I think I would have enjoyed this book more had I not read Norwich's book on Shakespeare's kings before I read this one. Norwich did a much better job of going through the history and, in particular, of comparing the history to Shakespeare's plays. Plus, Norwich's writing was much more vivid and engaging.

On the other hand, Saccio does a very good job of going through the history of Shakespeare's kings in a logical manner. He does not waste words and presents a story that is quick and easy to digest. Like Norwich, Saccio focuses mainly on the kings from Richard II through Henrys IV, V, and VI to Richard III. Unlike Norwich, however, Saccio also discusses King John and Henry VIII.

For anyone who is interested in knowing what really went on in the lives of these Shakespearean kings, this book is an excellent tool. Saccio points out some of the most important fallacies in the plays and is fair in presenting honest assessments of the realities of these characters even when they conflict with the dynamic images drawn by the Bard. This second edition also has a nice afterward that comments on some of the Shakespearean scholarship of the past 25 years. It is a worthwhile read.

I wish I had this in college...it's an indispensable reference for anyone reading the history plays, and it's a clear and engaging read.

this is an indispensible companion to shakespeare's history plays. indeed, i can't imagine how one can understand the plays without a book like this that gives the historical background to the events shakespeare dramatizes. the writing is concise, the presentation always lucid and logical. i especially appreciated the family trees provided in the appendix. it's the only way you can disentangle the relations between all the characters. can't recommomend this book enough.

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.

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

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.

From Susan Cooper, award-winning author of The Dark is Rising sequence. This one has a young orphaned American boy, Nat Field, playing Puck in a troupe of boy actors chosen to perform A Midsummer Night's Dream at the replica of the Globe Theatre...and while rehearsing in London, falls back in time to Shakespeare's day, to perform the same part in the original Globe. At the same time, his 16th century double falls forward to present day London, and seems to be suffering from the bubonic plague. Pretty darned sophisticated for a middle school reading level. Engagingly-told in the first person by Nat, we get to hear about the troupe rivalries (both present and past), the excitement and tedium of rehearsals, the incredible high of a performance...and also the sorrows of remembering his father's death, the pleasure of working with Master Shakespeare, and a never-preachy admission of the joy of being a performing artist. Excellent for anyone, kid or grown-up, who's trodden the boards...

Nat Field, an actor in the American Company of Boys, goes to London with the troupe to play the role of Puck in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" at the new Globe Theatre. Suddenly, he is transported back in time to 1599 London and finds himself portraying Puck at the original Globe. Not only that, he's performing with Will Shakespeare himself, who is playing Oberon! The author brings the sights, sounds and smells of Elizabethan London to life and takes us behind the scenes of the Bard's own production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream." After reading this, you'll probably want to read the play and see a performance yourself. Susan Cooper, who was a student of J.R.R. Tolkien, is an outstanding writer and storyteller. Don't miss her magnum opus, the five-book "The Dark Is Rising" series.

In this book, Nat is a young actor who had been shattered by the death of his parents. He traveled to London to perform as Puck A Midsummer Night's Dream in the remake of the Globe theater, and is mysteriously transported back in time to when the play was first performed. He soon bonds with the Bard himself who helps him begin to heal his emotional scars.

I absolutely loved this book. Susan Cooper is one of my favorite authors. She really brought the world of Shakespeare alive with her descriptions of the life back then. When she writes about Nat's emotions while he is acting, you can almost feel yourself onstage with him, getting caught up in the moment. You should read this book!!!!

It indicates that this is an unauthorized biography which was published two months before Prince William's mother's tragic death. I don't think William's father or mother or any member of the Royal Family would have authorized this book.

One does not give a chapter the title, "Birth and Circumstances," and then, ramble on for almost three pages about three good looking young teenagers - two brunettes and a blonde - walking along a street near Eton.

I did not see this book until I purchased several memorial books on Diana, Princess of Wales. If one has not kept up with Prince William or if one does not collect books about the Royal Family, this book is fair. Personally, I would NOT have bought it except for my collection.

The pictures are good, but old. This book is paperback and contains one hundred thirty-nine pages in addition to a two page genealogy of "The Royal Line from Queen Victoria to the Presnt? and a page which contains a record of Prince William's birth.

This is a great book. It tells you lots of facts on prince William and some of the history of the royal family.

As an avid Prince william Fan myself, I found this book to be very intriguing. It gives a very good explaination of his life to the present day. It tells of his childhood, growing-up and the trouble he went through with his parent's, Prince Charles and the Late Princess Diana, divorce. It gives a good insight into the decisions he had to make and the pressure he is under from the media, especially since his mother died. There are good pictures inside from his childhood and from his scholl, Eton College. In the back there is a listing of his relatives aand family. Overall a jolly good read.

a good read, but can be confusing for kids. It takes a while to comprehend all of the Shakespearian langauge, but is very interesting. It is boring at parts.

