Hamlet is usually seen as a philosophical character. He is always spilling out ideas throughout his soliloquies that can be classified as existentialist or skeptical at best. One of the classic examples in of his relativist ideas is seen in the quote “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Weller, Hamlet, Act II, scene II). What makes the skeptics and the scholars equally passionate is his view towards death and its evolution.

In the beginning of the play, we can see his outright obsession with death. Despite the fact that even his friends were afraid of the ghost, Hamlet decides to speak to the ghost and then follows the ghost when it beckons to him. The only line that even hinted to his hesitation to follow the ghost is seen when he says “Angels and ministers of grace defend us” (Weller, Hamlet, Act I, Scene 1V). But even that cannot be seen as a sign of being afraid since Hamlet fearlessly talked to the ghost and then followed it - something no man would do in his right mind. This is just a sign of what is troubling his thoughts, as Marcellus said in Act I, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Then later when he organizes the play to expose his uncle's guilt and then receives the proof he needed, we see a Hamlet deeply troubled. Thus begins his contemplation of suicide when he realizes the magnitude of his troubles. To be or not to be soliloquy deals with this contemplation of suicide. Hamlet is asking which is more preferable, to suffer in one's own mind or take a stand against a sea of troubles. He realizes that the situation he is in now is forcing his hand to act - he either must remain quiet or forget all that happened and thus suffer or must work to expose and kill his uncle.

Hamlet's dilemma is the pain of life that he must endure or the uncertainty of death. We see that Hamlet is dissatisfied with life and lists many things that trouble him but he is not sure what death will bring him. He is thinking that the experience of death itself maybe worse than life itself. Hamlet knows that the church explicitly forbids suicide because then your soul will be in eternal damnation. Thus the famous quote from the bible, “the wages of sin is death.” For Hamlet, death is an undiscovered country where no traveler returns. It is a one way ticket where there are no take-backs - a possibility that life might be bad but death could be worse.

Hamlet's mind begins to unravel further as he tries to comprehend death. In Act IV, Scene III, we see a hamlet that is mentally disturbed. When asked of death, he explains it in the most crude and unfashionable way. He says that we are all destined for death, to be eaten by maggots. Your worm is the only emperor of your diet. Meaning you are eating someone else's death body because the worms broke down that dead body and how you will just fatten yourself up for the worms. This shows a completion alienation of Hamlet from his earlier self, a new stage in his personal development or rather his devolution. He is talking of death itself as nothing to be too mindful of, a natural process that he describes in the most dehumanizing way. When his friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were killed, there was no mourning for them from Hamlet - just that they were simply getting in his way (Weller, Act V, Scene II). A dehumanizing and numbing effect that has enveloped Hamlet's sensitiveness, a sign for his passionate madness. This is shown when Hamlet did not kill his uncle Claudius while in confession because he wanted to not only kill the man but to “damn his soul as well” (Detmold, pg. 127).

Later in Act V, we see a completely transformed Hamlet who is hardened about his feelings and who has made peace with the universe. In Act V, Scene II, Hamlet says “If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.” He is talking about his death, that he has accepted his fate. His reasoning is that death will come to everyone; it is just a matter of being ready for it. If it is indeed his destiny to die in a duel with Laertes, then so be it. Here we see a Hamlet that is beyond contemplation of his death or the afterlife. We see someone who simply accepted the reality has it is and is now moving on with his plans for revenge. His fear is death is no longer a obstacle because he has already taken many lives and he has made the reasoning that no matter what exists in the afterlife, he will continue to exist. We see a man who has completely come to terms with his own mortality and has surrendered his life to where fate or death takes him.

To be or not to be soliloquy of Hamlet is just a small marker in the long road of his devolution into madness and a dehumanized soul. His obsessions and contemplation of death leads to his resigning himself to his fate, whatever that may be. Throughout the play, his questioning mentality about the nature of death gets changed to a point where at the end; he simply has no more objections to the very notion of death itself. Even when his friend Horatio tries to tell him of the dangers to his life, Hamlet is unconcerned. However, if we can speculate, we can be sure that the Hamlet from Scene I would have certainly objected to what Hamlet from Scene V has done. This shows the breakdown of rationality and a man who has come to terms with life, the universe and his own mortality.

 

These women are very different from each other, although what they wish to obtain approximately similar things. In both plays, several women wish to acquire and secure the love of the person, whom they love, which is common for many characters in plays, not simply in Shakespearian plays. In the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, both Helena and Hermia are the female characters in this play, who are desperately trying to get the attention of the man that they love. Though, it happens at different time.

The way that both women try to get the attention from the man they love in an almost girlish and childish way. The first event involves Helena. It is when Helena is told of Hermia and Lysander's plan and chooses to tell Demetrius about it, in order to get him closer and follow him, in Act 1, scene 1. The way she talking about trapping him seems to be the type of thing that we might do as youths.

A second event involves more Hermia than Helena. This happens just after Puck mistakenly puts the juice on Lysander and Demetrius's eyes and these two men have fallen for Helena, in Act Three, Scene Two. Hermia becomes confused when Lysander is pushing her away. After trying to talk to Lysander and try to reason with him, the only defense that she can think of is attacking Helena. Some of the things that are said, not simply by Hermia, but all four of them, are very childish. "Dwarf," "juggler," and "cankerblossom" are a few examples of what they call each other.

