**Aguirre, Manuel. "Life, Crown, and Queen: Gertrude and the Theme of
Sovereignty." The Review of English Studies 47.186 (May 1996):
163-174.
*Alexander, Peter. "The Complete Man." Twentieth Century
Interpretations of Hamlet. Ed. By David Bevington. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. 113-115.
Avers, P.K. "Reading Writing, and Hamlet." Shakespeare
Quarterly. 423-439.
Beauregard, David N. Virtue’s Own Feature. Newark, NJ: University
of Delaware, 1995.
*Bevington, David. "Introduction." Twentieth Century Interpretations
of Hamlet. Ed. by David Bevington. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1968. 1-12.
Bevington discusses Claudius as Politician, the character of Hamlet,
Hamlet and Polonius as opposites, Hamlet’s delay, Horatio, pairings or
"foils" between various characters, the language, and various metaphors
(such as clothes). It is one of the best introductions to the overall play.
***
Topics covered: all main characters, procrastination, foiling,
language/extended metaphors
Blincoe, Noel. "Is Gertrude an Adulteress?" ANQ 10.4 (Fall 1997):
18-24.
Blincoe explains both sides of the question, using the Ghost’s words to
suggest Gertrude and Claudius were having an affair and also that the dumb
show suggests she was not.
Bloom, Harold. Hamlet: Poem Unlimited. New York: Riverhead, 2003.
Bloom, Harold. "Introduction." Modern Critical Interpretations:
William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Ed. By Harold Bloom. New York:
Chelsea House, 1986. 1-10.
Bloom deals with Hamlet as the hero; Horatio, the source of the play, and
introduces the other works in his anthology. He discusses the changed Hamlet
at the end of the play, claims he uses "wise passivity" in waiting for
Claudius to act. He also talks about Hamlet’s disinterestedness, which he
calls a positive characteristic. Bloom also claims Shakespeare himself is
great because he is so original; we can trace influences but not his genius
back to precursors. Horatio is our surrogate in the play. *
Topics covered: Hamlet, Horatio
Booth, Stephen. "On the Value of Hamlet." Reinterpretations of
Elizabethan Drama. Ed. By Norman Rabkin. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1969. 137-76.
Bowers, Fredson. Hamlet as Minister and Scourge and Other Studies in
Shakespeare and Milton. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of
Virginia, 1989.
[This book more than any other helped me to understand Hamlet.]
Bowers explains the difference between a minister—an agent of God—and a
scourge—someone so evil he is already condemned to Hell, and suggests that
Hamlet wants to be a public minister, bringing evidence against Claudius to
an open court, but fears he has been chosen by the ghost to "revenge [his]
foul and most unnatural murder" because he is already so sinful that he is
past redemption. He argues for the Closet scene as the climax of the play
(rather than the Mousetrap scene) and especially the killing of Polonius,
since that act alone brings Laertes back from France, and it is only Laertes’
plot of the poison on the tip of the foil that actually kills Hamlet at the
end of the play. He discusses how Hamlet has changed by the end of the play.
****
Topics covered: Hamlet, scourge/minister, climax of play, Laertes
**Burnett, MarkThornton. "Ophelia’s ‘False Steward’ Contetualized."
The Review of English Studies 46.181 (February 1995): 48-56.
Bradley, A. C. "Shakespeare's Tragic Period." Twentieth Hamlet.
13-21.
This is an older article. Bradley discusses Horatio’s role, and Hamlet as
philosopher/ student/thinker. *
Topics covered: Hamlet, Horatio
Brennan, Anthony. Onstage and Offstage Worlds in Shakespeare’s Plays.
New York: Routledge, 1989.
Briggs, Murray. "’He’s Going to his Mother’s Closet’: Hamlet and Gertrude
on Screen." Shakespeare Survey 45 (Annual 1993): 53-62.
Briggs includes reference to Zefferelli, Olivier, the BBC version with
Derek Jacobi, and the Nicol Williamson versions. **
Topics covered: Gertrude, Hamlet, Ghost
Calderwood, James L. To Be and Not to Be: Negation and Metadrama in
Hamlet. New York: Columbia, 1983.
Calderwood, James. Shakespeare and the Denial of Death. Amherst,
MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1987.
Calderwood has two chapters of interest on Hamlet, one on mortal
clothing in Hamlet and one on tragedy and the denial of death about fathers
in Hamlet. ***
Topics covered: Hamlet, metaphors
*Cantor, Paul A. Shakespeare: Hamlet. New York: Cambridge,
1989.
Cantor attempts to find Hamlet’s place within the Renaissance, within the
tragedy tradition, in Shakespeare’s career, within Christianity, as hero, as
drama, as poetry, in the 20th Century. ***
Topics covered: Hamlet, metaphors
Carson, Ricks. "Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet.’" The Explicator 50.4
(Summer 1992): 198-99.
Carson’s short article relates to staging. *
Topics covered: staging
Charney, Maurice. All of Shakespeare. New York: Columbia, 1993.
Charney, Maurice. Style in Hamlet. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
U Press, 1969.
This article discusses language style in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. *
Topics covered: language
Clemens, W.H. "The Imagery in Hamlet." Modern Essays.
227-241.
Cohen, Michael. Hamlet in My Mind's Eye. Athens, GE:
University of Gerogia, 1989.
Clemen, Wolfgang. Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. Translated by Charity
Scott Stokes. New York: Routledge, 1987.
Clemen discusses why there are so many soliloquies in Hamlet and analyzes
several of them. **
Topics covered: Hamlet, soliloquies
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. "The Character of Hamlet." Enter Critic.
40-43.
*Council, Norman. When Honour’s at the Stake: Ideas of Honour in
Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973.
Cox, Lee Sheridan. Figurative Design in Hamlet: The
Significance of the Dumb Show. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University,
1973.
Danson, Lawrence. "Tragic Alphabet." Modern Critical Interpretations:
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Ed. by Harold Bloom. New York,
Chelsea House, 1986. 65-86.
Danson claims verbal conflict reflects difficulties in the realm of
action. From the beginning guards had a hard time communicating with the
Ghost and thus need Horatio. He says language, like old rituals, old views
of honor, have become corrupt and rotten in Denmark. Claudius’ oxymorons try
to resolve irreconcilable differences. Hamlet’s puns are like linguistic
confrontations that precede physical ones. "Time is the discreditor of all
purpose and action" (74). He claims change/time can dull purpose. The "To be
or not to be" speech reveals eternal dilemma, does fulfill dialectic. Most
important issue is uncertainly/doubt. He analyzes play-within-a-play and its
power (but plays are static and doubt inhabits our world of flux). He also
says player’s summary has more impact than Hamelt’s passion. *
Topics covered: language, change, art, Hamlet
Davidson, Peter. Hamlet: Text and Performance. London:
Oxford U Press, 1983.
Davidson evaluates which sections of Hamlet are often omitted in
performances and the reasons for these decisions. *
Topics covered: staging
Desmet, Christy. Reading Shakespeare’s Characters. Amberst, MA:
University of Massachusetts, 1992.
*Dodsworth, Martin. Hamlet Closely Observed. Dover, NH: Athlone,
1985.
Edwards, Philip. Shakespeare and the Confines of Art. London:
Methuen, 1968.
Eliot, T.S. "Hamlet and his Problems." Twentieth Hamlet.
22-26.
Eliot talks about the problem of the play and Hamlet’s madness. *
Topics covered: madness, Hamlet as character
Elliott, G.R. "Scourge and Minister." Enter Critic. 58-64.
Evans, Robert C. "Friendship in Hamlet."
Felperin, Howard. "O’redoing Termagant." Modern Hamlet.
99-116.
Felperin analyzes Hamlet’s advice to the players, which seems to reflect
Shakespeare’s views. He discusses the purpose of playing in Hamlet in
particular and Shakespeare in general. To hold a mirror up to nature refers
both to showing scorn her own image (as in medieval tradition) and "the very
age . . ." a realistic view (homiletic vs. mimetic modes). The
play-within-a-play is supposedly about a real murder in Italy but is also
symbolic/universal/allegorical. The Closet scene would seem more realistic
but Hamlet speaks like a preacher, not a son. Thus Hamlet becomes a
morality play. The Ghost is a character but also symbolic of older tradition
telling Hamlet (or Renaissance drama) what to do. Felperin shows how archaic
the revenge form itself is. He contradicts T.S. Eliot’s view that Hamlet
is a flawed play by suggesting it is Hamlet the character who tries to
impose the older models (revenge, morality) upon his own life but fails. He
argues Shakespeare is not just part of evolutionary change in dramatic form
(from archaic to modern) but consciously, creatively exploring archaism.
Shakespeare does not invalidate older forms but subsumes them into his form.
The changed Hamlet at the end rejects the role he was trying to play; the
revenge hero is not the hero/villain. Felperin says Shakespeare resolves the
paradox of convention (allegory/morality) and mimesis. **
Topics covered: art, revenge, characters, acting
Felperin, Howard. Shakespearean Represerntation. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton, 1977.
**Fisch, Harold. Hamlet and the Word: The Covenant Pattern in
Shakespeare. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1971.
Gardner, Helen. "Hamlet and the Tragedy of Revenge."
Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Edited by Leonard F. Dean. New
York: Oxford, 1972.
Gardner discusses Hamlet’s flaw and the nature of the revenge tradition.
*
Topics covered: procrastination, revenge
Gardner, Helen. "The Historical Approach: Hamlet." Shakespeare:
the Tragedies. Ed. by Alfred Harbage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1964. also in Shakespeare Tragedies 61-70.
*Goddard, Harold. "Hamlet: His Own Falstaff." Modern Hamlet.
11-28. also found in Modern Shakesperean Criticism: Essays on Style,
Dramaturgy, and the Major Plays. Ed. By Alvin B. Kernan. San Francisco:
Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970.
Goddard explains some real life connections between Shakespeare’s life
and the story of Hamlet (son’s name of Hamnet, death of girl named Katherine
Hamlet like Ophelia’s). Hamlet is the best of Shakespeare’s characters,
including the androgynous heroines, because he is the most interesting, most
complex. Goddard challenges the common perception that Hamlet is right to
want to kill Claudius and thus the centrality of the question of
procrastination as the theme focuses on the paradox of the character of
Hamlet and why this makes him great. He compares Hamlet to Fortinbras and
Laertes, who are less interesting (perhaps because less ambiguous). A better
way to interpret the play is to assume he should NOT kill Claudius. But we
are supposed to expect him to kill on a first reading/viewing of the play.
Hamlet is an obvious progression from Romeo/Hal/Brutus (all wanted to
embrace joy/love/life) but fathers (or someone else) stood for
hate/revenge/duty. The title of Goddard’s article comes from similarities to
Hal and refers to the fact that Hamlet can play both Falstaff’s and Hal’s
roles. He claims Shakespeare’s delegating the Ghost to the cellarage as evil
suggests the Ghost’s admonition to revenge is misguiding Hamlet and he
discusses the symbolism of the duel scene. He says that Hamlet responding by
killing Polonius is instinct, not choice. And he says that clarity comes not
from the actions of the play, but from its reflection upon action
afterwards. He claims Hamlet is very modern in sensibility, that Hamlet’s
accomplishment of his goal is really his fall at the end, reflecting the
eternal struggle between imagination (art) and force (revenge). ***
Topics covered: characters, foils, art, symbolism
Goddard, Harold C. The Meaning of Shakespeare. Vol. 1. Chicago:
Phoenix Books. 1970.
The chapter on Hamlet discusses the play-within-a-play, the Christian
view, revenge, Hamlet as ultimate Shakespearean hero, anti-Freudian views,
the ghost, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Ophelia, the players, the Mousetrap
scene, Prayer scene, Ophelia’s death, the duel scene. ***
Topics covered: acting, Ophelia, Hamlet as character, specific
scenes
Goldman, Michael. "Hamlet: Entering the Text." Theater Journal
44.4 (Dec 1992): 449-60.
Goldman talks about the problems of interpretation to create a unified
whole. *
Topics covered: modern criticism
Granville-Barker, Harley. "Place-Structure and Time-Structure."
