William Wordsworth Books

Of course Shakespeare's TEMPEST is an enchanting--and enchanted--play, but my comments here concern the DOVER THRIFT EDITION of the play. Dover is to be commended for making texts such as these affordable for readers on a budget. However, students and teachers alike should note that the Dover edition does not supply line numbers. Students who are considering this text for a class and may have to write about it will not be able to cite specific line numbers as is convention (Act.scene.lines; e.g., 3.1.34-47). Professors and teachers should also be aware of this limitation and weigh it against the affordability of this text.

I have my degree in English... I like reading and teaching with this version as "help" not as a substitution. It gives a clearer understanding to Shakespeare for people who have difficulty with it.

I bought this copy admittedly because the magical artwork on the cover drew me towards this edition. I admit that it is shallow but I am very glad I ended up picking this one because it contains a wealth of information that is so perfect for helping students understand the context, background, themes and ideas contained within this beautifully written play.

Shakespeare is always difficult for us young people, but I can easily promise anyone that this edition does a fine job of explaining the play and it definately helps the reader to gain a better understanding of the play so you are prepared to go into an exam and write about it for two hours with the conviction that you will yield good results.

The Tempest is rightly regarded as being one of the Bard's greatest works, containing some of his deepest thoughts on the nature of power and the relationship between rational man as controller of nature, and the animal man always to be at the mercy of the passions both of himself, others, and the world around him. In fact, this play could be thought of as representing Shakespeare's final and definitive statement on topics that he had explored throughout his cannon. But profound as the philosophy is, and despite the beauty of the poetry and the many magical elements contained within the play, the fact is that as far as the average attention lacking teenager is concerned, not a lot happens. This is why this Cambridge schools edition scores over most others. It is almost entirely activity focused, the expressed aim being to 'bring the play to life'. With at least one suggested activity beside each page of Shakespeare's text (as well as a decent amount of background notes and interpretation), every teacher armed with this book should be able to enthuse his charges with the very real relevance of this play to the world which we have bequeathed them.

I recently re-read THE TEMPEST prior to attending The Colorado Shakespeare Festival's performance of this play under the summer stars here in Boulder. Shakespeare (1564-1616) produced this emotionally-moving, poetic romance at the end of his career, in 1611, and published it in the First Folio in 1623. In fact, it was his last play.

It tells the story of Prospero, the exiled duke of Milan, and his beautiful daughter, Miranda, who have been stranded for twelve years on a desert island with two servants, the airy sprite Ariel (who Prospero rescued from being imprisonment in a tree) and the savage Caliban. Upon learning that his usurping brother Antonio is sailing near the island with the Neopolitan King Alonso's party, he uses his magic powers to conjure a sea storm that not only leaves the ship and its passengers wrecked on the island, but which also sparks a courtship between his daughter and the king's son, Ferdinand. The survivors of the wreck are separated into several groups, believing one another dead. Three subplots then alternate through the play. In one, Caliban befriends two drunken crew members, whom he believes to have come from the moon, and drunkenly attempts to raise is own rebellion against Prospero. In another, Prospero works to establish the romantic relationship between Ferdinand and Miranda. In the third subplot, Ariel thwarts a murder plot at Prospero's command.

The shipwrecked passengers are eventually reunited by island spirits to discover the marriage of Miranda and Ferdinand. In the end, as its title suggests, THE TEMPEST is as much about the opening scene's violent storm, as the journey that brought Prospero to the island and the psychological storm--"the sea change"--leading him to quit his magic and his remote island to return to Milan.

G. Merritt

As Harold Bloom says, this has become an unplayable play after the Holocaust. This is only an additional reason why one should read it. The play is fantastic and gives us one of Shakespeare's most memorable characters: Shylock. Whether you see him as villain or victim, Shylock is unforgettable. As is his speech defending the Jewish.

Anti-festive character who is Shylock on this play sacrificed unjustly. Shylock is a character who is legally invoking his rights as a money-lender among the community which experiencing transition from agriculture society to capitalistic society. Moroever, the character Portia's defending Bassanio as an disguised attorney is unreasonable in some ways and speech is crude, indeed.
In my opinion, to reach the axiomatically righteous conclusion, we should reverse pur point of view toward the 'Justice'. It is a transformation of way of our thinking. Therefore, I recommend rhis masterpiece for someone who aspire to ponder about our human being's viewpoint.

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE can be described as a tragedy only if one follows the modern definition of "tragedy" and not the Greek. The genre of tragedy in which Shakespeare wrote required that all of the players, or at least all of the main players, die at the end, à la ROMEO AND JULIET, JULIUS CAESAR, MACBETH, and HAMLET. In fact, MERCHANT OF VENICE can only be described as a tragedy if Shylock is seen as the main character and not Antonio. (Note, in the list of players at the beginning of the play, only Antonio is called a "merchant of Venice".) In sum, THE MERCHANT OF VENICE can only be described as a tragedy if it is completely removed from its historical context.

Shakespeare intended that the actions taken by Antonio, by Shylock, by Bassanio, and even by Portia be seen as comically extreme. Antonio goes to the lengths of seeking help from a man he despises to help a man he loves. Shylock demands nothing but justice, even when the demands of the agreement he made is met and even doubled. Everywhere in this play is there action taken to the extreme.

Only a refusal to acknowledge the historical context would be blind to the comedy. There are stage plays, television shows, and screenplays aplenty which follow the example set forth in MERCHANT OF VENICE, showing how comical people can be when their actions are taken to the extreme. If MERCHANT OF VENICE can be view in THIS context, then the comedy shines through.

As a writer, I find it comical that anyone would use MERCHANT OF VENICE to point the finger of "racism" at Shakespeare. Part of a writer's challenge is to present convincingly views even he or she disagrees with. The best writer would try to dismantle and disprove the very beliefs he or she holds dear. That Shakespeare has often been judged a racist based on his portrayal of Shylock serves only as testimony to the continuing success of this play. Shylock's speech, complimented by another reviewer, is ample proof that Shakespeare's own views are well hid. Shylock's speech demonstrates magnificently that Shakespeare was able to get inside the head of any man (or woman) in his stories and write the words which that man would speak, faithfully render the thoughts which that man would think, have that man act as only that man would act, and all of it be believable. Simply put, unless you knew beforehand a writer's views on any subject, it would be difficult to find the needle of truth in his or her haystack of fiction if that writer has done their job well, and in this case Shakespeare was damned near flawless!

It is true that the movie, starring Al Pacino, does not present this play as a comedy, but that hardly detracts from its excellence. It shows, in fact, that MERCHANT OF VENICE plays well as both a drama and a comedy. In our age, however, given the importance of religious tolerance, I'll admit that it is probably best played as a drama.

