Best Writer

Fundamentals of Project Management (Coursework)
This summative assessment is a Written Report consisting of 7 tasks
The word limit is 2,500 words, comments and interpretations should be written in your own words.

Please read through the questions below. After watching the full documentary ALL THE QUEEN’S HORSES please answer the questions (numbered, and in complete sentences!) as they relate back to the video and Chapter 7 – Fraud, Internal Control, and Cash – in our Chapter 7 module and Chapter 7 in our textbook (accounting tools for business decision making 8th edition):

Based on the video,
1. who do they say is the second most common victim of embezzlement?
2. In your own words, after watching the video, how did the town clerk (Kathy Swanson) discover the fraud?
3. How long did the town take to investigate Rita? How much (in dollars) did she steal just during the investigation?
4. The narrator of video notes that she continually gets asked, “How does one person in a small town steal 53 million dollars with no one knowing and get away with it?” After watching this video, and after reviewing Chapter 7 in our book… What components and/or principles of internal control were violated? Please reference at least three components and/or principles of internal controls noted in Chapter 7. Use the terms we discussed from the chapter. Please give examples of how they were violated from the documentary.
5. What internal controls would you suggest that they implement going forward? Please give examples of what they could do to improve the control over the city funds using your Chapter 7 knowledge.

(noted in the video – hint… watch all the way through the ending credits):
Fraud accounts for what percentage of all business failures?
What percentage of companies are affected by fraud?
What is the median dollar amount of loss due to fraud for government entities?
69% of all federal embezzlement cases occurred in companies with fewer than how many people?
Nearly 57% of the incidents involved male or female perpetrators?

In considering the above history, please pay special attention to:
1) The U.S. Relationship with China compared with that of the European Colonial Powers–the United States did not victimize China in the way that Great Britain, France, Germany, and other major powers did.
2) The fact that the U.S. Fought Japan, the country whose military leaders invaded and savaged
China during WWIl, and the fact that the U.S., not the Chinese Communist Party, defeated Japan in the Great Pacific War and weakened the Japanese forces and compelled them to pull out of China at the end of WWII.
3) The United States Decided Not to Intervene with troops in the Chinese Civil War, thereby standing back and allowing Mao’s armies to defeat the Chiang Kai-shek Kuomintang.
4) The United States came to terms with China in the 1970s, recognized the PRC, and aligned with the PRC against a massive USSR army that was positioned on China’s northern border.
5) The United States opened Deng Xiaoping-led China to the global capitalist system of commerce and trade, thereby enabling China a) to join the world community of nations and b) grow prosperous, and thus also enabling the Communist party, which was in serious trouble with its own people because of Mao’s radical poverty-inducing policies, to regain some measure of political legitimacy within Chinese society.
6) The United States has kept open the maritime commons in order to sustain the system of liberal global trade and commerce, not to exclude the PRC from this system, and in reality the PRC has benefitted from this system of trade and commerce.
7) The United States has no territorial claims on Taiwan, nor does it seek to utilize Taiwan to launch an invasion of the PRC-in fact, the U.S. has no desire whatsoever to destabilize, invade, or conquer China.

In answering this question, you must (1) read all of the books and articles in the last section of the syllabus:
A. Chen Jian, China’s Road to the Korean War
B. Howard French, Everything Under the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape China’s Push for Global Power
C. Susan Shirk, China: Fragile Super Power (Conclusion only)
D. Graham Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?
E. Hal Brands and Michael Beckley, Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China
(2) review your class notes, and (3) read the following:
A. Howard French, Everything Under the Heavens.
B. Fei-Ling Wang, The China Order: Centralia, World Empire, and the Nature of Chinese Power.
SUNY, 2017. HAND OUT
C. Adam B. Lerner, “The Uses and Abuses of Victimhood Nationalism in International Politics,” European Journal of International Relations, May 7, 2019.
D. (PDF) Perry Link, “Chinese Nationalism Today: A Terse Anatomy,” USCC.gov June 18, 2008
E. Susheng Guo, “From Affirmative to Assertive Patriots: Nationalism in Xi Jinping’s China,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol, 44, 2021, Issue 4. (On line, Feb 2, 2022)
F.
“Xi Jining Has Nurtured an Ugly Form of Chinese Nationalism: It May Be Hard to Control,”
The Economist, July 16, 2022.

A online survey was done, the results, research paper templates and a document that was summarize by me from 5 sources are attached for ease. A few tables must be included ; hence, the survey results will be added and must be converted using the spss format or excel.

Assignment Description
Case Analysis Paper Assignment- MSN students
Your writing assignment requires that you argue for a recommended course of action the nurse (or nurse practitioner) should take, using the method explained in this document. To find a case, aim to find a nurse who holds a position you hope to have after you graduate, and ask this nurse to share a case that presented an ethical dilemma to her/him.

Organize your paper according to the sections described below, inserting into your paper as section headings each of the words in bold font. Also include each of the section letters (A, B, etc.) in bold font. With the exception of sections 3 and 4, answer the questions in clear, complete sentences (paragraphs where appropriate), and avoid the use of first and second person in all sections except when explaining where you found the case.
Papers should be APA, minimally 1800 words, excluding the works cited.

PART ONE: THE CASE
A) What is the case that presents an ethical problem to the nurse?

Briefly (in no more than 600 words) describe a particular scenario that leads up to an ethical dilemma/problem for the nurse. (“Ethical dilemma/problem” implies the nurse is in a situation where, because of competing ethically relevant factors, he or she is yet uncertain about the right way to respond—or is pulled to respond in two or more opposing ways.) The case description should focus on the significant data that need to be considered in making an ethical analysis. Typically this includes information about the condition of the patient and about people to be affected by the decision. It may also include information about the belief system of a particular culture or religious group, and relevant laws or institutional policies. (Do not in this section refer to tenets of the Code of Ethics or to any ethical obligations.) Do not state here (or in any section prior to Part Three) how the case was resolved or what should have happened. Also, do not in this section state anything regarding what the nurse ought to do. Rather, give only the information about the case that leads up to the nurse’s dilemma.

B) From whom did you learn about such a case?
Identify the general source (employment position of person) from whom you learned about the ethical dilemma described above. Be careful here and throughout your paper to protect confidentiality.
PART TWO: ANALYSIS
Throughout Part Two, do not add facts to the case or needlessly repeat facts already presented in the case description.
1 – Stakeholders and the Wishes/Goals that Matter Most to Each
Identify each person (or group of persons) who has something significant to gain or lose in relation to how the situation is handled. For each identified stakeholder, state the one or two items that the stakeholder would say matters most to him/her/them. If it is unknown what matters most to a stakeholder, state so, indicate possibilities for what could matter most to the stakeholder. If a stakeholder is unconscious or not-yet-reflective, state the most significant benefits and/or harms at stake for that stakeholder.

Do not state what the stakeholders ought to be concerned about. Also, do not include the nurse or any other member of the health care team as a stakeholder unless he or she has something at stake in this case besides his or her concern to do the right thing (or concern to fulfill obligations, appropriately care for the patient, etc.).

2 – Opposing General Options
Identify two opposing general options the nurse could take.

3 – Specific Ethically Relevant Benefits to be Gained by Option 1
List and number the case-specific ethically relevant “benefits” (goals) that can be achieved by Option 1. For the purpose of this assignment, “benefits” are not limited to the kinds of goods typically considered when considering the principle of Beneficence. Rather, “benefit” refers to anything to be achieved for which there is some ethical reason to care about achieving it. (Ethical reasons do not include reasons merely grounded in satisfying the nurse’s own desire/interest/need.) Typically, each benefit will be a particular way of respecting a person (and the person’s rights) and/or promoting a person’s well-being (flourishing).

