Romeo and Juliet is the best of Shakespeares work ever. Everyone knows the story, but once you read it, it brings the meaning and connection to a different level. The language is beautiful. The words passed betweem Romeo and his love are so moving, you read them over and over. Even if you don't understand what they are saying, you'll still get the general idea and fall in love with this forbidden romance. Even though its a sad ending. The tragedy just adds more to the play. A magnificent book...you have to read it.

Romeo and Juliet has been performed so often that it has become almost tedious. But it might be a thoroughly enjoyable play if it were seen with fresh eyes. The story and its main characters are exaggerated, and at times Romeo appears to be a parody of the young, ardent lover. The play contains more rhymed lines than most of Shakespeare's others, and this can have the tendency to make the play appear less realistic. But it also makes the lines very pleasing to the ear. The pure endurance of Romeo and Juliet's story line attests to its greatness. My favorite character is Mercutio, whose energy and witticism make the play worth reading. I also appreciated the friar, who serves as a foil to Romeo's excessiveness and offers tempering words of wisdom. The play is quite bawdy at times and the double meanings are numerous.

This is one of the best books I've ever read! I think anyone with tast for drama should read this book! Maybe not anyone under seven, but even so, maybe even they could read it!!!And it's also pretty easy to understand! If you do choose this book, I think you will love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

henry iv is misnamed since the play isn't really about king henry but about his son, prince hal, and his enemies, especially henry percy (aka 'hotspur') who is a rival to hal. hotspur is one of the leaders of the rebellion against the king and, at a tender age, is already an accomplished soldier. his story provides the drama of the play. hal, on the other hand, has fallen out of favor with the king, and is whiling away his days in the company of dissolute company, led by sir john falstaff, one of shakespeare's great characters. his adventures with sir john provide the comic relief. fortunately for the king, hal sheds his prodigal ways in time to save his father and his crown in the battle at shrewsbury, where, coincidentally, hal meets and slays his rival, hotspur.

this is one of shakespeare's best plays. the story of the rebellion is intriguing, and the adventures of hal and falstaff are laugh-out-loud hilarious. the culmination of the two stories in the final battle scene is wonderful. this is a fitting sequel to richard ii.

note that there are some historical inaccuracies and even outright inventions in this play. foremost is the character of falstaff who is pure invention (and genius). the story of hal's adventures stems from his reputation, enhanced by legend, as a playboy. falstaff was the perfect foil for a carousing prince. the biggest inaccuracy is hotspur's age. he was actually of the generation of henry iv, and not as young as he's depicted in the play. shakespeare made him younger to enhance, maybe even create, the rivalry with hal. there are other inaccuracies here, but better for the reader to consult 'shakespeare's kings', an excellent book by saccio that explains the history of the period and the discrepancies in the play.

This is the play where the Percy rebellion begins and centers around the Achilles like Hotspur. Eventually, Hotspur (Henry Percy) and Prince Hal (Henry Monmouth - later Henry V) battle in single combat.

We also get to see the contrast between these young men in temperament and character. King Henry wishes his son were more like Hotspur. Prince Hal realizes his own weaknesses and seems to try to assure himself (and us) that when the time comes he will change and all his youthful foolishness will be forgotten. Wouldn't that be a luxury we wish we could all have afforded when we were young?

Of course, Prince Hal's guide through the world of the cutpurse and highwayman is the Lord of Misrule, the incomparable Falstaff. His wit and gut are featured in full. When Prince Hal and Poins double-cross Falstaff & company, the follow on scenes are funny, but full of consequence even into the next play.

But, you certainly don't need me to tell you anything about Shakespeare. Like millions of other folks, I am in love with the writing. However, as all of us who read Shakespeare know, it isn't a simple issue. Most of us need help in understanding the text. There are many plays on words, many words no longer current in English and, besides, Shakespeare's vocabulary is richer than almost everyone else's who ever lived. There is also the issue of historical context, and the variations of text since the plays were never published in their author's lifetime.

