In Shakespeare's Measure for Measure when Angelo's evils and Claudio's survival have been revealed, the Duke ends the play with an attempt to set things to rights. He commands Claudio to restore the honor of Juliet by entering into holy matrimony with her "She, Claudio, that you wrong’d, look you restore" (Act 5 Scene 1) and bids Angelo to embrace the woman that he was given (Mariana) instead of Isabella who he desired. Isabella, the Duke would rather reserve for himself, professed virgin and convent hopeful though she may be. He entices her with "a motion much imports your good;/ Whereto if you’ll a willing ear incline,/ What’s mine is yours, and what is yours is mine./ So, bring us to our palace; where we’ll show/ What’s yet behind, that’s meet you all should know" (Act 5 Scene 1). Why would the Duke propose marriage to the woman who has professed her preference for the convent loudly and often? Cryptically, the play ends without a response from Isabella. Why would she who fought with so many powerful male figures throughout the play to spare both her brother's life and her virginity, keep silent on a matter which would forever change her destiny? Was she shocked at the offer, or perhaps preoccupied? I believe that she quietly let herself slip to the back of the group moving towards the Duke's palace until she could turn unnoticed and flee back to her convent. Marriage to such a man as the Duke would place her in a gilded cage, the quiet study and contemplation of God always just out of reach and impossible to consider.
I have been noticing so many Shakespeare references in Disney movies lately! Aside from the obvious Hamlet references in The Lion King, my current favorite reference is in 'The Mob Song' from Beauty and the Beast:
Gaston:
We'll rid the village of this Beast.
Who's with me?
Mob:
I am! I am! I am!
Mob:
Light your torch! Mount your horse!
Gaston:
Screw your courage to the sticking place!
Mob:
We're counting on Gaston to lead the way!
So, tell me, what are your favorite Shakespeare references in Disney movies?
William Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus is shocking when first read. The characters are bloody, spiteful, and full of hate. They struggle to find a position for themselves in the black underworld that is Roman politics, or what I would argue is a metaphor for the intrigue that permeated through the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Within the play, there is a healthy dose of spying, murder and all things abominable to the human race. Much of these horrors were played out on the national stage during the sovereignty of Queen Elizabeth as much to assert her power as to make sure that she remained in power at all. To begin Titus Andronicus, there is an argument between the brothers Saturninus and Bassianus over who is to be emperor of Rome. Both men have assembled legions of men loyal to their cause to petition the Tribunes and Senators as to who is more qualified to be emperor. One can draw a line from this scene to the real struggle of Queen Elizabeth, her sister Queen Mary I, and Mary, Queen of Scots for the English throne. The last will and testament of the Protestant King Henry VIII along with the Third Succession Act of 1543 had restored Elizabeth and her sister Mary to the succession after Henry’s son Edward. Numerous Catholics believed that Mary was the rightful only heir to the English throne. Just as Saturninus argued that he should be emperor based solely on the right of primogeniture, the Catholic community believed Elizabeth to be illegitimate, making Mary Queen of England by right. Much like her counterpart Bassianus, Queen Elizabeth made her bid to the throne based not only on her right as a royal, but as someone more qualified and able to perform the tasks that were to be set before her when the time came for her to finally rule England.
In the Bedford’s Shakespeare Companion author Russ McDonald points out that death is to tragedy as marriage is to comedy. This is certainly true of Titus Andronicus, in that the play begins with the sacrificial murder of Alarbus, first born son of the Goth queen Tamora. The reader is very moved by the sight of Tamora pleading with Titus for the life of her son. Titus grossly explains that her son must be burned in exchange for the offspring that Titus lost in the battle with the Goths. Tamora then abandoned her role as grieving mother when she led her sons Demetrius and Chiron to slay the newly-married Bassianus, rape his bride Lavinia, lop off her hands and cut off her tongue. This kind of malice is indicative of the lengths that many powerful figures would go to for revenge and security. For Queen Elizabeth, such measures were required to secure her throne from the grasping hands of her cousin Mary, Queen of Scotland. Mary was tried for treason and beheaded, thus preserving the throne in the name of Elizabeth and her descendants. I believe that the fraudulent nature of the court was the perfect inspiration for a play such as Titus Andronicus. The bloody nature of the vengeful acts and the general contempt for all the characters could leave the audience with a vicarious sense of justice. For those who could not speak out against their rulers, watching Titus Andronicus performed before you could allow one to live out their fantasy of restoring the world to peace and order, where all are free and equal beings.
I believe the revenge that Hamlet is forbidden to exact on his mother Queen Gertrude stems from the great power she wields as Queen of Denmark, as great as that of the beloved Queen Elizabeth I, and that Shakespeare’s decision to include Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, who holds power for a longer amount of time than any of the men, speaks volumes to his belief in the endurance of a female monarch’s rule, and their superiority to any king who dares to challenge them. Queen Gertrude is viewed by her son Hamlet as less than a person because of her repulsive relationship with his uncle King Claudius, and his conflicting emotions about the marriage lead to his madness and her continued reinforcement of both sovereign and feminine power over her son. Unlike the rule of primogeniture that is dominant in Elizabeth’s England, the ruler of Denmark is chosen in an election. Rather than persuading Hamlet to stay in Demark and publicly support him in the election of a new monarch, Queen Gertrude allows him to return to his studies in Wittenberg. Hamlet plans to punish Gertrude by forcing her to realize that in marrying the dead king’s brother, she has committed “Such an act/ That blurs the grace and blush of modesty” (Act 3 Scene 4).Queen Gertrude has decidedly acted against the will of God, ignoring the view taken in the Bible that “If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness” (King James Bible, Leviticus 3:20:21). While Denmark is blessed with a royal adult son to try for a place on the throne, 16th century England was not so lucky.
After the Second Succession Act of 1536 declared her illegitimate and unable to take the throne, Elizabeth I was the subject of much suspicion as she grew up. The act was finally overturned in 1544, but when her half-sister the bloody Queen Mary became ruler of England after the death of their half-brother King Edward VI, Elizabeth was imprisoned for the supposed support of Protestant rebels. Following Queen Mary’s death, the people of England needed leadership, and the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth dealt with this need by fashioning herself as a king as well as queen in the ways she represented herself. Elizabeth realized that great courage would be required to pick up the pieces of her beloved England that Mary had left a religiously confused mess. Elizabeth presented the female side of her monarchy in a very non-threatening way. She would perform charitable, almost saint-like acts on religious days such as Maundy Thursday, the day before Good Friday. Elizabeth would wash the feet of the poor because the foot-washing became so ritualized and part of a larger theatricalization of royalty using ritual to achieve and demonstrate power. Elizabeth also claimed to be “married” to England, assuming a submissive role and subconsciously convincing her lords they could somehow exert power over her, while this was not actually true. In a similar fashion, because Queen Gertrude has survived one king of Denmark to marry the next, she retains not only the people’s sympathy, but her queenly power. With her already acquired knowledge on how to manage a court, Queen Gertrude is indispensable to the new King Claudius, who wishes to please his citizens with pretty words and seemingly kind actions. Queen Gertrude’s accidental death by the king’s poison at the end of the play is certainly a comment on the treachery of royal men, and the loss of her feminine presence triggers upheaval and confusion within the court, reinforcing my belief that Shakespeare may have seen a female ruler as a more valuable asset to a court than their male counterparts.
Was Queen Elizabeth I a legitimate child? Religious discrepancies give us differing answers. In the eyes of the fervent Catholics of the period, Elizabeth was a bastard born out of wedlock, as Henry VIII's Anglican 'marriage' to Anne Boleyn was unholy in the sight of God. For Henry, Anne, and those eager to please them, Elizabeth was a disappointment, but proved that Henry could still father children and a son and heir might soon follow.