To help you pinpoint what is ethically relevant, express each benefit as a succinct phrase beginning with an ‘-ing’ word. If any phrase needs clarification regarding what is ethically relevant, provide the clarification in parentheses, using either a phrase or complete sentence.
Examples of ethically relevant benefits include:
1. Honoring Mr. Roberts’ ethical right to know about his diagnosis
2. Helping Mr. Roberts to maintain trust in his health care providers
3. Satisfying Mrs. Roberts (specifically regarding her wish for Mr. Roberts not yet to know about his newly diagnosed cancer)
4. Appreciating the possibility Mr. Roberts would prefer not yet to know about his cancer (He later may be grateful for having had the opportunity to enjoy his daughter’s wedding without having known about his cancer.)
Other examples include:
• Fulfilling Mr. Jones’ (the patient’s) current wish to ____
• Fulfilling Mr. Jones’ previously stated wish (as communicated in his advance directive) to ____
• Appreciating the possibility (despite what Mr. Jones’ son states) Mr. Jones actually would have wanted ______
• Alleviating the current discomfort Mr. Jones is experiencing
• Eliminating (or diminishing) the risk of discomfort Mr. Jones could experience Do not list general principles or general duties/responsibilities, and do not refer to desires of the nurse to fulfill a duty or to see that patients are appropriately treated. (Examples of what not to include are “fulfilling the nurse’s duty to keep patients safe”; “satisfying the nurse’s desire to avoid harm to Mr. Smith”.)

IMPORTANT: In this section, and throughout your paper, do not use words/phrases such as “autonomy,” “dignity,” “respect”, “advocate,” “justice,” “quality of life,” etc., without clarifying specifically what you mean. Do not use “beneficence” or “nonmaleficence” without indicating the specific benefits or harms you have in mind. Do not use the terms “futile” or “futility” without specifying the goal in relation to which the action would be futile. If you use the word “right,” clarify whether you are referring to a legal right or to a fundamental ethical/moral right, and for any ethical/moral right, to the extent possible, indicate why such a right exists.

4 – Specific Benefits to be Gained by Option 2
List the case-specific benefits that can be achieved by Option 2. Number them starting with the number following the highest number used in section 3.
5 – Justified Recommendation of General Option
A) State the recommended general option and justify your claim by stating which benefits are most important.
Use this format: Encouraging the health care team to continue Mr. Jones’ life-sustaining treatments (Option 1) is the better option because the most important benefits to be achieved are:
• appreciating the possibility Mr. Jones would have wanted to be kept alive (#2); and
• appreciating the possibility Mr. Jones will soon recover his ability to communicate (#4).

B) Further justify your claim by explaining why the benefits listed in part A are more important than the benefits you’ve listed supporting the opposing option.

Additionally, pose objections to the points you make.
Considering one or more of the benefits that support the opposing option, present one or more robust (well–elaborated) objections to your reasoning that your recommended option is the better option. Present each objection in a distinct paragraph which begins “Objection:”. Follow each paragraph with a paragraph that responds to the objection and which begins with “Response:”. This should strengthen your argument that the section 5 recommended option is the better option.

6 – Sensitivity and Refined Recommendation
Admit how the recommended option is likely to infringe on one or more of the numbered would-be-benefits supporting the opposing option. (You need not address all the benefits supporting the opposing option.) Then explain what could be done—while still following the general recommendation argued for in section 5—either to help achieve this (these) benefit(s) or at least show sensitivity toward the loss of this (these) benefit(s). Example: Being honest with Mr. Roberts about his condition will not satisfy Mrs. Roberts’ desire for the clinicians to postpone disclosing it to him (#3). However, Mrs. Roberts may become less disappointed with the decision to disclose the diagnosis if the care team . . .)
Additionally, elaborate on the course of action the nurse should take, providing details not yet mentioned in the general recommendation. For example, if the recommended response entails the nurse having a discussion with one or more persons, provide details regarding what the nurse ought to say and how to say it. (You may wish to consider publications on effective communication, such as pp. 52-55, 63-64 of the chapter by Fiona Timmins posted in the E-Reserves.)
Do not merely hand off the nurse’s dilemma to someone else! If you think the nurse ought to bring the case to an ethics committee, explain exactly what a nurse serving on the ethics committee ought to say and recommend.
Integration of Literature
(Do not insert the words “Integration of Literature” in your paper.)
• In section 5 (and possibly other sections as well) meaningfully integrate published ethics-related claims into your analysis. Your paper must include at least three references to publications, and at least two of the publications must not include your course texts or readings found in E-Reserves. (Note: The initial submission of your paper should include some—but need not include all—the references your final paper will make to publications.) Integrated literature, while not referring to your specific case, should present a general consideration relevant to your analysis (even if it’s a point with which you disagree and which you criticize in your paper). An example would be a published comment about the clinician’s obligation to “do no harm” and/or about what kinds of situations justify allowing a certain harm.
• Regarding each reference to a published claim, be explicit regarding the reason you make sure a reference. If you agree with the author, include a phrase such as: “As Edison appropriately claims,. . . ” or “Agreeing with the ANA Code of Ethics, which states . . .,” If you disagree with the claim, include a phrase such as: “Contrary to Merton, who claims . . ., it is the case that . . .”
• In addition to the required integration of ethics-related claims, you may integrate relevant published empirical facts, in which case you need not clarify the extent to which you agree with the fact.
• When referring to publications, provide within the body of your paper the author’s name, date of publication, and specific page/section number(s) so that the referred to passage or idea easily can be found.