For those of us who need that help and want to dig a bit deeper, the Arden editions of Shakespeare are just wonderful.

-Before the text of the play we get very readable and helpful essays discussing the sources and themes and other important issues about the play.

-In the text of the play we get as authoritative a text as exists with helpful notes about textual variations in other sources. We also get many many footnotes explaining unusual words or word plays or thematic points that would likely not be known by us reading in the 21st century.

-After the text we get excerpts from likely source materials used by Shakespeare and more background material to help us enrich our understanding and enjoyment of the play.

However, these extras are only available in the individual editions. If you buy the "Complete Plays" you get text and notes, but not the before and after material which add so much! Plus, the individual editions are easier to read from and handier to carry around.

Having just completed Henry IV Part I, I must say that I came away delighted and impressed with Shakespeare's genius once again. Shakespeare's ability to intertwine the arduous dichotomy of the impcomparable comedy of Falstaff and the meaningful history of Henry IV, Prince Hal, & Hotspur is impressive to say the least. It comes as no surprise that this was one of Shakespeare's most popularly staged plays during his day and enjoyed an unusually long stage run.

Falstaff is undoubtedly the most infamously famous literary comic character in the history of English literature. The scenes of him being robbed by Prince Hal, feigning his death, stabbing the already deceased Hotspur in the leg while claiming victory, and his employment of beggars as his foot soldiers galvanize the comic aspect of the play and make for a hilarious & farcical sublot. Interestingly, in the bar in Eastcheap, Prince Hal alludes to his future persecution of Falstaff when he is crowned king.

I strongly recommend Henry IV Part I to all Shakespeare aficionados seeing as I deem it in the top five of all Shakespeare's works along with Hamlet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, & Henry V. Now on to Part II. Adieu.

"The better part of valor is discretion." - Falstaff

. . . to really achieve its full potential, this play needs to be acted out on stage. Still, highly excellent, involving twins, cross-dressing, love tangles, sword-fighting, secret marriages, music, disguises, mistaken identities, high speech, and lowbrow humour.

The entire play takes place in Illyria. In the main plot, Orsino is in love with Olivia, who unfortunately does not return his feelings. Viola is shipwrecked on the Illyrian coast, and dressed as a boy, comes to serve in Orsino's court, where she of course falls in love with Orsino. Meanwhile, in Olivia's court, some of her courtiers plan a cruel--but funny--practical joke against her pompous steward Malvolio. There is also a third plot later on involving Viola's twin brother Sebastian, who has been shipwrecked likewise. Naturally things get quite confusing, but, true to Shakespeare's comedic style, everything gets worked out in the end.

This is an enjoyable book to read, and the notes are very helpful. However, it is still better as a performance.

"Twelfth Night" is one of the famous romantic comedy written by William Shakespeare. Many critics said, "Twelfth Night" is the masterpiece among his comedy because his fully developed style and insight are in the "Twelfth Night", so it has special value and attractiveness.
There are four main characters in "Twelfth Night" ; Duke Orsino, Olivia, Viola, and
Sebastian. Duke Orsino who lives in Illyria loves Olivia, so every day he send one of
his servant to Olivia's house for proposal of marriage. However, every time Olivia
refuses his proposal for the reason that she lost her brother before long, so she is now
in big sorrow and can not love anyone. One day, Viola comes into Illyria. She and her
twin brother Sebastian are separated in a shipwreck and they are rescued by two
different people in two different place, so they think the other one is dead each other.
Viola disguise as a man and become a servant of Duke Orsino, and then she fall in
love with Duke Orsino. But, Duke Orsino loves Olivia and he send Viola whose new
name as a man is "Cesario" to Olivia for proposal. Unexpectedly, Olivia fall in love with
Cesario!! Therefore, love triangle is formed. In the latter scene, Sebastian also come into
Illyria, so the confusion getting worse. However, in the end, all misunderstandings are
solved and Cesario become Viola, so the four main characters find their love.
There are also four supporting characters in "Twelfth Night" ; Clown, Sir Toby Belch,
Malvolio, and Sir Andrew Aguecheek. They make the readers laugh through their funny
behaviors and comments in subplot.
"Twelfth Night" is very funny story and enjoyable book, so I recommend you.

