Book Reports / Shakespeare's Measure for Measure [9]

Yet another Shakespeare essay. I have included the prompt below. I feel like my essay is disorganized and not flowing very well, but some of that has to do with the prompt and the fill-the-blank formatting the teacher provided. I am also wondering if the vocab sounds like I plucked it from a thesaurus or if it works within the context of the essay. I didn't use a thesaurus, but I don't want it sound like I did. I need a title as well. *SIGH* Thank you so much for taking the time to look at this!

The Prompt:

We have used this play to focus on, among other issues, how Shakespeare makes use of characters who seem inconsistent. These characters seem one way in certain scenes and another way in others. They make good choices and then they contradict those good choices. Because we are uncertain about these characters, we say that they are AMBIGUOUS.

Choose one ambiguous character that Shakespeare uses to send a message about one moral issue in the play (sex before marriage, lying, how you treat people, drinking too much, acting "religiously," etc). You will need to explain how that character is ambiguous and link that character to the moral issue. Then decide what the theme is. As we have asked in class, what does Shakespeare support? To what does he show allegiance?

Here is a fill in the blank exercise to help you get started. This wording does not need to show up in your essay, but it hopefully suggests all of the elements you need to cover in the essay.

Shakespeare uses the character_________________ to illuminate this moral issue: ___________.
On the one hand, this character seems______________ because of these moments in the play:
____________________________________________________________ _________________.
However, this character also seems______________ because of these moments in the play:_______________________________________________________ _______________. Possible reason(s) for this difference might be _______________________________________. Out of this ambiguity/uncertainty, the point Shakespeare seems to make about this particular moral issue is ____________________________________________________________ ______. This theme is further supported by these moments in the play not even directly tied to this character:__________________________________________________ ___________________.

The Essay

Shakespeare's Measure for Measure explores morality and human nature. Angelo, a respected deputy to the Duke of Vienna, is placed in charge of the city when the Duke lacks the fortitude to clean up his jurisdiction on his own. As he hands over authority, the Duke tells Angelo, "your soul seems good," (1.1.72) but the Duke realizes that Angelo is only a man and could be tempted to misuse the power of the office. The Duke remains close at hand to supervise the situation. The Duke's reservations prove to be well founded when Angelo unleashes his evil machinations on the virginal Isabella. On the surface, it appears that the characters in Measure for Measure are paradigms of good and evil with the devout on one hand and the prostitutes and bawds on the other, but Shakespeare presents the morality of the characters not as black and white, rather as shades of gray and that humans-by their nature-can be drawn into sin by temptation. Shakespeare uses the character of Angelo to illuminate the moral issue of temptation as Angelo abuses his position and succumbs to carnal desire.

The Duke of Vienna has not been enforcing the laws against lechery and he realizes that the town's judicial system is "More mocked than feared-so our decrees,/ Dead to infliction, to themselves are dead,/ And liberty plucks justice by the nose,/ The baby beats the nurse, and quite athwart/ Goes all decorum" (1.3.28-32). Knowing that Angelo has a reputation as a man who "scarce confesses/ That his blood flows or that his appetite/ Is more to bread than stone," (Duke 1.3.56-58) the Duke charges him with the task of ridding the city of vice in his absence. Shakespeare introduces us to Angelo as a chaste and upright official intent on scouring the city of sin. Angelo sees the lax enforcement of the law as a scarecrow "Setting it up to fear birds of prey,/ and let it keep one shape till custom make it/ Their perch and not their terror," (2.1.2-4) and sets about imposing harsh punishment for infringements. The Duke, cognizant of human nature, mistrusts even the pious Angelo and questions Angelo's morality, saying, "Hence shall we see,/ If power changes purpose, what our seemers be" (1.3.57-58). The Duke, interested to see how the newly-bestowed power will tempt Angelo, disguises himself as a friar and remains in the city to spy on Angelo.

When it comes to prosecuting Vienna's criminals, Angelo takes a literal approach to the law and punishes infractions with zeal. Having not succumbed to sin himself, Angelo lacks the ability to empathize with the people confined in his jail or see the mitigating circumstances surrounding their infractions. Claudio, a young man accused of impregnating his betrothed prior to the finalization of the marriage contract, is arrested and sentenced to death by the unrelenting Angelo. Lucio, a friend of Claudio's, fetches Claudio's sister from the convent and has her importune Angelo to spare her brother's life. Lucio explains to Isabella that Angelo is "a man whose blood/ Is very snow-broth; one who never feels/ The wanton stings and motions of the sense." (1.4.61-63). Lucio explains that Angelo has sentenced Claudio so harshly because he "follows close the rigor of the statue/ To make him an example" (1.4.71-72). Claudio's crime, fornication with a consensual partner, is a mere peccadillo committed by many of Vienna's citizens, but the draconian Angelo resolves to follow the letter of the law, telling Isabella, "It is the law, not I, condemn your brother./ Were he my kinsman, brother, or my son,/ It should be thus with him. He must die tomorrow" (2.2.105-107). He does not temper sentences with mercy.

The Duke sagaciously keeps his eye on the seemingly incorruptible Angelo. Lust stirs Angelo's desire for the young maiden Isabella. This longing seems to take Angelo off guard and he questions whether Isabella is acting the seductress before concluding that "temptation doth goad us on/ To sin in loving virtue. Never could the strumpet/ With all her double vigor, art and nature,/ Once stir my temper, but this virtuous maid/ Subdues me quite" (2.2.219-223). Until desiring Isabella, Angelo has not been faced with serious temptation. The prostitutes, even with their artful seductions, provide no allure. "The jewel that we find, we stoop and take 't/ Because we see it; but what we do not see,/ We tread upon and never think of it," Angelo says (2.1.26-28). It is easy to eschew wrongdoing when the bait is not tempting. Angelo has yet to capitulate to carnal sin because the temptress does not tempt him, but the godly Isabella's beauty has him wanting to "raze the sanctuary and pitch [his] evils there" (2.2.208-209). It is Isabella's piety that tantalizes Angelo.

"'Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus,/ Another to fall," Angelo says in 2.1 when asked "Whether [he] had not sometime in [his] life/ Erred in this point which [he] now censure [Claudio],/ And pulled the law upon [himself]." When Isabella offers to bribe him with "true prayers [ ... ] From fasting maids whose minds are dedicate/ To nothing temporal," (2.2.183-187) Angelo, in an aside, says "Amen./ For I am going to temptation/ Where prayers cross" (2.2.191-193). Angelo could have let his yearnings remain hidden, but his newly bestowed authority empowers him and he attempts to coerce the aspiring nun Isabella into a sexual liaison. Angelo tells Isabella: "Redeem thy brother/ By yielding up thy body to my will,/ Or else he must not only die the death,/ But thy unkindness shall his death draw out/ To ling'ring sufferance" (2.4.177-181). The chaste Isabella is aghast at this proposition. When Isabella protests and threatens to expose him, Angelo presses: "Who will believe thee, Isabel?/ My unsoiled name, th' austereness of my life,/ My vouch against you, and my place i' th' state" (2.4.168-170). Angelo wants to not only commit adultery, the same crime he has sentenced Claudio to death for, but compel Isabella to partake in his licentiousness. At least Claudio's partner was a willing participant.

Adultery is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church. "I had rather give my body than my soul," (2.4.59) Isabella proclaims, not willing to be cowed by Angelo's ultimatum even when the result of her refusal will be her brother's death. While adultery is out of the question for her, Isabella would like to save her brother's life and is tempted by the Duke's plan to substitute another woman in the rendezvous with Angelo. Isabella has no qualms about entreating Mariana to copulate with Angelo in her stead. Mariana had been betrothed to Angelo, but when Mariana's dowry is lost at sea, Angelo breaks the marriage contract. Isabella and the Duke, in his churchly vestments that duplicitously convey a power of absolution, convince Mariana to sleep with Angelo. "Fear you not at all./ He is your husband on precontract./ To bring you together 'tis no sin" (4.1.78-80), the Duke persuades Mariana. With this reassurance from a cleric, Mariana agrees to meet Angelo in the guise of Isabella. The Duke and Isabella are limned as moral characters up to this point in the play, but Shakespeare uses their collusion with Mariana to reinforce the theme that people do not have a Manichean nature, but are comprised of good and evil, light and dark, virtue and sin and can have their moral compass swayed by temptation. Isabella, an aspiring nun who wishes for "a more strict restraint" in 1.4.4, loosens her morals in agreeing to set Mariana up to sin.

Shakespeare decries hypocrisy in Measure for Measure. "Shame to him whose cruel striking/ Kills for faults of his own liking" (Duke 3.2.267-268), he writes. Shakespeare's characters at first appear to be either venerable or vile, but they are revealed as neither all good nor all bad in the course of the play. In spite of outwardly appearances, the characters have dualistic natures and give in to temptation. "Heaven forgive him and forgive us all./ Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall," Escalus says in 2.1 (41-42). Shakespeare neither vaunts nor harshly criticizes his characters for their human shortcomings, but demonstrates that "We are all frail" (Angelo 2.4.130). The ambiguities in Measure for Measure reinforce Shakespeare's theme of the disparity inherent in human nature and man's weakness in the face of temptation.