INTEGRATION OF LITERATURE: The author meaningfully integrates claims of the required number of publications according to the paper instructions, including in the body of the text the specific page number on which the referred to point is found. The author provides an appropriate bibliography of the sources. 15% (13.5-15 very good/excellent, 11-13 satisfactory/good, 7.5-10 partially satisfactory, 0-7 poor)
For any section that fails to abide by any of the relevant “Additional Instructions,” points will be deduced within that section. For example, a deduction of points will occur in each section where there is an occurrence of grammatical errors or inappropriate or ill-defined phrases/terms (e.g., “I feel,” “futile” without reference to a specific goal).

Sources to reference and integrate within the paper:
American Nurses Association (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. Washington, DC: Author. (ISBN: 978-1-55810-599-7)

Post, LF, Blustein J (2021). Handbook for Heath Care Ethics Committees (3rd Edition). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (ISBN 978-1-4214-4234-1)

I interviewed the Nurse (RN) and these are the nurses responses (case study) along with my opposing general options to majority of the rubric key points in part 1 and 2. I ran out of time to write the paper as the intructions and rubric requested.
PART 1
1) Case: Chief complaint: 34-year-old female patient with dissociative disorder. Shortness of breath, malaise, chronic anemia, Hemoglobin level of 3, Respiratory distress related to decreased Hgb and low blood volume caused the need for intubation, history of Chronic kidney disease, history of kidney transplant however kidneys weren’t working due to Acute kidney injury, due to labs showing increase BUN, and Cr., WBC were low.
Next of Kin: Patient’s mother, who is a Jehovah’s witness, who stated patient does not take any blood products which causes confusion due to patients Past medical history of kidney transplant. Patient had inability to communicate due to intubation and sedation.
 “Nurses had uncertainty about blood products being allowed to be administered or not because of the patient’s history revealing a kidney transplant.”
 Some Jehovah witness won’t take whole blood but will take some blood that is derived from blood products.

2. Source: MICU-ICU Registered Nurse, RN

PART TWO:
1) STAKEHOLDERS
Stakeholder 1: next of kin, mother
Stakeholder 2: patient, unsure of her wish’s d/t sedation and intubation & needed to be evaluated competent by psych.
Stakeholder 3: Bioethics committee – there mediate and make sure things are ethical and legal.
2) OPPOSING GENERAL OPTIONS:
Option 1: Honor the wishes of the Next of Kin, mother by not giving the patient blood products.
Option 2: Give the patient products.
3) and 4) “BENEFITS” TO BE GAINED BY EACH OPTION: (could add more) follow directions.
– Option 1: morally the mother will believe the pt will be condemned by her god, pt will carry around guilt and suffer from depression if she was to receive the blood products, receiving moral distress, struggling with her spirituality and/or relationship with her god.
– Option 2: by administrating blood products the pts hemoglobin would increase thus sustaining her BP and allowing the pt to be removed off of life support, it would also help recovery from her AKI acute kidney injury (prerenal), decrease her need for possible dialysis.
5) JUSTIFICATION OF THE BETTER OPTION:
Option 1 is the better option both legally & ethically, no harm was done, although she took longer to recover, she did so. Honored wishes didn’t cause any moral distress, anxiety, depression, failure to thrive and did not allow the pt to come to any conflicts with her religious beliefs with her god.
Possible objections: A possible objection is the pts wishes are not compatible scientifically for sustaining her life. (COPY & PASTE FROM CASE the reason blood is need) refer back to option 2
6) SENSITIVITY & REFINED RECOMMENDATION: (I did not complete) follow assignment directions.

INTEGRATION OF LITERATURE: (I did not complete) follow assignment directions.
Sources to reference and integrate within the paper:
American Nurses Association (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. Washington, DC: Author. (ISBN: 978-1-55810-599-7)

Post, LF, Blustein J (2021). Handbook for Heath Care Ethics Committees (3rd Edition). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. (ISBN 978-1-4214-4234-1)

Engineering is a broad field that offers many disciplines that may contain greater specialization.
Identifying the specific discipline of engineering that appeals to you the most can assist you as you plan
your academic career. Does Mechanical Engineering appeal to you? What about Civil, Electrical, or
Industrial? Or are you interested in a more specialized field of engineering such as Petroleum,
Bioengineering, or Computer Engineering?

As we obtain more knowledge in a field of engineering, and as society values and calls for greater
requirements within that field, a specialization in engineering emerges. Computer Engineering emerged
as a field that intertwined aspects of both Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, but who would
have heard of Computer Engineering one hundred years ago? In the grand scheme of history, one
hundred years is just the blink of an eye, but reflect on the impact that computers have on the modern
world.

Consider the engineering field you desire to pursue, and write a 2-3 page paper addressing the
following:
 What type of engineering do you plan to pursue?
 What specialization in that field most interests you? (For example, Electrical Engineering has
specialties in electronics and solid state circuitry, telecommunications, computers and control
systems, instrumentation and measurements, power generation and transmission, and
industrial applications.)
 What is your goal in that field?
 What do you think your employment responsibilities will be?
 What do you think will emerge in your field in the next 25 years?
 What is the projected economic outlook for your chosen career?
 Identify three companies that employ engineers in your field of interest.
Include references at the end of the paper.

Below are some websites that can be helpful for your research:
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Architecture-and-Engineering/home.htm
http://www.acinet.org/
http://www.careercornerstone.org/
http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/

Step 1: Deciding What to Do Next
Now that you have spoken to the witness and gathered information about the crime, you need to decide what to do with this information. Law enforcement officers have protocols that they must follow, but there is also an element of personal decision-making involved in this career. You may have heard of this described as “going with your gut.”
In this case, your department was already aware of the break-in as it had been reported by the owner of the shop. Your partner responded to the call and wrote a police report based on their interview of the shop owner and a walkthrough of the scene:
On Saturday, May 29, 2020, I was dispatched to 234 Lee St. to investigate a break-in at a coffee shop called in by the owner, Yasmine Langley. Upon arrival at the coffee shop, Cups 4 You, I noted a broken window to the left of the rear door. The individual(s) used this as a means of entry. Ms. Langley met with me at approximately 7:55 a.m., and we proceeded to walk through the establishment. There were a number of missing items including the cash from the cash register, two espresso machines, and approximately 25 lbs. of coffee beans. Ms. Langley professed to know no one who would be interested in harming her or her business. There are currently no suspects.
Luckily, your conversation with the witness on the phone provides additional information that was not previously known!
You will need to write up a formal addition to your partner’s police report. But first you must decide if you are ready to write the report or if you need to visit the scene of the crime, gather more information from additional witnesses, speak with the owner of the coffee shop again, or something else. Remember, it is your job to keep the community safe and build trust with the public. What would be the best way to do this?

In a word processing document, answer the following questions:
What information did you gather from the phone witness that is not included in your partner’s police report?
What would you recommend as next steps in this situation? Why?
How do these next steps help you achieve your goal of keeping the community safe and/or building trust with the public?