As for the Pelican series of Shakespeare's plays, they are an excellent resource for anyone wanting to read and study the Bard's work. I've several volumes in this series and hope to eventually own them all. Each volume contains two identical essays, "The Theatrical World" (which provides a good understanding of the historical context, as well as an idea of just how much we know about Shakespeare as an individual) and "The Texts of Shakespeare" (which gives more historical context and also discusses some of the difficulties which editors have experienced in presenting these plays in print to modern audiences). There is then an introduction to each play, which is best left unread until afterwards if you aren't familiar with the play. The footnotes are few, but well-chosen, and do help in understanding words and phrases whose meanings have changed over the centuries.

Shylock is the only sympathetic character in the play. Modernity has altered the villain in "The Merchant of Venice" from Shylock to the entire cast of characters EXCEPT for Shylock. Any sense of comedy in the play died for those with a sense of religious tolerance, and Shylock comes off as merely oppressed. I found Act 5 almost nauseating after the forced conversion. That, coupled with the happy racism makes a perversion of decency and happy endings. This play is a tragedy. The recent movie version done starring Al Pacino turned it into a tragedy, and amazingly, a play written as a comedy seems to work very well as a tragedy.

Antonio gladly spits upon Shylock and calls him a dog, but stunningly, when Antonio finds himself in a financial pinch he goes to Shylock for money. More brash is Antonio's promise to act the same in the future: "I am as like to call thee so again, / To spet on thee again, to spurn thee, too." (1.3.127-28) From this point on, sympathy for Antonio is paralyzed in a modern reader's mind, from reminders of past images, from slavery and anti-Semitism, where the dehumanizing of a group of people is accepted by a society. The entire text afterward reads like an indictment of humanity, as if Shakespeare is making the Elizabethans laugh at their own behavior.

In perhaps the best argument in Shylock's defense in the trial, he point out the fact that those who speak of mercy own slaves. "What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong? / You have among you many a purchased slave." (4.1.89-90) Shylock, as fanatical as he is over the pound of flesh, is asking for only a pound of a man, when the slaveholders own the entire person. The play is littered with prejudiced remarks that clearly show how animalistic Shylock was to them.

Every conversation involving Shylock has ridicule from the Christians, without remorse or a feeling of comedy. The Christian children are taught to mock Shylock, they run after him in the street. The merchants spit on him, the Duke reviles him, his daughter renounces her religion and robs him.

Still an amazing story, with a few of the best on mercy and prejudice ever written.

The New Folger Library of Shakespeare's Tragedies and Comedies are among the best pocket editions available for the student and the journeyman lover of the Bard.

Before the actual text of the play which is wisely presented on the right hand page with explanatory notes (metaphors, allusions, similes, etc.) facing on the left hand page (words and phrases are defined by scholars based on their usage during Shakespeare's time; if scholars are inconclusive as to meaning, the word `uncertain' is used to connote this disagreement), the usual `Reading Shakespeare's Language', `Shakespeare's Life', `Shakespeare's Theatre', `Publication of Shakespeare's Plays' and `Introduction to the Text' introduce the reader to the Shakespearean world. Following the text, an essay by Alexander Leggatt follows illuminating `The Merchant of Venice' for the modern reader. In addition, an eleven page `Further Reading' list pinpoints books and essays on topics like the play itself, Shakespeare, the time in which he lived and the Globe Theatre. Rounding out the vital information is a three page "Key to Famous Lines and Phrases" complete with speaker and verse notation.

As far as the play itself, I will keep my remarks limited, saying only that for the modern audience, Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" borders on the provocative. All with politically correct upbringing or today's cultural sensitivity training cannot help but focus on the reigning prejudice of the early Medieval and Renaissance time period, namely the exclusion of Jews from all forms of normal life since mainstream thought withheld that this race was primarily responsible for Christ's crucifixion.

Indeed, today's reader will pose the question as to whether or not this play should be deemed more tragedy than comedy and must remember that as a comedy, "The Merchant of Venice" focuses on marriage, couples (Bassanio/Portia, Lorenzo/Jessica, Gratiano/Nerissa) and their emotional and financial interrelationships and uses sly humor and innuendo to poke fun at Venice's societal `outsiders'(Shylock, Morocco, Aragorn and in a lesser sense Antonio) who do not form a Shakespearean couple per se. Looked at from this perspective, the character of Shylock becomes simply the play's foremost societal outcast, in spite of the famous speech where he asks seemingly so poignantly, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

Bottom line: Shakespeare is Shakespeare. If your modern sensibilities are offended by Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock the Jew, the Prince of Morocco and the Prince of Aragorn and question the unhappy and solitary Antonio's intense feelings for Bassanio, simply keep in mind that the world at that time looked at such things differently. Within the definition of comedy, this play with its multitude of lovely speeches and images works well indeed. The New Folger Library edition simply makes the play more easily accessible and understood on the various levels of language and scholarship. I recommend this series wholeheartedly.

Diana F. Von Behren
"reneofc"

One of the classics, what else can I say? Sure, a bit melodramatic, but this is Shakespear after all.

This is a tragic play of a man who has the skill and the determination to rule the world, but instead he brings himself to ruin through capitulation to desires of the flesh. Antony's love for Cleopatra is so self-destructive that he in the end has to turn to suicide to escape his downward spiral. It's not an easy play to read, but it is an important one.

Not one of Shakespeare's more memorable works, there are some pluses to this play and relatively few minuses, but neither the pluses nor the minuses are anything that stands out. It is nice to have yet another play told in Shakespeare's beautiful language, and enjoyable to see a love story that centers on people old enough to no longer be in the first blush of youth, even if they ARE still young enough to be beautiful and virile. On the other hand, I'd have liked to see these more mature lovers BEHAVING somewhat more maturely, instead of being just as frivolous, headstrong, and foolish as the kids in "Romeo And Juliet", and there really aren't any lines from this play that come immediately to mind as having entered the "Quotes Hall Of Fame", as so many lines from Shakespeare's plays have. Nothing on the order of "A horse! My Kingdom for a horse!" or "Alas, poor Yorick; I knew him well." or "To be or not to be, that is the question", or so many others.

If you enjoy Shakespearean plays, you'll probably enjoy this one. But there's no real reason for anyone but a completist to read this.