In my Shakespearean headcanon, Horatio is always bored by Hamlet. He thinks Hamlet takes all that Puritan stuff they learned in Wittenberg WAY too seriously. He doesn't believe that Hamlet has anything inside that 'passeth show', and he's rather tired off all of Hamlet's Puritanical moralizing. Horatio's a strict materialist, and a bit of a hedonist to boot; he does want to 'drink deep' ere he departs, and he rather likes fancy trappings and suits of woe; however, he doesn't want to hurt Hamlet's feelings. Horatio feels like he and Hamlet have drifted as of late, and he considers telling Hamlet that there are more things on earth alone than are dreamt of in his ridiculous metaphysics (Ophelia, for example!). When Hamlet is mortally wounded at the play's end, Horatio actually contemplates making a crack about how Hamlet's too too solid flesh wasn't solid enough.
I believe the symbolism and language in Shakespeare’s play Macbeth is some of the most beautiful in any of his works. Madness and murder are shown as the rod and scepter of Macbeth’s reign, and when his tyranny can no longer be tolerated symbols, words, and blood fly until at last there is no one left of the old order. When interpreted incorrectly, these words, signs, and symbols can have far-reaching consequences, unseen until it is too late.
The much maligned witches call themselves “The Weird Sisters, hand in hand, / Posters of the sea and land” (Act 1 Scene 3). The word ‘weird’ denotes the power by which fate and destiny are determined. The word is also indicative of the three Fates themselves, the sisters who determine the course of human existence and cut the thread of life when it is time for one to die. When the dust has settled and murder done, madness is free to descend on those who would feign an untroubled conscious. Macbeth, drunk with power and fearful of rebellion, believes the best way “To be thus…to be safely thus” (Act 3 Scene 1) is to have the suspicious Banquo murdered, another bloody stain on his soul. In Orson Welles’ 1948 film Macbeth, the staging of the Banquo’s reappearance as a ghost at a feast for the king, queen, and their lords is otherworldly, to the detriment of Macbeth’s sanity. This scene is particularly distressing on film as the extent of Macbeth’s neuroses is on display for his entire court to see. Set in cave, Banquo and Macbeth lock eyes over a crowded table as the guests fade away and they are left alone. The symbolism of Banquo appearing only to Macbeth tells the reader that the supernatural world that placed Macbeth on this throne now sees fit to force him from it.
For Macbeth’s detractors, the time is fast approaching to knock the usurper king from his throne, as not only Macbeth but his queen is quickly approaching the edge of hysteria from which return is impossible. In Act Five, Lady Macbeth is caught in a hysterical fit of sleepwalking by her faithful gentlewoman and a doctor. While Lady Macbeth symbolically rubs her clean hands free of the figurative stain of Duncan’s blood, she confesses to deeds in her sleep that must haunt her in her waking hours. This hysteria may have been seen by some as a sickness, or worse, a possession by the demons that spurred her to plot a murder. Lady Macbeth once commanded the most powerful man in the kingdom, but when her end comes she has lost that power as well as control over her own mind. When Macbeth is dead and the trumpet fanfare ends the fighting the remainder of the play is imagined as taking place in Macbeth’s castle. As simply as stepping over a threshold, the battle-weary soldiers sweep the reign of Macbeth under the rug of history to focus on Malcolm, son of Duncan and the man they believe to be their true king under the English notion of primogeniture, or the right of the first born son to inherit all his father has at the father’s death. Malcolm and his men have won a great victory, but their actions lead them farther away from the warrior Scotland of the past, towards the future in which the right king is chosen not by merit or skill, but by destiny and the fate of birth.
