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.

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.

As we know from our conversations in class, perception is a central concept in Shakespeare’s writing. In addition to toying with the uses and perception of language, he creates multifaceted characters whose complexity allows for them, and their actions, to be viewed in a myriad of ways. One of the most intriguing characters yet is that of Richard III. Taken at face value, Richard is evil, manipulative, vindictive and sinister. He seems to plot against everyone he knows with little to no remorse for the pain he causes them, finding motivation for his bad deeds in his thirst for power and control. At the same time, however, the reader has the option to view Richard in a sympathetic light if they so choose to– even if it may be a stretch.

To do so, it is important to remember and acknowledge Richard’s status as ‘deformed’. People with deformities, especially overt physical ones, face heavy stigmitization from society and those around them. Richard’s external maladies can either be viewed as representations of his evil soul, or the root of the strife that fuels his bad behavior. Voicing early on in the play that he is, “rudely stamped and want love’s majesty,” (1.1.16) Richard is the only one who truly has to deal with the weight of his alienation and loneliness.

Furthermore, Richard faces heavy rejection and disdain from his family, especially his own mother. Referring to him as “my shame” (2.2.28), his mother works to viciously oppose his entire being. This turbulent mother son relationship signifies the deep void of consideration and love in Richards life, and could work to justify his wrongdoings. Perhaps, the reader could consider, that Richard is simply acting out because even the woman who brought him into the world does not care for him.

Another intriguing aspect of Richard’s characterization is the way in which he views himself. Seeming to never backdown from his enemies, he proves that while he may be physically unfortunate, he is rich in other abilities. A skillful manipulator, communicator, and strategist, Richard doesn’t ever seem to emotionally react to his deformity. In fact, with the way in which he strives for control and ruthlessly pursues the throne, Richard seems to have nothing but confidence in himself and his abilities. He uses this confidence and self-motivating perception of himself to fuel his strive for power. While the rest of the world may view him as a cripple, or an underdog who can be deemed ‘incapable’, Richard finds strength in his self-perception in order to fight for the life he wants– regardless of how the reader views it morally.

One of the most important messages in Act 4, and arguably the whole play, is that which Emilia makes when speaking to Desdemona about the concept of cheating on one’s husband. Desdemona is definite about never cheating on her man, not even in exchange “for the whole world” (4.3.64). In fact, she goes into the conversation not claiming, “I do not think there is any such woman” (4.3.60) who could do such a thing.

Emilia disproves Desdemona’s belief by saying, ” I think I should, and undo ’t when I had/ done,” (4.3.56-7) claiming that she would commit the act if she could undo it immediately afterwards. She calls adultery a “small vice,” (4.3.53) and explains that it would be worth doing in exchange for much less than the entire world.

When confronted by Desdemona about her unconventional approach to the issue, she explains her beliefs surrounding the relativity of right and wrong:

“Why the wrong is but a wrong i’ th’ world, and

having the world for your labor, ’tis a wrong in your

own world, and you might quickly make it right.”

Emilia’s approach to this moral dilemma makes a strong point focused around the play’s theme of manipulation. With this quote, Emilia is expressing that the wrongness of one’s actions is solely determined by the way in which one decides to view them. In the society they currently live in, adultery is deemed as wrong. Since this is something they were socialized to agree with, they also view it as the wrong thing to do. Emilia is arguing that when we place wrongful actions in the context of yielding positive results, or when we simply decide view it separate from it’s negative connotations, it can become a positive action.

By posing the question, “who would not make her/ husband a cuckold to make him a monarch?” (4.3.60-1) Emilia is exemplifying the way a wrongful action like adultery can become positive when placed in a different or positive instance.

This ability to perceive and support one’s actions as good or bad depending on a chosen perspective gives explaination as to how characters have come to behave they way they do in previous acts. For example, applying this thought process to Iago’s actions and intentions allows the reader to justify his ruthlessness. Perhaps, the reason why he is able to instigate so much heartache and negativity is because he has convinced himself that it is not the wrong thing to so. Furthermore, this method of thinking can be seen in Iago’s manipulation of Othello and Roderigo. Iago is able to successfully play both of these characters because he fools them into thinking the bad degree hey agree to do for him are justified by the positive results they yield.

