Tennis balls and other Shakespearean insults

After finishing this history play, I feel that what made reading Henry V so engaging was the different types of language that Shakespeare used. He had the legal and religious jargon of an archbishop, the blood-boiling rhetoric by Henry in the field of battle, and the casual dialects of the lower classes. Across all these different levels of communication, however, the one thing that he always seemed able to convey (whether it be tennis balls or accusations of being a "prick-eared cur of Iceland"), was insults. My favorites are by Pistol: "egregious dog," "viper vile," and "braggart vile." There's also some good exchanges of insults between the French and English, like in Act 1 with the tennis balls, and at the end of Act 2 with this dialogue:

DAUPHIN

For the Dauphin,

I stand here for him. What to him from England?

EXETER

Scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt,

And anything that may not misbecome

The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.

Thus says my king: an if your father’s Highness

Do not, in grant of all demands at large,

Sweeten the bitter mock you sent his Majesty,

He’ll call you to so hot an answer of it

That caves and womby vaultages of France

Shall chide your trespass and return your mock

In second accent of his ordinance.

DAUPHIN

Say, if my father render fair return,

It is against my will, for I desire

Nothing but odds with England. To that end,

As matching to his youth and vanity,

I did present him with the Paris balls.

EXETER

He’ll make your Paris Louvre shake for it,

Were it the mistress court of mighty Europe.

And be assured you’ll find a difference,

As we his subjects have in wonder found,

Between the promise of his greener days

And these he masters now. Now he weighs time

Even to the utmost grain. That you shall read

In your own losses, if he stay in France.

I don't know if this struck anyone else, but the first thing that came to mind when reading the taunting between the French and English was this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Enjoy! :)

Also, this week we will be starting comedies. I'm reading The Taming of the Shrew, and this is my reading schedule:


01/31 - Background and Act 1
02/02 - Acts 2 and 3
02/04 - Acts 4 and 5

Henry V: War Criminal?

I am absolutely fascinated by King Henry's dialogue in act 4, scene 1. This is while he is masquerading as a"base, common, and popular" man and gets into a discussion with Bates and Williams, soldiers in his army. These two men of "low birth" are of the opinion that "if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make." This was such an interesting revelation to me. I had thought the English people were united in support of the war, previously proven by the king's councillors who urged him to claim France as his own. My opinion up to this point was that the reasons for the war against France were incontestable (as far as England was concerned). Here, however, Shakespeare makes a point of showing his audience that maybe, just maybe, not everyone was completely on board with the invasion of French lands. Although the people love their king and leader (as evident by Pistol's line "I kiss his dirty shoe, and from heartstring I love the lovely bully"), they are not sold on his reasons for the war. Like Bates and Williams argue, if a king leads his people to war without having a good cause, then he is ultimately responsible for the deaths that occur as a result of his decisions. King Henry attempts to refute this claim, but I can't really say I'm buying it:

KING HENRY

So, if a son that is by his father sent about merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the imputation of his wickedness, by your rule, should be imposed upon his father that sent him. Or if a servant, under his master’s command transporting a sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the business of the master the author of the servant’s damnation. But this is not so. The king is not bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of his servant, for they purpose not their death, when they purpose their services.....Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own. 

This is not the whole quote (I did a little editing to make it easier to read), but I think it clearly shows Henry's ideas on the matter, which to me do not logically follow. For one thing, the examples that he uses are completely different things. Sorry Henry, but a master sending his servant on an errand is not the same as leading an entire nation to war. To me, just because a bishop tells you that you have claim to the throne of France through an obscure and highly debatable law is not enough to support a declaration of war. In the time of Henry V, every man was subject to the king, and he was responsible for their lives if he led them to an early death because of an ill-conceived plan to seize the French crown.

I wanted some scholarly research to back up my ideas, and I found an article, "The Problem of Henry V." Here is the abstract, to give a you a good idea of what it is arguing:

This paper argues that though Shakespeare set out to write a play which reflected the uncritical celebration of Henry V as a warrior hero, he was able to do so only superficially. The commitment to truth characteristic of the greatest artists ensured that his depiction of Henry was very different from what it appeared to be on the surface. Shakespeare simply knew too much. He was clearly aware, for example, that Henry could have no valid claim on the French throne, as he had no de jure right even to the English one being the son of a usurper and that therefore his attack on France was an unprovoked war of conquest. The tension between Shakespeare the patriotic Elizabethan and Shakespeare the supreme artist is nonetheless compatible with the play being an organic whole as it is a paradigm of a widespread and persistent cultural ambivalence about war. Henry V is very much a play for our times, and we have only recently been in a position to be aware of its complexity and greatness. 