I didn't read this particular version of Twelfth Night, so I'm rating the plot, not the editing. This book was the first play by Shakespeare that I read, and I loved it! It starts when Viola and her brother, Sebastian, are seperated in a shipwreck. Viola decides to disguise herself as a boy and work for Orsino, the duke. Orsino sends Viola to tell Olivia that he loves her. Viola does what he says, but she wishes she didn't have to, because she has fallen in love with Orsino! Then Olivia falls in love with Viola, thinking that she is a boy. While all this is going on, Andrew Aguecheek is wooing Olivia, who scorns him. Also, Maria, the maid, Sir Toby Belch, Olivia's uncle, and another servant write a letter and put it where Malvolio, a servant, will see it. The letter says that Olivia is in love with Malvolio. Malvolio immediately starts trying to woo Olivia. Maria and Sir Toby pretend to think that he's mad, and lock him up. Meanwhile, Sebastian comes to town with Antonio, the man who saved him from the shipwreck. Antonio gives him his purse and says that he must stay away from the city because he fought against the duke in a war. A few minutes later, Antonio realizes that he needs money for lodgings and goes to find Sebastian. In the city, Viola is being forced to fight Andrew Aguecheek for the right to marry Olivia. Antonio sees the fight and hurries to intervene. Orsino recognizes him and has him arrested. Antonio asks Viola for his purse so that he can pay bail, thinking that she is Sebastian. Viola denies having had a purse. Then Sebastian comes up. Olivia had found him and married him on the spot, and he, deliriously happy, had gone away to give Antonio his purse. On the way, he met Sir Toby and Andrew Aguecheek. When they try to force him to fight, he punches them and goes on. They come up too, bitterly accusing Viola. (No one has seen Sebastian yet.) Then Olivia comes up and speaks to Viola, who denies being her wife. Orsino becomes angry with her, thinking that she has married Olivia, and accuses her of treachery. Just as things are looking bad for Viola, Sebastian reveals himself. Then everyone is happy (since Orsino falls in love with Viola on the spot) except Andrew Aguecheek and Malvolio, who is later set free. The plot of this book is a little hard to understand, but it is halariously funny and makes for happy reading.

My only complaint about this book is that Asimov gets too strong in some of his personal opinions. (Harsh opinions of Banquo, Brutus, Richard II etc.) But aside from that I value this book highly. He helps us to see some things Shakespeare's original audience would be able to pick up on WITHOUT being told. This helps one to understand Shakespeare's plays more. Also for the most part he DOES avoid the absurd marxist views that tend to over simplify the anaylisis. He is especially helpful in the history plays. Understanding Shakespeare's historical plays depends to a large extent on knowing the facts that Shakespeare does not mention (but that the original audience would have known). He also offers educated speculation that offers deep insights. While I do not agree with him on EVERYTHING, his views are interesting.

I find this book quite helpful when being introduced to an unfamiliar Shakespearean play. The plot summaries, character descriptions, and surrounding histories--liberally sprinkled with explanatory quotes--are of great use in placing me in the correct frame of mind. I would recommend this to anyone looking to acquaint themselves with Shakespeare's works--especially the lesser-known plays--but are feeling daunted by what is perceived as high-brow content.

Asimov writes as if he were speaking directly to the reader. This not only makes the book easy to read, but lends a feeling of comfort to the experience. One feels as if a friend has taken their time out to give a helping hand.

This book makes me much more comfortable giving the extra effort that it takes, given the time--and sometimes language--barrier. Without it, it is doubtful I would have introduced myself to the minor plays, some of which I have come to like better than the more popular ones.

...is too concise, it pleases me not.*

Asimov presents, for each of the plays, a well-researched and fascinating social, political and historical background of their production along with a plot analysis with direct quotes (and etymologies). Many of the details presented appear either to have escaped the notice of standard Shakespearean commentators, or to be buried away.

