Do we have any here ? And what plays in particular do you like the most ?

Hi Lawrence,

I like Hamlet and all the political intrigue.

Shakespeare would probably have been called a tin-hat conspiracy theorist today by some people here on this board.

Well, the first entity to conspire against God was Satan, and he has not stopped. Then there was Eve, and Adam, and their son Cain.

Hamlet is my favorite too. It's an absolute masterpiece. If you ever find the time, rent the BBC version with Derek Jacobi. It's outstanding, and Jacobi, after seeing his father's ghost acts so traumatized it's almost unsettling.

Well, I did see a real ghost in a friend's home.

I did not really believe the house was haunted, until I saw that ghost. When I described that nightly visitor in detail to the homeowner, she was not surprised as she had seen her deceased step-mom too many times. I even described her favorite bathrobe, her preferred way of wearing her hair, her height, her face, and her weight.

I will see if I can rent the BBC version of Hamlet from our university library. Is it at the local video stores too?

I got it at my local library, which has a pretty good Shakespeare collection. Another excellent recommendation is Roman Polanski's MacBeth.

Did you know that in the Old West cowboys usually carried two books with them? One, of course, was the Bible. The other was an anthology of Shakespeare's works.

No! ?

My favorite is King Lear.

King Lear is a bit disturbing for my tastes. I can be pretty morbid myself, but the insanity scenes, particularly in the 4th Act-The Fields Near Dover, tend to upset me. Michael Hordern as King Lear in the 1982 BBC version really lays the insanity on thick.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have always liked Henry V.

He restored the throne with such magnificence that all the ills of the past royal abuses were erased.

Plus he showed that the errors of his own life as Prince Hal could absolutely be severed from his new and reformed life. This is a perfect picture of true repentance, and is very much what the Church teaches.

Deacon El

There's a lot to be said about _Henry V_, except for the whole Joan of Arc, as well as _Hamlet_.

Anyone familiar with C. S. Lewis's essay "Hamlet: the Prince or the Poem?" It's a really great critique of critics. Lewis says you can't appreciate SHakespeare unless you can look at the plays for their entertainment value first.

As for _King Lear_, if you think _Lear_ itself is disturbing, try _A Thousand Acres_, which modernizes, and then inverts, the Lear story to give a view of maybe why his daughters hated him so much.

The strength of the dual plotline is what draws me. The insanity scene with Gloucester is very difficult to bring to the stage; that scene, or the wilderness scene with Lear, doesn't disturb me. I actually bring up tears when he reconciles with his son, who had gone though the tricks to let his father heal of the despair he brought upon himself by trusting false love.

As a 'writer', I admire Shakespeare as I admire Bach. Bach strings multiple melodies, variations, and counter-melodies together in as many measures as other composers take to bring out one melody. I like reading Lear for how he strings the choices of Lear and Gloucester and the consequences together. They are so similar yet distinct. Most striking to me is how the plots play off each other and build the tension when switching from scene to scene to build the dramatic conclusion to heights unreached by most writers.

Terry

I'll have to disagree with you about Henry V, Fr Deacon El. The play itself is outstanding.I love the 'Once more unto the breach ' monologue, and of course the 'We band of brothers' speech before the Battle of Agincourt, but the real Henry V was unusually cruel, even for the time of the Hundred Years War. English historian Desmond Seward gives a detailed account of the king's excessive cruelty in his book Henry V:The Scourge Of God.

Still, I think the 1989 version of Henry V, with Kenneth Branagh in the title role is brilliant. Strangely, I find the scene when Henry V and his soldiers clear bodies from the field of Agincourt to the strains of Non Nobis Domine, to be ethereally beautiful.

It would be nice to see the beatification of Henry VI.

Fr Serge

I also like Richard III, Merchant of Venice, and Othello. Actually, I like most of his plays.

I don't like Titus Andronicus and A Midsummer Night's Dream very much.

The Merchant Of Venice is probably my third favorite after Hamlet and MacBeth. I like Richard III as well, but agree with you about A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Titus Andronicus, which discussion of makes a few Shakespeare fans uncomfortable.

Richard II is a play that's grown on me recently. Didn't initially like the fact that it was entirely written in verse, but it does have one of the greatest speeches in the history of literature.

Act II-Scene I

JOHN OF GAUNT

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear'd by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!

So, Patriotic and Catholic both.

A professor of mine suggested that Titus Andronicus was written to take the genre out of commission, a reductio ad absurdum against the various playwrights who had plays which had drawn on such violence before.

It is not just the violence, but the pointlessness of the violence which gets me. There is a lot of violence in Hamlet, but without that violence the audience may be left wondering why it all matters. I think the opposite happens with Titus Andronicus. So much violence takes places the audience is left wondering why the play was staged in the first place.

Terry

In response to the initial post...

Oh, yeah, big fan o' the Bard. I actually studied abroad - Shakespearean histories and English Revolutionary writers - at Oxford as part of my undergraduate education.

I must admit that I'm pretty fond of Henry IV 1&2 and Richard III. The RSC Richard III at Stratford with Antony Scher was magnificant. He was playing the part during the same season that Kenneth Branagh was doing Henry V.