Twentieth Hamlet. 27-31.
Greg, W.W. "A Critical Mousetrap." Enter Critic. 72-74.
Habib, Imtiaz. Shakespeare’s Pluralistic Concepts of Character.
Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1993.
Hart, Jeffrey. "Hamlet’s Great Song." Smiling Through the Cultural
Catastrophe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.
pages?
Holland, Peter. "Hamlet and the Art of Acting." Drama and the
Actor. Cambridge, England: Cambridge U Press, 1984.
Peter Holland discusses some problems with interpreting the role of
Hamlet. *
Topics covered: Hamlet, acting
Holland, Norman. The Shakespearean Imagination. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana, 1964.
This article is one of the best works on Hamlet so far. Holland discusses
Hamlet’s delay, the ghost, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, parallels, Horatio
and Fortinbras, the Players, Ophelia, Polonius, Gertrude, disease, food,
nunnery speech, Pyrrhus speech, nationalities, revenge. ****
Topics covered: characters, acting, foiling
Hughes, Peter. "Playing with Grief: Hamlet and the Act of Mourning."
Comparative Criticism 9 (1987): 111-33.
Hamlet’s antic disposition is examined. Hughes claims the entire play is
about mourning. *
Topics covered: death, mourning, madness
James, D.G. "The New Doubt." Twentieth Hamlet. 43-46.
Jewkes, W.T. "'To Tell My Story': The Function of Framed Narrative and
Drama in Hamlet." Shakespearean Tragedy. Ed. by Malcolm
Bradbury and David Palmer. London: Stratford-upon-Avon Studies, 1984. 31-46.
Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and Oedipus. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1949.
Joseph, Bertram. "The Theme." Twentieth Hamlet. 93-103.
Kastan, David Scott, ed. Critical Essays on Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
New York: G. K. Hall, 1995.
Includes best essays on Hamlet written since 1965.
Kendall, Gillian Murray. "Overkill in Shakespeare." Shakespeare
Quarterly 43.1 (Spring 1992): 51-64.
Kendall discusses how everyone dies and the conventions of the
Elizabethan stage. There is not much about Hamlet the play. *
Topics covered: staging
**Kerrigan, William. Hamlet’s Perfection. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins Press, 1994.
Keyishian, Harry. The Shapes of Revenge.
city, NJ: Humanities, 1995.
Knights, L. C. "An Approach to Hamlet." Twentieth Hamlet.
64-72.
**Landau, Aaron. "’Let Me not Burst in Ignorance’: Skepticism and Anxiety
in Hamlet." English Studies 3(2001): 218-230.
Lanham, Richard A. "Superposed Plays." Modern Hamlet.
87-98.
Hamlet is two plays in one, the Laertes-as-revenge-tragedy-hero
story and the serious play involving Hamlet. Shakespeare uses conventional
dialogue for the revenge plot. Duplicity is evident as Laertes speaks of
honor in the last scene while holding the poisoned sword. He claims
Hamlet is Shakespeare "writing a play about the kind of play he is
writing" (88). The language makes us aware of conventions. Even comments
about child actors is about the overall theme of Hamlet, rightful
succession. Hamlet would not have a problem "playing" his revenge (acting it
out); it is the actual killing that troubles him. Shakespeare is saying we
find the truth, reality, in the play. He also refers to another critic W. A.
Bebbinton, who says Hamlet reads the "To be or not to be" speech from a
book. Lanham claims Hamlet is always acting, presents the argument that
Hamlet refrains from killing Claudius in the Prayer scene because no one is
watching. Fortinbras gets the offstage introduction that Shakespeare likes
to use for main characters but remains a cardboard character throughout.
Military honor is a role like Laertes’ revenge duty; both roles are
attractive to audiences, but Hamlet recognizes he would be playing a role
and questions it as a motive for action. Lanham suggests Polonius is more
central to the play than many critics think. **
Topics covered: foils, characters, art, acting, Laertes, Polonius
LeClercle, Ann. "Hamlet's Play within the Play as Palimpsest."
Shakespeare Quarterly 43.1 (Spring 1992): 51-64.
LeClercle claims the play within a play is a reversal of court investure.
*
Topics covered: revelance
Levin, Harry. "An Explication of the Player's Speech." Modern Critical
Hamlet. 29-44
Levin analyzes the Pyrrhus speech of the player and its connection to
Hamlet’s story. Levin talks about Shakespeare’s differences in style within
Hamlet, asking if he is satirizing another playwright. He also asks
what is the purpose of the play. The style is more like epic bombast than
drama, more stylized than naturalistic. In the player’s speech the subject
matter comes from the Aeneid, the same story as in Marlowe’s Dido,
Queen of Carthage. Shakespeare turns the focus from Priam to Hecuba, and
makes the connection between the War of the Roses and the Trojan War. Much
material is more formal, uses simpler language and more Anglo Saxon words,
in present tense vs. past. The soliloquy which follows this scene is a
mirror opposite of the speech both in content and form. There is a contrast
between the artificiality of the speech which makes the rest of the play
Hamlet look more real. Levin also makes us aware of the
play-outside-the-play: is there a Claudius in our audience? Shakespeare
played the Ghost in Hamlet and traditionally that actor also plays the First
Player, so Shakespeare may have been the first to deliver these lines. **
Topics covered: acting, foiling
Levin, Harry. "Interrogation, Doubt, Irony: Thesis, Antithesis,
Synthesis." Twentieth Hamlet. 73-81.
Lewis, C.S. "Hamlet." Shakespeare Tragedies 71-74.
Lewis, C.S. "Hamlet: The Prince or the Poem." Modern. 301-310.
Mack, Maynard. Everybody’s Shakespeare. Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska, 1993.
**Mack, Maynard. "The Readiness is All." 107-127.
Mack, Maynard. "The World of Hamlet." Twentieth Hamlet.
47-63. also in Modern Essays. 242-262. also in Shakespeare
Tragedies 44-60.
Maher, Mary Z. Modern Hamlets and Their Soliloquies. Iowa City,
Iowa: U of Iowa Press, 1992.
Maher discusses versions by John Gielgud, Alec Guinness, Laurence
Olivier, Richard Burton, David Warner, Ben Kingsley, Derek Jacobi, Anton,
Lesser, David Rintoul, Tandall Duk Kim, and Kevin Kline, based mainly on
interviews. *
Topics covered: acting, staging
Mangan, Michael. A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies. New York:
Longman, 1991.
Mills, John A. Hamlet on Stage: The Great Tradition.
Westport, CO: Harper and Row, 1985.
Neill, Heather. "Suit the Action to the Word, the Word to the Action."
Times Educational Supplement 24 July 1992: 18.
Nevo, Ruth. "Acts III and IV: Problems of Text and Staging." William
Shakespeare's Hamlet. Edited by Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea
House, 1986. 45-64. also in Modern Hamlet. 45-66.
Nevo claims understanding staging is essential to interpreting the play.
In Acts III and IV Hamlet goes from being an ideal character for the state
to a danger that Claudius can dismiss. Nevo connects the "To be or not to
be" speech to the previous scene (passivity of Hecuba vs action of Pyrrhus).
Is the main topic of the speech revenge or suicide? In 1st Quarto
"To be or not to be" precedes entrance of the players. She argues against
Dover’s interpretation of the Nunnery Scene that Hamlet may have overheard
plot, thinks doubts about character (Hamlet’s own and Ophelia’s) are more
powerful. Following the Mousetrap Scene, Hamlet misjudges and his actions do
not have the effect he wishes. She discusses the arbitrary act division
between III and IV used by most editors, suggests IV.iii would be a better
transition in terms of themes. She also argues that Fortinbras’ war and
Laertes’s potential insurrection parallel Hamlet’s desire for both public
justice and private retribution. She claims the play ends in "faith in the
value of a life’s integrity" (64). **
Topics covered: staging, act divisions, "To be" speech
*O’Toole, Fintan. Shakespeare is Hard, but so Is Life. New York:
Granta, 2002.
Palmer, D. J. "Stage Spectators in Hamlet." Essays and Studies
47 (1966): 423-30.
Pirie, David. "Hamlet without the Prince." Shakespeare’s Wide
and Universal Stage. Edited by C. B. Cox and D. J. Palmer. Dover, NH:
Manchester, 1984. 164-84.
**Poe, Edgar Allen. "Review of ‘The Characters of Shakespeare,’ by
William Hazlitt." Hamlet: Enter Critic. Ed. By Claire Sacks and Edgar
Whan. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1960. 199-200.
Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge. Second edition. Stanford,
CA: Standord U Press, 1971.
Prosser discusses the question of the ghost, Hamlet’s suicidal nature,
the idea of scourge or minister, holding a mirror up to Hamlet, and the
Renaissance Christian Humanist idea of the readiness being all. **
Topics covered: ghost, depression/suicide, scourge and minister
**Rank, Martha. "Representation of Ophelia." A Quarterly for
Literature and the Arts 36.1 (Winter 1994): 21-43.
Reiss, Amy J., and George Walton Williams. "Hamlet and Cucianus—Nephews
to the King." Shakespeare Notes 42 (1992): 3-4.
They speculate on which 16 lines were the ones Hamlet asked the Player to
insert into the play within the play. *
Topics covered: acting, language style
Robson, W.W. "Did the King see the Dumb Show?" Cambridge Quarterly
6 (1975): 303-26.
Robson’s article discusses the importance of the Dumb Show in the
Mousetrap Scene. *
Topics covered: acting, Elizabethan conventions
**Ronk, Martha E. "Representations of Ophelia." Criticism 36.1
(Winter 1994): 21-43.
Rose, Jacqueline. "Hamlet—the ‘Mona Lisa’ of Literature." Critical
Essays on Hamlet.
Rose, Mark. "Reforming the Role." Modern Hamlet. 117-128.
Rose claims both classical and Renaissance drama is concerned with fate,
how our actions affect our ends. He says Shakespeare was equal to Sophocles
in his ability to transform Elizabethan drama. He uses the language of the
play, like Hamlet being tethered, to show how "his will is not his own." He
can’t leave Denmark and is bound by his promise to the Ghost. The image of
Old Hamlet (in armor) fighting Old Fortinbras, ratified by law and heraldry,
is an ideal Hamlet cannot attain with his confrontation (mostly verbal) or
even the duel at the end. Hamlet looks for freedom, does not want to be like
a recorder to be played upon (but will demonstrate he can play upon
Polonius), doesn’t want others to choose the role he plays in his own life.
Rose says Hamlet is not non-violent, not appalled by killing, but doesn’t
want to be conventional in going about his revenge. Polonius’ family are all
foils to Hamlet. Polonius’ advice is more closely followed by Hamlet than
Laertes. In the end Hamlet finally allows himself to be played upon by
higher power; he can be a collaborator only in his own changes. But at the
end Hamlet takes vulgar/conventional role of revenger. **
Topics covered: fate, acting, foils
Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of Hamlet. Neward, DE: U of
Delaware Press, 1992.
Rosenberg discusses various directors’ problems with staging. *
Topics covered: staging
Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare’s English Kings. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2nd Ed. 2000.
Saccio, Peter. William Shakespeare: Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies.
Parts I, II, and III. Springfield, VA: The Teaching Company, 1997.
*Sacks, Claire, and Edgar Whan, eds. Hamlet Enter Critic. New
York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1960.
This text reviews various performances of Hamlet on the stage.
There are also excerpts of articles on Hamlet’s madness, the Oedipal
interpretation of Hamlet, the language or poetry in the play, humor
in Hamlet. **
Topics covered: acting, madness, psychological interpretation,
language, humor
Scragg, Leah. Discovering Shakespeare’s Meaning. London: MacMillan,
1988.
Sinfield, Alan. "Hamlet's Special Providence." Shakespeare Survey
33 (1980): 92.
Spencer, Theodore. "Hamlet and the Nature of Reality." Twentieth
Hamlet. 32-42.
Spencer discusses the appearance vs. reality theme and talks a bit about
the Renaissance Christian Humanist idea of the Great Chain of Being and
contrasts it to the Machiavellian view. He also discusses Hamlet’s state of
mind through several soliloquies. **
Topics covered: world views, Hamlet’s character, speeches
**Stanton, Kay. "Hamlet’s Whores." New Essays on Hamlet.
New York: AMS Press, 1994. 176-181.
She analyzes the often quoted line "Get thee to a nunnery." She gives
both interpretations, with nunnery referring to a brothel or with Hamlet
telling Ophelia she is too virtuous for this world and should be sequestered
from the corrupt world of Denmark.
States, Bert O. Hamlet and the Concept of Character.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins U P, 1992.
States deals with how spectators experience the play and how ambiguous
Hamlet is. *
Topics covered: staging, acting, ambiguity
Stoll, E.E. "Hamlet’s Fault in the Light of Other Tragedies."
Twentieth Hamlet. 104.
**Stoll, Elmer Edgar. Hamlet: An Historical and Comparative Study.
New York: Gordian Press, 1968.
**Thatcher, David. "Horatio’s ‘Let Me Speak’: Narrative Summary and
Summary Narrative in Hamlet." English Studies 74.3 (June
1993): 246-257.
Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. London: Chatto &
Windus, 1943.
Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare’s History Plays. London: Chatto &
Windus, 1944.
Trewin, J. C. Five and Eighty Hamlets. New York: New Amsterdam,
1987.
Trewin discusses the various interpretations of the character and how it
changes our interpretation of the play itself. *
Topics covered: acting, character of Hamlet
Visconti, Laura. "The 'Play' in Hamlet: the Primacy of Theater."
Shakespeare Quarterly 43.2 (Summer 1992): 30-42.
Visconti examines the metaphysical nature of Hamlet, the character, and
his originality in the play-within-a-play. *
Topics covered: acting
*Watts, Cedric. Hamlet: Harvester New Critical Introductions to
Shakespeare. London: Harvester, 1988.
Watts discusses Horatio, Fortinbras, Hamlet, the ghost, vengeful sons (Laertes,
Forinbras, Pyrrhus), Hamlet’s delay. **
Topics covered: characters, sons, procrastination
*Weitz, Morris. Hamlet and the Philosophy of Literary Criticism.
Cleveland, OH: Meridian, 1964.
Weitz summarizes the seminal works of previous Shakespeare critics,
including A.C. Bradley, Ernest Jones, G. Wilson Knight, T.S. Eliot, Francis
Fergusson, J.Dover Wilson, and several other historical critics. He also
discusses several issues raised in Hamlet and tries to categorize the
different points of view in the Shakespearean criticism, based on the
philosophy of the critic. ***
Topics covered: criticism, Hamlet
Wentersdorf, Karl P. "Hamlet's Encounter With the Pirates."
Shakespeare Quarterly 34.4 (Winter 1983): 434-40.
Whitaker, Virgil K. The Mirror Up to Nature. San Marino, CA:
Huntington Library, 1965.
Wilson, J. Dover. "Antic Disposition." Twentieth Hamlet.
105-6.
This is the portion of Dover’s book that deals with Hamlet’s madness. **
Topics covered: madness, Hamlet’s character
Wilson, J. Dover. What Happens in Hamlet. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1935.
Wilson gives a good explanation about the ghost and about Hamlet’s
madness. He also analyzes Gertrude, the Mousetrap scene, the turning point
of the climax of Hamlet, the funeral of Ophelia, and the source for the
players. ***
Topics covered: madness, ghost, climax, acting
Wofford, Susanne L., ed. Hamlet by William Shakespeare. New
York: Bedford Books, 1994.
Wofford’s book provides samples of feminist, psychoanalytic,
deconstructionalism, Marxism, and New Historian criticisms of Hamlet. Within
these articles are discussions of Ophelia, the ghost, madness, and many
other issues. ***
Topics covered: criticism, madness, the ghost, Ophelia, Hamlet
Woodhead, M. R. "Deep Plots and Indiscretions in 'The Murder of Gonzago.'"
Shakespeare Survey 32 (1979): 151-61.
This article deals with the plot of the play-within-a-play, but not the
staging of it. *
Topics covered: Mousetrap scene
Young, David. The Action to the Word. New Haven: Yale U Press,
1990.
Young has a chapter on Hamlet titled "Large Discourse and Thrifty
Action." His overall purpose is to study the structure and style in
Shakespeare’s tragedies. *
Topics covered: language
Henry IV, part 1, Henry V
Barber, C.L. "From Ritual to Comedy: An Examination of Henry IV."
Modern Essays. 144-166.
Barber, C.L. "Rule and Misrule." Twentieth Century Interpretations of
Henry IV, part 1. Ed. By R.J. Dorius. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1970. 51-70.
In the Henry IV plays, Shakespeare combines comedy and
history/chronicle play. "Shakespeare dramatizes not only holiday but also
the need for holiday and the need to limit holiday" (51) in Hal’s
reformation speech. He explains how comedy is alike and how comedy differs
from ritual. Modern criticism tries to find universals in
literature—archetypes, myths, rituals. Shakespeare is more complex, uses the
ritual but makes us evaluate it at the same time. In Shakespeare’s plays
characters may "try to organize their lives by pageant and ritual, but the
plays are dramatic precisely because the effort fails" (52). The failure
reflects their personalities and eventually their destinies. Shakespeare’s
characters are also fascinated with magic, the power of words. He discusses
the scapegoat analogy with respect to Falstaff. Falstaff is also
unprecedented as he is a combination of the "clowning customary on the stage
and the folly customary on holiday" (54). Nevertheless, Barber argues
against considering Falstaff central to the Henry IV plays; Hal is
central. Central also is the role of the king. This illustrates the source
of the play as the Prodigal Son morality play with Vice represented by
Falstaff and his cronies. Shakespeare changes this convention away from the
question of whether Hal will be good or bad to whether he will remain in his
holiday mode forever, yet Shakespeare answers this in Act 1 with Hal’s
reformation speech, so the mystery becomes how and when he will reform, not
if. This contrasts him to Richard II who did not discard his Saturnalia soon
enough. Hal’s sense of timing is perfect. Falstaff’s genius is his ability
to think his way out of predicaments (often that he got into himself). And
comedic scenes in first 3 acts of Henry IV, part 1 are quite
responsive to court situations so no head-in-the-sand attitude—in the tavern
the evaluation is done through play. Falstaff’s counterfeiting death is like
the King’s counterfeits which protect him from death. Falstaff is compared
to Richard II in his use of language. "As Prof Tillyard has pointed out,
Richard II is the most ceremonial of all Shakespeare’s plays, and the
ceremony all comes to nothing" (67).***
Topics covered: ceremony, language, Hal, Falstaff, reformation
theme
Barish, Jonas A. "The Turning away of Prince Hal." Twentieth Henry
IV, part 1. 83-88.
The rejection of Falstaff is a litmus test for audiences—are we moralists
or sentimentalists? Themes of the Henry IV plays contrast
authority/rebellion, business/pleasure, sobriety/negligence. But the dream,
the holiday with Falstaff [unlike the time spent in the Golden World of
As You Like It] does not permanently change/affect Hal; he rejects it
and Falstaff. Hal does not synthesize the two worlds. Falstaff’s actions in
Henry IV, part 2 justify the rejection. Antony and Cleopatra are seen
as contrasts to Hal; they begin with authority, time, and end in play,
holiday, timelessness. *
Topics covered: Falstaff, contrasts to other plays
Berman, Ronald. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Henry IV, part
1. Ed. By R.J. Dorius. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970.
Bradley, A.C. "The Rejection of Falstaff." Twentieth Henry IV, part
1. 71-77.
There is much more to Falstaff than the characterizations we laugh at him
for (his size, his bombast, his lies, his lifestyle). We laugh at him but we
are also entranced by him. He is happy and we share his enjoyment of life.
He is also a "humorist of genius" (72). Though he loves his sack, his wit is
not dulled by it. Bradley claims no one else in the play understands
Falstaff. Falstaff has a "humorous superiority to everything serious" (74).
His affection for Hal makes him vulnerable to the rejection. But his real
situation (poor in purse though great in waist) and how he uses others makes
him a contemptible person but only if looked at seriously. Since the focus
of the Henry IV and Henry V plays is in the growth of Hal, in
the end Falstaff must be disgraced, rejected. Thus Shakespeare changes the
tone to favor the serious view rather than the comic in Henry IV, part 2.
Nevertheless Bradley says "in the creation Falstaff [Shakespeare]
overreaches himself" (77). He calls Falstaff the greatest comic character in
history. He claims Shakespeare bestowed an infinity of mind in Falstaff
(like that bestowed on Hamlet, Cleopatra, and MacBeth) but denied to Hal.
***
Topics covered: Hal, Falstaff, comedy
*Bullough, Geoffrey. "Introduction to Henry V." Twentieth
Century Interpretations of Henry V. Ed. By Ronald Berman.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. 20-28.
Cambell, Lily B. "The Virtorious Acts of King Henry V." Twentieth
Henry V. 15-19.
Dean, Leonard F. "From Richard II to Henry V: A Closer
View." Modern Essays. 188-205.
Danby, John F. "Authority and Appetite." Twentieth Henry IV, part
1. 93-95.
"Hal . . . is Shakespeare’s tired consciousness, Falstaff Shakespeare’s
unconscious" (93). Hal is a model Prince, a paradigm. But Danby calls him a
"Machiavel of goodness." Rather than the ends-justifying-means philosophy,
Hal espouses "let what you do indicate what you can do better" and lets ends
look after themselves—the process/the technique is all important. Danby
claims "Hal plays Shakespeare himself moving on, becoming more aware; as Hal
turns away from Falstaff, Shakespeare himself turn away from Hal" (94).
Rejection of Falstaff by Hal was an allegory for conflicting Appetite and
Authority in England itself. (Spanish treasure fleets represented by
merchants at Gad’s Hill, Essex’s rejection by Elizabeth like Falstaff’s by
Hal). *
Topics covered: Hal, Falstaff, rejection
*Dorius, R.J. "Introduction." Twentieth Henry IV, part 1.
1-11.
Dorius discusses ambiguity of characters of Hal and Falstaff, Hal’s
relation to time, the two Hals—the private man associates with Falstaff and
other common men, the public man in soliloquy promises to redeem himself.
Hotspur gambles with time; Falstaff ignores it. Today interpretations of the
play "fall on one side or the other of the pleasure principle" (2), either
the focus is too much on Falstaff and even Hal is seen as manipulative, or
Falstaff is seen as a clown. Hal is an unusual Shakespearean hero in that he
succeeds without much suffering. There is a pattern in the history plays:
someone goads another into challenging a powerful person, but unlike Brutus
(egged on by Cassius to challenge Caesar or Hamlet by the Ghost or Othello
by Iago or MacBeth by the witches), Hal does not choose to follow Falstaff’s
lead of scorning Henry IV and actually supports his father. Hal assimilates
the virtues of other characters such as Hotspur. Hal’s interaction with the
world is more like a comedy hero’s. Hal can live both outside time with
Falstaff (as in comedy) and in the world of flux (as in tragedy). Hal
combines wise passivity of Hamlet with wisdom and intelligence of
Shakespeare’s comedy heroes. But Hal doesn’t have to avenge a wrongful death
of the king—just atone for it. Unlike Hotspur’s and Falstaff’s extremes, Hal
represents the middle way. Dorius says in Hal Shakespeare "holds up a mirror
for magistrates more humane than that devised by moralists" (7). Hal also is
the prototypical Prodigal Son. Hal has political sense of timing like
Bolingbroke and Richard III. Hal becomes more two-dimensional when he
rejects the Falstaff side of himself to don his public responsibilities as
King. Dorius contrasts Hal’s rejection of Falstaff against Antony’s choice
of Cleopatra over all the world. **
Topics covered: time, parallels between plays, Hal
Dorius, R.J. "A Little More than a Little." Shakespeare Histories.
113-131.
