Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SunkenCiv; Verginius Rufus
Whatever one thinks of the Tudors, Shakespeare consistently fawned on them, and not just in Richard III. The Welsh character in Henry V comes to mind also. Indeed, all the history plays are pretty much Tudor propaganda.

I don't know if you could find a state in 16th Century Europe that did not employ methods we would find intolerable and indeed some of our ancestors in that time found intolerable. But, the at times wholesale slaughter of the Wars of the Roses had ended and thankfully so for most Englishmen.

Shakespeare's characters and stories are not wooden, however, far from it. You can see in the histories a dislike of the opportunism and machiavellianism that had infected politics in his day.

One of the more interesting themes Shakespeare develops is regicide. Obviously, he portrays it in Richard III but the general attitude of the history plays is that it is never justified. Shakespeare does explore the issue, however, outside England, in Julius Caesar, Hamlet and Macbeth. Perhaps the idea was still percolating in the 1640's.

I agree that the Tudors and Stuarts set the stage for the English Civil War, although I lay more blame on James I and Charles I's attempts to impose the idea of the divine right of kings on the English, who always regarded themselves as free people albeit governed by kings.

53 posted on 03/17/2015 3:11:08 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: colorado tanker

I’d never badmouth Shakespeare’s ability to write, what with his being the greatest-ever. The Wars of the Roses came about in part because of the 100 years war with France having ended, and too many armed veterans sitting around with nothing to do all day. Not the same situation we have now, or rather what Zero seems to think we have now.

Shakepeare’s company performed “Richard II” for the Earl of Essex and his co-conspirators, for some decent money, but under the condition that they include a scene that had been cut because it was considered seditious. The next day he managed to botch his attempt at overthrowing big Liz, and after the executions tapered off, she commanded Shakespeare & co to perform the play again, for her. Eek.

Supposedly Liz had confided and complained that the play had been all about her from the beginning, and that everyone was aware of it. By that time she was nearing the end of her life. Ironically, I think Essex rebellion (such as it was) took place just a couple of years before she died, and Essex’ supposed goal was to put James I on the throne (he was descended from Henry VII as well, uh, huh, twice I think, cousins married).

James I/VIth was the guest of honor for the first performance of MacBeth, and maybe King Lear. Shakespeare’s final sprint to the finish line was breathtaking. And that’s just the works which have survived, based on how many plays they performed in a given year (and some would have been older, famous plays by other hands) probably four times that many went up in 1666 during the great fire.


54 posted on 03/17/2015 3:36:21 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson