In a play meant to portray historical events, Caesar appearing to Brutus as a ghost shortly before his death originally felt like a bizarre and unnecessary inclusion. Why would Shakespeare bother to suddenly add a supernatural element to this narrative and make the audience question the validity of what they’re being presented with, especially to only have him say a few lines on his return? But when I reflected on the text, I realized it really isn’t out of place within the story. There’s a few examples of mystical happenings before this and they all seem to work as signs and signals for impending doom. Of course, we have to discuss the original “Beware the Ides of March” prophecy that foretells the death of Caesar as a fantastical element. While we could easily brush that off (as Caesar does) as an unimportant blathering, Act 1 Scene 3 also contains brief insights into bizarre, unexplainable occurrences within Rome that seem to be foreboding signs:

“Against the Capitol I met a lion,

Who glazed upon me and went surly by

Without annoying me. And there were drawn

Upon a heap a hundred ghastly women

Transformed with their fear, who swore they saw

Men all in fire walk up and down the street.

And yesterday the bird of the night did sit

Even at noonday upon the marketplace.”

While these events don’t occur directly on stage or within the text, they still create an ominous feeling and begin to blur the lines of what is possible within the world Shakespeare presents. It opens the audience up to the idea that there’s a more spiritual layer to the narrative, some level of mysticality to Rome. We begin to believe that there’s greater forces at work here and wonder what their purpose is. These unexplained events paired with the gruesome prophecy end up both culminating in the murder of Julius Caesar, which affirms our theory that they were in fact all symbolizing some future tragedy. Everything happened in order to show that fate had a large part to play in the events that occured within the Senate and were perhaps unavoidable.

And when Caesar’s ghost appears later on, this theme of everything being fated returns. His apparition serves the purpose of prophecy, foretelling that Brutus will soon die at Philippi and join him in the afterlife. And it’s a really interesting way to pair the supernatural with the action of the play by allowing for a callback to the Soothsayer’s original prophecy. By calling Caesar back from the dead, Shakespeare shows the inescapability of fate within his story. Just as Caesar could not escape from his destiny, so must Brutus face the reality of what will happen to him. The supernatural seems to intersect periodically with this work at times just before important events as a way to foretell them and it’s a really interesting narrative choice that I would love to explore more.

Within the selected works we’ve read this semester, there have been three instances of incredibly articulate male characters and while the overall language of Shakespeare is often very eloquent, these characters surpass even that. The command over language that they possess is staggering, but it’s how they each utilize this gift that’s really interesting. There’s a distinct separation between characters like Richard III or Othello who use their linguistic talents for themselves versus those like Feste who instead use it for the entertainment of others. And perhaps the fates of these characters are meant to be a lesson to the audience on how

If we were to consider Richard’s use of spoken word, we would recognize it as his main weapon in his quick rise to power. His manipulation of language twists the desires of anyone he speaks to. In his initial reaction of Anne, he woos her completely through his words, drawing out elaborate exclamations of love in an effort to convince her that he loves her. His pieces of dialogue in 1.3 are all for the purpose of crafting a facade of innocence for himself to convince his audience that he supports the King before himself. Every speech he makes is for the purpose of furthering his social status, for he understands that his voice is his power and that persuasion and intimidation will get him everywhere. Othello, on the other hand, uses his speech as a way to convince the citizens of Venice of his worth. He waxes poetic about his adventures and history in an attempt to help them understand that he is . His listeners are entranced by his stories, for they even cause Desdemona to fall in love with him. He is so eloquent that there’s almost a mystical quality to his speech, as his audience becomes enchanted and enraptured in his stories. For him, language is a tool that can be used to elevate his status.

But then there are characters like Feste who shows a different side to this character type.  Rather than serving himself, his intelligence is solely for the benefit of others, not just in entertaining them, but providing them with an intellectual equal. And while characters use this to their own advantage (like when he is forced by Maria to pretend to be Sir Topas), we still never see him utilize speech as a way to change his position as an inferior. He doesn’t brag about his higher intelligence, instead choosing to keep it concealed from other characters who might not understand him. But when he speaks to Olivia or Viola, he allows himself to be genuine in his language, for he sees that they can appreciate it and be entertained by his cunning wit.

And of course arguments could be made that perhaps these commanders of language are sort of self-insert characters that reflect Shakespeare’s command of the English language (and in fact I believe it was brought up by someone in class). This poses an interesting question, for if Shakespeare did intend for these characters to represent parts of himself, do they carry a lesson with them? Both Othello and Richard come to violent ends as a result of their own self centered nature and how they manipulate language to their own ends, while Feste instead avoids any sort of tragedy whatsoever. Perhaps an argument could be made that Shakespeare valued the use of language for a common good and hoped that his audience would understand that nothing good can come of using your talents solely for yourself and that they are instead meant to be shared and appreciated by all.

I believe in you all and I just know you’re going to do great!

When analyzing Shakespeare, one of the most often noted structures of these texts is the way that speech is relayed differently depending on the standing of a character. While both prose and verse are both utilized within these plays, they are often assigned to specific character types. Characters who tend to be lower-class or less educated are often represented as such by speaking in prose, which reflects a more simplistic mindset or status. More elevated roles would have their lines presented in iambic pentameter, which signified they were both educated and of a higher class. The poetry that these characters relay is meant to convey to the audience how admirable they are while characters that speak in prose are far inferior and unable to perform at the same intellectual level.