Dutton, Richard. "The Second Tetralogy." Bibliographical. 337-380.
Ellis-Fermor, Una. "Shakespeare’s Political Plays." Twentieth Henry
V. 46-59.
Empson, William. "The Ambiguity of Falstaff." Twentieth Henry IV,
part 1. 78-82.
The Prodigal Son story was very popular in Shakespeare’s time. Falstaff
can be seen as the medieval Vice character, but it doesn’t explain his
appeal. He is also associated with the cowardly swashbuckler of the Latin
plays. Within the history tradition Falstaff stands for social disorder
(parallels to the rebel leaders who, through usurpation, are attempting
disorder). In "real life" he is the scandalous upper class character whose
antics please the lower class (this is unique to Shakespeare). He also
stands for Machiavellianism, and he is hence a good teacher for the king,
though his rejection is necessary. Rejection is necessary at the end if only
because of Falstaff’s great expectations and how he might have misused
power. Empson claims Falstaff is a self-portrait and ties him to
Shakespeare’s life experiences after breaking off from his patron. **
Topics covered: Falstaff
Frye, Northrop. "Nature and Nothing." Twentieth Henry IV, part 1.
89-90.
In Shakespeare, histories constantly look back to Golden Age (Henry VI
looks back to Agincourt; Henry IVs and V to Richard, John of Gaunt to age of
Edward III). Bolingbroke being seen as a natural force (not a wicked
Machiavellian usurper or Hamlet-like righteous avenger) is needed because
Richard is not doing what is required of a king. This breaks the connection
to the cosmic order and glorifies Richard. Hal has more right to the throne
but still exhibits guilt like his father. The histories center on the
revolving wheel of fortune with the dialectic of nature (high) with nothing
(low). Nature is associated with art, connecting the myth of lost paradise
(the fall of Adam) to the reality of our lives.*
Topics covered: Bolingbroke, Richard
Frey, Northrop. "Comedy and Falstaff." Twentieth Henry IV, part 1.
91-92.
Shakespeare realizes a profound pattern in comedy connected with ritual
of death and revival with the eventual victory of summer over winter.
Shakespeare’s comedy is "not Aristotelian and realistic . . . nor Platonic
and didactic" (91). Like Spenser’s Fairie Queene, there is a green
world. In the Henry IV plays, this is the tavern of Falstaff’s world
Shakespeare subject matter is not as much nature or reality or morality as
it is language itself. *
Topics covered: ritual, comedy, Falstaff
Greenblatt, Stephen Jay. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation
of Social Energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1988.
Included in this book is an essay that has become famous called
"Invisible Bullets" about the issues of class and culture in the history
plays.
Hawkins, Sherman H. "Virtue and Kingship in Shakespeare’s Henry IV."
English Literary Renaissance 5(1975): 313-43.
Hodgdon, Barbara. William Shakespeare First Part of Henry the Fourth.
New York: Bedford, 1997.
Humphreys, A.R. "The Unity and Background of Henry IV, part 1."
Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 18-40.
Humphreys argues against Sir Edmund Chambers’ view that the history of
the history plays was just a backdrop for the setting for the comic
character of Falstaff. He agrees with Hazlett that tragic and serious is
equal to comic and farcical. Two aspects, serious and comic, do not
alternate but are integrated together or juxtaposed to force a judgment of
each in relation to the other. They look like opposites (court/tavern,
gravity/wit), but both plots support the same themes (threat to Henry IV’s
rule by Hotspur and Hal). The rebels’ self seeking is disguised by talk of
honour and the exploits of Falstaff and his gang of thieves are
romanticized. We are meant to contrast Hotspur’s rant about the Morimer/Glendower
battle with Falstaff’s account of his battle with men in buckram green.
Another serious/comic comparison is more obvious: the play within the Jest
scene with Hal’s actual confrontation with his father; the Gad’s Hill
attempted theft with the rebels’ revolt. Hotspur and Falstaff represent
virtue and vice, but live in their fantasies. Hal needs both to rule wisely
and must live in the real world. Humphreys contrasts I.i and I.ii, also
II.ii and II.iii, and IV.i and IV.ii. Put into historical perspective,
Shakespeare’s first tetralogy focuses on questions of right and wrong,
justice and injustice; the second on more expedient questions of strong or
weak, secure or insecure. Falstaff’s comments act as a criticism of corrupt
state but Shakespeare does not allow him the last word. The world of Henry
IV is Shakespeare’s comic vision, acceptance, inclusiveness. Humphreys
traces Falstaff’s connection to Sir John Oldcastle and explains the
differences in character which Shakespeare included. ***
Topics covered: structure, foils and contrasts, Hal, Falstaff,
Hotspur
Hunter, Robert G. "Shakespeare’s Comic Sense as it Strikes us Today:
Falstaff and the Protestant Ethic." In David Bevington and Jay L. Halio,
eds., Shakespeare: Pattern of Excelling Nature. Neward: Univeristy of
Delaware Pres, 1978.
Jenkins, Harold. "The Structural Problem in Shakespeare’s Henry the
Fourth." Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 96-98.
Jenkins connects incidents in the plays to Holinshed and suggests
Shakespeare changed his mind in the writing of this tetralogy. The play
suggests Hal’s ascension to the throne would come shortly after Shrewsbury
when, in fact, 10 years intervene. Shakespeare perhaps started with a poem
by Samuel Daniel, "The Civil Wars," as a model (in which Hotspur is young as
in Shakespeare’s play). Jenkins says Shakespeare perhaps changed his mind in
Act IV (not the same decisive action as in Richard II and Henry V),
in Henry IV, part 1, Act IV just works as preparation with part 2
saved for the transfer of power. So the climax becomes the battle, not the
transfer of kingship to Hal. *
Topics covered: history, creative process
Kernan, Alvin B. "The Henriad: Shakespeare’s Major History Plays."
Modern. 245-278.
Deals with Lancastrian tetralogy of history plays.
**Krims, Marvin B. "Hotspur’s Antifeminine Prejudice in Shakespeares 1
Henry IV." Literature and Psychology 118-131.
Kris, Ernst. "Prince Hal’s Conflict." Approaches to Shakespeare.
Ed. by Norman Rabkin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. 182-202. also found in
Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 109-111.
The conflict between father and son is acted out three times in Henry
IV, part 1. First Hal’s symbolically goes through the confrontation with
his own father in a play-within-a-play with Falstaff. Hotspur’s conflict is
with a weak father too ill to help him in battle. Shakespeare also
establishes the triangular relationship between Hal-Henry-Falstaff and
Hotspur-Northumberland-Worchester. Also Henry has two possible sons: Hal and
Hotspur. Hotspur is a foil to Hal—acting out Hal’s desire for rebellion
against Henry. Kris thinks Hal may have idealized Richard II, whom he would
have accompanied to Ireland (as a hostage). Hal connected to Hamlet in that
a father figure killed an admired relative of his. Psychology interprets
Hal’s reaction as forming a filial attachment to a father substitute,
usually the antithesis of the father. *
Topics covered: foils, father/son relationships
Langbaum, Robert. "Character versus Action in Shakespeare." Twentieth
Henry IV, part 1. 102-105.
As readers interpret Falstaff in a psychological or anti-psychological
way, he is seen either as flawed and an object of scorn or in control of
comedy as he laughs at himself. Is he an agent of the past or in control of
his own story? Falstaff represents excess, but not as a Vice as in
Aristotle. It is a cause of his failure but also of his destruction.
Falstaff creates his own atmosphere, takes over the stage, asserts his point
of view. But in focusing on the psychology of character we must ignore the
external truths (money, power). We should judge Falstaff as an artist. But
by focusing only on character, we ignore the way elements of the plot
interact with the themes. *
Topics covered: Falstaff, excess
Le Guardia, Eric. "Ceremony and History: The Problems of Symbol from
Richard II to Henry V." Twentieth Henry IV, part 1.
41-50.
La Guardia uses the terms of ceremony and history to explain the conflict
of divinity and mortality: history means the event itself, not its ideal.
Mimetic reality is ceremony and reflects what ought to be in a timeless
golden world. Le Guardia says Richard’s was a mystical kingship—Henry V’s, a
rational one. There is a decadence in Richard’s poetic, chivalric
sensibility. Hal’s world is different but it is Shakespeare’s intent to show
decline or rise, loss or gain. Le Guardia says we are meant to see the world
as man participating in both worldviews. Richard has excessive faith in
symbol and ceremony; Henry V does not. Bolingbroke is a foil to poetical
man. Hal in Henry IV plays must create a symbolic order of kingship through
actions in court or on the battlefield. He says Falstaff is much like
Richard in his love (and exaggeration) of language. Drama balances the
creative power of imagination with immediate experience. Also he claims
Henry IV is the best balance of history and ceremony politically but its
loss is in imagination. He discusses the power of language, of naming
something. **
Topics covered: language, contrasting world views, Hal
Rabkin, Norman. "Life and Power in the Histories." Twentieth Henry
IV, part 1. 106-108.
Richard II establishes a theme that is dealt with throughout the
tetralogy: political success is always "complementary to qualities of the
human spirit incomparable with it" (106). The theme is involved with
creating a harmonious commonwealth. In the Henry IV plays Shakespeare
contrasts political success against Falstaff’s sense of life, sensuality.
But perpetual play must be rejected. Hal knows early on what Richard II does
not learn until the end, that he must be aware of time and the concord of
the staff. The natures of the players make the unfolding of history
inevitable. The two extreme views of honor expressed by Holspur and Falstaff
just show its meaninglessness. Rabkin says the theme of this history cycle
is likened to a psychological view of man: that he is torn between the
demands his role places on him and his desire to make his place in history
and the instinctive sense that life is amoral and gratification to self is
all that matters. Like Freud Shakespeare is not optimistic about man’s
ability to balance the pleasure principle with the reality principle. **
Topics covered: time, honor, characters
Reese, M.M. "Henry V." Twentieth Henry V. 88-93.
Rossiter, A.P. "Ambivalence: The Dialectic of the Histories."
Twentieth Henry V. 74-87.
Tillyard, E.M.W. "Henry V." Twentieth Henry V. 36-45.
Toliver, Harold. E. "Falstaff, the Prince, and the History Play."
Twentieth Henry IV, part 1. 13-17.
The 18th Century interpreted Henry IV as an impressive King
and Hal as a hero, not a Machievellian. And that time period would not have
understood a Freudian interpretation of Falstaff. Our modern view reads the
histories as Shakespeare’s attempt to integrate providential order,
politics, and timeless human impulses—inner conscience and outward
exigencies of political life. The language is that of incantation and
ritual. While tragic ritual explores man in relation to fate (death/god),
history focuses more on the man within the political role (destiny filtered
through social medium). The audience is prepared to view histories in
nationalistic terms. Toliver sees history as instructive (the Renaissance
Humanist Christian view). He references Aristotle’ terms anagnorisis
and catharsis to describe Falstaff’s role as victim. The central
action is finding the balance between the inner self and social
responsibility. He sees Falstaff as a rebel against history. **
Topics covered: Hal, Falstaff, history, language
Traversi, Derek. "The Climax of the Play." Twentieth Henry IV, part
1. 99-101.
The central duel between Hotspur and Hal resolves the "honour" question
and destiny. Hotspur’s final speech expresses disillusionment and seeks
emotional closure. No one really wins the final battle; the king cannot
creative unity, and the rebels fail. Falstaff is an ironic spectator in this
battle. Shakespeare creates contrast in language between Hal’s 2 epitaphs—to
Hotspur and to Falstaff. Falstaff’s speech and action of stabbing the dead
Hotspur also prove to illustrate the chivalry we just saw in Hal’s battle
with Hotspur. Falstaff ‘s change in character, connected to his social
aspirations, which is more fully developed in Henry IV, part 2, is
seen beginning here. **
Topics covered: honor, Falstaff, Hotspur, Hal, climax
Traversi, Derek. "Henry the Fifth." Twentieth Henry V.
60-73.
Traversi, Derek. "The Historical Pattern from Richard II to
Henry V." Shakespeare Histories. 102-112.
