Well that was a quick read--for Yale’s recently departed Harold Bloom, who could read 400 pages an hour and recall them with his photographic memory. Long ago I vowed to read all of Shakespeare as I thought it would get easier and more rewarding with age. So I recently bought Longman’s door stop because I liked the binding and it includes 200+ pages of commentary by Shakespearean scholar David Bevington. One of my 2020 New Year’s resolutions is to read at least one or two works a year, so I will be gradually adding entries to this review.

“HAMLET” 5 January 2020
I decided to start with “Hamlet” because I just read a biography of John Quincy Adams and it was his favorite work. At 4000 lines, it is Shaekespeare’s longest play. Harold Bloom considers “Hamlet” to be “the most extraordinary single work of Western literature that I have ever read” (2003 PBS interview).

Reading “Hamlet” cold without brushing up on my Elizabethan English made for tough sledding, but my first reward was discovering that my favorite literary quote came from this work: “This above all: to thine own self be true” (1.3). I still can’t appreciate iambic pentameter, but I know a good couplet when I see it:
My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
Words without thoughts never to heaven go. (3.4)
To my great surprise, neither of these lines are uttered by Hamlet.

I didn’t find Bevington’s supporting commentary to be as enlightening as I had expected, so I then read Bloom’s 17 pages on Hamlet in “How to Read and Why” (2000). Bloom’s final thought is my favorite, “Whether we ourselves expect annihilation or resurrection, we are likely to end caring about our name. Hamlet, the most charismatic and intelligent of all fictive characters, prefigures our hopes for courage at our common end” (p. 217-8).

I concluded my reintroduction to Shakespeare by watching Lawrence Oliver’s wonderful interpretation and modest abbreviation of “Hamlet” (1948). Pure joy. Let me know if you find a better way to spend 2.5 hours on YouTube!

At some point, I simply had to invest in The Complete works. It didn't make sense to go on collecting mismatched editions of Shakespeare's plays!

As of today I have read all that shakespeare ever wrote! I couldn’t have done it without you Goodreads OOMFs.

*i didn't actually read this collection: this book is being used as "all shakespeare ever written."*

after finishing a blissful little re read of The Tempest, i hopped over to goodreads to review it... and literally experienced an existential crisis.



why, you may ask? i realized -horror of horrors- i haven't shelved a single shakespeare play on here. and im walking around saying he's my favorite author!!!

so i compiled, firstly, a list of the shakespeare i've read, so i could shelve and review it. let's see.

1. The Tempest
2. Julius Caesar
3. Macbeth
4. The Taming of the Shrew
5. Romeo and Juliet

hm. it feels like i've read more than that. i guess because i've seen them performed or read abridged versions of them. ah.



and that's when i had a ✨brilliant idea!✨ i could make this year *drumroll* The Year Of The Great Shakespeare Tbr!



truly a great plan, considering i already have a huge tbr, am currently in a reading slump, and have school things to read, not to mention im in multiple plays and have a million other miscellaneous things to do right now. and god knows what this year is even going to look like anyways. but i decided to go for it.

here is my grand plan.

☽ read the original versions of ☾
-As You Like It
-Much Ado About Nothing
-A Midsummer Nights Dream
-The Two Noble Kinsman
-A Winter's Tale
-Hamlet
-Othello
-Antony and Cleopatra
-Henry VIII
-The Merry Wives of Windsor

☽ memorize a monologue from ☾
- A Midsummer Nights Dream or Much Ado About Nothing
- The Two Noble Kinsman (there's this great lesbian romance monologue from a bi character i loveeee and need to learn)
-Hamlet or Macbeth depending on what i find and like. then, what with my marc antony speech, i will have a comedic, romantic, historic, and tragic monologue!

*theater nerd moment* heh

anyways. on with the plan:

☽ read retellings of/acquire more knowledge of ☾
-Pericles, Prince Of Tyre
-The Two Gentlemen of Verona
-All's Well That Ends Well
-Titus Andronicus
-The Merchant Of Venice
-All the Henrys (or Henries? Idk)
-King Lear

☽ ignore ☾
-King John
-Corialanus
-Anything I Forgot

and there you are. the grand will-use-up-valuble-time-until-i-forget-about-it-and-it-is-never-seen-again plan!! woohoo!



also, i have a feeling a lot of my "read the original versions of" books will transfer to the last list over time. just to prepare you for that.

tl;dr: im going to try (and fail) to read, memorize, and learn about more shakespeare. despite my busy schedule and already-huge tbr. THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA. KIDS, DONT TRY THIS AT HOME.

The Winter’s Tale: Misturaram as maluquices de Othello e King Lear mas com história tipo conto de fadas em que nada corre realmente mal nem nada é explorado a fundo. A Hermione compete contra o Harry Potter em dar nomes, porque aqui ela tem os filhos Mamillius e Perdita. Esta é a peça da famosa didascália "he exits, pursued by a bear".

--

Recomendo grandemente conhecer no geral as peças de Shakespeare. Talvez não todas, e certamente não as lendo de seguida, mas o homem realmente era um génio de escrita e há muitos trabalhos posteriores e até contemporâneos que referenciam estas obras. As peças históricas são definitivamente um Must Watch por ordem genealógica das personagens, porque não só são bom drama, como também dão a conhecer momentos importantes da história inglesa, como a Guerra das Rosas. Richard III é um espetáculo para se seguir nestas peças que recriam momentos marcantes da idade média do país.
As tragédias são talvez as peças mais reaproveitadas de Shakespeare, com Hamlet a ser enfiada no The Lion King ou King Lear a ser reestruturada para Ran (乱). Até em fanfiction temos malta a referenciar esta série de peças. Lidas de seguida acabam por ser um bocado formulaicas (...e toda a gente morre no fim de maneiras malucas! wow) mas quase todas têm toques distintivos e exploram temas da sociedade na altura.
As comédias foram a parte menos interessante mas não por isso más. O humor porco e banter que Shakespeare usa é sempre lindo, e até nem está confinado a estas peças. Devido ao necessário final feliz e por serem um bocado mais coisa para pipoca, não exploram temas tão profundamente como as tragédias e tornam-se menos interessantes e distintivas.

Quanto a este livro em si, é mais algo para referenciar. Apreciei bastante as notas "introdutórias" às peças mas são sempre melhor lidas no fim delas, quando já sabes a que personagens se referem. Tem uma boa introdução ao homem em si e explicações das diferenças de pronúncia na altura e hoje em dia. Muita coisa rimava na altura que hoje já não pela evolução da língua. Apesar disto usei notas online das peças para as ir compreendendo porque realmente o inglês antigo é-me bastante alienígena e há bastantas referências a temas e mitologias que desconhecia.

Well, what can I say? I decided to begin the year by reading the complete works of the Bard. I spent nearly every day for the past two months with the Immortal Bard, tangled in the deep richness of his verse, reading all of his 37 plays (I am not counting here “The Two Noble Kinsmen,” which has only recently and contentiously been added to the Shakespearean cannon) and the entire poetry (the sonnets and minor epics). Now that I am finished I feel a plethora of emotions. First and foremost, I feel very accomplished. I also feel somewhat relieved, as I can now move on to other works (though I did read many other books in between). I am also a bit melancholy; it is like bidding adieu to a dear friend. But I also know that this is not a goodbye, but rather a “see you later,” as I will certainly revisit many (though perhaps not all) of these works in the future.

Shakespeare’s verse is probably the most beautiful in the English language. His poesy is rich, deep and multi-dimensional, his prose, flowery and magical. It has been an influence to nearly every writer, and not just those in the Western tradition. For me, I had read only a few of the sonnets before and some of the plays. I had previously read both “Macbeth” and “Richard III” twice, and “Romeo and Juliet” four times. I enjoyed each of these before, and they are still among my very favorites. Though this was my first time reading many of the works, it will certainly not be my last, and due to their cultural significance, I already had a good familiarity with many of the characters (Lear and Cordelia, Hamlet and Ophelia, Prospero and Miranda, Othello, Desdemona and Iago) and themes (the madness of Hamlet, the jealousy of Othello, the forgiveness of Prospero). I learned that I like best the tragedies, then the histories, then the comedies (this is a loose system of classification – there are problem plays, romances, English histories, Roman histories), but all of them have merit and I would list some of each among my favorites.

