This is an excellent collection of poems by one of the often overlooked members of the the Inklings. Mr. Dodds' useful introduction and organization of these vibrant poems is very helpful, and it's too bad that this book will be read primarily by academics.

Required to read Henry for my AP English Language class, I came into the play with a bias. I honestly felt that it would be a boring political play. I was utterly wrong! A huge fan of Shakespeare, I found Henry V to be a formidable match for the Bard's more critically acclaimed plays, such as Hamlet and Macbeth. Henry has it all! Shakespeare's attitude toward Henry the King is certainly one of admiration. By communicating the fact that an effective monarch must have a complete understanding of the common subjects (Pistol and Bardolph and Quickly), Shakespeare sets up Henry to be the ideal Christian king. The controlled language of Henry's speeches, particularly his response to the Dauphin's idiotic insult, also glorifies Henry. I certainly recommend this play to anyone, fan of Shakespeare or not.

Written by Shakespeare for Queen Elizabeth I amidst a time of Irish rebellion, Henry V more than adequately serves its intended purpose of galvanizing nationalistic fervor. It proved itself to be an unwavering and unfaltering impetus of patriotism in Shakespeare's day, during WWII, and still today it continues to resonate and reverberate this provocatively telling tale of the most gloriously revered monarch in English history.

Henry V's stirring orations prior to the victorious battles of Harfleur("Once more unto the breach") and Agincourt("We few, we happy few, we band of brothers") astonish and inspire me every time I read them. Simply amazing. Having read Henry IV Parts I&II beforehand, I was surprised Shakespeare failed to live up to his word in the Epilogue of Part II in which he promised to "continue the story, with Sir John in it." The continuing follies of the conniving Bardolph, Nym, & Pistol and their ignominious thieving prove to be somewhat of a depricating underplot which nevertheless proves to act as a succinct metaphor for King Harry's "taking" of France.

Powerful and vibrant, the character of Henry V evokes passion and unadulterated admiration through his incredible valor & strength of conviction in a time of utter despondency. It is this conviction and passion which transcends time, and moreover, the very pages that Shakespeare's words are written upon. I find it impossible to overstate the absolute and impregnable puissance of Henry V, a play which I undoubtedly rate as the obligatory cream of the crop of Shakespeare's Histories. I recommend reading Henry IV I&II prior to Henry V as well as viewing Kenneth Branagh's masterpiece film subsequent to reading the equally moving work.

On D-Day British officers read Henry's famous words to their men as they approached the beach. When Churchill needed material for his famous "Few" speech, his thoughts turned to the pages of Henry V. From "once more into the breach" to "we happy few, we band of brothers" this play resonates with Shakespeare's paen to England's warrior king. Oh, you'll be a bit confused at the start if you haven't read Henry IV parts 1 and 2, but this is primarily the story of Henry V's victory at Agincourt. Whether the play glorifies war or just Henry you will have to decide. There is much food for thought here for the perceptive reader. But then Shakespeare is always provocative.

I noticed and purchased this book on pure whim, in one of those weird moods we sometimes enter when we want to learn about something of which we have absolutely no knowledge. I did absolutely no background reading, and simply jumped right in. Mistake? I think so. And yet I still feel as though I got a great deal out of this read. "William the Conqueror" is quite fascinating, it's a sort of English/Norman/French who's who in the late 11th century, and you get a great feel for the major players and their vacillating loyalties. On the other hand, there are periodic tangents (of biblical proportions, i.e. this duke married the slave girl of this count, whose mother was involved in the treacherous coup d'etatic plot of so and so, and so on for a while). Sans those occasional outburst of, truly, excess info - this is fantastic stuff. William was able to overcome (what I feel to be) more than insurmountable odds at the beginning of his rule to change the entire face and future of the English monarchy. We can only wonder what might Europe be like today had Harold been victorious at Hastings (he almost was!), and what impact it could have on us.

A Classic in any genre! David C. Douglas has made a contribution to literatrue of monumental proportions. No mater if you are a seasoned historian or will never read another book about eourpean history again. I beg of you to make this the one. The story of a young Duke overcoming insurmountable odds, congueroring a nation, and changing the course of history. Hollywood could not write a better script. And David C. Douglas could not have written a better book.

