Theme of Justice in Much Ado about Nothing and in The Merchant of Venice (07-15-12)

Joseph Melanson

Shakespeare

Prof. Tryon

07 July 2012

Theme of Justice in Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing, and The Merchant of Venice.

           The definition of the word “justice” can have several different meanings and manifestations in the works Much Ado about Nothing, and The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare. “Justice”, according to Dictionary.com means “1) the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. 2) rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason. 3) the moral principle determining just conduct. 4) conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. 5) the administering of deserved punishment or reward” (“justice” definition). In The Merchant of Venice, and in Much Ado about Nothing, justice has different manifestations depending upon the circumstances, and the social standings of the people involved.

           The first definition of justice according to Dictionary.com is the “quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness” (“justice” definition). This means how much one’s life is in accord to religious principles, and how unbiased and unprejudiced one is in their participation in the world.

            In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is a hypocritical Jew pretending to be making a generous bargain as a jest with a fellow businessman, his “pound of flesh” seeming to equal nothing more than a joke among honorable men. Shylock pretends to be their friend and financial savior, even stating to them that he intends “to buy [their] favor I extend this friendship” (1.3.180). Antonio is convinced by this duplicity, saying of the Jew, “the Hebrew will turn Christian; he grows kind” (1.3.191). Shylock’s seeming righteousness is actually a disguise to reap vengeance upon Antonio, a man who “stained” Shylock with a variety of “shames” upon him  (1.3.150).

            The other characters of The Merchant of Venice are just as hypocritical as this summary example of Shylock. All of the characters featured in this story are masters of the same deceptive disguises, while only remaining faithful to their own selfish motives. The characters are all hypocrites and parasites, yet the only victim of his actions is Shylock. Persecuted as a Jew, he is an easy scapegoat among these “hard dealing” people that call themselves “Christians” (Shylock 1.3.173). Religious principles in The Merchant of Venice are something that are glaringly lacking in its characters. 

           

            The characters in Much Ado about Nothing are motivated by love, their affection for others, and in seeing the affections of their friends grow and blossom into marriages. Claudio, who has less verbal skill and experience with women, falls instantly in love with Hero when he first sees her, and hopes to marry her despite never speaking a word to her. His friend Benedick who seems to have more of a developed wit, and more familiar with the presence of women, is not as easily charmed by them as Claudio.

            “Because I will not do them the wrong to mistrust any,

            I will do myself the right to trust none” (Benedick 1.1.239-240). 

           

            Despite his seeming aloofness towards the female gender, he has a fondness for Beatrice which is obvious to the rest in their continued verbal jousting. Don Pedro conceives of a plot to bring Benedick and Beatrice together, and recruits the other characters, especially Claudio and Hero, in his conspiracy in order to teach the shy and inexperienced couple about love.

            “My love is thine to teach. Teach it but how,

And thou shalt see how apt it is to learn

Any lesson that may do thee good” (Don Pedro 1.1.285-287).  

            It is only by the foiled attempt at sabotage by Don John that complicates the natural gravities of these couples to their eventual weddings, the moral rightness of their affections toward one another.

            The second definition of justice is “rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title, justness of ground or reason” (Dictionary.com “justice” definition).

           

            In The Merchant of Venice, Antonio readily agrees to Shylock’s bargain, seen as a jest, after Shylock persuades the men that he makes no true profit in the implication that human flesh has no worth. Antonio believes the Jew to be an honest businessman, and that his ships will return with his profits much sooner than the deadline. When it is later Shylock’s rightful turn to collect on the agreed terms of the bargain with Antonio, Shylock is denied his claim, castigated and financially ruined for his attempt to collect upon it. In The Merchant of Venice, rightful claims and titles are not protected unless it is to the members of the Christian community, and then perhaps only to the whims of the person(s) who have the authority over the matter.      

            In Much Ado about Nothing, the character Don John hopes to make mischief in foiling the plan of Don Pedro’s attempt to woo the maiden Hero for his friend Claudio, as Claudio and Don Pedro were integral players in the defeat of Don John’s army. The justification for Don John’s actions arise solely from his awareness of his nature of a “plain-dealing villain”, and who serves any reason “to build mischief” upon others (1.3.30 and 1.3.44). It is only by the fact that Don John’s accomplices in his treachery allowed themselves to be overheard. This mistake on their part prevents either, or both, Claudio’s and Benedick’s lives from their inevitable duel, thus restoring Hero’s honorable reputation, and eventually brings Don John to his justice. In Much Ado about Nothing, Don John’s justifications for his intended harms are rewarded with his punishment.

            The third definition of justice according to Dictionary.com is the “moral principle determining just conduct” or the “principles of right and wrong” that applies to an individual or social group” (“justice” definition).

            There are no moral principles other than putting oneself in, and maintaining one’s position of advantage to ensure events go in favor of oneself, and in the fortune’s of one’s favorites in both Much Ado about Nothing, and in The Merchant of Venice.

            In The Merchant of Venice, Bassanio must borrow money to be eligible to woo Portia. He goes to his friend Antonio who must indebt both of them to Shylock, a calculating and scheming moneylender who asks to be repaid a pound of flesh if the debt is not repaid by the deadline. Shylock’s daughter Jessica is made ashamed of her father, and her father’s ancestry by being a minority in Christian Venice. Jessica steals her father’s wealth in order to purchase her way into the Christian community, as Bassanio hopes to purchase Portia’s hand in marriage. Portia insinuates herself into the legal proceedings of the agreement made between Shylock and Antonio, having herself made a judge over the trial. When Shylock does not agree to the terms that Portia has invented, who would rather have blood over money, she uses her false authority to financially ruin Shylock by taking away what little wealth he had and ordering the money given to those in her social circle. In The Merchant of Venice, the only moral principle is money, in doing whatever one must do in order to make it, and in holding on to it.

