I wonder if it might also suggest that some who are striving for virtue end by destroying themselves and others--and sometimes even fall from virtue in trying to achieve it.Originally Posted by Poetaster
I wonder if it might also suggest that some who are striving for virtue end by destroying themselves and others--and sometimes even fall from virtue in trying to achieve it.
Henry had their marriage tossed out after 24 years of faithful marriage (on her part--not his); refused to let her return to her family in Spain, but placed her under de facto house arrest (albeit in a gilded cage) for the rest of her life; and had their daughter, who was a princess (and the closest thing at the time to an heir-presumptive) reduced to a royal b*stard. He did this partly because his wife was no longer fertile (and he wished for a male heir), and partly because he was deeply infatuated with another woman, whom he subsequently married, grew sick of, and beheaded after she, too, delivered no male child. This caused all sorts of turmoil in England and Europe at large. But feeling cooped up and needing out didn't have a lot to do with it.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 07-10-2015 at 07:52 AM.
Thank you, pompey. We are not talking about modern Western society where a woman can have an independent social life with financial support apart from her husband. Shakespeare (or Fletcher) show Katherine as a tragic and sympathetic figure. But it still implies Henry is a hero.
Henry VIII as a play is a tribute to the recently deceased and formidable Queen Elizabeth and ends with Archbishop Cranmer prophesying the glories of her reign. It omits to even hint that a few years later Henry had Elizabeth's mother executed on trumped up charges of adultery. He then married four subsequent wives.
Previously JonathanB
The more I read, the more I shall covet to read. Robert Burton The Anatomy of Melancholy Partion3, Section 1, Member 1, Subsection 1
Morpheus! Great to see you posting here again!
So now we have Winter's Tale on one best list and one worst list. I've never seen or read this play. Could you both elaborate on what you love/hate about it?
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Thanks for the welcome, Calidore.
As for The Winter's Tale, I think three elements combine to make it a remarkable play: the first is the psychological depth and complexity of middle-late period Shakespeare; the second is the "fantasy" element of A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest; the third is the shifting and ambiguous tonal quality and morality of the problem plays. To me, it feels like a slightly more realistic kin to The Tempest where the theme also revolves around a profound regret and there's this immense time gap between the event that caused it and the resolution (in The Tempest that time happened before the play; in The Winter's Tale it happens after Act III). Beyond these elements, I just think it's filled with some of Shakespeare's most luminously beautiful dramatic poetry and passages, and it shares a similar ephemeral wistfulness of many of the late plays and the sonnets. In the poignancy of the final reunion it reminds me tremendously of that other great theatrical reunion and reconciliation at the end of Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro.
It also has one of my favorite quotes in all Shakespeare:
“It is an heretic that makes the fire, not she which burns in it.”
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
A very funny play.
Another very funny play.
The end of that play gives Richard every bit as good a monologue as he begins his own with.
I, that have neither pity, love, nor fear.
Indeed, 'tis true that Henry told me of;
For I have often heard my mother say
I came into the world with my legs forward:
Had I not reason, think ye, to make haste,
And seek their ruin that usurp'd our right?
The midwife wonder'd and the women cried
'O, Jesus bless us, he is born with teeth!'
And so I was; which plainly signified
That I should snarl and bite and play the dog.
Then, since the heavens have shaped my body so,
Let hell make crook'd my mind to answer it.
I have no brother, I am like no brother;
And this word 'love,' which graybeards call divine,
Be resident in men like one another
And not in me: I am myself alone.
Great villain stuff, like Iago has in Othello or Aaron has in Titus Andronicus:
Lucius. Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?
Aaron. Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
Even now I curse the day—and yet, I think, 2260
Few come within the compass of my curse,—
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself, 2265
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves, 2270
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.' 2275
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
I remember hearing that this was his first play and is considered early juvenilia, but I think it still shows moments of promise. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been so many years since I saw it, but isn't this the one with Joan of Arc? I remember they claimed she was a witch and that was cool. Plus, I believe one of the Henry VI plays has a peasant revolt in it where the mob raises decapitated heads on pikes and makes them kiss. I thought those parts were interesting.
You simply have to see the Anthony Hopkins film Titus. It is amazing. 'O tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide.'
This one was rushed and I think I heard once that it was written in six weeks for the queen, because she loved Falstaff so much. I have to agree. Falstaff is Shakespeare's greatest character, better than Hamlet. Plus, that scene where the husband is disguised paying Falstaff to cuckold him and Falstaff is openly mocking him since he doesn't know who's under the mask is just great. That scene is dramatically brilliant sort of like the disguised Henry V walking the battlefield talking to his soldiers, or the modern play Amadeus when the masked man asks Mozart to "Play Salieri." It's even a dramatically interesting scene since the husband is hiring a man to cuckold him, which is the opposite of our expectations. This brings to mind Richard III wooing a woman he's just made a widow. It's such a novel scene. Then there's the silly dueling scene which is quite like the one Sir Toby Belch instigated in Twelfth Night. Sure, the Merry Wives of Windsor doesn't have the best Falstaff moments like Henry IV parts I and II but it's still worth it to spend a little more time with such a likeable and entertaining rogue.
