Dear all,
Dr. Magnus Ryan, from the University of Cambridge, will be our second speaker, starting from next Wednesday (25.26.27 April).
His topic will be "Law and Literature" and in particular "Law and Shakespeare". To be ready for the lectures, he suggested to read 3 plays that you can easily find on the web:
1) Measure for Measure
2) Richard II
3) King John
As suggested readings you should study:
a) Chap. 1 and 2 of: Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology, Princeton, 1957
We will try to scanner the two chapters and send them to you all. If not, you will have to go to a library...
b) PP. 593-594 (only two pages not the whole text) of Part Six of An Homily Against Disobedience and Wilfull Rebellion (1571):
http://www.footstoolpublications.com/Homilies/Bk2_Rebellion21.pdf
You should read the plays considering the following questions:
1. Measure for Measure:
- Justice and Equity
- The personal qualities of the judge
- Stoicism
- What circumstances justify leniency?
2. King John
- Might and right
- Possession and right/legitimacy: What legal mechanisms are appropriate to a kingdom and what to piece of private property?
- Rebellion: What is Shakespeare telling us? Are the barons wrong or right to resist John?
3. Richard II
See Kantorowicz in general, but the most interesting approach to the play is to contrast Shakespeare's attitude to kingship here with what he says in King John.
To have an idea about Dr. Ryan's cv and interests you can have a look here: http://www.historycambridge.com/default.asp?contentID=838
56 commenti:
Hi everybody
Today I have attended the first lecture of Dr. Magnus Ryan. I think it was a very interessing lesson. He has an absolutely passionate and emphatic way of explaining that, together with the impassioning arguments, makes the lesson very pleasant. About what we said I have been very impressed by the explanation about the figures of Angelo and Isabella, about thier particular approach to the application of the right about the case of Claudio.
We have seen that Angelo has a very rigid ethic but he is "The Deputy". For this reason he not only wants to be rappresented as particularly sober but also as "expert of rightness" in the administration of the government. His ethic is a sort of legitimation for this his role. On the other hand we have Isabella. She has also a very rigid moral vision but she is a religious, she is going to became a nun.
Shakespeare doesn't represent them as those who carries on his point of view. Their dialogue in act II scene II is very interessing and significative. It's a long dialogue and it's all about the main focus of the drama, but it seems like they are turning around the solution, the point of the issue.
At the beginning they say:
Angelo:Well; what's your suit?
Isabella: There is a vice that most I do abhor, and most desire should meet the blow of justice; for which I would not plead, but that I must; for which I must not plead, but that I am at war 'twixt will and will not.
Angelo: Well; the matter?
Isabella: I have a brother is condemn'd to die: I do beseech you, let it be his fault, and not my brother.
[...]
Angelo: Condemn the fault and not the actor of it? Why, every fault's condemn'd ere it be done: mine were the very cipher of a function, to fine the faults whose fine stands in record, and let go by the actor.
Isabella: O just but severe law! I had a brother, then. Heaven keep your honour.
In this introduction it seems like they agree, it seems like everything is already resolved. Here they're communicating with their moral view, in this level they are very similar, the same "beginning point". Only after this agreement, only then they shows their differences: they agree on the sin but not on the "solution of the sin", on what comes after. The punishment for Angelo, the (religious) mercy for Isabella. What they think it should be done it's very linked to their role.
For this reason, I thik, they can be considered as straight lines parallels: they could keep on conversing without an end and without convinceing each other. Probably they can agree only in the infinite, in the abstract and formal ethic which however has no solution.
Obviously it's only a theoretical abstraction...in the practice we have seen that there was a particular exception...
Francesco Mambrini
Hi everybody!
Today we’ve met Dr.Magnus Ryan. Not just the lesson was interesting and fun, but also enables us to compare the different method of teaching respect to Prof. Skeel.
Last week we discussed about MOV from a personal perspective, expressing our points of view. Today I’ve notice an approach more "technical" than last time. We’ve read together the most important points of the comedy. This allowed me to reflect on some particulars that I had neglected in the first reading.
In particular, I had not noticed the similarity between the characters of Angelo and Isabella, stopping myself on a surface impression: Angelo = hypocrit, Isabella = pure. They are both examples of rigor in applying its rules instead (law-edict/religion-piety). The parallelism shown by Professor Ryan, brings me to reflect on a subject recurring in all times: the contrast between earthly law and divine law and impossibility of a fruitful dialogue between people guided by intransigence.
There are others main issues in the plot, and I believe they could be read in a parallelism between the characters too. For example, Hypocrisy: it's clear that Angelo is not a good judge, because he acts dishonestly. But I found unfair Duke too: he seems a balanced and merciful judge, but in reality he is just a manipulator: he manages people and events as he likes. He didn’t want to take the responsibility of a risky government of his kingdom, being afraid to subjects' criticals.
see u tomorrow!
F.Lanfranconi
Andreina Fraia
Good morning to everyone
Yesterday, during the exciting lesson of the Dr.Magnus RyanI have been a lot hit from the description of the Angel character and from the reflexives cues that can be born from this figure .in fact in the course of the afternoon I have looked for to house the work of Sofocle “Antigone”in order to refresh my memories on Creonte, the uncle of the protagonist, Antigone exactly.Creonte remembers me Angel because, pitiless and stoic towards any demand and begs,pitiless with own blood (he is the uncle of Antigone), like with if same,he is the guarantor of an IMMUTABLE AND UNQUESTIONABLE WRITTEN DUTY: SAME IMPERSONA HE the LEGGE.Creonte as Angel thinks to hold the stickthat it marks and it delimits the border between the good and the evil.
Andreina Fraia
Good morning to everyone
Yesterday, during the exciting lesson of the Dr.Magnus RyanI have been a lot hit from the description of the Angel character and from the reflexives cues that can be born from this figure .in fact in the course of the afternoon I have looked for to house the work of Sofocle “Antigone”in order to refresh my memories on Creonte, the uncle of the protagonist, Antigone exactly.Creonte remembers me Angel because, pitiless and stoic towards any demand and begs,pitiless with own blood (he is the uncle of Antigone), like with if same,he is the guarantor of an IMMUTABLE AND UNQUESTIONABLE WRITTEN DUTY: SAME IMPERSONA HE the LEGGE.Creonte as Angel thinks to hold the stickthat it marks and it delimits the border between the good and the evil.
Hello,
yesterday with Dr. Magnus Ryan we talk about "Measure for measure",another interesting play of William Shakespeare.
I would to analyse the theme of Justice and Equity.
Equity, in my opinion, is a synonymous of ideal justice because if a rule is applied rigidly without to consider the actual case, the same justice will be diminished.
Equity must be considered as creative flexibility, mercy and individuality.
The justice can be represented as a balance where he law on the one hand and the equity on the other hand are in perfect balance.
In this play exist a contrast between the justice and the injustice because Angelo, the faithfull judge of the Duke Vincenzo, looks like an upright and severe man of law (emblematic is the beat of Angelo at the beginning of act II: "we must not make a scarecrow of the law,setting it up to fear the birds of prey, and let it keep one shape till custom make it their perch and not their terror"), but once become vice-duke,transgresses also him, forgetting his values and the task allocated by the Duke.
Angelo infact reveals himself as a hipocrite and stains himself of immorals behaviours as Claudio, a young nobleman, betrothed to Juliet, that makes her pregnant out of wedlock before their wedding
For this act of fornication he is punished by Angelo. Althought he is willing to merry her,he is sentenced to death.
But the measure of Angel's judgement looks lke iniquitous, because he would enforce the same measure also to himself when he accept to spare Claudio's life only if Isabella,a postulant nun and Claudio's sister, will yield him her virginity.
At the end yet, only the Duke Vincenzo,returned to Vienna, will bring again order and justice in dekedom, excusing and making to reflect all.
D'Antona V.
Hello World
Let me first apologize for not having left any comments for a few days.
This absence is due to the blog that in these first two lessons are very complicated issues presented.
Today we finished talking psychological tragedy of Shakespeare's "Measure for Measure" and started to speak of "King John".
I must say that the two works are very interesting and complex on the psychological aspect of analysis.
Measure for Measure is a drama that describes the difficulty for the right to be right in the jurisprudence. Indeed the character of Angelo, who was kidnapped by the beauty and sensuality of the sister of the condemned Claudio to death,
Isabella, he loses complete control of himself and the law, which puts them to sell to women, in accordance with equity.
I have the impression that Isabella will take the game by Angelo, who should have a psychological advantage, especially since his party has the arms of the law (it is a character who plays the death of Claudio with stiffness, as if it were a law acquired). Instead Angelo not only falls for the charm of Isabella, but even under the blows of its reasons. The right has the worst against the emotions, the moderatezza is no longer the Deputy of the disk, but Isabella. This time the law is non-compliance.