A great deal of argument has been in the air during the last couple of decades over Shakespeare's rendering of the famous history of Cleopatra , the once upon a time queen of Egypt and her so- called wanton nature and habits that brought her in relation with two Roman military leaders namely ,Mark Antony and Julius Caesar .
From a purely feminist perspective, Cleopatra has been the butt of male-oriented chauvinistic attack and criticism that deemed her a `sexual glutton and `as old as sin itself `. In a male-dominated world like the one we live, woman's beauty is her scourge. No body blames the customer of the prostitute; people are always after the prostitute ,because she is a woman but the male her customer goes unpunished, he has the privilege to enjoy every thing without the least censure. Cleopatra as a matter of fact, is more sinned against than sinning; she was the victim of male-oriented criticism which saw in her an apt image of the `Other `, so why not projecting centuries-long and long-nursed grudge on her as a symbol of women ,of course not as a mother, a sister or even a wife but as a mistress who takes delight in wrecking peaceful house-holds and disrupting the coziness of family life. She is an Amazon woman or a man-eater with lewd insatiable passion that does not stop at any thing to satisfy her sexual urge
Shakespeare seems to subscribe to the above-mentioned misconceptions about Cleopatra; his is a woman , ready to do any and everything cost what it may to live in the mood of love. She shuns the business of the state and neglects her duties as a queen of a strategic country. According to Shakespeare's distorted image of history, Cleopatra's bent for sex and desire makes her interweave a web to enmesh even her arch enemies. Shakespeare does not seem to believe that true faithful love knows no boundaries. Cleopatra's love for Antony and Julius Caesar could have been true love that could have bridged gaps of difference and enmity between Egypt and Rome if not looked upon from the wrong end of perspective.
Further more, if this kind of love has been, in the eyes of those of us -the hapless romantically inclined lovers- who believe only in platonic love, sensual and momentary, the child of momentary sexual infatuation, why do we always blame the woman? - Cleopatra in this case - why do we not fix an equal share of the blame on Caesar and Antony? . In our eyes, male as they are, Cleopatra is "the belly dancer sans merci" whose magical web can not be helped and works with even the most powerful of men in the world. In the eyes of male-hegemony, woman is an object to be loved but never capable of love

I recently re-read ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA prior to attending The Colorado Shakespeare Festival's performance of the ambitious play under the summer stars here in Boulder. Drawn from Sir Thomas North's 1579 English version of Plutarch's Lives, William Shakespeare (1564-1616) produced this romantic tragedy late in his career, around 1607, and published it in the First Folio in 1623. It tells the story of a doomed romance between two charismatic lovers, Roman military leader, Marc Antony, and the captivating Queen of Egypt (and former mistress of Julius Caesar), Cleopatra. When his wife, Fulvia unexpectedly dies, Antony is summoned from Egypt to Rome to mend a political rift with Octavius by marrying his recently widowed sister, Octavia. Of course, this news enrages passionate Cleopatra. She vents her anger on the messenger, but is quick to realize that Octavia is no real rival to her when it comes to beauty. However, Antony soon follows his heart back to Cleopatra's arms, abandoning his new wife in Athens. This leads to war, when Octavius declares war on Egypt. After Octavius eventually defeats Antony at Alexandria, Cleopatra sends a false report of her suicide, which prompts Antony to wound himself mortally. Antony dies in his lover's arms, and rather than submit to Roman rule under the new Caesar (Octavius), the heart-broken Cleopatra asks to have a poisonous snake delivered to her in a basket of figs. In the end, ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA is as much about new sparks re-igniting the flames of love as new political forces supplanting old political regimes. It is a play that reminds me that it is perhaps better to re-read and understand Shakespeare than to devour one bestseller after the next.

G. Merritt

Hey this is Shakespeare, not so easy to understand but at least it's available in large print.

For better or worse, Richard III's enduring image of the cunning, hunchbacked usurper, more monster than man, is immortalized in Will's tragic history of his bloody rise and fall. This version contains good notes, a superb intro, and even illustrations to liven the text!

King Richard III is my favourite historical play, but it ranks up there with my all-time favourites of Shakespeare. I read this play for the first time quite a while after I had read some of his better-known comedies and tragedies, but I absolutely love it. I have seen it performed outside under the stars and the theatre was an outdoor park filled with ruins. The play was held in different places throughout the park. It was absolutely breathtaking and something that I will never forget. Richard III is one of the most fascinating villains of history and in literature. Shakespeare's genius portrays Richard III in a way that shows the playgoers his physical deformity, but we also see that he possesses great charm and wit. He is the ultimate manipulator and is totally ruthless in the pursuit of his goals. Shakespeare's has written this play through the mind and actions of his hero, Richard III, so the audience is aware at all times what he is doing and trying to achieve. We see all his deviousness and manipulation. A truly wonderful play about a very memorable man.

This historical drama, not exactly accurate for all I know (but who cares, it's Billy) depicts one of the best bad guys in all literature, to the point of caricature (and this rhymes!). Richard III is the impersonation of ugliness and pure evil: he is a man both morally and physically malformed, who gives everything for the sake of a vain and insignificant moment of power. He is pure rancour enveloped in hypocrisy and treason. He kills his relatives, including his two child nephews, then he marries his rival's widow, and finally he gets what he deserves screaming: "A horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

"Richard III" is a wonderful satire; as always with WS, the dialogues are perfect and the action supreme. It is not intended to be real history, but a satire of ambition run amok, of the lonely obsession for power and of the depths of evil which humans can reach. It has humorous moments and it was, in its times, good politics, since Richard belonged to the predecessors in power of Queen Elizabeth's family . Another masterpiece by the Bard.

Having never read Richard III, I knew that I would be in for a treat, but nothing quite THIS good. Originally labeled as The Tragedy of Richard III by Shakespeare, one can see, upon reading this enthralling play, why this history/tragedy firmly entrenched itself as one of The Bard's most prolifically performed plays with almost unrivaled longevity due to its immense popularity among the genteel and yeomen alike.

Although the much-maligned humpback King Richard was by no means a saint by any stretch, he was not, however, as wretchedly insidious as Shakespeare might have us believe. In an effort to pander to Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare cast perhaps an overly morose shadow over the House of York. The play itself, interestingly enough, focuses not so much on the bloody ending of The War of Roses and the ascension to the throne of Henry VII(the grandfather of Elizabeth) as it does on the uncannily cunning connivances of Richard III. Richard's dastardly deeds, the sordid means to his end of usurping the crown, know no limits as he murders any and all who dare get in his way - and even those that don't(I suppose they're guilty by association).

Inextricably, although I by no means empathize with him even remotely, Richard somehow, despite his inordinately decadent reprobate ploys, coupled with his twisted soliloquies pleading to the audience his hopeless case, make him one entirely enigmatic, yet entirely captivating, antagonist that makes this play enticingly enjoyable -- in a most devilish kind of way.

