This is not quite as good as 1 or 2, but it is still excellent! Shakespeare grabs us with the dispute between Henry VI and York. While it seems to end peacefully it does not, and the war goes on! York's death in 1.4 is another landmark in Shakespeare's writing. The scene (2.5) where Henry finds true terror is horror, sorrow, and yet beauty and yet another moving part of the play. (The son that hath killed his father and the father that hath killed his son.) The war pauses in disaster for Henry and some comic relief is offered. But the horror starts all over again when Edward IV and Warwick have a falling out. The war starts over again, and the King of France gets involved! The scene where King Henry VI is reinstated is a scene of beauty and hope. While all of this is happening, Shakespeare carefully prepares the monstrously satanic character of Richard III. From here, the play just gets more and more bloody. A final moment of horror is offered when the eventual Richard III proudly compares himself to the one who betrayed Christ. In part 4 "Richard III," the real terror begins!

This was one of Shakespeare's earliest plays. (possibly his third) Yet, there is nothing to indicate he was only starting out. Right away he grabs our attention with the funeral of King Henry V. Henry V's brothers Bedford and Gloucester help us to see the virtues and strengths of the deceased king. The Bishop of Winchester is well drawn as a comical villain who plots and plans, but never succeeds in doing any real damage. (Not until the next play anyway.) Talbot is memorable as the selfless hero of the play. York is memorable as the hero who defeats Joan of Arc. King Henry VI himself is interesting. First we see him as a helpless infant. By the third act, we see that he has both strengths and weaknesses. He makes the mistake of dividing the command between the rivals Somerset and York. But also, we see that he does not tolerate treason or neglect of duty. There are also many memorable scenes. The garden scene that foreshadows the War of the Roses is well drawn. The scene where York comforts his dying uncle is tragic beauty. Bedford's death in 3.2 has almost a divine tone. The death of Talbot and his son is very lamentable. York's sudden rise to power is captivating. Perhaps Shakespeare's greatest achievement in this play is that he simultaneously shows us England's war with France and the dissension with England itself.

The Folger Library series are your best Shakespeare source. They specialize in Shakespeares' greatest plays and are quality books that are perfect companion and translator to Shakespeare. It is loaded with page after page of translation from the Old English expressions that are no longer in use to our modern talk, and pictures as well as historic background information on th Elizabethan era and Shakespeares' life. Hamlet is without question Shakespeare's greatest tragedy, remaining in our theatrical culture to this very day. It has become a conversation piece for English professors, dramatists and screen actors (Mel Gibson tackled the role in 1991) and even psychologists, who claim that Hamlet had the Oedipal complex, especially when they read the scene in which Hamlet is in his mother's bedroom. What makes Hamlet so great ? Why does this old play still come alive when performed on the stage in the hands of the right actors ?

Shakespeare, believe it or not, was a people's person and knew about the human condition perhaps more than anyone in his day. Hamlet deals principally with obscession for revenge. Hamlet is a prince whose father has been murdered under the evil conspiracy from his uncle Claudius and even the support of his mother, Queen Gertrude. Depressed, wearing black all the time, and very much as solitary as any "Goth" would be in our day, Hamlet laments his situation, until his father's ghost appears and urges him to avenge his death. The mystery still remains, is this ghost real ? Is it, as many in Elizabetheans thought, a demon in disguise ? Or is it simply a figment of Hamlet's own emotions and desire for revenge. At any rate, Hamlet's father appears twice and Hamlet spends most of the play planning his revenge. His most striking line that reveals this consuming need is "The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!".

Pretending to be mad, he scorns even the love of the woman he genuinely loves, Ophelia, whose mind is shattered and heart is broken and who has an impressive mad scene. The deaths of Hamlet's friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are also in Hamle'ts hands and a consequence of his revenge. The famous soliloquy in the play, is of course, "To be or not to be", taken on by such great actors as Lawrence Olivier and Orson Welles. Hamlet muses on the brevity of life and the suffering which can only cease through death, as he holds a skull and is evidently suicidal. Finally, the last scenes are the most dramatic. Hamlet duels with Laertes, Ophelia's brother, and with Claudius himself. The deaths of the main cast, including the Queen, goes to show how tragic the human desire for greed and revenge is.

