Confined with the Bard

Hello and welcome back to The Young Reader’s Review! Since it has been a long time since my last post (mostly due to preparation for exams, which have been, anti-climatically, canceled), and everybody seems to have more free time to melodramatically contemplate what could have been, all the unfulfilled possibilities of life, and to stare at the outside world with a melancholic tune playing in the background, having read the 45th article on how Shakespeare wrote King Lear in confinement during the 1606 plague, and how this entire situation actually a blessing in disguise. Well, perhaps we aren’t William Shakespeare, but why not turn towards the Bard in these uncertain times (If we are going to be dramatic, we might as well do it in the right way, I suppose)?

Going to begin (hopefully) an English degree this autumn, I was thinking that it would come to use to have read all of Shakespeare’s plays, first attacking the very much eschewed  Shakespeare's "histories"- and wrongly, as you will see. What I designate here as "histories" are the posthumously classified plays whose characters are also actors in the greater scheme of English political history (i.e. Henry VI I, Richard II, Henry V...). These can almost be read as two tetralogies, since there are common characters.

Flabbergasted, I came to the realization that I had read a mere 20 out of Shakespeare’s 37 plays, having almost read more of Christopher Marlowe and of John Webster. Since the Bard, of course permeates all of English literature and is of an undeniable influence and importance in the literary sphere, I decided to embark on the journey of reading all of his plays, and then since theater is "made to be watched" (as Molière once said), to also attempt to watch some of their representations.

I would also like to add that if you wish to watch Shakespeare plays, the Globe is hebdomadally uploading some of the latter's most famous plays:

https://www.youtube.com/user/ShakespearesGlobe

This week, I have read seven of his plays, and I thought that I would share my thoughts on  some of them, hopefully convincing you to perhaps do the same. We will also see that, interestingly enough, Shakespeare does not offer a one-sided view of history, but presents an almost ambiguous vision, which is why, Emma Smith writes in This is Shakespeare, that the dramaturg "asks questions rather than answering them".

-Richard II

The first work that I decided to embark on was Richard II, an oeuvre particularly marked by its verse and complete absence of prose, conferring a tragic, and almost sublime tonality.  I was particularly captivated by Gaunt’s “this other Eden, demi-paradise” monologue, and was compelled by the poignant depiction of the ruler, Richard II (Charles Edwards’ portrayal of the ruler in the 2015 Globe play brought tears to my eyes). This play, as it is made clear by the initial tension Bolingbroke’s presence creates, is essentially structured by the gradual rise of tension, cumulating at the assassination of Richard II (not a big surprise). The dichotomous presentation of what we would consider today as Ernst Kantorowitz’s theory of the “king’s two bodies” i.e. the dissociation of the ruler’s “body politic” from his “body natural” constitutes an interesting comment on the nature of man, and making Richard II an essentially human and almost attaching character: this can for instance be noticed in the “hollow crown” metaphor, where the crown, which acts as a symbol for power, is concretely dissociated from Richard II.  Power, an amorphous construct, is made concrete. This can also be found in Richard II's monologue where he questions this very "body politic": “feel want/ taste grief, need friends- subjected thus,/ How can you say to me I am king?”. This idea of the monarch being essentially human, and flawed, is one that we will find again in Henry V.

-Henry IV I

This play, unknown to me beforehand, was a surprise. Awaiting an eulogy of Henry IV with tragic undertones, I was confronted with a plot centered around the jolly and jaunty Falstaff, a Rabelaisian character characterized by his weight, and his immorality, that also appears in Henry IV II and the The Merry Wives of Windsor (he is only mentioned in Henry V). Meanwhile, Henry IV himself remains a secondary figure and the play borders on the vaudeville. Hal, also known as future Henry V spends his time drinking with Falstaff, making the future monarch gain everything but a noble reputation, and thus making the reader/audience question the legitimacy of this future immoral ruler. 

(also, shout-out to the brilliant Roger Allam in the Globe production)

-Henry IV II

I have less to say about this second part (which is the logical continuation of Part I, but still stands alone as a play), which was more centered on the political plot, that is Henry IV’s death and Henry V’s rise to power, parting from Falstaff’s company. This work truly demonstrates the dominance of the political plot, the predominance of the concept of honor and how it overpowers the comical, immoral plot.This being said, Falstaff being a largely sympathetic character, Hal's mentor corresponding to the "helper" (using Christopher Booker's term) in terms of plot, his rejection on stage is heartbreaking.

-Henry V

Somber, yet eerily comical, Henry V is one of the plays that, in my opinion, best represents Shakespeare’s idiosyncratic ambiguity: is Henry V a tyrant, merciless king with no compassion, or is he a righter of wrongs, a noble fighter with an innate sense of justice? Is Henry V the ideal Christian king, or is he a ruthless killer? The inability to truly understand Shakespeare’s perspective on war, on religion’s place in the dissociation between “right” and “wrong” is characteristic of Shakespearean works (talk about “theory of omission”...), and leaves us to interpret his works, and to also interpret who truly "won" the battle of Agincourt (since this play is centered around this battle).

If you want to watch the play, the 1989 Henry V movie with Kenneth Branagh is frankly brilliant, and includes flashbacks to Henry V’s youth with Falstaff to facilitate comprehension.

-Richard III

Probably the most famous of histories, beginning with the famous “Now is the winter of our discontent”, Richard III is the depiction of the universal portrait of the unrelenting Machiavellian villain and of his rise to power. In addition to the depiction of monomania, I found it especially interesting to consider Richard III as a theatrical character, one with a fragmented personality that he is unable to reconcile: he is a monster-like figure, a portrayal coinciding with the Tudor myth of Richard III as being “malformed”, resembling a “bottled spider”, or a “toad”, that manipulates all those around them in order to rule. The different facets of Richard III that he intentionally uses in order to get what he desires grants an interesting theatrical consciousness to the play. It also reminds me of Senecan tragedy, where a character, fuelled by revenge is reduced to an almost animal-like state.

In terms of interpretations, the 1995 Richard III movie with Ian McKellen is a particularly compelling version of this play, where Richard III's rule is presented as that of a fascist regime. 

-Julius Caesar

“Et tu, Brute?”: Julius Caesar, a play where the perceived humanity of the ruler, his human fragility and vulnerability is what ultimately leads to his downfall. This is for instance made clear when Cassius initially claims that he was "born free as Caesar" and the he "endure[s] the winter's cold was well as he". I found it intriguing how, as a character, Julius Caesar is essentially secondary: Julius Caesar is about the downfall of the Roman Empire, not about Julius Caesar. This being said, the concept of the emperor that transcends life, whose influence and existence remains is metaphorically mirrored in the image of his ghost, and the tragic ending. Similarly to Richard II, this play also shows permanent stream of ruler successions of history.

-The Taming of the Shrew 

This was the only play that is not a history that I read this week, but a comedy that is said to follow Italian Renaissance theatrical models. I had already read this play, but I am currently still watching the Globe play. This play demonstrates the comical eternality and universality of Shakespeare’s genius.
This also strongly reminded me of Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion, with the concept of a woman that has to be "tamed" in order to conform to society, where obstinacy turns into obedience, and even submission. This play today could be analyzed in terms of gender constructs, but this idea of "transformation" is also a topos in Shakespearean plays, as we can notably see in A Midsummer Night's Dream. 

That was it for today's post! I hope that you enjoyed it, and that this made you want to either begin to read Shakespeare, or also dive back into the enthralling worlds depicted by the great Bard. Have a good, socially-distant week! Also, if you have any book/play suggestions, I am always open to suggestions!