Other hand, is the story of King John. He is, as stated in the lesson, the entire England ill, that will not follow him in his battle of rebellion against France and Austria, who for their part, complain the right to land. Subjects will return to that Court under Henry 2nd. The problem here that even though John may appear negative, especially when he refuses to accept the terms of the enemies, it is a figure that inspires tenderness. Let me explain better. If you can say that he revolted, and in reality (other people know the law and only the possession of its territory, but without motivating his reasons) flows into battle knowing to go to certain death.
I have not read the whole tragedy, but I can guess that he respects the laws of England, until his death. In the first tragedy, far mer extent, there is one important aspect: the defeat of the law, and the victory of morality, understood as Equity.
The second is the opposite, because the law is respected, in spite of morality.
So after all this reasoning, we can say that Shakespeare wants us to understand that, as had happened with Shylock in Merchant of Venice, there are several limitations to the law. Where he began this, there's the ending of freedom (and sometimes the lives) of people.
A.Festucci
Hi!!!
I really like those lessons about Shakespeare, ( I didn't study the works we are talking about, so it's not boring to hear about them!)
I've got an idea about Angelo from " Measure for Measure "...I noticed that he resembles a littele bit to Frollo from " Notre Dame de Paris" by Hugo. I'm going to explain why...Both of them were severe and strict, they lived their lives just for their duties. When they met Isabella and Esmeralda they started to feel something new, that brought them to threw away all the things they had lived for. I don't like Antonio because i think that he was a bad guy from the beginning of the story, but I like Frollo because I think that his desire of Esmeralda had something true. The thing that they had in common is their torment and their decision to change the way they lived.
I think that also Esmeralda and Isabella have something in common: their decision to remain pure. I think that the reason is different, because Isabella was selfish in some way, ( she didn't save her own brother ), but Esmeralda wanted to see her mother again, ( a gypsy told her that she could meet her mother again in that way ). So Esmeralda is better than Isabella because she decided to sacrifice her life to meet her mother.
Someone in class asked why law is masked both in MOV and MFM...I think that maybe it's because the law always influences human lives but sometimes they doesn't know it.
See you tomorrow!!!
V. Russotto
Good evening!
Today we speak about measure for measure, in particular about Angelo’s character. He is a vicar of the Duke Vincenzo during his absence from Vienna(then, we discover that it’s only a test for Angelo) , and so became, in a sense, the “law”.
When he must decide about Claudio and his fornication with Giulietta, appear his main features. He is the defender of law unjust and cruel, because although Claudio want to merry his lady friend, he enforce a law like it’s write, without appeal. In this moment there is a form of hypocrisy. In fact Angelo bribes Isabella, violate the law that himself apply against Angelo. Angelo “plays” with Isabella, because he uses his authority so that she desist for relate someone, and also doesn’t keep his word. While in MOV, the law is subdue to the passion, in this case it’s underling to a power.
This is observable also at the and of the comedy, when the duke came back in Vienna and propose to Isabella. Is manifest that the power, that safes Claudio and condemn Antonio, win on the law: in spite of Claudio and Antonio have break the law, the punishment isn’t the same for each of one. So, if I can tell that Antonio doesn’t use a correct form of law, the duke is incorrectly, too.
I think that in this case, power is read like a negative element; like a form of arbitrariness.
See you tomorrow
Daniela D’Annibale
Hi to everybody,
I've some problem to found the books " King John " and " Richard II ".
I’ve searched for it in a different library, I know that it was also difficult for a lot of us.
I’ve found this link to download :
http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/
http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/kingjohn/
Bye and see you tomorrow !
Laura Di Bartolomeo
Good evening!
After reading "Measure for measure" and thanks to the comments and reflections of Dr. Magnus Ryan, I'd like saying that it's incredible how a written text can let us thinking about human feelings and behaviour.
I was really impressed by the internal contradictions of the characters, especially of those ones having a leading role in the society and, for this reason, supposed to be invincible.
As I said this morning, temptation is what the lawyer has in common with other people and this aspect creates a big paradox because who judges could be subjected to the same temptations of who is going to be judged.
I think this text is a good starting point to consider if we can confide in Law and how strongly!
Bye!
Alessandra Simeoni
Hello everybody!!
Today i have attended the second lesson of Dr.Magnus Ryan,it was great!
I will like to talk about "Measure for Measure" by William Shakespeare.
I think that in this play we can see a particular vision of the law.
In this case Angelo,"The Delegate"or "The Depute",have a RIGOR IURIS,He uses a strict law;is a puritan but at the same he breaks his promis.
Actually Isabella draws my attention,because she's a nun,she's devout and merciful,the spokesman of God's Word, but i find it's very strange that she doesn't want to save her brother,Claudio.
Maybe Shakespeare wants to show a neagtiv and contradictory side of the Church.
Then in this opera there are various thems that are in conflict between them:egoism and altruism,luxury and devotion,justice and pity.
However I think that equity is a real hero of this play.
I found that the title of the opera("Measure for Measure")remind me a dialogue of the gospel according to St.Mattew:"Perchè col giudizio con cui giudicate sarete giudicati,e con la misura con la quale misurate sarete misurati".
See u tomorrow!!!
Federica Meglio
Something about King John.
In several parts of this play, Shakespeare emphasises the King’s inability to govern. I would just to quote two examples, and I refer not only to King John, but also to Filippo (King of France). At Act II, after the hard discussion against King John and Eleonora, Filippo doesn’t decide to declare war on England, but prefers to solve the situation by the citizens of Angers. So, not a personal and strong decision, but a solution taken by the “vox populi”. So an example of king’s insecurity facing a serious decision. A situation comparable with the Pilato’s behaviour, when he must have chosen between Christ and Barabba. An important Italian judge and writer, Gustavo Zagrebelsky, in his works “Il crucifige e la democrazia”, says that people who yelled “Crucifige” against Jesus, represent the “manoeuvrable mass’s paradigm”, the example of the mass that doesn’t take action, but reacts in front a King’s provocation. In this play, people of Anger are “wise” because don’t react, but decide to open the city’s doors to the king who will win the battle and will demonstrate his kingship. Whatever, Shakespeare emphasizes the “pilatistic” and bad behaviour of King, who is inability to take a strong decision.
In an other part of the play, Shakespeare repeats this description of King’s bad qualities. At Act III, King John speaks with Umberto, and order him to kill Arturo. But this warrant isn’t clear; it’s so ambiguous! He isn’t concise, but he “whisper” this warrant in a dubious way:
King John “Do not I know thou wouldst? /Good Hubert, Hubert, Hubert, throw thine eye/On yon young boy: I'll tell thee what, my friend,/He is a very serpent in my way; /And whereso'er this foot of mine doth tread, /He lies before me: dost thou understand me? /Thou art his keeper”. Umberto “And I'll keep him so, /That he shall not offend your majesty.” King John “Death”. Umberto “My lord?“ King John “A grave“. Umberto “He shall not live”.
As a matter of fact, when Umberto informs him (King John) about Arturo’s death, King John worries and takes back one’s word. Umberto says “ No had, my lord! why, did you not provoke me?”; and King John answer ”It is the curse of kings to be attended/By slaves that take their humours for a warrant /To break within the bloody house of life, /And on the winking of authority/To understand a law, to know the meaning /Of dangerous majesty, when perchance it frowns/ More upon humour than advised respect.”
So a great example of hypocrisy! This behaviour and the shameful death of Arturo, cause the rebellion and the distrust from people, but also from nobles. After the unexpected ( and “unfortunate”) Arturo’s death, a lot of nobles like Salisbury, Bigot, Pembroke refuse the obedience to the King. And this situation isn’t far from the “political dynamic” described by Machiavelli.
In “De contemplu et odio fugiendo”, Machiavelli says that King must be careful, because when he has a behaviour characterized by hypocrisy, superficiality, cowardice, he seriously risks the conspiracy. He must be loved by the citizens like a great and brave King; contrary, when citizens hate the king, the “coniuratio” could be very approaching! In fact, we know the end of King John: a death by poisoning.
See you tomorrow!
Giuseppe Cacciotti
Good morning!
Yesterday,in Dr.Magnus Ryan's lesson,we have talk about King John.It was a very interesting lesson. The play dramatizes several topics that would have interested Shakespeare's contemporary audience: a struggle with the papacy, the danger of invasion, and the debate about legitimate rule. These same topics were hotly debated during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Yet King John differs from Shakespeare's other histories. It portrays the thirteenth century rather than the fourteenth or fifteenth, and unlike other historical plays that were part of a series, this play stands alone. Other historical plays focused attention on the balance of power between the nobility and the king, and gave account of popular unrest; this play, by contrast, completely marginalizes the populace and does not attribute much strength to the nobles.
The real focus of the play thus becomes the question of legitimacy and fitness to rule, which turns on the relationship between John and Arthur. Arthur was the son of the previous king's eldest brother, making him the rightful heir, but John was chosen to rule by the previous sovereign. Yet in the case of the Bastard, John rules that a will cannot take precedence over the law; in that case, the father's will that his younger son receive the inheritance was overturned by the law, which stated inheritance must go to the eldest son, bastard or not. By ruling such, John unwittingly proves his own illegitimate hold on the throne, because it is based on will and not the legal right of succession.
Shakespeare proves that John is not the legitimate ruler, yet the question is complicated in the clear difference that develops between the idea of "legitimate" and "fit." Arthur is the legitimate ruler, but his portrayal as a weak child under his mother's thumb shows him to be unfit; that is, he would be a weak and ineffectual king. Because John is a stronger man, his claim on the throne begins to seem much more attractive.
This situation all gives rise to a kind of defense of illegitimacy. Toward that end, the Bastard develops as the most compelling character in the play. He enters less as a character than as a set of theatrical functions, embodying the mischievous vice figure of earlier English morality plays. He speaks to the audience and makes observations about events. Yet by the second half of the play, he becomes unswervingly loyal to the king, denouncing deals made between John and Philip, and between John and Pandolf, and criticizing the royal desire for "commodity" and self-interest. The Bastard seems to believe that Arthur's death was an accident and returns to John to defend the crown and kingdom. At this point he becomes both the rhetorical and ethical center of the play.
By supporting John, the heroic and honorable Bastard makes it look like John must be the right choice for king. But ordering the death of Arthur has tipped the balance between rightful rule and hereditary legitimacy in John's reign, and his unnecessary cruelty makes him seem unfit to rule. As the central argument is weakened, so is the hero of the play; the Bastard loses his armies in yet another watery grave, and he still wants to fight an irrelevant war with France after the others have already negotiated peace. He is not completely pushed aside--he makes the final speech of the play but while he cheers on the unconquerable force of his nation, his resolution has less to do with victory than with the well-timed collapse of both opposing forces. And while he delights in England's power, he also notes that internal conflicts could yet doom the nation.
See you soon!
M.Petriccione
Hello to all.
This time I want to comment briefly on the figure of King Richard II.
Prof. Magnus Ryan explained very well how the protagonist of the tragedy to implement a policy of the kingdom without a clear criterion.
We also know that unlike the work of "Measure for Measure", topics relate fundamentally political issues, because we start from the concept of "forced loans" and "benevolence", the presence of a court flattery, then we move to critique of kingship, which takes the form of a constitutional kingship. For this reason we have seen that Shakespeare risked very much for being caught and put in prison, as happened to John Hayward (1599).
Then Shaklespeare analyzes the inability to manage the justice of the sovereign, which uses double standards in its decisions, typical of a man fickle and unreliable.
As I said above in relation to loans forced Richard II granting excessive favors as a person whiked.
Also transpose excessive fees, and all were confiscated to cover the king.
But Richard still believes that his kingdom is the balance and that his subjects are to cooperate, which derives its right of God
And here there is an interesting analysis of Richard, rather than as sovereign, as a political leader but as spiritual leader of the Church, understood as an absolute right. In fact if you talk about all the time, saying that his "anointing" is universal, but when he understands that is losing everything he has, "his tears wipe the grease from his face." Thus, we see the human and divine, is opposed by a man who has everything, that shines like the sun, to lose everything as Jesus Christ, but does nothing to change the situation, as Pontius Pilate, who had remained property before the sentencing to death of Jesus Christ. This one was found inside of the 4th, first scene, where Richard is powerless to reality shows, shows itself incapable of having its own identity, both personal and political, stressing the similarities with King Lear, another work of Shakespeare himself. I really liked the theme of the Crusades and the subject of reversion, which created expectations of the future. Generally the end of every king of shipments was "Jerusalem." But this was in fact intended as death. Few people indeed returning, and those that were dead rich heritage left behind. And when in class we spoke of Jerusalem, I thought the analogy with Christ. He too died in Jerusalem, as the land of the final stage of the life of a man. For this reason banishes Exton Henry IV, Henry IV upon seeing Richard II's dead body, denounces the killing, though he did desire it in part, deciding to mount a Holy crusade (which he never has the opportunity to launch) as Atonement for his death . But one can not speak of Richard II, the work of the most important and complex of Shakespeare, if you do not take into account at least in broad terms, the difficult of the antinomy of human and administrative authority in the sovereign, and the reference to speculate Its divine consciousness and universal.
A.Festucci
Hi everybpdy,
Today I have attended the last lesson of Dr. Magnus Ryan.
So DUring the lesson I paid my attention on the question asked to Dr Ryan by one of my collegue.
She focused the point that in shakespeare's writings the kings are always depicted as "bad kings" and she interpreted it as an attack to elizabethan kingship.
Now I Want to know if is it possible that schakespeare, describing these models of bad kings, wanted to show to the public queen Elizabeth was the first real example of a good queen. Indeed the Victorian age is also called the "golden age" of England history.
By the way I hope that Dr Ryan, reading the blog, can answer me.
greetings,
Carlo BEllesini
Hi everybody
I would like to write a short post about "the king's two bodies". In the book of Kantorowicz there is a passage where is reported the puritan slogan "fighting the king to defend the king". This sentence astonished me and make me consider about something. In the text the aphorism is proposed as an excess, it's obvious, but it's also a logical excess of the conception of the king's two bodies: the corporal and the political one. Can be considered so absurd that a similar idea evolved in the english philosophy till Lock's "Right of revolution"? There is a germ, an underground river that starts before Shakespeare's Richard II and arrives to the famous philosopher I think. Probably it's a forced interpretation but when Richard II "peacefully" returns all the symbols of his power and he also washes away with his tears the sacred balm it's seems like he has understood that the "contract" with his subjects is loose. He has to dissolve "one of his bodies" from the beginning in order to make way for a new political structure: the right of the revolution is done because all the premises were legitimate.
About this tematic it could be very interessing to analize also the sacred figure of the Roman emperor and compare it with the medieval idea of "the king's two bodies".
I want to conclude my post saying thank you to Dr. Magnus Ryan for his interessing lessons.
See you
Francesco Mambrini
Hello everybody!!
Wednesday,in Dr.Magnus Ryan's lesson,we have talk about "Measure for Measure" by William
Shakespeare.
It was originally classified as a comedy, but is now also classified as one of Shakespeare's problem plays . The problem plays are characterised by their complex and ambiguous tone, which shifts violently between dark, psychological drama and more straightforward comic material. Dr.Magnus have esposed us the most important themes : Appearance vs. reality , Corruption , Vice vs. Piety , Temptation , Disguise ,
Moderation and mercy , Manipulation .
Appearance vs. reality
Applies to Angelo especially, whose reputation and appearance of goodness do not match the reality of who he truly is. Also applies to city of Vienna, which appears pretty and peaceful, but hides a lot of sin.
Corruption
The city in this play is corrupt, just as Angelo becomes so. This corruption seems to be the result of too much indulgence, or a belief that one will get away with one's crimes.
Several figures in the play seem to err either toward being too indulgent or too strict; the play attempts to punish those who are too licentious, and teach those who are too pious, by the time the end is reached.
Temptation
Whether a person can resist temptation is a sign of how good or wicked they actually are. Temptation plays on the tendency of human nature to be flawed and vulnerable, and those who allow themselves to be tempted too far are weak of character.
Disguise
Allows all of the Duke's machinations to take place. Without disguise, and the way the Duke uses and abuses the privileges that this disguise affords him, many events in the play would not have taken place at all.
Moderation and mercy
These are the two necessary qualities of a ruler that Angelo lacks, and which make him a poor judge. Every ruler must govern with an eye for human nature and its weaknesses, and show mercy for those who commit the same sins as the ruler himself falls victim to.
Manipulation
Key to the plot, as most of the events in the play are manipulated by the Duke. Without his manipulation of people and events, Claudio would have died, Angelo have remained unexposed, and Mariana would not have gotten married. Justice depends upon the Duke's machinations and manipulations within the play, however self-serving his actions may turn out to be.
See you soon!
F.PISCHEDDA
Hi everybody!
First of all I want to say that these three days of Shakespeare's plays analysis facinated me so much.I think it was very useful to understand a bit of common law system and also to point out the importance of history and literature to understand better law.
It is very clear Shakespeare's intention to use his plays also for criticize/describe his society.As a metter of fact we can see this in King John but also in Richard II;in both plays S. wants to show to the audience some aspects of his contemporary society, especially about the behaviours of his Queen: Elizabeth I.In king John there is a problem of legitimacy to the crown between the king and his nephew Arthur;the same thing happen with Queen Elisabeth and Mary I of Scotland who was considered the right Queen of England by English Catholics.In king John the main theme of the play is right vs might,right vs possession and a part of the play, that can give us the idea of this dichotomy,in mine opinion is in ACT IV SCENE II when Pembroke sais:
"If what in rest you have in right you hold,
Why then your fears,which,as they say,attend
The steps of wrong,should move you to mew up
Your tender kinsman,and deny his youth...".
S. wants us to think that if king John had the right to be king why he should imprison his nephew?
Today Dr. Magnus Ryan talking about Richard II also said that in this play S. is using Elizabethan's world and he is describing her governement abuses; that's why in some parts it was censored.
It is very interesting reading a play or a book looking back at the period in which it was written, especially when it talks about historical and political problems.It's good to see everything in a larger perspective.
See you on Wednesday!!
Hi everybody!
First of all I would like to sincerely thank Magnus Ryan because using literature in his lectures I’ve discovered an important part of English History. I think that one of the many differences between King John and Richard II regards the two different meanings of the word “tyrant”. King John represents the old meaning of “tyrant” as an “illegitimate ruler”, someone who has possession of the kingdom without having the right to hold it (at least until Arthur dies). Richard instead can be considered a tyrant in the modern connotation of the word. To the contrary of John, Richard is the rightful king, but he places his own interests (or the interests of only a few) over the best interests of the nation which he controls, alienating nobles and commons. In other terms as said by Gaunt (scene II act 1) : “Landlord of England are thou now, not king”. Another important difference between the two plays is also the evolution of the relationship between king and kingdom. In King John, John Lackland represents England, so at the end of the play his sickness involves the entire State; in Richard II instead, there’s the concept that king as a “deputy elected by the Lord” is something separated and sacred from the kingdom. From another point of view is very interesting to see like Shakespeare sometimes seem to refer indirectly , in these plays ,to characters of his era. For example the contrast between John and Pandulph seem to anticipate the conflict between Henry VIII and Catholic Church; there is also a parallelism between John and Elisabeth I and between Arthur and Mary Stuart; even parts of Richard II can be considered referred to certain aspects of Elisabeth’s kingdom.
See you next week!
Massimo Manzo
“… Something about King John and Richard II by William Shakespeare…”
“King John” is the dram of ambiguity, because we find the contrast between “Giovanni senza terra” and Henry V. The reason of the failure of John is the subjection for his interests, that it drags the other characters to ruine; for example The Young Arturo becomes an innocent victim, and he is from outside the plots. This play is a prologue as regards an other historical’s drams; it represents the key with which the author symbolizes the negative period of England.
In this case I think that Shakespeare is pessimist and sceptical; he is in a middle position between who describes King John as a tyrannical and who describes him as a rebel, because he is against The Pope Innocenzio III.
However we can see the violence and illegittimal rule of the King ande I find these aspects characterize the other characters of this play (for example: Queen Eleonora and Costanza).
Actually Filippo II The Bastard, son of Richard Lionheart, attracs my attention.
Infact we can see his transformation and his growth; in the last act the Bastard says:
“ and we shall shock them!naught shall make us rue
if England to itself do rest but true!”
Filippo II expresses the valours of the England’s history, that they render famous his father Richard Lionheart.
I think that we can see an analogy between this character and Robin Hood, that he is clear in the imaginary of English people.
In this opera there are many themes including possession/property, might/right; indeed “King John” represents the claim of the Barons’s Rights.
“Richard II” is a play very complicated. He is the last of Plantageneti dynasty.
I find that Richard is like King John because he really is frail and insecure.
In this case Richard turns away Bolinbroke, his potencial detractor, by exile and the confiscation of one’s property.
In conclusion I think that we can see a difference between “Merchant of Venice”, “King John” and “Richard II”; because in the first opera Shakespeare speaks about law of acreement, on the contrary in the second and in the third opera he talks about law of government.
See you the next week!!!
Federica Meglio
By!
I want focus on Richard II and his contradiction.
The best description of this figure is offer by the wife of the now overthrown king , Isabella. In act4,sc 1,she say:” the lion dying trusted four his paw…and wilt thou pupil-like take the correction mildly , kiss the rod, and fawn on rage with base humility?” Richard isn’t evil, in strict meaning, but he entrust to events. Change idea on the basis of situations that he confronts. For example. Determinate to tax blue bloods for restore the economy, that the same Richard, with his administration engendered. And he started just of his uncle Gaunt, who disregard his ability like a king. Pointedly, Richard acts on his sensibility and not for the “reasons of state”.
It’s confirm when he contend with the rebels . In the act 3 sc 2, he with resignation, says “revolt our subject? that we cannot mend” and assigns the decision at God, remark that he isn’t “born to be a king” because he isn’t a good politician. He isn’t strategist, surely!
At the end, he support his volubility when Henry became king and Richard set down his golden crown. In the act 4 sc 1 Richard expresses the concern for “loss his cure” and not for loss his kingdom. Nevertheless, he asks the throne. But only for his soul .
Daniela D’Annibale
Hello to everybody!
I would like to comment the three plays that we have read during this week and prof. Ryan's lectures. Like prof. Skill's one, even this has been a very important experience for us, surely it has been a way to know a point of view different from our.
According to prof. Conte, when he said that having lessons with "common law system" professors can help us to understand their way of using law, i would like to say that there is a very strong link between common law and history. The reason is very simple: the common law system is based on previous giurisprudencial decision, and this is a way to use the history. But i also think that even for our civil law system the history is very important. To know codifications there must be a link with the period when the code has been written.
About the first play, "Measure for measure", i think that there are two interesting points. First of all, as i said even during the lessons, i don't think that the carachter of Angelo changes himself when he becomes the first Authority in Vienna. He is a bed person from the beginning, because he broke his promise to Marianna. The authority, on a man like this, can only increase his dark side, but this is not a change, only an evolution.
Second, i would like to point out how the very stoical figure is the Duke. He is the incarnation of the Stoicism in this play. because he knows everything about Angelo's corruption and Isabella's difficult situation, but he waits the good moment to reveal all these things and to make justice. A non-stoical figure would have gone immediately to Angelo's palace to punish him!
About the two kings, Richard II and John, there are a lot of things to say. The point of view that i prefer is about their relationship with religion, that is pretty different. Richard imagines himself as a God made, put in the world to observe the Lord's orders. John does not like to have a link with the church, infact he destroies his relationship with Rome and the Pope to reach his objectives, even if he too thinks to be a creature choosen by God. This aspect is very interesting, because it can help us to understand the close link between the King and the religion. The idea, pointed out by Kantorowicz, of a King made of two bodies is the mainframe of this two Shakespeare's masterpieces.
In conclusion, i think that Richard is the true King of God, because he considers himself like "the deputy elected by the Lord". John, instead, appears more and more pragmatic, because he considers only the material aspect of his kingship ("But as we, under God, are supreme head, so, under him, that great supremacy where we do reign we will alone uphold, without th'assistance of a mortal hand").
That's all!
See you next week!
Andrea Severini
Good morning!
Another important element that I find in Richard II is the link between power and religion, because each situation has a rite of consecration. Not only the figure of the king during his ordinance, but also in the trial. In the first act, when Shakespeare describes the trial between Bolingbroke and Mowbrary, there’s too. In fact, the pattern is comparable at the Roman’s trial. Moreover, in the play there’s a solemn oath not only on “thy knighthood and thy oath” but also on heaven, on God. So, in this situation, I think that two different judicial system-civil law and common law- are related by religion.
See you soon!
Daniela D’Annibale
I do agree with Francesco M. when he stresses out the connection between Kantorowicz's analysis and the right to revolution in Locke. As regards Kantorowicz, firstly I'd like to focus on another possible parallelism, and then raise an interesting issue.
1)K. mentions Baldo degli Ubaldi,lawyer of the 14th century. I've found out a useful principle that he carried out and is deeply related to The King's Two Bodies theory: B.degli Ubaldi studied and interpreted both civil and canon law and said that "as the death of a Pope doesn't extinguish the papacy, so the kingship is immortal". The power and the danger of this statement is the comparison between the main "empires", the spiritual and the civil ones. It can't be denied that the long (and somehow differently still continuing) fight against these two powers is basically due to the fierce will to steal the opposite prerogatives. This is why the Pope used to rule even on the civil society, and the King used to behave and feel as a God.
2)My question would be: Is nowadays (referring to UK) still correct and useful talking of a twobodied-king?Where is the Body politic hidden?
A good answer is given in the very last part of chap.1 by K. and it was answered by Dr.Ryan as well. Of course the body politic has been transferred to the Parliament, whereas the King/Queen is mostly and merely a body natural,he/she keeps the "name" because -as K. quotes Justice Brown- "in this Name the King never dies".
I think it's not only nominalism, a King is human but has a heavy burden on himself:
"O, that I were as great
As is my grief, or lesser than my
[name,
Or that I could forget what I have
[been,
Or not remember what I must be now! "
(Richard II,act III scene III)
G.Luciani
Hi everybody…
This week we told about “Measure for Measure”, “King John” and “Richard II” and we saw the law as government, in particular we analyzed the stoicism and the theory of the king’s two bodies.
In “Measure for Measure” Shakespeare wants us to reflect about the degeneration of men, that can be overcome by self-control. He is inspired by stoicism: the spirit reaches the wisdom through the domain of the passion.
