Fate #5

It is the fate of king to govern the people of the land, but what happens when the king seen as inept at his job and at the will of other candidates that seem more compatible for the job.

At 2.1.42-68, Gaunt recounts his vision of England as blessed entity, or as “This other Eden, demi paradise, / This fortress built by nature for herself.” Associating this natural imagery with England creates the idea that this region was naturally created by the will of the powers that be, to service these exact powers. Since the conception reveals a divine intervention onto the land, there is a sense that the fate of the country was to carry out this plan of conquering other regions. Later in the speech, Gaunt mentions “That England and was wont to conquer others / Hath made a shameful conquest of itself,” which brings to mind the idea that even though this land had such a grandiose fate, it was not able to complete this, thus falling victim to destroying itself. In this case, he is referring to King Richard’s treatment of the land he was given. Because Richard seemed to disregard the land, there was the idea that he could not properly convey the fate of England, even though as the king, he is seen as the divine leader of the land who has natural insights onto how the land should be governed. 

During his reign, Richard was seen as an unfit king by the masses, while also being flattered by those in his immediate surroundings. He personally felt that he was not affected by the will of the “common people” When talking with some of the Royal Court, he mentions that Bolingbrook “How he did seem to dive into their hearts / With humble and familiar courtesy;/ What reverence he did throw away on slaves,/ Wooing poor craftsman with the craft of his smiles/” (1.4.25-28) Here Richard feels that conversing with people outside of his court is a pointless endeavor, which contributes to the idea of his fate being above those around him. Considering the fate he ended with, there is the idea that one’s fate involves corporation from those around him. Bolingbrook managed to overthrow Richard because he had more support from those around him. Had Richard tried to involve himself in less superficial bonds, he may have a more positive fate. 

If You're Ready, Go and Get It

 

Sonnet 4, one of Shakespeare's Procreation Sonnets (1-17), falls into the familiar rhythmic critique of chastity, a rhythm previously orchestrated in Romeo and Juliet. I have previously done a queer reading of Romeo in Juliet (which can be read here), which places the "star-crossed lovers" in a queer (non-monogamously heterosexualized) context; following my own footsteps and the motif of the Bard himself, I will do another queer reading of another one of Shakespeare's "carpe diem," beauty-disseminating, etc., etc., poetic works.

Let us proceed down this sonnet line by line, quatrain by quatrain: 

Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend
Upon thy self thy beauty's legacy?

Fiscal responsibility and a great theme of economic exchange is evoked within the first line, "spend," and the metaphor continues to be used throughout the other 14 lines. 

Nature's bequest gives nothing, but doth lend,
And being frank she lends to those are free:
Then, beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse
The bounteous largess given thee to give?

Again with money (where is the sex? I'm getting there): "Nature," asserts Shakespeare, is this fiscal lender, lending the youth their beauty which, as lending goes, "she" will someday take back. The poet chastises the poem's addressee for apparently hoarding this loan from Nature, which, according the poem's first couplet, is beauty. 
Here again we see a theme previously explored in Romeo and Juliet: the idea of "seizing the day," that beauty and youth are both fleeting and should be shared with others before it is too late. This is seen in Romeo's initial despondence in the wake of his rejection from Rosaline, who has decided to stay chaste, "and with her dies her store [her beauty]," as Romeo tells us. The speaker of the poem is beginning to form an argument against what he sees as an "abuse" of nature's loan of beauty. 

Profitless usurer, why dost thou use
So great a sum of sums yet canst not live?
For having traffic with thyself alone,
Thou of thyself thy sweet self dost deceive.

And finally the idea of carpe diem and using beauty (what can only be interpreted as some sort of sexual relation) is verbally evoked: this "usurer" now stands accused not only of usury (a major crime in Shakespeare's time) but an usury that is self-harming as well. It appears that the poet wishes to warn the usurer of 1) not spending his beauty when he has the time, and also 2) spending too much beauty on himself, "having traffic with thyself alone."
The last of these lines heavily implies a danger in autoerotic sex (masturbation), but not in an expected way. Having "solo-traffic" is not made dangerous with implications of a diseased mental or sexual health, but rather "thou of thyself thy sweet self dost deceive," which once could interpret as a warning against falsely portraying the self to the self, suggesting that masturbation beguiles the lone-star and robs him of pleasures that can be found in sharing beauty (alloerotic sex).
Perhaps that last bit is somewhat of a stretch; let's move on to the last four lines:

Then how when nature calls thee to be gone,
What acceptable audit canst thou leave?
Thy unused beauty must be tombed with thee,
Which usèd lives th' executor to be.

