Shakespeare for the Social

Saturday was a day of Shakespeare for me. While sitting around with my roommates, we began discussing how many words and lines in the English language have come from Shakespeare. More on that later. Then I went to the Merchant of Venice with 2 old roommates and of the 2 of my friends from dinner last Sunday. I was unfortunately feeling ill and had to jet after the play and didn't have time to stick around for the post-play analysis. But such early jetting led to a facebook invite from one of my friends to come over and discuss Shakespeare later. Then that night, my attendance at the Merchant of Venice sparked a discussion of the play on my date, which was fortunate because I still wasn't feeling a whole lot better than I had been earlier that day and easy conversation was quite welcome. So, un-anticipated by me, Shakespeare is everywhere, and opportunities to discuss it are not only readily available, but lead to excellent and enjoyable conversation in a multitude of social situations. Who knew Shakespeare would be good for my social life?

Shakespeare's influence on the English language:

I noticed that the program for Merchant of Venice also contained some of this information, about how much of our language comes from Shakespeare, but the following quote my roommate found contains even more words than the program. It's fascinating how much of our vernacular we owe to Shakespeare, which is ironic since many people associate him with difficult to understand and archaic speech.

“If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ‘It’s Greek to me,’ you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is farther to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool’s paradise – why, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare;… if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then –

to give the devil his due – if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head), you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or blinking idiot, then – by Jove! it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.”

– Bernard Levin in The History of English by McCrum, et al

Children's Theater: Merchant of Stratford?

Having procrastinated buying my tickets, I ended up sitting on the floor, which was kind of fun, minus the fact that I didn't get to sit with the company I had invited. Like several other people have mentioned, I loved the interaction with the kids. I thought the actors were clever in their interactions with them and getting them to appear to say things even when the kids were too shy to say them. The way they cast the characters also very much highlighted which characters were essential to the plot and which were not. I was surprised when Nerissa was chosen from the audience because she seemed to me that she had been quite essential to the plot, and I was curious how they would have the little girl do everything she did, but it made me realize that she really was not that essential to the plot--she was just a side kick for Portia. The casting of Antonio as Antonia also surprised me, and like Rebecca, I initially thought it was because they had more guys than girls. But the scene in court where Antonia is facing her last moments and Bassanio is comforting her is definitely different when Antonia is a girl, rather than a guy. In the play they had Bassanio comforting Antonia in a physical way, and I happened to be sitting right next to them both, and I could see this interaction very closely. I could also hear Bassanio whispering things to Antonia, which nobody else could hear, or likely was intended to hear--to the majority of the audience, all they could see was them in very close and intense whispered consultation. I was super curious to hear what the actors would actually be saying, when nobody was intended to hear, but it turns out it was right in character with the rest of it. He kept saying, "Look at me, don't worry" and comforting her with similar phrases, which struck me definitely more the way a man would comfort a woman. I thought this was a departure from the way Shakespeare had written it, but Rebecca thought maybe it really was that way--intended as a homosexual relationship. I'm not sure, but it's an interesting thought for sure. That's how the company we were watching seemed to interpret it. And it certainly makes Portia's outrage at the loss of the ring more understandable. I'd been thinking she was kind of a jerk for reacting so dramatically. But if he was giving it on Antonia's recommendation...that makes it more serious.

Shakespeare for the Seeker of Quotes

I am discovering that I am obsessed with quotes--I love knowing their source, their context, what the have come to mean. While reading these plays, the oft-quoted lines are the ones that jump out at me first, and I love trying to figure out why they have become famous, or why certain gems of wisdom that strike me are not famous. Since we have all just read the play (and because this is a post about Hamlet) the source and context will be familiar to all, so I will not rehearse them here. But the rest of this post will be my thoughts and the thoughts of others about lines that caught my attention, especially why they have or have not become oft-quoted.