Angelo, the delegate of Duke, isn’t a good example of stoicism. He is a fan of rigor iuris , he applies the old laws about fornication, that provides the death penalty. But when he meets Isabella, he forgets his ideals and he wants to commit the same crime of Claudio (the fornication).
He blackmails Isabella, if she wants to save her brother, she should give herself to Angelo.
Besides Angelo was promised to Mariana, but he breached his promise. He isn’t a good judge: he punishes others for his own faults, but he is strict and cold as Isabella. She is a fan of religion, and for this reason she condemns her brother (Claudio) in the same way of Angelo. In the end Shakespeare gives a definition of tyranny, Escalus says to Angelo: looking in yourself and understand the people, otherwise you will be a tyrant.
According to theory of “the King’s two Bodies”, the king has a transcendent body that enters in the
mortal body of king through the sacred chrism. The transcendent body has divine origin, and it devolves to the new king the principles of kingship and power of his predecessors. This theory legitimizes the succession to the kingdom as the divine right: the king is a deputy of God.
In “King John” the King is England and England is the King, to accept a new king is impossible if the first is deposed with force.
See you soon...
Vanessa Malizia
HI everybody,
yesterday we have spoken about “Measure for measure”. We focused especially on the first two acts; the history started with a dialogue between the Duke of Vienna Vincentio and Escalus, his trusted councilor.
In Vienna , depravity and sexual licence , have becoming an issue and the Duke, who has decided to take a break from ruling, appoints Angelo to rule in his absence ,assisted by Escalus. The first thing Angelo does is pronounce that he is going to enforce the immorality laws to try and stump out the epidemic of “lose” living and his first occasion to do this is when a citizen , Claudio, has got his girlfriend, Juliet ,pregnant .This is considered a crime, Claudio is tried and sentenced to death. His sister, Isabella, who lives in a convent, about to take her vows as a nun, hears the news. She hurries to Angelo to beg for mercy on behalf of her brother. Angelo denies her request but as she persists he is overwhelmed by lust for her and tells her he will think about it. When she goes back the next day, he tells that he will pardon her brother if she will do sex with him. Isabella is horrified by Angelo’s proposition and refuses.
Angelo , contrary to his name, appears as a terrible ruler; Shakespeare uses this adjectives to describe him:”Strict”, ”cold”, a man whose blood is very “snow-broth”. Angelo wants to take advantage of his higher position, so in the end, he results only as a wicked person who preaches equality and justice .I Think that in this work like in the ”Merchant of Venice” there is a mixture of more themes : the mercy opposed to corruption and death ,the sacred and the profane, the sex and the political power.
The book is considered both a hoax and a serious political proposal , suggested to Giacomo first for his England , during the big social and religious crisis in the Elizabethan age (1500-1600).
A.Colorizio
26-o3-2009
Hi everybody!
First of all I would like to thank Dr. Magnus Ryan for these very interesting lessons.
I made some reflections on Shakespeare's book we discuss this week:
- Measure for measure: about this play,
a)I found very interesting the discussion between Angelo and Escalus, at the beginning of the Act II, about what kind of man should be a judge. I want to underline what Angelo says: "...The jury passing on the prisoner's life may in the sworn twelve have a thief, or two guilter than him they try. What's open made to justice, that justice seizes...". So for the law, do not really matter that the jugde is a cheater, a murderer,a thief, because he doesn't have to apply his moral, religious principles or his personal knowlegde to the case, just the law.
b)Obviously, I think the duke is a better ruler than Angelo.
Angelo is such a tyrant in many ways, first of all beacause he wants to apply a law that was never applied before, and condamn claudio for breaking it just formally (a "name", as dr. Ryan said).
The Duke is more a stoic ruler in many ways, expecially he's more indulgent with his subject (v. "De Clementia" of Seneca, a stoic philosopher).
- King John
This play is absolutely about right and possession:
a)King John is not a righful ruler, he knows and even Arthur's omicide can't make him the true king.
He just has possession of his reign.
b)He's identified with England: as England is raveged by the war, he feels sick.
- Richard II
a)Richard II is a legitimate king, instead, but he's such a very bad ruler: at the beginning of the play, he do not make a jugdement; he always change his mind(..."Thy sad aspect hath from the number of his banished years plucked four away..."); he spends more time talking about himself than governing; "...more hath he spent in peace than they (nobles) in wars..."; he raise the taxes; but above all, he seized Bolingbroke's heritage. By making this, he negates himself and his reign, digging his own grave; take a look at what York says in Act II, scene I : "...for how art thou a king but by fair sequence and succession?..."
Bolingbroke in a very good ruler, instead: good speaker, fake humble, policy maker, a man of decisions, etc...
b)It's very interesting what John Gaunt says, in Act II, scene I, too:"...Landlord of England art thou now, not king. Thy state of law in bondslave to the law...".
That makes a very powerful parallelism with what shakespeare wrote in King John.
In both these plays, Richard II and King John, I found:
1)Passive characters (Richard II, King John) vs Active characters (Bolingbroke, The bastard).
2)Religius character predicting the future (Cardinal Pandulph, Bishop of Carlisle)
3)The danger to kill a king
Bye!
Andrea Marangoni
I find very interesting the description, in “King John”, of the mediaeval material constitution’s crisis: in times of new political considerations, the force of the tradition, the royal power’s sacrality and the religious-symbolic rite of coronation aren’t enoughes.
There is a vulnus for material constitution, but a changeable coalition devoid of a real strategic vision left every think as it was: the political context is unchanged in spite of ruthless murders.
So, also in “Richard II”, even if in first Bolingbroke is fighting for the Change, then we have simply and only the classic power’s self-conservation mechanism.
After all, the constitution is the result of political balances and you can’t to overthrow the old order without to reconcile opposing requirements: here the principal difference between the failure Cromwell’s Revolution and the following English “Glorious Revolution” of 1689!
See you next week!
Valerio Marinelli
Hi evrybody,
this week I attended Dr Ryan's lesson and i've some considerations to do about sheakspeare's historycal drams.
King jhon's play, hits me for the sentence:"Strong reason make strong action", spoken by Louis as the finale couplet at the very end of actry scene IV.
I found a very intersting character Hubert de Burgh, specially when his nature as been shown by two opposite scenes:the tentation scene", when jhon shows that he wishes to kill Arthur, and the "save scene", when Hubert has mercy on his nephuw and decides that he won't kill him.
The character of the Bastard isn't so clear to me, I can't understand his function.
Respact to Richard II, I think that it's a good example of law and lecterature, spacially politic and lecterature. It's a politically subversive play: Richard represents Queen Elisabeth. In effect, the play was considered a dangerous political commentary on the monarchy. The play examinates the conflict between the legal and divin right, and the effectiveness of the rules. Richard is believed to be the legal rightfull ruler of England, ordained by god (the king's two bodies). Yet he's also shown to be a weak and ineffective king who focuses more upon the apparences, rather than the responsabilities of kingship. It's unclear if Sheakspeare is favored Richard and divine right to rule over Bolingbroke, backed by the support of the people. This character ex decisively and, arguable, with moral justifications. Contrappositions "Richard vs. Bolingbroke", "political ambitions vs. noble motivations" remain unsolved, like the questions: Richard is weak or evil? Overthrown or selfdeposed? Bolingbroke's are political or personal? He's and usurper or the man who saved England from ruin?
While reading it, we must consider themes like the merits of keeping a bad ruler in office and if it's better for a country to continue with the status quo, or to malke changes. Actually, I think it isn't just a medieval English history's problem, 'cause it's also a constant issue today.
See you next week,
Bye!
F. Lanfranconi
Hi again!
I would like to answer to valerio marinelli's comment: I agree with you when you say that, despite ruthless murders, there's no change in the political context.
That's very interesting to read in Richard II: despite Bolingbroke acts like a modern ruler, when he become king he starts acting like Richard, using the same weapons, feeling the same things. For example, when Exton says that he heard the King saying that he has no friend to rid him "of this living fear". There's definitely a sort of empathy with Richard.
Than I would like to say few words on the theory of king's two bodies: I think there's is just one body: Richard is himself just being a king, he has nothing and he is nothing without his crown.
Bye!
Andrea Marangoni
hello everyone
I was very impressed about Dr. Magnus Ryan's lessons about "measure for measure", "king John" and "Richard III"...Though the analysis we all made toghether in class, I thought about a question: why did Shakespeare create plays with Kingships, and so different kingships between themselves? After Henry IV, HenryV, King John, King Lear, Richard II and Richard III Shakespeare wanted to analise all the kind of kinship tha had existed in England troughout the years passing by. In fact, in Richard II we see that Richard's beliefs about the Divine Right of Kings tend to fall more in line with the medieval view of the throne. Bolingbroke on the other hand represents a more modern view of the throne, arguing that not only bloodline but also intellect and political savvy contribute to the makings of a good king. Richard believes that as king he is chosen and guided by God, that he is not subject to human frailty, and that the English people are his to do with as he pleases. Elliott argues that this mistaken notion of his role as king ultimately leads to Richard's failure. Elliot goes on further to point out that it is Bolingbroke's ability to relate and speak with those of the middle and lower classes that allows him to take the throne.So here we face a very bad, superficial kingship. As we can also see in Richard III, in dramatic terms, perhaps the most important feature of the play is the sudden alteration in Richard's character. For the first 'half' of the play, we see him as something of an anti-hero, causing mayhem and enjoying himself hugely in the process:
I do mistake my person all this while;
Upon my life, she finds, although I cannot,
Myself to be a marvellous proper man.
