By the end of Act I of Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale, the audience is probably somewhat confused. On the surface it seems that we have gone from a pleasant dinner amongst old friends and loved ones, and then suddenly to sinister soliloquies of jealousy and suspicion, only to turn into plots of murder, and then betrayal, all in a single evening/act. There is no doubt that there would be those that are considerably confused by the turn of the events to this point in the show, and rightfully so. We are never quite given concrete evidence towards Leontes’ insane tantrum, but it is possible to sew together a few threads of evidence that would explain his sudden change of mood, that is…if it really is sudden.

While Leontes’s change seems sudden, it is important to note that throughout the entirety of the more charming moments of the beginning of the play that contain a sense of levity, much of the light and gleeful dialogue is exchanged between Hermione and Polixenes exclusively, without Leontes saying anything that rises to the other two’s playful banter. It is important to note that during Hermione and Polixenes’ playful banter, Leontes gives very short responses, allowing him to stew in his own jealousy and anguish.

“Stay your thanks a while, and pay them when you part” (1.2.8-9).

“We’ll part the time between’s, then; and in that I’ll no gainsaying” (1.2.17-18).

“Tongue-tied our queen? Speak you” (1.2.27).

And a very simple, “Well said, Hermione” (1.2.33)”, after a long and impassioned speech that she delivers.

I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that Leontes would concur up all of these assumptions all at once simply because Hermione was able to convince Polixenes to stay, when he himself was not able to.

“O my most sacred lady, Temptations have since then been born to’s. For in those unfledged days was my wife a girl; Your precious self had then not crossed the eyes of my young playfellow” (1.2.77-79).

Not to mention the fact that it is suspicious that Polixenes would seek to leave Sicily so hurredly at the point in which Hermione is about to give birth, nine months after he arrived for his visit. It is also suspicious that Leontes would want Polixenes to stay for even longer, when he as a king is aware of the duties that Polixenes must return to.This, and Leontes’ language all points to him having already buried Polixenes’ friendship in his own mind. The theory that he is simply losing his mind is still a valid one, and both theories are perhaps not mutually exclusive to each other.

In Act I, we as readers are introduced to Leontes’ volatile moods, and the way in which they drive the action in the play. At the beginning, Leontes’ passionate character first shows through his interaction with his childhood friend, Polixenes. Taking hospitality to the extreme, Leontes makes an oath just to keep his friend as his guest, claiming “I’ll no gainsaying,” (1.2.21) and even asking his wife to help make Polixenes stay. His determination and essentially controlling behavior in this essentially trivial/formal interaction foreshadows the intensity of his character.

Leontes’ mood proves it’s erratic throughout scene two, as he jumps from this display of practically begging Polixenes to stay at the beginning, to seeking to execute his assassination by the end. The change is triggered by the trivial “paddling palms and pinching fingers” (1.2.109) that occurs between his wife and Polixenes. Without any further investigation, questioning, or evidence, Leontes decides that the two must be engaged in a romantic affair behind his back, and experiences a melodramatic “tremor cordis” (1.2.110) as a result of his ‘realization’.

Taking it to an even further level, he extends his panic and paranoia outside of himself and expresses it to his servant, Camillo. Calling his wife a “a hobby-horse,” (1.2.276) among many other vicious names and insults, Leontes’ irrationality reaches it’s peak when he asks Camillo to poison Polixenes. Leontes’ behavior is confirmed as insane when Camillo’s refuses to entertain Leontes’ madness. In the end, he must pretend to go along with it in order to keep himself, Hermione and Polixenes safe from Leontes– further speaking the intensity of his behavior and impulsive moods.

The juvenile delusions of many of Shakespeare’s male characters may be exacerbating to those who study them. More exaggerated than any other example is the case of Leontes, whose abrupt and dangerous shift in the first act of A Winter’s Tale springs from nothing and wrenches the tone of the play in its earliest lines. Of all the characters who fear being cheated on by his wife or being betrayed by his comrade, none have had so little evidence or reason to believe the worst as Leontes. Immediately after a perfectly pleasant and mundane interaction, when Polixenes and Hermione leave the stage Leontes is launched into his tirade;

Go play, boy, play. — There have been,

Or I am much deceived, as cuckolds ere now,

And many a man there is, even at this present,

Now, while I speak this, holds his wife by th’arm,

That little thinks she has been sluiced in’s absence,

And his pond fished by his neighbor, by

Sir Smile, his neighbor.