His synopsis of KING LEAR is characteristic...

"Shakespeare wrote fifteen plays which, in one way or another, involve English history. Four of these are laid in the relatively dim time prior to the Norman conquest in 1066, and the one which deals with the oldest and the most purely legendary events is KING LEAR."

Asimov then traces the original Celtic tale to Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" (1135), then through "The Faerie Queene", Holinshed's "Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland", (1577), Edmund Spenser's play "The True Chronicle of King Lear", (1594), and finally to Shakespeare's version, first performed on 26th December, 1606.

1. Good example: Asimov describes why the name "Gloucester" may have been chosen for the father of the hero and villain, (Edgar and Edmund):

"The first Earl of Gloucester in actual history was Robert, a son of King Henry I of England. He lived from 1090 to 1145 and played a prominent role in the civil war that followed the death of Henry I. He was the chief supporter of Henry's daughter, Matilda, against the claims of Henry's nephew, Stephen.

"But since Robert of Gloucester was Henry's son, why was he not himself the claimant of the throne? Ah, it so happens he was Henry's bastard son and therefore unqualified to succeed. The Gloucester subplot is intimately concerned with the matter of a bastard son and perhaps that is why 'Earl of Gloucester' suggested itself to Shakespeare."

2. Bad example: Asimov may have tripped up on his astrology. At least one Shakespearean pundit has suggested that Edmund's birth under Ursa Major,("the Dragon's Tail"), was taken as ill-omened because of a malign/retrograde Martial-Venusian influence which would predispose a child born under it to villainy, according to the notions of the Elizabethan masses. Apparently, the constellations themselves were understood to express planetary influences, (if you're an astrologer, help me out here!):

"-MY FATHER COMPOUNDED WITH MY MOTHER UNDER THE DRAGON'S TAIL, AND MY NATIVITY WAS UNDER URSA MAJOR, SO THAT IT FOLLOWS I AM ROUGH AND LECHEROUS. FUT! I SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT I AM, HAD THE MAIDENLIEST STAR IN THE FIRMAMAENT TWINKLED ON MY BASTARDIZING.

"The Dragon's Tail is a reference to the constellation of Draco, a winding string of moderately bright stars in the neighborhood of the north celestial pole... Astrologically, this is meaningless, since these constellations are not part of the zodiac and it is through the zodiac that the paths of the sun, moon, and planets make their way..."

What Asimov does NOT do here is discuss possible symbolic interpretations or textual criticisms of each play, (e.g., was King Lear really mad, was he incestuous, is this simply a morality play, a Platonic-Aristotelian conflict, or the perennial youth vs. maturity conflict? etc..).

Personally, I think the book is pure gold.

In contrast to some of the other editions of the complete works of Shakespeare, this book really is value for money. All plays (and poems, etcetera) are printed in a lavishly, pleasing way, very easy to the eye (one of the biggest drawbacks of some editions is that they use a very small font to keep the number of pages to a minimum). As others have commented, not much can and should be commented on the works themselves, they have stood the test of time, and the (normal) spelling that is used in this edition makes each reading an enjoyable experience. All the plays are given a brief (and somewhat succinct) introduction, which is, at best, okay. The strange things, in this book, are, for example, the order of the plays, the way King Lear is printed in two versions (that differ only in small details), and the inclusion of fragments that are attributed to Shakespeare (a bit controversial to say the least). Still, if you want to buy a good, thorough, and well-researched edition of the complete works of Shakespeare, you will not go far wrong with this book.

Pretty much any edition of Shakespeare deserves 5 stars for content. I think the question most people must have is "Which edition?"

I purchased "The Complete Pelican Shakespeare" because I wanted a relatively portable, high-quality book featuring text that benefits from modern scholarship (including brief notes and glossary). I wanted an edition to read and to treasure.

I should say that I didn't need extensive commentary with the text (as in the Arden paperbacks). That bulks it up considerably, can be had in other places, and can be left behind once one has read a play once or twice.

