The “domestic” scenes of Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I ground the battles, plots, and displays of knavery. The women—Lady Percy and Lady Mortimer—give the actions of territorial, cockfighting men consequence. In II.iv, we see Hotspur at home with his playful wife, and we can for a moment forget his arrogance and excessive language as he assumes the mantle of husband and even shows a slight bent toward uxoriousness. Kate leads the activity in the scene, however, and she is the one who closes it; by an examination of the play between the Percys, we see that Kate is a reflection of her husband and that she likewise reflects—but does not mimic or represent—his fate at the play’s end.
The kind of love Hotspur and Kate play for us is the stuff of a comic scene in a tragedy, as when, in I.i. of Antony and Cleopatra, the Egyptian Queen toys with her own heroic soldier to force him to make the admission of love (in effect an abdication of power) she wants to hear. In that scene, the comedy derives from the dialogue and its many interruptions; the playfully sweet scene between the Percys gets its laughs in a similar fashion. Though Kate doesn’t cut her husband’s words off, she does have the greater part of the lines until Hotspur steps in to reassure her. She enters, and asks, “why are you thus alone?” (II.iv.31). Kate’s concern when we meet her seems to be that she lies, like Penelope, relicta1; however, after a further 25 lines in which Kate poetically describes the elements of war worrying her husband, we realize that her true concern is that “Some heavy business hath [her] lord in hand, / And [she] must know it, else he loves [her] not” (II.iv.57-58). Twenty-six lines of near-epic verse—“Of basilisks, of cannon, culverin, / Of prisone...
... middle of paper ...
...y enters the stage as a feminine reflection of her warrior husband. Her loss in the domestic sphere is practically complete, for her gain is small, conciliatory, and not what she originally desired. That Kate’s defeat to Hotspur is a reflection of Hotspur’s own fate is arguable, but Hotspur receives no treaty from Hal, let alone the poor one Kate manages to win. What we have in the end, then, is the contrast between the two men as victors. Hal takes everything—“youth,” “brittle life,” and “proud titles”—from Hotspur; Hotspur attempts to make “Two stars keep [. . .] their motion in one sphere” by allowing Kate to follow him whither he goes (V.iv.76-78, 64). Kate, though she reflects Hotspur, as the one whose “name in arms were not now as great as [Hotspur’s],” represents the would-be fate, insufficient as a defeat, of Hal were he the one conquered in the end (V.iv.69).
Neely, Carol Thomas. “Shakespeare’s Women: Historical Facts and Dramatic Representations.” Shakespeare’s Personality. Ed. Norman N. Holland, Sidney Homan, and Bernard J. Paris. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. 116-134.
Pitt, Angela. "Women in Shakespeare's Tragedies." Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Reprint of Shakespeare's Women. N.p.: n.p., 1981.
Before reading Peter S. Donaldson’s article, "Cinema and the Kingdom of Death: Loncraine’s Richard III," I slept eight hours, ate a well-balanced breakfast, and ran a mile to warm up. I knew from reading "In Fair Verona," that Donaldson writes for fit athletes of an intense analytical and intellectual field. Focus, pacing, and especially composure are essential to navigating his intricate and challenging course of connections, allusions, Shakespeare, media, history, past, present, future and beyond. I was prepared, though, and began slowly, but confidently, on another one of Donaldson’s awesome paths. And this time, I just may have created some of my own.
From this slender evidence, along with liberal and dubious readings of the plays and sonnets, scholars have created a robust portrait of the Shakespeares' unhappy domestic life - a "marriage of evil auspices," as one scholar put it. Rather than inhibiting biographers, the lack of information seems to have freed many of them to project their own fantasies onto the relationship. The prevailing image of Ann Hathaway is that of an illiterate seductress who beguiled the young Shakespeare, conceived a child and ensnared him in a loveless union.
In I Henry IV and II Henry IV, William Shakespeare brings together drama and comedy to create two of the most compelling history plays ever written. Many of Shakespeare's other works are nearly absolute in their adherence to either the comic or tragic traditions, but in the two Henry IV plays Shakespeare combines comedy and drama in ways that seem to bring a certain realism to his characters, and thus the plays. The present essay is an examination of the various and significant effects that Shakespeare's comedic scenes have on I Henry IV and II Henry IV. The Diversity of Society
The theme of unity transcends any ambiguity found in Henry's character or motives. This theme is evident in many areas of Henry V, but for the sake of this article, the importance of this theme is discussed between play and audience, and within Henry himself. This production of Henry V proposes that these two aspects be emphasized to show how Shakespeare's play has a message for modern theatergoers. The setting and age are left the same, as this adds to the validity of the play.
Shakespeare, William, Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare. Second ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. Print.
Falstaff is often left out of the conversation or treated as an object when people discuss Shakespeare’s “Henriad.” The conversation has grown to include Falstaffian supporters and those who continue to objectify him. On the one hand, critics like Harry Berger, author of “The Prince’s Dog: Falstaff and the Perils of Speech-Prefixity,” argues that Falstaff’s concealed motives are only brought to light through the characters speech. On the other hand, critics like Robert Bell, author of “The Anatomy of Folly in Shakespeare’s “Henriad,” believes Falstaff to be a fool, but he believes him to be one of Shakespeare’s “Greatest Fools.” I find these critics to be in direct conversation with one another. They both attempt to consider Falstaff in the forefront of the text, along with Prince Harry; more specifically, how one interacts with the other through folly and speech. While I agree with some critics notions that Falstaff has flaws, I would argue that he is more than an object; he is pertinent to the success of the prince, and he must be considered as the subject; Falstaff is the catalyst through whom Prince Harry enjoys his indiscretions, sins, and follies without reprimand or any acceptance of responsibility. Falstaff and Prince Harry share the same mind, but this is only apparent through the folly and parody of Falstaff. Prince Harry is completely oblivious to the fact that he and Falstaff rest on either side of a double-headed coin allowing them to share a psychic link. I will show that Falstaff has knowledge of all of Prince Harry’s actions as well as his own downfall before it occurs through a close analysis of 1 Henry IV, act 1, scene 2.