As in many of Shakespeare's notions of legacy, the lovely spectre of death is resurrected in the eleventh line, "nature [calling] thee to be gone ... thy unused beauty must be tombed with thee." It seems as though the poet is instructing his addressee to share his beauty (his sex) not only for pleasure but also for economic duty. The poet rhetorically asks what the addressee expects to leave behind, "what acceptable audit canst thou leave," implying that sharing his beauty, by means of what is commonly believed by sonnet-scholars to be by procreating (hence being one of the "procreation sonnets"), will do good with nature's gift bestowed upon him, e.g. passing it onto a child to be used and shared again.

It is true that these sonnets (1-17) deal commonly with procreation and the notion of passing on not just beauty but also legacy for the next generation to use. The language of the poem does suggest a passing on of one's beauty and/or legacy, such as one might pass down wealth to next of kin (to continue the economic metaphor); however, allow me to extend this alleged "call to procreate" by further delving into the metaphor of market transactions. If nature did loan this man a sum of money, he would not immediately pass it on the his kin, but rather spend it, exchange it, and share it with those who have also been given nature's loan. In this reading, it seems that the addressee is not meant to pass on his beauty by means of procreation, but meant to share this beauty with others by means of sexual relations. Rather than "having traffic" (which Pelican Shakespeare footnotes as meaning "commerce [or] dealings," suggesting a direct market transaction) with oneself only (suggesting masturbation, as I have pointed out), the poet claims that to be a "good businessman" one mustn't horde nature's loan of beauty but rather exchange it as much as possible before death.

Of course, this notion is inevitably tied up in procreation, being that sex apart from procreation was not a concept at all in Shakespeare's time (contraception was not repressed, per se, but still obviously nowhere near being scientifically feasible); therefore, the poet's assertion to go spread one's beauty to other lovers does innately carry an implication of passing on genes, of procreating. However, this idea of procreating was not a concept foreign to Shakespeare's time (and, fun fact, acknowledging the drive to procreate would not have made one "heterosexual") and I can only assume that men were not wasting away masturbating (this is pre-internet porn, after all) and so his "wild" claim to go have reproductive sex does seem almost redundant.

Perhaps the poet is suggesting that the addressee go spread the love with others in alternative, less reproductive ways? How very queer; how very queer indeed. 

Desire- 3/20/14

Emily Lagarde

King Richard II Desire for Monarchy


Richard II continually abuses his power as king in order to hold influence not only over his
subjects, but also of the land. His desire for control and having a stable English monarchy leads
him on multiple quests over his domain and those who inhabit it, which leads to his demise.

Control over subjects:
In the first act, Richard II speaks of Bolingbroke as a subject of royal blood,
"Now by my septer's awe I make a vow,/ Such neighbor nearness to our sacred blood/
Should nothing privilige him nor partilize/The unstooping firmness of my upright soul./
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou;/Free speech and fearless I to thee allow" (1.1 115-123).
Already Richard is speaking how both Bolingbroke and Mowbray are subjects of the king and that speech from them is accepted on Richard's condition only. Also the vow he makes is easily broken when he banishes Bolingbroke. Richard's desire for control over his court means that he constantly moves the line of promises and truth. He is continually leaving the people in his wake confused and scared with constantly questioning themselves what would displease or please the king, "to monarchize, be feared, and kill with looks" (3.2 165). In this instance, Richard has created a control through fear. Especially that he would banish his uncle's son, leaving his uncle without an heir and therefore leaving no lineage, no trace of Gaunt after his death, that is until Bolingbroke comes back with vengeance. When Richard is speaking to Gaunt in this dynamic conversation between the dying and the health of a strong king, we see Gaunt have long speeches about what is right and what is wrong and very articulate ways of giving advice of the role of a king, but Richard replies, "I am in health, I breathe, and see thee ill" (2.1 92). This could be looked at very interestingly as Richard discarding everything Gaunt is saying because his uncle is dying, he has no power and therefore is no use to Richard. The king is in pure health and his health allows him to act in the way he does. Gaunt is dying, therefore the words he is saying, the opinions he gives, is dying as well. This could be concreted by Gaunt's last words, "and thy unkindness be like crooked age/To crop at once a too-long withered flower/Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee!" (2.1 133-135) He is saying Richard is aged because he is a bad king and does not deserve to rule. This also signifies Richards desire for power, for a monarchy because he would be feared not just individually but by his predecessor as well. He monopolizes his ruling by using the land that he deems his because he is king and therefore owns the land and the people on it.

 Desire or (lack of desire) for Land ?

A big theme in this play is about the use of land. Should land belong to the king for his desires or where does the extent of power a king has stop-- how should he behave?
In the beginning Richard dictates his power very bluntly, "we were not born to sue, but to command" (1.1 196), meaning his power is not on loan, it does not have limits. His power, his desire for monarchy, for absolute power, means his command is god given and rightfully his. This leads to his takeover of land, because he commands it. Gaunt is the only one who stands against Richard, speaking that his taking of land and leasing it is like a sickness, which again leads Richard to be sick, to be diseased in some way (which is an omen of his future death). So, if Richard owns all the land and he is sick in someway, then the land must be sick too, because it is an extension of his monarchical body. Then when the two common men are speaking of the garden and symbolizing England we see another example of land being sacred and should be free of sickness, "oh what a pity it is that he had not trimmed and dressed his land/ as we this garden!" (3.4 56-57). Richard is not tending to his land as he should. He is not devoted to his land the way others would be and not seeing the threats that a common man can see.
Richard's desire for absolute, god given power leaves him blind to common problems and that his threats and schemes do not work out-- which is very obvious when his men and army abandon him later-- and that his desire for the sun, for the absolute, leaves him to not see clearly what is transpiring in his own kingdom. His desires, his intentions for himself are thwarted by the very simple fact that the does not have an heir. It is a reversion of what a monarch's ultimate goal is, to keep it in the family.

Desire plays a key element in most Shakespearean plays. A king's desire is all encompassing however. If Richard were to slip up just a little, he would be ruined, which is what happens. His desire is that slip. His desire for land, for scaring subjects, for conquering Ireland is all apart of his self centered attitude that he is king and the burden rests on his shoulders. His desire for monarchy fails and he dies because of it. A king being murdered or mysteriously dying is extremely scary and confusing for people, but what is interesting is that Richard had to die (because there could only be one king obviously) but also that his desire for monarchy would not die on its own, but would have to die with the form it took in the person of Richard. Yet, that desire gets fixed on King Henry later. Desire never goes away, there is always something to be desired and the need for it can cause anyone into a constant state of moving towards that goal. Richard's desire for monarchy fails because he was only aiming towards one object and not seeing the rest of the moving parts around him.

Identity for 3/20

The role of identity in The First Part of King Henry IV is displayed in a few varying aspects. One of which that is interesting to me is the role that Prince Harry takes on in Act I Scene II. The prince plays along and assumes the role of a thief when he encounters Poins and Falstaff. Here, not only is the prince playing a trick on Falstaff with thievery, but he is also playing a trick in a sense by covering up his true identity as the heir to the throne. Though the circumstances came upon him to mask his identity, this deceit that Prince Harry decides to carry out works for him and towards his favor in terms of political machinations. By disguising himself amongst the likes of the thieves, the prince is able to remain under the political radar, so to speak, until that time at which he will reveal himself and take up his rightful place as the crown prince. It is revealed to the audience in the prince’s speech which occurs at lines 206-207 that his “reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,/Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes.” What this says about Hal’s assumption of disguise is that it reaches rather beyond what will suit his means now in laying low, but will also help him when he takes up the identity as a king in his own right. Therefore something so simple becomes rather diabolically clever in nature!

