Someone asked this a while back: What is the difference between a democracy and a republic.
Here’s the most fundamental difference:
A Republic is government by law while a democracy is government by the majority rule.
A couple of websites explore the difference between the two terms in some detail:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm
Articles online on the subject:
Power and authority are themes at the center of Macbeth. It is a political play that raises questions about rights and responsibilities, the need for order and the circumstances under which disorder and rebellion are acceptable, if ever. It also, in a particularly interesting way, questions the nature of kingship and power.
Shakespeare explores the conflict of power when Macbeth, apparently loyal to his king, is told that he will become king himself. Macbeth’s reaction to this news, and his wife’s reaction, perhaps to an even greater extent, emphasize the extent to which power can entice people to act selfishly, cruelly, and deceitfully.
When Macbeth murders Duncan, inspired to do so by his wife, he commits one of the most grievous acts of betrayal according to the philosophies of Shakespeare’s day. He not only murders his king, but he murders a man who is both his friend and his kinsman (Macbeth is related to Duncan). The Porter’s quip about the coldness of hell is no mistake; the ninth circle of hell, which was believed to be cold (not your usual fire and brimstone) was reserved for those who betrayed family members.
In many respects, Macbeth is timeless. It stands as a succinct and poignant declaration that the seizure and abuse of power are against God’s law and man’s; that legitimacy is generally determined by a combination of qualities and cannot simply be established on the basis of one element, such as descent. There should also be some consideration as to the character and qualifications of the individual.
As a political play, however, Macbeth also maintains a particular focus on 16th century problems. James I of England (James VI of Scotland) no doubt appreciated this particular drama because (1) it is set in and about Scotland, (2) it emphasizes the evils of regicide , (3) it features witchcraft (an interest of James’), and (4) it shows in a positive light the relatively peaceful transfer of the English throne from Elizabeth I to James.
Henry Tudor’s victory at Bosworth Field was an unlikely outcome. The young earl of Richmond had lived in exile abroad since he was fourteen years old. He also had a relatively weak claim to the throne and a modest army of supporters, some 2000 mercenaries and a handful of rebells . His opponent, Richard III, was an experienced military leader. He commanded the larger of the two armies and he also had a strong claim to the throne.
The causes of Richard’s defeat are easy to pinpoint. First, there was Margaret Beaufort, Henry’s mother. This formidable woman, who gave birth to Henry when she was just thirteen years old, had married a powerful nobleman, Lord Stanley. Stanley was her forth husband and more than likely, this was a marriage of convenience, putting Margaret in a position to drum up support for her son. Notably, she conspired with the widow of Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville, when it became apparent that Richard was determined to hold on to the throne and that his nephews were more than likely dead.
Although Stanley initially sided with Richard, on the battlefield, he had an apparent change of heart and stepped in to assist his son-in-law.
Second, there was the small matter of the of the princes in the tower. Richard had a very strong blood claim to the throne and evidence that his nephews were illegitimate. Public opinion turned against him, however, when the murder of the princes became public knowledge. Evidence of a precontract, invalidating the marriage between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was compelling, but the death of the princes, proven or otherwise, was enough to present Richard as a ruthless tyrant. It undercut many years of loyal service to his brother, Edward IV, and his strong track record as a landowner and military leader in the north of England.
Two years into Richard’s reign, in 1485, Henry Tudor received financial support to orchestrate a rebellion and was convinced that he would be able to drum up sufficient support to challenge Richard. In addition to 2000 hired mercenaries, Henry could count of the support of the Earl of Oxford and his uncle, Jasper Tudor, who also brought together a small band of followers from within England.
Henry landed in Pembrokeshire on August 7th and began to march through Wales towards Richard’s army, situated near Nottingham.
As a central location, the town of Nottingham afforded Richard something of a strategic advantage. He had been aware of the planned invasion for some time and knew he had to reach the rebels quickly, wherever they landed. Given the mood in the country at the time, time would certainly work against the king. He was aware of the waverying loyalties among the nobility, many of whom were disturbed by the disappearance of Edward IV’s sons. In particular, Lord Stanley asked to be able to return home to his estates when it became clear that Henry Tudor was approaching with an army.
Stanley’s loyalties were clearly divided and Richard only agreed to let him return home if he agreed to leave his son in Richard’s custody, as a hostage for his father’s good behavior.
