Henry V was a heroic figure who led the greatest land campaign England had conducted up to that time. I see Shakespeare's play as subversive to the glory of war and to a spirit of patriotism or reverence.

The first scene in the play concerns two bishops discussing a gift to King Henry. The church had enormous properties and encouraged the rich to remember the church in their wills as gold greased the path to high status in the afterlife. Most wealth stayed in the church.

War is expensive, and a king planning war looks over his kingdom for funds. The clerics knew that the extensive holdings of the church tempted him and did not want to lose any of their wealth. A gift large enough to satisfy the king would be preferable to having most or all of their wealth confiscated.

At the start of the play Shakespeare bypassed any appeal to patriotism and emphasised the immense wealth of the church. Those planning a war must finance it and those who suffer the burden will try to minimise it.

In Act II Scene III Falstaff, the dissolute friend of Henry V’s youth is dying offstage. Speaking of him the woman caring for him said:

“Nay, sure, he's not in hell: he's in Arthur's bosom, if ever man went to Arthur's bosom ... So a' cried out 'God, God, God!' three or four times. Now I, to comfort him, bid him a' should not think of God …

The woman meant Abraham’s bosom but confused that with the legendary King Arthur. Shakespeare showed the confusion of an ignorant believer. One area where she wasn’t confused was the uselessness of calling for God. People at death’s door may be encouraged to think of God to ease their way out of life. Falstaff’s carer realised that such thoughts were useless in his case and encouraged their suppression.

Possibly, that’s the way Shakespeare felt.

Writing in a religious and patriotic time he had to mask his feelings much as those writing under Soviet and other authoritarian rule had to do.

Hey davidf,

I am reading right at this moment Harold Bloom's Where shall wisdom be found?.

"Shakespeare is the Godlike author that James Joyce and Goethe hoped to approximate, the alienated Creator who pares his fingernails even as his creation is ruined by its own riches. We only have one such author, who out Yahwehs Yahweh, which remains the scandal that is Shakespeare."

It would be Bloom's opinion, I would think, that Shakespeare scaled such heights of universalism that left the need "mask his feelings" superfluous.

It might be easier to think of him as taking caution when required rather than writing subversively for its own sake.

An author of that time, like Shakespeare and with the necessary talent, may well have been able to surreptitiously let his feelings be known without actually writing them thus.

Perhaps he was the first, albeit more subtle, Dawkins of his age or merely a dramatist with an eye for a colourful array of characters with various opinions.

Interesting site here on the issue of Shakespeare and religion by author Aldous Huxley.

http://www.sirbacon.org/links/huxley2.htm

DavidF - " Writing in a religious and patriotic time he had to mask his feelings much as those writing under Soviet and other authoritarian rule had to do."

I'm afraid that I question this initial statement quite robustly. Remember that Elizabeth herself was an extremely intelligent and educated woman who, according to all accounts, lapped up the New Learning and enjoyed open discussion. Things did change with James, granted, but the Henry plays were written before his time.

While, in Shakespeares time, only 10% of the entire population was able to read or write, that ten per cent comprised the Queen and some members of her Court: the law-makers, the policy-makers, the rule-enforcers and, of course, the poets and playwrights.

Reading texts contemporary to Shakespeares we find both men and women questioning religion, social mores, women's place in society: in fact many of the issues with which we concern ourselves to-day.

As for the common people - the audiences - something that should always be kept in mind is that, despite the horrific religious persecution prior to Shakespeare's time, the seam of paganism was still a concurrent theme in all parts of England.

To compare this period to the stifling authoritarianism of Soviet rule simply doesn't wash with me.

Pelican - Am familiar with Huxley's article but, remember it was written before the question of John Shakespeares Catholicism came to light. Its a good article though, and would love to discuss it in more detail in light of current scholarship.

Dear david f,

I agree with you in part.
The play does present an idealized portrait
of England's Henry V.

Shakespeare filled Henry V with patriotic passages,
especially the king's famous address to his troops
at Harfleur:

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more."
The speech concludes, "The game's afoot/ Follow your
spirit; and upon this charge/ Cry "God for Harry!
England and Saint George!"

It does appear that Shakespeare seems to glorify war,
however on closer examination, the heroics are set
against a background of political treachery
and empty honour.
Comic scenes mock the vanity of the royal court.

These scenes are meant to serve to remind audiences
that monarchs and their councils plan wars, but
ordinary people must fight and die in them.