I'll be at charges for a looking-glass;
Almost immediately after he is crowned, however, his personality and actions take a darker turn. He turns against loyal Buckingham , he falls prey to self-doubt, now he sees shadows where none exist and visions of his doom to come.
With two different kings and types of kingship, Shakespears wants us to focus on a new kind of king , demonstrating us what's wrong and not telling us explicitely how should a king be a good, loyal, fair king. Could this be a demonstration of a modern, nowadays democracy-thinking (witch didin't exist at that century)?
I think that Shakespeare, in 1590's, had a new, brillant idea of how a country had to be governated...who nows the truth!! :)
see you!
Astrid FIENGO
I also agree with you, dear Andrea, about your interpretation of the theory of king’s two bodies: Richard is himself just being a king and he is nothing without his crown.
In fact, his new social condition is refused from Richard with the theatrical breaking of the mirror (clear assonance with mediaeval “Specula Principis”).
So, about Richard’s horrible end, I’d like to cite a passage from the biography (written by Angelo Del Boca) of the last Ethiopian emperor, Hailé Selassié, murdered like Richard after his deposition from the throne and during his captivity (exactly as Richard II!): when he was murdered from conspirators, “Hailé Selassié already isn’t the God’s Elect, the Negus Neghesti, the Lion of Judas, the 225th Emperor of Ethiopia. He is only a poor undefended creature… whispering prayers that inspires compassion. So, his murder gives rise to so much repugnance”.
See you
Valerio Marinelli
Hi,
there's a message in Measure and measure ("dark") play: it derives from Hamlet's world.
The big social, politic, religious and scientific crisis who shakes between the ens of '500 and the beginning '600 is on the base of Measure and Measure too; and if this work of art's nature is suggested by corruption and death image that run along the language, or frailty and weakness of every boundary (for example the character of Angelo) between good and evil, virtue and vice, it' s given back explicit by a "theatricality" that works a total desecration of values.
We have to ask between ourselves if the creation of the "honest" Duke as a potrait of good governor where James I , first work of art representation's spectator, should aknowledge himself is a warning and in the same time a practical joke; a serious politic proposal and, also, a deriding tub-thumper challenge against estabilished powers.
Michele Viti
Something about "Measure for measure, King John and Richard II"
First of all I think Magnus Ryan made very interesting and amusing lessons and I want to thank him for the time he dedicated to us.
Then I want to say something about the plays we spoke about during this week:
-MEASURE FOR MEASURE: we focused on the figures of Angelo and Isabella. In a first lecture they seems completely different(Isabella the good syster who immediately goes to Angelo to try to convert him from the purpose of killing Claudio; and on the other side Angelo,the bad king, the fun of "rigor iuris")but in a deeper analysis we can see the same temperament:both are cold and very strict(In ACT II SCENE II Lucio describes Isabella as " too cold" and Angelo as "strict, cold, straight" and as "snow- broth"). Angelo is strict in the way as he looks at the law, disregarding of equity ( he recovers the decret that punish fornication only to execute Claudio) while Isabella is strict in the way she put her chastity upon the death of her brother( she doesn't grant her body to Angelo to save Claudio).
-KING JOHN AND RICHARD II: I focus my attention on the analogys of these two plays in particular both the kings are in contradiction with themself, they are uncertain, insecure and they are not the incarnation of the right king but the ideal of the heroic king is rapresented by Enrico V in "King John" and by Bolingbroke in "Richard II".
Besides in the both plays there is the theme of the nobles' rebellion and Kantorowicz's theory of the "King's two bodies": in "king John" when England is sick also John is sick(England and John are the same body) and in "Richard II" the king is seen as God and his institution coming from a divine right.
Bye
See you wednesday
hi there,
Measure for measure
I made a kind of list about the passages focused on offenses against moral and temporal law, on the administration of justice, and on the severity of punishment for lawbreakers, one of whom–Claudio–faces a death sentence for impregnating his sweetheart. Consequently, much of the imagery in the play focuses on these and related matters.
Here some examples:
We must not make a scarecrow of the law,
Setting it up to fear1 the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it
Their perch and not their terror. (2. 1. 3-6)
In a metaphor, Angelo compares the law to a scarecrow.
Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall. (2. 1. 43)
Escalus, using paradox and irony, says that some people gain status by doing wrong and that others lose status by doing right.
They say, best men are moulded out of faults;
And, for the most, become much more the better
For being a little bad. (5. 1. 451-453)
In a paradox, Mariana says the best men are a “little bad.”
O, it is excellent
To have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant. . . . (2. 2. 133-135)
In an implied metaphor, Isabella compares the power of the law to a giant’s strength. In a simile, she compares Angelo’s use of the law to a giant’s use of his strength.
If I must die,
I will encounter darkness as a bride,
And hug it in mine arms. (3. 1. 91-93)
In a metaphor-personification, Claudio compares darkness to a bride.
He who the sword of heaven will bear
Should be as holy as severe. (3. 2. 112-113)
In a metaphor, Duke Vincentio compares the moral law to a heavenly sword wielded by the enforcer of the law.
Andrea Petroni
Hi everybody,
i want to say something about Richard the second.
The main issues in the play are all rather interrelated and focus on the nature of kingship; whether Richard is deposed by Bolmgbroke or deposes himself; and the characterization of Richard and Bolmgbroke. The play examines the conflict between the legal and divine right to rule, and the effectiveness of the ruler. Richard is believed to be the legal, rightful ruler of England, ordained by God. Yet he is also shown to be a weak and ineffective king who focuses more upon the appearances, rather than the responsibilities, of kingship. Bolingbroke acts decisively and, arguably, with people. It is unclear whether or not Shakespeare favored Richard and the divine right to rule over Bolingbroke and the effective use of political power, wielded with the consent of the people.
The work marks the transition from an absolutist ideology to a more constitutional one, under the double meaning attached to the term "body politic". It identifies both immortal metaphysical entity, as a collective entity that contains all the English people .
About this,Shakespeare says:”the other is a Body politic,and the members thereof are his subjects,and he and his subjects are togheter compose the corporation,..and he is incorporated with them, and they with him and he is the Head,and they are the Members,and he has the Governament of them:and his body is not subject to Passion as the other is,or not to Death,for us to this body the King never dies,and his natural Death is not called in our Law..the Death of the king,but the Demise of the king,not signifying by the Word(Demise)that the body politic of the King is dead,but that there is a Separation of the two bodies,and that the Body politic is transferred and coveyed over from the Body natural now dead ,or now removed from the Dignity royal,to another Body natural”.
When acting as a human being subjected to the law, the sovereign is only one of its members, although this regard, the body politic. When acting as a king, however, he represents the kingdom and is therefore above the law.
In this perspective, "subjected", a term with which Richard is defined in the third act can be interpreted in the sense of "made subject" rather than the absolute sovereign, the king is subject to the law as part of the body politic ,he is considered a part of the “collectivity”.The difference between this type of king and Bolingroke is summarized in a bar of the gardener:
“their fortunes both are weigh'd;/in your lord's scale is nothing but himself/And some few vanities that make him light/but in the balance of great Bolinbroke,Besides himself are all the English peers,/And with that odds he weighs King Richard down(act 3,scene 4)”.
In other words Bolingbroke attempts to obtain consensus about the British without using his power, considering himself as a primus inter pares, in a relationship of reciprocity, even if placed inside a monarchical system.
A.Colorizio
Hi everybody!
I found lectures of this week very interesting for the way that prof. Ryan spoke us about the link between law and politics throught three Shakespeare’s masterpieces : “Measure for measure”, ”King John” and “Richard II”.
In all these plays there is a ruler (a real king or a deputy like Angelo in “Measure for measure”) but the characters are so different:
-Angelo, in Measure for measure, was delegated by the duke to government, he thinks he has a lot of self control and he is a champion of rigor and restraint, but the vicissitudes will show the opposite. Angelo exercises his power rigidly, using a strict (severe) interpretation of law, besides his power is unclear in its limits and it is temporary. Therefore, duke’s intervention is necessary to the development of the story (like a “deus ex machina”); infact, when Angelo discovers his passion for Isabella, the play seems to have a moment of stasis.
-The “borrow’d majesty” is King John’s centre. His kingship was based more on the strength than on the right, this is highlighted by Shakespeare early from the first act (I, I, 39). John is a tyrant, he feels legitimized by crown’s possession: in act II, I, 273 he says: “Doth not the crown of England prove the king?”.
