▲ 45 points
back
23 comments
The argument about rereading Jonson's poem is plausible, though it doesn't argue that Shakespeare was great at either language. He certainly never showed it off the way Marlowe and Kyd did. But he did use Latin in his works, at least targeting the basic schoolboy level.
The argument from Antigone is less compelling. It's just two poets using vaguely similar tropes.
I would say the argument is reason to think Jonson wasn't necessarily dissing Shakespeare's education, but Robert Greene certainly did in his "upstart crow" polemic. Shakespeare never showed great facility in either language. Jonson's praise poem is a bit ham-fisted (as were all praise poems, including Shakespeare's).
The argument about the poem is quite right. I’m actually taken aback that it has been read in any other way, as the English seems straightforward to me.
‘And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek’ = ‘even if you had little knowledge of Latin and less of Greek’
The whole argument is just saying that Jonson is using the subjunctive mood, which seems obvious. If he had wanted to use the indicative, he would have written ‘thou hast’ rather than ‘thou hadst’.
Shakespeare was dead by that point, so Jonson could have used "hadst" for the past tense. Which in English is often identical to the subjunctive mood.
If only Jonson had written it in Latin or Greek.
If only he had! I suppose it could be as you suggest, but the context does not seem to me to fit a past tense indicative. Just a few lines earlier he even writes ‘Thou … art alive still, while thy book doth live,’ and the previous sentence matches the subjunctive + conditional structure (‘if I thought … I should commit’) that I think he is using in the disputed sentence (‘though thou hadst … I would not seek’).
I started to develop an interest for Shakespeare a few days ago but I can't decide how to start. Should I start by reading a play or should I watch one? Reading a play feels like reading a movie script. On the other hand I'm not confident that I can follow a 16th century play from another culture without precursory knowledge of the story.
Absolutely you should watch it. Your comparison is apt; you're missing most of it if you're just reading the script. The sights and sounds of a good performance make it much easier to follow.
Reading the script is an advanced skill. I think we do a real disservice throwing unedited scripts at students.
As for what to watch, there are many great film versions. Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing were my gateway. There is a stunning Titus by Julie Taymor, especially if you like horror -- it's an obscure play but Taymor makes a spectacle of it. There have been several very good Macbeth adaptations recently; I need to catch Denzel Washington's because I've heard it's great. There was also a very good Coriolanus recently (another obscure play given a very modern and relevant performance).
I would watch a film, and if you love it, read the play to find out how it works.
The recent BBC/Amazon adaptation of King Lear featuring Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson was pretty good. Worth watching for sure.
> Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing were my gateway.
Branagh's Henry V and Polanski's Macbeth were my gateway.
Don't miss the 1995 Richard III adaptation with Sir Ian McKellen. The 2004 film version of The Merchant of Venice is also worth seeing, if only for Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons.
Absolutely. Those are both extraordinary films.
The Polanski Macbeth is a bit dated for my tastes, but it's definitely a great film. Some day (perhaps even now) those Branagh films are going to feel dates as well, which kinda scares me. (None of the adaptations he made after that were extraordinary, either. His Hamlet is certainly important, but I wouldn't recommend it to a new Shakespeare fan.)
I guess one can get a good feel of it by reading. I do think it is a bit dogmatic to say that they need to be seen than read. The really poetic fragments one can better appreciate reading at ones own pace than watching it being performed is my view.
I would recommend watching Kenneth Branagh's movie adaptations, particularly Henry V. You get a good feel for the power of the language, the pathos and the humor. I used to have recordings (i.e. vinyl records) of the Royal Shakespeare company reading plays, makes them much more accessible when you read along with a great actor speaking the words. I've been reading and re-reading Shakespeare all my life, the words never get old.
I don't think you'd have much trouble following to follow Macbeth without knowing much about 16th century England or 11th century Scotland. It's one of Shakespeare's shortest plays, you try it for yourself: https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/william-shakespeare/macbet...
Macbeth is probably one of the more accessible Shakespearean tragedies. There are also many good film versions including the latest on with Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand. Personally, I'd recommend watching one of the films before reading it.
If at all possible, see a professional theater performance. And honestly if your afraid of the language - read a plot synopsis ahead of time - then you needn’t worry about missing a key point. But honestly the plays, if we’ll staged are pretty accessible.
One of the delights of seeing a Shakespeare play staged is when you finally hear a quote that you’ve heard a thousand times in context for the first time.
To give you a contrarian view on what most others are telling, I strongly advise you to go see a representation of it. Theatre is made to be enjoyed live sharing a space with the comedians. It’s a very different experience compared to watching a movie adaptation of it.
Reading would be perfectly fine if you are happy playing theatre director in your head but if you are unfamiliar with plays I advise you to go and see some before to get a sense of the space. It helps. Reading play is quite enjoyable because they are so short compared to a novel.
>Theatre is made to be enjoyed live sharing a space with the comedians. It’s a very different experience compared to watching a movie adaptation of it.
I don't really disagree although going to see a theater production is a higher bar than watching a movie--and, unless it's a good professional production, a good version on film will probably be better quality.
In any case, it's written for watching although of course someone may want to read an annotated version for deeper study.
During my college years I was fortunate to see several live performances of various Shakespeare plays every year, mostly student productions. They were all very good, and provided the context other commentors have mentioned. Back then, Olivier's films were the standard, but I agree with many here that Branagh's productions nail it every time and for me come close to the experience of a live performance. I was a Humanities major who concentrated on Medieval and Renaissance history and culture, so familiarity with Shakespeare was required. But I enormously enjoyed it, especially the classical references. My own Latin and Greek were embarrassingly weak, and remain so to this day. Sadly, I'll no longer be able to comfort myself with the mistaken notion that the Bard shared that shortcoming.
Just try one or the other and see how it goes. If it doesn't work well for you but also doesn't completely put you off Shakespeare, try the other one. If neither works well for you but you still want more Shakespeare in your life, maybe look around for adaptations of his plays that bring them up to date a bit.
(And if none of the things you can easily try turns out to be satisfactory, well, maybe it turns out you don't like Shakespeare all that much. Nothing wrong with that, either on his end or on yours.)
If you want to watch them on TV, watch the Hollow Crown series. They're the best adaptations I've seen, but more importantly they're among the best plays too. I see a lot of recommendations for Kenneth Branaghs Henry V. The thing is its not that great a play. It is in the Hollow Crown Series, but the other Henry's are much better plays imo. Also, reading them is not as hard as you might think.
Maybe take a look at some of the streaming versions made available by theaters. The Globe has an excellent (although expensive) streaming service.
Watch Twelfth Night with Mark Rylance — it's incredible. You should be able to find it for free online.
>> “Even if Shakespeare knew very little Latin and even less Greek, that would not stop me from comparing him to the greatest of Greek and Roman playwrights, because he is not just as good as they are – he’s better.” That is what Ben Jonson is really saying. He’s not saying that Shakespeare didn’t know Latin or Greek: he’s saying that, even if he didn’t, Shakespeare would still be better than Aeschylus. Better than Sophocles or Euripides.
Even if that's what he's saying, that is a bit of an exaggeration on the part of Jonson.
Reminds me of this: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/merry_4_1.html
I was taking a Shakespeare class and a Latin class in college, so it was amusing when I ran across it. You'd really only get it if you studied Latin, but 400 years later, Latin grammar jokes still work.