In 12th Night, the female characters choose an extremely different way to get the attention of the one they love. There are two ways that this seems to be done, in this mature play. First, there is Viola, who is in love with Orsino. Viola chooses not to say anything, for more than one reason. She doesn't say anything, because she believes Orsino is in love with Olivia, and because he thinks that Viola is a man. It is true she could always reveal herself, but it wouldn't help her or serve her purpose, in any positive way. Instead of saying anything about her love for him, Viola simply keeps it to herself and decides that it is perhaps best that way. She then continues to help Orsino in courting Olivia.

Then, there is Olivia, who is also trying to get the attention of the one she loves. Unlike Viola, she does try to suggest this fact, but in a very subtle way. The only problem is that she loves Cesario, who is really Viola. An example of suggesting her love is by sending Cesario the ring, which he is supposed to have left behind. However, he/she says that it's not his and picks up on the clue. Cesario/Viola realizes that Olivia loves him/her.

This shows a much clever side to the later female characters, within Shakespearian plays. Olivia and Viola are a lot more clever and logical. Hermia and Helena, on the other hand, are more childish. Perhaps the female characters evolved and became more mature as Shakespeare's career as a playwright became more mature.

There is that sense that they know how to deal with certain, if not all, aspects in their lives, with the female characters in 12th Night more than in A Midsummer Night's Dream. This idea may also be assumed with the way Hermia, Helena, Viola, and Olivia try to confess their love and/or get the attention of the man these women love. One may think that perhaps Shakespeare had in mind that Hermia and Helena were more like female teenagers, and Viola and Olivia were more adults-like women.

Then, there is the choice of words and actions; the words and actions that Shakespeare chooses to give them. This aspect goes almost hand in hand with their decision and intelligence. These aspects of their character affect their choice of words. In Midsummer Night's Dream, Hermia and Helena don't seem to think too much about they are saying. They simply say it without really thinking about the consequences, or it would seem and appear to be the case.

For instance, when Helena is plotting to tell Demetrius of Hermia and Lysander's plans and to then follow him, there is that sense that she is primarily thinking of what she wants and not of what Demetrius, Hermia, and Lysander may feel or how they may be affected by this action. She only seems to want the attention, and perhaps even the love of Demetrius. As opposed to thinking of anoter option, she simply goes for this idea, this girlish idea, almost.

This aspect in 12th Night is a different matter. The women in this play seem to think a lot more about what they say and about their choice of words and actions. A good example is when Viola is with Olivia, in Act Three, Scene One. This scene is just after Viola receives the ring from Olivia, which is supposed to be hers. Olivia is subtly talking about her love. Viola is trying to say that she can't love her, in a way that won't hurt Olivia. There is a sense in this scene that she chooses her words very carefully and she takes the time to think about what she is about to say. Viola really doesn't want to offend or hurt Olivia, in anyway.

In this situation, Olivia is trying to get Cesario to love her, but she isn't trying to push him as much as Helena is, when she is following Demetrius. Olivia is in between these two women, but her actions and intentions seem to be closer to Viola's actions and intensions. There is more complexity in Viola and Olivia's purpose than for Helena and Hermia. There seems to be more actions with a specific intension and purpose with Viola and Olivia. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hermia and Helena want to be with the man that they love. This is want their purpose is, throughout the play. It is simple and clear, to the audience.

However, in 12th Night, Olivia and Viola have more than one purpose. There is more than one thing that they are trying to achieve. Trying to get the love from the one, whom they love, is only one of their purpose, one of the things they are trying to achieve. But whatever they are trying to achieve, there is some complexity in it. It isn't always plain and clear. There is always something more behind their actions and what they say. This aspect seems engage the audience more.

There seems to be an immense gap between the characteristics of these four Shakespearian female characters. When one looks closely enough, one may realize that there appears to be a gap between the women in A Midsummer Night's Dream and the women in 12th Night. It would make sense that this may be due to the talented boy actors, associated to the Chamberlain's Men.

However, what may also explain this aspect is that Shakespeare was now only writing for the Chamberlain's Men and knew well enough the actors, who were associated to this company. We might never discover the exact reason for this aspect. In the mean time, we can keep enjoying a good performance of his plays.

In order to truly analyze Hamlet's sanity, it is essential to define “insane” properly. One must realize that in everyday situations, the term “insane” is used quite loosely, thus it has become extremely subjective in nature. Much like a person who is slightly different than the rest is not necessarily “abnormal”, a person who does not conform to society's definition of sanity is not “insane”. The fact of the matter is that Hamlet is extremely traumatized throughout the play. Anyone who has ever lost a loved one may be able to relate with the difficulty of dealing with all the circumstances that accompany such a tragic event. This becomes evident right away when Hamlet reflects upon the prospect of suicide in the first soliloquy of the play. “O that this too too solid flesh would melt,Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew”(Act I, Scene II, 129-130). This shows the mental state that he is right from the beginning of the play. The fact that the death of his father was the first tragic event he had to deal with and the fact that he thought very highly of him (“So excellent a king…”Act I, Scene II, 139) makes it obvious that he had been greatly impacted by this event of extremely significant magnitude. After all, there are not many events in a person's life that can cause one to consider suicide as even a remotely reasonable course of action.