-The Richard’s II sovereignty is based on the concept of the “king by divine right”. In the play he talks about himself and about his kingship, he believes that his power is legitimated because God put him on the throne. In this play there is the king’s two bodies theory, and the climax scene is, at the end, when John asked for a mirror but he cannot see without his title and he broke it! Richard II feels nothing without his crown!
At the end of this speech I would observe that: the plays, in this order, seem to increase gradually the intensity degree of power of each one ruler. From Angelo, temporary regent, to Richard (kingdom by divine right) passing through king John.
See you on Wednesday!
Silvia Faranca
Hi everybody,
As we talked in class about three Shakespeare’s masterpieces, thanks to professor Ryan, I just wanted to point out something about “Richard II”: a drama composed by William Shakespeare in 1595 and based on the life of King Richard II of England, last of the Plantagenets.
This play particularly impressed me as there is a wonderful description of the king, connected to power:
Richard II the king of pain, betrayed by his own friends, accuser of his enemies makes his royal decline similar to the passion of Christ: so that his abdication is in reality his true coronation ... (III , ii, 174-176)
"I live with bread, like you: feel want,
Taste grief, need friends. Subject thus,
How can you say to me I am a king? "
The concept, that emerges about the policy, is very important: the sovereign power derives directly from God, so the monarch is held responsible only upwards and not towards the temporal powers. Shakespeare uses also Gaunt to show his passionate patriotism (II, i, 40-42):
“This royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise…”
In the final scene of Richard II we can find a clue of Kantorowicz ‘s theory(1928): the doctrine of the two bodies.
According to him the mortal and fallible nature must be distinguished from the other immortal and free from failings, which are fused into a single whole during the incoronation, so that the king represents both of them on the earth.
This theory seems to be verified in the mirrors scene.
See you tomorrow, regards,
Pierluigi Oddone
Hi everybody!
About last week lessons i just want to note something that i found about Richard II and i consider very interesting.The tragedy was born from the conflict between two conceptions of the world.One medieval of Richard II:the king,choosed by God,has to be onorated and supported only because he is the king,not because of his qualities.The other conception comes from the Renaissance and belongs to Bolingbroke:the king must be judged by his efficiency.This is why Bolingbroke is more suitable for that historical moment,his personality is strong and for him is more important the purpose than the means to attain it.
Richard is in contrast to Bolingbroke :he is a refined person,a moody man and in the meantime he has an important position but not the natures to be a good king.He takes more care to the means than to the purpose.
Richard represent the past,tired,that survive only for the outward appearances and Bolingbroke is the present and the future that wins on it.This represent a change and a passage from a medieval conception to a Renaissance conception about the roll of the king.
Moreover the tragedy is a personal and double betrayal for Richard that betrays himself with doubtful choises and his manners that betray him in the end.In fact,in act IV,1st scene he says:"but they can see a sort of traitors here.Nay,if i turn mine eyes upon myself,i find myself a traitor with the rest".
Giulia Giacomini
Hi everybody,
I'm enthusiast of this course, I can really feel how university's courses has to be.I love all that interaction.
But let's talk about Richard II. I was reading that in reality he was crowned when he was only 11..of course he was a wicked king! and of course he had followed bad advises! He was just a child!
I'm feeling thrilled to get the next lesson
See you
Flavia Graziano
Hi everybody,
thanks to the lectures of the Dr. Magnus Ryan we analyzed others operas of the author William Shakespeare. About the work “Measure for Measure” the first thing I noticed is the Title itself. Someone thinks it could have been inspired by the “Vangelo secondo Matteo” : with the judgment you use to judge, you will be judged, and the measure which you use to measure with, you will be measured. The professor Ryan underlined how this title wants to evoke the balance, similar to the “legge del taglione”. Moreover in this work it was really interesting to analyze the figure of Angelo in contraposition to the one of Escalo. Angelo, after becoming Vicar of the Duck decides to evoke an old edict, which was not used anymore, to punish the crime of fornication of Claudio, and to show his wish to use again rules not applied for a long time, rules which are derided more than feared. He tries to become a model of morality (“Scarce confesses that his blood flows) but he gives in to passions. In contraposition there is Escalo who sides with Claudio trying to ask mercy for him. And also his opinion of Pompeo is characterized by the application of the equity.
It’ s curious to see Angelo’s vision that about the judge. He thinks the law is not interested in robbers who condemn other robbers. He says that, his judgement will create an antecedent to accuse himself if he makes the same crime in the future. Escalo tries to have a more accommodative vision explaining that also a moral man as Angelo could make the same crime and that the penalty that has been inflicted to Claudio could have been excessively.
Riccardo Varano
Amazing! I found these lesson of Prof.Magnus Ryan brilliant! Actually, I adore Shakespeare theatre and I could never imagine to study his plays founding a connection with the subject of my studies...by the way, I appreciated very much the contents of Richard II and I would like to underline the personalty of the king in the whole act.
As Prof Ryan says, there are frequent refernces between the figure of the king Richard II and Jesus Christ during the all play. It seems like Shakespeare would stress the importance and the supremacy of the kingship but at the same time he doesn't take part of him, he simply lets the characters express the different shapes of his thoughts.
Richard II is a king that is betrayed by his allies, as Jesus Christ by his disciples; Richard II is surrounded by flatters (as Nortummberland says in the play) and so was Jesus. There are many refers of the classical cliché of the passion of Christ, as to compare the figure of Richard to a king who is chosen by God.
In Richard II the image and the problems associated with power and kingship are wider than in King John, beacuse for Shakespeare Richard II represents Elisabeth I while King John is the personification of England. The last thing I would say is the importance of the word "benevolence"used by Shakespeare in the play "Richard II": John Hayward, using this word refering to queen Elisabeth, had been arrested and put in trial by the lawyers of Common Law, while Shakespeare used many times this word without having problems beacuse he let the characters express different points of view.
Giuseppe GALANTI
HI everybody,
First of all I want to say that I found these lessons very interesting and fascinating.
In all of these plays there are
very interesting and current subjects (like the contrastbetween justice and equity, or
between might and right…), but I prefer “King John”, because in this play I found a complex picture of the tyrant (exactly
King John) who is at the same time executioner but also victim. When only the blood could give the right to reign, he took
this right by pouring innocent blood (Arturo), but this action brings him to defeat and he
become victim of himself. This play is dominated by blood and
violence; there isn't a reason, all is entrusted to the randomness.
So I think it is curious that the main character is
exactly King John, who promulgated the Magna Charta (one of the ever
most important rules collection, where it is written for the
first time that also the king must to be subject to the laws). At the end i believe that in "King John" there is no place for the law:
the might pravail on the right, the might also giustify the right (Act I,scene I,
lines 17-28: "The Proud control of fierce and bloody war, to enforce these right so forcibly withheld"; "Scateneremo una guerra
feroce e sanguinosa per far valere i diritti con la forza usurpati"), the violence also call other violence (Act I, scene I, lines 19-20:"Here have we war for war and blood for blood, controlment for controlment. So answer France"; "E noi ribatteremo alla guerra con la
guerra, al sangue con il sangue, alla forza con la forza").
See you later
Enrico Veri
Dear All,
I’d like to add something about King John’s play.
First of all, I found the struggle between kingship and papacy very interesting, as I believe it is one of the inspiration motive of this drama. In a way, it reveals, at a very earl stage, some elements of the " Protestant Reform " that will take shape fully during the reign of Henry VIII.
The Bastard is certainly the most dynamic and active character of the play, though he is not a character of historical relevance. Probably, Shakespeare introduces him mainly to enliven the play.
Many of you have already written on this figure; I would like to focus my intervention on the way in which Shakespeare introduces this character and on the references he makes to the Roman law.
The Bastard, who has a relevant part in this play, appears at the beginning of ACT 1 – SCENE 1.
He says:
“Your faithful subject I, a gentleman
Born in Northamptonshire and eldest son,
As I suppose, to Robert Faulconbridge,
A soldier, by the honour-giving hand
Of Coeur-de-lion knighted in the field.”
He introduces himself to King John as the firstborn of Robert Faulconbridge. He explains his position in a dispute between himself and Robert, who states that the other (the Bastard) is not the son of his own father and thus has no right to inherit.
It is interesting to notice how, in an age in which no DNA tests existed, the actual fatherhood was based merely on the resemblance between father and son. This also explains the Bastard’s answer to Robert:
“Your face hath got five hundred pound a year,
Yet sell your face for five pence and 'tis dear.”
Shakespeare criticizes John in many parts of the drama but he describes him as an expert in Roman law, as well as a legislator.
When Robert explains that the father of the Bastard is King Richard, he says :
“large lengths of seas and shores
Between my father and my mother lay,
As I have heard my father speak himself,
When this same lusty gentleman was got.”