While I'm no Shakespearean scholar myself, this edition seems to meet the editorial criteria quite well. The text appears to benefit from modern, authoritative editorship, the introductions are brief but useful, and archaic terms and phrases are defined on the page where they occur.

The binding is high quality, as is the paper.

This is the most portable of the modern hard-cover editions I've found, with the possible exception of the Oxford edition, which is thicker, but smaller in the other two dimensions. I decided against the Oxford because the binding is of lesser quality and Oxford has a relatively idiosyncratic editorial policy with which I don't entirely agree.

Sadly, this is still a pretty big book, just small enough for a good-sized person to hold up and read in bed, and too much for an airplane or trip to the park. I wish someone would make a truly portable version! There is no reason that the entire thing couldn't be compressed into the space of a smallish bible (for those with the eyes for it!).

This weighty tome brings together authoritative versions of the complete works of Shakespeare. The excellent and informative introduction provides the historical context for the plays, the author and the folios. It also explains well how the plays tended to evolve with re-writes and performances. I have not read all of the plays and sonnets, but of the Shakespeare works Henry V and Hamlet, for example, provide high drama with stories that are compelling and language that is unique, beautiful and powerful. While the Taming of the Shrew and a Midsummers Night Dream provide humor, and other plays provide tragedy and pathos. A thousand phrases from these great plays and sonnets have probably carried into modern usuage. Shakespeare is best enjoyed first as a play by fine actors, such as those of the Royal Shakespeare company, that can give life to the often archaic and unfamiliar words, phrases and language constructs that come late 1500s. Once you have been captivated by a good live performance, reading the text becomes a joy and the strange language an exquisit pleasure. Some movies based on Shakespeare are more interesting than others (Kenneth Branagh has been quite successful, while Mel Gibson and Sir Lawrence Olivier were less so to my mind) but a live theater performance is far better and the written word is probably a close second. If you are interested in Shakespeare then this is a wonderful book - the only one you need really. If you have children then you really should get this and encourage them to read it. I have started reading selected passages with my 5 year old son and he loves it, he is absolutely enthralled with the language -- be bold, try it.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in a different time or place? Just pick up a copy of this comedy by William Shakespeare. It is a book that mixes four plots interchangeably, thus blurring the line between what is real and what is not. It is a book about Fairies, Royalty, and Struggling Actors. A timeless classic, that, once begun, is almost impossible to put down. Those who read through it's magical pages will never forget the content therein.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play in Five Acts, and revolves around several major characters, each of which can be classified into selective groups.

The Athenians (and lovers): Theseus, Hippolyta, Egeus, Philostrate (completely unimportant to the plot), Demetrius, Hermia, Lysander, and Helena.

The Actors: Peter Quince, Nick Bottom, Francis Flute, Tom Snout, Snug, and Robin Starveling

The Fairies: Oberon, Titania, Puck, Peaseblossom, Cobweb, Moth, and Mustardseed

The play successfully intertwines multiple plots, which, I believe is absolutely astounding. The play is brought together by one single event: The marriage of Theseus (The Duke of Athens) and Hippolyta (Queen of the Amazons). This event brings all the characters together to form what would become A Midsummer Night's Dream.

What's most interesting about the play though, are the various interpretations of it. Some feel that the reason the lovers went into the forest was to escape from the harshness of Athenian law and enter into the realm of the natural world. Some people feel that the end is the affirmation of the status quo. That is, with the ruling class men showing their superiority over the working class actors. But isn't this the very thing that is so great about Shakespeare? Shakespeare leaves each and every play open to many, many interpretations.