While Richard began collecting together his army, however, Lord Stanley and his brother, Sir William Stanley, did little to intervene on Richard’s behalf. They did not attempt to stop Henry Tudor’s progress towards Richard, for instance.
Richard had the support of several key noblemen, including the Duke of Norfolk and his son, and the Earl of Surrey. On the other hand, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, was doing little to raise an army from among his men and many other nobles were likewise ignoring the royal summons. Whether this was due to their negative opinion of Richard or their unwillingness to go on fighting after several decades of such discord, it is difficult to say. Support, however, was not forthcoming to either Richard or Henry to the extent that they had each expected.
On August 22nd, Richard and Henry prepared to fight near the village of Market Bosworth. By that point, Richard commanded approximately 9000 men. Henry Tudor had roughly 5000. Hedging their bets were Sir William Stanley and Thomas, Lord Stanley with 6000 men between them.
Ultimately, the outcome of the battle was decided quickly. According to Polydore Vergil, a prominent chronicler of the period, the battle lasted about two hours. The Stanleys were notably non-committal but it seemed that many of the noblemen commanding armies were reluctant to fight for either side without having some sense of who was likely to triumph.
In reality, Richard was the favorite — right until the last minute. First, the Duke of Norfolk, one of Richard’s key supporters, was killed. This apparently produced some cries from among Richard’s men that they should flee.
Richard, however, decided to seize an opportunity to kill Henry Tudor himself, who was somewhat exposed in the midst of the fighting. Proving his worth as a military leader, Richard charged to engage Henry. Although this might sound like a rash move, it was tactically brilliant. It looked likely that Henry would indeed be killed. In fact, Richard’s maneuvor resulted in the death of many of the men surrounding Henry, including his standard bearer Sir William Brandon.
The Stanleys, however, were prepared to take a risk of their own. Sir William Stanely, still watching from the sidelines, saw Richard’s plan and an opportunity to cut him off from his main army. Richard was cut down before he could reach Henry and brutally murdered, along with many of his household bodyguards who tried to save him.
The relevance of this single event to the unfolding of the next seventy-three years is crucial. It demonstrated a number of things about the fragility of the crown in England, the dangers posed by rival claimants, and the potential for power play among the nobility. As king, Henry VII would certainly apply what he likely learned on this day. He worked hard to build the power of the crown, spending lavishly on creating a court that branded him and his family as the rightful rulers of the kingdom. It was no coincidence, for example, that Henry’s first son was named Arthur, after the legendary hero of British folklore. He also worked hard to amass a small fortune, working to keep the crown independent of parliament and the nobility as much as possible. He also curbed the power of the nobles, securing acts of attainder against most of those who had fought for Richard and only agreeing to restore rights to land and property when loyalties had been sufficiently proven.
Henry also made strategic alliances to nullify rival claims to the throne. His marriage to Elizabeth of York, for instance, is still noted as a key unification of the major rival factions, the House of Lancaster, represented by Henry, and the House of York, represented by Elizabeth, Edward IV’s daughter.
The marriage between Arthur and Catherine of Aragon also testifies to Henry’s efforts to build foreign credibility and prestige for England. Catherine was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, two of the most powerful rulers of the period. Similarly, allying Margaret, his eldest daughter, to the Scottish King, and vying for Mary’s marriage to the king of France, Henry demonstrated his interest in unifying the country and avoiding foreign wars; he sought to achieve prowess through diplomacy rather than military conquest.
Henry VIII, of course, was decidedly different from his father in temperament. He was keen to engage in foreign wars and sought to achieve prowess by attacking England’s traditional rival, France. He was also far less practical minded about building meaningful alliances through marriage. His relationship with Catherine of Aragon, when it deteriorated and there was evidence that they would have no more children, was not something that he sought to manage as his father might have done. Four of Henry’s six marriages were with English-born women. Aside from limiting the potential for developing foreign alliances, this preference for English wives also created factions. The influence of Anne Bolyen’s family (and she was the highest born of the four), lead to the creation of a particularly powerful faction within the government, one that spurned on reforms and the dissolution of the monasteries.
Henry’s thirst for war also weakened the crown financially. Despite the gains made through the redistribution of church lands, when Edward VI inherited the throne, the country was facing considerable financial problems.