This gave me more insight into Shakespeare's world, that it was possible that he believed Henry V to be a capable leader, but one without a worthy cause. I really enjoyed this article, because it gave me solid evidence for what I had already been thinking about Henry.

Modern Application: Although I do not think that Henry as a person compares with Adolph Hitler, I did see a connection in the idea of responsibility. Hitler led Germany and the rest of the world to war when he set in motion his extremist government and invaded his neighboring countries without provocation. The world generally holds Hitler responsible for many of the deaths in World War II, because without his actions it may have never happened. I saw a similarity in Henry V. Like Hitler, Henry had a personal agenda that he used his position to achieve. Could he also be called a war criminal for his declaration of war without just cause? It may sound outlandish, but I think the idea has some merit.

Works Cited

Pittock, M. "The Problem of Henry V." Neophilologus. 93. 1 (2009): 175-190. Web. 

A little bit of history

To me, reading Henry V is quite a daunting task. I've never read any of Shakespeare's histories before and really don't know what to expect. British history is a confusing mass of war, revolutions, and political coups where it seems like every five years the people end up with a new king. So, as a guide for reading through this play, I wanted to have a substantial idea of what was going on during the time it is set.  I found this timeline, which really helped me solidify when and where everything was happening (not to mention who happened to be king at the time.) 

Also, David had a great summary and family tree posted over on his blog, with lost of helpful tips on how to remember who is who. Check it out if you want the wonderfully confusing history of England to be just a little bit clearer.

One last note on Hamlet

Although our class is moving on to Shakespeare's histories this week, I couldn't resist posting once more about Hamlet. What can I say? It's a great play. 

This semester, I am also taking British Medieval Literature (really interesting class, by the way), and it has truly surprised me how many similarities there are between many of my other readings and Hamlet. We've discussed in class how Shakespeare could be considered somewhat of a plagiarist, that much of what Shakespeare wrote was borrowed from early British historians and writers. Well, in Medieval Brit. Lit. there are just tons of examples of this. I picked out just one to share with you. 

We have been reading what's called "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles," a history that summarizes the most important events of each year, written between the 9th and 11th centuries. In one entry, discussing the death of William the Conquerer, it states:

"He that was before a rich king, and lord of many lands, then had no more land than a space of seven feet! and he that was once enshrouded in gold and gems lay there covered with dirt!"

To me, this bears a striking resemblance to Hamlet's remarks in the Graveyard scene:

"This fellow might be in ’s time a great buyer of land, with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries. Is this the fine of his fines and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? Will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box, and must the inheritor himself have no more, ha!" (5:1)

Both of these passages relate to the idea of death as the great equalizer, and using remarkably similar examples. Although Hamlet is describing a great landowner instead of a king, both authors express the idea that although someone in life may have had great riches or land, he eventually only end up with "a space of seven feet."

Besides that passage, there is also similar language used between the two texts: "churl" and 

"twelfth-night," as well as the name Osric (like the character at the end of Hamlet), although I could be stretching the coincidences with that one. 

I thought it was interesting to find such explicit examples of Shakespeare borrowing from other authors. I will be posting more on this subject when we get to reading tragedies, as Geoffrey of Monmouth's "A History of the Kings of Britain," (which I've also read in my other class), contains the account that Shakespeare later draws from to write King Lear, which I think will make for an interesting comparison. 

As of right now, my reading schedule for this week is:

01/24- Read historical background and summary for Henry V; read Act 1

01/26- Read Acts 2-3

01/28- Read Acts 4-5

I'm going to take this week by week, as I don't know what my exact plan is and I'd like to be flexible. I'll try to post before every class period, and will hopefully be able to work in some fun creative interpretations and analysis. 

Apparently Shakespeare gardened...

Obviously not a proven fact, but Shakespeare does seem to have an extensive 

knowledge of plants. Like this author said:

"Nearly 30 scenes in his plays take place in a garden,
 and his characters seem to know what they're talking 
about when it comes to weeds, trees, flowers and herbs 
and their properties, both medicinal and poetic. 
If Shakespeare didn't garden himself, he probably knew 
many people who did, or who at least knew about plants. 
His son-in-law, John Hall, was a doctor and herbalist 
and most likely had botanical and medical books."
- Kent Steinriede (Full text here)

Now what does this mean to us? This means that all of Shakespeare's 

seemingly random references to flowers are in fact an obscure method of sharing information with his audience. Since people of his time were 

much more familiar with these plants, Shakespeare could identify with 

his peers by including the familiar names within his plays. 