Poetry / A Sonnet I Wrote For my Shakespeare class [8]

For my Shakespeare class, we have to write a Sonnet. Not any old Sonnet, but it is supposed to be in response to one of the assigned Sonnets. AND ... we are supposed to pretend like Shakespeare's Sonnet was written to us from someone in our lives and our response is to that person. Confused yet? I know I am. UGH! This is so hard for me.

I chose Sonnet 19. It is really about the ravages of time, but I gave the interpretation a little twist. Instead of growing old, I tried to read into it growing up. I imagined that the poem was from my parents and that they were trying to freeze me in childhood. I changed it to just my mom because it made the rhyming easier.

I would love to hear feedback. I am much more comfortable writing essays than I am poetry. I was trying to go for iambic pentameter, but I don't think I hit it. In fact, I know I missed.

I have been under her thumb for many years;
Pinning me down with all her mustered might.
As the time for me to fly the nest nears,
She plucks my feathers afraid of the flight.
Frozen: A four by six inch slice of life
Tethered to the center of the fridge door.
I try scissors, clippers, and at last a knife
To shear the fetters and finally soar.
Time has chiseled me from a boy to a man.
Still the tow-headed toddler in her mind.
Entering the world without holding her hand,
Leaving the safety of my home behind.
I walk out with a promise to call her
And ask if I can borrow a dollar.

Writing Feedback / First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech [2]

Here's an essay that my group has put together for government class. There are four different writers working on it and I feel like that shows. I'd love feedback of any kind (and I do mean any kind).

Freedom of expression acts as the cornerstone of American liberty and democracy. When citizens express beliefs without fear of governmental restriction, a "marketplace of ideas" forms, and society benefits as a result of the wealth of perspectives expressed. John Peter Zenger stated, "No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general..." Zenger conveys that a free society is only possible if freedom of speech is legally guarded.

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote, "governments are instituted among Man, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" thus defining legitimacy as recognition of the right for a government to rule by the people of its state. When a regime fails to be responsive to its citizens, it loses its legitimacy; revolution or reform inevitably occur, as evidenced by the American Revolution. When the English crown did not allow the colonies representation in government, the colonists considered the English government illegitimate and rose up against it. More recently, Iran held fraudulent elections in June 2009, declaring incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the victor by a landslide; the opposition rushed to the streets and rioted for weeks in an effort to get the supreme council to reconsider the election, as they claimed the government's legitimacy had been compromised.

If a society restricts individuals from peaceably voicing criticism towards government, violent methods for change are likely to be utilized.

In a society where people have the power to express their opinions and actively participate in the development of government, they have less reason to violently protest because they have opportunities to affect change. When citizens can express beliefs without fear of government restrictions, a "marketplace of ideas" forms, and society benefits as a result of the wealth of perspectives.

Individuals express opinions in their own way, but history proves some ways more effective than others. Joining interest groups, voting in elections, petitioning and protesting, and donating to campaigns all prove powerful means to express ideas. Interest groups provide strength in numbers. When more people, with a specific goal, stand together their idea is more widely viewable.

Voting is an opportunity for citizens to elect officials, accept or deny laws, and express their opinions about the last term's policies. Despite the power that voting holds, many Americans don't go to the polls; America routinely has the lowest turnout rate of all democratized countries, topping out at 64% in 2008.

Petitioning and protesting gets the media's attention. Doctor King's peaceful marches and demonstrations resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The First Amendment right of antiwar protesters to burn the American flag during the Vietnam War was upheld in Texas v. Johnson. In all of these cases public demonstration proved effective in expressing convictions.

Donating to campaigns allows citizens to support candidates in their election bids. However, in the recent decades the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, its 1974 Amendment, and the McCain-Feingold Act all place limits on this kind of expression. The September 2009 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission tries this specific form of expression, and the outcome of the case will alter the financial policies behind election campaigns.

Freedom of expression has limits, however, and the United States government affirms its right to restrict freedom of speech in certain cases. The most important criteria courts use to evaluate acts of expression are "time, place, and manner" restrictions, or the idea that someone cannot speak on a bullhorn outside of a hospital at 3am. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton demonstrates that if the time, place, and manner of the issue are within reason, prior approval by government is not warranted.

The government can limit "fighting words,"defined by Chief Justice Frank Murphy in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as "those which by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Hate crimes, intimidation, explicit material, and defamation can be restricted, as affirmed by cases such as Black v. Virginia and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. Compelling government interests are subject to limitation. The case United States v O'Brien affirms this and concludes that if expression interferes with a policy of significant importance to the government, limitation can be placed.

Writing, leafleting, symbolic expression, and demonstrating are protected alongside speech under the First Amendment. While government may limit the time, place, and manner of speech, it must enforce these restrictions even-handedly in a "content-neutral" manner.