Introduction "Kiernan Ryan's argument that King Lear endorses neither feudal nor bourgeois worldviews but instead looks forward to a utopian condition beyond both," is to a degree acceptable in my opinion. I vehemently concur that the play does indeed look beyond both the feudal and bourgeois ideologies and strives towards a more utopian condition, but I do not agree that King Lear endorses neither feudal nor bourgeois paradigms. The understanding that I have assimilated from this play is that Shakespeare favours feudal worldviews over bourgeois worldviews, and thus, esoterically endorses the worldviews of the feudal system.
Shakespeare is subversively invective and polemical towards the ideologies of the bourgeoisie; he tenaciously excoriates their sense of self-preserving individualism and their avaricious nature, but he never astringently attacks the ideologies of feudalism, he sedulously highlights the flaws of its fabric without being vitriolic or seditious (Shakespeare uses Lear as a figural antithesis to James I, so that he could probably avoid being ostracised and demonised by him).

Shakespeare surreptitiously acknowledges and highlights the flaws within the feudalistic system, but he also accentuates a personal belief in that system, a belief that suggests the system would work more equitably and justly if the powers that be within the system acknowledge their responsibilities to their subjects, and acknowledge their needs and afflictions more punctiliously and more humanely. The fact that Shakespeare was less acerbic in his criticism of the feudal system than his criticism of the bourgeois system indicates that he favoured the former over the latter.

Shakespeare wrote King Lear in 1605. It was a time of discord and pernicious poverty, a time when the hapless souls of the impoverished were being exploited and demeaned by the nefarious forces of capitalism. There was a radical transformation in industry, farming and land owning. The old feudal order and its aged method's of production were being replaced by capitalist relations characteristic of the period of primary accumulation. The hiring of labour took place, replacing serfdom, as it was more profitable in a rising capitalist society to do so. The wool industry and its export market blossomed, as did the demand for pasture- land. The cultivated land that belonged to the landlords became converted into sheep-walks. This transition meant that the peasantry had no land to cultivate; and since there was only an immense supply of free agricultural labour available, to keep from starvation, the peasantry had to work for a pittance. This became the prerequisite for the development of capitalist industry, i.e., exploitation. Due to the unquenchable demand for land, the land that was confiscated during the reformation (around 1535) was sold on for a pittance to the bourgeoisie, who also purchased land from the old feudal lords, land which was ravished during the war of the roses (1455-1485). Due to these transactions, a bond of unity came into fruition between the old land -owners and the bourgeoisie, since the former began to apply capitalist methods to agriculture. As a result a new social group was formed, and these were known as the bourgeois landed gentry. Conversely, the so-called yeomanry or the class of wealthy peasant farmers were dispelled from their land from the new landowners drawn from the bourgeoisie and the nobility, and were forced to accept the status of tenant.

The old feudal nobility was capitulating rapidly (due mainly to the war of the roses) and became known as the ex-feudal landowners (aristocracy), which were more acquisitive and bourgeois in nature.

During the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603), absolutism reached its climax, but near the winter- time of her rule, it began to collapse. Mainly the middle and petty nobility supported this English absolutism, and it primarily served the interests of these classes, not those of the bourgeoisie. This was due mainly to the fact that industrial and trade privileges and monopoly rights were only afforded to those with the strata of nobility. Near the beginning of the seventeenth century the bourgeoisie outgrew this system, which was abused by Elizabeth during the last decade of her reign, and later by James I (1603-1625) and Charles I (1625-1649), in carrying out their policy of feudal reaction. This brought about the idyllic friendship between the new bourgeois nobility, the gentry, and the court nobility (which were the integral directing centres of political life).

Toward the end of Elizabeth's reign, Puritanism, which was the religious screen for the class-consciousness of the bourgeoisie in its struggle against feudalism and absolutism, gained ground. This group, which called itself Presbyterian, had the main primary objective of confiscating the property of the Church of England, and also the abolition of all privileges, which obstructed bourgeoisie development.

