him see it’s a bad idea to sell your soul. You will be eternally damned aka very unhappy when you die. No more cheesecake for you or long walks on the beach. Fiery living quarters and eternal servitude await instead. So, I guess my true feelings toward the deal are actually apparent now. I would not make a deal with Lucifer, unless something worth sacrificing myself for appeared. Until that moment presents itself, I don’t know what that something could be. 

Have things really changed?

Utopia. . . I really enjoyed Raphael's talk about robbery and some problems with France. It was amazing to here their problems years and years ago and we still have many of the same problems. My father works with at risk youth and worked with at risk adults for most of my life. When I hear many of their problems, they're an eye opener for me. The reason being is they are just trying to survive. They are already in a bad situation and some of them don't know any better than to steal or lie or cheat just to live for another day or week or month. There are so many out of work or homeless veterans because they served their country and now have no idea how to integrate back into society. There aren't that many programs that help them. DAV (Disabled American Veterans) is one business that helps, but they can't do it all by themselves. It is just becoming better now, with more and more companies having to hire an arrange of people.

If we teach our children to be thieves, why should we discipline them as adults for stealing? ? ?  This is another question Raphael asked in the reading. It just doesn't make sense to me. This goes back to my point earlier, they are only doing the only thing they know. They have no other trade or skill. What else can they do? I'm not from Frederick, however, I am working for a non profit organization while I'm here and its astonishing to me to see so many people struggle. The services that are offered and even some that aren't offered not only here, but in most of MD and DC need to be changed. Although we offer free education for children and it is only mandatory until the age of 16, we should also offer education, trades, and/or even job skills for people who actually need it. I'm talking about the many adults who are illiterate or don't know how to manage money, which is a skill that should be taught in school, but is not, or who are only wanting to live on welfare, just because. The system should be re organized and re worked. This is always on my mind, especially since I see the causes of it at work or hear about cases my father works. But our reading really showed me how much times have changed; and it ain't much.

To Punish and Enslave

After reading Book I of Utopia, I suddenly felt the urge to go back to read Beowulf and try to understand Middle English. While the language is easier to understand, the density and seriousness that Thomas More talks in is overwhelming.  I had to stop several times to make sure my head could digest that material. Once I did, I was slightly able to comprehend what was going on between the characters.

An idea that stuck out to me was Raphael saying:

'If you allow young folk to be abominably brought up and their characters corrupted, little by little, from childhood; and if then you punish them as grownups for committing crimes to which their early training has inclined them, what else is this, I ask, but first making them thieves and then punishing them for it?’ (21)

I agree with this idea because it is hard to expect someone who has known crime or poverty their entire life, to reconsider, as they grow older. They are going to continue living the way they have because it is all they know, especially during the 1500s in Europe and elsewhere. People had little social mobility, allowing many opportunities to be out of reach. Not to mention, those who lived in poverty were concerned daily with finding food and not starving.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't be punished for their crime of thievery, but their past needs to be taken into consideration. As children, people follow the models set by their parents or guardians. If they live a life of poverty, relying on stealing and scrounging for necessities, they will most likely continue on this road. Only a select few may rise above this behavior and strive for more in life.

As a result, I think Raphael’s solution to punishing the thieves by making them repay the value of the items they stole to the victim of the crime. The thieves are not just put to death, but forced to live out their punishment and learn to abandon a life of crime. It is more just in my opinion because death is the easy way out and the criminal faces no punishment. Granted, the criminal can’t see family members or live anymore, but that’s not the point here.

I guess what I’m trying to ask is, what defines a good, justified punishment for criminals? Throughout history, there have been varieties of ways criminals have paid penance for their crimes. Arguments made concerning their effectiveness will never end. 

An Unnecessary Evil and a Challenge to Authority

Disclaimer: Dealing with religion is always difficult, the following is in no way, shape, or form intended to offend anyone and/ or their religious beliefs. That being said, read away!

Canterbury Tales is not the first poem to deal with morality and it certainly is not the last. Morality is a characteristic of being human and even if the sense of morality is subconscious it is still there. In his tale the Pardoner discusses greed, using the example of three rioters. The moral of his tale is that greed leads to death. The Pardoner tells the listeners of his tale that “if any of yow wol of devociun/Offren and han myn absolucioun,/ Cometh forth anon, and kneleth heer adoun,/ And mekely receyveth my pardon” (ll.923-926 ). The Pardoner does not change he makes money by lying to people and then he goes on the issue a warning to his pilgrimage mates and offer to free them of their sins (for a price), which yes forgiving people of their sins for money, is what a pardoner does but he irks me all the same. The whole issue of penances leaves me flabbergasted the idea that the Catholic Church makes money off of the mistakes that people make, it does not seem right to me. However, I know from my study of medieval history that this was a commonly accepted idea and practice. It is no wonder that Chaucer included a pardoner in his book of tales.