This is Shakespeare's finest tragedy, and quality drama, best seen in a live stage performance, but that also works as a film. As for this book, as I said before, this is the Hamlet to have. You will become more acquianted with Hamlet and Shakespeare even more than taking a year's course with a teacher. This book itself is the teacher.

A tragedy by William Shakespeare, written around 1599-1601. Before the play opens, the king of Denmark has been murdered by his brother, Claudius, who has taken the throne and married the queen, Gertrude. The ghost of the dead king visits his son, Prince Hamlet, and urges him to avenge the murder. Hamlet, tormented by this revelation, appears to be mad and cruelly rejects Ophelia whom he loved. Using a troupe of visiting players to act out his father's death, the prince prompts Claudius to expose his own guilt. Hamlet then kills Ophelia's father Polonius in mistake for Claudius, and Claudius tries but fails to have Hamlet killed. Ophelia drowns herself in grief, and her brother Laertes fights a duel with Hamlet.

Hamlet's dilemma is often seen as typical of those whose thoughtful nature prevents quick and decisive action.

Hamlet contains several fine examples of soliloquy, such as " To be or not to be" and Hamlet's earlier speech lamenting his mother's hasty remarriage and Claudius' reign which opens "O! that this too too solid flesh would melt". Much quoted lined "Neither a borrower nor a lender be", "Something is rotten in the stste of Denmark", "Brevity is the soul of wit", "To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;" The lady doth protest too much, methinks," and "Alas, poor Yorick". Arguably Shakespeare's finest play and one that can be read again and again.

If you could read only one thing in your lifetime Hamlet should be that one thing. It is Shakespeare's best work by far, and within its pages is more meaning than you could find within the pages of an entire library full of books, or plays as the case may be. A mere review, a couple words, cannot do Hamlet justice. At times I realize that the language of Shakespeare can be difficult that is why I recommend the Folger version because it helps to make the images expressed by Shakespeare's characters clear to the reader, and allows them to get their own deep personal meaning from Hamlet, Shakespeare's greatest work, with out being bogged down in trying to decipher and interpret his antiquarian English. Don't just listen to what I say, or read what I write, read the play on your own outside the cumbersome restraints of a classroom and see for yourself what I mean.

We are from Argentina and learning English. Our teacher recommended the book Romeo + Juliet, we thought this book was going to increase our vocabulary and help us understand better the English language, but it didn't, instead it made it more difficult. Shakespeare used old English and played with words.
For those who aren't aware, "Romeo and Juliet" tells the tale of two "star-cross'" teenage lovers who secretly fall for each other and marry. Their families, the Montagues and Capulets, have been fierce enemies for decades, and, even as Romeo and Juliet say their wedding vows, new violence breaks out between the clans. In the end, their love is doomed. When Romeo mistakenly believes Juliet is dead, he poisons himself. And, when Juliet discovers that he is dead, she too commits suicide.
Shakespeare's writings are always beautiful but in this case he decorates with details a simple story, and that makes it boring and difficult to follow the plot.
The characters all have different personalities, for example the peaceful characters, hot-tempered, romantic, aggressive, impulsive, strict, etc. And that is what perhaps could make it interesting. In our opinion the best character is the nurse because she says always what she feels and not what is better for her.
In conclusion, we could only understand the story because as we continued reading, we also saw the film, which we recommend you to see.

I went throughout high school never reading this book. It's so well-known; everyone knows what it is about and how it ends. Movie after movie has come out depicting the events. However, I will honestly say that it is definitely worth the read. It's a beautiful story of two lovers who suffer from forbidden love. I hate sappy books. I despise them. But this one was different. I don't know if it was because it was fast paced or if it's the fact that people were always dueling, or what. However, I will say that Shakepeare is brillant. This, along with so many of his other stories are great. ROMEO AND JULIET is a brillant tale, and after reading it, I am more able to appreciate everything I have seen and heard about it. If nothing else, it's a wonderful play about honor, devotion, independence, and unification. And this edition is really helpful in understanding Shakespeare's language, for on each page, there are notations that tell what his words and phrases mean today...which is REALLY helpful.