The religious upheaval of Henry VIII’s reign also had dramatic repercussions for his children and again appeared to compromise much of Henry VII’s work to create unity and stability in England. At the very least, the creation of the English church and the unique identity it developed, left many disenfranchised. Catholics were opposed to the religious changes, for obvious reasons. Protestants, too, never found the reforms sufficient to match their beliefs. Furthermore, the religious divisions created political and social divisions as well, and established rival claimants to the throne. Mary had to contend with her half-sister as a serious threat to her position; Lady Jane Grey was also used as a pawn to exploit the fundamental differences of religion between Edward VI and Mary, who, according to his father’s will, at least, was to be his heir.
Elizabeth, too, faced threats from rival claimants. Although few could argue that she was unsuccessful at managing those elements throughout her reign, she had to take them seriously.
The Tudors certainly contributed to the development of England and the UK in many different ways, but they also struggled with a particular problem that can be traced back to how Henry Tudor became king.
In King Lear, Shakespeare explores a considerable range of issues. He explores many aspects of human nature and asks to what extent identity and fate are governed by nature. He also questions what people owe to each other. For instance, in the first act, when Lear challenges each of his three daughters to demonstrate how much they love him, Shakespeare encourages his audience to think about how much a child owes to their parent. Goneril and Reagan speak of their love for their father, suggesting that their relationship to him and their position as his daughters overrides every other aspect of their lives. In other words, their speeches suggest that no other relationship or role is more important. Of course, their speeches are elaborate and obviously exaggerated. They are obviously not sincere. Cordelia, on the other hand, provides an answer to her father’s challenge that is not only entirely sensible but entirely consistent with 16th century philosophical ideas pertaining to kingship. Aside from challenging his daughter to declare love for her father, Lear is also challenging his child, third in line to the throne, to persuade him to divide his kingdom. In fact, Cordelia should be able to say ‘nothing’ that would convince her father to divide his kingdom because, according to Christian philosophy of the day, it goes against God’s law to divide a kingdom that way; Lear should not, in fact, abdicate the responsibilities of his role as king (that is also against God’s law), and upon his death, he should pass the throne to his eldest surviving child, without dividing any part of it. Lear’s daughters also, again according to the philosophy of Shakespeare’s day, also owe allegiance to their husbands, which Cordelia, in fact, points out.
It is interesting to consider, also, the behavior of the older characters in the play, specifically Lear and the Earl of Gloucester. Shakespeare develops two plots within the play, one that focuses upon King Lear and his daughters, and the other that focuses upon the Earl of Gloucester and his two sons, his legitimate son, Edgar, and his legitimate son and the instigator of much of the treachery within the play, Gloucester’s illegitimate son, Edmund.
Both Lear and Gloucester treat their children badly. In Lear’s case, there’s suggestion that he was a domineering, even perhaps an abusive parent. Modern audiences might, for instance, sympathize with Goneril and Regan, at least initially, as Lear does, indeed, seem to be rather unreasonable. The banishment of Cordelia, of course, emphasizes how little he knows himself and how rash and ill-tempered he can be.
Lear’s madness, however, can be seen as the result, not so much of his nature, but his defiance of natural order. By trying to impose his will on to others in such a dramatic way, while at the same time, abdicating all responsibility and accountability (by abdicating his throne) he defies the natural order of things and sets himself apart from his own nature.
We can look to Edmund as an interesting parallel to Lear in the sense that he (Edmund) openly embraces what for him is the natural order; as the bastard son, he is considered to be tainted, at least in comparison to Edgar, and even his own father is crude in speaking about the extra-marital relationship that lead to his birth. Edmund frequently invokes nature and identifies his behavior as ‘natural’ given his bastard status.
To some extent, King Lear seems designed to shock its audience into recognizing the complexity of the human experience and the delicacy of the order we impose upon it. When Lear kneels before his daughters, for instance, the sensibility of Shakespeare’s contemporaries must certainly have been shaken. The same effect is achieved, it seems, when Lear abdicates his crown and divides his kingdom. The drama of the play is enhanced by the repeated challenges to the natural order and the resounding implications this has for a Christian audience.
Some good resources to use when studying King Lear:
William Shakespeare’s King Lear (Literary Criticism) by Harold Bloom
King Lear: A Guide to the Play
by Jay L. Halio
Shakespeare’s Poetics in Relation to King Lear
by Russell A. Fraser
Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature: A Study of King Lear
by John F. Danby
A fascinating but decidedly complicated period in English history, the 15th century was a period dominated by rival political factions, economic, and social struggles. Perhaps one of the most famous aspects of the period was the War of the Roses – the umbrella term for the dispute over who, among the surviving descendants of Edward III, should rule the country – yet, the political struggles of the nobility did not affect the lives of ordinary people all that much. A far bigger issue for most of the people living in the 15th century was the economy and changes to the economic structure of the land.