I believe the concept of ‘twinning’ in Shakespeare’s plays was drawn from his very own life. After marrying Anne Hathaway, eight years his senior in 1582, Shakespeare himself was graced with a pair of twins named Judith and Hamnet in 1585. Unfortunately, Hamnet was lost to Shakespeare in 1596 when the boy was only eleven, and so the aspect of ‘twins’ within many of his plays, such as The Taming of the Shrew may pay homage to his only son and heir who died all too young.
In The Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare seems to have created what can be viewed as female versions of Prince Hal and Hotspur. The oldest daughter of the merchant Baptista, Katherine, or Kate, as she is nicknamed is a practical thinker. Like Prince Hal, she knows her mind and keeps a wise counsel with herself. Unlike the prince, she is censured and labeled a shrew for speaking up for herself. From the start of the play, it seems as if this condemnation by the town of Padua has enveloped and disturbed Kate to the point where she will physically strike anyone who angers her, as we find Kate chasing Bianca around the house with Bianca’s hands tied. She cries to Bianca, “Of all thy suitors, here I charge thee, tell whom thou lov’st best. See thou dissemble not.” (Act 2 Scene 1). When Bianca tries to find the deeper meaning to her sister’s accusations, perhaps jealously or self-loathing, she is struck across the face for her trouble. Here enters their father, and the reader finds some insight to the inner workings of the mind of Katherine. It is clear that Signor Baptista favors his youngest daughter. The fact that he establishes a decree that his lovely little daughter cannot marry before his shrewish, foul-tempered one is evidence enough that Baptista wants to keep Bianca around for as long as possible. Of the two, Katherine is definitely the more modern woman, but she is no fool, and she knows that she is to be married off to whoever her father can get for her. In contrast, no such methods would be needed to tame the heart of Kate’s mild, sweet sister Bianca.
The foil of her sister, in this play Bianca is a female Hotspur. She is a romantic dreamer who is content to live life within the safe closed walls of her father’s home. Bianca seems to have no trouble allowing the men around her to influence her life. Unlike her realistic and sensible sister, Bianca lets her tutor Lucentio lead her all the way to the altar, without so much as mentioning it to her father. Bianca was foolish for acting on her romantic ideals, and she is quite lucky that, “At last, though long, our jarring notes agree, and time it is, when raging war is done, smile at scrapes and perils overblown.” (Act 5 Scene 2).
Within these pairs of characters Shakespeare gives us representations of two different roads taken. Both Prince Hal and Katherine chose to be realistic, logical thinkers who would not allow their thoughts or opinions to be overshadowed by anyone. In fact, each would defend their notions fiercely, right or wrong, simply because they were theirs. In the case of Bianca and Hotspur both were content to idealistically live back in the days when knights in shining armor saved demure damsels from distress. From deep reading of both plays, it can be said that Shakespeare thought the past was best left in the past, and looked forward towards a new future that would be brighter than anything that had come before.
I believe the concept of ‘twinning’ in Shakespeare’s plays was drawn from his very own life. After marrying Anne Hathaway, eight years his senior in 1582, Shakespeare himself was graced with a pair of twins named Judith and Hamnet in 1585. Unfortunately, Hamnet was lost to Shakespeare in 1596 when the boy was only eleven, and so the aspect of ‘twins’ within many of his plays, such as Henry IV Part I may pay homage to his only son and heir who died all too young.
The character of Prince Hal in Henry IV Part I comes across the page as an avid fan of Machiavelli. A man for the ages, Prince Hal is able to adapt his wit, his intelligence, and even his speech to acclimate himself to any environment. The time he keeps at the tavern with his great friend Falstaff is consumed with activities generally associated with those of a lesser quality than Prince Hal. Hal seems to have no problem submitting to their more base desires, in fact, he seems eager to create his own fun when he asks “Where shall we take a purse tomorrow, Jack?” (Act 1 Scene 2). Hal’s efforts to create a community among his subjects are admirable for a future leader. As heir to the throne, Hal’s only responsibilities would have to do with the court and his studies. He does not have to know the people he rules over, and he does not have to engage in or acknowledge their everyday activities. Not only does he know them, but he loves them.