Prior to Shakespeare’s ascendancy on the English stage, Bloom argues, there was no concept of the individual self, just types. These types persist in Shakespeare’s plays as residual stock characters displaying humours, like Malvolio (melancholic) and Hotspur (choleric). In Shakespeare these crude concepts of personality give way to major and minor characters who evolve and grow almost within themselves. They possess a special energy that touches all other characters within the play. But it is Bloom’s provocative remark, "Shakespeare invented us," that stretches us beyond our conditioned response to the plays and invites us to define a new relationship with Shakespeare. Bloom argues that Shakespeare so interpenetrates our consciousness and our cultural existence that we do not know the boundary between him and us.
Cohen, Walter, J.E. Howard, K. Eisaman Maus. The Norton Shakespeare. Vol. 2 Stephen Greenblatt, General Editor. New York, London. 2008. ISBN 978-0-393-92991-1
In the Middle Ages, the roles of women became less restricted and confined and women became more opinionated and vocal. Sir Gawain and The Green Knight presents Lady Bertilak, the wife of Sir Bertilak, as a woman who seems to possess some supernatural powers who seduces Sir Gawain, and Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Wife of Bath Prologue and Tale, present women who are determined to have power and gain sovereignty over the men in their lives. The female characters are very openly sensual and honest about their wants and desires. It is true that it is Morgan the Fay who is pulling the strings in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight; nevertheless the Gawain poet still gives her a role that empowers her. Alison in The Wife if Bath Prologue represents the voice of feminism and paves the way for a discourse in the relationships between husbands and wives and the role of the woman in society.
... or desires. This claustrophobic sensation daily burdens women, disabling them to reach their greatest potential. In Romeo and Juliet, this thick environment suppresses each of the three crucial women, and ultimately, it is the agent of their fate. Would Juliet's tragic death been avoided if the societal structure been changed? Would Lady Capulet had been so apathetic, withdrawn, and submissive if she was no longer bound by marriage? Or would the Nurse be so condemned every time she desired to speak her voice? Shakespeare constructs and illuminates these three distinct reactions to social oppression by portraying a determined, passionate lover, an idyllic, apathetic housewife, and a vociferous, bawdy attendant, and by doing so, he establishes that no matter what a woman does, the patriarchal society has already determined her fate in infinite, confined entrapment!
Throughout the historical literary periods, many writers underrepresented and undervalued the role of women in society, even more, they did not choose to yield the benefits of the numerous uses of the female character concerning the roles which women could accomplish as plot devices and literary tools. William Shakespeare was one playwright who found several uses for female characters in his works. Despite the fact that in Shakespeare's history play, Richard II, he did not use women in order to implement the facts regarding the historical events. Instead, he focused the use of women roles by making it clear that female characters significantly enriched the literary and theatrical facets of his work. Furthermore in Shakespeare’s history play, King Richard II, many critics have debated the role that women play, especially the queen. One of the arguments is that Shakespeare uses the queen’s role as every women’s role to show domestic life and emotion. Jo McMurtry explains the role of all women in his book, Understanding Shakespeare’s England A Companion for the American Reader, he states, “Women were seen, legally and socially, as wives. Marriage was a permanent state” (5). McMurtry argues that every woman’s role in the Elizabethan society is understood to be a legal permanent state that is socially correct as wives and mothers. Other critics believe that the role of the queen was to soften King Richard II’s personality for the nobles and commoners opinion of him. Shakespeare gives the queen only a few speaking scenes with limited lines in Acts two, four, and five through-out the play. Also, she is mentioned only a few times by several other of the characters of the play and is in multiple scenes wit...
The Tragedy of Mariam focuses on Elizabeth's Cary's desire to develop a platform from which women can speak, thereby offering a fuller understanding of women as individuals. By examining issues of public and private language, Cary shows her interest in female voices. As an early-17th-century female playwright, Cary was described by the Earl of Clarendon as `a lady of a most masculine understanding, allayed with the passions and infirmities of her own sex'. This description could be interpreted as a complement to Cary, although the Earl adheres to the patriarchal boundaries placed upon both men and women. The connection that he makes between Cary and masculinity reinforces the stereotype of male authority. This essay will examine Cary's exploration of gender, language and silence in The Tragedy of Mariam. The play's expression of these themes is sometimes open, and at other times covert. By concentrating on the issues of public and private speech, this essay will determine the effects that crossing patriarchal boundaries had on women in early modern England.
There is great concern presented in Chaucer’s Wife of Bath story that women are painted in a negative light as a result of men having written these classic stories; it is argued that women would have authored these stories differently and in such a way that women would be perceived in a different light. The purpose of this paper is to review The Knight’s Tale as it is found in the Canterbury Tales and establish whether Hippolyta is portrayed in a negative, positive, or neutral light.