            The moral principle of Much Ado about Nothing is one of reputation and social standing. Don John hopes to ruin Don Pedro’s joy and Claudio’s infatuation by destroying Hero’s reputation. When Claudio makes the allegations against Hero at their wedding, accusations planted in his mind by the deception initiated by Don John, Hero is compelled to feign death as if the wounding of her reputation was equal to a wound to her internal organs. Later Claudio’s and Benedick’s lives are saved when Don John’s plot is discovered, and Hero’s honor is again publicly restored, negating the necessity to duel over her honor. In Much Ado about Nothing, the moral principle is maintaining one’s good standing and honorable reputation in one’s social environment.

            The fourth definition of justice, according to Dictionary.com is the “conformity to the moral principle in the individual’s or group’s response, action, or behavior toward a person or thing” (“justice” definition).

            In The Merchant of Venice, there are no principles that the characters obey, other than the accumulation and the preservation of wealth by any means. Shylock becomes the helpless target of the group’s manipulation due to his being an outsider, and a Jew. Jessica, the daughter of Shylock, steals her father’s wealth in order to gain acceptance into the Christian community, as well as by marrying Lorenzo.

            “But though I am a daughter to his blood,

            I am not to his manners. O Lorenzo,

            If thou keep promise, I shall end this strife,

            Become a Christian and thy loving wife” (2.4.18-21).

           
            Bassanio borrows money in order to deceive his bride to be, in order to attach himself to her wealth. Portia, his target, manipulates events in order to free her new husband, and thus herself, of their now shared blood bond with Antonio against Shylock’s bargain. She prevents Shylock from accepting his rightful claim, and punishes him for making it in the first place by stripping him of the rest of his remaining wealth, and awards it to those who are in her social circle. The only principles that this social circle observe are of maintaining their wealth and social status by whatever trickery possible, and despite whatever ruin it causes upon others. The only conformity that these characters engage in is the pursuit of financial gain by any means.

            In Much Ado about Nothing, it seems that the only principles driving the group are their reputations, and in ensuring that it is valued highly in one’s social environment. Claudio falls in love with Hero upon first seeing her, while Benedick and Beatrice’s simmering passions for each other are obvious, they need the push from outside characters to get them to move forward in their relationship. The wedding plans of both the couples are endangered by the plot of Don John and his careless accomplices. Claudio, despite it only being hearsay, accuses Hero during their wedding of being promiscuous, an accusation to her reputation that appears fatal. Benedick and Beatrice cannot progress forward in their relationship, despite their obvious affection toward another, they have grown to cynical and mistrustful of other people, and are guarded against how other people may view them. How the characters are seen by others is a governing force that limits how they participate with one another in their world.

            The fifth definition of justice is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward” (Dictionary.com “justice” definition).

            In Much Ado about Nothing the villain of the story, Don John, is much like Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. He is an outsider due to being an illegitimate son, unlike his brother Don Pedro, and is resentful for this fact. He feels condemned by his birth, that he was “born under a bad sign”, and thus he “cannot hide what I am” (Don John 1.3.12-13).

“it must not be denied but I

Am a plain-dealing villain” (Don John 1.3.29-30).

            He is incapable of following anything other than his own hate and spite, slandering the innocent Hero in the attempt to prevent her and Claudio’s future happiness together. The interference of Don John in the marriage was just one opportunity, as he would have found another circumstance in which to manipulate events to spite his brother. He lives only for the opportunity to enact his revenge, and he states to this effect when he hears of the intended plans of his brother Don Pedro to woo Hero for Claudio.

“Will it serve for any model to build mischief

On? What is he for a fool that betroths himself to unquietness?” (Don John 1.3.44-45).

            Don John, an admitted “villain”, is captured in the end to receive what we assume will be his just punishment for the “unquietness” that he instigates within the social environment.

He will forever be unapologetic about his nature, he states

“let me be that I am, and

Seek not to alter me” (Don John 1.3.34-35).

            In the end Don John is punished for his mischievous nature, perhaps only prison or death will finally be the final reward for his incorrigible nature.

            In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is at the mercy of his society’s institutionalized anti-Semitism, and has very limited means to defend himself. He is limited by his faith in what he can practice as his trade. He has withstood personal slights from Christians in his life as have the entire race of Jews to the Christians for many centuries. His daughter is compelled by the Christian community to betray him, and former associates abandon him. He has to give up everything, even his religion, in order to escape possible further persecution. Those who persecute him receive no punishment, but rather see themselves an advantage in persecuting the Jew. There is never any opportunity for justice for Shylock in Christian Venice.

            Justice is served differently in The Merchant of Venice and in Much Ado about Nothing. In The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is made a villain by society, and he suffers helplessly as those around him are allowed to destroy his life and livelihood with impunity, the only experience he has ever had in a hypocritical Christian society. Much Ado about Nothing, on the other hand, presents a self-designated villain who is mad at the world, and lives only to make manifest his mischievous nature in the world. In The Merchant of Venice justice is whatever the other characters determine is fit to put upon the long-suffering Shylock. In Much Ado about Nothing, justice is rightly served to the instigating villain who reaps the punishment of his sociopathic nature. In The Merchant of Venice, and in Much Ado about Nothing, we are given two examples of how justice is manifested differently in the world. In one instance justice is made according to the whims of others, while in another, justice is served by how one reaps what one sows by one’s interference in the lives of others.

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Eds. Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. 1992. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Much Ado about Nothing. Eds. Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. 1992. Print.

Dictionary.com. “Justice”. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/justice. accessed July 15, 2012.