Step 2: Adding to the Police Report
Taking the information that you gathered from your phone witness, write an addition to your partner’s police report.
Remember, a well-written police report gives a thorough account of what happened and sticks to the facts. Your addition should do the same. Review your partner’s police report and ensure you know what pieces you need to add.

Using the same word processing document as in Step 1, write the addition to your partner’s police report. You do not need to include information that was already written in his report, but be sure the relevant who, what, where, when, and whys of the information as well as a description of how you received it are included.

Write Abstract, Analysis, and Conclusion

Criteria:

Abstract
Concise, it addresses what experiment was done, for what reason, and what was measured without all the details. States measured quantity and uncertainty with the statement of consistency, if relevant.

Analysis
Includes narrative answers to questions and analysis of results, including a mention of sources of error and uncertainty. Uncertainty calculations and data manipulation should be presented. Includes a discussion about how the results relate to the purpose of the experiment and the underlying physics.

Conclusion
Summarizes experimental observations, data analysis, chief sources of error and uncertainty, and re-states results, with consistency test with the expected value(s) if applicable.

I uploaded the lab instruction and a sample lab report as a reference

As the pace of change accelerates, the value of any stock of knowledge depreciated faster and faster. Today competitive advantage is not based on stocks of knowledge, but having access to flows of knowledge… What does that mean for the organization (FBI – will be the organization used for this paper)? How should it prepare to take advantage?

Search for examples of organizations preparing to take advantage and apply it to your organization (FBI). There is no minimum number of references for this assignment but you should have several references. You should take the information you gather from these references and tell the story of change for the organization, where did they start, how did it plan for the change, and how does it execute the change to take advantage.

Choose one question from each act and write a paragraph in response (three paragraphs total). Before you select the question, make sure there are no questions left unanswered—you should respond to unanswered questions first. This is a good reason to post early—you will have more choices available.
Act One
What is the backdrop for the arrival of Don Pedro and his men? Why is this significant to the plot of the play?
What is the substance of Don Pedro’s private conversation with the lovesick Claudio? Why is Don Pedro in such a hurry, do you think? Is it a good idea for him to woo in Claudio’s place? Why or why not?
How do we know that Beatrice and Benedick are in a “skirmish of wit”? Who seems to be winning? What is said that leads the audience to believe these two have a past, and why is that important, particularly when we reach Act 3 and Don Pedro’s “trick”?

