draft-2

draft-1

Regarding Act five of Macbeth, Macbeth as a character is largely unstable. His instability and near delusion became clear through a close analysis of the text and his behavior, in terms of an inconsistency and a deluded perspective on reality. Looking at his dialogue with other characters as well as his longer speeches, he demonstrates what could even be called insanity clearly.

Beginning with Act II, his first appearance in Act VI, he attempts to remain emotionless by mentally warding off fear: “I cannot taint with fear” (VI, iii, 3). He goes on toward the end of this short speech to reaffirm this, confirming that “The mind I sway” (VI, iii, 9). However, immediately following the servant’s entrance, he lashes out, displaying anger, and potentially fear and a general inability to remain calm: “The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon!//Where gott’st thou that goose look?” (VI, iii, 11-12). His emotionally charged expression completely contradicts his stoic attitude. Once the servant leaves, he tells Seyton, who is not even present in this moment, “I am sick at heart” (VI, iii. 19), and goes on to explain his aching mood. Further on once Seyton returns, he demands his armor (VI, iii, 33) as if he is about to fight or needs to defend himself, despite the fact that he has expressed confidence, up to this point, that he cannot be killed by anyone born of his mother, as the witches told him earlier in the play. His back-and-forth mental state suggests a serious instability and inability to cope with his circumstance. Which, in all fairness, is pretty understandable given that witches are talking to him and his wife’s a murderer and quite a few people are out to get him.

Macbeth continues in scene three to display irrationality when speaking to a doctor about his wife’s mental illness. He even outwardly defies logic, making the exclamation, “Throw physic to the dogs! I’ll none of it” (VI, iii, 49). He clearly and expressively refuses to accept the logic of science and medicine, demanding a cure for his wife despite the Doctor’s continued insistence that her condition is not curable in the sense that he wishes it to be cured. His demand in and of itself is enough to verify his insanity, providing evidence that his newfound power has deluded him into believing that he has the authority to demand things outside of a realistic realm of reality and possibility. Within scene three alone, his insanity presents itself to every character he speaks to, or thinks he’s speaking to but in actuality is only speaking to himself.

Regarding his presence in scene five, Macbeth seems to portray, through his speech, a calm and sensible persona, explaining that he has had time to become levelheaded through after the recent excitement. He is almost irrationally emotionless, claiming, “I have almost forgot the taste of fears.//The time has been my sense would have cooled” (VI, vi, 9-10). He continues to lash out, calling the messenger a liar and a slave, as an exclamation. His instability, and primarily his inconsistency in this scene, verify that his mental state is far less than sane.

Throughout all of Act five, Macbeth portrays the mentality of an insane man. Whether his mental state jumps back and forth between calmness and anger—or fear from a psychoanalytic perspective, or he is consistently so emotional that he cannot control any of his lashing out or consistency of belief in his fate, he is clearly out of his mind. While this instability is understandable, it is obvious that Macbeth needs a therapist and a Xanax.

HR: none

X_Sarah E. Lemon

Annotated Bibliography: Shakespeare Research Paper-

The Cultural Significant of Love and Marriage in Shakespearean England

Traub, Valerie. “Daughters, Wives, and Widows: Writings by Men About Women and Marriage in England, 1500-1640. Joan Larsen Kleinfashioning Femininity and English Renaissance Drama. Karen Newmanstaging the Gaze: Postmodernism, Psychoanalysis, and Shakespearean Comedy. Barbara Freedman.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 20.1 (1994): 200-204. Print.

This source analyzes the cultural context of women and marriage in the time period in which Shakespeare wrote. Because this particular source focuses on women as well as Shakespeare’s comedies, I will use the work to view the play Much Ado About Nothing through a feminine lens, and comedic lens, then an intersectional combination of both. The psychoanalysis aspect of the source in particular will allow me to approach the character Beatrice and how her personality and character development play into a culturally charged perception of marriage. With this source, I will ultimately answer the question, what was the role of the woman in this socio-economic action and were her feelings truly taken into consideration?

Dolan, Frances E. “Shakespeare and Marriage: an Open Question.” Literature Compass. 8.9 (2011): 620-634. Print.

This source with serve mostly as a historical record of the progression of marriage during Shakespeare’s lifetime. This includes its meaning economically, socially, culturally, and personally. The idea behind this source is that marriage was often used to achieve certain things. I will take the historical context that this source provides and directly apply it to the plot progression of the play which I am analyzing, Much Ado About Nothing. This will ideally provide cultural context in which I can place the plot progression of the play, the characters participating in the marriages, and the character who have something to say about it.

Barker, Camilla R. “Shackles in Shakespeare: on the Falsity of Personal Liberty in Renaissance England.” Liverpool Law Review : a Journal of Contemporary Legal and Social Policy Issues. 35.1 (2014): 25-42. Print.

This source approaches marriage as a socio-legal process as well as conflict, implying that marriage’s purpose in Shakespeare’s work exists solely to contribute conflict to the plot, the characters, and the story’s meaning as a whole. In other words, marriages serves only to complicate the story. From a literary perspective, however, this is not really a problem seeing as it progresses the plot and provides exigence for the characters within the story. The source views Shakespeare’s work through a more philosophical lens, so I will use this piece of research to evaluate the feeling that the time-period-relevant audience would have had when observing Shakespeare’s work at the time it was originally produced.

Charney, Maurice. Shakespeare on Love & Lust. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Internet resource

This particular source focuses on the role of love. I will use that as more of a backhand type of support, to understand character motive in the pursuit of marriage. This source makes a comparison to time-relevant audiences and contemporary audiences, so using this will allow me to contrast the difference in audiences’ reception of the presence of love in its relationship to marriage. It also touches on homoerotic themes in Shakespeare’s work which will allow me to approach these theories from a more avant-garde focused perspective, that will provide new and interesting angles outside of socio-economic and cultural significance.

Jardine, Lisa. Reading Shakespeare Historically. London: Routledge, 1996. Internet resource.

One chapter in this book focuses on unlawful marriage in Shakespeare’s work. I will use this to approach marriage in its context as a result of love and love alone. The social and cultural effect of unlawful marriage that I expect to find within that particular chapter will allow me to contextualize just how significant marriage without socio-political motives and advantages would have been during that time period, and moreover, how an audience would have received it versus how a contemporary audience would receive it now.

The degree to which Othello is responsible for the tragic outcome of this play can be debated in consideration of the villainous nature of the character who have influence over his loved ones and his own mind. The manipulative presence of Iago thoroughly influenced Othello’s mental state, emotional state, and physical actions as a result of the former two. Because Iago was so purposefully manipulative, Othello’s actions were not understandable, but to a certain extent, out of his control. Though he very well may have “overreacted,” his actions were strictly a consequence of a firm, outside stimulant that was not a fault of his own.

Iago’s first form of manipulation was the purposefully involvement of Roderigo. Roderigo was, to be fair, initially unhappy with the circumstances. However, his anger was not excessive to the point of action. This is to say that it was Iago’s emotional manipulation in fueling the fire that was Roderigo’s anger through simple conversation to act. Not only does Iago emotionally and mentally manipulate Roderigo to the point of irrational emotion, he commits to aiding Roderigo in his attempts to defeat Othello in whatever way he can in order to compensate for the injustice of Othello winning the heart of Desdemona rather than himself. Iago’s commitment in this way is clearly not out of a sense of false loyalty, but his own selfish motives of revenge over Othello because of his personal experiences with Othello himself.

Iago approaches his manipulation of Othello mentally and physically, and then goes on to do the very same thing to Othello that he does to Roderigo by rhetorically manipulating him. By convincing Othello, slowly rather than with rash, charged emotion, that Desdemona is committing adultery against him, he allows the information to seep into Othello’s mind and become a possibility. His approach to this manipulation is incredibly calculated, and therefore, it is an acceptable notion that Othello would slowly go crazy given that he begins to accept, due to Iago’s influence, that the love of his life is not being faithful to him.

Iago’s physical action that ultimately affects Othello is his intentionality in stealing the handkerchief, knowing all the significance that it carries. Othello sees every subsequent event after discovering the possibility that Desdemona is committing adultery as a form of proof of some sort. Because of the timing in which the incident with the handkerchief occurs would obviously affect him deeply. Furthermore, Iago takes advantage of his weaknesses in health, and provides almost physical evidence to the fake adultery by staging his interactions with Cassio. Iago uses weaknesses of multiple characters in this instance to take advantage of Othello, and because his intentions were so strategic, he is successful. Othello’s anger is overwhelming, intense, and extremely charged. However, the consequential nature of his wild emotions in this case makes sense.

The responsibility of Desdemona’s death seems to lie on Othello, as he was irrational and chose not to listen to the truth of situation. However, for the past several scenes and interactions with every character, Othello was convinced for multiple valid reasons that his wife is blatantly lying to him as well as cheating on him, so his refusal to listen is logical.

Othello acts wildly, rashly, and emotionally. The ultimate blame for the tragic outcome, however, does not fall on Othello. Iago’s persistent manipulation and corrupt approaches to all of his interactions with every character he meets, including his “best friend” and his wife, is the ultimate explanation and cause for the tragic outcome. Othello certainly could have handled the situation more maturely, but at the end of the day, it is difficult to blame a character who has been so intensely and wildly manipulated.

1. The short essay on “Much Ado About Nothing” was particularly enjoyable for me because of the nature of the play as well as the topic I chose.  The topic I chose was also specifically interesting to me because it required speculation on Shakespeare’s original intent in a major plot choice. While much of Shakespeare’s writing revolves around language, dialogue, and character development, this topic relied primarily on the influence of Shakespeare’s decision not to progress the plot past a certain point, which I found very telling.
2. “Much Ado About Nothing” is an incredibly engaging comedy that demands its audience’s intellectual attention as well as comedic response. For this reason, I appreciate this piece from Shakespeare on a different level than some of his other works. “Hamlet,” however, is another favorite because of the depth in which the plot and character development is written. The play does not lend for an atmosphere of apathy among its audience. The piece in and of itself demands emotional and intellectual investment.
3. Prince Hamlet is probably the most intriguing character I’ve come across so far due to his unstable nature and wild motivations. Because everything he does is almost justified, his actions and behavior are much more complex to analyze and and make sense of. In this way, looking at his progression throughout the play objectively lends for a deeper understanding of human nature, as well as Shakespeare’s habits as a writer.
4. The rashness and instability of young lovers seem to recur in Shakespeare’s works, from tragedies to comedies, and almost always serve a different purpose regarding the entire spectrum of the play’s purpose. In each different work, this character “flaw” provides a new tool for the story line.
5. I would like to learn about marriage practices and the sociopolitical implications and expectations that accompanied that area in Shakespeare’s time. The rise and fall, as well as natural progression of royalty is also particularly interesting to me.
6. The role of romance and marriage in Shakespeare’s society, the potency of the pressures of royalty, and the influence of a public oration are all areas of interest for me regarding my long essay.

King Claudius is tactically, yet not subtly, manipulative. His rhetorical approach to the situations he wishes to receive a certain outcome from are certainly well thought out, however executed in such a way that does not simply distract his audience from the truth, but rather fuels the fire that ultimately leads to his own death.

In his personal speech to Hamlet in Act 2, scene 1, Kind Claudius attempts to cheer Hamlet up, or rather, give him less reason to lament so heavily as he believes he is doing. His motive is most likely one or both of two things: that his guilt is beginning to eat away at him as Hamlet seems so outwardly upset about his father’s death, or that he fears Hamlet’s lamentation for his deceased father will interfere with his rule. Whatever the underlying motive may be, the King exhibits an obvious will to somehow wrestle Hamlet away from his grief. He begins by validating Hamlet’s feelings and behavior on the matter: “’Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet//To give these mourning duties to your father” (I.ii.86-87). However, he goes on to promptly invalidate his suffering by the tool of comparison, reminding Hamlet that everyone man in his family who has come before him as lost a father, and that it is a part of life. He emphasizes that it is understandable to grieve at a time like this, but to continue to do so after too much longer would exhibit “stubbornness,” implying that Hamlet’s grief is a choice (I.ii.94). He further invalidates Hamlet’s behavior with the statement, “’Tis unmanly grief” (I.ii.94). By attacking his manhood, he attacks his heritage and his ability to rule, which is a possibility for Hamlet’s future at this time.

Claudius goes on to describe Hamlet’s behavior as unacceptable, being sure to address the behavior itself rather than Hamlet, in order to avoid a direct attack on his character. Describing the nature of Hamlet’s actions as “a heart unfortified, or mind impatient,” he implies that Hamlet is exhibiting these traits without accusing him directly (I.ii.96). He continues in his speech to include the divine, referring to Heaven and even implying that Hamlet insults his deceased father by continuing to mourn him too long. All implications that accompany Claudius’ speech contribute to an overwhelming amount of evidence that Claudius generally dislikes Hamlet and wishes his behavior would change completely, and for reasons apart from his explanation to Hamlet. His language does not outwardly exhibit this, however, because he is very manipulative in how he chooses to address Hamlet’s attitude as a sort of symptom rather than a character trait.

Claudius also uses “we” on multiple occasions when speaking to Hamlet, while sitting next to Hamlet’s mother, who is also his new wife. By pulling her into the discourse in this way, he seeks to indirectly impart his opinion onto her through Hamlet’s perspective, possibly giving his stance more validity and credibility, while alienating Hamlet in the process. After insulting Hamlet and his grief for approximately seventeen lines, Claudius tells Hamlet, “that which dearest father bears his son//Do I impart toward you” (I.ii. 111-112). It would clearly not be in Claudius’ best interest to “correct” Hamlet with no level of empathy or familial concern. This “love” however, is short-lived as he ends his speech with the request of sending Hamlet back to school. By claiming, “It is most retrograde to our desire,” Claudius attempts to relieve himself of some guilt in this decision in Hamlet’s eyes, however, Hamlet sees through it easily (I.ii.114). His attempts to close his short speech with a loving conclusion are weak and transparent, given the sensitivity of the situation and level of analytical behavior Hamlet goes on to exhibit.

Claudius clearly wishes for Hamlet to be as far removed from the picture as possible, and his attempts at both breaking down Hamlet’s opinion of himself then immediately pandering to him are clever, but evident.

Whether the audience likes him or not, culturally relevant company included, King Henry, as portrayed by William Shakespeare, is a very smart man. His ease with language and ability to move a crowd with his rhetoric serves him many tactical and strategic purposes. By rallying his troops with language, with motivation and a sense of unity, he plays on several artistic proofs to his audience and constructs such a persuasive speech that his goal is accomplished. Being able to wield language in such a way that it can be used as a weapon is vital in a position such as King Henry’s. His speech upon invading France is a prime example of his incredible way with rhetoric.

He immediately draws his audience—his soldiers—in by addressing them as “dear friends” in the very first line (III.i.1). He furthers this sense of unity by connecting himself to his audience by simply saying “our English dead” (III.i.2). This is so significant because he takes ownership of the losses in war, which speak to his role as a military leader. But unifying himself with his troops in the most inglorious aspect of battle, he is sending a clear message to his soldiers that he is not a fair-weather commander. He continues to affirm his credibility by making a concession for the benefit of peace, and why it is preferable to the alternative. He rids himself, or attempts to, of the reputation of a war-mongering lunatic he may otherwise gain. His speech then deflects the blame of the battle he leads his men into, though they are the side laying siege, his metaphor, “the blast of war blows in our ears” paints this militaristic exigence in a light of that places the blame on France rather than himself and England (III.i.5). By making their attack a metaphorical response to a situation rather than an attack, he frees the men—even if only a little—of the internal guilt they could be feeling over the pointlessness of it all.

King Henry continues his speech, after introducing the situation at hand, by turning it into an ocean metaphor (III.i.10-14). This is likely to resonate with the men because they have just finished a journey on sea, and everything he says they can connect with and understand easily. Because they understand the metaphor, they are able to feel the need to complete the task at hand which his speech is so adamantly aiming for. A comparison to the struggles of sailing the ocean won’t make a difference to someone who has never been on a ship. Henry is catering to his audience, and consequently, still connecting with them because it is a shared experience.

After working up their emotions, he exalts their character. By encouraging them in such a way as, “On, on, you noble English,//whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof,” he gives his audience credibility of character, which contributes to an attitude among them that is more willing to listen to a leader (III.i.17-18). Following this appeal to namesake pride, he warns them bringing dishonor to their families, immediately spinning the situation around to ensure they do not lose the motivation and encouragement they’ve just gained. He spends the remainder of the speech making passionate claims on the men’s characters, ending in a statement that is likely to incite emotion because of its inherently charged nature.

Throughout the entire speech, King Henry tactically bounces from one rhetorical tool to the next, gaining their trust, making them angry, complimenting them, vaguely threatening them with hypotheticals, and so on. He knows how to manipulate his audience and work up the emotions he appeals to, for better or for worse.

Shakespeare’s comedies are notorious for ending in marriages. A light hearted, happy forever-after fits the comedic bill quite perfectly. The idea that true love will find a way, through all the confusion, misidentification, and nonsense that seem to muddle the plot, the ultimate prevailing of love leaves the audience more pleased than they would be left in, say, a tragedy or a drama. However, at the end of “Much Ado About Nothing,” Shakespeare makes the decision to leave the marriages ambiguous in an almost “to be continued” sense. He seems to making very clear claims about impassioned loved that speak both to the nature of the particular lovers in context as well as love itself.

At the end of the play, Benedick says to his soon-to-be bride and his friends, “Come, come, we are friends. Let’s have a dance ere we are married, that we may lighten our own hearts and our wives’ heels” (V.iv.115-117). In this scene, Benedick speaks of love with still a sense of possibility, of the future. And while his attitude is certain, so have been the minds of many lover’s follies throughout the entire play. Claudio, for example, was twice convinced that Hero was being unfaithful to him, and moreover, twice proven wrong. While these characters are different men, they keep the same company, implying a similarity in personality and value. Therefore, it is not outrageous so assume that Benedick might have a clear notion of the truth, or of reality, and be wildly mistaken, such as his close friend was. His well intentions do not overshadow the truth that human beings are flawed and mistakes are often made in love out of passion. Shakespeare’s choice not to end the play concretely in a marriage leaves the ending up to the viewer, allowing the audience’s own personal experiences affect how they expect a turnout.

The openness of the play’s ending, however, does not necessarily imply hopelessness; or a sense of impending doom since everything to this point has steadily gone wrong, whether at the hands of chance or orchestrated by separate characters. The play is full of growth for many of the characters, quite painstakingly so, and while there is no implicit continuation of this growth at the end, the lack of a concrete marriage implies there will be. Benedick and Beatrice’s love has, up to this point, been very back and forth and dependent on circumstance. Perhaps Shakespeare is implying with this uncertain ending that there is more to occur between now and the happy ending that they’ve only just begun chasing after. Moreover, it is perhaps not only a commentary on the nature of their relationship, but rather a commentary on the nature of love, particularly passionate love, in general. If ever there were a love of passion, it would be between Beatrice and Benedick. Their love, as opposed to another such as Romeo and Juliet’s though that were also driven by passion, is instilled in wild emotion outside of just love. They’ve experienced the entire spectrum with one another, having loved, then hated, then loved again. This suggests that Shakespeare’s is remarking on the nature of such a passionate affair and the tendency it has to go through ups and downs before a determined end point, or solution. Or perhaps he was just preparing the audience for a sequel that would never come.