If you are interested in the history of Norman England, or the impact the invasion of 1066 had on England (and the world!), this is the book for you. While not the 'easiest' reading, this is definitely a book for those seeking details and full accounts of the life and times of the one known by his contemporaries as 'William the Bastard'. I would rank this book right up there with Dungeon, Fire, and Sword on like-ability! This book should be on every medieval historian's bookshelf!

First off, I must admit that I thoroughly enjoyed Part I and absolutely adored Henry V. Having said that, I found Part II to be enjoyable, yet perhaps leaving something to be desired - like more action. Falstaff and Prince Hal both come off as somewhat disingenuous and calculating Machiavellian individuals. Disappointingly, Falstaff speaks poorly of Prince Hal while unwittingly in his midst. Conversely, The Prince of Wales prematurely takes the crown before his King Henry IV's death as well as disassociating himself with Falstaff after he is crowned King. These instances, along with others throughout the play, show the self-serving tendencies of both characters.

However, we can proudly witness the maturation of the young King from wild & dissolute young Prince Hal into one of the most revered monarchs in English history, King Henry V. Part II remains an intriguing play due to its paradoxical nature, yet unfortunately rarely acted out today. Now that I have read Henry IV(I&II) for the first time, I gladly move on to one of my personal favorites, Henry V. I recommend both parts(Folger editions) for all Shakespeare enthusiasts - they have given me greater insight into the young Henry V - when he was more concerned with downing a pint of ale rather than downing the French at Agincourt.

2 Magnificent Quotes from Henry IV Part II -
"Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." - King Henry IV
"He hath eaten me out of house and home." - Mistress Quickly

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.

The lengthy title for the 1598 printing was "The History of Henrie the Fourth, With the Battell at Shrewsburie, between the King and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henrie Hotspur of the North, with the humorous conceits of Sir John Falstaffe".

Surprisingly, Hal, Prince of Wales, (later Henry V) was not even mentioned in this verbose title although many would consider him to be the central character. This play is clearly the dramatization of a struggle for a kingdom, but it is equally the story of Hal's wild and reckless youthful adventures with Falstaff and other disreputable companions.

Shakespeare did not write his plays about English kings in chronological order, but these plays do have a historical unity. It is helpful (but not essential) to read the tetralogy Richard II, Henry IV Part 1 and 2, and Henry V in chronological order. Whatever route you take, I highly recommend buying a companion copy of Peter Saccio's "Shakespeare's English Kings", an engaging look at how Shakespeare revised history to achieve dramatic effect.

A wide selection of Henry IV editions are available, including older editions in used bookstores. I am familiar with a few and have personal favorites:

The New Folger Library Shakespeare is my first choice among the inexpensive editions of Henry IV. "New" replaces the prior version in use for 35 years. It uses "facing page" format with scene summaries, explanations for rare and archaic words and expressions, and Elizabethan drawings located on the left page; the Henry IV text is on the right. I particularly liked the section on "Reading Shakespeare's Language in Henry IV" and Alexander Legget's literary analysis (save this until you have read the play). The fascinating article "Historical Background: Sir John Falstaff and Sir John Oldcastle" adds a religious dimension to the play that I had not previously noted.

The Bedford Shakespeare Series provides an excellent study text (edited by Barbara Hodgdon) titled "The First Part of King Henry the Fourth". It is a little more expensive, is about 400 pages, and provides a broad range of source and context documentation. It would be excellent for an upper level course in Shakespeare. The context documentation is fascinating and informative; it ranges from the Holinshed Chronicles to Elizabethan writing on Civic Order to detailed cultural studies of London's diverse populous. Other chapters address the OldCastle controversy and the "Education of a Prince".

I also like the Norton Critical edition (edited by James Sanderson), "Henry the Fourth, Part 1", particularly for its extensive collection of literary criticism. The essays are divided into two parts: 1) the theme, characters, structure, and style of the play and 2) a wide variety of interpretation directed toward that roguish character, Sir John Falstaff.

