If it has an agenda, it isn't literature. That's about as simply as I can put it. And in his writing, Shakespeare didn't have one. His characters certainly did, but not him. Drama is often described as the most objective art form - and it's easy to see why: each personage has an individual viewpoint that may be (and usually is) contradicted by the very next speaker. Therefore, it is a mistake to attribute words spoken by a character to Shakespeare. Yes, he wrote them - but he didn't necessarily endorse them. For an example, the famed dictum "This above all: to thine own self be true..." is spoken by a character that immediately contradicts his own words by attempting to pry into a private conversation. The reader may choose to consider the thought important anyway, but it's a mistake to think that Shakespeare was using the moment to "tell" us something. If he had written in this way (i.e. agenda-driven), his art would have been hugely diminished, and he likely would have been forgotten by now, or close to it.

OK, let's return to The Merry Wives of Windsor. This play, as I mentioned in earlier posts, is roundly detested by many commentators - largely because of its treatment of Falstaff. But consider this: Perhaps Shakespeare did not allow any feelings of affection or dislike for characters to enter into his decision-making. Perhaps he simply put them into dramatic situations, and then allowed the results to flow naturally, like a scientist observing an experiment. The best literature, like the best music, has an aura of inevitability to it. And this is why - there isn't anything contrived or forced about the outcomes, because the creator doesn't have any vested interest in there being any. So to read The Merry Wives of Windsor in expectation of being entertained by Falstaff in a similar way to an earlier play is to be disappointed. So we shouldn't do that. Rather, we should read it for what it is: a highly entertaining and thought-provoking exploration of human nature, as are all Shakespeare plays.