I don't think Shakespeare was "subversive." I think
his plays reflect Elizabethan society. Elizabethans
were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life.
They lived in constant fear of plague. When an epidemic
struck, they saw victims carried off to common graves.
Yet, death and violence also fascinated them. Many
flocked to public beheadings of traitors, whose
heads were exhibited on poles. They also watched
criminals being hanged et cetera.

Elizabethan literature therefore mirrored the violence
and death so characteristic of English life. Shakespeare
catered to his audience. He wrote most of his plays
for audiences from a broad social background. He catered
to their tastes.

csteele wrote: "Shakespeare is the Godlike author that James Joyce and Goethe hoped to approximate, the alienated Creator who pares his fingernails even as his creation is ruined by its own riches. We only have one such author, who out Yahwehs Yahweh, which remains the scandal that is Shakespeare."

It would be Bloom's opinion, I would think, that Shakespeare scaled such heights of universalism that left the need "mask his feelings" superfluous.

Dear csteele,

Bloom refers to the way Shakespeare has come to be regarded. In his lifetime he was not regarded as a Godlike author nor was he regarded as scaling heights of universalism.

Robert Greene, a contemporary, wrote: “Yes trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his owne conceit the onely Shakescene in the countrey.”

“Shakescene” is clearly Shakespeare. The phrase “upstart Crow” refers to his country origins. “Beautified with our feathers” means that he uses other writer’s words. “Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hyde” is a parody of a line in Henry VI part III. The Latin phrase, Johannes factotum, meaning jack-of-all-trades, suggests that he was at the same time engaged in all sorts of theatrical jobs: actor, poet, playwright and perhaps manager as well.

At this time I am trying to read all the works of Shakespeare and if I live long enough will probably do it again. Great poetry, wit and humanity. I would rather discuss him in preference to most of the topics on olo.

I appreciate those who responded very much and hope to learn more from your insights

Romany wrote: DavidF - " Writing in a religious and patriotic time he had to mask his feelings much as those writing under Soviet and other authoritarian rule had to do."

I'm afraid that I question this initial statement quite robustly. Remember that Elizabeth herself was an extremely intelligent and educated woman who, according to all accounts, lapped up the New Learning and enjoyed open discussion.

Dear Romany,

In comparison with the other powers of the time Elizabethan England was relatively tolerant. Nevertheless there were similarities with Soviet Russia.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0240.html contains a review of “Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare.”

Clare Asquith, wife of the British ambassador to the Soviet with her husband in 1983 saw a Chekhov play interpreted in such a way that there were veiled references to current conditions in the Soviet. Her book advanced the thesis that Shakespeare operated under somewhat similar conditions.

“The coded language was a vehicle that allowed him to comment on current events without risking the wrath of the authorities. Viewed through this prism, Romeo and Juliet becomes a commentary on the forbidden love between the 3rd Earl of Southampton and Elizabeth Vernon, one of the Queen's more impoverished ladies-in-waiting. King Lear becomes a symbol of James I, while his daughter Cordelia's refusal to make a public affirmation of unconditional love represents the refusal of Catholics to take the Oath of Supremacy.”

http://www.pbs.org/shakespeare/events/event91.html describes censorship in Elizabethan England.

“In Elizabethan times it was no different. The State apparatus, under Sir Francis Walsingham, was an effective and efficient weapon against any counter-Reformation activists. But as usual, paranoia and suspicion would corrupt an organization primarily set up to protect the monarch, and it would become increasingly amoral, violent and expedient in its treatment of suspects.

Playwrights were particularly vulnerable. The theatre was the only real mass entertainment, with the exception of public executions and bloodsports (which, it could be argued, expressed their own political message), able to convey ideas to a large audience. Walsingham realized this when he set up the Queen's Men, a flag waving, propagandists' company of players.”

Romany wrote: “While, in Shakespeares time, only 10% of the entire population was able to read or write, that ten per cent comprised the Queen and some members of her Court: the law-makers, the policy-makers, the rule-enforcers and, of course, the poets and playwrights.

Reading texts contemporary to Shakespeares we find both men and women questioning religion, social mores, women's place in society: in fact many of the issues with which we concern ourselves to-day.”

Dear Romany,

There was a tremendous intellectual ferment in czarist Russia in the small, educated class along with very rigid censorship.

My father was a corporal in the czarist armies before and during the early years of WW1. Very few of the enlisted men could read. My father made money by writing letters home for the other men. Their families couldn’t read either but would get the letters read by the village priests who would then write back for them.

Before the war his commanding officer who lived in town made my father the official messenger. He went to the commander’s house every evening with reports from the camp and returned with orders for the next day. Even though my father was an enlisted man with little formal education he was probably better read and more conversant with the intellectual currents of the day than most officers. When he went to the commander’s house in the evening they generally gave him a good meal following which the commander and he would play chess, drink and talk.