"O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!"

Othello by William Shakespeare

"Othello" is a magnificent piece of literary work. The emotion Shakespeare can bring out of you is truly amazing. The plot has many moments of uniqueness and suspense. Kindle edition is my favorite.

As an audio experience, this production is largely dull; the only thing worth mentioning (briefly) is Ewan McGregor's Iago. Young, cheerful, well-spoken and winning, McGregor is the most charming Iago I have encountered in any medium. For awhile, that is nearly enough. One understands why people like and trust this man; one also understands why no one takes him seriously as lieutenant material. But as the play progresses and Iago's cruelty deepens, McGregor's unvarying amiability seems incongruous. A strange countertextual interpretation emerges, reminiscent of Auden's trickster theory but with a striking twist of its own. In brief, Iago tries to play a harmless joke on Othello, only to see the results spiral giddily out of control. The poor man is forced to improvise desperately as he struggles to resolve the mess he unwittingly created. Iago as the Boy who Cried Adulteress, a feckless but innocent victim of events: now there's a novel take on the play, and I'm indebted to McGregor for suggesting it.

The reading is very monotonous as the reader says the names of each part before the part is read. It drives my students as well as myself crazy. We get through the reading faster by just reading the parts ourselves. I was very disappointed with the purchase.

This is a thoroughly edited and explained version of Othello. The introduction and other additional writings are well-researched and well-written, and provide valuable background on the play and the way it has been performed and interpreted over the years. For the scholar, the notes are incredibly thorough, describing the way the poetry is scanned as well as the differing texts in the Quartos and Folios. More information than the casual reader would need, perhaps, but a definitive text for someone who wants research along with their reading.

This Othello is unbelievably beautiful. Disconnecting oneself from The Operative and Obi-Wan Kenobi, and concentrating only on the voices of the fabulous Chiwetel Ejiofor and Ewan MacGregor, one gets a truly immersive experience into the world of jealousy, racism, betrayal, and true love that Shakespeare must originally have intended. I have to not-so-respectfully disagree with the previous reviewer; this recording is layered, clear, and absolutely pulsating with passion and tension.

It's worth every penny, and I say that as a fan of audiobooks in general and Shakespeare in particular. I'll be listening to this for years; Kenneth Branagh and Lawrence Fishburne--eat your hearts out!

Mistress Ford and Mistress Page are be badgered by the lecherous Falstaff, how to arrange a happy ending? As the husband of the object of Falstaff's passion disguises himself as a servant to divine the plans of the villain, the ladies defend their honor by inviting the advances of Falstaff.

This is the Bard's comedy on a good day. Despite the challenges of the original language, I chuckled my way through this story/script. In the end, Falstaff got what he deserve (no sexy time with the good ladies and several beatings), the ladies' honor was preserved, and their husbands saw the highest qualities of their wives.

I loved it, and recommend it highly. I just wish this one would be put on stage more often.

E.M. Van Court

As many of you know, the crooked, but comical and likable Falstaff had a moderate role in "1 Henry IV." He was undoubtedly the real star of "2 Henry IV." At the end of "2 Henry IV," Shakespeare announced that Falstaff would be in the next play. ("Henry V") Well, to the disappointment of the audience, except for the mention of his death, Falstaff was NOT in "Henry V." So, some plays later, Shakespeare ressurected Falstaff along with Bardolph and Nym who were killed in "Henry V." Pistol survived "Henry V," and he is back as well. Some people (including the learned Isaac Asimov) said that the 'fat fool' bears no resemblance to the Falstaff from the Henry IV plays. Well, Asimov was right, but in Shakespeare's defense, the name can not always bring back the character. (Compare the "Dukes of Hazzard" episodes to the not so good recent movie. Denver Pyle is probably rolling over in his grave!) Well, onto the play! Shakespeare cleverly combines 2 plots. Anne Page is a young girl whose parents want her to marry someone other than Fenton whom she really loves. This story IS all too familiar, but Shakespeare compensates for that rather well. Her father (Page) wants Anne to marry the nice enough Slender, while her mother (Lady Page) wants her to marry the eccentric Dr. Caius. (So, Shakespeare doesn't quite repeat the Juliet syndrome.) Moving on, Falstaff enters and he intends to woo Anne's mother and Page's wife as well as Ford's wife not out of love, but in hopes of increasing his fortune. (How unheard of! ESPECIALLY in today's world!) Well, even Falstaff's friends Pistol and Nym are repulsed by this, and Pistol warns Mr. Ford while Nym warns Mr. Page. While we may see Page and Lady Page as the 'wicked parents' who want Anne to marry someone other than whom she loves, Shakespeare expands their characters by having mutual love and trust. (Othello sure could have learned A LOT from Mr. Page!) So, at this point we see that the marriage between Page and Lady Page is a reasonably happy and successful one. On the other hand, Ford is not so sure of his wife to say the least. He plans to disguise himself and encourage Falstaff to go ahead, mainly so he can catch his wife and Falstaff in the act. Lady Ford has plans of her own. We know that Lady Page and Lady Ford are trying to teach Falstaff a lesson so to speak, and we can only imagine what is going through poor Ford's mind when Falstaff reveals his plans to woo Lady Anne AND Lady Page. Ford goes through some comical jealous rages, but unlike the so called 'noble Othello' he does NOT lay an abusive hand on his wife, and it is hard to not feel at least a little sorry for him. (We can only imagine his frustrations when he thinks he was wrong, but Falstaff confesses he was with Ford's wife, Ford can recall the events, and Falstaff speaks of ANOTHER meeting with Ford's wife!) Well, keeping with good comedy, no one really gets hurt, and Mr. Ford is willing to admit he was wrong about his wife. Now it does seem that after the 2 humiliating events (being thrown into a river and having to disguise himself as a witch to escape), Falstaff would have learned by now. But, such is comedy. The Pages and the Fords decide to subject Falstaff to one more practical joke. And of course, there is the matter of whom Anne will marry. (Fenton whom she loves, Slender whom her father loves, and Dr. Caius whom her mother loves.) In a bit of "Midsummer Night's Dream" nostalgia, Falstaff suffers one final slapstick moment, but all is resolved, and young love triumphs. And in the often found theme of reconciliation of Shakespeare's comedies, the characters (including Falstaff) all enjoy a happy party.

This play is odd in that critics hate it, but theater companies love it. Harold Bloom's contempt for this play is so great that he refused to discuss it in his book on Shakespeare. But, unlike some of Shakespeare's less popular plays, Merry Wives is performed frequently in Shakespeare festivals across the land.