Ultimately, Shakespeare’s decision not to end the play in a marriage is a purposeful one. Whether remarking on the nature of love or the habits of the characters, the ending is left ambiguous for a reason. Love goes on, for better or for worse. But passion, be it good or bad, drives people to do crazy, unpredictable things. This is the genius of these occurrences, the plot is entirely dependent upon the emotions and sanity, or lack thereof, of the characters. Round and Round they go, where they stop, only Shakespeare knows.

If one were to be murdered, it would be rather surprising for their murderer to be the first to speak at their funeral. True, the “funeral” in Act III of “Julius Caesar” is no orthodox affair. Brutus’ placement at the forefront of the proceedings could be received as very tacky and ill-fitting for what he had just accomplished. Because the crowd is likely to be hesitant to listen to the killer of their King immediately following the murder, Brutus absolutely depends on this speech to provide evidence for his reasoning and credibility for his leadership. He demonstrates this as well as the circumstance allows through artistic proofs and rhetorical skill throughout the entire speech, and ultimately manipulates his audience whether he means to or not.

First note that the speech is written in prose rather than in poetry. This choice on Shakespeare’s part allows for a more logical appeal. As such, he is not aiming for an initially emotional approach, but it is clear that he would rather rationale to guide the reasoning and consequent emotions of the crowd. That being said, he recognizes that his audience is likely to be in an emotionally vulnerable state and allows for that in his appeals to pathos, as well as logos.

Ethos, however, seems clearly to be his first appeals; shamelessly so. By addressing the crowd “Romans, countrymen, and lovers,” he immediately jumped into the scene with an appeal to pathos by connecting himself to the citizens (III.ii.13). However, he so quickly asks the citizens to hear him by giving himself verbal credibility through his “honor,” asking them to trust him in accordance with his virtue. Then he gives the audience themselves credibility, asking them to “better judge” (III.ii.17). By giving the crowd credibility enough to judge correctly, he becomes a friend to them rather than talking down to them, with a claim of superiority as his appeal to ethos.

Brutus goes on to compare his love for Caesar to any in the crowd who may also love Caesar, claiming his own love to be “no less than his” (III.ii.19). By asking the crowd to listen and judge logically, then immediately appealing to pathos through his ‘love for Caesar,’ he is almost tricking the crowd into believing that the emotions they feel are intellectual, and clearly backed with reason since he set the stage in that manner. This also serves to logically move the speech forward in his reasoning for killing Caesar, while still applying an appeal to pathos in that he loved Rome more than Caesar. He goes on to account what would happen were Caesar to remain in power. By offering that the alternative to Caesar’s death would be the enslavement of all free men, he gives a very surface appeal to both logos and pathos, playing on a logical fear of a tyrannical ruler in the crowd.

Brutus then traps certain members of the audience in providing the rationale to dissent to his movement: “Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak, for him have I offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country? If any, speak, for him have I offended. I pause for a reply” (III.ii.28-31). Brutus’ request at this point, after orating his apparently logical reasons for Caesar’s death, allows his audience to speak out against him in theory, but at the risk of sounding insane because his offer only lends for those who wish to be enslaved, according to his most recent claim. Thus, the audience in trapped into agreement.

Brutus is very cunning in his oration, as he uses logic and emotion both to give his audience no choice but to agree with him. Who, after all, is going to publicly dissent the man who has just managed to kill the king? His rhetorical choices are clearly very calculated and serve his purpose effectively, though perhaps not completely morally.