Now on to the question of the day: What's with Ophelia's flowers? The 

following is a list of the plants mentioned in connection with Ophelia 

and what their true meanings are.

Rosemary: constancy, fidelity, and loyalty

Pansy: thoughtful recollection

Fennel: strength

Columbines: cuckoldry and deserted love

Rue: repentance, herb-of-grace

Daisy: gentleness, innocence, loyal love

Violets: modesty and simplicity

(Some of these I got from here and some I borrowed from No Fear Shakespeare, NFS)

As I'm sure you all noticed, there are a couple that particularly stand 

out. For one thing, rosemary and columbines are the exact opposite 

(constancy v. deserted love) and both seem to be in connection with 

Gertrude. Also rue (repentance) and pansy (thought recollection) seem 

relevant to Claudius. NFS translation really helped me see what these 

all meant, since they associated the meaning of the flower with 

whomever Ophelia was giving it to:

OPHELIA There’s fennel for you, and columbines.—There’s rue for you, and here’s some for me. We may call it “herb of grace” o' Sundays.—Oh, you must wear your rue with a difference.—There’s a daisy. I would give you some violets, but they withered all when my father died. They say he made a good end(sings) For bonny sweet Robin is all my joy—

OPHELIA (to GERTRUDE ) Here are fennel and columbines for you—they symbolize adultery. (to CLAUDIUS) And here’s rue for you—it symbolizes repentance. We can call it the merciful Sunday flower. You should wear it for a different reason. And here’s a daisy, for unhappy love. I’d give you some violets, flowers of faithfulness, but they all dried up when my father died. They say he looked good when he died.(sings) For good sweet Robin is all my joy.

So, wowsa! Ophelia knew what was going down in Denmark! She, in all her madness, picks up on the fact that Gertrude is disloyal to her first husband, that Claudius is in need of repentance, and that neither of them is faithful. 

And all this through flowers....

And as a side note, although not a flower, the fact that Ophelia falls from a willow tree is not a coincidence. Known for its healing properties, the willow's leaves and bark were often used as a remedy for aches and fever. I may be stretching it, but maybe Ophelia's "suicide" was an attempt to heal herself from grief over her father's death? Just a thought....

Shakespeare is not my forte

I guess the best way to start is to examine what experience I've had so far with Shakespeare. This is a tad embarrassing thing for me to admit, but I've read shockingly little of whom many consider to be one of the greatest writers of all time. Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet are the only plays I've ever read completely through, and besides some strange Japanese version of Macbeth that I watched in my high school English class, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is the only film adaptation that I've seen (excluding She's the Man and Ten Things I Hate About You, which I suppose can be classified as "adaptations" but very loosely so. Very loosely).

Well, now that my cringeworthy lack of Shakespearean familiarity is announced to the world, the only thing to do is to find a way to cure my scarcity of knowledge. And that is by.... (drum roll please)..... developing a personal learning plan! Now, as exciting as this is, please refrain from randomly cheering or crying out with joy so that your roommates, significant others, or strangers at the library do not think English majors are weirder than they already are.

Gain Shakespeare Literacy.  Before the end of the semester, I plan on reading one play from each genre. So far, I've decided on A Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear, and The Tempest. Since I don't know the histories very well, I'm hoping to get suggestions on which to read. These are only a sampling, but I hope to read more. Besides the plays, I'd like to have a general knowledge of the sonnets, and hopefully be able to find a few not-so-famous ones that I enjoy. Besides reading, I'd love to watch an adaptation, screen or stage, of each play to be able to get a feel for the performance aspect of the plays. 

Analyze Shakespeare Critically. Since we won't have much formal writing in terms of papers we turn in, my analysis of Shakespeare will come mostly through this blog, where I will post textual, contextual, and theoretical explorations about what I've been reading. I will also strive to include some analysis of performance and other digital mediations to give you all a break from formal writing every so often. 

Engage Shakespeare Creatively. And this is where the fun part comes in. Besides academic analysis, I also get to learn about Shakespeare through creative performance, imitation or artistic representation. Some ideas I have on my mind are: translate some scenes from a play to modern English, imitate Shakespeare's sonnet form and write my own, create a video presentation using images and words from play and sonnets, and get involved in a production or performance. I'm sure these will develop and multiply as time goes on.

Share Shakespeare Meaningfully. And after I've done all that, I will find ways to share what I've learned with both my classmates and others that I will hopefully come into contact with throughout this semester. This will mostly be in the form of posts and comments, but I also want to submit some kind of work to Showcase Shakespeare (featured below) which I think would really give me a chance to show what I've learned in a fun way. 