I read this book in English class (6th grade) this year and it was amazing. I had always thought of Shakespeare as some old, hard to understand sort of guy. Well he is. This book has two parts, one side being the play itself, and the other, the explanation of what is happening. If it had not been for the explanations, I would have been totally lost and probaly would have failed the class. After I could understand it, the story really got interesting. Mainly, the book was about four lovers with alot of problems. One girls father doesn't want her to marry the man she loves, but both men love her. No one loves the other girl. At least, in the begining. Everything gets mixed up in a night of confusion including the unforgetable "Puck." Everyone has problems, from a queen of the Amazons to a law obiding citizen of athens to the fairy king. In the end everything works out to form an incredible story that after hundreds of years connects with us today. I aced the test and played Hipolyta in our class play. I loved it. Five stars.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a great play. It was my first time reading Shakespeare and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There are a few sets of characters in this, and that makes it a little hard to understand at first. There is

There are the Athenians: Theseus, Philostrate, Hippolytta, Egeus, Demetrius, Helena, Hermia, and Lysander.

The Artisans or Actors: Quince, Snout, Snug, Flute, Starveling, and Bottom (Not named Bottom for just any reason)

The Fairies: Oberon, Titania, Robin Goodfellow (Puck), Peaseblossom, Cobweb, Mustardseed, and Mote.

These characters are brought together all by one character, Robin Goodfellow. He is the servant of Oberon and he is ordered to complete some tasks, but he messes up. All of the characters are than linked by him. I won't tell you what happens because that is the good part of the book. I really liked the book because it was funny and it kept me on the edge, something that I didn't think would happen in this play. I read this in 7th grade and had a little trouble understanding it. Our class was told to buy the New Folger kind, because it helped explain the story. The book is a little hard to understand so is what Folger has done is put the synopsis of the scene at the beginning of each scene on the left hand page. Also on the left page are vocabulary words to help you further understand the book. The play is than written on the right hand side of the page. This makes life much easier. The plot is great and I didn't give it away so I expect you to buy the book at this cheap price and read the great play, A Midsummer Night's Dream!

"Titus Andronicus" is the most notorious and least performed play of Shakespeare's. T.S. Eliot once called it the worst play written in the English language and not even the loyalist Shakespeare scholars have stood by it. Not until the movie "Titus" came out, have I heard anyone mention it. All I knew before I finally saw it was that it was extremely over the top violent. In fact, when the rare times it had been performed to modern audiences, many audience members started laughing at how absurd and over the top violent it was. I am a very serious moody theater person but even I couldn't help laugh at some of these scenes. However, I am very curious to suspect, as Harold Bloom did, that Shakespeare might've wrote "Titus Andronicus" as a spoof on his contemporaries. The play's content, plot, and characters are exactly equal to Seneca's plays. Seneca's plays however were never performed and we have no evidence that Shakespeare read Seneca's plays. So perhaps it was a jab at Kyd or Marlowe. The movie "Titus" seemed to use a lot of parody at many times. When I saw it the audience was laughing. I think it is safe to say that that theory may be correct. Although even if it was a parody, the play is still flat and doesn't do much for the audience. There are moments though where we can see Shakespeare developing as a dramatist. I couldn't help but think of "Macbeth" and "King Lear" during parts of Titus' monologues. Actually "Titus Andronicus" at best is a great study on the audience. 'Titus' was well received and performed in Shakespeare's day. Shakespeare was delivering to the audience, giving them a bloody Revenge tragedy that was popular in Elizabethan times. I am very surprise in an age when we make films that can depict a man cutting his face off and feeding it to his dogs("Hannibal"), that 'Titus' wouldn't be more popular. I imagine that Shakespeare was trying to shift from comedian to tragedian and wrote a little experiment called "Titus Andronicus." 'Titus' is worth reading for those who want to read all of Shakespeare but to the average reader, I would say pass and read "KIng Lear" or "Macbeth." To give this play more than three stars would be an insult to Shakespeare's masterpieces.