In addition, there is another factor that is mentioned within the same soliloquy, and at various points afterwards, which is causing Hamlet even more despair. Not only is he extremely bothered by the sudden demise of his beloved father, the manner in which his mother, Gertrude, has dealt with this event has caused even more disturbance in his psyche. “Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears, had left the flushing in her galled eyes, She married:- O, most wicked speed, to post with such dexterity to incestuous sheets!” (Act I, Scene II, 154-157). “Mother, you have my father much offended” (Act III, Scene IV, 11). This demonstrates that Hamlet was extremely upset by his mother's complete lack of sensitivity towards the death of his father. The fact that she married Claudius with the death of Hamlet Sr. still fresh in everyone's minds contrasts greatly with the sombre manner in which Hamlet is mourning this great loss.

As if this was not enough, Hamlet has to endure more tragedies later on in the play. Arguably the most significant of those losses is the death of Ophelia. Her demise towards the end causes him more despair than he was letting on earlier in the play. This becomes all too evident at Ophelia's funeral. When Hamlet finds out that the funeral is of none other than his object of great affection, he is unable to hide his true emotions towards her. “I loved Ophelia; forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my sum…” (Act V, Scene I, 263-265). The fact that Hamlet could never trust Ophelia throughout the play due to his suspicion that she might hold allegiance with the murderer of his father makes it all that much harder for him to truly express his emotions for her. Because of this, he is forced to shun Ophelia against all his love. However, at the funeral, he had no need to carry on his antic disposition, thus the reason why he is finally able to show his true affection for Ophelia without any regard of what anyone else might say.

By citing the reasons above, it would be logical to deduce that Hamlet was extremely traumatized by all the tragedies that directly affect him. It would be premature to suggest that the manner in which he deals with these tragedies is anything more than feelings of anger, betrayal, treachery, frustration and abandonment. To propose that his post-tragedy behaviour is a sign of insanity would require taking a huge leap. The fact that he is able to stay level headed and contemplate every issue with rational thinking is a testament to Hamlet's ability to hang on to his sanity in the face of immense misfortune.

Hamlet shows his ability to think rationally throughout the play despite all the hardships that he has to face. He is capable of contemplating and analyzing every situation to a degree that leaves no room for doubt and error. Taking that into consideration, one must ask themselves whether someone who has truly lost his head would be able to engage in such deep philosophical and moral debates. One of the most obvious demonstrations of this ability occurs when Hamlet encounters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for the very first time in the play. “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!” (Act II, Scene II, 303-307). The fact that he is able to discuss the nature of humanity in such a well articulated and a philosophically complex manner speaks volumes regarding the state of his mind. As disturbed as his psyche may be, he demonstrates that he is as capable of striking such a debate as he ever was.

The next most significant example of his ability to think logically occurs later on while he is being eavesdropped upon. Once again, he shows his ability to contemplate in more depth than most would consider humanly possible. “To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether "tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles…With this regard, their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action”(Act III, Scene I, 58-89). In this soliloquy, he addresses topics as wide ranging as suffering, suicide, contemplation, action, religious theology, ethical philosophy and most significantly the impossibility of certainty. The complexity and the amount of issues addressed within this now famous soliloquy gives one as good a glimpse within his psyche as any speech or dialogue in the play.

Most importantly, not only does Hamlet display his intellectuality and quick wits in discussions, he also shows his ability to use his intelligence in practical terms. While on his way to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he proves his worth as a man of action as well. “I had my fathers signet in my purse, which was the model of that Danish seal: … thou know"st already” (Act V, Scene II, 49-55). Here he tells Horatio how he wrote a fake document addressed to English officials, which asked them to execute Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as opposed to the original document sent by Claudius which asked for Hamlet's head. This demonstrates his ability to think rationally even in the toughest of situations, as opposed to panicking like most people under these circumstances would do. It also shows that he is always two steps ahead of Claudius and at no point was Hamlet oblivious to what is truly going on behind his back.

Hamlet's ever present ability to think with a clear head is evident all throughout the play. At no point does the reader get the impression that he has finally cracked and is unable to think rationally as a result. Even in the face of inevitable death, he maintains this ability as demonstrated by him leaving Horatio with instructions to follow afterwards (“Horatio, I am dead; thou livest; report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied” Act V, Scene II, 331-333). This ability to think rationally is further confirmed by the main reason why he is acting mad for the majority of the play.

