William Shakespeare Books

The collection of essays, Characters of Shakespeare"s Plays, by William Hazlitt discusses exactly what you might think from reading the title. This book from about 1817 tells us what someone who was not just anyone thought of Shakespeare's plays and, most significantly for Hazlitt, those incredibly drawn characters. Hazlitt praised Shakespeare and, in his view, never enough. If the remedial reading of Shakespeare in high school tainted your perceptions of the plays with rote study of lines and characters supplemented with relentless quizing and testing, consider reading this author who, although he may never change your mind about Shakespeare, might delight you anyhow. Hazlitt's enthusiasm is infectious. Hazlitt rates prominently among the great essayists from Montaigne to Bacon. Others quote him and emulate him. Read him and you will know who he has influenced. Try to understand his theories but enjoy his style. His politics may be ancient but everyone's will be one day.

This book is considered a Classic in Shakespeare Studies and I'd have to agree (although I don't necessarily see many things in the same manner as the Author). The book is readily accessible today, almost 200 years after first being published, whereas much Shakespeare Criticism today is only accessible to the Chosen Few. My honest opinion is that too many Literary Critics today are too full of themselves to look at Shakespeare with any pretense of objectivity, while Mr. Hazlitt, among other Great Critics, is intent at giving actual thought to Shakespeare's work. I'm not saying Hazlitt breaks the 'Shakespeare Code,' but at least he gives you thoughts to seriously consider about Shakespeare.

If you read current literary criticism and can't make heads or tails of it, there's a good reason for why; little of it makes any sense. They are either hyperbolic in their esorteric lingo, or deep in some psychological crevice that won't pan you any gold, trust me, I've been there.

Read Hazlitt, study Samuel Johnson's Preface, attempt A.C. Bradley, Northrop Frye, etc. ... I've personally been most impressed with Harold Goddard, 'The Meaning of Shakespeare.' There's DEFINITELY 'Something about Shakespeare,' and I hope you find your efforts as rewarding as I have, despite the plethora of misleading scholarship available and many wrong turns hyped today.

Hope you find this review helpful.

How many people really know the details of Shakespeare's life! Find out in this well-done, rhyming text filled with kids illustrations and "letters" and "documents". For example: one child crafts Shakespeare's will...very interesting! Lois Burdett is a genius! Perfect for teaching about Shakespeare - for kids and adults! Buy It!

I purchased this book because I was attracted to it and I intended to put it away until I could pull together an interesting unit study on Shakespeare. However, my two boys (7 and 9) could not stand to go to bed without me reading it to them first!! They were instantly attracted to artworks and writing done by kids their age and wouldn't let me pass a single page without reading everything! They enjoyed finding the spelling errors and I was certainly surprised at how many they caught, as I am sure they would've made many of the same ones. My boys asked, after reading the book, if we could study Shakespeare for school THIS week! Yikes, I have got some quick planning to do. This is a wonderfully inspiring leaping off point for a trip into the world of Shakespeare. At the end of the book, one of my sons said it well, "Hey mom, he wrote drama and he lived drama, too!" I think they got it.

Okay, that's not exactly fair. I'm not in a class for this, I just wanted to get an overview, since it's been quite a few years since I read the histories. Excellent summary.

I loved this book because I got 100 (A+) on my examses because of it! I didnt have to read the real romeo and juliet or macbeth! I just read the resume!

A tale of woe, with twins seperated at birth, children lost to their parents and a man whose life is sacrifice unless he can pay an enormous debt. And that is just the first scenes.

Then, you dive head first into broad slapstick and grand comedy. One twin is a married bawd, the other is a mostly honorable bachelor. The wrong master addresses the wrong servant, the wife gets mad at the wrong twin, and everyone thinks everyone else has lost their minds. Grand fun all around, and an inspiration for every comic troupe to follow (including the Marx brothers, Peter Sellers, and Disney in several manifestations).

Shakespearean comedy at its best!