An integral part to any Shakespeare work is the presence of footnotes! This book has a glossary, but it does not do any good because there is not sign in the actual text itself that one can look up specific words in the glossary. While the plays themselves are very enjoyable, do not purchase this edition unless you feel very confident about your ability to read Shakespearean language.

this is a great book for shakespeare fans. it was the first time i read shakespeare outside of class, and it was very interesting. i didn't like the prefaces much, i didn't have the patience to read them. i felt they were very of long, and harder to read and understand than the actual shakespeare. they actual plays-not stories, just to clarify- are wonderful. it would be a great book to read if you are taking a literature class and want to get a head start or if you want to expand your vocabulary. you can even relate the problems of those times to the problems of today. the plays were very fun to read once you got into them; shakespeare is just as great as he is said to be.

this is an excellent 'cheap' edition of the great tragedies. besides being edited by david bevington, considered one of the foremost shakespeare scholars, the bantam edition also includes introductory essays for each play AND the source material that shakespeare used - ie, the actual short stories or plays that the bard drew on to the write his plays. wonderful stuff and a great way to get into shakespeare.

When rating Shakespeare, I always rate his works as compared to other Shakespearean works; otherwise, the consistently high marks wouldn't be very informative. For instance, if this were to be rated against the general run of literature extant, it would certainly rate five stars. Even by the standard I'm using, it's close.

Like "Hamlet", this is a tragedy that still manages to have some very funny lines; as in "Hamlet", this is generally due to characters either pretending to be crazy, or truly being crazy, so it's something of a dark humor, but humorous it still is. Lear's jester has some great lines doing what only a jester could get away with (and what the reader wants to do): telling the King that he's an idiot when he's done something ignorant beyond belief. Edgar, son of Gloucester, banished by his father for supposed treason, plays the part of a mad beggar to save his life, and when Lear, honestly crazy from grief, meets up with him, their conversations rival anything in Hamlet for manic nonsense that still manages to make a certain warped and poigniant sense.

It's a shame that the language has changed so much since Shakespeare's time, so that the masses are unable to enjoy and appreciate his wit; his plays were not written to be enjoyed only by the literati; they were intended to entertain and, yes, enlighten the masses as well as the educated; his plots seem to be right in line with either modern romantic comedies (in his comedies) or modern soap operas (in his tragedies). Modern audiences would love him, if only they could understand him; unfortunately, when one "modernizes" the language in a Shakespearean play, what one is left with is no longer Shakespeare, but simply a modern adaptation. Which, if done well, is not without value, but is still far short of the original.

This star-rating system has one important flaw: you have to rank books only in relation to its peers, its genre. So you must put five stars in a great light-humor book, as compared to other ones of those. Well, I am giving this book four stars in relation to other Shakespeare's works and similar great books.

Of course, it's all in the writing. Shakespeare has this genius to come up with magnificent, superb sentences as well as wise utterings even if the plot is not that good.

This is the case with Lear. I would read it again only to recreate the pleasure of simply reading it, but quite frankly the story is very strange. It is hard to call it a tragedy when you foolishly bring it about on yourself. Here, Lear stupidly and unnecessarily divides his kingdom among his three daughters, at least two of them spectacularly treacherous and mean, and then behaves exactly in the way that will make them mad and give them an excuse to dispose of him. What follows is, of course, a mess, with people showing their worst, except for poor Edgar, who suffers a lot while being innocent.

Don't get me wrong: the play is excellent and the literary quality of Shakespeare is well beyond praise. If you have never read him, do it and you'll see that people do not praise him only because everybody else does, but because he was truly good.

The plot is well known: Lear divides the kingdom, then puts up a stupid contest to see which one of his daughters expresses more love for him, and when Cordelia refuses to play the game, a set of horrible treasons and violent acts begins, until in the end bad guys die and good guys get some prize, at a terrible cost.

As a reading experience, it's one of the strongest you may find, and the plot is just an excuse for great writing.

One of literature's classic dysfunctional families shows itself in King Lear by William Shakespeare. King Lear implicity trusts his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, but when the third wishes to marry for love rather than money, he banishes her. The two elder ones never felt Lear as a father; they simply did his bidding in an attempt to win his favor to get the kingdom upon his death. Cordelia, on the other hand, always cared for him, but tried to be honest, doing what she felt was right. As Lear realizes this through one betrayal after another, he loses his kingdom -- and what's more, his sanity...