I could almost agree with this one were it not for the scene where the French and English kings arrive outside a city and find it disloyal to both sides. The city guards refuse to open the gates, and propose that the Kings fight it out between them and then the city will open for the victor. Quite comically, the offended kings decide to besiege it on both sides and whoever breaches the walls first shall be the owner of the disputed city. The two kings then even develop a spirit of camaraderie now that they have a common enemy, and are only broken apart when the Pope arrives.
Tempest and A+C are good, but for my money the best are Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, King Lear, followed by Julius Caesar, Henry IV part I, Macbeth, A Midsummer Nights Dream, The Tempest, Richard III, Othello, etc. in about that order.
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!
Henry IV
Yikes! I hope that's dyslexia, Sohel.Henry IV Parts One and Two are usually considered masterpieces, and Bloom sees Falstaff as Shakespeare's supreme creation. Are you sure you didn't mean Henry VI Part One, which is sometimes said to have been his greatest clunker? If not, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Mine is that the two Henry IVs (and Lear) are Shakespeare's best plays. Or perhaps they are just the most meaningful to me.
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 07-10-2015 at 08:56 AM.
I don't find gross misogyny funny.
Which one? Shakespeare's early comedies are extremely light fair without the linguistic, psychological, and moral complexity of his later efforts. They can be entertaining enough, but not much more.
I do agree that Richard has some really good bits in that one, most certainly written by Shakespeare in preparation for his first solo effort. The problem is the rest of it is the most lurid in Shakespeare's canon outside the probably half-satirical Titus Andronicus.
That's the one. It's widely believed that the Henry VI trilogy was co-written by Shakespeare, though scholars disagree over which parts were. My gut instinct is that Shakespeare probably wrote somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of them, and I think that explains what I find so splotchy about them. They all have their moments, definitely some good drama and a lot of Machiavellian nastiness, but they definitely lack the artistry of the mature (solo) Shakespeare. I think II Henry VI stands out as the best, probably as it's the most psychologically interesting.
I have seen it. I think it's one of the rare instances of a film adaptation improving on the play. Taymor nailed the tricky tone of that play and found a remarkable visual correlative for it.
I can't agree with the Falstaff > Hamlet part, but everything else is right on.
King John is the one Shakespeare play that just left zero impression on me. I remember almost nothing of it.
Ranking Shakespeare's best plays is a bit like ranking sex positions: they're all good, even if we disagree on the order. The Tempest is one of the most profound reflections on art and life in the history of the arts, filled with such beauty and wonder and formal mastery I'm in awe of it more and more with each revisit. A&C has Shakespeare's most ravishing language; it's very much a more mature follow-up to R&J, almost as if the latter two had grown-up to be rulers of countries but hadn't matured mentally. I've always found R&J and Othello a tad overrated; the biggest problem I have with the latter is I've never found Othello's "switch" believable, and the murder scene has always struck me as ludicrous (especially Desdemona's eloquence after being smothered nearly to death). Julius Caesar's first 3 acts are at the very top of Shakespeare's canon, but I think there's a major falling off at the end. The others I have almost nothing but good things to say about.
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
I'm with MT. The Taming of the Shrew is one of the funniest plays ever written. It concerns me that politically prescribed thought seems to be eroding our appreciation of literature--not to mention our senses of humor. Here are some of my thoughts on the play (from another thread):
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 07-10-2015 at 02:23 PM.
Once again I agree with MT--sort of. I'm not really concerned about who Shakespeare's greatest character is (although it's Falstaff :-P); but I consider both the Henry IVs to be at least Hamlet's equal. Once again, I cite a genuine authority:
That line may be in the Hopkins film, but I think it refers to Queen Margaret in Henry VI Part 2 (or possibly Part 3).
The theory I've heard is that Part 2 was Shakespeare's first great success (and that line is quoted by a contemporary) and he then wrote Part 3 as a sequel and given their immense success (mentioned in the epilogue to Henry V) he wrote Part 1 as what Hollywood now calls a prequel.
Shakespeare's greatest characters are Cleopatra, Lady Macbeth and Volumnia. Men just don't have a chance with those three.
Last edited by Jackson Richardson; 07-10-2015 at 04:43 PM.
Previously JonathanB
The more I read, the more I shall covet to read. Robert Burton The Anatomy of Melancholy Partion3, Section 1, Member 1, Subsection 1
Greatest characters...
Also Paulina in Winter's Tale - worth the price of admission to that play alone. Some would say Rosalind in As You Like It but for my taste she speaks all this boring convoluted prose.