I tried to make a list of the plays from my favorite to least favorite, but I realized that this is incredibly difficult and that my preference could be influenced by deep thinking, conversation or re-reading. But here is a (very flexible) list:

1. King Lear (a tragic tale of filial piety, greed, vanity and love)
2. Richard III (this was my third reading this tragic and dark tale and I like it better every time)
3. Hamlet (after rereading parts of the play I considered moving this to the top spot; some of the best lines in any Shakespeare play)
4. Macbeth (this was my third reading and, as with Richard III, I appreciated it more now than ever before; as with Hamlet, when I reread parts of this story about conscience and greed I considered moving it up on this list)
5. Romeo and Juliet (fifth reading; the final lines of dialogue and the window/balcony scene alone cement its place in the top ten)
6. Measure for Measure (I loved this when I first read it; I still enjoyed it when I revisited some of its pages, though not as much as I did at first)
7. The Merchant of Venice (Shylock and Portia’s lines are my favorite)
8. The Winter’s Tale (so tragic in the first three acts, but with a surprisingly happy ending; a great problem play that could also be classified as a comedy – loosely – or, rather fittingly, as a romance)
9. Othello (I appreciated this more upon rereading some of the scenes – the jealousy of Othello and the treachery of Iago, perhaps the most heinous villain in the entirety of Shakespeare’s works)
10. Coriolanus (As with “Measure for Measure” I really enjoyed this tale of revenge on my first reading, particularly the relationship between Coriolanus and his mother, though I found it less enjoyable upon a selected re-reading)
11. A Midsummer Night’s Dream (a dreamlike fantasy; Puck’s last speech is the best)
12. Antony and Cleopatra (Comparatively, not the best verse, but a very complex and rich play, which makes it worthy of a high spot on the list)
13. As You Like It (Worthwhile for Jaques’ soliloquy – “All the world’s a stage” – and for the relationship between Celia and Rosalind; is there a truer friend than Celia?)
14. Julius Caesar (I was surprised by how little Caesar is in the play; it has some very memorable and famous brief lines spoken by Caesar, but its strength really lies in the complexity of Brutus’ character and the famous speeches by Mark Antony – “Friends, Romans, countrymen . . .”)
15. King John (on second reading of some favorite scenes, I might switch this with any of the Henry plays or with Richard II)
16. Much Ado About Nothing (a cute love story with a classic villain, Don John; Don Pedro and Beatrice’s lines are my favorite)
17. The Taming of the Shrew (the characters – Bianca, Katharina and Petruchio – and storyline are memorable; I would likely place this higher if it didn’t come across as so misogynistic; I have trouble reading Katharina’s famous ending monologue as irony)
18. 3 Henry VI (the ending of this one leads into one of my favorites: Richard III)
19. Twelfth Night (“If music be the food of love, play on.” A memorable love story; the side story about poor Malvolio is what really makes it, though)
20. 2 Henry IV (the strengths of both 1 and 2 Henry IV lie in the strained relationship between father and son and in the humour added by John Falstaff)
21. 1 Henry IV (Part 2 is certainly better than part one)
22. Richard II (this leads us into the Henry IV plays and it has some of the best lines of dialogue, particularly the lines delivered by John of Gaunt)
23. Henry V (I liked Henry’s speeches about his humanity, about the burdens of being a king, but disliked because it seemed a praise to war)
24. Timon of Athens (Probably my favorite of Shakespeare’s lesser known plays, and it likely deserves a much higher place in the list; a story about human nature and greed – sort of like “A Christmas Carol” or “It’s a Wonderful Life” in reverse)
25. 2 Henry VI (both 1 and 2 Henry VI could be moved up in this list, but not sure where)
26. 1 Henry VI (the series of four plays, ending with Richard III, that tells the story of the War of the Roses, that bloody history of the Yorks and Lancasters)
27. Cymbeline (one of my other favorite lesser known plays, with one of the most wicked stepmothers in literature; I appreciated it less on a second reading of some of the scenes, however)
28. The Tempest (a story about forgiveness, thought to be the last play Shakespeare wrote; I just couldn't really get into it)
29. Titus Andronicus (a gross-out play, 17th century style – cannibalism, rape, murder; the play has waned and grown in appreciation over the years; the story line is seared into your brain, but the writing is not the best)
30. All’s Well That Ends Well (this could be moved up as well, but it bore many similarities to “Measure for Measure”; Parolles and Lafeu make the work)
31. The Two Gentlemen of Verona (I enjoyed this comedy more on the first reading than the brief rereading of some of the scenes)
32. Troilus and Cressida (I appreciated more on a second rereading of some of the scenes)
33. Pericles (not the finest writing, and it is questionable how much of the work Shakespeare actually wrote, but the recognition scenes at the end of Act V make it a heartwarming romance, with elements similar to “The Winter’s Tale”)
34. The Merry Wives of Windsor (Falstaff makes the story, but it was one of my least favorite comedies)
35. The Comedy of Errors (this was one that I struggled to get into – a play about mistaken identity)
36. King Henry VIII (this one I just struggled to get into. It is not only my least favorite history, but one of my least favorite plays, with writing that just seemed strained at times)
37. Love’s Labour’s Lost (so full of witty puns, but without footnotes/endnotes, it is difficult to appreciate; it was hard to get into and a bit stale – this work has not aged as well as some of Shakespeare’s other classics).

The poetry too is wonderful and I cannot possibly list the sonnets and minor epics (like “Lucrece” and “Venus and Adonis” in order of favorite to least favorite). What makes the Bard’s works so lasting is their ambiguity, their fluidity and their universality. Many of the works can be interpreted in so many different ways. Love, jealousy, greed, shame, revenge, questions about human nature, are all weaved in so deeply through the annals of history and into the human condition, and Shakespeare writes about these emotional complexities with more depth and feeling than perhaps any other poet. The works are timeless – they’ve already been appreciated for more than 400 years, and will be valued for much longer in written word and upon the stage. In the near future, I would like to see productions of some of these works and in the next year or two, I may revisit some of the works on an individual basis. It is just for now that I say, “Goodnight, goodnight! Parting is such sweet sorrow.”

Finally finished reading this. I don't mean that in a "thank goodness that's over" way, just that it wasn't something I could really tear through. Overall, I enjoyed it. Shakespeare is one of those, like all mortals, who has his good moments and his not-so-good moments. When he is good, he is brilliant. When he is bad, he is terrible. And there were a few I can say I did not enjoy, at all.

I'm probably inviting the Pitchfork and Torches crowd, but I have to say that I have never enjoyed Romeo and Juliet. It isn't the star-crossed lovers theme, or the feuding families, or anything really specific, simply that I have, since the first time I read it in high school, wanted to reach in to shake Juliet and smack Romeo upside the head.

I wasn't overly fond of Richard III, but much of that stems from the fact that Shakespeare and I are on opposite sides of the fence regarding the Plantagenets and the Tudors. Richard III is one of my favorites royals and he was writing plays during the reign of Elizabeth I, Henry VII's granddaughter. To some extent, politics must take precedence. Still, it's a well-written play, and I can enjoy it for that, even if I disagree with the premise.

My favorite has to be The Tempest, which I read in high school. I love the relationship between Prospero and Ariel. It just sets up a great tone and I never tire of reading it.

Poems and sonnets, there were ones I enjoyed and those I wasn't quite as fond of. Still, that's what is so great about a large body of work like this - there is something for everyone and we all can have our opinions about each and every play, poem, and sonnet.

Edward III

For anyone saying, "Huh?" right now, let me say that EIII is one of the "Apocryphal Plays" that have been credited wholly or in part to Shakespeare at one time or another but that do not have conclusive proof of authorship by Big Bill Rattlepike. In the Second Edition of the Oxford Shakespeare Complete Works, the whole text of all plays the editors are convinced Shakespeare had a hand in is printed. This means that they have made the brave decision to include Edward III, convinced as they are that Shakepeare wrote up to four scenes in the play. The text has undergone every stylistic and vocubulary test known to scholarship and there is a growing consensus that Shakespeare wrote some, at least, of this play. Now, I don't know anything about these tests, but if you'd asked me which scenes stood out as the best, I'd have picked the four that the present editors claim were by Big Bill the Bard.

The play is a straightforward history, showing Edward the III first having trouble with the Scots then invading France, where his son gets caught, massively outnumbered, in a valley surrounded by hills...Cue ridiculous triumph-against-the-odds...

Between the two are some scenes where the King meets an exceptionally attractive member of the Nobility and woos her, despite being already married himself. These scenes raise the bar in terms of the language used and feeling expressed and are reminiscent of numerous similar scenes by Shakespeare - I could easily believe he wrote them. Later, the Prince of Wales, pensive before apparently insurmountable odds of battle, finds courage whilst meditating on the inevitability of death. Once again these passages are reminiscent of other famous Shakespeare scenes.