The New Folger Library edition has to be among the best representations of Shakespeare I've seen. The text is printed as it should be on the right page of each two-page set, while footnotes, translations, and explanations are on the left page. Also, many drawings and illustrations from other period books help the reader to understand exactly what is meant with each word and hidden between each line.

There have been many translations of this Sumerian story over the years due. David Ferry's translation is rather readable; Ferry's decision to write the story in heroic couplets of iambic pentameter makes the story easily accessible and easy to follow. Gilgamesh deals with many issues traditionally found in epics. The Sumerian Prince learns of loyalty and friendship through his one companion, Enkidu. There are battles of epic proportion; the companions battle the forest monster, Howawa, and the bull of heaven. Gilgamesh even sojourns to the land of dead, which reminds readers of Odysseus' journeys. The text is occasionally repetitive, but one would expect that of an epic. It's length and ease of readability make it attractive, however. Qualms with the story itself aside, Ferry has produced an admirable translation.

For years I have had trouble with translations of "Gilgamesh" that were either too formal, too literal, or too academic. Ferry's translation is involving, adventurous, psychological and above all, extremely accessible to the modern reader. And what do you get? Political power, a romance that transcends death, a bit of wit, gorgeous poetry, a great war, and an ending that is so spiritual that it will stay with you for years. I read Ferry's translation last year, and returned again this year to see if it was as beautiful as I remembered. The answer: moreso!

If you enjoyed Robert Fagels' wonderful translation of the Illiad and the Odessey, I think you will appreciate what David Ferry has done with this ancient story. By his own admission he has taked some poetic liberties but by doing so he has made these archaic characters accessible and human. Other editions will give you a feel of the problems of translation; this will give you a sense of the primordial power of simple story telling and simple themes.

The title contradicts scripture itself ... "The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith" ... has the author never read the scripture with open eyes and did he not recognize that even in scripture, the pillar and foundation of all truth is the CHURCH (see 1 Tim 3:15). Any bible-believing Christian should see that...isn't that what believing the bible is all about - believing what it "actually" says. There's much better stuff out there to read if you're looking for the TRUTH. Try looking where Jesus promised to leave all truth...the CHURCH. And, where in scripture does it say that scripture alone is the basis of all TRUTH. This principal seems to be a tradition of men.

REVIEW CONTINUED...

Let's summarize the work of Catholic scholar and theologian Yves Congar -- since Webster and King have tried to use him to support their Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical assertions -- from Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (1967), pages 23ff

(A) The true Catholic Faith and true interpretation of the Scriptures is found only in the Church which is bound up with the succession of its ministers (apostolic succession, not of doctrine only -- as wrongly claimed by Webster/King -- but of its bishops, ministers, pastors succeeding the authority of the apostles);

(B) The "rule of faith" or "rule of truth" was not the whole of Tradition; it may be the principal part, but there are other things transmitted from the apostles by tradition: rules of discipline, conduct/behavior, on worship/liturgy, etc.

(C) The content of tradition consisted "materially" of the Scriptures, but "formally" of the Faith of the Catholic Church, its reading of the Scriptures in the Creed, etc; the mere text of Scripture alone was insufficient; heretics also quoted Scripture but they did not read that Scripture in the context of the Tradition or the orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church;

(D) The Catholic Church alone has received the apostolic deposit of truth, for in her the Holy Spirit of truth lives (John 14:16f; 16:13f); the Church alone is the sole inheritor of the true Christian teaching from God through Christ to the Apostles;

(E) This Tradition -- the Church's Tradition -- is itself oral; and if there were no NT Scriptures it would have been sufficient for the Church to follow "the order of tradition" received from the apostles; in the minds of the early Christians it made no difference if the transmission was purely oral since there was an assured connection to the apostles through the Churches founded by the apostles to guarantee authenticity;

(F) Scripture was everything for the Fathers, and Tradition was everything also;

(G) What was the nature of the Church of the Fathers? It was one universal visible Church ruled by a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters/priests, deacons, etc in succession from the apostles (apostolic succession, again not "succession of doctrine" only);

(H) The entire activity of the Fathers demonstrates that they united three terms that were separated and set in opposition by the controversies of the 16th century -- these three terms were Scripture, Tradition, and Church; it was always affirmed that Scripture is the rule and norm of faith only when conjoined to the Church and her Tradition;

(I) Hence, the Scriptures were never considered by the Fathers as formally "sufficient" or exclusive.