I have seen all movie versions about Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and still love the book everytime I revisit the story. Every word captivates the reader into truly feeling the passion and tragedy of these two lovers. Even a character such as Tybalt Capulet won me over as far as description goes. Shakespearian writing is very much complex and confusing but it has a touch romance and anger which adds to the emotion of the story. Read this classic tragedy!

Shakespeare portrays King Richard III as a hunchbacked thoroughly evil man. While based upon the historical Richard III, the play is a dramatization. Although classed as a history, remember that Shakespeare's histories aren't historically accurate biographies. Richard is a power-hungry brother of a king who murders, schemes, marries, and plots to usurp the throne from rightful heirs. Richard gets his due when he meets Henry Tudor on the field of battle and the reign of the Yorkist kings comes to an end. Written under the rule of a Tudor monarch (Elizabeth I), the play paints the brutal Richard in an especially unfavorable light. After all, the rise of the Tudors depended upon the death of Richard III. The treatment of women in the play has been criticized, especially the speed under which Anne accepts Richard III -- with her dead father in law in the scene, no less. The play compresses 14 years or so of real history into 5 acts. It is hard to go wrong with Shakespeare. A good but dark read.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: when I rate Shakespeare, I rate it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistently high ratings would not be very informative. If I was rating this against the general run of literature available, it would unquestionably rate 5 stars.

So what brings it down to 4, as compared to other Shakespeare? Primarily a few places where it demands a bit too much suspension of disbelief; the language is some of Shakespeare's best, and is comparatively easy for a modern reader (I found most of the footnotes to be sufficiently unnecessary to be actually more distraction than help). But for one thing, if Richard is withered, hunchbacked, and deformed, how is it that he has been able to kill so many of his victims in battle? For another thing, is it REALLY plausible that Princess Anne would be persuaded as she was by someone with nothing more going for him than Richard? To paraphrase the scene,

Anne: You killed my husband and his father! I hate you I hate you I hate you!

Richard: But I only did it 'cause I'm hot for you, babe! Wanna marry me?

Anne: Welll...maybe. Let me think about it.

(And, in fact, she marries him. Just like that.)

Also, there are virtually NO characters in this play that are sympathetic, save perhaps for the two murdered children and Richmond, and we really don't see enough of them to feel much connection; it dilutes the effectiveness of the portrayal of Richard's evil when almost all of the other characters are, if not just as bad, certainly bad enough.

Richard III is the most well crafted satanic character in all of Shakespeare's writing. What can get frightening is that you see his evil, and yet you like him. The play is dramatically frightening from one scene to the next. To this day, I never could forget the scene where Hastings is sentenced to death or when Richard is haunted by the 11 ghosts. But the virtuous Henry VII also offers captivating passages (especially his passage that announces the end of the War of the Roses.) It is also interesting to see how carefully Shakespeare had to handle Henry VII, seing his granddaughter Elizabeth was in the audience. To be sure, Richard III is blamed for several things he did not do. The dramatic irony is that whatever he was innocent of, all the circumstancial evidence says he murdered his nephews.(Rumors that he killed them continued to spread like fire. Not only did he start losing England's loyalty, but many of his own followers in a rage abandoned him and joined Henry VII. France began to humiliate Richard by broadcasting official accusations and Richard never so much as denied having done it. If he could have produced the princes, his troubles would have been over.)This one vile deed made it possible for Shakespeare to make Richard this monster from hell and convincingly pile a slew of vile deeds upon him of which he was innocent. But all that aside, women such as Richard's furious mother and the raging former Queen Margaret add to the drama and chills. The gradual unfolding of Margaret's curses adds a charming orginizational bonus to this masterpiece. If you want to enjoy this play all the more, make sure you read "3 Henry VI" first. Richard's demonic nature is heavily prepared in this preceeding play.