As most readers of the play should be aware of, Hamlet decides to put on this act of insanity after he meets the ghost of his father (“As I perchance hereafter shall think meet to put an antic disposition on,” Act I, Scene V, 172-173). Even though the effectiveness of this strategy could be debated, one thing is for certain. The reason why he decided to put on this “antic disposition” had nothing to do with his mental state but everything to do with his rational personality. As any rational person would be able to attest, it is important to have as little doubt as possible when one is planning on taking a huge responsibility. Especially in the case of Hamlet who was told to kill someone by a ghost. Even though it would be easy for him to let his emotions take over and kill Claudius right away, he sets aside his immense hatred for his uncle and decides to come up with a fool proof plan. In order to be certain of Claudius's guilt, he comes up with the idea of a play to see how he reacts to a re-enactment of a situation similar to the one in which Hamlet Sr. was murdered. Not only that, he also decides to put some responsibility upon Horatio as well, since he does not want his bias to skew his observations. “Give him heedful note; for I mine eyes will rivet to his face, and after we will both our judgements join in censure of his seeming.” (Act III, Scene II, 83-86). During the play when Claudius asks for the play to be stopped, Hamlet consults with Horatio, as planned before, even though the manner in which Claudius left when faced with the re-enactment of Hamlet Sr.'s murder clearly established his guilty conscience.

Hamlet: “…Didst perceive?”
Horatio: “Very well, my lord.”
Hamlet:” Upon the talk of poisoning?”
Horatio:” I did very well note him.” (Act III, Scene II, 282-285)

As mentioned before, there is no doubt about the fact that Hamlet has to deal with some extremely strong emotions throughout the play. However, the manner in which he is able to control them all strongly supports the case for his sanity. After the “mouse trap” play mentioned above, Hamlet is summoned by Gertrude. Realizing fully well how strongly he feels about her getting involved with Claudius, he urges himself to remain as non-physical as possible and not let his emotions take over. “I will speak daggers to her, but use none; my tongue and soul will in this be hypocrites” (Act III, Scene II, 387-388). In the next scene, after killing Polonius who was hiding behind the curtains and encountering the ghost of his father, he does not see the need to act insane anymore and tells his mother everything. In order to prove his sanity, he tells his mother everything about Claudius's guilt in a manner truer to his own self (“…it is not madness that I have utter'd; bring me to the test, and I the matter will re-word, which madness would gambol from” Act III, Scene IV, 143-146) and also asks his mother for forgiveness if he had hurt her in any way (“Forgive me this my virtue, for in the fatness of these pursy times virtue itself of vice must pardon beg…” Act III, Scene IV, 154-156). This is a testament to his sanity since its shows that he is able to act like himself even in the heat of the moment.

In addition to the factors mentioned above, another prove of his sanity comes in the shape of his wit even in moments of feigned madness. In fact one of the primary reasons why he is putting on this antic disposition in the first place is that he could speak his mind behind the guise of insanity, so that no one would be suspicious of him. If he truly were insane, it would not be possible for him to step out of his insanity at will. He demonstrates this ability whenever he is addressing Claudius, Polonius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. One example of this occurs while he is replying to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who asked him about the location of Polonius's body. “The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body” (Act IV, II, 28-29). On the surface, it appears as if Hamlet is just babbling on unintelligently. However, upon further inspection, it becomes clear that he is referring to the fact that Polonius is now dead, like the old king, but the new king, Claudius, is not yet dead. Since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are depicted as fools, this completely flies over their heads and they eventually give up, thinking Hamlet has gone totally insane.

To think that Hamlet become insane at one occasion or another would be misunderstanding the reason why he decided to put on the mask of insanity in the first place. He had a plan set in place and there is nothing to suggest that he lost the plot at any point during the play. He had to face various adversities and setbacks all throughout the play but even when he was on his way to England he stuck to his original plan and was not willing to give up. Once his suspicions were confirmed, there was no going back for him. Even though it would be easy to assume for readers that Hamlet had gone mad at some point in the play, Shakespeare had made sure that the audience does not make the same mistake as some of the characters.

All throughout the play, Shakespeare utilizes character foils in order to give the readers/audience members an advantage in determining Hamlet's true mental state. In addition, there is evidence in the form of observations from other characters that prove Hamlet's sanity. Many readers of the book believe that Hamlet's insanity was existent even before the events that are accounted for in the play took place. However, those suspicions are dashed by Ophelia “O, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown! The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's eye, tongue, sword; Th' expectancy and rose of the fair state, The glass of fashion and the mould of form, the observed of all observers, quite, quite down!” (Act III, Scene I, Line 152-156). Here Ophelia describes Hamlet as not only the ideal form of behaviour but also the exemplification of perfection and the ideal Renaissance man.

Shakespeare also uses similarities with other character foils in order to point towards Hamlet's sanity as opposed to madness. The most obvious use of this is evident in Horatio. Right from the beginning of the play, Horatio is depicted as a model of rationality and intelligence. The fact that Bernardo and Marcellus depend on him to communicate with the ghost tells the readers of how highly they think of Horatio (“That if again this apparition come, he may approve our eyes and speak to it.” Act I, Scene I, 28-29). Not only that but one of the most significant cases that is used in attempts to prove Hamlet's insanity is the fact that Gertrude fails to see the ghost where as Hamlet does (“Alas, how is't with you, that you do bend you eye on vacancy, and with the incorporal air do hold discourse?” Act III, Scene IV, 118-120). However, this claim is quickly refuted considering how Bernardo, Marcellus and Horatio, arguably the smartest of the bunch, also see the ghost at some point during the play along with Hamlet himself. In addition to this, even Hamlet himself has nothing but praises for Horatio "Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man as e'er my conversation cop'd withal" (Act III, Scene II, 53-54). According to Hamlet, Horatio is the most well-balanced person he has ever encountered. The fact that a person as intelligent and well respected as Horatio supports Hamlet throughout the play without ever doubting his intentions or, more importantly, his sanity speaks volumes about Hamlet's actual mental state.