The plague had wiped out a significant portion of the population not all that long ago, creating a period of unusual opportunity for those who survived. By the 15th century, however, the population was beginning to recover and the golden age for English laborers was slowly drawing to a close. Enclosure of land was also beginning to be a problem.
A good resource for information on the Wars of the Roses, aside from the couple of books referenced below, is http://www.warsoftheroses.com. You can find out about the major players here, the causes, battles, and the overall timeline.
Reading List:
The power of language, identity, alienation, and jealousy are among the central themes of this play. Desdemona apparently falls in love with Othello because of what he says to her about himself and, presumably, what she hears about him from others (“But words are words; I never yet did hear/ That the bruised heart was pierced through the ear”). Iago manipulates Othello and other characters with his words. The full title, “Othello, The Moor of Venice”, points to the significance of identity and alienation. Othello is identified, not only as the title character but also by two distinctive characteristics – his race and the location, the physical place, with which he identifies.
As far as alienation goes, we can hardly ignore that Othello is referred to as “the Moor” long before his name is mentioned and even before he appears on stage.
It’s also notable that the question of identity is posed. Othello’s identity is not clear cut. Most of the time, in answer to the question, ”who are you?”, the answer is a negative. Othello is not a Venetian, by birth but he is a military general and a chief defender of the city. Although he also shares a common religion with the people of Venice, (he is a Christian), he is still isolated from other Christians culturally, as a convert and a foreigner.
Othello’s alienation in Cyprus, a location that places him physically further from Europe, in a place that is a military outpost, defined by war rather than peace and civilization. He gives way to jealousy – a trait that was, in the 16th century, associated with ‘Moors’ according to a number of sources used by Shakespeare – when he becomes physically, emotionally, and psychologically isolated from Europe and the order of European society.
An interesting point of overlap between some of the topics from the English Literature course and this one is religion, or rather, the Catholicism of pre-Reformation Europe. Readers of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales can’t help but note the scathing review of the Catholic church in England. With the exception of the Parson, who also happens to be one of the least interesting of Chaucer’s characters, the Catholic church is represented by a host of rather unsavory characters. Even the Monk leaves a lot to be desired as a religious figure. The Friar is apparently in the habit of seducing young women and wives in his community (he pays for their weddings, which is a big hint), and as for the Pardoner and the Summoner, even Chaucer’s rather naive Pilgrim-narrator can’t abide them. Their corruption is palpable and more than that, it is openly linked to Rome, the center of the Catholic church.
Of course, Chaucer was writing in the 14th century. It would be another century or so before the social, economic, cultural, and political elements were in place to support mass revolt, but the issue of corruption was clearly a long-standing one.
In 1517, Martin Luther, a decidedly religious man who gave up what was probably a promising career in law to join the church, posted his 95 Theses against corruption in the church. Luther was particularly perturbed by the selling of indulgences in his home town.
In an age where death was prevalent and medical science virtually non-existent, people’s superstitions were central. As Koenigsberger, Mosse, and Bowler put it in Europe in the Sixteenth Century, “the kind of life which men lived at the turn of the sixteenth century, and the questions which they asked about it, are essential to an understanding of the Reformation, and beyond this to the sixteenth century as a whole.” Koenigsberger et al also points out that: “Concrete fears and very real dilemmas determined the structure of men’s thoughts.” It’s helpful to keep this in mind when considering the significance of religion in the Medieval period and on into the Reformation period.
Over the next three weeks, the English literature course will cover three of Shakespeare’s plays: MacBeth, Othello, and King Lear. All of these plays have something in common with each other and they share some of the major themes that recur among some of Shakespeare’s other plays. For instance, Othello and King Lear have something in common with each other and with The Merchant of Venice. In all three of those plays, Shakespeare explores the treatment of social outsiders and the effect that racism in Othello and (Othello, the title character, is a Moor living among Venetians), antisemitism in The Merchant of Venice, and social prejudices in King Lear (Edmund is a bastard child) have upon a person’s character (i.e. do people behave in a certain way because that is their nature or because it is what society expects of them?).