When rating Shakespeare, I am rating it against other Shakespeare; otherwise, the consistent 4-5 stars wouldn't tell you much. So if you want to know how this book rates against the general selection of books in the world, I suppose it might rate four stars; it certainly rates three. The language, as usual in Shakespeare, is beautiful. Still, it's far from Shakespeare's best.

For one thing, this is one of those cases, not uncommon in Shakespeare's comedies, in which the play has suffered a great deal by the changes in the language since Shakespeare's time; it loses a great deal of the humor inherent in a play when the reader needs to keep checking the footnotes to see what's happening, and this play, particularly the first half of it, virtually can't be read without constant reference to the notes; even with them, there's frequently a question as to what's being said. At least in the edition that I read (the Dover Thrift edition) the notes frequently admit that there's some question as to the meaning of the lines, and there is mention of different changes in them in different folios.

But beyond this, as an overweight, balding, middle-aged libertine, I object to the concept that Falstaff is ridiculous just because he is in fact unwilling to concede that it is impossible that a woman could want him. Granted, he's NOT particularly attractive, but that has more to do with his greed, his callousness, and his perfect willingness to use people for his own ends, to say nothing of his utter lack of subtlety.

Is it truly so funny that an older, overweight man might attempt to find a dalliance? So funny that the very fact that he does so leaves him open to being played for the fool? Remember, it isn't as though he refused to take "no" for an answer; he never GOT a "no". He was consistently led on, only to be tormented for his audacity. Nor is he making passes at a nubile young girl; the target of his amorous approaches is clearly herself middle-aged; after all, she is the MOTHER of a nubile young marriageable girl. And given the fact that she is married to an obnoxious, possessive, bullying and suspicious husband, it is not at all unreasonable for Falstaff to think that she might be unhappy enough in her marriage to accept a dalliance with someone else.

If laughing at fat old men who have the audacity not to spend the last twenty years of their lives with sufficient dignity to make it seem as if they were dead already is your idea of a good time, you should love this play. I'll pass.

i've just finished reading/watching all of shakespeare's comedies and mww is one of the funnier ones. it is a lighthearted look at marital jealousy and features one of shakespeare's great fools, falstaff (of henry iv fame). the out-and-out funniest shakepearean play is still "taming of the shrew", imho, but mwv runs well ahead of the laggards, and certainly well ahead of such better known plays as "twelfth night" and "as you like it".

Shakespeare, considering he wrote this little gem of a comedy in a mere 14 days for the Virgin Queen, pulls off a play that proves both witty and fun. Unequivocally, The Merry Wives of Windsor makes for a more enjoyable play if seen live. Nonetheless, reading it is the 2nd best thing.

Sir John Falstaff is once again such a fool - but a lovable and hilarious one at that. Having read Henry V - where Falstaff ostensibly had met his end - I was pleased to see him so alive(pardon the pun) in this short, albeit clever play. It is no surprise that The Merry Wives of Windsor enjoyed such a long and successful stage run during Shakespeare's day and continues to be one of his most popularly staged plays. Recommended as a fun break from the more serious and murderous Shakespearean tragedies.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." - Pistol

When drama goes hand in hand with comedy, a fantastic and peculiar pair enters the stage. It is quite difficult to achieve that strange feeling in which the reader is able to find pity in joy, as Shakespeare was able to do when writing his comedy The Taming of the Shrew.
Baptista is stubborn to let his favourite and younger daughter Bianca get married after finding a suitor for the shrewish Katherina, his oldest daughter. As a consequence, a complicated mockery is carried out and anyone displays a true identity both literally and metaphorically. Besides the humorous joke and its funny characters, compassion is clearly shown.
A classic that a reader will never forget. Furthermore than a simple play, Shakespeare also criticized the submissive role of women as well as the poor treatment of servants, always from a comic view, which is a useful way to understand the Elizabethan period, with its habits and customs. Although it may not be too realistic and the actions are sometimes extravagant to happen in true life, it does not let the reader get bored and he/ she will find that the book is easily and quickly read.
Once again, a classic that everybody should read in order to start changing those problems that have persisted for ages: women's role in society and everyone's right to have a satisfactory treatment through injustice.