The reference to “large lengths of seas” is due to the fact that, according to the Roman law, a son was considered to be illegitimate (a bastard) if the alleged father was far away at moment of the conception.
King John answers “pater est quem nuptiae demostrant”, as if he wanted to teach a principle of “family law” to the (unpleasant) Robert! Which is an additional reason why I believe this passage is a good example of link between law and humanities in Shakespeare.
See you!
Laura Di Bartolomeo
Hi everybody!
I write about "measure for measure" and in particular way about a character, Angelo ( what a curios name for him!) and his actiones.
In this play tha law is the law: the bawdyhouses are closed, the adulterers are sentenced to death.Between them there is the young Claudio.He does sex with the woman that he loves and she becomes a pregnant woman, so he must die.
Isn't important that he loves her, law is law and Angelo reads it in a letteral way.The law is more important of "mercy" and for this reason Claudio must die, but...
he has a sister, Isabella.She is a novice, and for her the castity's vote is asupreme present...What does Angelo?he proposes to settle by a compromise, what?
Angelo wants her body for Claudio's life.Angelo is the law, but he is a crudel and wrong law, he insists on letteral law and his application...as is written and so, must be doing...but for him the rules are different.
He can be to unfaithful to law, he can ask to novice of do things that the law forbides, things that are punished with the death!!!
Angelo is the hipocrisy, he uses the hipocrisy, its becomes for him virtue.
In Angelo we can found a trasformation, befoore when he was without power and than...
and if we paraphrase a very famouse sentence:
the power wears who...has its!
Shakespeare in a mirable way talks about the life and its monsters...again he shows the reality and our (or his) corrupt society,
Valentina Carafa
Hello! I think that the comedy "Measure for Measure" is interesting for the multiplicity of issues facing as policy and ethics, piety and anger and above all justice and piety. In fact, tells about the Duke of Vienna who intends to leave the city and instructed Angelo, a man considered just and austere, to govern in its place, but the Duke does not really leave the city, decides to dress by friar to see how things are going and control The reign of Angelo, who did not show just how well sembra. After different braids and corruption, the opera ends with the return of the Duke, by an act of piety obliges Angelo to marry rather than to condemn it death.
Giorgia Ciucci
Hi everybody!
I would like to say something about this three Shakespeare's lecture.
They are about goverance, expecially bad governance. I think it's very interesting that Shakespeare seems to not choose one of his leading characters
as a model to follow in the way of govern.
For exemple, in Richard II we can compare Richard to Bolingbroke. As some of my mates said, Richard was a very bad ruler: he raises taxes, spends money for the etiquette insted of for the war. He's a sort of an aesthete, always talking
about himself (as God's depute) and his crown.
His alter ego, Bolingbroke, seems to be the other face of the medal, but in fact he is not, beacause:
1)despite of his vices, Richard was a legitimate king
2)Bolingbroke, as he took the crown, turn his manners into dark ones, acting like richard did.
In measure and measure, we can see the tension between Angelo and Escalus:
the first one rapresents the rigor iuris (as Dr. Magnus Ryan said) by applying the law in a very formalistic way, just a "name". He lacks of humanity. He rapresents also hipocracy of political power, because he couldn't practice what
he preached.
Escalus, insted, for more serious crime, just lets Pompey get away from the law.
Lorenzo Librandi
bye!
I write my MOV's comment again in this post, as dott. Gialdroni has suggests.
Hi everybody
In "Measure for Measure" the main difference is that the protagonist, Angelo, acts in himself as the representative of the State. He is the judge who applies a drastic punishment to the letter, without consideration of mitigating circumstances. He sentences Claudio to death, a verdict accepted by all as the law of the land. Its harshness provokes pleas for mercy on the part of influential friends who are refused. Angelo is tempted into committing the same crime as Claudio, and corrupting an innocent party in good faith, afterwards breaking his promise. The Duke , who had instated Angelo as his deputy, applies the law of "Eye for an eye" and resolves the situation with the use of pardon.
Some interesting observations arise from the comparison of the plays. Shakespeare's primary interest is the characterization and his "lawyears" are people, not just mouthpieces for legal quibbles.
In both plays the law of the State is rigidly and unquestioningly held. In "The Merchant of Venice" it is the astuteness and brilliant intellingence of the lawyer that holds the interest; in "Measure for Measure" we have the portrait of a corrupt judge. This provokes some interesting questions for lawyers:- is brilliant intellingence necessary to succed in Law?
Is it essential for a lawyer to hold a certain moral code and live a blameless life before being admitted to practice law? Are mitigation and pardon automatically to be considered as options? "The Merchant of Venice" is subjective but "Measure for Measure" is objective, and provokes the moral question concerning lawyears.
see you tomorrow!
Lorenzo Librandi
Hi all!
I would like to say something about “king John” ,which from a literary point of view can be considered an “immature” work of Shakespeare (especially if we confront it to Richard II), but at the same time could give us some historical and political ideas about the kingdom of John Lackland. The war with king Philip of France (technically John was his vassal) and the consequent rebellion of the English barons, in fact, represents a political “breaking point” against the centralism which, until that moment, characterized the English monarchy compared to the French one. From the concession of the Magna Charta in 1215, English nobles will have a much influential political role in English history. John is the first king who ushers in a different constitutional order in England. It is also interesting to see how the conflict between John and Arthur was born from a juridical problem very common during feudalism: the disagreement about the succession between nephew and uncle. From another point of view, the figure of John Lackland (traditionally known as very negative) has recently been re-evaluated by some historians, which consider his way of ruling not better or worst than Richard I or Henry III ‘s.
Massimo Manzo
Hello!!
In a large production of works such as Shakespeare, who has come to suspect that the author was someone else with a great culture, there are different periods.
In the years prior to 1601, the fervor of the poet showing a recognition of positive values of life as in the brilliant sentimental counterpoint of "The Merchant of Venice".
A pessimistic conception characterizes the second and most prestigious period of the Shakespearean theater, from 1601 to 1608, years in which was born "Measure for Measure."
About this work,the Professor Magnus explained that the names used by Shakespeare are actually concepts, for example: Angelo is a "delegate / deputy" and Lucio "breach of promise."
The problems discussed in this work are vain mercy and fornication where affect law and politics and law and government.
The title "Measure for Measure" is thinking about the "law of the talion" consisting of the opportunity accorded to a person who has received an insult to impose to injury a penalty equal to the offender received (eye for eye, tooth for tooth). Equity for me is synonymous with perfect justice, because the application of a rule without taking account of the concrete case diminishes the sense of justice.
Curious is the view of Angelo who initially preached respect for the law and after become vice-duke he transgresses!!
See you..
Giorgia Ciucci
Hi everybody
THE LAW AND THE KING
From the point of view of humanities It can be said that "office reveals the person". This was amply demonstrated by Shakespeare in "Measure for Measure" in the character of Angelo, and can also be applied to the protagonists of his historical plays, which were based on historical rather than invented personages. Equity is applied when the law cannot fit the case but there is only a thin line between being a tyrant and being just. King John is to be examined against the Feudal System.In the feudal triangle the weak swore fealty to the strong, who swore in their turn to protect them. The king, being the apex of the triangle, was, more than any other, obliged to protect his subjects and to consider their good before his own. John fell short of his duties in three ways which could be consider crimes:- territorial loss to Philip of France (Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Brittanyy); the Interdict of Pope Innocent III- the result of his refusal to accept Stephen Langland as archbishop of Canterbury- which left his subjects without the religious structure of the Church and the Sacraments. (John's reaction was to impound Church estates and tax the clergy); civil war when Magna Carta attempted to control the exercise of the Crown's feudal rights including a specific statement of respect for the ancient liberties of the Church...
Richard II suffered from an exaggerated notion of his office and the Divine Right of Kings.As in the case of John, (and Angelo), when the source of the law is one and the same with the person who controls it, crimes can result. According to Montesquieu, born from the crimes of those in absolute power is the principle of the separation of power- or rebellion. The weak king had some succes with his rebels but broke his promises and had his enemies killed or banished, and their estates confiscated. Rchard had inherited his throne in direct succession to four kings, which encouraged his aim of absolute despotism against the growing ideas that all parts of the body politic should stand in mutual intelligence and interdependence under the just limits and conditions of sovereign authority.The banishment of Bolingbroke, the war in Ireland, the public announcement of his crimes and parliamentary declaration resulted in his deposition. He died in prison.What was emerging from the political unrest was a triangular system in which each power was equally strong in counterbalance to the others:- Legislation-Parliament
- Executive -Government
- Tribunal of justice
In the absence of this power, and also if the people do not recognize the source of the power of the leader, It will be necessary to change the system by rebellion, because there is no other way out.Later, English monarchs were controlled by strong parliaments and bloody revolution, like the French and Russian Revolutions, was avoided. However, the old imbalance continued in colonization, resulting in the Home Rule and Freedom movements of our times.
See you tomorrow!
Lorenzo Librandi
Posta un commento