See also Congar in "Excursis A: The Sufficiency of Scripture According to the Fathers and Medieval Theologians" for his conclusions on "material sufficiency" in the Fathers.

Congar demonstrates and concludes (after much evidence and analysis) that the Church Fathers did not believe in Sola Scriptura in the "formal sufficiency" sense required by the Protestant Reformers. Webster/King accept this distinction and set out to prove "formal sufficiency" from many quotations of the Fathers. However, they fail to overthrow the consistent conclusions of Schaff, Kelly, Pelikan, and Congar above.

Joe Gallegos in his 160 pages on the Fathers (see Not By Scripture Alone, p. 389-554), following Congar's research, analysis and conclusions, has conceded the "material sufficiency" of Scripture in the Fathers, so "formal sufficiency" is where the debate needs to center. The vast majority of quotations brought forward by Webster/King on the authority, inspiration, inerrancy, power, beauty, etc of Holy Scripture in the Fathers ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE. Even the perspicuity (clearness and clarity) of Scripture in the Fathers contradicts the assertions of Webster/King since the Fathers universally interpreted the text of Scripture in accordance with Catholic doctrine today (despite Webster's assertions on Matthew 16:18 which is not a problem -- note the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Matthew 16:18f, paragraphs 424, 442, 552, 586, 756, 881, etc).

Webster/King really could have saved us and them a lot of time by cutting out a great amount of irrelevant material from the three volumes, perhaps add more of a direct "biblical defense" (which is where ultimately their case must be established) of Sola Scriptura, and trimmed it down to one book of about 500 pages.

Volume 3 contains a lot of quotations from the Church Fathers, about 99% of which are irrelevant since no Church Father pitted the Tradition of the Catholic Church or the Dogmas of the Catholic Church AGAINST Scripture, which is what Webster/King would have you believe.

Vatican Council II affirms Sola Scriptura to the fullest extent according to their logic since: the Council Fathers teach the inspiration and authority of Scripture; the inerrancy of Scripture; quote from 2 Tim 3:16-17 the classical Protestant proof text; call Scripture the "Word of God"; say the Word of God for the Church is the "supreme rule of her faith"; that Scripture presents God's own Word in an unalterable form; they are the voice of the Holy Spirit bringing the words of the prophets and apostles to us; that ALL the preaching of the Church, and the ENTIRE Christian religion should be ruled by Scripture; the Word of God has force and power as the Church's support and vigor; the children of the Church get strength for their faith, food for the soul, and find a pure fount of spiritual life in Holy Scripture (see Vatican II Dei Verbum, 11, 21).

If you are an Evangelical or Catholic interested in this issue, you should get these volumes. Then take out the 38 volumes of the Fathers edited by Protestant scholars and see what Webster/King do not tell you. They are available online. And don't forget to purchase the 600 page Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura and compare especially the chapters by Sungenis, Blosser, and Gallegos where they have already answered much that is found in the Webster/King volumes.

Phil Porvaznik

catholic4areason should note that the title of the series is based on a quote from the church Father, Irenaeus. So it would seem that he has not read either. To say the title contradicts Scripture is to say Irenaeus contradicts Scripture.

Phils criticisms are dealt with directly in the books and supported by a great deal of documentation. An example of where his review is misleading is when he claims Webster and King say that the early church contrast scripture and tradition. In fact, not only do Webster and King NOT do this, one of their points is that the modern Catholic church DOES. Tradition, as understood by the patristics, is completely circumscribed BY Scripture and that is one of the MAJOR POINTS. Therefore, the supposed 'contrast' or 'dual authority' of Scripture and Tradition is a result of modern Catholicisms redifintion of the early church's understanding of 'Tradition' (pradosis). Why Phil would seem to suggest otherwise could only be to keep naive Catholics from reading the criticism.