Shakespeare's King Lear incorporates and imbues all the heterogeneous elements of his time that contributed to human misery, social unrest and social division. He prodigiously emphasizes the shortcomings of the main the two opposing classes of his time (i.e. the feudal classes and the bourgeoisie classes.), and uses these opposing forces to bring about a suggestion of change, and with this dialectic way of reasoning, Shakespeare urges the leaders of society to take a more humanistic approach to there ideologies and beliefs, one which is centred on human interests or values, one which will augment the well being of mankind, one that acknowledges and enforces the rights and needs of the individual, one that will create a more utopian and egalitarian society. FEUDILISM VS BOUGEOISIE WITHIN KING LEAR " Sitting by his fire at night, Shakespeare heard them in the roar of the storm against the window-pane, in the howling of the wind in the chimneys- heard all these terrible voices contrapuntally inwoven one with another as in a fugue, and heard in them the torture-shriek of suffering humanity." George Brandles' interpretation to what actually enthused Shakespeare to write King Lear certainly ascribes to my belief that Shakespeare wanted to encapsulate and promulgate the nefarious suffering that the poverty stricken peasants had to endure in his time.

In King Lear, Shakespeare offsets the old feudal class and the new emerging bourgeoisie class against each other and denigrates upon their shortcomings to highlight that the suffering and state of destitute that existed in his time, was endemic and endogenous within these two class systems; and that non of them can be exculpated from blame. Swinburne's assertions that Lear voices a "fiery protest against the social iniquities and legal atrocities of civilized mankind" and that the play is a "cry on behalf of the outcast of the world", reinforces the sense of social criticism that exists within the play. In act one, scene one, the eponymous character, the aging King Lear (who is the play's protagonist) relinquishes himself from the responsibilities of government. Lear represents the ideologies of the old, antiquated feudal system, which entails a political, gendered and familial hierarchy; to which Lear has divine and absolute authority to rule over. Lear's abdication in essence, has a destabilising effect over the society to which he rules, as he is subverting the traditions of the political hierarchy system. Lear is wilfully antagonistic; he chooses not to act in accordance to societal expectations, that a king should only be relieved of his divine duties due to the intervention of death. Lear's decisions to divide his kingdom are purely insular and self motivated. He fatuously eschews from his divine duty of king, one that asseverates that he must consider himself as an extenuation of his subjects, that they collectively, have to be integrated into any decisions he makes, and that these decisions should be for their advantage, not just his. Lear fashions a love test between his three daughters, to find out which of them loves him the most, so that he can distribute his kingdom in a manner fitting to their affectionate avowals, "which of you shall we say doth love us the most?" Ironically, Lear's contumacy creates a form of competition that is indicative of capitalism, a society that reflects the ideals of the new bourgeoisie. Lear's daughter's, Goneril and Regan embody this new emerging force. They assiduously modify their lexicon with a verbose amount of flattery to win their fathers affections. Regan and Goneril's philosophy is based on individual ambition.

The benign and resplendid Cordelia rebuts her sisters false obsequiousness, and refuses plainly, to participate in her fathers pretentious charade. Cordelia's verisimilitude and veracious nature, symbolises a new changing aristocracy, one that imbues fealty, honesty, and courage. Cordelia refuses to resort to competition in order to project her true love of her father, hence her morals are unimpeachable they are beyond material gain. Cordelia expresses her love in formal, feudal terms "Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my bond; no more nor less." She loves understands and accepts without question her duty to love her father, but although she loves him more than her sisters do, her integrity prevents her from making a false declaration in order to gain his wealth.

Lear in a blind and vengeful rage disowns Cordelia and banishes her from his kingdom, and then divides his kingdom between equally between his two daughters Goneril and Regan. He is blind towards the virtues of his true daughter, and is more favourable and rewarding towards his malignant, Machiavellian daughters, all because he foolishly wants to believe their worm-tongued, sycophantic assertions.

When Lear disinherits Cordelia he steps "between the dragon and his wrath," urging Lear to reconsider his actions, to acknowledged that his other daughters have flattered him with false declarations of love. Kent is vitriolic in his protestation because of the love and respect he possesses for Lear. Kent acknowledges that the king he reveres has impetuously and foolishly created a fissure within his kingdom, that will have a cataclysmic and tragic effect on both Lear and his subjects.

Lear undergoes great traumatic suffering as a result of his foolhardy decisions. In seeking love and affection, he is treated with distain and filial ingratitude by his daughters Goneril and Regan throughout act two. They ridicule his frail mind and body, question his sanity and sardonically taunt him about his powerlessness and uselessness, now that the is striped from the eminency of king, trappings that he imprudently thought would be still at his disposal after his renunciation.