You really have to see this play to understand how well it works on the stage. Played by an energetic cast it is hilarious situation comedy and easily understandable by people unfamiliar with Shakespeare. When Falstaff says at the end, with deadpan delivery, "I do begin to perceive that I am made an ass," it brings down the house. Just reading the play in your living room, you will probably miss much of the humor.

Shakespeare was a man of the theater. He wrote for production, with little thought given to publication in his lifetime. You have to see his plays performed to get a measure of his theatrical genius.

I certainly don't agree with many of the reviews of this play. To me it is one of Shakespeare's funniest. I truly enjoyed it. One of my favourite Shakespearean characters is Falstaff, and he appears in a number of Shakespeare's comedies. He makes an appearance in this one, and he is wonderful. The scene of this play is in Windsor, England. The play follows the merry wives in their interactions with their husbands and with their families and servants. This play is unique too, because we see Falstaff in love in this one. This may be one of Shakespeare's lesser known comedies, but it should be read and enjoyed. Don't let some of these reviews stop you from the sheer enjoyment of this play.

"The Merry Wives of Windsor" is one of Shakespeare's worst plays. It lacks the sharp wit of many of his other comedies, tending for low puns all the way through. The situations are ridiculous. Is Falstaff in a laundry hamper, or sitting in the woods and being prodded by children, funny? Of course, the Elizabethans liked bear-baiting (mentioned in the play). And Shakespeare seemed to want this play to be particularly funny for making fun of Welsh and French accents.

What raises this recording is the cast, particularly Michael Hordern's Ford. Ford is a bitter, jealous character, who actually believes his wife might have a dalliance with the physically repulsive Falstaff. But Hordern's befuddled jealousy actually make thankless lines funny. Anthony Quayle, a very good actor, blusters too much as Falstaff, but it must be difficult to represent Falstaff in sound alone and so that's excusable.

The problems with the play are Shakespeare's. He starts a lot of things he doesn't explore (such as the bizarre horse-stealing episode) and there are too many characters to keep up with comfortably unless one follows along with the text the first time through. But if you need to get through and understand "The Merry Wives" for whatever reason, listening to this fine cast and skimming along with the text is the most enjoyable way to do it.

I loved it.

"All's Well That End's Well" is a convoluted story of guys who want to marry the girl who doesn't want to marry them, but wants the guy that doesn't really want her but, wants to go off with another guy. There's a coward, homoerotic undertones, slapstick, deceit, and a king who is in charge and apparently clueless.

The significance of a devious, influential, and brilliant young woman as a heroine is easy to understand when Queen Elizabeth was in the audience. In a period of sophisticated intrigues and war, this was a relevant bit of entertainment. Knowing the original context, much of this play's relevance is retained after almost 400 years.

The subtle insinuation that Bertram would rather hang with his buddy that his lady is easily lost if you don't pay attention, and would be easy to play down on stage. It shouldn't be, it was part of the play, and adds a subtle and arch touch to the script.

I really enjoyed this one, especially when the coward Parolles gets burned.

E. M. Van Court

In giving this play 4 stars, I am comparing it against Shakespeare's other work, not against any other writer.
This is supposedly one of Shakespeare's "problem plays", but I don't see the problem. We have characters who have extreme emotions (a favorite Shakespeare motif) and some situations that border on ridiculous, but the emotion and heart of the conflict reflects reality in a way that only Shakespeare can produce. Although modern audiences may balk at Helena's throwing of herself at a man who disdains her, we must remember that Helena is in love, and thus, not always rational. Love wants its desires, not practical solutions.
Alls Well also includes a wonderful Shakespearian character in Parolles. The man is a coward, a fool, and a braggart. The irony (and joy) of his character is that he knows and accepts these faults in himself. Despite his poor qualities, he is really the most honest character in this work. Read this play if for no other reason than to introduce yourself to this this great character.
Existential questions about self worth and the paradoxical nature of humanity are the real crux of this play, and once again, Shakespeare shows us what it means to be human. As one character says in Act IV, "The web of our life is of a mingled yarn, good and ill together..." Alls Well demonstrates this in the dual nature of almost every character and plot device.

Try as you might, you will have a hard time finding any redeeming social merit to the "hero" of this play. In an era of arranged marriages, "our hero" abandons his bride and runs off to the wars because she is not good enough for him. This opinion makes him a majority of one, since everyone else thinks she is too good for him. Before he leaves, however, he sets her an impossible task which will win his devotion, if not his love. The heroine then undertakes to fulfill the terms of the task. In order to accomplish the task she devises a plan which will wound everyone who loves her and take advantage of his unworthiness of her.

It's hard to see what she sees in him, but as the saying goes, love is not only blind, it is also deaf and dumb. The plot moves snappily along toward its foreordained happy conclusion, with the hero's aide-de-camp, a sort of cross between Iago and Falstaff, providing "comic" relief.

Arkangel Shakespeare has put on a five star production of a three star play. Many recordings of Shakespeare plays add poor sound quality to poor diction, resulting in a product that is difficult, if not impossible, to follow. The sound is good, the lines are well-spoken, and the dialog is easily followed.

This play is probably not as great as others of Shakespeare's comedies, but it is still worth the effort. The play is quite ribald. It is a short play. The plot is a familiar one - a woman is set an almost impossible task, and if she succeeds in completing it, she will get her dearest wish. Worth a read.

All's Well has been unfairly treated. It's supposed to be one of Shakespeare's worst plays, but it is truly fascinating. It is subtle, and the conflicts are rich. Here, no one is purely good or bad, and perhaps it's the difficulty of feeling drawn to a variety of characters who are in conflict that makes people dislike this play. The female lead is bravely determined. The male lead is completely controlled by the political situation. Of course he wants his freedom! The adoration that the female lead feels for him must seem like a trap. . . And yet she does feel it, and she's willing to do everything to realize her dream. I love the reality of this play. It isn't glorious like Hamlet, it isn't abject like Lear. Instead, it's a picture of a middle class reality that gives us insight into sex, liberty, love, and authority.

This is a pretty decent political tragedy. The book has a great inroduction that helped lay out the themes of the play. While this was a good work, it wasn't my favorite by Shakespeare.