Attached Files:
File Much Ado Acts I-III.mp3 (9.579 MB)
File MuchAdoActsI-III.rtf (376.972 KB)
This week, we will address the following topics:
Drama
The Writing Process
Analyzing Literature
Literary Research
[The audio file is the same as the text–because this is a long explanation, the audio is offered for those who prefer it. You don’t need to use both unless you’d like to do so].
Politics
There are a lot of things to discuss in Much Ado About Nothing, so the following isn’t the only theme you can or should think about. It’s just something that often we don’t think much about as we read the play and is actually pretty important: politics.
Why are the Prince (Don Pedro) and his men even in Messina?
Politics is why Leonato allows the prince and his men to eat his food and sleep in his home, why he throws a party for their victory–it’s also why Leonato believes that Don Pedro may offer marriage to his daughter Hero. Leonato is the Governor of Messina ( a city in Italy), and good ties to the royal family are important not only for political stability, but for money, troops, even survival. Leonato and Don Pedro are “old friend(s),” according to Don Pedro. By this, he means that he is grateful that Leonato is footing the bill to host, feed, and entertain the officers and their troops, showing his gratitude for and his generosity to his prince.
It’s also why, just before the party, Leonato says to Hero (his daughter), “If the prince do solicit you, in that kind, you know your answer . . .” He’s telling her that if the prince asks to marry her, her answer will be “yes.” It would be a marriage that would bring about great political advantage for her father, giving him direct ties to the royal family, and while he would not force the prince to make an offer, she is not to turn it down if he does. There is at least the speculation, then, that such a marriage offer is possible. Beatrice (Leonato’s niece) seems pretty happy not to be under the same orders.
If Leonato has the expectation that an offer of marriage MIGHT come–then the Prince must know it as well. Do you think that perhaps this might be why the Prince is so enthusiastic about Claudio’s infatuation with Hero? Why he pushes Claudio to make the offer right away rather than waiting? Claudio doens’t want to appear too hasty, as if he’s just after her money and connections. However, almost the first thing Claudio asks is “Doth Leonato have any son?” Claudio here is asking whether or not Hero will be Leonato’s heir–will she be wealthy when Leonato dies. The Prince says that Hero is the only heir, and Claudio then agrees to propose.
The Prince can then encourage Claudio to make his move while extricating himself without offending his host. It’s a good match for his friend, a good match for Hero.
After all, Claudio is the hero of the hour. He’s a newly-minted war hero, he’s become the Prince’s right-hand man, he’s from a noble family himself (he’s Count Claudio). So while it’s not as good as the prince, it’s close. And with the Prince’s approval, it’s a highly advantageous match for Hero (not to mention that while we don’t know the age of Claudio or Hero, it’s his first battle, and she’s really kind of timid, which makes her seem young. It might that be the Prince finds her too young, but Claudio is more the right age–we don’t know, but an argument could be made here).
Then, we find out something else–the Prince doesn’t make a marriage offer to Hero, but he DOES make one to Beatrice.
When Beatrice complains that she must cry “Heigh ho” for a husband, the Prince says “Lady Beatrice, I will get you one.” He means he’ll find a husband for Beatrice. But she says, teasingly, that she’d rather have one of his father’s “getting” by which she mean “begetting”–if you’ve read your Bible, you know that means his issue, or his sons. So she’s kind of implying that she’d marry one of the princes…but when he takes the plunge, she immediately turns him down. Ouch.
Well, goodness, this is an awkward situation, because Beatrice doesn’t want to marry Don Pedro, but he’s a prince and a powerful one. He’s a good friend to her uncle, who apparently is allowing her to live with him, so she doesn’t want the prince to be angry at being rejected, and she WAS kind of flirting with him a second before. Besides, she’s witty, but she’s never truly cruel (we can argue that she’s cruel to Benedick, but that’s another discussion entirely).
Beatrice saves the situation, because she turns it into a joke on herself–she tells Don Pedro that he’s “too costly to wear every day,” and that she was born to speak “mirth but no matter.” In other words, she would not be happy as a political wife, that she isn’t suited to be the wife that a Prince with his reputation requires. Fortunately for her, the Prince understands and seems to take it well. (We can argue that based on his later actions, but we’ll leave it there for now).
Beatrice and Benedick
Now, this leaves us with some questions–is Beatrice really so opposed to the Prince on his own merits? Or is it that her heart is already given over to someone else? Even the Prince, thinking on her words, tells the others, “She were an excellent wife, for Benedick.”
And the plot thickens.
All of this hinting around may explain why Beatrice and Benedick fall in love so fast when they’ve been previously devoted to insulting one another. Hate and love are two sides of the same intense emotion, and it’s possible there’s been something in their past that turned the relationship sour (Beatrice hints at it when she says “You always end with a jade’s trick/I know you of old”). Remember, too, that Benedick is portrayed as a sort of “ladies’ man,” which may have caused an issue before. We’re never given details about this, just the clues. And in that conversation with Don Pedro (the prince), Beatrice admits that she once gave Benedick her heart, but that he had won it from her with “false dice.” She’s determined not to lose her heart to him again, lest she prove “the mother of fools.”