In addition to all of this, Shakespeare also makes sure to put in a character foil for Hamlet that surely puts to the bed the argument regarding his sanity. As a result of Polonius's death and Hamlet's departure to England, it becomes quite clear that Ophelia has indeed gone insane (“…her speech is nothing, yet the unshaped use of it doth move the hearers to collection; they aim at it and they botch the words up fit to their own thoughts…” Act IV, Scene V, 7-10). She starts to talk truly unintelligibly and her replies to Gertrude do not hold any relevance to the questions. “Well, God'ield you! They say the owl was a baker's daughter. Lord, we know what we are, but know not what we may be. God be at your table!” (Act IV, Scene V, 41-43). On top of that, she also eventually commits suicide as a result of her insanity. This contrast truly shows that Hamlet was indeed sane throughout the play, for if he was ever insane he would have spoke unintelligibly throughout the play and committed suicide as well.

The accumulation of all the hints that Shakespeare drops within the play clearly show the reader that Hamlet was indeed sane right from the beginning all the way to the end. He uses character foils and comments from other primary characters to affirm Hamlet's sanity. This demonstrates the fact that Shakespeare always intended Hamlet to be seen as a sane character and made sure that the readers/audience members understand it as well.

Even though it would be tempting to assume that Hamlet had gone mad at some point during the play, the cases cited above clearly prove other wise. Hamlet does indeed suffer greatly from all the tragedies plaguing him but to suggest he has gone insane would be irrational. In addition, the facts that Hamlet is capable of keeping his rationality intact and that he is also able to come up with an ingenious plan of feigning madness in order to catch Claudius work strongly in favour of Hamlet's mental state. Most importantly, Shakespeare himself uses character foils and comments from secondary characters to build a case for Hamlet's sanity so that the reader does not falsely presume him to be insane. It would be a mistake to label Hamlet mad since that would take away from the entire reason why he feigns madness in the first place. It is only through shedding doubts regarding Hamlet's sanity that one is able to truly appreciate the subtle brilliance of the character and the remarkable work Shakespeare did in creating him. To deny this playwright the brilliance of his work would be disrespectful to his legacy.

Perhaps the two greatest satires in literature are Voltaire's Candide and Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's travels. The first makes fun of the idea that "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds". The second attacks man's vices in general. The satire is hidden beneath Gulliver's adventures and humorous incidents.

Another classic satire is Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote. Don Quixote is an idealistic knight. He and Sancho Panza, his squire, try to correct the justices of the world. But they

“Tilt against windmills”, that is, they fight senseless battles. Many dramatists, especially of the 17th century, wrote plays that were satires. One of the greatest of these was Moliere.

In a dimly-lit chamber a handsome youth paces back and forth. Silently, he contemplates his fate. The illegitimate son of the Duke of Gloucester regrets his brother's preponderance, and he resolves to gain what he thinks is his own.

Edmund is one of the most startling characters of Shakespeare's creation. The young man's first scene is quite pitiful; however, this pity soon turns into disgust when Edmund reveals his plan of action. To gain what he wants, Edmund, from his own self-will, decides to get rid of his brother, Edgar. He succeeds in writing a letter in his brother's hand, which betrays Edgar as wanting to kill Gloucester; thus, “Edmund the base/ Shall to the legitimate.” (I, ii)

Evil feeds on itself, as Edmund nears his goal. Being in line for the dukedom is not enough, for he wishes to become the Duke of Gloucester as soon as he can; accordingly, he takes on the view of which he falsely accused his brother. He says to his father,

I have heard him oft maintain
it to be fit, that, sons of perfect
age, and fathers declining, the father
should be as ward to the son, and
the son manage his revenue (I, ii)

The opportunity presents itself when Gloucester places trust in his son. Edmund takes advantage of this, and in one sordid act betrays both his father and the invading French army. He, then, in a calm voice is able to say, “The younger rises when the old doth fall.” (III, iii)

The most heinous decision of Edmund occurs during his debut as the new Duke of Gloucester. Even though Albany wishes to make amends with Lear and Cordelia, Edmund resolves that they shall, “Shall never see his pardon” (V, i). He wants all power for himself and will spare nothing to get it. As soon as the King and his daughter are captured, he makes sure that his “writ/ Is on the life of Lear and of Cordelia.” (V, iii)

Edmund is arguably the blackest of all Shakespeare's characters. The strangest of all is that at the apex of Edmund's life, while fighting his brother, he realizes his mistake: in his own words, “The wheel has come full circle” (ibid.). This small glimmer of light shows that he is not all black. Even in the vilest person, there is still some good.