E.M. Van Court

Along with "Midsummer Night's Dream," "The Comedy of Errors" remains my favorite comedy to this day. While this is a hilarious play, the story actually starts quite sad. A merchant from Syracuse named Egeon is illegally in Ephesus, and will be executed unless he can come up with 1,000 marks. He appeals to the duke and explains that he has been separated from his wife, his 2 (identical twins-Antipholus of Ephesus and Antipholus of Syracuse) sons, and their 2 (identical twins Dromio of Ephesus and Dromio of Syracuse) servants. Yes, it does pass plausibility that the twins would have identical names, but the confusion to come can only occur if their names are identical. So, we have to be willing to forgive this for the sake of the play's comedy to come. The duke is moved into sympathy and gives him the day to come up with 1,000 marks. Some people feel this sad scene does not belong, but I can not agree. One, it sets the mood, and two, a little bit of sadness prevents a comedy from becoming an utter farce. Also, despite the comedy of the future acts, we don't really forget this serious situation at hand, and as we enjoy the comedy, we still are in suspense as to what will happen to Egeon. Well, in comes Antipholus of Syracuse and his servant Dromio of Syracuse. And we learn that Egeon was speaking of them. (Antipholus and Dromio of Syracuse grew up with Egeon, and thus know him, but Antipholus and Dromio of Ephesus never knew their father or brothers for that matter.) What makes this comedy so wonderful is that not only does Shakespeare maintain the comical aspects of it, but he gradually increases the tension. At first, the 'errors' only lead to private and comical misunderstandings. But later, more outside parties get involved as both Antipholuses and Dromios are mistaken for their twins. Later, Antipholus of Ephesus suspects that his wife is having an affair. (And in my opinion, he had stronger grounds for suspecting this than the so called noble Othello. After all, poor Antipholus of Ephesus was locked out of his own house! And through a closed door, his wife told him to go away!) Soon, the errors lead to Antipholus of Ephesus and his friend Angelo getting arrested. And by the end of the 4th act, the confusion and errors have gotten so intense and out of hand that several characters in the play are angry at each other, and not one or two, but SEVERAL of the characters are in danger of being physically hurt. But leave it to Shakespeare to resolve everything just in time and give us a happy ending with all the characters enjoying a merry feast! Perhaps the greatest thing about this story is that there are no villains and there is no intentional deception. (Just a lot of misunderstandings.) And perhaps Shakespeare is telling us that many of our conflicts in life are due to misunderstandings.

I love all Shakespeare's works in all his genres, but this play is my favourite one of the Comedies. I have read it numerous times, but I have also seen it played on the stage, and it was unbelievably funny there. This play is actually one of Shakespeare's earliest. The play is a story about doubles, and the confusion that arises from this. Shakespeare protagaonists are a pair of twins, and to complicate things further each twin has an identical twin for a servant. Shakespeare's humour is bawdy as it was expected to be during the Elizabethan age. Some people think this particular play displays farcical humour because the humour is so broad, but I truly enjoyed reading it and seeing it. I think the genius of this particular play is in the deftness of the plot and the fast-paced perfection and timing of its action. I laughed out loud many times during this wonderful play.

As someone who is reading Shakespeare for the second time at the age of 40 and who considers himself a careful reader, I am always surprised to find the Oxford editors bring new ways of looking at the plays. In this introduction, Whitworth does a commendable job of explaining the importance of The Comedy of Errors which is usually dismissed as light weight farce, by explaining the history of critiism of the play and it social relevance.
Presented as a Christmas entertainment for the queen, The Comedy cleverly combines plots from two Plautus plays as well as introducing plot elements of his own.
I-- a mere mortal-- have no ability to criticize Shakespeares truly immortal genious. As the best writer ever, all I can do is enjoy the work. The scholarly intro allows you to heighten the pleasure seeing thing that might not be seen at surface level.
An additional benefit of the Oxford Shakespeare is that it is annotated with just enough notes-- on the same page as the text.
If you read Shakespeare for enjoyment or for a class, Oxford is the best.

The works of Shakespeare are world renown - but can be a little intimidating for someone just starting out. "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Shakespeare's Plays" is a guide for those who want to better understand this series of famous works without earning a Master's degree in English Literature. Covering both his major plays such as Romeo & Juliet and Hamlet to his lesser known ones, the guide also entertains with facts and stories about each of the plays and the man behind the pen himself, Shakespeare. "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Shakespeare's Plays" is a must for any stage actor who doesn't fully understand the bard's work.

This is an erudite and entertaining book that demystifies Shakespeare. Like a good book or film review, it makes me want to see the actual play! The various methods of analysis (quotes, interviews, pictures, different points of views) holds interest very well. It's user friendly and I'm impressed by the detail.
The author also vividly describes the world from which the Elizabethan audience views the plays, thus, contributing to the plays' enjoyment and understanding. A great read.

Ms Greenwood certainly knows Shakespeare and her passion shows. The book is well written and so in depth. This book is must reading for anyone planning to see a Shakespearean production. It gives the reader a better appreciation of what should seen on stage. It will also influence the viewer when watching a "bad interpretation" of a character as well. This book helps answer the question, "why should I care about about a Shakespearean play?"