He was discharged but called back when the war started. Most of his unit were killed or captured when the Russians invaded Prussia. He recovered from his wounds in a hospital where the female doctor kept certifying him as unfit for duty. My father said, “She thought I was an intellectual. In such an army it’s easy to seem like an intellectual.”

One big difference between czarist Russia and Elizabethan England was the strains of losing the war against the Germans brought revolution to Russia and the tremendous victory against the Spanish Armada bought security for England.

What an interesting view David. English is not my first language and I have to confess, that though I love language, Shakespeare's work is not one that I've read.

Having lived my formative years (70's) on the South American continent I'm familiar with and love the literature (and music) of that continent and how various means were used to convey messages that would otherwise have been dangerous if not done obliquely.

You've inspired me to investigate Shakespeare. My teenage daughter, a little lover of literature herself, likes Shakespeare, but not my Latin authors. So, maybe, here's a common ground we can investigate together.

Dear Anansi,

What is your Latin heritage? Who are your favourite authors. My son married a Brazileira, and their children are fluent in French, Portuguese and English. Monique was born in France and came to Brazil as a teenager. My granddaughter Melanie composed a tango for violin, viola and piano.

Unfortunately I can only read Portuguese and Spanish works in English translation, but I like some of the works very much even though part may have been lost in the translation. Perez Galdos is my favourite. The miser is a wonderful character. I also like Borges, Amado and de Queiroz.

I hope your daughter and you will spend many happy hours with Shakespeare and that she will learn to appreciate the Latins.

Dear csteele,

I wonder how much Bloom has been conditioned to worship the wonder of Shakespeare? If Bloom had been living in Elizabethan times would he have seen Shakespeare as pre-eminent? Would I have come to Shakespeare if I had not been conditioned to think of him as pre-eminent. Reading Shakespeare at first was work, but now I just float on his outpouring of words. However, I cannot be sure I would have come to that point had I not been conditioned to think it worthwhile.

Dear Pelican,

Thanks for referring me to Huxley’s essay. I feel Shakespeare’s attitude to faith and religion was expressed in the following from Henry IV Part 1 ACT III SCENE I

GLENDOWER I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Dear Foxy,

In our affinity for violence in entertainment I don’t think we’re too different from the Elizabethans considering the proliferation of depictions of murder and other violence. We have too many Martin Bryants who act out real violence here and in the US.

Dear david f,

I agree with Anansi. You are an inspiration, so
much so that I now want to go and re-read Henry V.
I've got to confess it's not been one of my favourites.
I preferred Henry VI, Parts I, II, and III, and Richard III.
But you've stirred my interest to go back and hopefully make
new discoveries.

It was George Bernard Shaw who wrote, "With the single
exception of Homer , there is no eminent writer, not even
Sir Walter Scott, whom I can despise so entirely as I
despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his...
But I am bound to say that I pity the man who cannot enjoy
Shakespeare. He has oulasted thousands of abler thinkers,
and will outlast a thousand more. His gift of telling a
story (provided some one else told it to him first):
his enormous power over language, as conspicuous in his
senseless and silly abuse of it as in his miracles of
expression; his humour, his sense of idiosyncratic
character...enable him to entertain us so effectively
that the imaginary scenes and people he has created
become more real to us than our actual life ..."

Off to the Library I go.

Davidf,

I was waiting till I had a chance to read your links before I replied and I'm glad that I did. Now I see where you are coming from and the premise upon which you based your first post.

I am always pleased when articles appear which will stir the public imagination and present some of the more interesting aspects regarding literature...

But it is also inevitable that such articles, written by journalists rather than scholars (which, I hasten to add, I am not getting all superior about) are written in emotive language and are a bit of a mish-mash of old ideas presented as new, new ideas presented as revolutionary, and speculation. (Not to mention the occasional complete blooper: Shakespeare's home being in the middle of a river, indeed!)

Scholars of the Early Modern Period have long been aware of the sub-text (or codes) of contemporary texts, as well as the fascinating 'codes' contained in formal painting of the time.

I gather therefore that Ms. Asquith's book is more a different interpretation of these sub-texts rather than, as it is presented, a revolutionary new idea that has humbled and astonished academics. Volumes have been written, for example, about the King Lear sub text, and Sonnet 23 is presented to students - along with the "will" sonnets - as an easily identified example of punning word-play. The John Oldcastle scenario was a rather hilarious scandal in its day and the pressure came, not so much from the State but from his family. It was all a little more personal (and hence funnier) than presented in the cited article. Broadsheets, pamphlets, and other plays at the time gleefully picked it up and tossed it around.