I'm actually as much a fan of Marlowe (the gritty stuff). Eddie II was a nasty, nasty play.

Actually, to comment on what Deacon El wrote: my favorite part of Henry V is the whole "upon the king" speech and the discussion with the three common soldiers about whether or not the king is to blame if a man meets a bad end. That's the one with the famous line: "Every subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's soul is his own." There is a lot about responsibility and atonement in that play.

Christopher Marlowe was quite an interesting character, but I've only read his "Jew Of Malta". Alot of wild speculation regarding his murder and his being an Elizabethan secret agent.

Has anyone read any of the books or articles that touch on Shakespeare's secret Catholicism ? I read "Shadowplay" by Clare Asquith, a couple of years ago, and while it was interesting, some of the arguments that Shakespeare continually encrypted Catholic messages in his play, weren't always compelling.

I haven't read the books but I am familiar with the arguments. One problem I have is how some scholars define Shakespeare through a tight reading. From what can be known about Shakespeare the person from his work was that he was an artist whose patron was his paying audience.

Having a familiarity with Catholic images, projecting these images in a play, is not proof that he was a Catholic who would communicate to other Catholics through his plays. The interpretations Clare Asquith and others construct do not, in my opinion, approach the text very differently than a Marxist reading of "King Lear" or a queer reading of "Twelfth Night".

If the conclusions about an interpretation is narrowly solidified, then any means of quoting will be wedged into a premise's place.

All that leads to an interesting, but indefinite, paper.

Terry

While not going as far as Asquith, (unless of course I suddenly become a Shakespeare scholar and am swayed by her arguments) I'm still impressed by Shakespeare's Catholic imagery during times of religious persecution. In addition to John of Gaunts reference in Richard II to " blessed Mary's son" we also have in the same play, Richard II's lines in Act III Scene III

I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
My sceptre for a palmer's walking staff,
My subjects for a pair of carved saints

And of course the ghost of Hamlet's father.

My hour is almost come,
When I to sulphurous and tormenting flames
Must render up myself.

Doom'd for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confined to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison-house

Of life, of crown, of queen, at once dispatch'd:
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhousel'd(not receiving the sacrament), disappointed, unanel'd (without extreme unction),
No reckoning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head:

Lawrence,

Yes, I too was interested in the scene concerning the ghost of Hamlet's father.

Whom do you recommend for a critical analysis of Hamlet? I am reading him once again this semester in an elective course I am taking.

Thanks,
Elizabeth

Ah, but have you read Queen Elizabeth's poetry? Throughout her poetry and her published prayers she inserts Marian imagery. She marks herself as God’s handmaid. She had a very high opinion of herself and was keen to flattery. I would recommend browsing through her poetry to gain a slight sense of her court and her public image.

Another note: Spencer devoted a very long and arduous work, "Faerie Queen", to Queen Elizabeth which could in other contexts be interpreted to represent a devoted to a love to Mary, Queen of Heaven. I haven’t read that work in full. I read the first book and then I decided to skim the rest and read portions of the next books. His allegorical depiction of his Queen lifts her to a virtue unsurpassed by sublunary ambitions and temptations. I would not recommend reading “Faerie Queen” unless you have to, but it could be read to be Catholic I’m sure.

It took some time before the Catholic worldview was shed by the educated class. Martin Luther had a love for Mary which would not have been shared by many of those who had followed in the Protestant church (not that I mean to link Luther to the specific founding of Lutheranism).

It would not surprise me if Shakespeare were Catholic or if he were a proud member of King Henry VIII’s church. He lived in volatile times were religious allegiance was aligned to political interests and a misaligning could leave one’s head jumping.

I would be very careful to venture to come to conclusions about such biography. The sources are skim. That skimness also gives ammo to those who dismiss genius and believe that Shakespeare was actually Marlowe under a pseudonym, or that he was another who would have intimate understanding of the court and have mastery of all the subjects at play.

Terry

Elizabeth Maria

I'll be at my local library which is quite large, in about a week looking for that very thing. Since I'm really interested in the Catholic angle, I'll probably pick up Stephen Greenblatt's "Hamlet In Purgatory" I've read some negative reviews, but I'll jusge for myself. Who knows I may break down and get it tommorow.

Lawrence,

I checked my university library and they did not have it. Since purgatory was in the title, I am not surprised. Sounds too Catholic.

However, I went to Amazon.com and picked up a "new" hardcover edition through the marketplace for only $4.50 + shipping. Not bad.

Thanks for that reference.

Elizabeth Maria

That could contribute to a good paper. Is this for a Master's level literature class?

Nah, it is an undergraduate course that I need for my secondary credentials, since I need to take a few more courses in literature.

However, I am getting my Masters in Linguistics this December if I pass those comprehensive exams. They call it the eight weeks of h .. or purgatory. Pray for me.

I hope they don't make you exchange papers with a freshman.

It is an upperdivision course requirement, so Freshmen will not be part of that class unless they are honor students in their second semester.

There are prerequisites for this class, thank goodness.

Oh, by the way, I took an advanced expository writing class which is part of the Secondary Credential requirements for English teachers, and some of the students had no clue how to write an essay. These were seniors too.