The Winter's Tale is a lot of things: heart-breaking, exhilerating, funny, beautiful, romantic, profound, etc. Yeah, it's all here. This is one of the bard's best plays, and I can't believe they don't teach this in schools. Of course, the ones they teach are excellent, but I can see high school kids enjoying this one a lot more than some of those others (Othello, King Lear).

The story is, of course, brilliant. King Leontes goes into a jealous rage at the beginning against his wife Hermione. Leontes is very mistaken in his actions, and the result is tragic. Shakespeare picks the story back up sixteen years later with the children, and the story works to a really, really surprising end of bittersweet redemption.

This is one of Shakespeare's bests. The first half is a penetrating and devestating, but the second half shows a capacity for salvation from the depths of despair. Also, this being Shakespeare, the blank verse is gorgeous and the characters are well drawn, and the ending is a surprise unparalleled in the rest of his plays. The Winter's Tale is a truly profound and entertaining read.

The Winter's Tale contains some of the most technically difficult solutions to telling a story that have ever appeared in a play. If you think you know all about how a play must be constructed, read The Winter's Tale. It will greatly expand your mind.

The play opens near the end of a long visit by Polixenes, the king of Bohemia, to the court of his childhood friend, Leontes, the king of Sicily. Leontes wants his friend to stay one more day. His friend declines. Leontes prevails upon his wife, Hermione, to persuade Polixenes. Hermione does her husband's bidding, having been silent before then. Rather than be pleased that she has succeeded, Leontes goes into a jealous rage in which he doubts her faithfulness. As his jealousy grows, he takes actions to defend his misconceptions of his "abused" honor that in fact abuse all those who have loved him. Unable to control himself, Leontes continues to pursue his folly even when evidence grows that he is wrong. To his great regret, these impulsive acts cost him dearly.

Three particular aspects of the play deserve special mention. The first is the way that Shakespeare ties together actions set 16 years apart in time. Although that sounds like crossing the Grand Canyon in a motorcycle jump, Shakespeare pulls off the jump rather well so that it is not so big a leap. The second is that Shakespeare captures entirely different moods from hilarious good humor to deep depression and remorse closely adjacent to one another. As a result, the audience is able to experience many more emotions than normally are evoked in a single play. Third, the play's final scene is as remarkable a bit of writing as you can imagine. Read it, and marvel!

After you finish reading this play, think about where your own loss of temper has had bad consequences. How can you give yourself time to get under control before acting rashly? How can you learn to be more open to positive interpretations of events, rather than dark and disturbing ones?

Love first, second, and always!

This is certainly one of Shakespeare's greatest works. Every individual character has been perfectly planned before the play was written, and each has his/her own unique characteristics. The plot is well-known, but Shakespeare adds the themes of betrayal, love, and distrust into the mix, making it a nonforgetable story. This is definately a masterpiece to be reread over and over again. LONG LIVE JULIUS CAESAR! GO SM!! WE ARE HIS #1 FANS!!!

"Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once." - Caesar

Just one of the many brilliant quotes from this powerful and enduring tragedy, which happens to be amongst my very favorite Shakespeare. How could anyone not enjoy Marc Antony swaying the weak-minded and feeble-minded plebians with his vibrant and rousing speech? Julius Caesar is unquestionably quintessential Shakespeare, a monumental work that perhaps is surpassed only by Hamlet and rivaled by Othello, Macbeth, Romeo & Juliet, & King Lear.

Julius Caesar teaches us about the dangers and pitfalls of ambition, jealousy, power, as well as the sacrifice for the greater good - even if it is another's life. Amongst the bood-thirsty traiotors, only Brutus genuinely believes in the assassination of Caesar for the greater good of the Republic. Julius Caesar galvanizes the brain and awakens the spirit from within with scenes such as when Marc Antony proclaims, "Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war."
Countless amounts of quotes and passages throughout the play rank among my favorite Shakespeare. Needless to say, this book should be on the bookshelf of any and all with any semblance of intellect and enough cultivation to appreciate such superb literature.

The modern perspective following the text enlightens and should be read by anyone seeking more knowledge about this amazing tragedy and time in history. An irrepressible 5 stars.