Of all of Shakespeare's plays that I have read, this is the most enjoyable. The characters are real and engaging - the sweetly stupid Bianca and her hoard of suitors, Baptista, who is more interested in selling his daughters to rich husbands than making them happy, the sly and masterful Petruchio, and most of all, Katherine, the Shrew. The play is full of action, comedy, and enough mistaken and hidden identities to keep the reader happily confused.

Katherine, who appears to be "tamed" by Petruchio's cruelties, learns the art of subtlety and diplomacy that will enable her to survive in a society ruled by men. Her speech in the last scene is not a humbling affirmation of the superiority of men, but a tounge-in-cheek ridicule of Petruchio, Lucentio, and Hortensio, who think that a woman can be tamed like a wild animal by a few days of bumbling controll.

The Folger Library of Shakespeare's plays are the most readable editions that I have seen. There are detailed side notes and definitions of unfamiliar words, which are perfect for the reader who is not familiar with Shakespearean English.

The Taming of the Shrew is a play within a play. It starts out with a drunkard, Sly, and a lord. The lord bets that he can trick Sly into thinking he is a lord. When Sly wakes up he doesn't understand, but eventually accepts who they say he is. After a few minutes he becomes bored and the play, "Taming of the Shrew" comes on. It is a play that has men dressing as women, other men, and women dressing as men. I would recommend it to someone who is looking for a book that will have a geat beginning, middle, end, and will keep you wanting to read the next page.

Comedy, in the strictest sense, is concerned with ultimate forgiveness and reconciliation. In Shakespeare's play, "The Tempest," the protagonist, Prospero, must come to terms with his brother Antonio, who conspired to have him driven from his duchy in Milan, and with the world of social interaction in general.

Magic, Power, and Conspiracy are the foundational thematic elements through which Shakespeare effects Prospero's reintegration into human society. Thrown into a boat with his infant daughter Miranda, Prospero comes to live on a nearly deserted island in the Mediterranean Sea. Prospero's concentration on developing his proficiency in Magic caused him to become alienated from his political and social responsibilities in Milan, leading to his expulsion. His brother Antonio conspired with Alonso, king of Naples, and seized the power Prospero forsook for book-learning.

Prospero hears of a sea voyage undertaken by his enemies, and, using his Magic, whips up a storm, a great tempest, which causes his enemies to be shipwrecked on his island. On the island, Prospero exercises total power - over the education of his daughter, his slave, the deformed Caliban, and now over his enemies. He engages Ariel, a sprite, to orchestrate the division of the traveling party, and to put them through various trials to exact vengeance and ultimately, submission from them.

"The Tempest" is a fine effort from Shakespeare, but the power relations in the play are problematic. Prospero's insistent dominance over the action of the play is extremely troubling. Although he is presented as a benevolent character, Prospero's relationships with Miranda, Caliban, and Ferdinand, King Alonso's son, complicate his overall worth as a man and an authority figure. The dynamic between the slave Caliban and the drunks, Trinculo and Stephano, is also very unsettling.

Overall, "The Tempest" remains a whimsical flight of imagination, while exploring intriguing themes of education, political intrigue, and romance. Certainly, it is still a well-constructed and entertaining play after nearly four hundred years.