Walter, J.H. "Introduction to Henry V." Shakespeare Histories.
152-167.
Williams, Charles. "Henry V." Twentieth Henry V. 29-35.
Wilson, J. Dover. "Falstaff and the Prince." Shakespeare Histories.
132-151.
Wilson, J. Dover. The Fortunes of Falstaff. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1964.
Winny, James. The Player King. The Theme of Shakespeare’s Histories.
London: Chatto & Windus, 1968.
King Lear
*Bloom, Harold. Modern Critical Interpretations: King Lear.
New York: Chelsea, 1987.
Bloom, Harold. "Introduction." Modern Critical Interpretations:
William Shakespeare’s King Lear. Ed. by Harold Bloom. New York:
Chelsea House, 1987. 1-8.
Shakespeare has molded our sense of reality as well as how we perceive
reality. King Lear’s only worthy predecessor is the Book of Job in the
Bible. Lear on the heath in the storm was compared to Job by Frank Kermode
but Job’s trials far outweigh Lear’s. Bloom says Shakespeare probably
intended us to see Job’s situation through allusions. But Lear is not as
pious as Job, and he brings about his own trials. The storm does change Lear
making him more compassionate toward others. Lear is not a Christian though
Cordelia seems like a Christian personage. Bloom claims Act IV sc 6, the mad
Lear with blind Gloucester scene, is not needed within the narrative
structure but is very poetic in its language. Fool undergoes transformation
from wise counselor to frightened child. Edmund also changes. [Bloom says
Edmund may possibly be Shakespeare’s "sly portrait of Christopher Marlowe
himself" (7)] and is a pure Machiavellian character. Lear and Edmund never
speak and have no language in common. **
Topics covered: Lear, Edmund, Christian allusions
*Bonheim, Helmut. The King Lear Perplex. San Francisco: Wadsworth,
1960.
Booth, Stephen. "On the Greatness of King Lear." Modern King
Lear. 57-70.
Booth compares Goneril and Regan, shows similarities and differences. He
explains "kindly" in "thy other daughter will use thee kindly" as "according
to her kind or nature" (57) not "tenderly" and reminds us there are crab
apples so comparison between the two as being different as a crab is from an
apple is ambiguous also. They begin in accord, act as a single unit, but are
in conflict by the end of the play. Booth claims this analogy of Goneril and
Regan as alike and dissimilar represents the way all paired aspects of the
play work together: Edmund/Edgar, prayers to Nature, Edgar and Poor Tom,
Albany fighting for England and for Lear and Cordelia, Gloucester brought
down because of his uncontrolled passions which resulted in Edmund. Booth
also compares King Lear to earlier Gorboduc but Shakespeare
was not as didactic as Sackville and Norton. Having Gloucester voice
homilies as superstitious nonsense, Shakespeare undercuts easy answers.
Moral high ground is not clean but punishments for transgressions seem out
of proportion. Even Cordelia is not presented as purely good. He shows how
the audience makes the same character misjudgments as Lear does. ***
Topics covered: characters, Goneril and Regan, Gloucester and Lear,
Edgar, structure
Calderwood, James. "Creative Uncreation in King Lear." Modern
King Lear. 121-138.
Shakespeare was apparently fascinated by abduction and truancy, and
Calderwood questions whether Shakespeare himself might be engaging in what
he calls "creative uncreation." He acknowledges the imagery, structure of
the play, double plot and yet suggests a deconstructuralist view of Lear. He
claims more creations begin with disorder and create the order. Lear,
Calderwood claims, begins with order but Shakespeare makes us aware of how
stale the institutions and rituals are by shaking them up. Something often
comes of nothing in Lear (for Edmund, Edgar’s roles). Calderwood claims
nothing comes from something also (Lear on the heath, Poor Tom). Edgar
comments on actions in the subplot ("the worst is not . . .") as the Fool
does in the main plot. If the Fool and Cordelia were played by the same
actor, each characters represents only part of the truth. The Fool is an
"outsider within" trying to tell truths to a society that thinks it knows
the truth. The Fool falls dumb and disappears after the storm because, after
all, what truths could a court fool tell of the stark realizations forced on
Lear on the heath? Gloucester’s death is easier to take than Lear’s because
Edgar structures it for us through language. Edgar is a moral commentator on
events in the last half of the play. Lear does not emerge from the storm
with great wisdom, only with the conviction that he doesn’t know. Lear’s
broken heart is presaged with lines throughout the play. Calderwood says the
two plots move in opposite ways: the main plot toward madness, chaos; the
subplot toward order, meaning (through Edgar’s reports). Lear ends
with King Lear trying to see life in Cordelia (seeing motif). **
Topics covered: Fool, "nothing" motif, Edgar, structure
Cunningham, J.V. "Ripeness is All." Approaches. 131-139.
Danby, John F. Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature: A Study of "King
Lear." London: Faber, 1948.
*Dodd, William. "Impossible Worlds: What Happens in King Lear, Act
1, Scene 1?" Shakespeare Quarterly 50.4 (Winter 1999);
477-507.
Dollmore, Jonathan. "King Lear and Essentialist Humanism."
Modern King Lear. 71-84.
Dollmore claims on the heath "debasement gives rise to dignity" (71). He
claims humanist view has displaced Christian view nowadays. He makes the
distinction thus: "the Christian view locates man centrally in the
providential universe; the humanist likewise centralizes man but now he is
in a condition of tragic dislocation: instead of integrating (ultimately)
with a teleological design created and sustained by God, man grows to
consciousness in a universe which thwarts his deepest needs" (71). He is
suggesting Lear’s and Cordelia’s suffering are not part of a divine plan.
What is most important is not only that Lear suffers but that he is aware of
his suffering and how he endures it. Dollmore claims that Lear does not feel
pity until he has himself been wretched in the storm. Again the contrast
with Gloucester is instructive—when "poor Tom" tells Gloucester he is cold,
Gloucester’s response is simply to go into the hovel—he does not really
understand, as Lear does when he notices the Fool is cold. Dollmore says
Shakespeare is saying justice is too important to leave to empathy (since
how often do princes truly feel what wretches do?). Dollmore claims
Shakespeare repudiates stoicism in King Lear. Lear withstands the
universe (storm) solely by his rage and endurance. Dollmore paraphrases J.
W. Lever’s notion that the tragic flaw is not in the character of Lear but
in the world (he speaks generally of Jacobean tragedy). Dollmore also
discusses Lear’s madness as an underlying ideology in King Lear as it
relates to power, property, and inheritance. Abdication of familial duty is
seen in both the plot and the subplot. Family (far from supporting society)
undercuts society through conflicts within the family. ***
Topics covered: world view of play, characters, comparisons
Dreher, Diane. "Shakespeare’s Cordelia and the Power of Character."
World and I 13.4 (April 1998): 287-301.
The relevance of the character of Cordelia is explored and her difficult
moral choices evaluated.
*Elton, William R. King Lear and the Gods. Lexington,
Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1988.
Goddard, Harold C. "King Lear." Modern King Lear.
9-44.
The theme of King Lear is the same as the main theme in Greek
drama—relation of the generations, "authority of the past over the present
as symbolized by the Father" (9). He differentiates between worldly
obedience and rebellion against the father as spiritual success or failure.
Goddard claims Desdemona was most like Cordelia of the other Shakespeare
heroines. Whereas in Hamlet the child is connected to the father’s
code—blood vengeance, in King Lear the father becomes more like the
child. Cordelia underplays her true love for Lear as much as Hamlet
overplays his for his father. Goddard sees Hamlet and King Lear
as parallel plays but claims Lear has the better answers. Another theme is
unregulated passion has power to drive human nature to chaos. Unmastered
passion causes a character to consume himself. The Golden Mean is seen as
the ideal. King Lear shows how a king became a man. Goddard claims mad Lear
pardons first then asks the offence. Goddard says it is important that
Shakespeare included the title King in King Lear. Goddard has
analyzed biological (father/child relationships), psychological and
political themes but claims the most important is religious. He contrasts
Gloucester/Lear on their roles and on madness. Key is in blinding of
Gloucester scene and metaphor of seeing. The overall story is how Lear
acquired better vision (from Kent’s "see, better, Lear"). For both Lear and
Gloucester, affliction brings insight, more valuable than sight. Goddard
claims III.iii (the heath scene) illustrates the truth that blindness and
passion are connected. Lear and Falstaff both love life, never consider
suicide. Goddard explains sense within nonsense of Lear’s ramblings. He does
a thorough analysis of the last scene and questions whether Cordelia is
really dead at the end, or rather that Lear perceives that Cordelia lives on
after her death. ****
Topics covered: characters, father/child relationships, seeing motif
*Goldberg, S. L. An Essay on King Lear. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1974.
Greenblatt, Stephen. "Shakespeare and the Exorcists." Modern King
Lear. 97-120.
Shakespeare was reading a book by Samuel Harnsett about illegal exorcisms
done in 1985-86 as he wrote King Lear in 1603. Greenblatt argues that
aesthetic interpretation of literature cannot be separated from the cultural
context of that literature and claims that even deconstructionalism blurs
the line between history and literature. From Harsnett, Shakespeare got the
names of the foul fields Edgar calls on as Poor Tom. Greenblatt connects
both texts to the struggle to redefine the sacred which led to civil war in
the mid 17th Century. Harsnett’s exorcisms were identified with
the Jesuit Catholic faith. This is the time of the inquisition and witch
burning. Edgar was forced to counterfeit. In Lear there are no ghosts,
witches, or demons but a man faking possession and madness (Edgar as Poor
Tom). His violence is self-directed—masochism—not acts of viciousness as
those done by Cornwall or psychologically hurtful as those done by Goneril
and Regan and Edmund. Lear seems to want the storm to mean something
symbolic, yet there is no evidence that it does. **
Topics covered: historical context, Edgar, Lear
Harbage, Alfred. "King Lear: an Introduction." Shakespeare
Tragedies 113-122.
*Hawkes, Terence. William Shakespeare King Lear. Plymouth,
England: Northcote House, 1995.
*Heilman, Robert B. Magic in the Web. Lexington, KE: University of
Kentucky Press, 1966.
*Holahan, Michael. "’Look, her Lips’: Softness of Voice, Construction of
Character in King Lear." Shakespeare Quarterly 48.4 (Winter
1997): 406-431.
Holahan compares Lear to Cordelia in the last scene and suggests that he
takes on some of her characteristics, notably her softness of voice.
**Hughes, John. "The Politics of Forgiveness: A Theological Exploration
of King Lear." Modern Theology 17.3 (July 2001): 261-287.
*Kennedy, Joy. "Shakespeare’s King Lear." The Explicator
60.2 (Winter 2002): 60-65.
Knight, G. Wilson. "King Lear and the Comedy of the Grotesque."
Shakespeare Tragedies 123-128.
Kott, Jan. "’King Lear’ or ‘Endgame.’" Modern. 360-384.
Knowles, Richard. "Cordelia’s Return." Shakespeare Quarterly 50.1
(Spring 1999): 33-50.
Knowles explores Cordelia’s reasons for returning to England though she
is safe in France. He postulates that she is angry on Lear’s behalf and at
her sisters’ treatment of their father.
*Mack, Maynard. King Lear in Our Time. Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1972.
Markels, Julian. "Shakespeare’s Confluence of Tragedy and Comedy:
Twelfth Night and King Lear." Twentieth Twelfth Night.
63-69.
Muir, Kenneth. "King Lear." Bibliographical. 241-258.
Newman, Neville F. "Shakespeare’s King Lear." The Explicator
60.4 (Summer 2002): 191-195.
*Nielson, Christopher T. "Shakespeare’s ‘King Lear.’" The Explicator
52.1 (Fall 1993): 16-21.
Nielson examines Edmund’s last speech to see if he did indeed change his
character or if he was suggesting to kill the captain who was carrying out
his commandments about Lear and Cordelia.
Novy, Marianne. "Patriarchy, Mutuality, and Forgiveness." Modern
King Lear. 85-96.