For my fellow reviewers who choose to simply pass this play over because of the prevelant violence, I must point out the complex, witty character of Aaron the Moor. Shakespeare either intended for this play to be a parody of Marlowe/Kyd, or he wanted to experiment with a character, Aaron, to evoke every possible feeling from his audience. And, in my humble opinion, Shakespeare succeeded at this. Aaron is, at the same time, evil and cunny, witty and horrifying, and compassionate and stoic. His final lines, as he is buried up to his neck, left to starve, are some of the best confessions ever produced by the bard. It takes a truly cruel and uncaring individual to not feel for Aaron, who gives up his life for his child's, and who hopelessly and blindly loves a cruel witch of a woman. This play is worth reading, or seeing if you should be so lucky, simply to indulge yourself in the character of Aaron the Moor.

Now that the film "Titus" is about to open, I thought I had best hear a recorded version of the complete play to keep my mind clear during what is bound to be a perversion. Of course, many consider "Titus Andronicus" a perversion anyway; and to tell the truth, I do get a little queasy during the various mutilations that make the deaths at the end a relief rather than a shock. But accepting the play on its own terms, you will find the reissue on tape of the 1966 Caedmon recording of (CF 277) possibly the best directed of the entire classic series. Howard Sackler has a bunch of professionals on hand and he lets them (with one exception) tear up the scenery. Poor Judy Dench, who has so little to say as Lavinia before the plot makes her say no more, can only make pathetic noises for most of the play until her final death cry. The evil brothers, played here by John Dane and Christopher Guinee, are not only evil but sarcastically so--and this works on a recording as it might not on the stage. Perhaps Maxine Audley's Tamora is a bit too Wicked Witch of the West now and then; but her co-partner in evil, Aron the Moor, is brought to life by Anthony Quayle in a role he made famous on stage, going even further in the outright enjoyment of his ill-doing. Yes, this play can easily raise laughs and takes an Olivier to keep the audience in the tragic mood. (Reports are that he did it so well that some audience members became ill and had to leave.)

Which brings us to Michael Hordern's Titus. Hodern is a fine actor but not a great one. He suffers well but not grandly. I am surprised that his Big Moment--"I am the sea"--is lost among all the other images in that speech. But anyone can direct someone else's play. This recording, soon to be rivaled by one in the Arkangel series, is definitely worth having for Quayle's performance alone.

'As you like it' is one of those Shakespearean plays that is considered 'great' by critics, but never really found true popular acclaim, perhaps due to the absence of charismatic characters (the romantic hero is particularly wet) or compelling dilemmas.

It shares many features with the great comedies - the notion of the forest as a magic or transformative space away from tyrannical society ('A Midsummer night's dream'); the theme of unrequited love and gender switching from 'Twelfth night'; the exiled Duke and his playful daughter from 'The Tempest'. But these comparisons only point to 'AYLI''s comparative failure (as a reading experience anyway) - it lacks the magical sense of play of the first; the yearning melancholy of the second; or the elegiac complexity of the third.

It starts off brilliantly with a first act dominated by tyrants: an heir who neglects his younger brother, and a Duke who resents the popularity of his exiled brother's daughter (Rosalind). there is an eccentric wrestling sequence in which a callow youth (Orlando) overthrows a giant. Then the good characters are exiled to Arden searching for relatives and loved ones.

Theoretically, this should be good fun, and you can see why post-modernist critics enjoy it, with its courtiers arriving to civilise the forest in the language of contemporary explorers, and the gender fluidity and role-play; but, in truth, plot is minimal, with tiresomely pedantic 'wit' to the fore, especially when the melancholy scholar-courtier Jacques and Fool Touchstone are around, with the latter's travesties of classical learning presumably hilarious if you're an expert on Theocritus and the like.

As an English pastoral, 'AYLI' doesn't approach Sidney's 'Arcadia' - maybe it soars on stage. (Latham's Arden edition is as frustrating as ever, with scholarly cavilling creating a stumbling read, and an introduction which characteristically neuters everything that makes Shakespeare so exciting and challenging)

Anyone with a working knowledge of Shakespeare's plays knows that As You Like It is a light, airy comedy. It is clearly not one of Shakespeare's greatest plays. As You Like It is more obscure than famous. Even amongst the comedies it comes nowhere close to the popularity of plays such as A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, or Twelfth Night. That said, it is a treasure in its own right. This is so, if for nothing else, because it contains one of the greatest pictures of a woman to be found in Shakespeare's works, excluding the Sonnets.