Leontes snaps from a friendly and jovial scene with his close friend to describing himself as a cuckold, speaking for all men like him, and using ridiculously crude and nasty language to describe his wife’s sexuality. He describes her, and all the adulterous women of the world, as a “sluice,” or a channel into which water is directed. He calls her sexual organs a “pond” free for use by any man who stumbles across her. This is all stemming from the fact that she was polite to a person Leontes has been friends with since childhood. This goes further than misogyny, it is a very dangerous breed of solipsism.

The Room is a film written, directed, and starring mysterious man-baby Tommy Wiseau. The film is a high school diary-manifesto style story of a man who is betrayed by all the people he holds dear in his life. Principally, his fiance, Lisa, is having an affair with Wiseau’s character’s best friend. This is juxtaposed with the lies she tells about her fiance abusing her and the general evil and lasciviousness of womankind. The film culminates in a “look what you made me do” bullet through the roof of Wiseau’s character’s mouth. Why couldn’t we have been nicer? A viewer should begin to get an understanding of Wiseau not only as a resentful failed performer with particular contempt for women, but also as a serial solipsist with nearly no understanding of the nuance or intricacies of the minds of his fellow humans.

Leontes and Wiseau can jump to conclusions about their women being unfaithful to them because they do not truly believe that their minds are real. For Leontes to oversimplify the psyche of his wife whom he has loved and known for years with absolutely zero stimuli mean that he never thought she was real in the first place. At the very least, he does not believe that Hermione is a real, conscious human person with the same complexity of mind that he has. Because he holds this belief about her, it is easy for him to assume that she would sleep with Polixenes because she has nothing in her mind telling her not to. It is easy for his to believe that Polixenes would be after Hermione because Polixenes does not have the same concept of righteousness and morality as Leontes.

The Room tells the story of two people who betray and cause the death of a person they love just because they felt like it, and that simplistic and cold view of the world fits perfectly into the solipsistic egoism of Wiseau, and of Leontes. Wiseau constructs a fantastic scenario where he is the victim of all the world’s evil. Leontes constructs this same fantasy in his mind. Leontes is the center of his universe, he is the only true consciousness, and so he can rely on no one else to live as correctly and virtuously as he.

I really admire the choice to end the semester with this Shakespeare, as the drama that unfolds in the first few acts draws upon several dramatic features from other plays we’ve read this semester. The plot that we see unfold before us in the beginning of the play causes a rather sudden change in tone, as very quickly we see the friendship between the two kings diminish to the jealousy one king has for another. Jealousy drives the stakes of this play, and it isn’t hard to look through the plays we’ve covered in class this semester to find a plot that is similar.

Othello is a play who’s chief conflict arises out of Iago’s persuasion of Desdemona’s infidelity to Othello. Granted, it takes a bit longer for Othello to jump to the conclusion to actually kill his wife, but it’s still fair to compare Leonte and Othello on the basis of their rather quick turn on their significant others. Othello famously whispers before he murders his lover the phrase “Yet she must die, else she’ll betray more men.” (5.1.6). Othello is seen here mad with jealousy, having to convince himself to commit to his actions by speaking aloud to himself. Leontes has a similar conversation with himself, as he convinces himself aloud that his wife is not faithful to him. He talks himself into such hysteria in that moment that he ends his personal aside by asking his son, “art thou my boy?” (2.1.151). Both of these men of power are convinced for one reason or another to distrust their family, and their blindness to the reality of their situation is what ultimately causes the tragedies in both cases.

Obviously the majority of the drama surrounding Act I of Winter’s Tale comes from Leontes accusation of Polixenes, but the question is whether or not that is warranted. Even if Polixenes has been messing around with Hermione, does Leontes actually even have any evidence? Or is this just a jealous manifestation of Leontes impending insanity? The problem with the beginning of this play is that we don’t have much to go off of that would lead us in either direction. However, with the pieces that we do have, there are some inferences we can make.

Polixenes strangely arrived right has Hermione got pregnant and is leaving right before she is going to give birth. This is suspicious enough, but not entirely damning, considering at the time travel took so long that it made sense to ‘visit’ a friend for nearly a year. Also suspicious is the way that Hermione treats Polixenes, however, she doesn’t do anything that would indicate she isn’t just being kind to her husband’s friend. Leontes also recalls that Polixenes and Hermione have been “paddling palms and pinching fingers” which is probably the most of the actual evidence that we get besides what’s being acted out on stage that the two of them are a little more chummy than they need to be. However, is this justification for poisoning your childhood friend? I’d hardly think so.

But let’s just say you are Leontes, and you’ve been listening to this back and forth between your wife and best friend for nine months, and you’re trying to be polite by asking him to stay even longer but in your heart you know you kind of just want to hang out with your family for a little bit without this dude constantly upstaging you. And then just when you return to the conversation between the two of them, your best friend says something like:

O my most sacred lady!
Temptations have since then been born to’s; for
In those unfledged days was my wife a girl;
Your precious self had then not cross’d the eyes
Of my young play-fellow.

I mean, come on dude. Maybe lay off your friend’s pregnant wife just a teensy bit. You can’t really blame Leontes for at least entertaining the thought that his friend is into his wife after that line. Most sacred lady? Like, my man, you have a wife at home that you haven’t seen for like nine changes of the dang watery star. All you have to say about her is that back then, she was a girl, but Hermione is sacred, precious, and being brought up in the same sentence as the word ‘temptations’? It’s almost like you’re trying to get poisoned.

Alright, so maybe I’m looking a little too much into Shakespeare’s flowery language, but even if this was meant to be subtle Polixenes does a very poor job of it. What’s worse is that Hermione does an even worse job of keeping things light directly after. She’s practically bragging about how well she did at convincing Polixenes to stay, and when Leontes points out that maybe she’s being a little heavy handed, Hermione says:

Why, lo you now, I have spoke to the purpose twice:
The one for ever earn’d a royal husband;
The other for some while a friend.

So you’re just going to straight up compare professing your love to your husband and getting his friend to stay another couple nights? Like those are even remotely in the same ballpark? Even if you’re joking, have a little respect for your marriage and maybe just say that falling in love with your husband is a little more important. I’m no relationship counselor, all I’m saying is that if I was Leontes and I had witnessed all of this tomfoolery, maybe I wouldn’t jump straight to poisoning people, but I would definitely have an aside to the audience and start ranting a little.

In conclusion, poison is a bit much, but then again, so are Hermione and Polixenes.

It is clear that Julius Caesar is meant to provoke thoughts and criticisms regarding the way in which we are governed. Specifically, it provides a commentary on the systems of Democracy and Monarchy, and the keystone pitfalls of these systems. Monarchy is represented through Julius Caesar, who is brought to power despite his  being  “A man of such a feeble temper,” (1.2.131) and is ultimately defeated  because other characters understand him to be weak, egotistical, and essentially evil.

Brutus, the play’s main representation of Democracy, is portrayed and perceived as a respectable, selfless, and an intrinsically good citizen. The act of murder committed by him and his co-conspirators is illustrated to be justified by their good intentions, validated with the line “if it be aught toward the general good,/Set honor in one eye and death i’ th’ other,” which means that Julius’ death occurred for the betterment of the public. 

Looking at these two characters and their actions/flaws, the reader can find strong parallels to the weaknesses the systems they represent hold. For example, Julius’ rise and fall from power speaks to the dangerously traditional aspect of monarchy. The rigid system allows for people to be placed in positions of power, even if they are drastically unfit for the role. While it does support a certain type of stability and order, Shakespeare is emphasizing the problems that exists when we allow for the society to only be governed by lineage, and by people whom the public do not have a say in electing.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Democracy is portrayed by Shakespeare as violent and turbulent. While Brutus does emerge as the successor in this play, he still was only able to accomplished his goals through bloodshed, something that raises a lot of questions about the morality of his democratically earned role. It may be preferable for one of ‘the people’ to be in power, but how much should we take into account how that person gains it? Or how long they should have it? The issue with Democracy is its inconsistency, and how easily power can changes hands, leaving a lot of room for ongoing corruption and instability.

Ultimately, Shakespeare is letting the audience examine these big pitfalls, and consider for themselves which system may feel more suitable. Working to simply provoke thought, and not necessarily push a particular agenda, Julius Caesar teaches it’s audience to recognize the values and faults in both tradition and change.

In one of my previous comments on a fellow classmate’s blog posts, Shakespeare’s use of quick, and almost episodic scenes that center around the common people of Richard III is a brilliant storytelling technique that helps to further engage the audience in the magnitude of our main characters’ decisions and actions. Shakespeare’s use of a wider sense of scope helps to give the story a great deal of weight and clout that might not have existed in the reader’s eyes and mind otherwise. While this was utilized sparingly (but to great effect) in Richard III, I believe that this is not only used, but is a central theme to Julius Caesar. The common people of Rome, or, “Plebeians”, help to not only provide an outside opinion on the events of the play that are created by our central characters, but they themselves are also driving forces on many of the events throughout the play, whether directly or indirectly.

A very prominent example of this is in Act III, Scene II during Antony’s infamous, “Friends Romans, Countrymen…” speech. While an entire analytical paper could be written on this speech alone, especially in regards to Antony’s personal motives, and the language used to convey these motives, it is essentially used as extremely passionate, yet politically and ideologically motivated rhetoric. It is used to great effect, as the crowd effectively flips the script on how they felt about Caesar’s murder when the news was given to them by Brutus not a few minutes ago, where they seemed jovial, and were already hailing Brutus as the next ruler of Rome.

Fourth Plebeian: “They were traitors. ‘Honorable men’!

All: “The Will! The Testament!”

Second Plebeian: “They were villains, murderers. The will! Read the will!”

(Act III, Scene II, 151-154)

While Antony’s words are memorable, and an argument could be made the plebeians of Rome are easily influenced and coerced, it should be noted that what Antony says means anything without the support of the plebeians. It is their support and that helps to drive a civil war between Caesar’s murderers, and those who are still loyal to the idea of a Rome that thrives on the basis of a democracy. As Antony gives Brutus’s eulogy, he states, “This was the noblest Roman of them all.” (Act V, Scene V, Line 68) While it is true that Antony is speaking of Brutus’s noble nature, and how he was the only one of the conspirators that murdered Caesar for what he thought wad for the best of Rome, it is his use of the word “Roman”. A common noun used to describe either one person, or for that matter, a group of people who all come from the same place. Beyond where they are form, it is non-descript. It is the people of Rome, and the idea of what a Roman is, and should be that matters, not the individual themselves. This is simply another example of how the common man is emphasized greatly in Julius Caesar, and how it is in many ways of the cornerstones to the very story itself.

One thing about Julius Caesar that is both interesting and concerning is its treatment of the masses of Rome. The Plebeians serve a very important function both practically and abstractly in the play as the characters which the conspirators are ostensibly acting on the behalf of. Despite this, they are easily manipulated to turn on the conspirators. In fact, the only consistent thing about the Plebeians appears to be their quickness to be convinced. This is interesting because of the function this plays in the events of the play, but concerning because of the implications of this characterization regarding democratic participants in general.

The Plebeians come in to play in a significant way just after Caesar’s death when Brutus, and then Antony meet them at the pulpit. During Brutus’ interaction with them we do not begin with any textual evidence of the Plebeians being angry with Brutus. Instead they call him “noble” and quiet each other down to calmly listen to him. In the beginning, the only thing that they want is to hear the reasons the conspirators have for killing their beloved leader. This is their only request and they seem perfectly willing to receive it. By the end of Brutus’ short speech, they are ready to name him their new Caesar. It is important to understand that the Plebeians come into this scene with no original opinion on the events of the assassination. They arrive asking Brutus to tell them how to feel and they accept the first suggested outlook. They appear adopt it uniformly as well, seeing as how there is no dissent or disagreement between the Plebeians. They think and act as a single unit with no representation of divergent points of view.

It does not take long, however, for the Plebeians to go from lauding Brutus and calling for his deification, to demanding his death and the deaths of his fellow assassins. I think that the true turning point in Antony’s monologue which changes the minds of the Plebeians happens here:

Have patience, gentle friends: I must not read it.