It is these underlying meanings and contemporary references which make the Early Modern period so all-engrossingly fascinating to those who study it.

A couple of threads on OLO have recently been written concerning taking historical figures/ideas out of context and applying modern parameters to them. I think that both the references provided have done this in order to provide a journalistic 'hook'.

Dear Romany,

My original post was not based on Ms. Asquith's book nor was my statement: "Writing in a religious and patriotic time he had to mask his feelings much as those writing under Soviet and other authoritarian rule had to do." It was a guess based on my reading his texts and what I know about those living under authoritarian rule from reading and conversation. Some of my family have lived under that rule. My Uncle Bill was a Bolshevik before the Russian Revolution. The czarist police arrested him for his activities. He lived for four years under Lenin's rule from 1917 to 1921 when he came to the United States. Apparently those four years ended any of his affection for Bolshevism. However, I have read quite a bit about Russian history and feel that in some ways the USSR was a reconstruction of czarist rule. There was a brief interregnum between the February Revolution and the Leninist takeover where a less authoritarian society seems possible, but the communist takeover ended that.

I have become acquainted more with English history since I have come to Australia in 1987 when I retired. I took courses in history at the University of Queensland and have done much reading in addition.

I found the website on Ms. Asquith's book when I was working a reply to your post and wondered if others had felt the same way I did. Apparently she did. However, I had not heard of her or her writings when I started the thread..

I am not a Shakespearean scholar nor conversant with many of the critical theories on his works. Since I have begun seriously reading him I am consulting some of the authorities.

I have previously read several books on Hamlet, but that's it for Shakespearean analysis. In reading the histories I first read “Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare” for the historical context of the play, then Barnes and Noble College Outline for the plot and then settle back to enjoy the characters, language and ideas.

Anansi

I am no literary scholar, but do adore Shakespeare. I can imagine that when English is not your first language, his writings would be almost indecipherable. It is his observation of the flawed nature of human beings that make his work as meaningful now as they were in Elizabethan times (and the latitude provided by Her Majesty).

The best way to access his world is to start by seeing his plays.
For many years now the Bell Shakespeare company have been presenting the bard in contemporary fashion, without losing the spirit of his works. Check out the company's latest tour below:

http://www.bellshakespeare.com.au/bellMain2009/company/introCompany/framesetIntroCompany.htm

Now there are purists who will claim that the contemporary settings used by John Bell are unacceptable, I happen to believe that Bell has widened the receptivity of more people to Shakespeare's works than more traditional interpretations.

Besides, a Shakespearian play, a good meal in a fine restaurant, is a fabulous night out.

I'm fascinated by your family tales: it would be great to sit down and listen to more of them. I've always felt that our oral histories, passed down through families, give such a valuable balance to the often dry (and/or boring) historical texts that abound.

However, I still am not persuaded that comparisons can be drawn between Soviet Russia and 16th century England. That was what I meant about context earlier: trying to understand previous ages and societies, by attempting to slot them into more contemporary ones is not, I think, viable.

Shakespeare - and his plays - were the product of a particular set of social, monarchical, and historical circumstances which occurred but once - the Russian Revolution was another. The character, nature and history not only of the principal players, but of the society in which they lived, were uniquely different.

In a bid to create links between two disparate periods and sets of circumstances, the cited articles have left out salient pieces of information, put spin on others and presented a distorted image.

For example: Kit Marlow. The reason we still have no actual evidence as to why he was killed, or who was responsible for his death is because Marlowe himself was into the spying game. As was the Earl of Southampton. Although the consequences could be deadly, spying was considered more along the lines of a gentlemanly sport - often a family one - than the way it was considered in Soviet Russia. Why, even the gentle and gentlemanly Sir Phillip Sidney was up to his aristocratic neck in it.

Furthermore, however much Elizabeth gave Walsingham latitude, there were people spying in turn on him and he was by no means the untouchable power behind the machinations of those involved in Government as were later Soviet puppet masters.

Thus I think a better picture is gained by examination and understanding of the events surrounding any particular period, person, movement, or work from our rich history, in its own context, rather than trying to draw parallels wherein the same constructs are not at work.

I tend to agree with Romany.
Shakespeare has to be viewed in the
context of the Elizabethan age.

George Bernard Shaw was well advised
when he objected to the habit of
attributing philosophical virtues to
Shakespeare that he did not possess while
overlooking or failing to make the best use
of virtues that he did possess. And many critics
have the tendency to attribute the thoughts of
Shakespeare's characters to their author, on one
hand, while treating the characters as human beings
independent of his dramaturgy, on the other.