The play is filled to the brim with misunderstandings, mix-ups, and miscommunications that contribute to an overall feeling of confusion and madness. However, the fool character in the play manages to use language in order to remain removed from the mess. In Twelfth Night, the fool continually challenges the reader and fellow characters to re-conceptualize their definition of what a fool. Calling himself a “corrupter of words,” (1944, line 31) he proves throughout the play that being the fool may be one of the smartest moves one can make.

In scene I act V, the fool engages in some “good fooling” (1924, line 29) with Olivia in an attempt to regain a position on her good side. While their conversation is quick-witted and entertaining, it also nuances some deep concepts regarding the true definition of ‘fool’. When Olivia orders for the guards to take the fool away because he is “dry” (1925, line 35), he is able to finagle his way out of the situation through using clever language. By choosing to interpret ‘dry’ to mean being thirsty, the fool is able to switch the subject and remain in Olivia’s presence.

Furthermore, during this scene, he goes so far as to prove that Olivia is a fool. Due to her status and portrayed disposition, the reader would never consider her as anything but regal and intelligent. However, once she begins engaging in some banter with the fool, her true foolish nature is revealed. While this behavior is typically unflattering and calls for immediate reprimanding, the fool is able to get away from the situation scratch-free.

This being said, looking at the way in which the fool uses his mastery of language to avoid tricky situations or successfully manipulate others; do you think it is correct to call him a fool?

The most striking aspect of acts I and II of a Midsummer Night’s Dream are the female characters that are introduced to us at the beginning of the play. As discussed in class, this play is often viewed as one that supports a feminist perspective because of the non-conformist actions performed by women in the play. The play clearly challenges patriarchal beliefs through the fierce personas and traditionally insubordinate actions of the female characters, as we discussed in class. However, another way in which the play challenges the patriarchy is through heavily sponsoring female empowerment. The female characters in this play are able to stand so strong the face of men because they aren’t tearing one another down.

When Helena speaks to Hermia about Demetrius in act I, it felt natural to assume some cattiness would ensue. On the contrary, Helena asks Hermia, “teach me how you look, and with what art/ you sway the motion of Demetrius’ heart,” (line197) dismissing any notions of envy or tension. Similarly, Hermia describes Demetrius’s refusal to reciprocate love to Helena as “his folly,” (line 205) acknowledging her worthiness of love.

Furthermore, even when Helena devises a plan to sabotage Hermia’s meeting with Lysander, it isn’t done out jealous spite or cruel intention towards the woman Demetrius is interested in. Instead, she makes the plan hoping to “have his sight thither and back again,” (line 257) and simply gain his favor.

The existence of feminine empowerment is most notable during Titania’s explaination for refusing to give up the changeling child. When she must face Oberon and his request to take the child, Titania finds the strength to stand her ground through choosing to remain loyal to the late “votaress,”(line 491) alleged mother of the changeling.

Titania’s argument for keeping the child is laden with moving, emotional reasoning. She details the deep relationship she developed with the changeling’s mother, describing their voyages to other worlds where they spent their time laughing, gossiping, and growing close. As result of their strong bond, Tatiana “will not part with him” (line 506) and will “rear up her boy,” (line 505) regardless of Oberon’s desires.

Last, but definitely not least, there is the case of Hippolyta. Her previous status as Queen of the Amazon suggests her role as a lead feminist character. It can be assumed that, since she was once the ruler of a land where men are obsolete, she must have immense love for women. However, her current position as the bride-to-be of a man who claims he will wed her “with pomp, with triumph, and with revelling,” (line 20) causes me to question the validity of her feminist persona. Since Theseus had to win her hand through battle and causing “injuries,” (line 18) isn’t it fair to consider Hippolyta as a feminist fighter? Should Hippolyta still be considered as strong of a female character as Titania, Hermia or Helena, despite her current position? Or does her marriage truly signify her being conquered once and for all by her husband, and thus, the patriarchy?