This is Shakespeare's 2nd last play. Yet, nothing indicates that he was running out of steam. The images are beautiful. Stephano, Caliban, and Trinculo are memorable as the bumbling conspirators. Miranda and Ferdinand are fine as the two young lovers. Ariel is striking as Prospero's loyal servant. Prospero is a magnificent creation. Not only does he offer several beautiful and memorable passages, but he is well drawn as a character who was unfairly forced into exile. He also makes his prison his paradise. In addition, he is a fine representation of Shakespeare himself: "Knowing I loved my books, he furnished me / From mine own library with volumes that / I prize above my dukedom" (1.2.166-168). His speeches in 4.1 and 5.1 also reflect how Shakespeare himself was contemplating the end of his career. The story itself is very well drawn. Shakespeare grabs our attention with a storm at sea. He offers us a reflection of himself, comical touches, beautiful images, profound passages, beautiful language, young lovers, comical villains, and deep messages. If you like this, be sure to read his final play "Henry VIII."

Yes, there is once again murder brewing in the play of Shakespeare but only in a comical way. Not able to claim to be a Shakespeare expert, I have only read four of his other plays. However, it is in my opinion that this be the best one, most likely because it is a comedy and is much lighter that his other plays. This classic play tells the story of the former Duke of Milan who was wrongly dethrowned by his brother. Using his magical power that originally expelled him from Milan, he is able to bring the King (Alonso), Alonso's brother (Sebastian),his own brother (Antonio) and other servants to the his mostly vacant island. Ordering about the spirit Ariel, he manipulates his way into an interesting and funny situation. There is much to gain from reading this wonderful play which is one of Shakespeares last. I recommend this book to Shakespeare lovers and even more so, to variety readers such as myself. You won't be dissapointed by the plays light mood which is much better than Shakespeares serious murder stories.

This play can be read as anti-semitic. In fact, it's pretty hard to defend it from such charges. Shylock is a pretty rotten character and the fact that he is jewish is difficult to overlook (particularly since the other characters mention it on pretty much EVERY page). However, I think it is important to mention that the "heroes" of this play do not necessarily have to be interpreted as heroes. They are by no means perfect and there are many subtle (and some not-so-subtle) instances within the text in which their biases against ANYONE unlike them is illustrated. If one reads the play this way, then Shylock becomes more of a tragic figure rather than an absolutely heartless villain. I don't know. My feelings about this are mixed. There are a few funny parts of this play and the language is, as always, beautiful. The theme of putting a price on human beings is one which has been explored numerous times since. Overall, it is enjoyable, but perhaps not so much so as some of the other comedies. Do not read this play without having read a few others by Shakespeare first. It is an excellent play, but not his best and not his most enjoyable either.

After reading most of the other reviews here, I am fully aware that most of the reviewers didn't read carefully enough (or watch carefully enough if they saw the play.) Now, I'm not saying its not open for different interpretations, but there is one thing I would really like to get straight.

I read MoV for a Bar Mitzvah project on Anti-Semitism. Naturally, my sympathies went to Shylock. However, even if i were Christian, i still would've favored Shylock. What many people believe is that Shylock is a cold hearted ruthless person and only wanted to get back at Antonio because Antonio was a Christian.

Not true. Shylock specifically says something along the lines off, "Why should I lend money to you? You spit on me, and call me a Jewish dog!" I'm not saying that Shylock was a good guy, but I am saying that he is not the villain.

In fact, the "Merchant of Venice," in this story is actually Shylock, not Antonio, contrary to popular belief. My thoughts on the story was that Shylock requested a pound of Antonio's flesh because he did not trust Antonio. Who would trust someone that spat on him? The fact is, Antonio doesn't pay him back in the end.

Now, there's always something else we have to put into consideration. Would the judge had given the "spill one ounce of Christian blood" verdict at the end if Shylock were not a Jew?

This is the mark of a great play. A play that really gets you thinking. But I encourage you, I beg of you, that when you read it or see it, please do not hold Shylock up to being a cold hearted villain. Hold Antonio up to that image. (joking, of course, Antonio's not a bad guy, he's just not a good guy.)