If we connect these ideas to our reading of Othello, we notice a dramatic shift within the fourth act in our title character. As noted within the Reading Questions, once Iago psychological manipulation really begins to take a toll on Othello and he is fully tricked into believing that Desdemona is unfaithful, his language suddenly shifts from eloquent, complex poetry to simple prose. The first indicator of this change occurs at line 33, just before his trance, where he interjects, “Lie with her? Lie with her? We say “lie on her” when they belie her! Lie with her? That’s fulsome!” Othello’s lines are no longer structured and begin to be more erratic and incomplete, often being shouted or exclaimed. As his mental state deteriorates following his eavesdropping on Cassio’s conversation with Iago, he no longer can speak as powerfully as he once did. His most vital attribute, the one he used to woo Desdemona and enamor the Duke is lost with his sanity and his status is therefore decimated. Unable to function correctly, he fails to present himself as socially superior and falls into a downward spiral of linguistic inferiority. It’s a dramatic change that indicates to both readers and audience that his problems are more deeply rooted than we can imagine, for even his speech becomes corrupted by doubt and fear.

And Iago responds immediately to the general’s sudden switch in speech. As Othello begins to talk more simply, his traitorous friend does the same, taking on prose to more easily communicate with the distraught general. In fact, he speaks in iambic pentameter to Cassio, but the moment Othello returns, he switches to prose, as if he noticed the warning signs of his enemy’s linguistic change. It’s a rather clever move and it pays off. If Iago were to continue speaking to Othello as he used to, it would be far more difficult to manipulate him as the disconnect between them would be too great for easy understanding. By lowering himself to his level, Iago can better control the situation and push him closer to the edge. He hopes that by mimicking Othello, he can convince him that they are fighting the same battles and are both as deeply affected by this imagined treachery.

Two ideas from our class discussion that really stuck out to me were this idea that the scene (4.2) in which Feste interacts with the isolated Malvolio is actually commentary on the art of performance and that deceit is vital to any drama or theatrical narrative. These two thoughts both seem to connect for me, because what is a play if not creating something specifically to convince an audience of an idea or story the way that characters in Twelfth Night disguise themselves to pretend to be someone they aren’t? It feels as though this play could be viewed as a commentary on performance, as disguises and false identities are a central role in the plot and could be viewed from the perspective of one character deceiving another, or an actor deceiving an audience.  Shakespeare seems so clearly to be showing how convincing these deceitful types of performances can be in characters like Feste or Viola because they shape other people’s perceptions and make them feed into an illusion of their own design, which is exactly what a play does. When one watches a performance, they become enraptured by this alternate reality and feed into the ideas and stories they are presented with. Similarly, in the text of this play, when confronted by someone who is putting on a performance (Viola as Cesario or Feste as Sir Topas), other characters accept it without question because it’s so convincing. I personally feel as though the way that the characters deceive each other is a metaphor for how an audience is deceived by a performance because we undergo the same thing. We may wonder why Olivia doesn’t notice that Viola is in disguise, but how often do we buy into similar illusions in the theatre where people pretend to be someone they aren’t? Though a performance differs from an actual disguise because one goes into a theatre expecting a fiction to be told to them, it’s still putting the power in the hands of the person who is pretending.

And this is where the idea of deceit being a necessary part of theatre comes into play (this pun was not intentional please don’t attack me in the comments). Because on a meta level, theatre wouldn’t exist without deception, but as a plot device, the actions of these characters really aren’t necessary. Even Maria and Sir Toby comment on how Feste’s actions are actually worthless, saying that, “Thou mightst have done this without thy beard and gown; he sees thee not,” and that they wish they were, “…rid of this knavery.” They recognize how this deception actually serves no purpose and is simply for their own benefit. And yet the entire plot revolves around Viola’s similar actions. I think deceit can play an important role in theatrical narration, but perhaps isn’t always a necessary device.

One striking point brought up during our in-class discussion on Tuesday was the interchangeability of the male lovers within the play. Initially, I didn’t understand the argument being made. Besides the normal confusion that arises when presented with characters at the beginning of a text (when one has to pay special attention to who is who as the story unfolds) it seemed as though each person was an individual. But as I continued to read, I noticed that there was no real defining features that helped to set each lover apart from the other. And while the presentation of the text as a play makes it difficult for complicated characterization due to the lack of room for description, the interchangeability of Lysander and Demetrius begs the question of whether they are even meant to be seen as separate entities.

The most obvious similarity between Demetrius and Lysander is, of course, their shared love for Hermia and their unwavering attempts at winning her hand. And it’s the unwillingness to back down that is what’s really striking. They are both aware of the upper-hand the other has, Demetrius having the approval of her father and Lysander having her heart, but neither is willing to bow down. Even though they both have a strong advantage, they refuse to give in. It’s the confidence and, in a way, entitlement that makes them mirrors of each other. And because these characters aren’t entirely well-rounded, it makes the connection between them all the more prevalent because this shared perseverance and love is really all that they’re defined by. And beyond their love, there is nothing else about them that makes them unique. In the opening scene Egeus waxes poetic about what a perfect husband Demetrius will be, but nothing in the plot proves that he is anything special. There’s no grand descriptions of his character or appearance, no noble actions that set him apart, and no backstory to explain why he is set apart. And Lysander also seems to have no distinct personality beyond his infatuation with Hermia, who never fully justifies her feelings for him. Instead, these two men are just presented as blank slates with nothing special to offer besides their devotion.

And while we can never know for sure why these two men appear to be so similar, we can still theorize as to why Shakespeare did not write them to be more defined characters. The easiest answer would be that it would be exceptionally difficult to dive in-depth into these men’s lives without completely throwing off the flow of the plot. Or perhaps Shakespeare wanted to give love a nameless face. By presenting these enamored individuals without giving away too much of what they are like, it makes the characters far more relatable. And since this play is meant to be a comedy, it allows for the audience to better appreciate the story and understand the humor of the situation if they can imagine themselves in it. By keeping things simple and more grounded in just showcasing one side of these men, Shakespeare allowed for a wider audience to understand their struggles.