Summary/Response Paper on Chapter 4 "The Practice of Utopia" in Kumar's Utopianism (07-11-12)

Joseph Melanson 

07-09-2012

Summary

            In chapter 4 of Kumar’s Utopianism, “The Practice of Utopia”, we look at where the ideals of utopia have been attempted and how their practice has existed in some form in the world throughout history. These ideals have been enacted in “certain traditions, practices, and  institutions” which often take the principles of religion as their model (Kumar 64). One example of a historical attempt at utopia is often found in the embodiment of the monastery. The monastery was an early example and attempt at building a community in which all members come together for the sake of living together under a common goal, and for working selflessly for the sake of maintaining the health and harmony of the community.

            In other attempts to examine where utopia has been attempted, at least in part, we look to extract in “historical societies” their utopian principles (Kumar 66). Every society through the ages has invented its own practices and ideals of utopian principles, developing out of the particular society itself, and many of our early societies contain examples of how these practices have been implemented and how they have both succeeded and failed. These early examples serve as inspiration and fuel for later developments in both the practice and theory of utopian creations. The field of utopia has often relied on early societies and communities where utopian ideals have been practiced, for the lessons that they have provided in their actual practice, and the development of later ideas has often relied on the lessons learned from past attempts in these practices of utopia.

            To examine more closely the practice of utopian ideals we must look at specific examples of the “effects and consequences of utopia” and their practices in the actual world (Kumar 67). Some examples of the attempts at practicing utopia are seen in various communities where their attempts have somewhat succeeded, and have mostly failed. These successes and failures have inspired authors such as Thomas More and James Harrington to create their utopian works which have been influential in the creation of historical constitutions and in social planning. But these attempts at practicing utopia in the real world has proven that “social thought and theory are different from social practice” (Kumar 71). The real world application in historical societies of utopian social practice has shown that theory and practice of utopia are more divergent when human nature is expected to conform to utopian theory.

            Utopian communities of the past are still important for the ideas that we can derive from them and what we can learn from the “utility”, or the use, “of utopias” (Kumar 73). These communities are valuable in how we can learn the lessons of how and why these societies succeeded and failed, to the degree with which they succeeded and failed, and why or why they didn’t succeed or fail. These communities, despite their lack of perfection, are still valuable for the results of these utopian experiments to the development of future utopian practices.

            Kumar in chapter 4 also examines where utopia as practiced in societies as a whole, as compared to the smaller communities where it had existed. America is analyzed for how it has both succeeded and failed as an ideal of utopia. Despite its promise of being the land of the free, America is seen as a failure for living up to its utopian ideal with which it was founded. The former Soviet Union, or the first communist society, which was supposed to be an utopian paradise, is also given as an example of how a utopian experiment is corruptible by the people who wish to implement it. Utopia is a social ideal which has yet to be perfected, but which will still forever remain a component of our human nature.

Response.

           

            From this chapter I have seen how the practice of utopia has been attempted throughout human history in multiple forms. The first examples have been in the form of the monastery, where under the guise of religion people have attempted to come together to serve the greater good of the community, rather than their selfish ego and desires, and devote their existences to live in enthusiastic obedience to some higher authority.  

            This structure of the monastery has been attempted to be expanded into whole communities and societies. These attempts have been largely failures, yet these same communities have produced many valuable and necessary insights into our human desire to peacefully coexist, and mutually prosper. Through analyzing the practice of utopia in these former societies, I can see how the ideal of this concept continues to live despite our continued inability to perfectly enact it.

            The successes and failures of former societies allows us to look at our own communities and societies, and how to best improve them. Even if we are unable to create a utopia as a whole, I would think it would be up to the individual to play their own part in how they can practice utopian ideals on their own, and perhaps affect change in others in their own participation in the world. I believe that utopia will not be realized until we as individuals can practice and embody the utopian ideals and practices on our own, rather than imposed upon us by some higher authority. I think the chapter shows how the success of the practice of utopia is dependent upon how utopia begins with the individual in any time or place. The greatest impediment to the development of utopia is with the governing bodies that oversees the community, and not on a lack of willingness for various peoples across various times to enact it.

             Utopia is not a concept that is going to go away, but is always in development, and theory builds upon practice, practice depends upon theory. Both theory and practice are both dependent upon human enactment, and it is up to us as individuals to make the necessary steps to develop our larger society into a utopian ideal, rather than expecting people to succumb to some utopian rule imposed upon us by some governing authority.   

Works Cited:

Kumar, Krishan. “The Practice of Utopia”. Utopianism: Concepts in Social Thought. Great Britain: University of Minnesota Press. 1991. 64-85. Print.

Response to Much Ado About Nothing Post (Shakespeare 07-08-12)

Perhaps Shakespeare wanted to portray the two types of people that he saw; the more confidant and outgoing type, who are more skilled at conversation, the extroverted, and the less socially sophisticated, or introverted type. Benedick and Beatrice are more sophisticated in their dealings with the world, having come from devoting themselves to their skillful flirtation, and perhaps each one has practiced this art with multiple people. Benedick and Beatrice are thus more able to communicate themselves to one another, and this is a very important component to a successful relationship. Others noticed this ongoing continued verbal sparring, and noticed its ongoing nature determines that it does not emerge from a mutual dislike as the two would probably avoid one another if they truly were not in love with one another. No, their continued mutual antagonism is a form of playful tactic of flirtation. To first be able to be successful and happy in one’s relationships, one must first be able to develop one’s capability of self-expression.

Much Ado about Nothing discussion response (07-08-12)

You are correct to first define what love is, and then consider the fact that the people of Shakespeare’s times defined and experienced love differently than we do in our modern age. We have two couples of Claudio and Hero, Benedick and Beatrice, one innocent and drawn together by the heat of passion, while we have another pair that has had a mutual affection for many years, yet kept parted perhaps by fear, or social customs. Yet Benedick and Beatrice are the more ideal relationship as they have developed and tempered their relationship through their verbal sparring with one another over a period of time, getting to know one another, and finding true affection for one another rather than pursuing blind passion. They maintain their safe distance in flirtation, as it is the safest tactic for them to take in their environment during their time. It is only after others have witnessed this exchange go on that other people give their social approval by their scheme to bring this couple closer together. Don Pedro attempts to teach this lesson to Claudio and Hero, who would rush hurriedly into marriage before they had even truly gotten to know one another beforehand as many people do. Perhaps the theme of cuckoldry is such a predominant preoccupation of some of the characters, reflecting the dissatisfaction of the social customs that limit exploring extended courtships, and cause people to pursue others outside their relationship as people are not encouraged to get to know one another before marriage as we are in our day and age. Through the task of getting Benedick and Beatrice married, Claudio and Hero are forced to work together and to get to know one another. They probably wouldn’t have gotten to know one another before marriage if it wasn’t for this scheme of Don Pedro. Don Juan only serves to interfere with their plans, as life often does in ours. Love between lovers may be blind, but the environment around them is not, and often brings its own complications in many different forms.

Moderator Update 07-04-12 (Creative Nonfiction II).

Happy Independence Day. After reading the professor's latest remarks, I realized that I was guilty, as are some others, in thinking I could get away with just summarizing someone's writing, and then congratulating them for their submission. It only shows that we are not really reading the texts, and applying what they say to both other people's, and our own writing. In any other course we have to look at some piece of writing through our course readings, and then apply our citations correctly. We have to remember to use our course readings to put our essays into the context of how they apply to creative nonfiction criteria. If you hope to get as much out of the course as possible, you need to apply the course readings to your criticism. To me, I think this is the only way you're going to learn how to write creative nonfiction, if that's what you truly want to do.

Character Analysis in Hamlet and Macbeth. (Shakespeare 07-03-12)

Joseph Melanson

Shakespeare

Prof. Tryon

21 June 2012

Character Analysis in Hamlet and Macbeth.

For this essay, I chose a major character in Hamlet, the character of Hamlet himself to analyze, and in the story of Macbeth, I chose a minor character in the form of the servant(s), to analyze.

I). Hamlet. - 

Act 1, Scene 1. (Summary). Horatio, Barnardo, and Marcellus confront the ghost of king Hamlet who has lately been appearing during the night watch. After making attempts to get the Ghost to speak, Horatio thinks that perhaps the Ghost of his father will only speak to his son Hamlet. In this act, the characters of Horatio, Barnardo, and Marcellus introduce the character of Hamlet by talking about his father the slain king,

who was named Hamlet as well. The Ghost of King Hamlet has been recently seen haunting the night watch of the castle at Elsinore, and ghosts during this era were considered bad omens. They relate the social and political climate of war that they find themselves in. The three agree that Hamlet must be told about the appearance of his father in ghost form and how they intuit that Hamlet will be the only one the ghost will

reveal his message to.

            (Analysis) Hamlet is not in this scene but the scene is necessary to set up the rest of the play, the murder of King Hamlet which is the hub of the plot.

Act 1, Scene 2, (Summary). Hamlet is motivated only by his despair, distraught not only by his father’s death but by his own mother’s quick marriage to a man that Hamlet has a low regard for. Claudius and the queen Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother and new bride to the king, who is also Hamlet’s uncle, notice Hamlet’s grief and try to get him to get past the death of his father. Hamlet appears to acquiesce to their attempts to persuade

him to get past his grief, disguised at being concerned for his bereavement, but actually its an attempt to relive themselves of their feelings of guilt and complicity in murder. Hamlet is unable to move on past his feelings of the indecency and audacity of the royal couple’s hasty marriage so soon after King Hamlet’s death. When Horatio greets him and relates the news of the appearance of Hamlet’s father in ghost form, Hamlet is taken out of his despair but is now concerned that the appearance of his father is a bad omen. He swears the other witnesses to secrecy until Hamlet has a chance to meet the ghost of his father himself.

(Analysis) This scene presents Hamlet through the filter of the royal couple and introduces the most important characters in the play as they interact. Hamlet’s despondency is recognized by the king and queen and they hope to encourage him to get over his grief. They are probably both concerned for Hamlet’s mental well-being and their own concern for possible problems that Hamlet’s mental state may cause them in

the future. Hamlet seems to acquiesce to his mother’s request that he get over his grief, but when alone he expresses his true feelings of continued grief, and the reasons behind it. Horatio comes upon Hamlet and relates the news about his ghost father being seen during the night watch by some of the men. Hamlet swears the men to secrecy, and they agree to do so giving Hamlet a sense of credibility and trust among the men.   

Act 1, Scene 3. (Summary) Laertes then Polonius warn Ophelia about letting herself become seduced by Hamlet who has been pursuing her. She promises to both her brother and then their father that she would not accept the advances of Hamlet. Hamlet is spoken about by the characters, perhaps to add characterization in the form of a libidinous image of Hamlet. The other characters perhaps reveal their own natures as well

in their remarks that they have about Hamlet. Another level of characterization of Hamlet is added by the scene, by the characters remarks about him. Ophelia is introduced as a love interest of Hamlet, and her relationship between her brother Laertes, as well as her relationship to her father Polonius is revealed.

(Analysis) Laertes warns Ophelia about Hamlet’s pursuit of her, trying to make her see Hamlet in a negative light. She sees through this and asks Laertes to look at himself, that he needs to be reminded that one must practice what one preaches. Her father, Polonius, reasserts what Laertes said, that Hamlet may only want to use her. This scene provides another glimpse of Hamlet through the eyes of others, and the duplicity with which Hamlet is faced by the people surrounding him. Hamlet is not featured in this scene, and it is used mostly to show the relationships of Ophelia, Laertes, and Polonius, major characters who have featured prominently in Hamlet’s life.