However, the common people Hal loves have no notion of the chivalric code that governs his foil, Henry Percy, affectionately called Hotspur. This nickname, as well as his title as a nobleman are two names that govern all of Hotspur’s being. His title instills in him a deep devotion to the code of the knight, and he is everything that is respectful and just. Manly to a fault, impropriety revolts him.
Hotspur is an idealist. He cherishes the values of the past and upholds his code of ethics no matter what. Negatively, Hotspur lives in a dream world. With the end of the Middle Ages came the end of the valiant knights who rescued girls in trouble and married the beautiful princess. In fact, Hotspur’s married life is a far cry from the romantic ideal. He does not ride to his wife’s window to spout beautiful poetry, and he does not tell her what is in his heart. In fact, Hotspur goes to great lengths to avoid telling Lady Percy absolutely anything at all until she cries “In faith, I’ll break thy little finger, Harry, an if thou wilt not tell me all things true.” (Act 2 Scene 3). The best evidence of Shakespeare’s ideas on honor is delivered by Falstaff on the battlefield as he muses on what honor can do for him, “How then? Can honor set a leg? No. Or an arm? No…What is honor? A word. What is that word honor? Air - a trim reckoning.” (Act 5 Scene 1). Still, even to the last, Hotspur holds to his honor even as he is dying after being mortally wounded by Prince Hal in a duel that the reader senses has been building behind the story all along.
It is a credit to Shakespeare that he should create two such dissimilar characters that share the same nicknames of Harry, although the prince is sometimes called Hal, usually by Falstaff. The prince acknowledges this similarity when he tells Hotspur, “Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere, nor can one England brook a double reign of Harry Percy and the Prince of Wales.” Hotspur’s death ends their rivalry, and so Hal loses his counterpart in all things. Hotspur represented the glorious era past, filled with masculine drama and a sense of principle and virtues that were worth dying for. In Prince Hal, the audience can see a remaining sense of honor, but more subdued. Shakespeare shows us a man more willing to ask questions first and reach for his sword later, and he is the one who will move England toward a glorious future and a great fame that will last forever.
Do you have any anachronistic idiosyncrasies developed from your love of history? Carry a pocket watch? Have an unhealthy obsession with parasols? eBay and Etsy wish lists filled with historical clothing and costumes? Let me know!
Did Henry V really deserve the French throne he won at the battle of Agincourt? I don’t believe so. As England’s greatest enemy seemingly since time immemorial, Henry is itching for a war with France to bring glory to his rule, and claims their throne on a basis of shaky genealogy and interpretation of Salic Law, as the Bishop of Canterbury’s finds that: “the land Salic is in Germany/ Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe/ …That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother/ Was lineal of the Lady Ermengard…/ So that, as clear as is the summer’s sun…/ To hold in right and title of the female:/ So do the kings of France unto this day” (Act 1 Scene 1). When the bloody battle has ended, Henry V has made good on his promise “No king of England, if not King of France!” (Act 2 Scene 2) and defeated the French army against what history has called insurmountable odds. Agincourt became a rallying cry for later monarchs such as Henry VIII in defense of his Lancastrian blood and the outcome of the War of the Roses and for later expeditions into France to “reclaim the crown”. The battle was grandiose and astonishing to the world at large, becoming a favorite point in collective English history, a battle that can inspire patriotism and a grand sense of destiny to this day.
What happened to Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Won? We are told that it did indeed exist and was performed, and so being a sequel why did it not survive?*
*Note: I will accept the answer that it was swept up into a magical vortex when the Doctor battled the three Carrionites in ‘The Shakespeare Code’ and that is why it hasn’t been discovered.