Ah, sweet Rosalind. In her are encapsulated so many ideas about the nature of woman. She is first pictured in a rather faux-Petrarchan manner. This quickly fades as an intelligent woman comes to the fore. While the intelligence remains, she is also torn by the savage winds of romantic love. Rosalind, in all her complexity and self-contradiction, is a truly modern female character.

Most of the women in Shakespeare's tragedies and historical plays are either window dressing (as in Julius Caesar) or woefully one-sided (Ophelia, Lady Macbeth). This is not the case with Rosalind. Rather than being marginalized, she is the focus of a good chunk of the play. Instead of being static and [standard], she is a complex evolving character.

When Rosalind first appears, she outwardly looks much like any other lady of the court. She is a stunning beauty. She is much praised for her virtue. Both of these elements factor in the Duke's decision to banish or [do away with] her.

Rosalind falls in love immediately upon seeing Orlando. In this way she at first seems to back up a typically courtly idea of "love at first sight." Also, she initially seems quite unattainable to Orlando. These are echoes of Petrarchan notions that proclaim love to be a painful thing. This dynamic is stood on its head following her banishment.

Rosalind begins to question the certainty of Orlando's affection. She criticizes his doggerel when she finds it nailed to a tree. Rather than wilting like some medieval flower, she puts into effect a plan. She seeks to test the validity of her pretty-boy's love. In the guise of a boy herself, she questions the deceived Orlando about his love.

Yet Rosalind is not always so assured. Her steadfastness is not cut and dried. Composed in his presence, Rosalind melts the second Orlando goes away. She starts spouting romantic drivel worthy of Judith Krantz. Even her best friend Celia seems to tire of her love talk. This hesitating, yet consuming passion is thrown into stark relief with her crystal clear dealings with the unwanted advances of the shepherdess Phebe.

Rosalind contradicts herself in taking the side of Silvius in his pursuit of Phebe. She seeks to help Silvius win the love of Phebe because of his endearing constancy. Yet the whole reason she tests Orlando is the supposed inconstancy of men's affections.

This idea of Male inconstancy has made its way down to the present day. Men are seen, in many circles, as basically incapable of fidelity. Though a contradiction to her treatment of Silvius' cause, Rosalind's knowing subscription to pessimistic views on the constancy of a man's love places her on the same playing field as many modern women.

Rosalind takes charge of her own fate. Until and even during Shakespeare's own time women largely were at the mercy of the men around them. This is satirized in Rosalind's assuming the appearance of a man. Yet she had taken charge of her life even before taking on the dress and likeness of a man. She gives her token to Orlando. She decides to go to the Forest. She makes the choice of appearing like a man to ensure her safety and the safety of Celia.

Rosalind finally finds balance and happiness when she comes to love not as a test or game, but as an equal partnership. Shakespeare is clearly critiquing the contemporary notions of love in his day. His play also condemns society's underestimation and marginalization of women. However, the Bard's main point is more profound.

As You Like It makes it clear that the world is never picture perfect, even when there are fairy-tale endings. Men and women both fail. Love is the most important thing. With love all things are possible.

"As You Like It" is bar none, one of Shakespeare's VERY best works. It is probably the most poetic of the comedies and contains perhaps as many famous quotations as any other of his plays. Rosalind is perhaps his greatest female character and this work, along with the equally (or even more) brilliant "Midsummer Night's Dream," is the best example of Shakespeare's theme of the "dream world" vs. the "real" world. This play, especially the scenes in the forest, is a celebration of language and the power of the freedom of the imagination. It consequently can be read as a criticism of the "real world," here represented by Duke Ferdinand's court. Like many of the other comedies, Shakespeare is mocking the "ideal" which many in his society would have praised. Though this play deals with some pretty dark themes (which of his plays doesn't?) it is a light-hearted and fully enjoyable read!