When Prospero is talking to Ariel, he uses formal language and orders Ariel about as if he is superior to him. Their relationship is that of servant and master. In line 195, Prospero says “I bade thee”. This shows that Prospero commands Ariel to do as he says. Prospero also praises Ariel because he must respect his magical abilities to some extent. I know this because in line 207, Prospero says “my brave spirit”.

Ariel mentions wanting his freedom back by saying “Is there more toil?” on line 241 but Prospero chooses to ignore this and accuses him of being ungrateful. This is because on line 250, he says “Dost thou forget from what a torment I did free thee?” He then tells Ariel that he will imprison him back in the oak tree if he doesn't obey him. This shows that he has had enough of Ariel moaning and disobeying him.

After this outburst, Prospero speaks more kindly to Ariel and he tells him that if he does everything that he asks of him, he will set him free in two days. I know this because Prospero says on line 297 “Do so, and after two days, I will discharge thee.” Prospero desperately needs Ariel's magic powers for a little while longer.

Miranda

Unlike Ariel, Prospero uses kind and gentle language when speaking to Miranda, such as “Awake dear heart awake” on line 305. This makes it clear that Prospero loves his daughter dearly. The reader can clearly tell that his attitude changes considerably when he speaks to Miranda. For example, he is not as harsh as he is when he speaks to Ariel. Towards the end of the scene, Miranda complains that she feels tired but Prospero tells her to “shake it off” because they are going to visit Caliban.

This is ambiguity because it could mean that Prospero is telling her to shake off her tiredness or it could mean that he is telling her to forget about the story he had earlier told her. Overall, we see that Prospero is very protective of his daughter.

Caliban

Caliban is another servant to Prospero but he is more like a slave. Prospero thinks that Caliban is useless because on line 285, he calls him a “dull thing”. This shows that in his opinion, Caliban is useless and he can't do anything. Prospero also thinks that Caliban's mother, Sycorax, is just as bad as Caliban. This is because he calls Sycorax a “damned witch” and a “blue eyed hag” on lines 263 and 269. Adding to this, Prospero refers to how ugly Caliban is by saying he is “not honored with human shape.”

Prospero considers Caliban to be useless and worthless, even though he collects the wood for him. When Caliban first enters in the scene, Prospero shouts “slave!” at him and commands him to “speak”. He then orders Caliban to hurry up and insults him by calling him a “tortoise.” Overall, Prospero only really cares about Miranda and he takes advantage of Ariel and Caliban. Shakespeare shows this with the wide range of vocabulary used.

The concepts of deception and substitution are not as present in Hecatommithi as in Measure for Measure. Substitution is even brought forth by Shakespeare's title. Measure can be substituted for measure, just like the friar is substituted for the Duke. Also, when the Duke disguises himself as the friar, he deceives almost everyone in Vienna. The deception adds to the confusion of Shakespeare's text. The Duke's deception makes him more knowledgeable about Angelo's actions than the Emperor is of Juriste's actions. But the deception also leads to the Duke becoming unjust.

This transformation's effect on Measure for Measure results in a drastically different ending than in Hecatommithi. In Cinthio's text, Juriste, by the Emperor's command, marries Epitia. The Emperor enforces the marriage so justice would be served, and so that Epitia could marry the man who took her virginity. Therefore, she can keep her honor.

Epitia, in the end, lives happily, and it can be argued that justice is served. In Measure for Measure, since the Duke has many personal meetings with Isabella, he falls in love and wants to have sex with her. He offers to release her brother in return for her hand in marriage. Shakespeare ends the play without telling the reader whether Isabella agrees to marriage.

Also, the Duke's presence throughout the play results in the preservation of Claudio's life. Since he is disguised as the friar, he's privy to information he would not have otherwise known. He overhears Angelo's plan to sleep with Isabella and can stop it by substituting Mariana for her. In Measure for Measure, the Duke saves Isabella's virginity and Claudio's life, whereas in Hecatommithi, Epitia's virginity is taken and her brother killed. Although the Duke saves Isabella's virginity from Angelo, he will only save her brother if she gives it to him.

While the Duke pretends to be the friar, the town and Angelo believe he is away. When the Duke “arrives” back in Vienna, by Angelo, Escalus, and the citizens greet him. He states, “Give me your hand / and let the subject see, to make them know / That outward courtesies would fain proclaim / Favors that keep within” (5.1.13-16).

This passage in itself is deceiving because it has multiple meanings. It tells that the Duke will soon admit to his deception as the friar. Courtesies could mean appearances, and the Duke's appearance as the friar let him, for a while, keep his “favors” within. But now that he will soon be unmasked, his favors will be known. This favor could refer to the Duke's sexual favour he wants from Isabella. This sexual favor turns the Duke towards injustice because he holds Isabella's brother's life against her to make her decide to marry him.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a favor could also be “gracious or friendly action due to special goodwill.” On the other hand, the Duke was putting on the appearance of a good man by “graciously” acting for Isabella by saving her brother's life. The Duke deceives Isabella by acting like a good man, but he actually wants her sexually.