In The Taming of the Shrew, the ever bold and brash Kate has been married off to Petruchio, the only man who will have her, he who was “born to tame you, Kate,/ And bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate/ Conformable as other household Kates” (Act 2 Scene 1). Has she conformed? A bet is put forward, Petruchio and his friends will call their brides, and if she acts according to their will he is a hundred crowns richer. Summoned, none appear except Kate, and when bid scolds the two other women “Such duty as the subject owes the prince,/ Even such a woman oweth to her husband;/ And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,/ And not obedient to his honest will,/ What is she but a foul contending rebel/ And graceless traitor to her loving lord?” (Act 5 Scene 2). I don’t believe that a notorious shrew that Kate should be tamed by love, but rather she relishes any moment to surpass her sister Bianca and shame her, especially in front of the men in their family who have always thought Bianca to be the ideal woman.
Yesterday’s answers for Henry VIII’s favorite queen were overwhelmingly for Anne Boleyn. Thank you to those who responded! Of course, I believe Anne may have played queen to more than one man. I believe that Anne Boleyn was betrothed and possible even married to Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland before becoming Henry’s queen. Marriage at this time was extremely convenient. In the case of a ‘de praesenti’ marriage, the couple would simply state they took the other to be their spouse, consummate it, and they were husband and wife. A ‘de futuri’ marriage bound the couple to each other at a date to be determined, but a ‘de futuri’ marriage with a consummation was legally binding. A tricky situation that came back to haunt Anne and Henry Percy when his wife petitioned for divorce after many years of apparently unhappy marriage. Lady Percy believed Henry was pre-contracted to Anne Boleyn, and this evidence was used against her during her trial for treason. Henry Percy was on the jury, and despite what may have happened between them, he voted her guilty. I believe Anne truly loved Percy, and Wolsey’s earlier downfall at her hand was due in part to his attempts to separate her from Henry Percy. Such a sad end for the mother of a great queen. Under the cut is my favorite poem by Thomas Wyatt, thought to be about Anne!
Who is your favorite queen of Henry VIII’s? I have a deep and abiding love for Katherine of Aragon, but also for her ‘bewitching’ successor Anne Boleyn. What about you?
#5-Something I believe should be everyone's headcanon.
Shakespeare’s work WAS written by the man named William Shakespeare. It is elitist and wrong to suggest that simply because he was a tanner’s son from a small village he could not produce the beautiful poems, plays, and sonnets that have made him famous. To suggest otherwise is to set my blood boiling, and forget about the film Anonymous. I threw popcorn at the screen and shouted abuse for 2 hours.
Every interpretation I’ve seen of Romeo & Juliet (particularly the 1968 film version) portrays Lady Capulet as a bitter woman who hates her husband. Some contextual clues are given as Paris presses his suit of the 13 year old Juliet, “Younger than she are happy mothers made”, to Capulet’s reply “And too soon marr’d are those so early made” (Act 1 Scene 2). Married early and very young, Lady Capulet was Juliet’s “mother much upon these years/ That you are now a maid” (Act 1 Scene 3). I’ve reread the text many times, and it is only recently that my ideas of this aristocratic marriage have transformed. Women of Lady Capulet’s standing married much in the same way at this time, and I believe it would have been considered disgraceful to behave in such a harsh manner as she is seen to do. What, then, could degrade Lady Capulet’s shiny veneer down to the exposed nerve? Babies. Like the fictional Lady Macbeth and the very real Queen Katherine of Aragon before her, the death of more than one child must be a constant burden on their heart. As Lord Capulet explains to Paris, “The earth hath swallow’d all my hopes but she/ She is the hopeful lady of my earth” (Act 1 Scene 2). If Lady Capulet was against marriage simply because she hated men or the thought of her girl bearing children at so young an age, I believe she never would have sided with her husband to help make Paris Juliet’s husband. As a woman who has seen many children go to their graves, it is through Juliet’s own marriage that she may seek the redemption of her feelings and sensibilities. A wedding to plan, and the prospect of grandchildren, may go a long way to heal the wounds that destroyed a marriage and a woman’s peace of mind forever.