            While having touched upon the idea of the identity of kingship, that also reminds me of the reoccurring symbol of the sun to symbolize that office. The sun within the play comes to symbolize not only the king but also his reign. As in the legacy of kings, a king’s reign comes to be a large part of what identifies him not only as a monarch but also a man. At I.II.175-81, Prince Harry describes himself as the sun, “herein will I imitate the sun,/Who doth permit the base contagious clouds/To smother up his beauty from the world.” This speech is interesting on the part of the prince, keeping in mind a few things. To me, a very striking word in this speech is the use of the word “imitate”. That is saying that the prince is not quite yet the sun, but seeks to be in it’s likeness. This becomes more fascinating when later, the prince’s father, King Henry IV himself, identifies himself as the sun. Also, what Prince Harry is saying in these lines conveys the nature of the deception of his identity that he is carrying out – he, the sun, hiding amongst those lower in station to him, the clouds. This is an effective disguise for the prince because it’s not a level of identity that he would be supposed to have taken up. For identifying as the sun on the part of King Henry IV, that occurs at III.II.79-83. The king describes his “sunlike majesty,” which “shines seldom in admiring eyes.” Along with the “cloudy men” the king also mentions like his son does, what the king’s take on the ability to identify with the sun is less positive than the prince’s. Prince Harry sees the clouds as something to cloak himself in until he emerges and shines. King Henry IV see the clouds as blocking the light of his kingship, which has the effect of making him question his identity within that role. Where the king has reservations, it can be seen that the prince is bold. While they both identify with the sun, they do so in different phases of the effect it has.

Kennon - Identity Post #5

 The first part of Henry IV is rife with characters navigating and shifting their identities. Whether Prince Hal is stepping back from his title and casually drinking with his friends, Falstaff is attempting to impersonate a nobleman, or Hotspur is presenting himself as boldly as possible to intimidate his enemies, Shakespeare's characters alter their language and actions to assume whatever role they see fit. 

Much of the discussion of identity in Henry IV, pt. 1 comes from Harry, the problem-child prince and protagonist of the play, shifting his speech and behavior to highlight or down-play his regal status. As a general rule in Shakespeare, prose is spoken by commoners or characters in casual settings, while verse is reserved for nobility. Prince Hal, heir to the throne and also a frequenter or seedy taverns and brothels, slips seamlessly between the two modes of speech. When talking and joking among his “commoner” friends Hal speaks in verse, and in political situations he is able to switch to iambic pentameter faster than Falstaff can down a beer. In Act II he brags that he "is so good a proficient in one quarter, I can drink with any tinker in his own language,”(Act II, sc 4 ll. 15-17) a shrewd skill for any politician to have whether in Shakespeare’s time or today. Hal does not allow his identity to be isolated to any one facet – he is not defined solely by his ancestry and title of prince, nor is he simply a rogue who is only capable of drinking and soliciting whores. He instead walks the line between the two, or rather leaps from one side to another, with deftness and speed that keeps audiences and other characters wondering what he will do (or become) next.

Prince Hal’s fat, drunk, but ultimately loyal friend and character foil Falstaff is somewhat more limited in his identity. He of course has no title or noble graces to fall back on, but still makes attempts to mythologize himself using his language and dishonesty. He refers to himself in the third-person a great deal, which allows him to place an idea of himself in the minds of others whether for the sake of humor or trickery. A notable example of this third-person reference is when Falstaff refers to himself as "sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff" (Act II, sc 4 ll. 458-460).

Considering that so much of Henry IV pt. 1’s plot is based on primogeniture and the consequential dynamics between fathers and sons and the other men in their lives, it is unsurprising that this is not one of Shakespeare’s plays that features strong-identitied women. Though there are only 3 consequential female characters in the play, their identities are very much impacted by the language they use and their relationships to other men. Lady Percy, arguably the most prominent of these women, expresses discontent with lack of attention from her husband, indicating her identity as a wife as well as her husband’s hyper masculinity.

Henry IV is a prime example of how title and political motivation simply add another dimension and level of complexity to identity rather than define it. Prince Hal as well as the other characters use language and actions to navigate and perform these facets of identity, ensuring that there is never a dull moment for the people of Henry’s England or for Shakespeare’s audiences. 

#6 - Grass is Greener, Richard II & Sonnet 15

Richard II Blog – Grass is Greener

Sonnet 15 describes the fleeting perfection of life, “holds in perfection but a little moment”, and the innate desire to live despite its impermanence. It describes, the world taking away from youth coming closer to expiry, and concludes “I engraft you new” which will, in its own way, sustain something that is technically unsustainable. This preservation in the form of writing is precisely what we can call history. Shakespeare has embodied the engrafted through his history plays which preserve the encapsulation of his society, people, and politic.

