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'.