As John Gassner points out in vol.1, "A Treasury
of the Theatre," :

"Since charactermongering, along with turning
Shakespearean dialogue into a guide-book for human
conduct, became an obsession of Shakespearean criticism
at the beginning of the nineteenth century, it is well
to remember that the playwright's characters have
reality only in the plays and that Shakespeare did not
elaborate a unified world picture in his work..."

"Shakespeare was a ready assimilator...skepticism
may be traced through much of his work, and
important characters express uncertainty about an
afterlife' fatalism has many echoes in his tragedies;
and the medieval Elizabethan concept of "degree" -
the political and moral principle that every individual,
as well as class, has a particular place in the scheme of
things - weaves some sort of pattern in his plays..."

But no consistent out-look, except an intense concern
with humanity, can be traced through his work.

He was primarily a reflector, rather than a thinker.
And this was typical of the Elizabethan age, which
lacked a stable and comprehensive world view.

Gassner confirms that, "The age was empirical, and so
was Shakespeare. It was interested in mankind's
experiences rather than in systematizing them, and so
was Shakespeare. He transcribed life instead of trying
to define it...And since he was a superb poet, he
succeeded in transfiguring life."

As Gassner emphasizes - "To view Shakespeare's plays
as a fusion of poetry and drama, rather than as
philosophy or a collection of character portraits
is the beginning of wisdom in Shakespearean appreciation
and study."

Dear Romany,

The Soviet puppet masters were far from untouchable. The Stalinist purges, the assassination of Trotsky, the possible murder of Stalin and other evidences of Byzantine (a parallel?) intrigues marked that insecurity.

May I use the word. similarity, rather than parallel.

Shakespeare still speaks to us today since his themes of both the exercise of power and people being human inexhibiting meanness, nobility, bravery, cowardice etc. exist today.

Henry V was the son of a king who rose to power by questionable means and wanted to justify his reign. He justified it by several means. He wanted his reign to be one of social justice as shown by his contributions to the relief of the poor in spite of his need for funds to supply his military ambitions whose realisation was another means to justify power. He had the body of Richard II who his father had murdered reburied to honour him. He sought to know the commoners and to win their affection. That note is sounded in the play when he went through the camp incognito. (‘a little Harry in the night.’)

I am very enthusiastic about President Obama. However, many in the US question his legitimacy as the first black president. He has announced that health, education and energy will be his priorities as president. Health and education are concerns among the masses of the people. If he succeeds in bettering access to health care and education and doesn’t have great failures he will live in history, as a great president and the fact that he was the first black president will be secondary.

Henry V and Obama are in very different contexts, but there are similarities.

If people are in a similar social situation even though it is in a different time, place and culture they will have somewhat similar reactions.

I am conscious of my family history as I am writing it up for my descendants. They may prefer money, but they'll get memoirs.

Dear davidf (now that is a Bloomism right there),

You wrote, “I wonder how much Bloom has been conditioned to worship the wonder of Shakespeare?”

Possibly some, but ultimately the quality had to be there. I feel predisposition may be a more important factor. While I can enjoy classical music it doesn’t send me into the raptures some of my friends experience when partaking. I also am led to believe the poetry of the Koran in Arabic is stunning but realise I will probably not be able to avail myself of those pleasures in this lifetime.

My own upbringing probably conditioned me to place the New Testament on a pedestal but the Old Testament, or rather the Hebrew Bible, has been a far greater source of ah-ha moments for me. Indeed I was originally led to Bloom through his book ‘Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Devine’.

What has interested me is the power of poetry or literature over philosophy for imparting ideas and truths about the human condition to a layperson like myself. To weigh nihilism of Shakespeare’s Lear and the Bible’s Ecclesiastes and Job against the efforts of Nietzsche for me is a no contest.

I agree with Foxy’s quote from Gassner, viewing Shakespeare's plays “as a fusion of poetry and drama, rather than as philosophy or a collection of character portraits”. But I am also sympathetic with Bloom’s assessment that his work has transcendent qualities that are unsurpassed in western literature and take it out of time and place. For me Bloom’s exposure as a critic to much of the literary work of the ages surely means that assessment must carry substantial weight.

While I have not yet read it Bob Carr claims that Bloom’s ‘Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human’ is an indispensable companion for studying the great mans works.

As to a subversive I would have thought Swift fitted that label far more aptly in arguably more dangerous times, but there is almost a nastiness in his work, perhaps in his use of satire more than irony. He seems almost provincial compared to Shakespeare‘s universality.