It is not meet you know how Caesar loved you.

You are nor wood, you are not stones, but men;

And being men, hearing the will of Caesar,

It will inflame you, it will make you mad.

‘Tis good you know not that you are his heirs,

For if you should, oh, what would come of it?

Here Antony states explicitly, although he pretends not to, that the citizens of Rome are the rightful inheritors of Caesar’s land and riches. During the first break in Antony’s speech, the Plebeians calmly mull over what they have heard which is mostly reasons why Caesar was not as ambitious as Brutus makes him sound. At the mention of the will they become much more animated, and with confirmation that Caesar left his estate to them they are whipped into a frenzy. This frenzy is maintained beyond the scene and sees them seek out revenge against the conspirators.

The trouble with this portrayal of the Plebeians is a combination of an absence of original thought in regards to the assassination, the easy filling of this vacuum by Brutus seemingly for no logical reason, and the equally as quick replacement of that narrative by Antony with the mention of material reward. The implications about the frivolity, greed, and susceptibility of the democratic masses are dark and concerning.

Shakespeare has once again presented a play full of layers and perspectives, as Caesar gives us a great many point of view of the incredibly memorable events surrounding the assassination of Julius Caesar. I love taking a look at unconventional outlooks on situations that are generally viewed in a certain light, but I think that seeing the various aspects of the Plebians in Rome at the time tell a great deal about the political climate that doesn’t necessarily give reason to the assassination itself, but the events that followed the murder.

The two big moments in the play that best exemplify the mood of the Plebians at the time are Act I Scene 1 and Act 3 Scene 2. As various workers head to celebrate Caesar’s victory in battle, Mercillus combats the reasons the workers give for leaving their jobs in order to travel to the Capitol, saying

“Wherefore rejoice? What conquest brings he home?

As we spoke about in class, this tragedy is much less about the character of Julius Caeser, and much more about the idea of Caeser, or the idea of what Caeser could have become if not for his betrayers. Even those who betray Caeser are not so concerned with what Caeser has become, but rather with what Caeser could become. In this way, even long after Caeser has been killed, Shakespeare begs us to wonder what Rome would have looked like if Caeser had lived. Calling the play ‘The Tragedy of Julius Caeser’ forces us to assume that it is a tragedy that he was killed (rather than it being a tragedy that he came into power). However, it could also be said that it is a tragedy that Caeser had to be killed, which is to make the claim that it definitely would have been worse if he had lived, but it is also tragic that he had to be killed in order to make a particular political statement. Perhaps Shakespeare wanted us to understand that it is a tragedy that death must be involved in the change, or preservation, of political ideals.
I think a huge part of the necessity of this murder, at least to the conspirators, is explained very clearly in Caeser’s speech before his death. It is made clear that Rome is on the verge of a drastic change in political decision making. We see all the conspirators begging Caeser to change his mind on something that is on the whole trivial, the pardon of one man. Particularly Cassius, with the line:.

As low as to thy foot doth Cassius fall, To beg enfranchisement…

,showing that the conspirators want to be sure that Caeser is acting irrationally, completely ignoring the opinion of everybody who surrounds and supports him. Caeser is totally baited by this tactic, and it proves to the conspirators that if they left him in power, much more important decisions would be met in the same way, with an absolute decision by Caeser and no debate at all about the consequences of that call. I think from the way the conspirators speak of Caeser, it is not so much that they think he would make the wrong decisions. In fact, I think most of the Roman public would say that Caeser would be a relatively benevolent dictator, and the conspirators might agree, especially Brutus who after the murder states:

So are we Caesar’s friends

Instead, the tragedy comes that standing for a political ideal requires the conspirators to murder a friend in order to maintain that ideal. The tragedy comes because the power is made available to Caeser, and not because he seizes it himself. The tragedy is in the minds of the people, because they do not realize that raising a man to such heights can be the downfall of them all. Ultimately, the tragedy grows from the fault of men, and not of course from “the stars”. Shakespeare is trying to tell us that all of man is to blame for its own downfall, that no one man can take over the world and thusly destroy it, because it takes the “plebians” to raise a man to that height in the first place. The tragedy is that Caeser is able to be viewed as a God amongst man because men will allow him to do so.