This is the version used in my college Shakespeare courses, way back in 1972! It was lost in a housefire, and I haven't seen it since. The one hundred page introduction is dense and rich in historical detail. This IS the best version I have ever encountered. What a find!

This is the most excelent compliation of the works of William Shakespeare that I have ever seen. The introductions to the works are thorough and the footnotes are easily understandable. I highly recomend this book to any Shakespeare fan

The 1598 loss of their theater's lease should have been a major blow to the Lord Chamberlain's Men, one of Elizabethan England's premier acting troupes, who had gained even more popularity by teaming up with one Will Shakespeare, a Warwickshire glover's son come to London some six years earlier in pursuit of his Muse, leaving behind a wife and three children; daughter Susanna, born but seven months into his marriage, and twins Hamnet and Judith, who'd followed two years later. Yet, what to another company might have spelled "present death" only brought greater fame and fortune to the one boasting, in addition to Master Shakespeare's talents, those of Richard Burbage: not only a superb tragedian but also his troupe's financier and, together with brother Cuthbert, happily able to afford the construction of a new theater in Bankside, on the opposite side of the River Thames. Prophetically, the company named their new home "The Globe" and endowed it with a motto which, in approximate translation, audiences of one of the first plays produced there - "As You Like It" - would soon also hear pronounced from the stage, and which sums up the essence of the Bard's plays better than anything else: "Totus mundus agit histrionem" - "All the world's a stage."

The new playhouse's name and motto were apposite not only because the era did indeed consider a stage a model of the world (the area above was referred to as heaven, the area below as hell, and characters would often appear accordingly: as such, Hamlet's father is heard crying "below [stage]" after his encounter with the Prince), but first and foremost because Shakespeare's plays themselves, individually as well as collectively, represent a microcosm of human relationships and behavior virtually unparalleled to this day: Laced with murderous schemes, revenge, and the search for justice, love, and peace of mind, but also comedy, all-too-human fallibility and great nobility of spirit, they delve into the human mind's darkest recesses and soar to its greatest heights; exploring greed, envy, ambition, guilt, remorse and pure evil, next to compassion, generosity, humility, innocence, fidelity, cleverness, boundless cheers and optimism; all interwoven in timeless plots unmatched in wit, variety, construction, and richness of characters.

Yet, for all this, the biggest difficulty remaining to modern editors and readers alike is that while Shakespeare himself didn't seek the publication of his plays, in the absence of anything approximating modern copyright laws, he was unable to prevent their publication by others, in so-called "quarto" editions, often based on unreliable transcripts made during or after a performance. Only after his death, in 1623, his former fellow-actors John Hemmings and Henry Condell published 37 of his plays "cured and perfect of their limbs" - i.e., restored to their author's true intentions - in a volume since referred to as the "First Folio."

Alas, authoritative weight though it has, even the latter doesn't conclusively answer what the Bard intended as the final version of these 37 plays. For one thing, research shows that even some of the Folio texts were edited by others; most prominently so "Macbeth," where Thomas Middleton inserted, inter alia, the witch queen Hecate as an additional character. Secondly, quarto editions of several plays published prior to the "First Folio" (especially of "Henry IV Part 2," "Hamlet," "Troilus and Cressida," "Othello," and "King Lear") are widely believed to represent earlier (or rival) drafts written by Shakespeare himself, and thus accorded considerable authoritative weight of their own. Often, these plays are therefore presented (both in print and on stage) by "conflating" both versions' texts. In the interest of purity, the editors of this particular volume have eschewed that approach, choosing instead to reproduce the Folio text throughout (with gently modernized spelling), because this was probably the text originally used on stage, and appending the passages most frequently added from the rivaling quartos at the end of the respective plays. Thus, this edition's reader will find Hamlet musing in "To be, or not to be" about "enterprises of great pith and moment" whose currents "turn awry and lose the name of action" (not "of great pitch and moment," as in the 1604 "Second Quarto"); he will, however, have to consult the appendix to find the Prince's reflections on that "stamp of one defect" so prominently featuring in Sir Laurence Olivier's movie, or his vows of "bloody thoughts" after encountering Fortinbras. Only in the case of "Lear," the editors chose to fully include both rivaling versions - that of the First Folio and that of the 1608 quarto - because here, the omission of entire scenes and reassignment of numerous pieces of dialogue essentially transforms the Folio text into a new play vis-a-vis the 1608 quarto.

As painstakingly researched and an as obvious labor of love as this work's first edition, the second edition moreover restores the plays' original titles ("All Is True" instead of "Henry VIII," etc.), and also contains Shakespeare's long poems and sonnets, brief accounts on the lost plays ("Cardenio," "Love's Labour's Won"), and - with appropriate caveats - the texts of works of only partial/uncertain attribution, such as "The Two Noble Kinsmen," sundry poetry, and (for the first time) "Edward III," as well as the editorially and topically so problematic "Sir Thomas More."

Background and supplemental materials include introductions to Shakespeare's life, career and language and on the Elizabethan theater, a user's guide, a list of contemporary references to the Bard, commendatory poems and prefaces of his works (including those of the "First Folio"), a glossary, an ample reading list, as well as a short introduction to each work. At well over 1000 pages a brick even in paperback format, this isn't the place to turn for a complete scholarly review of any given play - for that, the reader is well-advised to consult this volume's "Textual Companion" or one of the many excellent editions of the individual plays - but a marvelously-presented one-volume resource on the legacy of the playwright whose works, as already friendly rival Ben Jonson rightly prophesied, would last "for all time."

Great Compilation of the works of Shakespeare. Something my daughter had to have while studying at RADA in London. Great to become familiar with his lesser known plays!

COOKING WITH SHAKESPEARE is part of the 'Feasting with Fiction' imprint and details recipes, table habits, dining and festivities in Shakespeare's times ala his plays and writings. Chapters are divided by food type - mutton and lamb, fish and seafood, vegetables - and provide tips on old-fashioned cooking from Shakespearean times, from how to make Gallantine to making spice cakes. A rich, fun survey of early cooking methods and recipes evolves for modern readers and libraries interested in culinary history.

Here are some of the fascinating facts that you'll find in Cooking with Shakespeare:

In Shakespeare's England, spits of meat were sometimes turned at the fireplace by means of a dog attached to a treadmill.

During Lent, people in Shakespeare's England were supposed to stop eating meat. They could, though, keep eating puffins, because those diving birds were actually considered fish. Stranger still, the tail of a beaver was considered fish, but not the rest of that rodent.

Sugar was so popular among the aristocracy that their teeth were often in advanced state of decay. Queen Elizabeth's teeth were described by a foreign diplomat as having thin lips and black teeth. Sugar was even an ingredient in one of the teeth cleansers of the day.

Shakespeare's plays are full of scenes involving food. Banquets play important roles in many plays, such as The Tempest and The Taming of the Shrew. Titus Andronicus concludes with a banquet in which a mother is served a pie made out of her two sons.

Flowers were often eaten in salads, including carnations, rosebuds, cowslips, and violets.

Characters often use food words insult one another. In Henry IV a nobleman is called "dish of skimmed milk," and in 1 Henry VI Talbot is called a ``weake

and writhled shrimpe." On the other hand, food words are often used as terms of endearment. Prince Henry calls Falstaff "my sweet beef," and Perdita is called "The Queen of Curds and Creame."

Shakespeare may well have written most of his plays while slightly drunk. Beer and wine were safer to drink than much of London's water supply. The average person, whether rich or poor, drank about a gallon of beer a day.

Shakespeare never drank coffee, ate a banana, or indulged in chocolate. Those items weren't introduced into England until after Shakespeare died. Tomatoes were known, but were considered poisonous.

Cooking was a sometimes brutal activity. One recipe instructs the cook to ``take a red Cock that is not too olde, and beate him to death, and when he is dead, flay him and quarter him in small peeces.'' Another one says, "``Take a capon and cut out the brawne of him alive.''

The most common flavouring agent called for by cookbooks was rosewater, found in about 20% of the recipes. The most common spices were pepper, ginger, mace, cinnamon, and cloves. Almonds and raisins are called for in about 10% of the recipes, even in meat dishes.

Some advice from a 1578 book about table manners: "When thou has blowne thy nose, use not to open thy handkerchief, to glare upon thy snot, as if thou hadst pearles and rubies fallen from thy braynes." The cookbooks that were published in Shakespeare's lifetime were intended for the aristocracy and the growing middle class. The lower classes ate very differently. For them, a typical meal was bread, cheese, and pottage made from whatever vegetables happened to be in season.

Table forks were not used in Shakespeare's England. People ate with a spoon, a knife (which they brought to the table), and their fingers. Table manners were perhaps a bit rough and ready. One etiquette book advised readers to avoid rinsing their mouths with wine and then spitting it onto the floor.