Steele writes:
“What has interested me is the power of poetry or literature over philosophy for imparting ideas and truths about the human condition to a layperson like myself.”

And I think that most would agree. But for many, and I include academics here, Shakespeare’s is the only voice of the age to which they have listened in any detail. Therefore, rather than recognizing the commonality of humankind’s concerns through the ages, they attribute solely to Shakespeare the ability to illustrate this commonality, attributing it to his ‘genius’.

Yet whenever I come across Sidney’s “They Flee from Me’’ (that sometime me did seek) it speaks to me with clarity of all of those who have, down through the ages, suffered from reversals and fallen from the dizzy heights of fame to obscurity, or from love to indifference.

John Donne’s “The Canonization" which begins “For God’s sake hold your tongue and let me love” reflects words once said to me (and no doubt, through the centuries, to many) in such a startling way it seems incredible that these words were written in 1633.

I am not denying Shakespeare’s gifts, but pointing out that, if we talk of parallels in the human condition throughout history, he is neither unique nor the most gifted in illustrating them. By keeping such a narrow focus on the works of one man we miss out on recognizing just how little men’s and women’s concerns have changed across time.

For instance,Margaret Cavendish who was far more famous than Shakespeare at that time, reflected long before Greer or Pankhurst or Wollstonecraft “…men… keep us in the hell of subjection, from whence I cannot perceive any redemption or getting out…we may complain and bewail our condition, yet that will not free us…our words to men are as empty sounds… and our power is so inconsiderable as men laugh at our weaknesses” and, rather waspishly “I wish men were as harmless as most beasts are, then surely the world would be more happy and quiet than it is”

Romany

Thanks for your illuminating post. I know little of Margaret Candevish, now I shall add her to my ever increasing list of 'stuff I should read and understand'.

I realise from reflecting on Romany’s and Foxy’s posts that in my preoccupation with making analogies to other times and other places I was wrong. The analogy of Obama with Henry V was laboured and silly.

According to the Barnes and Noble outline, in actual history Henry V tried to arrange a settlement with the French since he was greatly outnumbered. The French rejected it since they wanted the battle. The play has the French seeking settlement but the English rejecting it.

Historians differ in their estimate of the two armies. The estimates of the French range from 40,000 to 60,000 and the English 5,000 to 10,000.

John Gassner’s "A Treasury of the Theatre", Bloom’s ‘Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human’, Sidney’s “They Flee from Me’’ and John Donne’s “The Canonization" are all matters to investigate.

As I had never heard of her I looked up Margaret Cavendish (1623 – 15 December 1673) on the net and found her an amazing person.

Christine de Pisan (1363–c.1434) was a precursor of Cavendish. Left a widow and having difficulty getting access to her late husband’s estate she became a professional writer, possibly the first professional woman writer in Europe.

Her most successful literary works were “The Book of the City of Ladies” and “The Treasure of the City of Ladies”, or The Book of the Three Virtues. The first of these shows the importance of women’s past contributions to society, and the second strives to teach women of all estates how to cultivate useful qualities in order to counteract the growth of misogyny.

csteele wrote: My own upbringing probably conditioned me to place the New Testament on a pedestal but the Old Testament, or rather the Hebrew Bible, has been a far greater source of ah-ha moments for me. Indeed I was originally led to Bloom through his book ‘Jesus and Yahweh: The Names Devine’.

Dear csteele,

I appreciate your distinction between the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible. The various versions of the Old Testament in Christian Bibles differ from the Jewish Bible.

Nietzsche, the Nazi’s favourite philosopher, was actually pro-Jewish and disapproving of German nationalism and many aspects of German culture. They must have edited his works considerably to make it acceptable for them. He regarded the Old Testament highly.

The following is from his "Beyond Good and Evil".

52. In the Jewish "Old Testament," the book of divine justice, there are men, things, and sayings on such an immense scale, that Greek and Indian literature has nothing to compare with it. One stands with fear and reverence before those stupendous remains of what man was formerly, and one has sad thoughts about old Asia and its little out-pushed peninsula Europe, which would like, by all means, to figure before Asia as the "Progress of Mankind." To be sure, he who is himself only a slender, tame house-animal, and knows only the wants of a house-animal (like our cultured people of today, including the Christians of "cultured" Christianity), need neither be amazed nor even sad amid those ruins--the taste for the Old Testament is a touchstone with respect to "great" and "small": perhaps he will find that the New Testament, the book of grace, still appeals more to his heart (there is much of the odour of the genuine, tender, stupid beadsman and petty soul in it). To have bound up this New Testament (a kind of ROCOCO of taste in every respect) along with the Old Testament into one book, as the "Bible," as "The Book in Itself," is perhaps the greatest audacity and "sin against the Spirit" which literary Europe has upon its conscience

Fractelle & Davidf

- I am really pleased you looked up Mad Madge (her nickname which I chose to regard with approbrium rather than indignation). When I first started researching her there were only four other people in Australia who knew about her! I had to fight really hard to get my thesis accepted when it was known I was arguing for her inclusion in the Canon.

If you are interested, you might like to read "The Forgotten Literary Canon"(published Wed. Dec 28 2005) which I wrote for OLO when I had won that battle.

And yes, Christina was also an amazing person whom I acme across when a colleague was writting a thesis upon her. As my field is confined to English Literature, it was this discovery of that remarkable woman who inspired me to go searching for our very own pioneers.

Davidf, of course your previous ideas weren't 'silly'. Any true quest for knowledge takes us down many twisting paths which are never wasted because, upon them, we usually discover little tracks we never knew existed and which frequently take us back to the main road by a route most people don't often take.

Its when we stop looking for the side roads completely and are content to stick to the choked and commonly travelled highways that we are being silly!

Speaking of which, you might also like to read "Was Shakespeare Mad?" which appeared on OLO on March 8 2006. Unfortunately, in that article I tried to precis a 5,000 word paper I had written and the result was less than convincing, though.

Groan... My list of must read literature has just grown considerably, because of course once you start looking up one interesting link will only lead to other links.

Dear David, my heritage is actually Dutch/Indonesian, but lived mostly in South-America with a few years on the West African Continent. Access to different languages is the most wonderful way of 'walking in the shoes' of another people with another culture with accompanying set of beliefs. Your grand-kids are very lucky. Brazil is a truly fascinating country.

Not only through literature, a people's use of language to comment on political/societal aspects, love, power and what it means and takes to be 'acceptable' or rather 'good'.

As you pointed out, history is also fascinating reading through another's eyes. Another of my very favourite subjects (along with food, think potatoes or goulash for instance). It makes laughable the notion that history is just a 'set of facts'.

As to authors, those you mentioned and also Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa amongst others. Marquez uses language so beautifully. Never a superfluous word. He can tell a story in a couple of pages that would take others a whole book.

In all that, reading the thoughtful commentary on this thread, to me one of the most powerful aspects of great literature is its ability to provoke different levels of awareness in the reader on any number of issues.

Fractelle, I'm going to start with your suggestion. Thanks for the link.

Dear Anansi,

I left out an amazing Latin author, Rizal. http://www.joserizal.ph/in01.html is a website devoted to him. I first became familiar with him when I visited family in the Philippines a couple of years ago.

From the site: Having traveled extensively in Europe, America and Asia, he mastered 22 languages. These include Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, English, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Malayan, Portuguese, Russian, Sanskrit, Spanish, Tagalog, and other native dialects. A versatile genius, he was an architect, artists, businessman, cartoonist, educator, economist, ethnologist, scientific farmer, historian, inventor, journalist, linguist, musician, mythologist, nationalist, naturalist, novelist, opthalmic surgeon, poet, propagandist, psychologist, scientist, sculptor, sociologist, and theologian.
In March 1887, his daring book, NOLI ME TANGERE, a satirical novel exposing the arrogance and despotism of the Spanish clergy, was published in Berlin. [my comment: It is a wonderful book. He is a national hero, but Philippine Catholic schools forbid students to read it.] In 1890 he reprinted in Paris, Morga’s SUCCESSOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS with his annotations to prove that the Filipinos had a civilization worthy to be proud of even long before the Spaniards set foot on Philippine soil. On September 18, 1891, EL FILIBUSTERISMO, his second novel and a sequel to the NOLI and more revolutionary and tragic than the latter, was printed in Ghent.

When the Philippine Revolution started on August 26, 1896, his enemies enlisted witnesses that linked him with the revolt and these were never allowed to be confronted by him. In his prison cell, he wrote an untitled poem, now known as "Ultimo Adios" which is considered a masterpiece and a living document expressing not only the hero’s great love of country but also that of all Filipinos. After a mock trial, he was convicted of rebellion, sedition and of forming illegal association. In the cold morning of December 30, 1896, Rizal, a man whose 35 years of life had been packed with varied activities which proved that the Filipino has capacity to equal if not excel even those who treat him as a slave, was shot at Bagumbayan Field.

Dear davidf,

You wrote,

"In March 1887, his daring book, NOLI ME TANGERE, a satirical novel exposing the arrogance and despotism of the Spanish clergy, was published in Berlin. [my comment: It is a wonderful book. He is a national hero, but Philippine Catholic schools forbid students to read it.]"

However in my experience this was not quite correct. As a high school student in Davao City from 1973-75 in a Catholic/Military School I can relate that Rizal was very much front and centre in the curriculum, including NOLI ME TANGERE.

Unfortunately I was not as predisposed to learning languages as Jose but did manage to pick up most of the swear words available in Tagalog.

It was an interesting period in Mindanao as Muslim Separatist attacks were quite frequent. A number of people were killed just up the beach from us and armed assaults on the city's outskirts required school evacuations. Three separatists were executed by the mayor after one of these and as I recall the bodies were left in the town square for a number of days, certainly an eye-opener for a young Aussie lad straight from Darwin. Some months later the same mayor officiated at a civilian wedding at our house.

Besides being very Catholic (complete with pederast priest) the school was also an officer training facility for the students. I remember frequent memorial services being held for past students (some of whom I had known) who had lost their lives in the hostilities.

On reflection the military nature of the school may have seen a more complete study of Rizal's works being afforded to the students. This may have been at the expense of Shakespeare since I can not recall him being taught at all.

Dear csteele,

Happy to be wrong about student's access to Rizal. I had the info from a student in a Philippine Catholic school. Maybe it was restricted to his school.

Am off for a month including a boat trip on the Murray. Will rejoin then if not before. Will miss you all.

Davidf,

"A boat trip up the Murray". I am envious. I remember standing on the bank, under some shady trees on a crystalline Aussie morning and watching a boat makes its lazy way upriver. We were camping and had spent a night being kept awake by love-sick koalas and sandflies and how I envied a passenger sitting tranquilly on the deck reading a paper!

Avagudwun, mate. And thank you for this thread. I stumble through most of these threads in woeful ignorance, so it was really quite exciting to be able to have a discussion about something where I feel a little more comfortable about my facts.

Take it easy and have a wonderful time.

Thanks for the amazing link David. Have a wonderful trip.

And csteele, 1973-5 were also very interesting and turbulent years in my then neck of the woods in Suriname. Scary times with high school being evacuated and having to make it home safely on occasion. I became actutely aware of my skin colour then. Most unsettling.

The military man who instigated the notorious December Murders who became a selfstyled ruthless dictator for a while, was a perfectly nice man who taught my brother and I judo. One of the victims was a wonderful young vet who had a tv show (an earlier and young Dr Harry) with whom we had our 15 minutes of fame showing off one of our wild animals we nurtured to adulthood after being seperated from parent during mining exploration.

But I'm now very curious about Rizal. Thank goodness for Amazon.com and Biblio.com for used books.

Hi Anansi,

My memories of that time are now a little worn but I can not remember thinking ill of the Mayor, it was just the way things were done. However reading a little of the deaths and tortures of the December Murders in Suriname paints your judo teacher in a very dim light.

The decolonisation/independence of many of these countries are epic tales to which we are often ignorant. Not many Australians would know about the rearming by the allies of Japanese POWs to put down the independence movement in Indonesia. The plan was to stabilise the country until the Dutch could take control again.

The excesses of the Dutch are not remembered kindly by the Indonesians, was it the same case in Suriname?

My memories of teachings about Jose Rizal are centred around his final poem, written while awaiting execution. Even as a callow youth it had a noted influence and reviewing it 30 odd years later still evokes vivid pictures and sentiments;

“I'll go where there are no slaves, tyrants or hangmen
Where faith does not kill and where God alone does reign”

And;

“I die as I see tints on the sky b'gin to show
And at last announce the day, after a gloomy night;
If you need a hue to dye your matutinal glow,
Pour my blood and at the right moment spread it so,
And gild it with a reflection of your nascent light!”

Philippine sunrises were never the same thereafter.

Hi csteele,

The memories and subsequent version of history re Indonesia depends a bit on who does the telling: the 'Dutch' Dutch, the 'Indische' Dutch, the Javanese (subsequent rulers of the Indonesian archipelago), the Sumatrans, Mollucans etc.

Suriname has a very different story. Incidentally, it was part of the exchange the Dutch did with the British. New York (Manhattan) for Suriname. It must have seemed like a good deal at the time, which goes to show that even excellent traders and merchants that the Dutch were got it wrong at times.

My old Judo teacher, Desi Bouterse, seemed like a perfectly ordinary guy. A lesson in how evil deeds are often done by very ordinary non-scary people.

On Amazon.com I started reading the pages I could of NOLI ME TANGERE. I really like his style. The lines of the poem you quoted are really beautiful, and humbling.