In my opinion the idea that the Pardoner is corrupt brings up an interesting point.  The Catholic Church, especially this practice of selling penances was not principally challenged prior to Martin Luther, at least as far as I know. The Catholic Church had a lot of power; after all, it was the religion of Britain. Yet, Chaucer openly questions the practice of penances in the form of the corrupt Pardoner. This may just be my opinion but I believe that he actually does more than question the Catholic Church, I believe that he is using the Pardoner and his tale to outright criticize the church and if not the whole church than at least the specific practice of selling penance. I believe Chaucer was trying to make a statement of some kind with the character and tale of the Pardoner. Thoughts anyone?

                                                         

Domination or Equality: You decide

Recently, there has been controversy surrounding the topic of feminism in the media world. The definition of what it means to be feminist is blurring as people add their opinions to the list. Even the word ‘feminism’ has a growing cloud of bad connotation as a result. For those who are reading this now, I’m not going to dive into the thick of what constitutes feminism. You can find that on another blog somewhere.

Instead, I find it pertinent that we read the Wife of Bath’s prologue and tale now. She is a prime example of an independent woman, classified as feminist. Some may say she comes off too strong, too opinionated and arrogant. But I see that as her knowing what she wants, how to get it and be content with her life. Who said she wasn't happy living way she does?

As far as I can tell, she likes to choose whom she marries and how to conduct herself. She is proud, confident and cunning. She wields her promiscuity deftly, knowing its power and reigning it in at the appropriate times. She may not be the most beautiful belle of the ball or the fairest, but this wife of Bath doesn't need those attributes to survive. She is an ultra-feminist.

Even though I like her, I also pity the wife of Bath. I see her as another outcast character because people don’t know how to react around her. She seems to have this judgmental barrier, guarding anyone from understanding who she is, why she acts in such a manner and the underlying reason for her personality. She isn't given a chance to correct any wrong impressions or rid people of their judgments.

I think this is a main reason she gives such a long prologue. For the first time, she is given the chance to explain her life without anyone interrupting. This storytelling bleeds into her tale of the knight at King Arthur’s court, sent to learn what all women desire. It’s appropriate considering the wife of Bath was trying to enforce it in her prologue, this idea of domination over their husband or lover (ll. 1038-1041).

It is a simple lesson she wishes men everywhere would know and accept. If they let their wives hold power over them in matters, they would be eternally happy. To people in the medieval times, this was an implausible thought. Men were the leaders of the family and women held little power. Once again, Chaucer contrasts inner desire with reality. 

Not Modern English but Close Enough

While reading Old English in the epic poem Beowulf it was difficult to discern that the word ‘Eorlas’ means ‘Earls’ in what I will be referring to in this blog post as Modern English.  While it was easier to figure out that the word ‘gōd’ means ‘good’ in Modern English. **I would like to note that when I use the term Modern English I do not mean Early Modern English, instead I mean the form of English that is commonly used today.** After taking a closer look at the Old English version of Beowulf and Canterbury Tales in Middle English it became a little bit easier to figure out what certain words meant but my confidence in my translation of many of the words on the page was still nowhere close to what it is when reading Modern English or even when I read in French, a language that I have been studying for a little over five years.Does this make Old English and Middle English as foreign of languages as French, Spanish, and German?

Beginning to read Canterbury Tales was almost as scary as reading Beowulf at first, if not scarier because at least Beowulf was completely translated on the next page, where as Canterbury Tales just had a few words translated in the margin. I was able to comprehend the text especially the first few lines “whan that Aprill with his shoures sote/ The droghte of Marche hath perched to the rote” (ll.1-2). Many of these words look very similar to the Modern English counterparts such as ‘whan’ meaning ‘when’ and ‘droghte’ meaning ‘drought.’ Once I looked at the text as being an older form of English verses an the entirely different language that it had seemed to be at first it became a lot easier. I found that more and more words automatically translated themselves into Modern English in my head the more I read.

After learning how to pronounce words in Middle English, I was amazed at how much easier it was to comprehend the Canterbury Tales when I was reading it aloud, even though it sounded like the monk's chant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. After rereading the General Prologue while listening to it, I was amazed that I understood about eighty percent of what I read. When comparing the language in Beowulf and Canterbury Tales it is apparent that even though the text of the Canterbury Tales is in Middle English it is a lot closer to the version of English that we read today than the Old English of Beowulf is. Many of the words in Middle English look similar to the words we use today though the spelling of many of them is a little different. For example: “that fro the tyme that he first bigan/ To ryden out, he loved chivalrye,/ Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye” (ll. 44-46). The word freedom is the same as it is today however the word honour has an extra letter and the word trouthe has two extra letters. I’m not sure there are specific words that I wish we still used but I wish that we kept the original spelling of many of these words. 