'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,

To give these mourning duties to your father;

But, you must know, your father lost a father;

That father lost, lost his; and the survivor bound,

In filial obligation, for some term

To do obsequious sorrow: but to persevere

In obstinate condolement is a course

Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;

It shows a will most incorrect to heaven;

A heart unfortified, a mind impatient;

An understanding simple and unschool'd;

Famous because it is so outrageous, and so condemning of its speaker. A reader definitely begins to sympathize with Hamlet and despise Claudius.

Frailty, thy name is woman!

Famous for its poetic value? Certainly not because of it's broad application.

Polonious' speach:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...

to thine ownself be true...

Famous for the gems of wisdom it contains (ironic, considering the talk he gives his daughter just moments later, lacking any kind of good wisdom.)

I do not set my life at a pin's fee,

And for my soul, what can it do to that,

Being a thing immortal as itself?

So this is one that is less famous--in googling the phrase I found other people have analyzed it and thought about it, but mostly they were just explaining what it meant--basically Hamlet is saying that he values his life as much as the cost of a pin, which is practically nothing, or in other words, that he doesn't value his life. The whole thing struck me as a poetic expression of bravery and a good lesson for all. Various sources I read pointed to it as revealing Hamlet's character--that he does not value his life (also citing his later contemplation of suicide), or that he is a very moral person who considers the value and immortality of his soul. How you interpret this quote depends on how you view Hamlet--is he a depressed, suicidal person, or a morally bound God-fearing noble person, trying to do what is right? This passage makes me think of Acts 20:24, " neither count I my blife dear unto myself", and I tend to think Hamlet more the latter, not that he doesn't value his life, but that he understands eternity and that this life is short and the events thereof less important by comparison.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Now, compared to the profound lines I just analyzed, such a quaint phrase seems trivial by comparison. Why on earth is this one famous? It has come to be used all over to indicate that something is wrong, particularly referring to corruption at an upper level, but why such a phrase has found such common use in our vernacular is beyond me. Spark notes and a couple other sources I looked at explains it in the following way,

"This line is spoken by Marcellus in Act I, scene iv (67), as he and Horatio debate whether or not to follow Hamlet and the ghost into the dark night. The line refers both to the idea that the ghost is an ominous omen for Denmark and to the larger theme of the connection between the moral legitimacy of a ruler and the health of the state as a whole. The ghost is a visible symptom of the rottenness of Denmark created by Claudius’s crime."

but this still does not satisfy me.

Brevity is the soul of wit

I had no idea this phrase, which has become a proverb, originated from Shakespeare. What a gift to the English language! I think the explanation for its fame is self-evident.

Words, words, words

Enough said.

That's as far as I have time for right now. The following are the other quotes I picked out while reading that stood out to me...perhaps in a subsequent blog post I will finish analyzing them. But the fact that so many famous quotes have come out of one play really says a lot for Hamlet, and the universality of Shakespeare...

For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in

faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in

action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the

beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what

is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman

neither,

To be or not to be...

Get thee to a nunnery!

Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.

The lady protests too much, methinks.

I will speak daggers to her, but use none.

Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;

Shakespeare for the Slave

Despite the fact that I think Antonio made a foolish loan that ended unfortunately for him because of unfortunate and unforeseen events, I cannot condone his apparent discrimination against Shylock. I do not see Shylock as a saint either, but I have to disagree with Antonio's treatment and attitude towards him. In an eloquent stand against discrimination, Shylock makes a very good point:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

That may have been his only good argument in the entire play--not a page later he's lamenting the loss of his daughter, not because she turned away from the faith or left him, but because she stole his money! He even wishes her dead! That was sickening. But however lousy of a father he is, he still was human and the passage he quotes makes me think of the slave trade (world wide, but my experience is with the history in the US), the Holocaust, child and elder abuse, the civil rights movement (again, world wide, but my experience is with our US history), Roman persecution of Christians, Christian persecution of Jews, Native Americans, and other groups, and countless other cases of discrimination and abuse throughout history and around the world rationalized because a group of people are somehow "different". I thought it ironic how, after this noble speech against discrimination and plea to treat all humans humanely, when Antonio is at his mercy and all around him are begging him for mercy, he sites the standard treatment of slaves as rational for why he should be able to do to Antonio whatever he pleased, because he "owned" him.

You have among you many a purchas'd slave,
Which, fike your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them; shall I say to you
'Let them be free, marry them to your heirs?
Why sweat they under burdens? let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their

palates
Be season'd with such viands? You will answer
'The slaves are ours.' So do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought; 'tis mine, and I will have it.

By using such treatment of slaves as justification for his own plans for Antonio, he is in essence condoning such a practice, which stands in sharp contrast to his plea for civility in the earlier quote. Perhaps he wasn't asking for civility outright--he was simply explaining why he felt the way he did, saying that he felt and reacted the same as anyone. But to me an underlying message of humane and civil treatment for all runs through that passage. It doesn't matter what people look like or where they are from or what they believe or from what socio-economic background they hie, all men are, as Jefferson said, created equal. But as some of those examples I cited earlier point out, though that phrase was a part of the Declaration of Independence, complete implementation of it did not come until much later in the history of the United States for non-land holders, blacks, and women. Perhaps it takes some time for that self-evident truth to go from being a sentiment with value which people recognize to being reflected in their actions and attitudes and practice. Thomas Jefferson himself was a slave holder, I believe, and Shylock himself felt he was justified in doing whatever he wanted to Antonio because he owned him. In Shakespeare's day it sounds like slavery was a generally accepted practice. Certainly there were huge distinctions of class. Their entire society, and many of his plays were based off of such a culture. It is interesting that people could recognize the truth of such an idea, that all men are created equal, but because of cultural norms be so blinded to blatant violations of it in their own lives. Are there similar violations in our own culture to which we are blind? And if we so blinded, are we not then slaves ourselves to that cultural norm?

Shakespeare for the Soaked

It was an oddly warm 45 degrees Saturday morning when I left for my run, but except for the lack of snow which meant a lack of skiing, I didn't see any need to complain. I also didn't see the need to put on anything warm. By the time I got half way to the mouth of Provo Canyon, it was starting to drizzle a bit, but I love running in the rain so that was an added bonus. "What a glorious run!" I was thinking. "I pity every person who is inside!" The further I ran, the harder it rained, but my spirits were still high. The challenge against the elements united me to to the few fellow runners I saw along the Provo River trail. When one runner saw me wiping rain water out of my eyes so I could see, he said, "It's wet, hugh?" I felt like Henry V in his St. Crispain's day speech, lucky to be among one of the brave runners out that day, enjoying a crisp run..."We few, we happy few..." I reached my turn around point up the canyon and headed back, still thrilled to be out running and excited by the challenge of the elements. However, as the rain kept coming, and I kept getting wetter and wetter and colder and colder. Eventually, I started to feel less the valiant warrior, and more of a need to "Stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood." I was getting to the point of my run where you just grit your teeth and tell yourself you're not going to stop until you get home. I was getting to the point where the battle starts to get mental. But I just kept going. The more I stiffened my sinews the more I began to feel trapped, like Antonio in The Merchant of Venice. Like Antonio, a small gamble and a misjudgment of the circumstances had placed me in an uncomfortable position. I thought embarking on such a run with the clothing I had would be sufficient. The unforeseen storm put a literal damper on my run, similar to how the unforeseen the mishap with his ships put unexpected pressure on and almost cost the life of Antonio. We neither of us an obviously stupid move--Antonio was sure his ships would come back, and I was sure I would be clothed sufficiently. We both made what we assumed was a reasonable gamble, but because of an unexpected change in circumstance (him loosing his ships, me getting caught in a suddenly cold rain storm), we got stuck in rather uncomfortable positions. He was luckily saved from his oversight by friends. What happened to me? Well, the consequences of my poor decision were not as drastic as Antonio's--my life was not on the line. I couldn't stop running because then I really would have gotten cold, so I just gutted through it--by the time I had a mile left, I was miserable, but I knew I could make it through anything for a mile. When I staggered into my apartment, soaked through and exhausted, my motherly roommate exclaimed, "There you are! I've been worried about you!" Not taking my phone, water, or food, like I normally do on a run that long may have been another oversight that contributed to my misery, in addition to my freezing hands. After a painful shower while my hands un-thawed, I was back to normal and ready for the next adventure, none the worse for the wear.