Due to the heinous torment that he endures, Lear begins to loose the faculties of his mind, his sanity dissipitates. Lear becomes vulnerable to a wider reality when he puts himself at the mercy of his daughters and finds himself suddenly homeless and stripped of retinue and privileges. Through the process of misery, Lear achieves a degree of spiritual apprehension, self-knowledge and insight, which he never approached in the days of his prosperity. After he has borne humiliation and felt the fury of the elements, he becomes increasingly aware of his own faults and limitations and the need of others. In scene three acts two and three, he is solicitous for the fool, and urges Kent and the fool to go into the protecting hovel first. He then ponders upon the wretches who were his subjects, and whose misery he has never before been sufficiently aware ("O, I have ta'en/too little care of this"). In act four scene six, Lear begins to understand the corrupting influence of power such as he himself has wielded: "There thou mightest behold the great image of authority: a dogs obeyed in office." In the same scene Lear exposes the corruption of the law, and the inequalities inherent within its administration ("plate sin with gold"). He recognises his past blindness to flattery and exhibits a touching new humility as he openly acknowledges his guilt in meeting with Cordelia. Shakespeare uses this period of regeneration to illustrate how that one can find a better plain of existence if one was to stand outside of himself and his own needs and recognise the and acknowledge the needs of others. Shakespeare innovatively uses Kent in order to humanize Lear, making him a human being who has a strong capacity for love, a person who is merely suffering as a result of his erroneous decisions. Kent conditions our opinion of Lear; he is a constant witness throughout the play of Lear's great worth. Kent is used by Shakespeare to evoke all the qualities that are instilled within the old feudal system, like fealty, integrity, courage, fortitude and graciousness. Shakespeare contrasts the difference between the valiant and honourable Kent against the cowardly and self-interested Oswald. Phyllis Rackin best sums up Oswald by stating that his "faults throughought has been that he is completely the creature of the social and political hierarchy, unaware of any values beyond worldly status or any code beyond manners." The contrast between the two servants demonstrates that Shakespeare believed in the importance of one to accept their individualism and to garner a respect for their freedom to take control of your own life and mind.

In act 1, scene 1, we are also introduced to the subplot, involving Gloucester, Edgar and Edmund. The subplot mirrors the main plot; it entails the same follies and misjudgements, and compounds how these flaws can lead to abominable circumstances in the end. Shakespeare uses the subplot to accentuate how Lear's actions affect not only himself, but also the families of the people within his kingdom . Edmund is the pernicious, conniving, amoral "illegitimate" son of Gloucester, who was a product of his father's licentious ways. He represents the new emerging society. He is determined to usurp and outsell his father in order to get his hands on "that which my father looses." He pursues power in the form of property with a ruthlessness that cuts right through family ties. Edmund negates all the most heavenly ecstasies, and all the feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. In act 1, scene two, we are first introduced to his tyrannical intentions in his soliloquy. "I grow, I prosper," he says, and these words define his materialistic ambitions throughout the play. With his attack on the "plague of custom," this quotation embodies Edmunds resentment of the old feudal social order of the world and his accompanying craving for respect and power. Edmund slanders the forthright and sincere Edgar (who embodies the same traits of feudalism that Kent embodies) and so secures the disinheritance of his brother. Then he malevolently betrays his father's commendable selflessness, as he informs Regan about Gloucester's kind assistance towards the rejected Lear. Gloucester's act of selflessness exemplifies again, the virtuous and rewarding aspects of feudalism. Edmund's betrayal results in Gloucester being repugnantly mutilated in act three scene seven. Cornwall and Regan pluck out his eyes and then let him out of their house so that he may "smell/his way to Dover." This ultimately sickening scene dramatises the capricious, hedonistic and amoral vices that are attached to the new emerging power seeking, unscrupulous bourgeoisie class. Shakespeare contrasts this with Gloucester's suffering, to demonstrate that the merciful and compassionate can suffer at the hands of the new emerging social class whose sole aim is primary accumulation. The only negative flaw that we can attach to Lear and Gloucester is that they both lack sound judgement at the start of the play, and their prudish, autocratic, substandard behaviour is the cause for this. Gloucester in his blindness, ironically starts to see the error of his ways, and again like Lear under goes a period of regeneration in act four, scene one. He cries to the heavenly powers to " let the superfluous and lust-dieted man.... Feel your power quickly.... And each man have enough." Goneril and Regan become infatuated with Edmund, and thus become embroiled in a battle for his affections. This however leads to tragedy, as in act five, scene six they are both stricken off this mortal coil as a result of this lust fuelled competitiveness, as Regan is poisoned and subsequently murdered by her sister, and then Goneril meets her end through self-inflicted suicide. The gruesome nature of the sisters deaths, for their causes of desire, illustrates that Shakespeare believes the carnivorous, cannibalistic nature of the materialist and power hungry bourgeoisies system will force it to implode, to turn in on itself and to eat away at it's reprehensible super-structure. Albany, Goneril's husband pre-prophesises this grotesque vision of the future of capitalist society when he says, "Humanity must perforce prey on itself/like monsters of the deep." Edgar's defeats and kills Oswald in act five, scene one and then valiantly eradicates the acerbic, capitalistic disease that is Edmund in act five, scene two. Edgar's purification of these scabrous wretches clearly indicates that Shakespeare supports and endorses some of the ideals of feudalism and is against the ideals of the more capitalistically driven bourgeoisie. In the final act, act five, scene three Shakespeare also depicts the tragic scene of Lear immerging with his dead daughter in his arms as that of the Pieta, by drawing comparisons to the holy mother with her son in her arms and Lear the father with his daughter in his arms, whom he looked upon for divine qualities. By portraying this heart wrenching scene and the scene of the death of Lear dying in anguish in a divine manner, Shakespeare further illustrates how the good and the pure individuals of society (i.e., the old feudal, aristocratic class) will be inevitably destroyed by the egregious and demonic individuals of society (i.e., the new emerging bourgeoisie class).