This inexpensive volume is a fine edition with very readable text, good notes, and a nice introduction. Coriolanus is not one of Shakespeare's most popular plays, though it has its partisans. As with several of Shakespeare's best plays, it is an attempt to combine an investigation of the nature of power with a psychological portrait. The nature of power or kingship was one of Shakespeare's great themes, featured in some of the great tragedies like MacBeth or Lear, and this theme runs through many of his history plays. In Coriolanus, however, this theme is handled less well. It is interesting to speculate why Shakespeare, who dealt with this theme so well in many plays, doesn't do such a good job in Coriolanus. The action in Coriolanus is set in a republic, not a monarchy. The structure of republican politics is not one Shakespeare would have known well and the problems of politics and authority in a republican are different than those of a monarchy. Particularly for modern audiences, whose intrinsic understanding of republican politics is much greater than Shakespeare's, the clumsy handling of the tension between the aristocratic Coriolanus and the plebes rings false. In addition, the psychological portrait of Coriolanus is not nearly as rich as Shakespeare's analysis of quite a few of his other protagonists. Much of the language in Coriolanus is powerful but it lacks the dramatic movement and insight of his best work.

I had an overpriced Arden Shakespeare copy of the play. The spine broke. I have known Oxford was as good for lower price and prefer the notes. The Arden text is more authoritative but the physical (Oxford) book is better.

Coriolanus seems to have the critical imprimatur as one of Shakespeare's greatest tragedies. Yet, this must be a misprint. Latest? Certainly. Greatest? Hardly.

For one thing, anyone with any familiarity with Shakespeare's plays must immediately note the protagonist's lack of humanity. Coriolanus' heartlessness is his chief characteristic. All the things that make him so compelling on the battlefield only serve to dull his appeal as a civilian. Since Coriolanus spends the majority of the play as a civilian, this is bad news for the audience.

There may well be tragic events in Coriolanus. However, Coriolanus falls short of great Shakespearean tragedy. The lead is not exceptional (as are the rest of Shakespeare's tragic heroes). At best, Coriolanus is a dolt who becomes a savant on the battlefield. Shakespeare telegraphs, rather than foreshadows, the tragic events of Coriolanus. This, compounded with Coriolanus' inability to carry the play, makes for a rather frenzied mush of a drama.

I recommend Coriolanus only to the Shakespearean completist. It is not one of his better works.

+++++

This play, written circa 1608, is the last of William Shakespeare's (1564 to 1616) eleven (some say ten) known tragedies. Even though it is known as a "Roman" or "political" play, serious readers will discover that it so much more. I found that it stayed with me long after I read it.

This play is set in ancient Rome. It is essentially the story of warrior Caius Marcius (later known as "Coriolanus") whose honor, pride, and sense of social rank dominates his life and interferes with his ability to function effectively when he's not on the battlefield.

One of the great attributes of this play is that it does not have many characters and thus is easy to follow. The major characters are as follows:

(1) Coriolanus (originally Caius Marcius): a valiant warrior and patrician (nobleman) with a non-overbearing wife. "A soldier to Cato's wish" and a modest hero who "hath deserved worthily of his country" but who lacks tact and refuses to placate "the mutable, rank-scented many."
(2) Volumnia: his overbearing mother. "In anger, Juno-like."
(3) Menenius Agrippa: "a humorous patrician" and an old and true friend of Coriolanus who is trusted by the plebeians (lower class)
(4) Titus Lartius and Cominius: fellow generals with Coriolanus.
(5) Sicinius and Brutus: tribunes (representatives of the plebeians) of the common people and Coriolanus' political enemies. "A pair of strange ones."
(6) Tullus Aufidius: general of Rome's enemies and rival in glory to Coriolanus.

This "Shakespeare PELican" book (published by Penguin in 1999) has some interesting material before the play proper. I found the introduction to the play especially informative.

I would recommend, in order to get the full impact of this play, to either see it on film (the BBC production is excellent) or to see it on the stage.

Finally, I cannot understand why this play has been overlooked as one of Shakespeare's great works. (It was, in fact, written during Shakespeare's greatest period, 1599 to 1608.) The story itself is interesting with many subtle themes. The only thing I can think of is that there are some terms that you must know to properly understand the play (such as patrician, plebeian, tribune, etc.). These terms can be easily looked up in a good dictionary.

In conclusion, this play, in my opinion, is an overlooked gem. This book published by Penguin is an excellent resource for students, teachers, theatre professionals, and anyone interested in discovering this great play!!

+++++

I purchased this edition for a class. While the quality of the binding, layout of the actual play, typeface, etc. are solid and what I expected for the price and the type of book I was purchasing (paperback); the introduction is disappointing. Extensively written and extremely boring, it made me want to give up on the book altogether before I even began reading the play (and I'm a Shakespeare fan!). The author brings up multiple interpretations by others as validation for his views, but also takes pains to point out why all the other interpretations aren't as good as his own. This introduction is detailed and not intended for anyone but Shakespeare scholars. For someone who has studied Shakespeare's life and era in the past, this edition will provide lots of information connecting and comparing this play to what you already know and can be very educational.

I know readers who claim to prefer this play to Chaucer's "Troilus and Criseyde"--which tells you something either about their inability to read Chaucer or their jaded sense of humor. Shakespeare's version of the story is every bit as dark and sardonic as Chaucer's is light and satiric. In fact, this must be the Bard's blackest comedy, too strained, disconnected, and unfocused to pass muster as "tragedy." In fact, if we take seriously Ulysses' oft-quoted speech on "degree" (accepting one's limits as a requirement for cosmic order) and Troilus' confirmation of an up-ended moral universe ("the bonds of heaven have slipped!"), there's no longer room for the heroic or tragic in the modern world Shakespeare has created in this play.

Despite containing some of the playwright's most memorable and eloquent speeches, it's the cynical tone and absurdist context, not story or character, that we remember from the play. Somewhat like Hitchcock in "Rear Window," Shakespeare places the reader in the position of deviant-voyeur, subjecting him to both the testimony and proof of Thersites' recurring reminder that, where heroism and love are concerned, all is "war and lechery." If we decide to stay the course, we're rewarded at play's end with Pandarus's speech to the audience, promising to bequeath us with "his diseases." It's shocking that Shakespeare got away with such material in a pre-penicillin era, but no less noteworthy is the audience's masochistic compliance (in itself, a potential commentary on the degradation that Shakespeare forcefully exposes and criticizes in this play).

The play often scores with modern audiences because productions opportunistically go "over the top" with exaggerated visual and verbal bawdry. The textual version is necessarily five stars because nothing can touch Shakespeare (except perhaps in this case Chaucer). Still it's a good thing that the guardians of public morality aren't better readers or this one might not make the cut in some venues where Shakespeare is performed. In fact, that situation could soon change if acting companies continue to substitute for Shakespeare's language gross and attention-getting stage antics, using the master wordsmith as a license for selling sensation.

The first thing you will probably notice about this play is that it seems longer than his other plays. But if we are willing to look past this, it is a rather good play that explores the theme that personal dissension is the root of chaos and the unreliability of romantic love. This play deals with the last stage of the Trogan War. It begins with Trojan Troilus expressing his love for Cressida to her uncle Pandarus. Pandarus (who for now is Cressida's guardian) consents to Troilus's quest. In the next scene, Cressida will not admit to her uncle Pandarus that she likes Troilus, but she later reveals to us she does. (Some nice comedy.) 1.3 is a rather well drawn scene where the Greek King Agamemnon is frustrated because Greece has not been able to defeat Troy after all this time. Part of the reason may be civil dissension in Greece. The Greek warrior Achilles is more after his own glory than performing his duties. Because of this, when an invitation to fight Hector to decide the outcome comes, Agamemnon chooses the less able, but more modest Ajax. Onto Act 2. Act 2 Scene 2 emphasizes the theme of this play yet again. Priam and Hector honestly feel that the Trojans should just give back Helen to the Greeks and end all this. It makes sense does it not? But Troilus (like Romeo) is a romantic and not a rationalist, and he persuades Priam and Hector to hold onto Helen. (By the way, we can forget about any valuable input from Helen. She shows herself to be an airhead. Or as the great Isaac Asimov puts it: "She appears as a vain, silly woman with an empty head unaware (or uncaring about) what she has caused, and incapable, apparently, of making an intelligent remark." Onto Act 3. Troilus and Cressida confess their love for each other, and for now they are happy. (Along with Cressida's uncle Pandarus.) But this is not to last. Cressida's father (of Greece) wants his daughter Cressida back and Agamemnon is willing to give Troy back their Anteor in return. Agamemnon continues to show contempt for Achilles and his swollen ego, and there is a comical scene where everyone ignores Achilles. The less effective but more modest Ajax continues to win praise. Onto Act 4. 4.2 has the sad scene where Troilus and Cressida realize that they must part, but with a gleam of hope, Troilus plans to see Cressida behind enemy lines. The parting in 4.4 is well drawn. Onto the battle between Hector and Ajax. It takes place, and the battle ends with the 2 praising each other with respect. Perhaps things can even come to a peaceful conclusion, but Achilles and Hector express their contempt for each other, and peace looks less likely. Onto Act 5. Troilus sneaks behind enemy lines to see Cressida, but to make a long story short, he sees that she no longer feels anything for him. Troilus leaves in a bitter rage. (Such is a short romance.) Act 5.3 is a memorable scene where Hector's wife tries to convince Hector to stay home, but like Calpurnia, she can not convince Caesar to stay home. (Even when Hector's father and sister try to help.) And now, the fire flies. War breaks out. The balance of power swings back and forth. Hector kills Achilles's friend Patroclus and when Hector's vanity leaves him vulnerable, Achilles kills Hector in a less than honorable fashion. Troilus survives, but he fears with the loss of Hector, Troy will fall. If you like this story, you may wish to read Marlowe's "Dido Queen of Carthage." That play focuses on Aeneas and the surviving Trojans as they plot their next move.

One of his lesser known works, Shakespeare's Trojan play is also one of his most intriguing. Not quite a burlesque, 'Troilus and Cressida''s lurches in tone, from farce to historical drama to romance to tragedy, and its blurring of these modes, explains why generations of critics and audiences have found it so unsatisfying, and why today it can seem so modern. Its disenchanted tone, its interest in the baser human instincts underlying (classical) heroism look forward to such 20th century works as Giraudoux's 'The Trojan War Will Not Take Place' or Terry Jones' 'Chaucer's Knight'; the aristocratic ideals of Love and War, inextricably linked in this play, are debased by the merchant-class language of exchange, trade, food, possesion - the passionate affair at its centre is organised by the man who gave his name to pimps, Pandarus, and is more concerned with immediate sexual gratification than anything transcendental. The Siege of Troy sequences are full of the elaborately formal rhetoric we expect from Shakespeare's history plays, but well-wrought diplomacy masks ignoble trickery; the great heroes Ajax and Achilles are petulant egotists, the latter preferring the company of his catamite to combat; the actual war sequences, when they finally come, are a breathless farce of exits and entrances. There are a lot of words in this play, but very few deeds.

Paris, Prince of Troy, has abducted Helen, wife of Menelaus, King of Sparta. Led by the latter's brother Agamemnon, and his Machiavellian advisors Ulysses and Nestor, the Greeks besiege Troy, demanding the return of Helen. However, Achilles' dissatisfaction at the generals' endless politicking has spread discontent in the ranks. Within Troy, war takes a distinct second place to matters of the heart. While Paris wallows in luxury with his prize, his youngest brother Troilus uses Pandarus as a go-between to arrange a night of love with his niece, Cressida. When one of the Trojan leaders is taken prisoner by the Greeks, the ransom price is Cressida.

There is only one character in 'Troilus' who can be said to be at all noble and not self-interested, the eldest Trojan prince Hector, who, despite his odd interpreation of the quality 'honour', detests a meaningless war, and tries to spare as many of his enemies' lives as he can. He is clearly an anachronism, however, and his ignoble slaughter at the hands of a brutal gang suggests what price chivalry. Perhaps the most recognisable character is Thirsitis, the most savagely cynical of his great Fools. Imagine Falstaff without the redeeming lovability - he divests heroes and events of their false values, satirises motivations, abuses his dim-witted 'betters' and tries to preserve his life at any cost. Written in between 'Hamlet' and 'All's Well That Ends Well', 'Troilus' bears all the marks of Shakespeare's mid-period: the contrapuntal structure, the dense figures, the audacious neologisms, and the intitially deferred, accelerated action. If some of the diplomacy scenes are too efective in their parodic pastiche of classical rhetoric, and slow things down, Act 5 is an amazing dramatic rush, crowning the play's disenchantment with love (with an extraordinarily creepy three-way spaying of an infidelity) and war.

The New Penguin Shakespeare is the most accessible and user-friendly edition for students and the general reader (although it does need updating). Unlike the Oxford or Arden series, which offer unwieldy introductions (yawning with irrelevant conjecture about dates and sources) and unusable notes (clotted with tedious pedantry more concerned with fighting previous commentators than elucidating Shakespeare), the Penguin's format offers a clear Introduction dealing with the play and its contexts, an appendix 'An Account of the Text', and functional endnotes that gloss unfamiliar words and difficult passages. The Introduction is untainted by fashions in Critical Theory, but is particularly good at explaining the role of Time ('When time is old and hath forgot itself...And blind oblivion swallowed cities up'), the shifting structure, the multiple viewpoints in presenting characters, and Shakespeare's use of different literary and linguistic registers.

Troilus and Cressida is one of Shakespear`s many romances, and, like most of his romances, is a tragedy. Since time immemorial, Shakespears` works have been used as plays, literature and (least often) just casual reading. While Troilus and Cressida is one of the less known plays, it is no less a good one. It is based in Troy(as the name might imply)during the much renowned Trojan War. The valiant Troilus, son of the Trojan king is enamoured of Cressida, also of Troy. Meanwhile, the Greek hosts have laid siege to the city, and the warrior Achilles refuses to fight, encouraging further interaction between the two sides. Cressida, however, is the daughter of a Greek sympathizer(if that is the correct word)and may not be able to honour her commitment to the Trojan prince...

In "Richard II," Bolingbroke usurped Richard II's crown and became King Henry IV. In "1 Henry IV," King Henry IV stopped the rebellion by Hostspur, Worcester, and Vernon. But his enemy Northumberland is still out there. And this brings us to the present chapter "2 Henry IV." Despite the title, the real star of this play is Falstaff. In "1 Henry IV' Falstaff had a moderate roll. The learned Isaac Asimov was of the opinion that Shakespeare got more than he bargained for with his Falstaff and realized he could write a play with Falstaff as the prominent character. One minor complaint I have is that while Falstaff probably could handle a play, some of the scenes with him seem drawn out. Northumberland reappears and he is of course sad over the death of his son Hotspur. (Slain by Prince Henry in Part 1.) We also meet the Arch Bishop of York who becomes an enemy of Henry IV. The Arch Bishop delivers a striking passage that emphasizes that the past and to come always seem better than the present. In Act 2, we quickly learn that Falstaff has built up some debts and that he is neglecting his duties to the king. (Big surprise!) Prince Henry is a backstage player for the early part of the play, but rather than being close to Falstaff (as in Part 1), he bitterly rebukes Falstaff for his style of life. Also, Prince Henry expresses some sorrow over his father's failing health. But he is afraid he will be seen as a hypocrite if he shows it. (Many people in his position wouldn't be able to wait to wear the crown.) Interestingly, a woman named Doll begins to find Falstaff attractive. King Henry IV does not enter until Act 3.1, and we can see that the rebellions have taken their toll on him. He is having insomnia and he can only talk about the tribulations of his crown. It is even possible that he feels he deserves his afflictions. Later, Falstaff gathers his men together in a well drawn comical scene. Westmoreland and Henry IV's son Lancaster defeat the rebellion of the Arch Bishop of York, Mowbray, and Hastings in a less than honorable way. But this is not an invention of Shakespeare. It really happened. In the comical 4.3, Coleville surrenders to our favorite fat rogue Falstaff. It is on the funny side when Falstaff comments that Lancaster is so uptight because he doesn't drink. But the sad part of the play returns soon enough. Despite the fact that Henry IV 's enemies have been defeated, Henry IV's health has failed, and he doesn't have much more of a reign to enjoy. (And if you follow my reviews, this constitutes a small consolation prize to King Richard II.) The scene where King Henry IV admits his crimes, begs God's forgiveness, and wishes the eventual Henry V well is one of Shakespeare's greatest moments. I always liked how in "Richard II," Henry IV was a young and energetic usurper, and then in "1 Henry IV" he was portrayed as somewhat more heroic and a likable king, and in "2 Henry IV" he was portrayed as a sorrowful and penitent man. Some people dislike Henry V for banishing Falstaff, but the truth is Henry V has little choice. Falstaff's actions (as comical and entertaining as they are) are flat out criminal. Though Shakespeare did not keep the epilogue's word by putting Falstaff in "Henry V," he would eventually reappear in "The Merry Wives of Windsor."

My only complaint about "2 Henry IV" is that Shakespeare draws the scenes with Falstaff out too much (in my opinion). Falstaff is funnier than ever. King Henry IV's younger son Lancaster is a very striking figure. While his father is ill, he commands the forces against his father's enemies. 3.1 where King Henry IV contemplates the consequences of the crown he usurped from Richard II is quite moving. The scene where Lancaster crushes the last of his father's opposition is quite chilling. I can not overestimate Shakespeare's genious in how he handles Henry IV in this play. In "Richard II" his ambition and cruelty for the most part never ceased. In "1 Henry IV," he showed himself to be a competent (and even likeable) king. In this play, he clearly regrets and suffers for his actions against Richard II. (Even if we remember his cruelty in "Richard II," it is hard not to feel sorry for him at this point.) The scene where King Henry IV has his final talk with the eventual Henry V is one of the most moving passages in literature. King Henry V's complete reform is not only well drawn, but it helps prepare us for the next play, "Henry V." But if you want to see more of Falstaff, remember he has the lead role in the later play "The Merry Wives of Windsor."

Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part II" concerns the triumphant decline of King Henry IV, and the ascension of his son, Henry, Prince of Wales, to the throne as King Henry V. As in "Henry IV Part I," Part II's main action concerns the attempts of the King to suppress civil strife, which is manifested once again in threatened rebellion. In "Henry IV Part II," the rebels are led by Scroop, the Archbishop of York, the most powerful religious figure in England. The Archbishop's involvement "turns insurrection to religion," thereby hoping to gain popular support and enlistment in the army against Henry IV.

Henry, Prince of Wales, as the next in line to the throne, is expected to take a hard line against these threats, and lead the charge against the rebel forces. However, as in Part I, Prince Henry is nervous, as a young man will be, about accepting responsibility for himself, much less for an entire nation. A frivolous youth, he associates with the common folk in bars and taverns, led in his debaucheries by the notoriously comic Sir John Falstaff. The dichotomy between Prince Henry's father figures, the frail, but courageous King Henry IV and the robust, but cowardly Falstaff sets up the scope of the choice Prince Henry must make. His choice, he comes to realize, will affect the course of his country.

The forces mount as the play moves forward - the King's army is ordered, well-equipped, and led by formidable generals - the Archbishop's army is made up largely of untrained citizens. The meeting of the armies' leaders in the Gaultree Forest of Yorkshire is the emotional and tactical climax of the play, and handled with dramatic precision by Shakespeare.

The growth of Prince Henry, the shaping of his mind, his relationships with his noble father and brothers, as well as those with his low, vulgar drinking buddies, forms the focus of "Henry IV Part II." Through five deceptively simple acts, Shakespeare illustrates the birth of a man