This is a wonderful play - and unless you have seen it or read it you don't know it at all. That's because everything the popular culture tells us about this play is false (for example; how many of you think this play is about a merchant named Shylock? ;-)

The Merchant of Venice is a lively and happy morality tale. Good triumphs over bad - charity over greed - love over hate.
There is fine comedy. Portia is one of Shakespeare's greatest women (and he ennobled women more than any playwright in history). There are moments of empathy and pain with all the major characters. There is great humanity and earthiness in this play. These things are what elevate Shakespeare over any other playwright in English history.

Plays should be seen - not read. I recommend you see this play (if you can find a theater with the courage and skill to do it). But if it is not playing in your area this season - buy the book and read it.

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 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.

With its scenes of war and mobs, CORIOLANUS is a work best expirienced on the stage, of course, being one of his least popular plays, it doesn't get produced too often.

The only killing Coriolanus does is on the battle field, but he still comes off as a much less likable character than the murdering Hamlet or Macbeth because Coriolanus spends much of the play berating the citizens of Rome. CORIOLANUS has often been called Shakespeare's manifesto against democracy because of this, but the play is much more complex than that. Yes, it's a play about the fickleness of the masses, but it's also about leaders who don't perform their responsibilities either.

The play is much more political than emotional, and therefore not one I'll return to often, but its political statements are as timely today as they were 400 years ago, if not moreso.

Cleopatra may be a somewhat ambiguous female character, but I totally loved her, and Bill's portrayal of her. I don't know if he expected the reader to judge her, but I suspect not. The harshest criticism of her comes from Octavius Caesar, who himself doesn't do a single noble thing throughout the whole play. She is fully aware of the fact that she is a sensual, passionate woman- which has no negative effect on her ability to rule Egypt. Her biggest faults are her violent temper (which I suspect is just part of her passionate nature) and her tendency to lie when it suits her (either for sport or for serious politics). Antony (I feel) is actually kind of a loser compared to her. His insincerity runs deep- he marries Caesar's sister in a political move, although he had repeatedly pledged his undying love for Cleopatra. She forgives him, because she truly loves him, even though he doesn't do anything to deserve forgiveness. Antony never fully allows himself to love Cleopatra. He constantly is overreacting to the slightest indication that she might be betraying him or whatever. It is one of these overreactions (combined with an ill-timed lie on Cleo's part) that ends up destroying them both. Even in the end, Cleopatra's death is more dignified and better conceived than Antony's messy and fumbling suicide.

Shakespeare in this play shows how love is not human but surrealistic. Love does not answer reasonable questions. It is a fundamentally unreasonable attitude that brings the lovers to absurd behaviours negating all logical, political and historical values. Love has no limits even if history will prove stronger and the lovers will be destroyed. Shakespeare beefs up this theme with a language that is so rich that we are fascinated by the words, the symbols, the symbolic value of words and acts. He is particularly rich in his style that is entirely, words, poetry, actions, and even feelings, organized following some simple symbols, particularly numerical symbols. In this play Cleopatra appears as being the core of the symbolism and she carries with her the number eleven that comes from the old English runes with the meaning of fate, of fatal defeat, of a flaw that cannot be corrected or escaped. It is her destiny to bring Antony to his defeat and death, just as it is Antony's fate to be governed by this woman and led to his own destruction because of his love for her. It also shows how the Emperor is able to use this fatal situation in order to capture all powers and to impose his absolute will on the Roman Empire. He seems to be the one who plays not well but with all the assets of the game up his sleeves, and he takes them out one at a time when the situation is ripe for these assts to become the key to is ascension to absolute power by defeating those who may oppose him.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Anthony and Cleopatra is one of Shakespeare's difficult plays, and so I suspect the ratings on the play are low because it's a more mature play than Romeo and Juliet. Here we have two middle age lovers who part of the time are foolish with lust/love and the rest of the time are tough minded heads of state. The "tragedy" is that they can't be both and survive. This is not a play for the young folks, I'm afraid. But if you want some heavy drama where the characters are spared nothing and given no slack, read Anthony and Cleopatra (hint: Cleopatra's suicide is more political statement than a crazy wish to die with Antony). Better yet see it performed by some real actors some time.