At the very end of the play Edgar and Kent regain their power and titles back from Albany. Albany invites them to rule with him. Kent feeling himself near death refuses, but Edgar seems to accept. Edgar's survival over the forces of adversity (capitalism), and his appointment of high office suggests that there is a better hope for the future, one that expels self-motivated ideals like the acquisition of land, wealth and power, one that exuberates fealty, courage, valour, honour and a sense of duty, all the qualities that can be found in feudalism, once it becomes more aware of selfless acts and the needs of the lower classes within society.

CONCLUSION Shakespeare wrote King Lear in a manner that was autonomous, free from the conventions of religion and feudal tradition. He wrote with a febrile sense of morality; which was based on the free will of man, on the voice of man's conscience, on his sense of responsibility towards himself and the world. He strove toads a utopian society with precocious utopian ideals, he accepted that there were flaws within his society, but believed that they could be eradicated if the head of state became more personable and affectionate towards the subjects he governed. He believed that there within existed within mankind the inherent capability to do what is just, not just for himself, but also for mankind as a whole. He believed in individualism, the most salient characteristic of the Renaissance. He harnessed a new approach towards social relations, the organization of the state, and the nature of authority. Shakespeare believed that the highest authority was that of the monarchy, but his conception of this was not so much the authority of divine right as the authority of responsibility. The monarch can only justify and ratify the importance of its rank and its subsistence by expressing and acknowledging the collective will of his people and by realising their collective welfare and well-being.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (1) Murry, Patrick. 1987.The Tragedy of King Lear. Dublin: Criterion Press Ltd. (2) Bruce, Susan (ed.). 1997. Icon Critical Guide: King Lear. Cambridge: Icon Books. (3) Ryan, Kiernan (ed).1993. New casebooks: King Lear. New York: Palgrave. (4) Adelman, Janet. 1978. Twentieth Century Interpretation of King Lear: A Collection of Critical Essays. New Jersey: Prentice-hall Inc. (5) Thompson, ann and Roberts, Sasha. 1997. Women Reading Shakespeare 1600-1900: An Anthology of Criticism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. (6)


Shakespeare wrote the Merchant of Venice, it is one of Shakespeare's less known plays because the original manuscripts were lost but the play did re-surface in the 1600s. In Shakespeare's time there was only one Jew in England, he name was Rodrigo Lopez. He was the Queen's Physician and was only half Jew. He was tried and executed. Shakespeare probably never met a Jew so he may have got his attitudes towards Jews from his experiences of them; he may also have got ideas and inspiration from the one other play about Jews at the time called `The Jew of Malta'. Christopher Marlowe who was a contempary of Shakespeare wrote it. Marlowe was stabbed to death in a pub.
This play was a controversial play when it was written and it still is now. It was controversial in Shakespeare's time because Jew's were not well liked and this is supported by the fact that the only Jew in England was executed. This play is arguably even more controversial now because we live in a post-holocaust world. The holocaust changed people's views towards Jews because they were treated like sub-humans and they were massacred by the millions.