Previously JonathanB
The more I read, the more I shall covet to read. Robert Burton The Anatomy of Melancholy Partion3, Section 1, Member 1, Subsection 1
That's your loss. It's one of the greatest sources of humor of all time. Humor comes from breaking taboos, defying conventional mores, shocking people, exposing hidden prejudices and fears. Racism, homophobia, sexism, violence, crudity, foolishness, insecurity, are the colors a comedian paints his canvas with. Humor is about men behaving badly, inappropriately, wish fulfillment, the Id, our deepest darkest desires. Those are the most raw and primal forms that humor comes in, and I would no sooner clean them up, and rob them of their beauty than I would ask Michelangelo or the ancient Greeks to cover their figures in clothes.
The Comedy of Errors is a refinement of a classic play by the Roman playwright Plautus, who invented modern comedy! Can't you appreciate the amusing subtlety of a bloke in a dress? Or how a sane man ends up being beaten in a madhouse? If that weren't hilarious enough, you have his twin/doppleganger having the best day of his life at the same time his opposite number is having the worst day of his? The contrast makes things even funnier. The confusion, the senseless beatings, role reversal, society in an uproar, chaos and anarchy. It's fantastic. The jokes are very clever. Not all good writing is poetry, and there's a lot to be said for a good pratfall. I think you are underrating Shakespeare's comedies because you are looking for the same things in them that made his tragedies so delightful. Different genres have different rules, different strengths.
But why should the play being lurid be seen as a defect? There are many lurid masterpieces, and Shakespeare himself frequently wallows in the stuff. Macbeth is a bloody play full of witches and ghosts. I don't know if you've ever seen the Royal Shakespeare Comapany's film version of A Midsummer Nights Dream, but their take on it was that it was more of a nightmare. The elves are more like vampires, the forest is more a bog or swamp, and a man is transformed into a half-donkey monstrosity! In The Tempest, you have a sorcerer who commands spirits, and a cannibal. Shakespeare is full of decapitation, infanticide, incest. Where do you draw the line and say one thing is lurid and in bad taste but another isn't? There are executions, people jumping into graves, playing with skulls, suicide, rape, pirates, bear attacks, sexual innuendo, poisoning, domestic violence, racism. The whole thing is lurid. That's part of the fun.
The Henry VI plays feel episodic, sequential, and a bit overlong, like the chronicle they were based on more than a play. But I did like that scene in the garden when the nobles pick the flowers white or red, and thus begin the Wars of the Roses.
He's such a beautifully tragicomic character, so human, so flawed, but noble in his way, ideal after a fashion. He has too much depth and complexity to be an archetype fat clown soldier like his ancestor the Miles Gloriosis. He transcends all that to be a truly unique, intelligent, pathetic, heroic, comic character like Don Quixote.
Part of what I remember best are all the bastard jokes Philip the Bastard made.
First Citizen
In brief, we are the king of England's subjects:
For him, and in his right, we hold this town.
KING JOHN
Acknowledge then the king, and let me in.
First Citizen
That can we not; but he that proves the king,
To him will we prove loyal: till that time
Have we ramm'd up our gates against the world.
KING JOHN
Doth not the crown of England prove the king?
And if not that, I bring you witnesses,
Twice fifteen thousand hearts of England's breed,--
BASTARD
Bastards, and else.
KING JOHN
To verify our title with their lives.
KING PHILIP
As many and as well-born bloods as those,--
BASTARD
Some bastards too.
KING PHILIP
Stand in his face to contradict his claim.
First Citizen
Till you compound whose right is worthiest,
We for the worthiest hold the right from both.
I'd say that they are mostly good but I don't feel a pressing need to revisit some of them. How badly do we really need to re-read Timon of Athens or Pericles?
Last edited by mortalterror; 07-10-2015 at 06:19 PM.
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!
The play is hilarious when Katherina and Petruchio are on a level playing field. If anything, the play becomes utterly dull (as well as offensive) once we go from their banter to Petruchio's torture and the ridiculous conclusion that everyone's happier when women know their places. Combined with the "drunken man is fooled into thinking he's king" prologue, I half suspect this was intentional on Shakespeare's part. It wouldn't be the first time he's pulled of the trick of playing into and against his times' expectations simultaneously (The Merchant of Venice being the other), especially since we know Shakespeare had a thing for strong female characters anyway.
I don't object to anyone considering the Henry IV plays masterpieces, but, personally, they're plays I admire intellectually more than plays that move me emotionally. Hamlet was (and remains) the second most profound experience I've ever had with fiction.Once again I agree with MT--sort of. I'm not really concerned about who Shakespeare's greatest character is (although it's Falstaff :-P); but I consider both the Henry IVs to be at least Hamlet's equal. Once again, I cite a genuine authority:
"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light of meaning in the darkness of mere being." --Carl Gustav Jung
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods, and the season of mists; and may each and every one of us always give the devil his due." --Neil Gaiman; The Sandman Vol. 4: Season of Mists
"I'm on my way, from misery to happiness today. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh" --The Proclaimers
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote