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.