The Emperor does not have the chance to fall in love with Epitia or want her sexually. This could be because the Emperor is nobler than the Duke, meaning that justice is so important to him that, by falling in love with Epitia, he would be acting against justice. While the Duke claims of justice's importance, he's actions do not show this.

In this line, the Duke could also be talking about Angelo's sexual desire for Isabella and the same sexual favor Angelo asked of Isabella. The Duke knows about Angelo's feelings for Isabella and is about to uncover them to the rest of the city.

Another form of deception in the text is the use of “subject”, a singular form, and “them,” a plural form. It adds to the complexity because the reader does not know whether the Duke is talking to or about one person or to more than one. This part of the passage can relate to a previous statement by the Duke, “Visit both prince and people” (1.3.46). “Prince” is singular, while “people” is plural. Prince in this statement refers to Angelo, so perhaps the Duke is substituting “subject” for “prince.”

A prince has power, whereas his subjects do not. When Angelo is given the power of the Duke, he is a prince. By the end of the play, Angelo loses his power and becomes a subject. Shakespeare is demonstrating the overall theme of substitution in these two short passages.

When the Duke acts as the friar, he is put in the position to fall in love with Isabella. But, not only is the friar a substitute for the Duke, in his eyes, he is also a substitute for Isabella's prince. “Come hither Isabella / Your friar in now your prince: as I was then, / Advertising and holy to your business, / Not changing heart with habit, I am still / Attorneyed at your service,” (5.1.373-377).

Isabella is deceived because she does not know the friar is the Duke. The Duke admits that he deceived Isabella by saying, “as I was then.” The Duke has feelings for Isabella while he was acting as the friar, and he thinks he is acting in the best interests of Isabella. By doing what he thought was best for Isabella, he considers himself Isabella's prince. The Duke's habit is acting as a friar, so although he changes back to the Duke, he still retains the same feelings for Isabella. He still wanted to help remedy the situation by representing her interests. The ironic part of this situation is that he is not acting in her best interests. Instead, he is treating her exactly the same way in which Angelo did. He bribes her by offering her brother's life for her virginity.

The syntax of this passage is confusing and represents the multiple layers deception adds to the whole play. Hecatommithi does not contain these multiple layers. The passage reverts in on itself, uses many pronouns, and is not a simple sentence structure. The pronouns are confusing because the reader does not know who is being talked about. Also, since the Friar is not a real person, but instead a projection, the reader does not know whether the pronouns are referring to him or the Duke. The pronouns could also not refer to either the Duke or the friar since the Duke is being deceptive.

All of the changes that Shakespeare presents make the ending for Measure for Measure drastically different than Hecatommithi. The Duke's deception and substitution began his decent towards injustice. While the Duke was acting out his deception, he had the opportunity to love Isabella. It was this love that made him bend the law to his will, and to make him act the same was as Angelo. The Duke was supposed to serve justice to Angelo because he abused his power when dealing with Isabella. But the Duke did the exact same thing, and therefore justice was not served. Isabella never got justice because there was no one impartial to serve it. Isabella is stuck dealing with men who want to sleep with her.

In Hecatommithi, the Emperor did not fall in love with Epitia so he could act as an impartial judge, and Epitia lived happily. The seemingly small changes of the Duke actually change the whole meaning of Measure for Measure.

The argument can be made that an incompetent could not succeed in killing one of the worlds great generals, but Brutus was later defeated and Caesars family continued to rule. His treachery in killing Caesar has been discussed since when the deed was done. It has been said that treachery never succeeds. This is because if successful, an action is not called treachery. To turn yourself from a usurper to a hero, you must leave no witnesses of the actual deed, and you must never leave an enemy behind you.

Brutus killed Caesar where the whole senate could watch him continue to be noble even with his very last breath. Brutus left Antony and Octavian alive to avenge Caesar. When preparing the funeral oration, he forgot that people always remember the last speaker more, and that he who speaks second can tailor his speech to ruin his opponent.

Yet Brutus folly starts much earlier. He started by acting without any truth in his stated cause, which showed his lack of understanding of the way the world works. He then did not state a good objective, acting only in defense, which military scholars have told us can't be won. He then did not carefully pick a team of associates, but went with those recommended by Casius. He did not demand oath or even hand shake to secure their loyalty or obedience. And his plans were simple. The only effective way to remove a ruler is to stage a coup D eta and put in a rule of your own. Brutus made no such plans.

I feel that Caesar's death was cheep and dishonorable. He was not killed for any crime, nor for to prevent any crime that a sane man would actually believe might happen. He was not killed to clear the way for some great project of even for greed. Caesar was killed by a stupid man as a stand-in for his demons. I can not in any way consider Brutus the tragic hero in this play because that phrase has the word hero in it. Brutus is still tragic.

Macbeth is the man at fault because he took control of his actions. He was in charge and no one else had any influence in his actions. Before Lady Macbeth is even introduced as a character he says, “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir.”(pg. 8) Macbeth is allowing himself to become king before anyone can have a chance to influence him in anyway. Macbeth is saying he would allow himself to become king even if something were to happen to the king, Duncan. Macbeth also says, “Why hath it given me earnest of success commencing in a truth?”(pg. 8) he has already started to ponder about the idea of himself becoming king.

