Julius Caesar Act III, s i

Act III, scene i was the scene where Caesar was assassinated by the members of the senate and his friends.

Near the start of the scene, Artemidorus asks Caesar to come aside and listen to his plea to bring back Caesar's brother from banishment.  Caesar refuses stating that public matters come before personal ones and he is "as constant as the Northern Star" (60).  Caesar means to say that he is unwavering in his decision, just as the north star never waivers from its position; however we can also take it to mean the Caesar sees himself as infallible, as a god, and that he can do no wrong.  The sanctity of his decision goes beyond his wants, but to a higher place.
Soon after this, Caesar is murdered by some of those closest to him, including Brutus.  Caesar's last words, "Et tu, Brute?" or "You too, Brutus?" shows that Caesar's idea of his own infallibility were quite wrong.

After the murder, Cassius says that all will rejoice because now peace can come and there will be liberty and freedom.  Cassius is quite wrong, because following Caesar's death civil strife breaks out through Rome.  Antony goes on to some military success before he looses an Naval battle and later commits suicide with his love, Cleopatra.  The Roman Republic falls and is taken over by the Roman Empire.  Many historians argue that the assassination of Caesar was a major catalyst for the decline of the Republic.

The senators believe that they were doing Rome a favor by killing Caesar, and that happiness and peace would flow their way.  However, there was no real planning for life after Caesar's death, and so the government was vacant for some time.  This failure to plan was the conspirators hubris, in that they believed a smooth transition would occur into the next seat of power; but their arrogance can be blamed for the fall of Rome.

Taming of the Shrew

When I read this play in high school I really didn't like it.  I thought that it was terrible to think that a wife should be so subservient to her husband and that the only way to win over a girl is to pretend to be something you're not.

After reading it again a few years later, I question what Shakespeare was doing.  It is entirely possible that he meant  for the play to be taken at face value and nothing more; but I think it is even more probable that he meant for us to look deeper and question gender roles in society.

The men in The Taming of the Shrew all have a picture of the 'ideal wife' in Bianca.  They expect her to act submissive and kind, and when they see her sister Katherine, the men see everything they do not want.  The men then go about trying to find ways to deceive Bianca into marriage, without really getting to know who she is.  Once they find Petrucio to marry Katherine everyone can focus on wooing Bianca.  The "taming" of Katherine is the most difficult and questionable part of the play to me.  Was Shakespeare taking marriage roles as they were?  Or was he criticizing  everything that Elizabethan England knew?  At the end of the play when all pretenses are dropped (and Bianca is easily won over even though she was lied to) and the sisters a re married off, the true test of 'obedience' is played out.  The men send for their wives, and whichever responds first, her husband shall win.  Hortensio and Lucientio both have no doubt that their wives would listen, especially Bianca because she has been so willing the whole play.  They are both surprised though when their wives do not come, and even more surprised when Kate comes to Petrucio.  Then to drive home the obedient wife ideal, Kate critisizes Bianca and the widow (married to Hortensio) for not doing as their husbands say.

In the end Kate is 'tamed' but we are left questioning if this is all a joke, or satire.  Should women really be subservient to men?  Or should a man and wife be equals?  Was Kate 'tamed' or did she let herself be tamed?  I almost think that Kate and Petrucio did end up equals because her stubbornness balanced his.  This idea is most obvious to me at the end of the play when Kate and Petrucio happily walk off together, but the other couples that are unequal (where the man has power and the wife is meant to be obedient) are unhappy because their ideals have not been met.

Act 4, scene 3

In this scene, Tyrell explains the deaths of the princes Edward and Richard in the Tower of London. It was interesting to find out how real and haunting this part of the play was.  History says that the princes were sent to the Tower of London after their father’s death to live, because the Tower used to be partially a place of residence.  However, after the princes moved to the Tower, they were never seen again.  There were many conspiracy theories surrounding the princes' disappearance, including Richard III being the killer, and even a theory that the younger prince (Richard) escaped.  Speculation around the disappearance entertained many, and I wonder if this sole event inspired Shakespeare to write this story.  Later, in 1674, two skeletons were found under a staircase in the White Tower.  In line 29 of this act, Tyrell explains to Richard III that he does not know where the bodies were hidden, so Shakespeare acknowledges that no bodies had been found (at that time).

Bones of two bodies were found under a staircase in the White Tower in 1674 and many believed that these were the missing bones on the princes.  Charles II approved the bones to be moved to Westminster Abby.  In 1933, forensic research was done on the bones to see if it could be proven that they were the young princes', but it could not be determined what age and gender the bones were.

Most Londoners believed that Richard III had a part in their killing, but nothing was ever fully proved.  Shortly before his execution in 1501, it is said that James Tyrell admitted to killing the two princes under the authority of Richard the III.  There are also theories that Richard's right hand man, Buckingham had a part in the killing; an even more far fetched its the theory that  Henry VII, previously Henry Tudor, had them killed after his succession to the throne.  I find that a little hard to believe because he married the princes older sister Elizabeth of York, and that should have ensured him to the throne so that he would not have to kill her brothers to keep the crown.

info from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_in_the_Tower 

Act 2 response

Act 2, scene 2:
     Clarence's son questions if his father is dead, and his grandmother, the Duchess of York, says he is, but not by the king's hand.  I think it is interesting that she knows her son Richard is a liar. After this, news breaks that King Edward IV has died, and the women and children argue over who has the most grief.  This part made me wonder if Shakespeare was trying to say that women are as weak as children, especially when faced with an emotional issue.  Queen Elizabeth, the Duchess of York, and Clarence's son and daughter all seem to act immature, arguing over something so subjective as grief over loved ones.  When the men learn of the Kings death, they instantly go to work, preparing to fetch the Prince so he can be crowned the new King.  Shakespeare shows the men's maturity near the end of the scene when they decide it would be better to not fight so soon after the King's death.   There definitely seems to be an undertone that says women are as weak as children, while men are mature and are capable of caring for themselves.