Many foods were thought to have special powers that could affect one's health. Raisins, according to one writer, would ``increase motion unto venery, and woorke to the erection of the yeard''-- that is, they enhanced sexual desire and gave men a Viagra-like boost. Another author claimed that an infant with the flu should be put to bed on a layer of cucumbers because ``feverous heate passeth into the cucumbers.''

Dietary experts believed that some foods were better for you in certain months. For example, in October, the wealthy were advised to eat apple tarts because they "greatly comforte the stomache." They were also, however, advised to "washe not the head in this moneth."

Bakers were not allowed to sell fancy breads or spice cakes, except during Christmas and Easter, and for funerals. They were also required to imprint their mark on every loaf of bread they sold, so that its maker could be identified if a loaf turned out to be too light or poorly made.

In most households cooking was done over an iron frame containing wood or coal. Wealthier homes had ovens and fireplaces for cooking. The kitchen at Hampton Court had three fireplaces, each one eighteen feet wide, six feet deep, and seven feet high.

According to one legend, Shakespeare died after drinking too much with his friend Ben Jonson.

4 stars would probably be more accurate, but seeing that this play is so underrated, I'll be generous. It's not quite "Julius Caesar," "Hamlet," or "King Lear." But like "Timon of Athens," it probably won't ever get the attention it deserves. This play really shows the dark side of war and patriotism. Coriolanus is the central character of this play, and he is first portrayed as fighting valiantly on behalf of Rome vs Aufidius of the Volscians. I'm not sure Shakespeare intended this, but Aufidius almost comes off as the devil incarnate. (But even if this was an accident on Shakespeare's part, it DOES work.) Coriolanus defeats Aufidius and Aufidius has to retreat. (He doesn't like it, but he has to admit under the present conditions he can't beat Coriolanus.) Moving on, we learn of a dark side of Coriolanus. His doting mother who encourages her son's behavior proudly says that Coriolanus enjoyed tormenting butterflies as a child. (Tormenting butterflies?! Talk about a child trait that foreshadows a not so benevolent man!) Well, the people of Rome elect to make Coriolanus part of the Senate. At this point in time, Coriolanus reveals his contempt for the people of Rome. (If we think that someone who is adored of the public will always adore them back, we should THINK AGAIN! Or if we think that people who fight others supposedly under the cause of patriotism always love the people of the country, again we should THINK AGAIN! In fact, these people may only be after feeding their own ego.) Not everyone is a benevolent Rocky! Well, Coriolanus reveals his swollen ego, and as a result he is banished. Well, Coriolanus wants revenge and proving my theory he is willing to make peace with his former enemy Aufidius to destroy the people he supposedly fought on the behalf of! Aufidius welcomes him with open arms and they make peace and plan to move against Rome. Not much later, Aufidius contemplates the consequences of the deal. (He is afraid his own people will abandon him and join Coriolanus. Why not? The Romans loved him for some time. Aufidius couldn't defeat Rome on his own. But maybe Coriolanus at the helm will make all the difference.) Nevertheless, Aufidius is willing to take the chance. Coriolanus might prove useful, and at the same time his ego might again swell, and if that's the case, perhaps Aufidius can use Coriolanus' vanity to destroy him. (Not unlike the devil himself!) In the meantime, Coriolanus and Aufidius gain the advantage over Rome. Even surrender is not enough. The (probably psychotic) Coriolanus wants to see Rome in flames. But his one weakness restores order. His mother pleads for him to stop. While Aufidius would have liked to defeat Rome, he is far from through. Coriolanus falls out with his new friends, and while not exactly telling lies, Aufidius uses the truth to his advantage which ends in Coriolanus being stabbed to death by several men in Aufidius's employ. To be sure, Aufidius meets with some danger and must consent to arrest. But we can easily picture him remaining ever so calm and already knowing exactly what he will have to say to seduce the people who arrested him. Like the devil, Aufidius could not exactly destroy Coriolanus. But later, Aufidius was able to manipulate Coriolanus's vanity which would lead to his destruction. In this case, the devil did win. Maybe the devil can NOT destroy us, but he CAN persuade us to lay the groundwork for our destruction. Again, like I said, granted this play is not exactly on par with "Julius Caesar," "Hamlet," "King Lear," or "Macbeth." But it's A LOT better than some of Shakespeare's overrated plays like "Othello" or "Romeo and Juliet."

+++++

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 essentially 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 book (published by Signet Classics in 2002) has some interesting material before and after the play proper. I found the introduction to the play and the six scholarly commentaries 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 Signet Classics is an excellent resource for students, teachers, theatre professionals, and anyone interested in discovering this great play!!

+++++