The plot is reminiscent of Henry V and I can easily imagine that Shakespeare took this play and used it as the model for that later, greater and entirely solo effort.

What Edward III lacks are depth of characterisation, depth of feeling conveyed by the language (outside the four scenes mentioned above) and a unity in the whole. The early part with Edward's attempted adultery seems disconnected from the subsequent invasion of France.

Even taken alone, Henry V eliminates all these problems.

This play illustrates to me the genius of Shakespeare: he was able to take a populist form that demanded a continuous supply of fresh material that allowed little time for rehearsal and create work that showed such psychological and dramatic insight in such glorious language that it transcended his era to the extent of him being widely considered the best Britsh playwright ever to have lived, 400 years later.

The Merchant of Venice

Well that was - short! Also, fun. It's a mess of a play in some respects - the plotting and structure are a muddle. The dramatic crisis occurs in act 4, leaving the entire last act over to the kind of banter and romantical silliness typified by As You Like It's forest scenes, which could feel anti-climactic if not played up to the hilt in performance, because when it come down to it,this play is dominated by Shylock. So much so that it ended up also popularly known by the alternative title The Jew of Venice and, in an era when actors dominated performance decisions, frequently curtailed at the end of act 4 when Shylock's part is over and the dramatic crisis is resolved.

This seems typical of the comedies, where much of the plot is an excuse to get a bunch of people into romantic shenanigans and the women into disguise as men, with little of the concern for pace or structure that we tend to demand of an genre of film these days. It's not that he couldn't do it - Richard III and Hamlet, even if bloated in places, certainly show how to organise things and Henry V doesn't even have much excess verbiage. MacBeth (aided no doubt by Middleton's many interventions) is superbly constructed and never slow - hence I conclude that Shakespeare was all about the laughs in his early comedies and never mind the preposterousness or the plots that go away for three acts.

There is no escaping the fact that Shylock dominates this play; his character is the only one developed to any real depth and the fact that the debate rages to this day as to whether Shakespeare and his contemporary audiences would have seen him as sympathetic or merely a pantomime villain testifies to this. Because a case can be made either way, villain or victim it seems plain to me that what we have is a sympathetic antagonist - not a monster everybody loves to hate but a human whose flaws in the end bring his own downfall in the very definition of Shakespearean Tragedy. He's abused and railed against for doing what Christians won't whilst at the same time being patronised by the very same people because he is fulfilling an essential function in a market economy and earning a living from it. When the opportunity arises he must have revenge, not the moral high ground of magnanimity and mercy - there-in lies the seed of his destruction.

It's hard not to compare this with Jonson, given that they were contemporaries and I recently finished a five play volume by one of the men said to have drunk Shakespeare into the fever that killed him. The contrasts are in fact stronger - Jonson being more prosaic, less witty in banter and more prone to showing off his learning, especially by quoting Latin and more concerned with "ordinary" folk than the rich and powerful. Shakespeare here also shows his mastery of character (if only in the form of Shylock) whilst the best of Jonson is much more in the way of caricature.

The Merry Wives of Windsor

This play doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity in my (adult) lifetime - I can't remember hearing about, let alone actually seeing, any film or stage production of it - and I can't understand why. It's ripe with opportunities for visual humour, has everybody's favourite character from Henry IV, much wit and punning, a more coherent plot than many another Shakespeare comedy and even offers wide scope to set and costume designers. I'd love to see this, filmed, or, even better, live on stage.

For those not in the know, the play revolves around an episode from John Falstaff's life prior to his association with Prince Hal, in which he attempts to cuckold his neighbours. There is a subplot regarding who will marry one Anne Page, from three suitors, leading to a typically Shakespearean ending with (implied) happy marriage.

In one sense this is a-typical Shakespeare - despite ostensibly being historical - set in the reign of Henry IV - it could, if you changed the characters' names, not be identified as anything other than contemporary with the author. It also deals not with the high-born and rich but with professionals and labourers - and rogues and thieves - making it very Jonsonian.

Julius Caesar

My first exposure to Shakespeare was this play, read in English class, when I was 13. Apparently it is a very popular choice in schools because it has no "bawdy." This wasn't any concern of my teacher, though, as he had us reading MacBeth later the same year.

Julius Caesar didn't go down very well; it was terribly confusing. Caesar dies half way through having done and said very little. What was that all about? The only bit that I remember liking was Antony's great rhetorical swaying of the plebians. The way he achieved that was fascinating.

My second encounter with the play was an outdoor performance in the courtyard of Conwy Castle, my main memory of which was having a sore bum because of inadequate cushioning from the courtyard floor (sat as I was on a couple of camping mats placed directly on the flagstones). So not much joy there either. And the whole structure was still confusing - it isn't about Julius! This fact was never explained by my teacher. But there is an explanation: the play is based on Classical dramatic models where-in this type of thing happens quite often. The central figure of the title is an enigma around which the real action revolves - the motive force for chaos and tragedy more by other people's responses to him than by his direct actions. And that's what we have here. Shakespeare writing a play after the fashion of the Latin dramatists he was familiar with from school, who in turn were following the fashion and subject matter of the Greek plays of antiquity.

Now, having learned this and also having come into contact with some of that ancient drama, I re-read Julius Caesar and find that it does in fact make sense, structurally if looked at this way. There is no central character except Caesar, despite him being conspicuous by his absence. There have been attempts to re-cast (and re-name) it as the Tragedy of Brutus but these are distortions or adaptations. The fact is that Cassius, Antony and Brutus are all compared and contrasted with each other and with Caesar and this is a necessary thing for understanding the character of each. Cassius's worldly motivations and ready perception of character are the opposite of Brutus's lofty ideals and inability to recognise that he is being used. Antony is motivated as much by will to power as by revenge; Cassius is aware of this. Brutus is a fool politically but is the superior general it turns out; they ould have won if Cassius had been more careful on the battlefield and Caesar - he's a greater figure than all of them put together, though he's just a man, with human frailties as Cassius points out, remembering how he saved Caesar from drowning in the Tiber. Greater - but for reasons not clear, not ever expressed - and the eye of the storm.

It's a fascinating mess and everybody ends up dead except Antony who walks off with the power and all the best lines in the play, back in that crucial "Friends, Romans, countrymen..." scene that forms the bulk of Act 3. The bit I liked even when I didn't have a clue about the rest - still the best part, even with the rest suddenly making sense.

Troilus and Cressida

The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare mentions that early 19th Century critics were "baffled" by this play. I have some sympathy with them; I don't really know what Bill was trying to do with this one. No contemporary writer worth the name would plot the final two acts this way, for a start. Now plotting was never Bill's strongest suit but we aren't talking about one of his daft comedies where you can ignore plot development in exchange for extreme verbal and physical comedy down in the woods tonight and go home chuckling at what you've seen and heard and not really caring about the absurdity of it all. Nor is this Romeo and Juliet 2.0, despite the set up in the first three acts where we start with a lot of wit and word play and silliness but get progressively more serious as time goes on, ending up with a full-on Tragic denouement and a bold statement about the destructive nature of feuding and partisan violence within respectable society that is alarmingly relevant 400 years later. Here, if there is a Tragic figure at all it is Hector, sadly too naively trusting in others' honour because his own is impeccable, rather than Troilus or Cressida, let alone both. And the play, despite having two endings, never really resolves the issue of the Troilus-Cressida-Diomedes love triangle at all. It's a mess.

Apparently more recent criticism has focused on Shakespeare's treatment of sexuality in the play but I don't really find the idea that people can be fickle and inconstant and driven by other people's looks all that profound or interesting, though I find it believable that Bill might have been aiming at a discussion of it.

So what I'm left with is a play that starts humourous then becomes amusingly chaotic and diverting in the final act (alarums and excursions abound) but stops rather than really concludes and suffers horribly in comparison with the Iliad's treatment of all the characters they have in common - a comparison that, at least while reading off the page, is unavoidable to anyone who has previously encountered Achilles' rage as described by Homer.

And on we go to Sir Thomas More, a play for which Shakespeare wrote probably only one or two scenes.

The Book of Sir Thomas More

The editors believe Shakespeare wrote a three page passage in the extant "book" of this play, which was originally composed by Munday. Those pages were included in the 1st Ed. of this volume but, as with Edward III, here in the 2nd Ed. they print the full text of the play. The parts attributed to Shakespeare are higher quality than the rest but some of the material by Munday is almost as good. However, for me the real interests of this play, which overall is disjointed, unbalanced and a second rate work of the period, are twofold and not really related to Shakespeare directly, namely, the portrayal of More and the insight into the politics, censorship and mode of operation of playwrights of the period.

What we have is a playbook originally written by Munday dealing with the rise and fall of Thomas More, which was heavily criticised by the Master of the Revels who read all plays before performance and had the power to demand any alterations he deemed fit or suppress the play entirely. More was a controvercial figure in Elizabethan politics still, being considered a Catholic martyr by many and a champion of the working people to boot. Catholicism vs. Protestantism was inextricably mixed up with the right to the throne and international power politics. Nevertheless, the Master of the Revels didn't ban the play out-right but instead gave copious instructions for deletions and modifications that were written directly on the play-book.

Subsequently various authors, including Chettle, Heywood and Dekker as well as Shakespeare, revised the play, replacing passages and altering existing ones - it's a professional critic's wet dream. The demand for original material for the stage was difficult to keep up with and collaborations between playwrights were commonplace, as were revisions of extant plays. (Middleton appears to have revised two of Shakespeare's plays, for example.) Here we get a good look at an extreme example of attempting to rescue a play because writing a new one from scratch was too long a process, as well as an insight into the role and attitudes of the Master of the Revels, which clearly was considered politically important and taken seriously. Despite all of the effort by nearly everyone, it seems the play was never performed on the contemporary stage.

Which brings me to the character of More himself. Here he comes over as a trickster and humourist who uses pranks to teach more pompous folks and genuine fools various lessons but also a champion of mercy and restraint in keeping the peace between the lower classes and the aristocracy. He goes in humble and brave fashion to his martyrdom, refusing to break with his Catholic principles regarding Henry VIII's divorce.

In A Man for All Seasons More is presented as a much more serious but still saintly martyr who dies for his principles. A biography of William Tyndale that I once read, gives a different picture, by illustrating what some of those principles were: More had a network of agents who spied and informed on anybody connected with translating the Bible from Latin to English or printing or distributing such. Anybody found guilty of said "crimes" were burned alive at the stake - no mercy whatsoever.

All of these authors had a partisan agenda regarding More: Catholic martyr, champion of the unprivileged, murderer of anybody who opposed the Church's control of Christian thought. Could he have been all of these things?

Measure for Measure

The editors believe that this play was adapted somewhat by another writer and additionally that it was Thomas Middleton. The same view is widely held regarding MacBeth, which to my mind loses it's unity of view and expression in the scenes of the witches spell casting and giving cauldrons a bad reputation forever after. Here, though, any adaptation is more subtle and doesn't impair the play at all.

This is also the earliest of what are known as the "problem plays" so called, as far as I can tell, because they do not fit neatly into any of the three conventional genres of the time, namely, comedy, tragedy or history. Earliest problem play does not mean early play, however - we are in the second half of Shakespeare's career by now. This leads me to propose a simple solution to the "problem": By this time Shakespeare was successful and confident enough to dispense with convention and write whatever kind of play he wanted and it seems to me that this is a morality play.

This play attacks everything that was appalling about the status of and attitudes towards women of the period, making it a stark contrast with The Taming of the Shrew. The law that the plot hinges upon is an ass, along with the prevailing obsession with virginity prior to marriage and as some kind of morally pure state that gets you extra bonus points from the Heavenly authorities. The convention of dowries and concomitant "wife as chattel" is also attacked.

There are no really memorable speeches but the play gets its points across successfully and doesn't outstay its welcome.

Henry V
Yeah, yeah, I'm supposed to be reading King Lear, but the BBC broadcast Brannagh's Henry V film and I thought I'd catch it on iPlayer before it disappears. Go here for the review because there isn't room left here for it all:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

King Lear (Quarto)
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The Tragedy of Richard III
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Timon of Athens
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

MacBeth
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

All's Well that Ends Well
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Pericles
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Coriolanus
Fierce warrior, great general, total prat.

The Winter's Tale
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Cymbeline
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

The Two Noble Kinsmen
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

By reading Timon of Athens, I can now say I have read them all!!! As a theater major, it is my duty and pleasure.

Not bad.

'The most tremendous case of poetic genius the world has ever seen...' - Thomas Mann.

That's all you need to know.

It took me with a few weeks of rest about 2 months to finish this and I enjoyed it immensely! 4.5 !