He has found solidity within the world’s instability, but most importantly the importance of living a fulfilling life and not one we see will play out in Richard II:

“Vaunt in their youthful sap, at height decrease,

And wear their brave state out of memory;”

While time is decaying, Richard II is decaying himself and the realm with it.

In Richard II, everyone is longing for something else, someone else’s (fill in blank), or something that is not there. No one is truly content. From the beginning, Richard has banished his own cousin Bolingbroke out of sheer jealousy. This type of illegitimate and weak-minded decisions rots his kingship and engulfs his politic with personal desires (body). By allowing his own desire for control come before his own subjects he loses the people’s trust in him and ultimately leads himself to his death. Bolingbroke/Henry IV fills in this space by catering to the needs of the common people, gaining him kingship that is created by legitimacy over birthright. Bolingbroke, at a time, actually desires not only for kingship but also for Richard’s death. When Richard takes money to finance a war in Ireland, we see he has completely disowned any sort of desire for a good society, instead only his own immediate, fleeting, needs. Which raises important and rebellious political questions and promotes a focus upon capability rather than inheritance where they become kinged strictly by tradition rather than actual desire to rule.  John of Gaunt’s comparison to the tending of the garden reveals the work that is entailed, he curses Richard on Gaunt’s own desire for good politic. The people desire this good politic as well.

The microcosm speech in the prison in Act V.4 at Pomfret Castle cell metaphorically parallels the isolated feeling that Richard is experiencing due to his previous actions. He reflections on the dissatisfaction of everyone:

 “Thus play I in one person many people, and none contented.”

His inhibited thoughts are at war with his desires. He feels the tear between his individuality “I” and his Kinged “I.”  In the end, he concludes, “Til nothing shall be pleased Til eased with being nothing.” Exton murders him, and now Henry IV is to lead, but we will see that his desires will get in the way as well. Though his desire is fulfilled as king, he now has to live/act in the way he promised. 

Fate Post#5--Wheel of Fortune

As we move into the history plays, we see now perhaps more than ever Shakespeare’s application of the "Wheel of Fortune," in which various characters are destined to rise to prominence and eventually fall to disgrace or tragedy. We have already somewhat seen this in Titus Andronicus, though the "rises" were very sudden and short-lived before unfortunate (to understate it greatly) events befell the characters. Tamora, for example, quickly transitioned from Gothic prisoner to Roman empress to dead; Saturninus died very quickly after ascending to the Imperial throne; Lavinia’s status as an object of lust caused her to live in shame after being raped and mutilated by Demetrius and Chiron (oh, and later murdered by her father), who were in turn murdered shortly after their rise to prominence. Finally, the events of the play bring uncertainty to Marcus Andronicus’ rule at the play’s conclusion, suggesting that though he seeks to teach Rome to "knit," or come together, once again, Rome’s and therefore his body will eventually be assaulted, defiled, and destroyed. He is part of the wheel that left Titus, Saturninus, Tamora, and Lavinia to their ends and Rome's history tells us that he will not escape its cycle.

Though Titus is classified today as a "tragedy," it exists as a period piece commenting on a civilization’s history. Richard II and Henry IV do the same. Richard’s poor decision making positions his body for destruction almost immediately in his choosing to go to Ireland after exiling his most prominent political threat. In being physically absent, he gives Henry Bolingbroke the ability to assume the kingship by simply being a body physically able to assume the throne. Richard is eventually imprisoned and murdered. Henry’s rather precarious position is explored in the first part of Henry IV. Yes, he is the man made of meat sitting upon the English throne, but is he legitimate in terms of being ordained by providence to assume the kingship?

The events of the play's first part suggest that he does well in legitimating his claim, beginning in the first act in which a clear contrast between himself and Richard comes to the forefront with Henry choosing to forego a Crusade in order to maintain the stability within the realm: "It seems then that the tidings of this broil/Brake off our business for the Holy Land" (I.2.47-48). Henry realizes that the value of his physical presence in the realm to solidify his rule supersedes embarking on the Crusade, an expedition in which victories over "pagans in those holy fields" would bestow upon him the favor of God in which kings were expected to hold. Henry’s thinking of the Crusade and immediate recognition of its secondary nature to England's stability reflects an understanding of how to legitimize his body politic and therefore properly rule his kingdom, a base knowledge that Richard simply did not possess. England under Henry’s rule, then, seems to have a relatively bright future, particularly after Hal proves his merit in defeating Hotspur in single combat. With a knowledgeable ruler and a worthy heir, England at the end of this play certainly sits on top of the wheel. As we, and Shakespeare's audience, know, however, it does not escape the fate brought about by this literary trope, falling into one of its country’s most tumultuous periods after these two men are gone from the world. Even a stable rule, then, does not guarantee a stable future, an issue Elizabethans, like the Romans, knew all too well.

Post #5 - Memory

photo: wikipedia.com

When Henry Bolingbroke is sentenced to exile in The Tragedy of King Richard the Second, he responds, "Then, England's ground, farewell; sweet soil, adieu, / My mother, my nurse, that bears me yet! / Where'er I wander, a boast of this I can, / Though banished, yet a true-born English man" (1.3.306-309). In Richard the Second, England functions as a site for memory contestation and self
formation. The reign of King Richard has set England on the track for a rapid decline, and all the characters are aware of this fact (except, maybe, the King himself). Virtually every cast member comments on Richard's blunders as King, saying their England is "full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked up" (3.4.34) and that Richard's "rash, fierce blaze of riot cannot last" (2.1.33). Amongst all this opposition for the King's decisions, a crisis of self formation and nationhood arises. Although the characters do not align themselves with Richard's choices, they remain steadfast in their devotion to the England of yore--and to their identities as Englishmen and women. Something weighty and powerful keeps these frustrated individuals firmly rooted in their English-ness. That something is memory.

Eddie Redmayne played King Richard at Donmar Warehouse's production in London, 2010

Richard's kingship, though fraught with error, signals progressivism in England. The impending uprising spearheaded by Henry Bolingbroke seeks to unravel a centuries-old model for governing. A majority of the characters appear to be onboard with this approach--even Richard's most trusted allies end up defecting to Henry's side mid-play. The coup is problematic, however, in the way it undoes
tradition, memory, and history. In an impassioned speech about King Richard's follies, John Gaunt claims that, "This land of such souls, this dear dear land, / Dear for her reputation through the world, / Is now leased out (I die pronouncing it) / Like a tenement or pelting farm" (2.1.57-60). Richard's lack of effort in his kingship so vehemently goes against tradition that it threatens to utterly transform England not just internally, but also externally in the way its reputation amongst other world powers will suffer. Though Gaunt communicates his love for his nation through romantic and nostalgic language, the implications of this speech unravel the very custom he claims to promote. Claiming that the King is not fit for his role is not only treasonous--it also goes against the longstanding precedents of kingship in England. In this way, memory and progression are placed in opposition throughout the play as the characters puzzle over which option will sustain England.

photo: welovedc.com

Sustainability and memory are linked intrinsically in the play. Richard's outright laziness as king casts a shadow over England's sustained legacy. This nostalgic fondness for England's historic power both establishes Richard as the King (since he is the rightful successor) and leads to his jilting, psychological unraveling, and decay. In this way, time doesn't merely form the backdrop for history plays. Time becomes a living entity needing management and producing anxiety. The anxiety stems from the question of how to represent and stabilize time in the written word. In one respect, time is remembered in the form of history itself. Memory of time is contested in different retellings of history. In another sense, as stated in sonnet fifteen, time "Holds in perfection but a little moment" (2). Time does not allow sustained perfection. In terms of Richard II, this line makes Richard's failure seem fated. Even when Richard makes thoughtful decisions, these "cheeréd" (6) choices will all become susceptible to decay--in the same way that the gardener's plants will soon become "full of weeds" (3.4.44). Richard is then doomed, with other men "vaunt in youthful sap," (7) to "wear their brave state out of memory" (8). Even perfect plants will soon deteriorate and wear the proof their decay in their physical form. This decay indicates a failure to preserve their legacy, the memory of their successes and growth. Richard faces this conflict head-on when he sees his reflection in the mirror. He sees in his face the honor he once had and has now lost, the past vitality of a plant that has now withered and is soon to die, when he states, "A brittle glory shineth in this face. / As brittle as the glory is the face, / For there it is, cracked in a hundred shivers" (5.1.287-289).