Macbeth defies himself as a husband, a thane, and as a kinsman. When he declares he will kill the king by saying, “False face must hide what the false heart doth know,” (pg. 18) he is defying himself as a kinsman and a thane when he kills the king. He denies himself as a wife when he says, “She should have died hereafter.” (pg.77) He denies everyone around him; therefore, relies on no one but himself. Also, Lady Macbeth couldn't have influenced Macbeth because after the killing of Duncan she says, “What's to be done?” (pg. 39) This clearly states that she had no jurisdiction over Macbeth's decisions.

Yes, Macbeth first gets the idea of becoming king from the three witches. However, all they say is, “All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter.”(pg. 6) they only speak of him becoming king and not killing the in order to become king. Also, Macbeth's downfall is his death. The witches prophesy to Macbeth that “none of woman born shall harm Macbeth” (pg. 54) and that “Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill shall come against.”(pg. 54) The witches, in a way, are trying to help him by warning him. They try to warn him but Macbeth thinks their prophesy is a guarantee for safety. However, it actually is a guarantee of destruction.

Because Macbeth thought this was a guarantee of safety he thought that he was invincible when he declares, “Then live, Macduff. What need I fear of these?” (pg. 54) Now that Macbeth is invincible he starts to make commands, before he used to take commands and be influenced by others. Now he is influenced and takes commands from no one. We see him commanding others when one of the murderers says, “We shall, my lord, perform what you command us.” (pg. 37) This proves he is responsible for the killing of the nobles; therefore, he is responsible for his downfall.

Is the hero responsible of for his crimes or he is he a victim of fate? Was Macbeth to blame for his ambition and lust, or was he manipulated by supernatural forces? Today I will show you how ambition, supernatural forces and fate in Macbeth convey a message that for every action there will be consequences.

Macbeth is the story of Macbeth and his Lady's attempt to attain the throne of Scotland. Macbeth is a gifted leader and a fierce warrior, but he wants to be king, even if it requires doing something drastic. His wife, Lady Macbeth, has an even stronger lust for power that pushes her relentlessly toward both glory and tragedy.

Macbeth's murder of Duncan in Act II represents the point of no return, after which Macbeth feels he is forced to continue murdering his subjects to avoid the consequences of his crime. Our attention is held by Macbeth's anguish and wickedness, until his wife commits suicide, and he transcends into the dramatic, brutal tyranny which gets him murdered.

Shakespeare concludes his tragedy on a hopeful note, for as corruptive as the evil is in Macbeth, it is only temporary; order is restored through time.

Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble! Supernatural forces are present throughout the entirety of the play. The supernatural element is used to highlight dramatic, emotional and poetic concerns in the play Macbeth.

The dark sense that comes with enchantments, potions, apparitions and ghosts intensify the audience's experience, and also increases pressure on Macbeth. The three witches are evil characters, whose main objective is to wreak havoc.

Macbeth's first experience with the witches is when he's coming home from the battle, as the hero. The witches stop him and predict that he is going to become Thane of Cawdor, even though the old Thane still held his position. The witches also predict that Macbeth will become king.

Macbeth is an easily manipulated character, and is excited at the witches' predictions. He is not sure wether to believe them or not, until the Thane of Cawdor is put to death and Macbeth is crowned the Thane. Being crowned Thane, Macbeth thinks about the other predictions that the witches had made, and realised that he could become King.

Throughout the course of the play, many elements of the supernatural other than the witches are presented, such as apparitions and ghosts, which all play a part to make the play seem scarier.

Macbeth begins as a courageous Scottish general who does not want to commit evil deeds, though he deeply desires power and this ambition causes a transformation for the worse. He kills his King, Duncan, against his better judgment and afterwards is guilty and paranoid. This progresses toward the end of the play as he descends into a frantic, boastful madness.

Lady Macbeth is quite different to Macbeth in this respect. She pursues her goals with a larger determination, but she is less capable of surviving the consequences of her acts. As the strongest female character in Macbeth, she encourages her husband mercilessly to kill Duncan and urges him to be strong afterwards. She eventually breaks under the pressure when Macbeth kills more and more people. In each case, ambition is what drives them to more terrible killing.

Was Macbeth at blame for his murder? How much control did Macbeth have over his own actions? You could say that he wouldn't have killed the king if the witches hadn't put the thought into his head. You could also say that Macbeth wouldn't have had the courage to kill the king if it wasn't for his wife pushing him.

Macbeth is seen as a "free agent", a man who uses his ability to choose and therefore suffers the consequences of that choice. He is his own destruction: the terror of the tragedy is in his decision to perform his crime even though he is knows its implications.

I think that Shakespeare was trying to convey a message though his play. Macbeth was bombarded with pressure from supernatural forces, from his wife, and even is own ambition. He takes advantage of free will by using it for the worst. Macbeth followed selfish ambitions, and killed many people. He became so arrogant and egotistical, that he thought he was immortal, but died because of his actions.

I think that Shakespeare is trying to convey the message that you should make your choices rationally and carefully because for every action there will be consequences.

]]>