MacBeth and King Lear also share a focus upon the Divine Right of Kings, a favorite subject of King James I of England, during whose reign Shakespeare wrote a number of his plays. MacBeth kills the rightful king of Scotland and perpetuates his own demise and the destruction of the kingdom. In King Lear, the rightful king abdicates his throne and himself divides his kingdom. Lear, although he is a pagan and cannot therefore know the philosophies that Shakespeare is applying, goes against the laws of God by ignoring his own divinely conferred responsibility to rule and the law that determines the throne should be passed to his eldest child, not divided among his three daughters. When Cordelia says there is “nothing” she can say to win a greater portion of the kingdom than her sisters, she is absolutely right. She should not be able to say anything to procure a larger portion of her father’s kingdom since the land should pass in its entirety to the first born child and Cordelia is the youngest of Lear’s children.
It is also interesting to draw a comparison between Shakespeare’s treatment of madness in King Lear and Hamlet, and his presentation of the villan in King Lear (Edmund), Othello (Iago), and, for example, Richard III (title character, Richard Duke of York).
To really understand how a contemporary audience would have responded to these plays, however, it is also helpful to revert to Shakespeare’s sources. It’s often pointed out that not one of Shakespeare’s plays is actually original. It’s true he drew from other sources, and often from historical accounts, when writing. He did, however, change certain details and emphasize certain elements of the stories he told and this makes his use of source material very interesting.
The goal in reviewing these three plays will be to explore them each in terms of their language, themes, and structure; in terms of their broader context, and also in terms of the way Shakespeare develops the stories from specific source materials.
The term, ‘medieval’ refers to a period in (primarily European) history that falls between the end of the Western Roman Empire and the beginning of the Early Modern Period.For many reasons, it is a fascinating period but it is also a time far removed from our own; the experiences of every day people in Medieval Europe were fundamentally and dramamtically different from modern experiences. Many of the differences are crucial to understanding the events and ideas of the period but they are also so far removed from our own experiences, they can be quite difficult to appreciate.
Some of the most striking differences between Medieval and modern society relate to concepts of time and distance. Day and night and seasons of the year very much defined people’s lives since there was no electricity(!). Candles were expensive and really only available en masse to the very rich. Most of the population in Europe, even circa 1500, lived in the country, in single homesteads, hamlets, or villages. A few were residents of towns, but by our standards, such towns were very small. Relatively few people traveled far during their lifetimes.
Most people were also illiterate and heavily affected by and culturally reliant upon the rituals and conventions of the Catholic Church. Public education was limited; in England, for example, public schools did not really emerge until the mid-16th century and education was largely monopolized by the rich (mainly royalty) and the church.
Death was also an everyday realty for everyone. Medical knowledge was very limited and largely based on superstition. The Black Death would kill off about a third of the population in 1347, which actually created a period of great prosperity for those who survived (there was a surplus of food, for instance, and workers were in demand), but the positive effects were wearing off as the population started to grow again and by the 16th century, most people in Europe were reminiscing about the past and dissatisfied with the social and economic issues of their day.
Of course, Medieval Europe would also experience many man-made major problems, including the Hundred Years’ War, the Avignon Papacy, and the Great Schism, which case people into doubt about the validity of their beliefs and their preparedness to put their faith in the ruling classes.
Some of the best introductory guides to medieval European history include:
According to a well established and well supported tradition, Chaucer based his Knight’s Tale, for the most part, on a work by Giovanni Boccaccio called Il Teseida. Boccaccio wrote his poem some time between 1339 and 1340 as his time in Naples was drawing to an end along with his relationship with a woman named Maria d’Aquino, the Fiammetta, to whom the poem was dedicated.
Boccaccio modeled his poem after the likes of Statius’ Thebaid and Virgil’s Aenid. He may also have been influenced by the Roman de Thebes.
Although there are variations between the two stories, both Boccaccio’s Il Teseida and Chacer’s Knight’s Tale deal with two men in love with one woman. In Boccaccio’s poem, Palemone and Arcita are both in love with Emilia, struggling against each other and forces surrounding them to win her love and her hand in marriage. The poem focuses on concepts related to chivalry and adheres to many conventions of chivalric romance, involving input from pagan gods (Venus and Mars) to influence the fate of the men and women featured in the story.
However, Il Teseida demonstrates the failure of pagan efforts to rule the irrational side of human nature and argues the necessity of Christian faith. It is to this arguent that Chaucer uses the source to modify his own ideas about the importance of Christianity and what is now identified as humanism in regulating feelings and actions.