The genre of this play is hard to decide because in Shakespeare's time it would have been a comedy because people would have wanted to see Shylock lose everything because he was a Jew but now it is more of a tragedy because our attitudes towards to Jews have changed. The Merchant of Venice is also a bit of a mystery play because we do not know who sent the letter about Antonio's ships because they never did sink it was a dramatic device use by Shakespeare.

The courtroom scene is one of the most important scenes because everyone is on stage and it is the penultimate scene of the play. Act IV Scene I is a stage for Shakespeare to present his ideas to the audience, he shows the Duke using derogatory language towards Shylock to show the attitudes of Venice towards Jews and he also shows us that women were not recognised in court through Nerissa and Portia dressing up as men to save Antonio. This scene also shows a change in attitude over time because in Shakespeare's time a Jew having to change to a Christian was a fate worse than death because it is a spiritual death and some people would say if you cant be yourself what's the point of life. But in our time death is much worse because we are not so religious.

As the scene opens, the Duke begins the dialogue with references to Shylock. The Duke uses phrases such as `That thou but leadest this fashion of thy malice', `thou art come to answer a stony adversary, an inhuman wretch' to describe Shylock and his actions. Shakespeare uses this language to show how alienated Shylock is from the rest of the people in the courtroom and it also sets the scene that the trial is straight away biased because of the prejudice towards Jews. When Shylock enters the court, the Duke continues to use derogatory and insulting language to address Shylock he says `From stubborn Turks and Tartars, never train'd to offices of tender courtesy'. He also refers to Shylock as `Jew' instead of using his name, as if he is not good enough to have a name. The language the Duke uses shows Venice's hatred towards Jews and it also makes Shylock look all alone, fighting a battle against a city which despises him and his religion. The Duke speaks at Shylock rather than to him, which shows he thinks Shylock is sub-human and it shows the class difference between the Duke and Shylock.

Shylock's opening speeches express his will to have his pound of flesh because he wants to and nothing will stop him, `You'll ask me why I rather have a weight in carrion flesh than to receive three thousand ducats. I'll not answer that, but say it is my humour' this line confounds audience's expectations because everyone is looking at Shylock and expecting him to be merciful but instead he states that he will have his pound of flesh. Shylock is determined to have his pound of flesh because although three thousand ducats would be of more use to him than the flesh, it would be a major victory for him to lawfully kill a Christian in front of the people of Venice who hate him.

Shylocks opening speeches are impassionate and also represent part of the play's continuing themes of love and hate. Shylock talks mostly of hate in his speeches this relates to the theme of Christians and Jews as a symbol of hate. Shylocks talks about how he would rather have a rat in his house poisoned than receive ten thousand ducats, he uses this to illustrate why he is taking his pound of flesh rather than receive the money. The way Shylock likens Antonio to a rat shows how much hate there is between Christians and Jews. The feud between Antonio and Shylock is a structure or device used by Shakespeare to explore the idea of difference.

There are themes that run all the way through the play. Money is a big theme because it is the basis for the plot about Antonio owing Shylock money. Love is theme that is symbolised by Bassanio and Portia, it is also symbolised by the friendship of Antonio and Bassanio. Hate is an important theme because the play is about the hate between Christians and Jews, which is emphasized through Antonio and Shylocks feud. Family is also a theme and its importance is shown through how devastated Shylock is when Jessica runs away. Justice and mercy are shown to be linked because it isn't really possible to have justice without mercy. Death is a theme that is shown through Shylock's eagerness to kill Antonio.

Nerissa's sudden arrival increases the tension because the audience thought that there was nothing that could save Antonio because it Shylock was so determined to have his pound of flesh, `From both, my lord. Bellario greets your grace'. Now that a possible solution has arrived the audience knows a little bit about Portia's plan and are wondering if she will turn up. The audience are ultimately wondering if the plan will work if she does turn up.