Act 1, Scene 4. (Summary) Horatio and Marcellus bring Hamlet with them to the battlements and the Ghost appears to them, urging Hamlet to follow them. During this time the new king is partying with his court. This is an affront to Hamlet’s sense of proper royal behavior and a blemish on the reputation of the Danes and the country of Denmark itself.

           

            (Analysis) Hamlet is motivated to communicate with the rumor of this ghost of his deceased father. After the ghost is proven real and appears to the men, it beckons Hamlet forward.

The ghost speaks his tale to Hamlet, and Hamlet is able to put aside his fear of the ghost. Hamlet, after speaking alone with his ghost father, is now oath and blood bound to avenge the murder of his father. The characters of Horatio and Marcellus add a dimension of fear by their attempts to warn and restrain Hamlet, perhaps also giving Hamlet the appearance of madness in following the ghost to what could be seen as his

doom. Hamlet is given the characterization of fearlessness and insanity in his boldness to follow the ghost, and now Hamlet has the curse of this vengeance that he has to somehow carry out.  

Act 1, Scene 5. (Summary). The ghost reveals to Hamlet that he is his slain father, and that Claudius the new king, as well as Hamlet’s mother Gertrude were responsible for the murder. This only gives credence to suspicions that Hamlet was already having. Hamlet makes a vow to the ghost that he will seek revenge for his father’s death and gets Horatio and Marcellus to swear not to say anything about the ghost, or reveal any

motivation for any new strange behavior from Hamlet. The ghost also makes Hamlet vow to leave the mother alone, to let God punish her in the afterlife.

            (Analysis) When the ghost departs, Hamlet is now left alone with the full realization of his determined destiny. He is doomed by the by the act of regicide by Claudius that now Hamlet must assume the identity and requirements of a murderer to enact his revenge. Hamlet gets the men to swear an oath of secrecy again, and they again agree giving Hamlet more characterization as a man who commands trust and respect, at

least in some men. Despite this obvious truth of the afterlife now revealed to them, the men choose instead to keep this supernatural knowledge to themselves, conferring again upon Hamlet a place of respect in the minds of the men.

            Act 2, Scene 1. (Summary). While Polonius is giving instructions to Reynaldo on his trip to Paris to give Laertes money and letters, Ophelia arrives to tell Polonius about a meeting she just had with Hamlet. She says he seems mad and Polonius after hearing her account thinks this madness of Hamlet’s is due to Ophelia denying him her affections. Polonius fears Hamlet may turn violent and so he goes to warn the king.

            (Analysis) This scene opens with Polonius having his son spied on, showing that the father doesn’t trust his own son, and perhaps we should not trust either one of them as well. Ophelia enters and informs her father of the sudden onset of strange behavior by Hamlet, which provokes them to consider him mentally unstable, and fear what he may do in this unstable state. They go to warn the king about Hamlet’s derangement, fearing that he may try to overtake Ophelia in a fit of passion. We are given the view of Hamlet

as mentally deranged as seen through the filter of these other characters. Hamlet’s mental state is called into question, and the potential conflict of the plot is brought about in this scene.

Act 2, Scene 2. (Summary). Claudius and Gertrude assign Hamlet’s longtime friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to watch him closely to discover why he is acting so differently as of late. Polonius tells the king the reason Hamlet is becoming unhinged is because of his unrequited love for Ophelia. Polonius read to the royal couple a letter Hamlet wrote for Polonius’ daughter as proof of reason for Hamlet’s sudden madness,

but Claudius is not completely convinced that this is the reason.

(Analysis) Claudius and Gertrude hope to use Hamlet’s friends to extract the reason for Hamlet’s recent sudden change in behavior. This shows Hamlet again surrounded by people with whom Hamlet cannot trust, and pursue hidden agendas against him. Hamlet intuits this on some level as he is able to later discern their conspiracy. This scene sets up later incidents which show Hamlet’s method to his madness. The scene also

shows some characters are not completely convinced Hamlet is insane. Hamlet at the end of the scene, voices his true feelings of doubt and hopelessness with which he must go through in his plan of revenge.

Act 3, Scene 1 (Summary). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have to tell Claudius that they were unable to discern the cause of Hamlet’s madness. Polonius decides to use Ophelia to find out Hamlet’s true behavior with her by hiding and observing their interaction. Hamlet disproves Polonius’ theory of madness by love when Hamlet tells Ophelia that he no longer has feelings for her. Claudius determines that Hamlet is

deranged for some other reason than an obsession with Ophelia, and believes its best to send Hamlet away as a means to somehow have him get over his disturbance. Polonius gets Claudius to wait until Gertrude has had one last chance to talk to Hamlet after the performance in order to observe this meeting to gather more useful information about how best to handle Hamlet.

(Analysis) Claudius and Gertrude unsuccessfully try to ascertain Hamlet’s state of mind from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They get Ophelia into position to secretly observe her conversation with Hamlet, hoping that it is her that is the reason behind his strange behavior, in order that they may put to rest fears about Hamlet’s derangement when they can determine it is just his feelings for Ophelia not being reciprocated. Hamlet not only disproves this theory, but also raises the level of fear of Hamlet by the king and queen when the reason for Hamlet’s insanity is still unknown and potentially dangerous. This scene adds further conflict between the characters and again paints the picture of Hamlet as an unstable, unpredictable character showing us how other characters can see him as potentially dangerous to their continued positions in the story.  

Act 3, Scene 2. (Summary) Hamlet informs the actors on how they are to perform the play, then asks Horatio to help him decipher Claudius reaction to the performance. Hamlet speaks harshly and dismissively to Ophelia. The court watches the performers act out the play as designed by Hamlet. Claudius is disturbed by the play and takes off, encouraging Hamlet that it is because of a guilty conscience that Claudius has removed himself. Hamlet is informed that Claudius is enraged, and Gertrude wants to speak with Hamlet immediately. Hamlet vows that though he may not harm her he will speak the violence that he does wish to commit upon his mother.

(Analysis) In this scene Hamlet is concerned about having the actors perform according to his instructions in order to decipher Claudius’ reaction to determine Claudius complicity in the murder of Hamlet’s father which is the secret plot of the play. Hamlet asks Horatio to help watch the king, and his faithful friend again agrees, a friend who has been constantly loyal to him, showing indirectly that Hamlet is a person worth being loyal to. Horatio is again portrayed as a credible and stable friend, one of the very few people that Hamlet can trust in the castle. This also gives Hamlet the characterization of being able to properly read people’s characters, as he does in Horatio.

Hamlet behaves as if mad, babbling to Claudius who seems confused by his words, and asks Hamlet what he means. Hamlet changes the subject and asks Polonius about his university days when he had performed as an actor, or one who can assume other roles as the need arises. Hamlet then speaks rudely and ungentlemanly to Ophelia before the play, perhaps distancing himself from her in order to protect her should there be blood. Hamlet makes fun of the king and queen through his criticism of the play, perhaps giving Hamlet the appearance of madness to other characters, while showing his wit and intellect to the reader. Everyone but Hamlet and Horatio leave after Claudius is made upset by the play, and they take the moment to analyzed Claudius reaction to the performance, adding characterization to the two men in revealing how they see things.

Act 3. Scene 3. (Summary). Claudius assigns Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to accompany Hamlet to England. Polonius leaves after informing Claudius about his plan to spy on Hamlet and Gertrude’s conversation while hidden in her bedroom. Claudius, now alone, expresses remorse for King Hamlet’s murder and attempts to pray. Hamlet comes upon him undetected and considers killing Claudius but then realizes it is better to kill the man in sin rather than in prayer, otherwise Hamlet believes Claudius will go to

heaven. Hamlet departs without notice, and Claudius gives up his attempt at prayer.

(Analysis) Hamlet’s madness is a threat to Claudius and he decides to send Hamlet to England, escorted by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who agree that Hamlet is unstable and could potentially bring calamity upon the court. Polonius assures the king that Gertrude will probably have a soothing effect on Hamlet as his mother, while helping them to have Hamlet see the properness in going back to England. Polonius informs the

king that he will report back to Claudius before the king retires to bed for the evening. Claudius, now alone, reflects on the murder of his brother and reveals the remorse he has about doing it, but now that it is done he must do his best to insure his continued place and safety as the king. Hamlet comes upon Claudius unaware, and meditates upon killing the king. He gives up this opportunity believing that Claudius may actually see some kind of spiritual benefit if Claudius is killed while at prayer. Hamlet decides instead to kill the king while he is in some act of sinning, revealing Hamlet’s sense of right and wrong, his character, and nature.  

Act 3, Scene 4. (Summary). As Polonius is hiding behind a tapestry in Gertrude’s bedroom, Hamlet mistakenly thinks it is Claudius, and stabs him. Hamlet berates his mother for her deceitful wedding. During this time the ghost appears, unbeknownst to Gertrude, and making Hamlet appear to have gone insane, repeating to Hamlet that his true goal is to kill Claudius, and not Gertrude. Hamlet tries to persuade Gertrude from remaining with the king. He tells her he senses that his journey to England will end up in his death, and he vows to defend himself by any means necessary. Hamlet leaves her bedroom taking along with him the body of Polonius.

(Analysis) Polonius goes to Gertrude in her chamber and instructs her to inform Hamlet that his behavior has not gone unnoticed and that only her intervention has stopped Hamlet from getting into serious trouble. Hamlet interrupts them and Polonius hides behind the tapestry. When Gertrude begins to inform Hamlet of his misbehavior, he counters with his true feelings of betrayal and the surety with which he knows his mother

and Claudius were complicit in the murder of King Hamlet. He berates her severely, and when he is worked himself into a frenzy, the ghost of his father appears only to him, to dissuade Hamlet from harming his mother. Hamlet kills Polonius behind the tapestry, believing it is Claudius instead. When Hamlet realizes it is Polonius instead, he is not really concerned about this wrongful murder that he had committed, instead Hamlet

insults Polonius as he drags away his body. Hamlet has revealed the true reason behind his apparent madness, and after killing Polonius it is only the queen who knows his information. Hamlet’s shrewdness and cunning is revealed in his killing of Polonius as he shows no remorse in Polonius’ wrongful death as Hamlet knew Polonius was probably working as an agent against him.

Act 4, Scene 1. (Summary). Claudius is told about Polonius’ death by Gertrude. They employ Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to find where Hamlet had taken Polonius’ body.

(Analysis) Claudius gets disturbed when Gertrude tells him about Hamlet’s killing of Polonius, and the story behind it. The royal couple now realize Hamlet is a threat to them, and they realize they now have no other choice but to do something, yet they are not sure exactly what that is. They do realize that they are in a precarious predicament and must handle this matter with skill.

Act 4, Scene 2. (Summary). Hamlet will not tell Rosencrantz and Guildenstern where Polonius’ body has been put.

(Analysis) Rosencrantz and Guildenstern go to Hamlet to retrieve Polonius’ body but Hamlet refuses to give it to them, and relates to them his mistrust of them. Hamlet only gives them a riddle, and the meaning is that Polonius wrongly died in place of Claudius, and that this will eventually come about. Hamlet antagonizes Rosencrantz and Guildenstern when he tells them to take him to the king for whatever consequence is to come about from Polonius’ death. Hamlet is fearless, and others may see this as another

symptom of his madness while the reader can see that Hamlet is only obfuscating himself as he waits for his opportunity to strike Claudius. Hamlet’s mental superiority is shown in contrast to the other characters in this scene.

Act 4, Scene 3. (Summary). Claudius has Hamlet brought to him and he tells Hamlet that he is being sent to England. Claudius in his private thoughts at the end of the scene relates that Hamlet is to be killed on his way to his destination.

(Analysis) Claudius is speaking about Hamlet to others and remarks to them that he must do something concerning Hamlet even though some people may take offense no matter the punishment. Hamlet, instead of telling where the body is, indirectly threatens Claudius by being dismissive in his culpability in Polonius’ death (as Claudius had been in King Hamlet’s), the death of Claudius’ confidant and advisor, as he had probably been to King Hamlet. Claudius informs Hamlet that he is to be sent to England, and Hamlet

sees through this as a plot to have him killed somewhere on the journey. Hamlet even makes an obscure remark to this effect in the use of the word “cherub”. After Claudius directs the men to escort Hamlet to England, and his death, Claudius now by himself speaks aloud concerning the letters which are to effect the plan of Hamlet’s death.

Act 4, Scene 4. (Summary). Hamlet and Fortinbras meet when Fortinbras is crossing through Denmark with his army bound for Poland. Hamlet is impressed by Fortinbras and uses him as a model to represent himself in his plan to kill Claudius, to which now Hamlet is now completely intent to go through with.

(Analysis) Hamlet meets the captain of Fortinbras army, who relates to Hamlet that they march to probably meet their deaths over what is seen as an insignificant piece of land. Hamlet now alone reflects on how men go to their deaths willingly for no reason, while he battles within himself to go through with getting revenge for a reason that he has justification for, a reason loyalty to family and justice demands of him. This scene shows Hamlet is not a ruthless killer, but one who struggles with himself to do what could be seen as right and necessary.  

Act 4, Scene 5. (Summary). Gertrude receives word that Ophelia has gone insane and Ophelia soon enters singing in her madness. When Ophelia is removed, Claudius considers what to do about her madness, and her angry brother Laertes. Laertes charges the royal couple with complicity in Polonius’ death, but Claudius denies it. Laertes is also now troubled by Ophelia’s display of insanity.

(Analysis) Gertrude is informed that Ophelia is acting strangely, and reluctantly the queen agrees to see the girl. Ophelia’s strange behavior perhaps reflects her grief at both her father Polonius’s death, and the appearance of the death of Hamlet’s affection toward her. Perhaps she had true feelings for Hamlet and now she is distraught by the twin deaths of her father and Hamlet’s love for her. Claudius and Gertrude are disturbed by this second appearance of madness in their midst, the first being Hamlet’s. They are now affected by two deaths; the one of King Hamlet’s which they caused, and the second in Polonius’ death, which was indirectly caused by the first. Now they also have to deal with the return of Laertes who demands justice for his father’s death. Claudius and Gertrude relate that to him that they are not involved in Polonius’ death when Ophelia enters behaving strangely. This pushes Laertes even further into emotional disturbance

and the king and queen assure him they will help him bring about the justice that Laertes is burning for. We have in this scene Laertes justification and motivation in wanting to punish Hamlet for these offenses against his family that Laertes holds against Hamlet. Again we also see other important and powerful characters who scheme against Hamlet, to which Hamlet can only assume or intuit that are a threat to his continued existence, and to which Hamlet will have to somehow anticipate and outmaneuver whatever moves these other characters make against him.

Act 4, Scene 6. (Summary). Horatio receives news of Hamlet’s return to Denmark after his adventure with some pirates.

(Analysis) In this short scene Horatio gets a letter from Hamlet who relates that he has escaped from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and the means by which he did so. This small scene shows Hamlet’s courageousness, cunning, and ingenuity in being able to turn the attack of the pirate ship to his advantage. This scene gives us another opportunity to see the courageousness and ingenuity of Hamlet, as a man who was truly insane would probably not have outmaneuvered and survived so many dangerous events.

Act 4, Scene 7. (Summary). Claudius receives a letter from Hamlet telling of his return and Claudius gets Laertes to go along with him in another plot to kill Hamlet. They agree upon killing Hamlet during a fencing match. Just in case the poison sword doesn’t work, Claudius also plans to put poison in a drink to be given to Hamlet. Gertrude arrives to inform them that Ophelia is dead.

(Analysis) The king reassures Laertes that Polonius’ death will be avenged and sets out his plot to bring it about with Laertes assistance. Laertes had thus been calmed and focused to take his revenge when Gertrude comes in and informs the two men about Ophelia’s suicide. Claudius now has to fear that Laertes may come unhinged and incapable of cold calculation. Hamlet is now clearly in danger.

Act 5, Scene 1. (Summary). Hamlet coming back from his journey happens upon a graveyard where a fresh grave is being prepared. When the funeral procession arrives Hamlet sees the funeral is for Ophelia. Laertes and Hamlet fight over the death of Ophelia, Laertes blaming Hamlet while Hamlet protests that he truly loved Ophelia.

            (Analysis) Hamlet speaks about his views concerning death to his companion Horatio. Hamlet speaks with the gravedigger, pretending not to be himself, listening to rumors about himself that have made their way to the gravedigger, a common man. Hamlet wonders on the worth of this life, remarking on how great men like Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar are now essentially dust, as it seems everyone and everything is to eventually become. Hamlet and Horatio witness Ophelia’s funeral procession and when Hamlet realizes who the funeral is for, he goes to her body. Laertes upon seeing Hamlet flies into a rage, blaming Hamlet for his sister’s death and they briefly fight before they are broken apart. This scene shows Hamlet’s and Laertes passionate characters, and gives the king the opportunity to have the two settle their quarrel later on, showing Claudius’ cold, calculating nature. This scene gives us more characterization of the characters of Hamlet and Laertes, and the motivation of the two men in their conflict against one another.

Act 5, Scene 2. (Summary). At the castle Hamlet reveals to Horatio the king’s plot to have Hamlet killed and how he was able to turn the plot around on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Hamlet is requested to fence against Laertes and Hamlet reluctantly agrees. While the two fight, Gertrude drinks from the poisoned cup meant for Hamlet. Laertes wounds Hamlet with the sword laced with poison before Hamlet is able to use the same sword on Laertes. With Gertrude and Laertes dying the plot against Hamlet by the king is revealed by Laertes. Hamlet kills Claudius and then gets Horatio to tell the full story behind these deaths and gives Fortinbras title to the Danish throne. Fortinbras later arrives, takes the throne, and has a military funeral for the honorable Hamlet.

            (Analysis) Hamlet in this scene is shown interacting with Horatio, one of his few and trusted confidants, and relates the mechanizations with which he foiled the plot against him by Claudius. Hamlet remotivates himself to Horatio to his mission of revenge despite his misgivings and some hesitancy. He remarks to his friend how he was very little choice but to do what he must, despite not being aware of how he was going to go about it. Hamlet reveals his lack of concern for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, despite their longtime acquaintance because the two of them conspired with Claudius behind his back to kill him. Hamlet also reveals the craft behind his apparent madness, and that he is not truly insane as others may have believed, in his remarks to Horatio. Hamlet also displays courage in accepting the challenge to fence despite it being an obvious opportunity for a possible “accident” to occur, but he knows if he doesn’t accept his manhood would be questioned, and some other form of confrontation will come his way. Laertes wants the tournament to seem like a matter of honor, to deal in a gentleman’s way, the matter of his sister’s death. The king offers Hamlet a cup with poison in it during the tournament, perhaps in the hopes of weakening Hamlet so that Laertes can kill him more easily without Laertes being seriously injured or killed. Gertrude mistakenly drinks the cup while the king and Laertes decide when and how best to defeat Hamlet. When the queen stumbles towards death, she warns Hamlet about the poisoned drink and warns him, to which Hamlet has the room locked to capture the villain(s). Laertes confesses the conspiracy between him and king, now that Laertes is mortally wounded by the poison blade, and dying. Hamlet aware that he is soon to die, seizes the opportunity to avenge his father and kills Claudius. Hamlet instructs Horatio before his death, to tell the whole story of the conspiracy against his father in order that Hamlet’s truth could be understood. Hamlet’s noble spirit is celebrated after his death by a funeral that is befit a monarch.        

(Summary of the Character of Hamlet) – Hamlet utilizes his display of madness to confuse observers and obfuscate his mission of assassination. In some incidences his display of madness has negative results, as in the case of Ophelia. Other incidents like the case of mistaken identity and killing of Polonius could be attributed to his supposed madness which without it, probably would have had Hamlet facing harsher and more immediate punishment for his action. Hamlet is able to maintain stable, long term relationships with people of upstanding character like Horatio who continue to assist him and keep Hamlet’s confidence despite Hamlet’s growing reputation for being mentally unhinged. Hamlet’s display of madness is actually a tool that he uses to hide his cunning intellect and adjusts himself according to changing circumstances.

In Macbeth, I chose to analyze the character of the servant(s) where it appears. The servant(s) is not clearly described as being male or female, but it is assumed that the servant(s) when they appear are male, especially in Act 5, Scene 3 where Macbeth addresses the servant as a “boy”. It is presumed that several servants stand nearby to wait on the king and queen, even when they are not mentioned, or at least are within hearing distance of the royal couple’s call at any given time.

            II). Macbeth. –

Act 3, Scene 1. (Summary) Macbeth is concerned with dealing with Banquo and his family, and how to best have them killed.  

(Analysis) When Macbeth addresses the servant in this scene it is with a derogatory term, “Sirrah” which refers to someone of lower social standing. This interaction with the servant shows Macbeth’s contemporary society and the institutionalized class system of social superiors and social inferiors. It could be seen how Macbeth through his interaction with the servant can see some people as mere objects depending upon he views them according to their social status, or the social status he chooses to confer upon them.

Act 3, Scene 2. (Summary) The Macbeths are distressed about recent events, and while Macbeth is contemplating murder he does not yet inform Lady Macbeth about his plans.

(Analysis) The servant appears to follow the royalty around when the king or queen desire and require it. The servant in this scene again shows the Macbeth’s power and status by showing the servant always standing by and ready to carry out the royal commands.

Act 5, Scene 3. (Summary) Macbeth is receiving reports of the mass of soldiers accumulating against his castle and is beginning to have doubts concerning the prophecies of the witches that proclaimed him invincible against naturally born men.

(Analysis) Macbeth’s interaction with the servant reflects more on Macbeth than on the servant himself. By Shakespeare showing us how he interacts with the servant in this scene shows Macbeth’s instability and his lack of integrity. Macbeth is supposed to be a leader and show a certain image as the king of his people. Instead, in his interaction with the servant we see that Macbeth has no integrity in situations that require Macbeth to show courage.

            (Summary of the character of the Servant(s) in Macbeth) – The servant(s) in Macbeth are only shown as the main characters status symbols who only serve to more flesh out the characters of the Macbeths. The servant who appears in Act 3, Scene 1, is shown as something of a slave, and this character is expected to serve even though the character is addressed with the term “Sirrah”, a term used derogatorily for a social inferior, showing that some people can acceptably seen more as tools than human beings in this environment. The servant who appears in Act 5, Scene 3, serves only to reflect Macbeth’s terror and doubt in the witches’ prophecy which had, up until now, had been encouraging to him, emboldening him onward. The character of the servant(s) in Macbeth are flat character(s) which only serve to add a layer of characterization to other characters that the story follows.

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Eds. Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. New York:    

Simon & Simon; Schuster Paperbacks. 1992. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. Eds. Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. New York:

Simon & Simon; Schuster Paperbacks. 1992. Print.