As Othello evaluates patriarchal behavior of a husband, King
Lear does the same for the father. Lear and his daughters need each
other. Lear needs forgiveness. An overbalance of power results in male
domination and coercion and female deception (as in the 1st
scene, Lear offers power and property in exchange for love). Goneril and
Regan reply as expected. They and Cordelia are often interpreted in Western
literature as resembling devil and angel/ Eve and Mary figures. There is not
much complexity to Goneril and Regan despite their important position in the
text. Cordelia’s tears seem as representative of her forgiveness,
compassion. She cannot forestall the political consequences of Lear’s folly
but does much to heal his emotional pain. Mutuality is also representative
of the relationship between actors and audience but the ending of Lear
paradoxically also shows separateness as we can empathize but not feel
Lear’s pain. But Cordelia’s forgiveness has mediated between Lear and the
audience so that we can accept him, even with his faults. The end image is
often compared to the Pieta, with Lear in the female role, holding the dead
body of the child. The audience’s sympathy connects them to remaining
characters who can do nothing for Lear but sympathize. ***
Topics covered: parent/child relationships, daughters, audience’s
role
*Ridden, Geoffrey M. "’King Lear’ Act III Folk-tale and Tragedy." The
Review of English Studies 49.195 (August 1998): 329-403.
Ridden suggests the third act of King Lear may be based on the Revesby
Play, a folk-tale about the sacrifice of a central character, the Fool. It
also echoes the play in the plot of children turning on their parents.
Sewell, Arthur. "Character and Society in King Lear."
Shakespeare Tragedies 139-147.
Stampfer, J. "The Catharsis of King Lear." Modern Essays.
361-376.
Warren, Michael J. "Quarto and Folio King Lear and the
Interpretation of Albany and Edgar." Modern King Lear. 45-56.
Warren discusses how these two versions are very different: 283 lines in
the Quarto are not in the Folio; 100 in the Folio but not in the Quarto. So
some have assumed that there is some ideal King Lear from which both
are corruptions. Warren disagrees and claims the Quarto may be an
authoritative version (with Shakespeare’s blessing) or the Folio could be a
revision (again revised by Shakespeare himself). Warren uses the exchange
between Lear and Kent is in the stocks as an example of how editors usually
combine the two versions. Then he argues a significant difference in the
interpretation of Albany and Edgar between the Quarto and the Folio,
especially in the last scene. This suggests Shakespeare reworked the play.
Albany is stronger in the Quarto; Edgar in the Folio. Edgar in both is a
Romantic idealized hero whose world view (in the scene before entrance of
blind Gloucester) reveals his own limitations of vision—he thinks he is at
the worst only to have things made worse for him.
Topics covered: Edgar, Albany, language, creative process
MacBeth
Fergusson, Francis. "MacBeth as the Imitation of an Action."
Approaches. 121-139.
Merchant of Venice
Auden, W.H. "Belmont and Venice." Twentieth Century Interpretations of
The Merchant of Venice. Ed. by Sylvan Barnet. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1970. 113-116.
Both Shylock and Antonio are members of an acquisitive society, though
Shylock hoards and Antonio is generous with money. Antonio’s goods are
luxury goods (spices, silks). Neither would be comfortable in Belmont, full
of music and masques (disguises). Thus at the end of the play, it is logical
that we see Antonio left outside Portia’s house, not through being excluded
but by his own choice. Belmont’s a timeless world; Venice, governed by time.
Looking at lovers, none seems particularly self-sacrificing. Jessica and
Lorenzo waste Shylock’s money. Portia and Bassanio are generous, but with
her father’s money. Lorenzo and Jessica talk of star-crossed lovers, none of
whom risked for others. Only Shylock and Antonio, those excluded from
Belmont, really risked. **
Topics covered: money (generosity/stinginess), Belmont/Venice,
lovers
Barber, C.L. "The Merchants and the Jew of Venice: Wealth’s Communion and
an Intruder." Twentieth Merchant. 11-32. also found in
Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Ed. by Leonard F. Dean. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1967. 204-227.
Barber calls Merchant of Venice another festival play with wealth
being what is celebrated. England in the 1540’s was becoming more wealthy
and thus associating itself with Venice. Shylock represents the anxiety
about money that puts people at odds. London also had those who were
suspicious of the profit motive. So Shylock is the antagonist not because he
is a Jew (not for his religion), but because of his relationship to money.
In festival terms, Shylock plays the scapegoat. The main question in whether
the baffling of Shylock is melodramatic or meaningful. [As an interesting
aside, he discusses the eating motif where Shylock wants to feast upon
Antonio (2.5.14-5) but won’t eat with him.] The play dramatizes what
use can be made of money vs. simply having or hoarding it. There is no
incompatibility between love and money, nor between beauty and money.
Belmont contrasts the reckoning world of Venice with transcendence. Barber
believes the song that Portia has played before Bassanio chooses a casket
contains no signal. Antonio’s loan to Bassanio is venture capital because
not secured. He says Bassanio turns away from gold and silver because money
is not used to get money (that is usurer’s way). Antonio risks his body;
Bassanio risks himself (his right to procreate). Barber compares
Shakespeare’s presentation of a Jew on the stage with Marlowe’s Barabbas,
who poisons his own daughter. Shylock’s pathos in "Hath not a Jew eyes?"
converts to menace by the end of the speech. Barber compares the speech to
Richard’s "I live with bread like you" (3.2). Shylock’s view that revenge
inevitably follows being wronged in a stimulus/response way does not allow
for free will, for forgiveness. Barber compares Shylock to Iago but Shylock
is outside the community/Iago inside trying to discredit it. [mine: Shylock
is also like Richard II in his rollercoaster emotions in his conversation
with Tubal]. Portia’s legalism breaks through Shylock’s and thus is he
defeated. Barber explains the contrast between Old Testament legalism and
New Testament grace. Shakespeare scrupulously adheres to principles of
law—does not undercut the social order. Rings plot proves "human
relationships are stronger than their outward signs" (28). ***
Topics covered: Belmont/Venice, characters, Old/New Testament,
money
Barnet, Sylvan. "Introduction." Twentieth Merchant. 1-10.
Those who see Merchant of Venice as a comedy are looking at its
overall structure. Those who read more closely see the tragedy of being
Jewish in Venice. Barnet recommends taking both views. There was no "Jewish
problem" in Shakespeare’s day as the Jews had all been banished. So,
Shakespeare was not trying to deal with non-assimilation of Jews.
Merchant of Venice can also be seen as a fairy tale (3 caskets, loss of
ships and miraculous recovery). It is hard to sum up the plot into
coherent/unified themes. Barnet claims Merchant of Venice is about
giving and risking. Why make Shylock a Jew? Perhaps it was due to the
Elizabethan preconception that Jews were not generous. Barnet claims Shylock
does not risk as a merchant does when he sends ships to sea but is assured
by his bond. In Shakespeare’s day the view that the Jews were condemned in
the Bible still prevailed. He compares Merchant of Venice to other
Shakespeare plays written at the same time that included a "spoil sport,"
who gets his comeuppance" like Malvolio. **
Topics covered: comedy/tragedy, Shylock
Brown, John Russell. "Love’s Wealth and the Judgment of The Merchant
of Venice." Twentieth Merchant. 81-90.
Brown claims Merchant of Venice was the "most completely informed
by Shakespeare’s ideal of love’s wealth" (81), where giving is more
important than getting or gaining Antonio begins the giving and hazarding
all for love of Bassanio when he agrees to the pound of flesh bond. Shylock
tries to "get what he deserves" in insisting on his bond (and also gets a
fool’s head). Brown explains Bassanio’s line "to give and to receive" as
definition of exchange in commerce (thus Bassanio brings mercantilism of
Venice to Belmont). Even Lorenzo/Jessica pairing fits theme; they squander
but are generous with love as with money. *
Topics covered: risk, Venice/Belmont
Coghill, Nevill. "The Theme of The Merchant of Venice."
Twentieth Merchant. 108-112.
Coghill argues that the title page of Merchant of Venice seems to
justify an anti-Semitic approach to the theme, but the lines of the play do
not. Since to assume Shakespeare did not know his business is ludicrous, we
should seek elsewhere for the theme and he identifies Mercy vs. Justice as
the theme. Using medieval texts of Piers Plowman and Castle of
Perseverance, he shows Shakespeare was dealing with the same question of
Old Testament vs. New Testament law. This makes both Jew and Gentile right
and Old Testament (law) vs. New (mercy) is only in conflict because of our
more limited understanding as mere mortals. Coghill calls the reversal in
Act IV an excellent example of the dramatic peripeteia (reversal of
fortune), where Mercy had been supplicant to Justice, but now Justice must
beg Mercy. He calls Shylock’s forced conversion another example of
Mercy—Antonio giving Shylock the possibility of eternal life as he believes
it to be. The last act then makes more sense with Lorenzo and Jessica
(Christian and Jew) in each other’s arms talking of music, Shakespeare’s
symbol of harmony. **
Topics covered: mercy/justice, sources, Shylock, Christian vs. Jew
Danson, Lawrence. The Harmonies of The Merchant of Venice.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978.
Granville-Barker, Harley. "The Merchant of Venice." Twentieth
Merchant. 55-80. also in Modern Essays. 37-71.
Granville-Barker sees Merchant of Venice as a fairy tale. We are
to see Shylock’s bond like the threat of the Giant in "Jack and the
Beanstalk." But Shakespeare’s genius is that he finds the reality in even
fantastic characters; thus he combines realism and imagination. Two
different time frames exist in Venice and Belmont: three months must pass,
but it doesn’t take Bassanio that long to get to Belmont, and he wants to
choose right away. Shakespeare goes by dramatic (psychological) time. Would
Rosalind or Juliet have gone by the caskets? Granville-Barker analyzes why
Shakespeare gave Morocco two scenes and Bassanio only one at Belmont.
Granville-Barker also dismisses the idea that Portia would hint at the right
answer with the rhymes to "lead." He claims that when Bassanio learns of
Antonio’s plight in Venice, the scene changes "from dramatic convention to
dramatic life" (60). Shakespeare doesn’t need to use verbal pictures to
describe Venice at the beginning of the play; he relies on the conventional
view in the Elizabethan mind. He does describe the moonlit Belmont at the
end. Solario and Salarino are compared to Rosencrantz and Gildenstern as the
worst bores in Shakespeare. He thinks Portia keeps Antonio free of the
quarrel over the rings [I disagree]. He compares Shylock to Othello and says
Shylock might have been humanized even more by the more mature Shakespeare
(had the play been written later in his career). He says Portia trapped
Shylock; Shylock is caught in the letter of the law "with no more right to a
cord with which to hang himself than had Antonio to a bandage for his wound.
. . . Something of the villainy the Jew taught them, the Christians will now
execute" (79). **
Topics covered: characters, language, Belmont/Venice
Gross, John. Shylock: Four Hundred Years in the Life of a Legend.
London: Chatto & Windus, 1992.
* Hankey, Julie. "Victorian Portias: Shakespeare’s Borderline Heroine."
Shakespeare Quarterly 45.4 (Winter 1994):
426-448.
Hankey differentiates Portia from other Shakespearean heroines in that
she reacts more intellectually than emotionally to situations. She analyzes
how Victorian men and women interpreted the character of Portia. *
Topics covered: Portia
Kaplan, M. Lindsay, ed. William Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice:
Text and Context. New York: Bedford, 2002.
In addition to the text and an introduction to the play, the editor
provides treatises from the Renaissance on issues raised by the play. For
example, in discussing the debate on the usury bill, Kaplan explains the
shift in attitude on charging interest on loans. Most thought it was morally
wrong but legally those charging less than 10% per year were not arrested by
the state. One interesting argument was that by lending money, merchants
were not using it to buy goods so the Queen lost out on her tax on duties
levied on goods. Another argument was that it raised the price of goods. A
usurer was not considered a good witness (was not considered truthful).
However, someone else argued that usury was fine used with strangers only.
Many seemed inclined to not allow usury because it was not expressly
approved of in the Bible—in other words, we should err on the side of
caution. She provides the usury bill itself and explained its history,
having been passed under Henry VIII, repealed under Edward VI, and
reestablished under Elizabeth I. At that point any loan charging more than
10% was considered void and anyone trying to charge more could be judged and
punished. There are also sections discussing the attitude toward Jews,
toward women, and toward marriage. *
Topics covered: usury, Jews, women, marriage
Kermode, Frank. "Some Themes in The Merchant of Venice."
Twentieth Merchant. 97-99.
Kermode connect the often used "gentle" with "gentile" in Merchant of
Venice. Portia’s gentleness reflects a mind of love; Shylock’s mind is
the opposite. Shylock’s example of Jacob shows he sees no difference between
usury and breeding sheep (breeding metal was a common charge against
usurers). With the caskets the breeding metals (gold and silver) should be
rejected. Kermode analyzes the song about appearance vs. reality. Bassanio
wins his fleece at the same moment we learn Antonio has lost his (fleets).
We must satisfy justice before mercy can be rendered. Kermode claims Act V’s
music reflect "universal harmony impaired by sin and restored by the
Redemption" (100). So the main theme of Merchant of Venice is
judgment, redemption and mercy. **
Topics covered: Shylock, caskets, mercy/justice
Knight, G. Wilson. "The Ideal Production." Twentieth Merchant.
91-96.
Knight extols the need to take Merchant of Venice seriously even
if it doesn’t present surface realism. He contrasts Venice and Belmont. He
doesn’t see the comedy either in characters like Gratiano or situations in
Venice and claims "Shylock towers over the rest" (91) even if he is
unlikable. People become noble in Belmont. Belmont is the place of music.
Though there is some music in Venice, the masque doesn’t come off and
Shylock complains about the sound of the music. Knight claims Portia
dominates Belmont as Shylock does Venice. He makes suggestions for staging.
Portia’s role is to show money is only one aspect of life. Laws are made for
money. Money can be divided but not life. Knight claims the trial scene is
the climax. *
Topics covered: Venice/Belmont, Portia
Lewalski, Barbara K. "Biblical Allusion and allegory in The Merchant
of Venice." Twentieth Merchant. 33-54.
The critical questions are these—was Shakespeare anti-Semitic? is Shylock
a persecuted hero or comic butt? Lewalski cites Nevill Coghill’s view that
Merchant of Venice has medieval comic form, beginning in trouble,
ending in joy and also that Merchant of Venice can be seen as a
debate between Mercy and Justice (2 of the 4 daughters of God). Most critics
who look at Christian symbolism concentrate on Act IV, not the entire play.
Lewalski claims Shakespeare’s pattern of allusion pervasive to medieval
Biblical allegory. He explicates Merchant of Venice using Dante’s 4
levels of allegorical meaning. Merchant of Venice illustrates
Christian love which is represented by giving and forgiving. He connects
lines from the play to lines in the Bible. He illustrates the predictions
Shakespeare built into the play about Shylock’s forced conversion. Even the
caskets can be seen as allegorizing Christian love and the choice of
spiritual life and goodness contrasts Portia’s "I stand for sacrifice"
(which could have 2 meanings—as victim or as one doing the sacrificing) with
Shylock’s "I stand for law." Lewalski associates Act IV with the Parliament
of Heaven in which all men are judged. Balthazar (the name Portia takes in
her disguise) was the name given to the prophet Daniel in the Book of
Daniel; Daniel in the Bible was the most Christian-like of prophets,
extolling the virtue of mercy. Shylock’s conversion reinforces the Christian
conviction that Law leads to death and destruction; the only way to
salvation in through a belief in Christ (or conversion for Shylock). When a
Jew converted to Christianity in Europe or England, he often had to forfeit
half his goods to the state (as ill-gotten gains of usury). **
Topics covered: Old/New Testament, Biblical references, characters
Moody, A.D. "An Ironic Comedy." Twentieth Merchant.
100-107.
Moody argues against Kermode’s view that love and mercy supercede justice
but sees Merchant of Venice as a "parody of heavenly harmony and
love" (101). The subject is the same but Moody claims Shakespeare treats the
issues in an ironic way, that Christians act in most unchristian like ways;
they assume unworldliness to gain a worldly power over Shylock. The play is
too subtle and complex to be seen in simple terms of good and evil.
Christians are very worldly, talking and thinking about money. Moody traces
common etymology between mercenary and money to merces (meaning
reward or fee), both spoken by Portia. The main theme of appearance vs.
reality should be applied to Portia as well. Moody claims "the controlling
viewpoint is not that of the eye of Heaven, but that of enlightened human
feeling" (104). He explains why he agrees with John Russell Brown that
Merchant of Venice has always been Shylock’s play: "Where the Christians
speak with quibbling wit or rhetoric, filtering emotion through artifice,
Shylock’s speech is directly responsive to his burden of personal and racial
experience, with the result that his humanity is so much more fully present
to us" (105). So lesser (more superficial) beings triumph over the one
"whose end is inseparable from his larger humanity" (105). There are two
different kinds of justice resolved by the irony. **
Topics covered: Shylock, mercy/justice, language, Portia
Moody, A.D. "An Ironic Comedy." Twentieth Merchant.
100-107.
Moody argues against Kermode’s view that love and mercy supercede justice
but sees Merchant of Venice as a "parody of heavenly harmony and
love" (101). The subject is the same but Moody claims Shakespeare treats the
issues in an ironic way, that Christians act in most unchristian like ways;
they assume unworldliness to gain a worldly power over Shylock. The play is
too subtle and complex to be seen in simple terms of good and evil.
Christians are very worldly, talking and thinking about money. Moody traces
common etymology between mercenary and money to merces (meaning
reward or fee), both spoken by Portia. The main theme of appearance vs.
reality should be applied to Portia as well. Moody claims "the controlling
viewpoint is not that of the eye of Heaven, but that of enlightened human
feeling" (104). He explains why he agrees with John Russell Brown that
Merchant of Venice has always been Shylock’s play: "Where the Christians
speak with quibbling wit or rhetoric, filtering emotion through artifice,
Shylock’s speech is directly responsive to his burden of personal and racial
experience, with the result that his humanity is so much more fully present
to us" (105). So lesser (more superficial) beings triumph over the one
"whose end is inseparable from his larger humanity" (105). There are two
different kinds of justice resolved by the irony. **
Topics covered: Shylock, mercy/justice, language, Portia
Moody, A.D. "An Ironic Comedy." Twentieth Merchant.
100-107.
Moody argues against Kermode’s view that love and mercy supercede justice
but sees Merchant of Venice as a "parody of heavenly harmony and
love" (101). The subject is the same but Moody claims Shakespeare treats the
issues in an ironic way, that Christians act in most unchristian like ways;
they assume unworldliness to gain a worldly power over Shylock. The play is
too subtle and complex to be seen in simple terms of good and evil.
Christians are very worldly, talking and thinking about money. Moody traces
common etymology between mercenary and money to merces (meaning
reward or fee), both spoken by Portia. The main theme of appearance vs.
reality should be applied to Portia as well. Moody claims "the controlling
viewpoint is not that of the eye of Heaven, but that of enlightened human
feeling" (104). He explains why he agrees with John Russell Brown that
Merchant of Venice has always been Shylock’s play: "Where the Christians
speak with quibbling wit or rhetoric, filtering emotion through artifice,
Shylock’s speech is directly responsive to his burden of personal and racial
experience, with the result that his humanity is so much more fully present
to us" (105). So lesser (more superficial) beings triumph over the one
"whose end is inseparable from his larger humanity" (105). There are two
different kinds of justice resolved by the irony. **
Topics covered: Shylock, mercy/justice, language, Portia
Moody, A.D. "An Ironic Comedy." Twentieth Merchant.
100-107.
Moody argues against Kermode’s view that love and mercy supercede justice
but sees Merchant of Venice as a "parody of heavenly harmony and
love" (101). The subject is the same but Moody claims Shakespeare treats the
issues in an ironic way, that Christians act in most unchristian like ways;
they assume unworldliness to gain a worldly power over Shylock. The play is
too subtle and complex to be seen in simple terms of good and evil.
Christians are very worldly, talking and thinking about money. Moody traces
common etymology between mercenary and money to merces (meaning
reward or fee), both spoken by Portia. The main theme of appearance vs.
reality should be applied to Portia as well. Moody claims "the controlling
viewpoint is not that of the eye of Heaven, but that of enlightened human
feeling" (104). He explains why he agrees with John Russell Brown that
Merchant of Venice has always been Shylock’s play: "Where the Christians
speak with quibbling wit or rhetoric, filtering emotion through artifice,
Shylock’s speech is directly responsive to his burden of personal and racial
experience, with the result that his humanity is so much more fully present
to us" (105). So lesser (more superficial) beings triumph over the one
"whose end is inseparable from his larger humanity" (105). There are two
different kinds of justice resolved by the irony. **
Topics covered: Shylock, mercy/justice, language, Portia
Rabkin, Norman. Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Shapiro, James. Shakespeare and the Jews. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1996.
Much Ado About Nothing
Crick, John. "Messina." Twentieth Century Interpretations of Much
Ado about Nothing. Ed. by Walter R. Davis. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969. 33-38.
*Davis, Walter R., Ed. "Introduction." Twentieth Much Ado.
1-17.
This book also includes viewpoints by Goddard, Dorothy C. Hockey, A.P.
Rossiter, W.H. Auden, James A.S. CmPeek, James Smith, Walter N. King, John
Palmer, Northrop Frye, and Wylie Sypoher.
Fergusson, Francis. "Rituial and Insight." Twentieth Much Ado.
54-59.
Horowitz, David. "Imagining the Real." Twentieth Much Ado
39-53.
Hunter, Robert Grams. "Forgiving Claudio." Twentieth Much Ado.
60-66.
McCollom, William G. "The Role of Wit in Much Ado about Nothing."
Twentieth Much Ado. 67-79.
Story, Graham. "The Success of Much Ado about Nothing." Twentieth
Much Ado. 18-32.
Thomson, Virgil. "Music for Much Ado about Nothing." Twentieth Much
Ado. 88-95.
Wey, James J. "’To Grace Harmony’: Musical Design in Much Ado about
Nothing." Twentieth Much Ado. 80-87.
Othello
*Heilman, Robert B. Magic in the Web: Action and Language in
Othello. Lexington, KE: University of Kentucky Press, 1956.
Richard II
Altick, Richard D. "Symphonic Imagery in Richard II."
Publications of the Modern Language Association 62 (1947): 339-365. also
found in Twentieth Century Interpretations of Richard II. Ed.
By Paul M. Cubeta. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971. 66-81.
There is a unity of tone, like a musical composition, in Richard II.
This comes from Shakespeare’s control of words, language, and imagery. But
this only happens because Shakespeare is aware of the emotional overtones of
words (beyond just wit). Shakespeare uses certain words like leitmotifs
throughout the play (like word "world" in Antony and Cleopatra). In
Richard II such words are "earth," "land," "ground"—related ideas of
garden/soil. Blood is another term (referring to kingship relationship more
than to murder or death), also "sun," "tongue" (mouth, speech, word) and
eventually the word "bankrupt" [and "nothing"]. Altick claims Richard II
is a turning point between verbal wit of early plays and more mature
image-themes of latter plays. In Richard II the use of language is
still conventional, showing Shakespeare’s affection for words for their own
sake, not yet achieving the expressionism of meaning through a single bold
metaphor as will be achieved later. But Shakespeare has begun well here. **
Topics covered: language, imagery
Barkan, Leonard. "The Theatrical Consistency of Richard II."
Shakespeare Quarterly 29 (1978): 5-19.
This book discusses the texture and effects of the play.
*Cavanagh, Dermot. "The Language of Treason in Richard II."
Shakespeare Studies 134 (Annual 1999): find pages
33 pages.
*Cubeta, Paul M. "Introduction." Twentieth Richard II.
1-12.
Is Richard II a history or a tragedy play? Cubeta says Shakespeare
seems to have learned from the first tetralogy, ending in Richard III
that the plays are more successful if they focus on a single strong central
character. The theme is the nature of kingship. Richard II (written
after Richard III) is hardly a Machiavellian king, but still probably
believed (as espoused in Mirror for Magistrates) that history could
teach lessons. Cubeta reminds us that when Richard II was written,
Elizabeth I was within six years of her death in 1603, and she had been
queen for thirty-four years, and she had not married nor produced or
designated an heir, creating fear over her succession. He also recounted the
origin of the "Tudor Myth." Shakespeare’s play Richard II was
performed by request two days before the ill-fated Essex rebellion against
Elizabeth on Feb 7, 1601. Cubeta is arguing that Richard II was
interpreted allegorically by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, but he contends
it was not written as allegory. Gaunt’s speech has been misunderstood as
idealistically patriotic Richard’s disorder is set against Bolingbroke’s
rebellion [two wrongs that do not make a right]. Departure, banishment, loss
are pervasive motifs. Gaunt’s demi-paradise seems unrevivable. The rise and
fall imagery does not result in political success, and the opening and
closing scenes have too many parallels to signal a happy ending. The
language of Richard II is heavy with depression words (dissolute,
despair, depressed, dishonor, depose. Shakespeare shows self knowledge is
paramount. Cubeta admires Richard at the end of the play **
Topics covered: Tudor myth, allegory, kingship, language
Dean, Leonard F. "From Richard II to Henry V: A Closer
View." Modern Essays. 188-205. also found in Twentieth Richard
II. 58-65.
Traditional belief was that Shakespeare based his second tetralogy on the
Tudor myth as professed in Hall’s chronicles. Dean claims Shakespeare goes
beyond naiveté of popular history to more profound insights. Richard begins
in spectacle; private scenes contrast, show weaknesses of Richard as king.
Irony exists when a ruler is also murderer, but in such a world wise counsel
like Gaunt’s falls on deaf ears. Richard is a bit of an actor, always
wanting to an audience. Richard plays with his role of king as Gaunt played
with his name in Act II. Those around him go from tolerance to impatience
and resentment. Richard’s emotional language is contrasted to York’s
accommodations and Bolingbroke’s Machiavellian speech—literal, carefully
public and politic. Dean likens Richard to Shakespeare’s tragic heroes in
the violence and hyperbole of their speeches. Richard’s neurosis is like
Hamlet’s madness. Shakespeare’s play is neither Richard’s view of rebellion
and treason nor Bolingbroke’s of restoration of legal rights, but much more
complex and ambiguous morally. Dean claims neither Bolingbroke nor Richard
free of confining ironies. **
Topics covered: Tudor myth, language, characters
*Forker, R. "Unstable Identity in Shakespeare’s Richard II."
Renascence: Essays on Values in Literature 54.1 (Fall 2001): 3-21.
Healy, Margaret. William Shakespeare’s Richard II.
Plymouth, England: Northcote House, 1998.
Kastan, David Scott. "Proud Majesty Made a Subject: Shakespeare and the
Spectable of Rule." Shakespeare Quarterly 37 (1986): 459-75.
Kernan, Alvin B. "The Henriad: Shakespeare’s Major History Plays."
Twentieth Richard II. 107-115.
The four plays in the Henriad are all epic in nature, showing England’s
change from the time of Richard II to Henry V, the Middle Ages to the
Renaissance, feudalism and the Great Chain of Being to national state and
individualism, a garden world to a fallen world, ceremony and ritual to
history. Richard II is an innocent. Richard uncrowning himself in Act IV
destroys the values and rituals of his reign. Civil War within the York
family is a comic counterpoint to the growing rebellion of Bolingbroke’s
early supporters. Richard is not the only one whose name and role change;
Bolingbroke’s also does often: from Hereford, to Lancaster, to Henry IV. *
Topics covered: contrasts in world views, characters
Kott, Jan. "The Kings." Twentieth Richard II. 98-106.
Kott claims in Richard II can be seen the raw material of later
tragedies. Readers or viewers of Shakespeare’s plays interpret them through
their own experiences. Modern audiences are closer in appreciation to
Shakespeare’s own audiences than those of the 19th Century. Kott
says for Shakespeare, time stands still and all his histories end where they
began with recurring circles for each king’s reign. Each begins with
struggle for the throne or its consolidation, ends with death of the king or
a new coronation. Each king is flawed. Steps to power are marked by
violence, murder. Each contender believes he is defending a violated law but
ends up turning against former allies. Kott comments on similarities of
names (Richard, Henry, Edward) and titles (York, Clarence). The crown is the
symbol of power. Act IV of Richard II –the abdication scene was omitted in
all editions of the play in Queen Elizabeth I’s time. Richard plays look
forward to Hamlet. *
Topics covered: kingship, parallels
Ribner, Irving. "The Historical Richard." Twentieth Richard II.
13-14.
Ribner points out the differences in world views between Richard II’s
medieval day and Shakespeare’s Renaissance. In Richard’s day the king was
responsible to the lords of the realm (hence King John could be forced to
sign the Magna Carta) but responsible to God alone by the Tudor time. The
real Richard came to the throne at age 11 after Edward III dies since Edward
the Black Prince (Richard’s father) had already died. Gaunt was the
effectual ruler until he left to fight Spain, when Richard’s Uncle
Gloucester took over, but Gloucester was scheming rather than the
sympathetic martyr Shakespeare portrays him as. Gloucester intrigues against
Richard and is caught and killed, probably by one Lapoole [not Mowbray]. *
Topics covered: allegory, history
Ribner, Irving. "The Political Problem in Shakespeare’s Lancastrian
Tetralogy." Twentieth Richard II. 29-40.
Shakespeare was a dramatist but in the history plays also functioned as
an historian. Shakespeare’s genius was that he could see all sides of an
issue, but Shakespeare did take a stand on political questions raised by the
conflict between Richard and Bolingbroke. He summarizes Tillyard and
Campbell’s view that Shakespeare was examining the Tudor myth that preached
that the deposition of Richard was a great crime resulting in the War of the
Roses, but that the ascension of the Tudors created order. In this view
rebellion is the worst possible crime against the state. Ribner claims
Shakespeare’s Richard II was not a completely orthodox presentation
of the Tudor myth. He sees good resulting from the deposition of Richard—in
plays from Richard II to Henry V (written together and after
the Henry VI to Richard III plays). In a footnote Ribner cites
Evelyn May Albright’s PMLA article in which she states Shakespeare may have
favored Essex’s rebellion plot against Elizabeth as his patron Earl of
Southampton did. The 2nd tetralogy culminates in the glorious
victories of Henry V. Richard II explores Shakespeare’s view of the
ideal king. When Shakespeare wrote Richard II what the country feared
most was the possible ascension of a weak king (like Richard). Richard is a
failure as a king because he lacks public virtues. Ribner cited Hiram
Haydn’s view that in Richard II Shakespeare contrasts two world
views: Christian idealism and new skeptical materialism
(Counter-Renaissance)—like the Machiavellian view. Parallel actions in the
play show Bolingbroke a master in action [shows how Beggar and the King
scene is essential for parallels]. Ribner says in Richard II,
Shakespeare "discovered tragedy of character. For he makes Richard the
author of his own downfall" (35). Contrast in Richard is between hereditary
right to rule and proven ability to govern. In Henry IV there is a
similar situation, a rebellion against the king but Shakespeare sides with
Henry. Ribner cited Hal’s speech to his father on Henry IV’s death bed that
he maintains kingship is rightfully his. It was Bolingbroke’s ability, not
his lineage, that gave him the right to the throne. Hal proves himself equal
in Henry V when he effectively deals with the rebellion of Cambridge.
Shakespeare then modified the Tudor myth—ability is more important than
heredity. ***
Topics covered: Richard, kingship, parallels
Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare’s English Kings. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2nd Ed. 2000.
Stirling, Brents. "’Up, Cousin, Up; Your Heart Is Up, I Know.’"
Twentieth Richard II. 91-97.
Richard casts himself into the martyr role by embracing the need for
abdication before he is deposed. But thus Richard keeps control of the Flint
Castle scene. This also creates ambiguity about Bolingbroke’s motives, but
Stirlilng claims the Elizabethan audience might have taken Bolingbroke’s
ambition as a given. He also suggests Bolingbroke’s actions speak in place
of his words to create the situation in which Richard’s fate is sealed.
Stirling claims plot construction, political situation, and
characterizations all illustrate parallel ironies in the Flint Castle scene.
All culminates in Richard’s line about the necessity to go to London. Later
as "London" is short hand for deposition and coronation of Henry IV,
Bolingbroke’s line at the end of Act IV to convey Richard to the tower is
symbolic of imprisonment and death. **
Topics covered: characters, foils, Act III
Tillyard, E.M.W. "Richard II." Modern Essays. 167-187. also
in Twentieth Richard II. 15-28.
Richard II is the most formal and ceremonial of all Shakespeare’s
plays. Even language is often formal couplets. Tillyard analyzes formality
of Richard’s last speech. Shakespeare’s audience was more attuned to
symbolism (of the Gardener’s speeches) than modern audience. Act II.iv
explained an elaborate allegory of the state of England under Richard.
Tillyard claims that in the world of Richard II, means matter more
than ends, how the game is played is more important than who wins. Richard’s
speech about sad stories on the death of kings is reminiscent of Chaucer’s
"Monk’s Tale." Language reflects the contrast of two ways of life—the old
order of the Plantagenants to the newer order of Henry IV. But the newer
order is more passionate, yet not developed fully in Richard II.
Tillyard says Richard II "possesses a dominant theme and contains
within itself the elements of those different things that are to be the
themes of its successors" (26). **
Topics covered: language, symbolism, ceremony
Traversi, Derek. "Richard II." Twentieth Richard II.
41-57.
Shakespeare is concerned in this play with distinguishing truth from
fiction—showing the limitations of traditional view of kingship. The
formality of the opening scenes is contrasted with passions. Gaunt’s "royal
throne of kings" speech is likened to formality of language in the early
part of the play. Traversi associates Gaunt with the old world of Edward
III. Richard’s world has inner hollowness. Gaunt’s point is that an order is
passing which Richard’s authority cannot maintain. The interchange between
Richard and Gaunt illustrates connectivity of themes of flattery and truth,
health and sickness, life and death. Bolingbroke’s return is both rebellion
and a necessary act for the restoration of the right use of authority [in
support of the Law of Primogenitor]. Richard’s importance is contrasted to
Bolingbroke’s purpose. Personally and professionally, Richard is not able to
deal with Bolingbroke. Richard is a tragic sentimentalist. The "death of
kings" speech illustrates true tragedy but also the sense of insignificance
of the pomp of royalty. Richard’s self-pity is conscious artifice.
Shakespeare explores the theme of "nothingness" in Richard’s speech at the
abdication. Act IV is an example of Shakespeare’s ability to use literary
artifice as a means for self-analysis in Richard’s examination of the
difference between show (shadow) and substance (grief). ***
Topics covered: two world views, language, characters
Ure, Peter. "Introduction to Richard II." Twentieth Richard
II. 82-90.
This play contrasts Richard as ineffectual ruler with Bolingbroke as
efficient one. But Richard as a characters is much better explored
(ambiguity is politic for Bolingbroke). And Shakespeare does not expose
Bolingbroke’s motivations. York expresses the sense of suffering through
faith in his helplessness of divinely ordained right in the face of a more
powerful wrong. Richard’s suffering comes from the paradox of a rightful
king without power to support his title. But we see Richard as tragic
because of his deficiencies as king. Ure claims Richard was neither an actor
nor a poet ["not helpful to say he is playing the part of a fallen king when
he is a fallen king" (86)]. Richard is in control, sets the scenes up at the
beginning of the play; Bolingbroke, at the end. Yet Bolingbroke might have
wanted to control deposition as he did executions of favorites, yet Richard
does not play his part but instead grabs center state. The mirror in Act IV
reflects vanity and truth. **
Topics covered: comparison of characters, language