This is what I think of when I am read the Canterbury Tales out loud, it certainly is not Modern English...but it is close enough: 

Hero???

What is a hero? Who are the heroes in Beowulf??? Well according to the oxford dictionary a hero can have several definitions. It is ”a person, typically a man, who is admired for their courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities and/or the chief male character in a book, play, or film, who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.”

Although Beowulf was more than likely written before this definition came out, it really describes Beowulf. HE is the main character who is admired and known far and wide for his achievements, bravery, and strength. Beowulf’s first achievement in the epic poem is his defeat of Grendel. He rips off Grendel’s arm with his bare hands. “Sinews split and the bone-lappings burst…Grendel was driven under the fen-banks, fatally hurt, to his desolate lair. His days were numbered.” ll 816-820. This heroic man then had to defeat Grendel’s mother, which was not as easy a task as it was Grendel. Beowulf’s last and final task was defeating the dragon. He has saved his land from a dragon, which was destroying buildings and setting things on fire. Is Beowulf a hero for killing all of these monsters????

Grendel is a descendent of Cain. Cain was punished by God for killing his brother. Grendel does kill men every night from Heorot Hall, is this what makes him evil? One way to look at Grendel is to see him as a three year old who is throwing a temper tantrum. He first starts to attack Hrothgar Hall because it is built and made way too much noise for his liking. The reader does not know exactly what Grendel is or how old his kind can live up to. The poem states, “Spurned and joyless, he journeyed on ahead and arrived at the bawn. The iron-braced door turned on its hinge when his hands touched it. Then his rage boiled over, he ripped open the mouth of the building, maddening for blood” ll 720-724. Grendel sounds like someone who is mad and holding a grudge. He is an outcast, who probably just wants someone to understand him. He had to have been eating something before Heorot Hall was built. Has anyone tried to talk to Grendel???

Grendel’s mother is also seen as a monster in the poem. Is she really? Or is she just doing what any other mother would do??? Beowulf does state that it is better to seek vengeance than to give into mourning. What mother wouldn’t want to fight for her child? Grendel’s mother only kills ONE person. A life for a life. That is all. Is that not fair in their day? I think so. Beowulf has to GO to her lair and seek her out and kill her.

Towards the end of the poem, Beowulf defeats the dragon. The dragon is upset because a man stole a chalice from in front of his sleeping face. It is not the fact that the dragon has a huge treasure, it is the principal. People have destroyed dragons and chased them to live in caves and such. The dragon kept to himself for a long time and did not bother anyone. Until some random person comes into his “house” and steals. Who wouldn’t be mad? I would. The dragon did not even kill anyone. He only set things on fire. He is not a murderer like Grendel and his mother. In this situation, I feel horrible for the fate of the dragon. However, he is seen like a monster and Beowulf is seen as the “hero.”

Comrades in Arms: Two Monsters Trying to Drink at the Pub

I have always been one to sympathize with an outcast character.  It’s something that comes naturally to me and most people. Every time I read Beowulf, I notice how the monster Grendel, in his loneliness and rage, reminds me of another infamous monster: Frankenstein. It is a stretch, considering the two are involved in very different situations. Yet, their personalities are very similar in regards to how humans treat them and how they react in return.

Both creatures are cursed the day they are created. Frankenstein is a freak of nature, something inhuman and terrifying. Grendel is a disfigured man, scary to behold and disgusting. Their physical appearance is monster-like and their personalities are evil, distinguishing them from normal human beings. Both Grendel and Frankenstein share feelings of loneliness, fear and hurt because people shunned them from the beginning.

On page 57, lines 849-851, the imagery presented as Grendel runs from the fight with Beowulf, reminds me of Frankenstein when it says, “With his death upon him, he had dived deep / into his marsh-den, drowned out his life / and his heathen soul: hell claimed him there.”

These lines in particular remind me of Frankenstein, when he hid away and became a solitary creature. After he tried to befriend a human family and failed, he ran away into the wilderness to live out a lonely existence. Grendel does the same thing. The villagers forget him, until he begins to attack people. By that time, his existence is known through bloodshed and hatred. No one wants to befriend him.

They do not stop to think why Grendel is attacking them. None of the villagers consider that Grendel just wants to be accepted and welcomed. He is a poor creature, looking for the chance to be normal. Unfortunately, like Frankenstein, Grendel will never be because of his physical appearance. Immediately, when a person does not look the same as everyone else, they are thought of as different. Grendel nor Frankenstein had a chance to make friendships because of their appearance.

While Grendel and Frankenstein are separated by centuries, they are comrades of loneliness and misunderstanding. Shut out from the human world, both struggled to find peace and sympathy. They are complementary characters who evoke similar emotions from the reader. But I do wonder, are there any other villainous/ outcast literary characters that remind our class of Grendel?