First time I've heard anyone say: The play is better understood in reading rather than presented on stage". Methinks you have overanalyzed the work. Shakespeare was a playwright, not a philosopher. He was (in my opinion) a "polymath" who put tons of his knowledge into the plays, but he was not trying to impress the "groundlings" or us, with his knowledge. He was presenting humans interacting in ways no one else had done before. I like your way of digging into the references, but I like to hold on to the face value of what happens in the play.
Thanks Gary! Appreciate your thoughts and no worries if you're unpersuaded. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with Lukas Erne's Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist? He presents compelling evidence Shakespeare expected the plays to be read and studied closely. As he says, “a close, ‘readerly’, attention to the play’s text is not a modern aberration”
Thank you for writing this article. It makes more things clear and it also makes me think that when I re-read the "classics" if I've missed out on other things too. It's good to have your mind exposed to more clear headed thinking.
You're welcome and thank you, Tim! That's very nice of you to say. Lots of wrong-headed thinking, it's true. And thanks for subscribing - it's great to have you on board
My favourite Shakespeare play. This is pretty much how I taught it, although without the Petrarch allusion. Endlessly rich and beautiful, a privilege to teach.
Thank you Douglas! And very cool to hear. Endlessly rich—yes! In general, I find high school teachers understand the play far better than Shakespeare scholars
At 70, mixed-up lovers are news to me. Canterbury Tales was my last study in high school and college, and I have had little Shakespeare exposure until today. Thank you for an educational and entertaining read.
Thank you George! Really appreciate that! Interesting RE your performance experience. The text's depth - yes! Easily the most carefully written work I'm aware of. RE Mercutio: Did you know no one's taken his remarks seriously? I'll soon be sharing a two-part series called "The Vindication of Mercutio," which will argue he's right to call Romeo a blind, Cupid-driven lover who pays for sex.
Thanks Alcamos! Yes indeed. Great point RE the Folio. My PhD supervisor was Lukas Erne, author of Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist. Maybe you've heard of it? Makes a compelling case, better than I could, though I would indeed go even further. Thanks for your thoughts!
Eros or Cupid, was often thought of, as perhaps the most dangerous of the Gods. No one could inflict more pain or agony upon one, with just an arrow from his quiver. Supposedly gold for love, lead for hate. If Cupid/Eros was pissed at one, he was quite inclined to aim an arrow of gold to your heart and an arrow of lead to your intended beloved.
Agree with you on star-crossed.
The duality that Christianity relies upon, good and evil, is only in those who reject a unitary God and it's creation.
Our ears often deceive us, especially when the language used is delightful to our ears, and fits the picture we would see.
Thank you Michael. Yes! Amazing you know that. Many Shakespeare scholars don't seem to. Upcoming essay: "Sadistic Little Bastard: Shakespeare's Cupid."
First time I've heard anyone say: The play is better understood in reading rather than presented on stage". Methinks you have overanalyzed the work. Shakespeare was a playwright, not a philosopher. He was (in my opinion) a "polymath" who put tons of his knowledge into the plays, but he was not trying to impress the "groundlings" or us, with his knowledge. He was presenting humans interacting in ways no one else had done before. I like your way of digging into the references, but I like to hold on to the face value of what happens in the play.
Thanks Gary! Appreciate your thoughts and no worries if you're unpersuaded. Out of curiosity, are you familiar with Lukas Erne's Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist? He presents compelling evidence Shakespeare expected the plays to be read and studied closely. As he says, “a close, ‘readerly’, attention to the play’s text is not a modern aberration”
I will look him up. Thanks.
Thank you for writing this article. It makes more things clear and it also makes me think that when I re-read the "classics" if I've missed out on other things too. It's good to have your mind exposed to more clear headed thinking.
You're welcome and thank you, Tim! That's very nice of you to say. Lots of wrong-headed thinking, it's true. And thanks for subscribing - it's great to have you on board
My favourite Shakespeare play. This is pretty much how I taught it, although without the Petrarch allusion. Endlessly rich and beautiful, a privilege to teach.
Thank you Douglas! And very cool to hear. Endlessly rich—yes! In general, I find high school teachers understand the play far better than Shakespeare scholars
This take I heard from my sister about thirty odd years ago (English Lit major). Good one.
At 70, mixed-up lovers are news to me. Canterbury Tales was my last study in high school and college, and I have had little Shakespeare exposure until today. Thank you for an educational and entertaining read.
Thanks very much Casey! Very kind of you. You're exactly the kind of reader I'd hope to reach. So great to have you on board
Fantastic piece. I've performed R&J as Benvolio and Mercutio and always been struck with the depth of the text. Learned a lot reading this.
Thank you George! Really appreciate that! Interesting RE your performance experience. The text's depth - yes! Easily the most carefully written work I'm aware of. RE Mercutio: Did you know no one's taken his remarks seriously? I'll soon be sharing a two-part series called "The Vindication of Mercutio," which will argue he's right to call Romeo a blind, Cupid-driven lover who pays for sex.
In the Stage vs. Page debate (reading and study vs. performance), it sounds like you come squarely down on the merits of the Page.
I've often wondered why it isn't noted by commentators that in the First Folio Condell and Hemmings emphasize "Read him!"
Thanks Alcamos! Yes indeed. Great point RE the Folio. My PhD supervisor was Lukas Erne, author of Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist. Maybe you've heard of it? Makes a compelling case, better than I could, though I would indeed go even further. Thanks for your thoughts!
Eros or Cupid, was often thought of, as perhaps the most dangerous of the Gods. No one could inflict more pain or agony upon one, with just an arrow from his quiver. Supposedly gold for love, lead for hate. If Cupid/Eros was pissed at one, he was quite inclined to aim an arrow of gold to your heart and an arrow of lead to your intended beloved.
Agree with you on star-crossed.
The duality that Christianity relies upon, good and evil, is only in those who reject a unitary God and it's creation.
Our ears often deceive us, especially when the language used is delightful to our ears, and fits the picture we would see.
Thank you Michael. Yes! Amazing you know that. Many Shakespeare scholars don't seem to. Upcoming essay: "Sadistic Little Bastard: Shakespeare's Cupid."
Thank you, kind Sir.
This could've done with a mite of copy-editing.
Reminds me of a Thomas Sowell quote, "To me, the fact that I have never killed an editor is proof that the death penalty deters."
Interesting articles about Shakespeare AND Thomas Sowell quotes? I seem to have stumbled across Substack gold.
Hahaha. Thank you!