Nerissa presents the letter and while she is doing this Shylock is whetting his knife, the juxtaposition of these two scenes happening at the same time is very effective. This is because you have got Nerissa trying to stop Shylock from getting his way, which is the solution, but at the same you have got Shylock preparing to carry it out. I think Shakespeare uses these to dramatic devices together because it creates tension because the audience can see in front of them the two things that could happen in the trial and this makes them wonder what is going to happen next.

When the letter is read out it is in prose as opposed to verse like the rest of the play, the transition from verse to prose makes it seem more likely that Antonio will be saved because verse is much less emotional and formal which makes the letter sound more genuine as it is the type of language a doctor of law would use. This change is a dramatic device used to change the atmosphere and mood of the scene. Before the letter is read out the people on stage are talking in poetry, they are also talking in an emotional way either trying to convince Shylock to be merciful or Shylock laying down the reasons for his actions.

Portia enters the court immediately after the letter has been read out `and hear, I take it, is the doctor come. Give me your hand; come you from old Bellario?' The entrance of Portia contributes to the dramatic tension because the audience is wondering if she will be able to save Antonio. The fact that Portia is dressed as a man is dramatically ironic because it is obvious to the audience who she really is but the characters on stage do not realise it. Shakespeare now increases the tension with Portia's pleas for mercy and Bassanio's offer to double the amount owed to Shylock by way of compensation.

Portia's pleas to Shylock for mercy but insistence on the letter of the law being obeyed are traps deliberately set so that Shylock's final defeat will be bitterer. Shylock refuses to accept the extra money from Bassanio through this Shylock condemns himself because he makes it quite clear that he wants to take Antonio's life, which makes him look like a murderer.

Portia tells Antonio he must prepare for the forfeit to be carried out, `You must prepare your bosom for his knife'. Shakespeare is building towards the climax, this increases the tension because it confounds the audience's expectations as the audience was expecting Portia to save Antonio not allow Shylock to carry out the forfeit.

Just as Shylock is about to carry out the forfeit, Portia reveals the details of the law, which makes it impossible for Shylock to carry it out `Shed thou no blood, nor cut thou less nor more but just a pound of flesh'. Shakespeare slowly reveals the details of the law to maximise the effect of the audience's realisation that what looked like Antonio's sealed fate could not be carried out.

Shakespeare's unexpected twist that Shylock is to die is very unexpected because Shylock was the one who brought the case to court in the first place. This twist would have worked even better on an Elizabethan audience because they would have wanted to see Shylock condemned to death because they hated Jews. `If it proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts he seek the life of any citizen,' `the offender's life lies in the mercy of the Duke only, `gainst all other voice.' Shakespeare's language when describing that Shylock must die show how much Shylock and his religion are despised by the city of Venice. In particular his use of the word `alien' to describe Shylock shows how alienated the Jews are from the rest of the people of Venice and England, which are both Christian societies.

I think Portia doesn't reveal her true identity because she thinks that it would not be appropriate for her to reveal her identity in front of other people because women are not recognised in court. I also think that maybe if she revealed her true self her arguments might be dismissed because she is a woman and not recognised and she did not want to risk losing the case. I think Antonio would be very grateful to her for saving his life but at the same time he would be shocked because women are not recognised in court. I think she accepts the ring from Bassanio so she can prove that it was she at the trial and so she can confront Bassanio for giving it away when he promised not to. This then paves the way for a comic ending after the seriousness of Act 4 Scene I.

Shakespeare used many dramatic devices to build dramatic tension in Act IV Scene I such as confounding the audience's expectations, sudden entrances and adding unexpected twists. I think Shakespeare built up dramatic tension very effectively because he quickly changed the direction of the trial from going in Shylock's favour to in Antonio's favour which kept the audience guessing all the time, he also used a different dramatic devices to build the tension which worked. The tension worked because it kept the audience guessing about what would happen next. Also it helped to put across Shakespeare's views and perspective on Elizabethan society.

I think the play has relevance to the modern audience because it shows a change in attitudes over time and it also shows how one event like the holocaust can completely change our attitudes and women today can see how lucky they are to live in a society which respects their opinions and lets them speak their minds. There are also lessons to be learnt such as not to make bonds that you cannot fill and that if you behave maliciously towards people it will catch up with you, they will treat you in the same way if the tables turn.