Well, I think that's pretty much it. Please leave me some suggestions if you have any, particularly on which history to read since I believe that's the first genre we'll be reading. Thanks!

Showcase Shakespeare

Shakespeare's work has been analyzed to death. There's no getting around that. So how do I approach him from a new perspective and gain new insights? Well, this blog is part of the answer. Hopefully by communicating with people in this new digital age, I can start thinking outside the box. The rest of the answer is by thinking outside of the classroom. As an English major, I'm used to finding sources solely from academic books, articles, and reviews. 

This blog, however (at the risk of sounding Disney-ish), has opened up a whole new world. For example Blogging Shakespeare is exactly the kind of thing that we should be looking for. It's what people are saying about Shakespeare right now. There's articles, links to other blogs, and even current events about the Shakespeare world. 

However, most importantly, there is a way for all your hard work to be seen by other people than you classmates! Since a lot of the focus of our class is creatively engaging Shakespeare, you might be interested in Showcase Shakespeare, where you can submit any kind of creative work about Shakespeare for BloggingShakespeare to showcase on their new website. Here's a video introducing the showcase:

And you can go here to submit a work.

Hopefully, (because we are so very inventive and artistic) we can represent BYU in this. I think it would be a great way to expand our horizons!

"To thine own self be true"

This phrase, spoken by Polonius, is possibly the most satirical and ironic idea that Shakespeare included in Hamlet. First of all, it is spoken by the phoniest of all the characters, a councillor to the king who spends most of his time fawning over the royal family and speaking nonsense. Never, throughout the whole play, is he true to his own self. He hides behind his rhetoric, which is ridiculous in and of itself: "Why day is day, night night, and time is time, were nothing but to waste night, day, and time. Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief" (Act 2, Scene 2). Because of his unnecessary and flowery language, Polonius is the complete opposite of what he claims to be, brief and to the point. 

Another more physical representation of Polonius being untrue to himself is his tendency to hide behind curtains to eavesdrop. While this habit is strange, childish, and borderline creepy, it also shows his unwillingness to show his true self.  He desires to see behind the masks and lies of others, but not at the risk of leaving his self vulnerable. 

Besides Polonius, there are many, many other examples of characters not being true to themselves. Hamlet hides his indecision behind a facade of madness. Claudius is obviously guilty of fratricide and incest, but conceals it with his mask of sorrow over his brother's death. And then of course there are the players, whose whole purpose in life is to pretend to be someone they're not. 

Although Polonius counsels his son Laertes "To thine own self be true," he does not follow his own advice, and apparently neither does anyone else in the play. This pattern of pretense throughout the play reveals to us Shakespeare's great love of irony, something I'm sure we'll see more often when we move from tragedies to comedies and romances. 

My first step into the wonderful world of blogging

Blogging is an entirely new medium of communication for me. I've read and followed blogs (admittedly blogs of family members, but still), but never actually started and kept one up myself. I've never been good at journals or record keeping, but considering that this blog will be a very essential and important part of my Shakespeare class this semester, it seems probable that I will be much more successful this time. 

On this blog I hope to accomplish a number of things. First, and most importantly, to put myself out of my comfort zone. I am exactly the typical English major that prefers to listen to lectures, read the assignment, and then write the essay. It is familiar and very safe. But unfortunately, that is not what life is like. Life is full of people and new ideas. I'm hoping that this class, especially through this new new digital media, will help me be more open about ideas that I have and willing to share them and get feedback. 

Second, on this blog, to the eternal joy and amusement of my followers, I will hopefully be posting about the ways that I extend my learning outside of the classroom. Whether this be my own imitation of one of Shakespeare's sonnets, or even a video of an artistically interpretive scene from one of his plays, I'm willing to put myself out there and see what can be done to learn about this ironic, brilliant, and comic playwright that we've all come to love :)

Of course, with all the fun self-directed learning and social interaction there is also a serious research aspect to this blog. By trying out my thoughts on this blog, I hope to be able to develop them into strong ideas that then lead to an even stronger thesis. 

Basically, as seen from the title of this blog, I aspire to embrace Shakespeare's philosophy, that "all the world's a stage," and that blogging is just a new type of stage in this rapidly progressing world. 

Although some people may feel like this poor guy:

I will try to be optimistic and remember that at the very least my English teacher will have to keep up with my blog, so hurrah for having one forced but hopefully supportive follower. Thanks for reading and I'm excited to see what our first discussion on Hamlet has in store for us tomorrow.