The largest of these clues telling us that they may have had a previous relationship is the ease with which they are brought together. It shouldn’t matter, should it? Overhearing your friends and/or family saying that someone you hate is actually in love with you might more commonly end up giving that person an advantage in their arguments. Instead, both are thrilled to hear it and willing to give up the battles of wit immediately, to “requite” the love that’s being offered. Their friends may believe their scheme very successful, but it seems more likely that being “allowed” to love the other person is just the final straw that allows each to admit their feelings for one another.
Beatrice and Benedick are not a political couple.
Don Pedro, Don John, and Hero and Claudio
Now–our second couple (or, many critics believe, our first couple), are Hero and Claudio. Claudio trusts the Prince enough to allow him to woo Hero for him. Knowing that Leonato is expecting him to make that offer, the Prince does so–but the proposal he tenders is one between Claudio and Hero. Poor Hero, right? Passed around like one husband is as good as another? In any case, the Prince woos Hero for Claudio, but Claudio has a little serpent whispering in his ear, telling him that the Prince is double-crossing him. Who is it?
Don John, also a Prince, but not in charge–he’s the jealous “bastard” (illegitimate) half-brother who has done something pretty awful to fall out of favor (To remember the difference between the characters/names, think, Jealous John, Prince Pedro).
So here we’re back to politics again. Don John used to have the position that is now being filled by Claudio, who, let’s face it, is too young and gullible for this kind of responsibility. He’s shown great prowess on the field of battle, but politics is a different game. Who does he believe? Don Pedro, who’s been his best friend? Or Don John, who’s been disloyal? Of course, he believes Don John. Even Benedick is like, “Dude, the Prince wouldn’t do that to you!” (“Do you think that the Prince would have served you thus?”)
Claudio tries to run off, Beatrice brings him back, Hero is made over to Claudio, Claudio is relieved, all is good. Right? Nope.
We’ll be seeing more of Don John later. But we can already see trouble brewing. Claudio doesn’t really have an idea of what it means to be married, which seems to indicate that this is more a political marriage than a love match. Right before the marriage, in Act III, scene ii, he has this exchange with the Prince:
Don Pedro. I do but stay till your marriage be consummate, and
then go I toward Arragon.
Claudio. I’ll bring you thither, my lord, if you’ll
vouchsafe me.
Don Pedro. Nay, that would be as great a soil in the new gloss
of your marriage as to show a child his new coat
and forbid him to wear it.
In other words, my boy, you will have a new wife–you’ll be busy. Claudio doesn’t realize how significantly his life will change once he is married–he has no idea his loyalties will have to change, that his priorities will be in Messina unless Don Pedro calls for him. So it’s easy to see how he gets hoodwinked by Don John. Don John’s first gambit having failed, he moves to the next. He pays one of his men, Borachio, to take Margaret (the waiting gentlewoman) to Hero’s room and do some rather naughty things to her while standing in the window. Then he situates Claudio and the Prince in the orchard to watch the show. (One topic for the final essay might be–who really is the villain of this play? You could choose Don John, Borachio, or even Don Pedro, honestly).
We know why Claudio’s fooled–he’s young and honestly, not very bright yet. He’s still thinking with, well, not the brain in the head that rests on his shoulders. But the Prince–he’s been around, he knows his brother is not happy with him, and for crying out loud, they’re standing in the orchard! That’s not going to be right up against the house–so all they’d be able to see were shadows…
Honor
Still, there’s this thing called honor. It’s not just a word, it’s a code, and breaking it would be unthinkable–if you have no honor, you are finished in society. Other men won’t do business with you, won’t support you in political debates or positions, won’t socialize with you or your family. Therefore, all the men adhere to it. As a result, they can’t begin to imagine that the man who’s on the outs with the Prince could POSSIBLY make such a thing up in order to embarrass them both.
Claudio’s honor is at stake because to be cuckolded (cheated on) by his intended is a personal humiliation. Men will snicker and sneer, they won’t trust him to lead–if he can’t keep his intended or wife at home, what good is he?
Don Pedro’s honor is at stake because he’s the one who has promoted and sanctioned this marriage for his friend. The word will be that he was fooled by a little girl–and his position may be made vulnerable (perhaps enough so that Don John could raise his own army and west control away?).
And here’s where it gets interesting–despite all the friendship and good will Leonato has offered the Prince, the bonds of political connection do not hold up well under the strain of Don John’s accusations and “evidence.” Don Pedro does not, as we might reasonably expect, go to his friend Leonato and call the wedding off in private.
We aren’t sure what’s going to happen, only that Don John is up to no good and our “honorable men” are falling for it. That our honorable men are about to do something that is not honorable at all.
Benedick isn’t around for Don John’s show–so we don’t know yet what he’ll do.
There’s more going on, of course, but this is probably enough to whet our appetite for our conversation this week.