Shakespeare for the Sabbath-Observer

Yesterday, which conveniently happened to be Sunday and thus lent itself so nicely to my alliterative title, in true Sabbath style my apartment invited some people over for dinner. Dr. Burton mentioned that it would be easy to find Shakespeare everywhere, and I've been surprised at how true that has been. This episode of sharing Shakespeare meaningfully just fell into my lap with no effort (besides making dinner). Upon mentioning that I was taking a Shakespeare class, I found that the uncle of 3 of our guests taught Shakespeare and that they themselves had taken Shakespeare at BYU, which led to a discussion of said topic, which eventually turned more into a discussion of digital learning when we started talking about the pros and cons of using blogging as a educational tool. I also found out that one of my friends, whose high recommendation for the class led me to consider taking it in the first place, is planning to go see the Merchant of Venice on Saturday, and so we decided to go together.

Shakespeare for the Stately

Shakespeare for the Stately

After reading and discussing Henry V last week in class, I was thinking quite a bit about leadership and royalty. Whether you agree with Henry's actions and motivations or not, you can't argue with the fact that he was a royal, dignified, distinguished, aristocratic, noble figure. It was mentioned that in a book about leadership, Henry V was used as an example and I completely understand why. When I was watching and reading the play, his leadership was exactly what I was thinking about. I left thinking about what gives some people the ability to be natural leaders, and hold themselves in a particular way, and if it's something that's learned and practiced or natural and inherited, or some combination. I started talking to my roommate (sharing Shakespeare meaningfully) about it, and explained to her the premise of the play and why I was so impressed with Henry V, and we began talking about leadership and the manner in which one holds themselves. The conclusion we came to is that all of us have the potential to be stately. I think it primarily stems from what we think of ourselves (Johnny Lingo). And considering that we each hark from a divine heritage, every single person in the world has the potential to become just as stately as Henry V. Some people recognize that potential a little earlier than other people. Perhaps they are the ones who go on to be natural leaders. So for them, particularly for BYU students, who tend to go on to positions of leadership in the world, learning principles of leadership is especially important for their ability to make a positive difference in the world.

Shakespeare for the Statuesque

Whoa what a play! I loved Henry, and his depth of character. What a king!

Thoughts about the film

So I read half the play, then started watching the film adaptation, then read the rest of the play and watched the film at the same time, act by act. I had a few thoughts about the film...

Advantages: actors not pausing at the end of a line makes it easier to understand; humor, drama highlighted when actors laugh, react accordingly; flashbacks show how Henry's past interaction with Bardoff and the other gentleman who died, which gives greater depth of emotion

Disadvantages: the film omits some of the details--the forgiveness of the traitors, the invitation for the ambassadors from France to be Frank because they are with a Christian King--some of my favorite parts from the play that speak for the character of Henry.

Favorite Quotes

-Both Henry's speeches: "We few. We happy few..."

-When Henry hung Bardoff even though it was hard for him because he didn't want people to take advantage of the people. A moral dilemma we face--I faced such a dilemma in one of my classes just last semester--a classmate asked me to cover up for them. I could relate with Henry.

-"We are in God's hand brother. Not in theirs."

-When Henry speaks of the burden of a king it reminds me of King Mosiah from the Book of Mormon when he talks about the burden which a righteous king faces.