When I wrote in the present perfect, they said that I was using the past tense. I have taken graduate courses in English (example of present perfect).

Horatio's lines immediately after Hamlet's death "Good night sweet prince:
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!" are similar to the Catholic requiem "In Paradisum deducat te angeli...aeternam habeas requiem" (May the angels bear thee to paradise...and mayest thou have eternal rest)

It is probably rooted in that line too.

Did the Anglicans during the time of Queen Elizabeth I have the time to reject purgatory?

They were of a differet sort of rebels than Martin Luther and Calvin but I am unfamiliar with the details. I am wondering if it may explain how those lines made it past the censors, who would have been very keen to pick up on slights against the Virgin Queen of England.

Terry

It's hard to pick a favorite because I like them all but I suppose my very favorite would be The Merchant of Venice I taught that one years ago in my high school freshman English class. The students were mainly Alaskan natives and they just loved Shakespeare and reading it out loud together. And my least favorite would be Twelfth Night because the plot was so complicated. Somewhere in between I would say Hamlet ranks high in my choices. As a tragedy it has been the model for many other tragedy plays. My daughter is now a playwright; but she played Lady Anne in Richard III when she was in college. She works as a marketing director of a theater company. They do Shakepearean plays every so often under her direction. I played in The Taming of the Shrew once..don't ask me which part.

"Twelfth Night" is about confusion, I find it confusing too. Ha!

When I took my legal writing course in law school, a paper came back with "pv" all over it. I asked what this meant, and she replied that "you're not supposed to use the passive voice." (actually, the rule is "avoid," and the passive voice properly used is effective in legal writing, but that's another issue).

Dumbfounded, I replied, "Those are the past perfect, not passive."

"Oh. I never could tell the difference."

ARGHH!


hawk

Thanks for that tip, I'll look it up and see if it's available. Derek Jacobi (Brother Cadfael) is probaby my favorite actor. I loved his flamboyant opening narrative scene in Henry V

When I was teaching Medieval History in 1993 at a university I showed the 1989 version of Henry V to the class at the time we were studying the Battle of Agincourt.

Has anyone noticed the significant number of ghosts that turn up in Shakespeare's plays ? It's got to be close to 20. Just one of the many things that make Shakespeare's works so fascinating.

Do you think, Lawrence, that Shakespeare saw a ghost or believed in the existence of ghosts or souls who have died and are seeking prayers?

My former Catholic confessor told me about a priest in Brazil who was visited nightly by souls in purgatory who asked for prayers. He would offer Mass for them the very next day, and then the following night, another tormented soul would visit begging him for prayers too.

I haven't read anything that suggested Shakespeare had ever seen a ghost, but I woulld expect that he did believe in them.

Here's some interesting excerpts from a New Folger's summary of Shakespeare, concerning ghosts and how they were viewed in Elizabethan England

During the Elizabethan period, a ghost was seen as a common feature in most tragedy plays. Shakespeare's Hamlet is a prime example of the use of a 'ghost' to entice fear and apprehension amongst the Elizabethan audience. The ghost can be seen as projecting several functions throughout the play, all of which are vital to the play's ultimate impact. An Elizabethan audience were highly superstitious, held Roman Catholic beliefs of purgatory and were extremely fearful of afterlife and the uncertainty that surrounded it. Such views were powerful connotations that aided Shakespeare to influence his audience with considerable impact.

However, the implications of a ghost were seen as very different for a Elizabethan audience as compared with the perception of a ghost by a modern audience. Therefore it could be said that the disparity in how the ghost is received may diminish the play's impact for a modern day audience.

The audience of Shakespeare's time were surrounded with highly religious concepts. During the period, whilst many were deemed protestants, there were many who challenged the idea of souls and their sins in relation to heaven and hell and continued to practise the old faith. Therefore an Elizabethan audience would have been familiar with the concepts of heaven and hell and the uncertainty surrounding ghosts.

Another of Shakespeare's plays with interesting religious implications is Henry VI Part I. Shakespeare's treatment of Joan of Arc initially appears shocking and anti-Catholic (his character admits to being pregnant by the married Jean Duc'Alencon after she's sentenced to be burned) One however must take into consideration, that Joan of Arc wasen't beatified until the early 20th century. Not to mention that she was burned at the stake by Catholic England, who in the recent reign of Henry V, had a better record than France of stamping out heresy.

I'm currently reading Alice Hogge's hair raising "God's Secret Agents" which is about Catholic priests behind the lines in Protestant occupied Elizbethan England, and in it Hogge makes reference to Shakespeare's Taming Of The Shrew. "In his play The Taming Of The Shrew, written c.1592, Shakespeare introduced 'a young scholar that hath been long studying at Rheims...cunning in Greek, Latin and other languages'. The role was cover for the amorous suitor Lucentio, enabling him to woo the 'fair Bianca'. But among the audience watching the new comedy, there would have been those who recognized in Shakespeare's words an allusion to an altogather different form of deception. The young Reims scholars they knew,were seminary students fresh from their lessons in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and English, were even now being deployed across the country disguised as tutors, stewards and visiting poor relations.