This superb play by Shakespeare somehow reminded me of Antigona, the first play which directly examined the always complex interplay and usual confrontation between political reason and moral reason. This play is an excellent account of the immediately previous and subsequent days of Julius Caesar's assasination by Brutus, his best friend, and other conspirators. Brutus is persuaded by the resentful Cassius that Caesar has betrayed Rome by abandoning the Republic and turning to Dictatorship. Brutus gets to be convinced that, in order to save the Republic, Caesar must be killed. This puts him in a great dilemma, for he loves Caesar and he's his closest friend. Here we see in an acute form the way in which political power gets in conflict with morality and feelings. Friendship, power and betrayal are the basic subjects of this excellent piece of work.

the Oxford Shakespeare has been touted as 'a new conception' of Shakespeare, but is in fact merely an update of the cumbersome old Arden editions. Like these, 'King John' begins with a 100-page introduction, divided into 'Dates and Sources' (full of what even the editor admits is 'tedious' nit-picking of documentary evidence); 'The Text' (the usual patronising conjecture about misprints in the Folio edition and illiterate copyists); 'A Critical Introduction', giving a conventional, but illuminating guide to the drama, its status as a political play dealing with the thorny problem of royal succession, the contemporary legal ambiguities surrounding inheritance, the patterning of characters, the use of language (by characters as political manoeuvring, by Shakespeare to subvert them); and an account of 'King John' 'In the Theatre', its former popularity in the 18th and 19th century as a spectacular pageant, the play distorted for patriotic purposes, and its subsequent decline, presumably for the same reasons. The text itself is full of stumbling, often unhelpful endnotes - what students surely want are explanations of difficult words and figures, not a history of scholarly pedantry. The edition concludes with textual appendices.
The play itself, as with most of Shakespeare's histories, is verbose, static and often dull. Too many scenes feature characters standing in a rigid tableau debating, with infinite hair-cavilling, issues such as the legitimacy to rule, the conjunction between the monarch's person and the country he rules; the finer points of loyalty. Most of the action takes place off stage, and the two reasons we remember King John (Robin Hood and the Magna Carta) don't feature at all. This doesn't usually matter in Shakespeare, the movement and interest arising from the development of the figurative language; but too often in 'King John', this is more bound up with sterile ideas of politics and history, than actual human truths. Characterisation and motivation are minimal; the conflations of history results in a choppy narrative. There are some startling moments, such as the description of a potential blood wedding, or the account of England's populace 'strangely fantasied/Possessed with rumours, full of idle dreams/Not knowing what they fear, but full of fear'. The decline of the king himself, from self-confident warrior to hallucinating madman, anticipates 'King Lear', while the scene where John's henchman sets out to brand the eyes of the pubescent Pretender, is is full of awful tension.
P.S. Maybe I'm missing something, but could someone tell me why this page on 'King John' has three reviews of 'Timon of Athens'? Is somebody having a laugh?

Timon of Athens has often been thought the work of a madman. Disjointed, polemical, irrational, and downright inelegant, many have thought that Shakespeare (or whosoever it may be) suffered a mental breakdown. This and more surrounds what I believe to be a tragic under-appreciation of this play. This play is NOT the story of a naively generous soul who eventually "faces reality". This is instead the story of a glorious Dionysian self-expender, who, upon realizing the cowardly conservatism of his so-called "peers", runs off to the wilds, to continue expending himself in body and soul. He dies on a curse, the climax of all the "evil wind" he has been sending out, the ultimate self-expension, his ultimate glory. The "tragedy" is the stone cold tablet that lies atop his corpse at the end, and the message of frugality it seems to send out, which is all too easily accepted by fatally declining cultures.

Among the least performed of all the Shakespeare plays, is probably the most disturbing. In the beginning, Timon is (not to put too fine a point on it) stupidly philanthropic; in the end he is equally misanthropic. When Timon is on top of the world, we have the cynical Apemantus to be our voice and let him know what a fool he is. In the last two acts, we simply wish (I do, at least) that our hero would stop complaining and let us "pass and stay not here," as he would have all men do in his epitaph.

But a recording is to be judged on its performances, not so much on its text. The Arkangel series, now in its last laps toward completion before (I am told) it is all redone on CDs, has every reason to be proud of its "Timon of Athens," thanks to its strong and intelligent readings. The opening scenes of artisans and poets building up the play's themes of wheel-of-fortune and gratitude/ingratitude are almost intelligible without a text open before you. Alan Howard, whom I saw in New York long ago as Henry V and as the main character in "Good," has that kind of friendly voice that is so well suited to the extravagant Timon in the open acts that we feel all the more for him when his false friends deny him in his need.

The snarling voice of Norman Rodway's Apemantus is a perfect counterpoint, and he casts out his invective in those early scenes with a hint of humor. However, when Timon becomes the misanthrope, his voice darkens and coarsens; and it is very hard to tell it from Apemantus' in their overly-long exchange of curses in 4:3. If the actor playing Alcibiades (Damian Lewis) sounds far too young for the role, that is a minor quibble--and perhaps the director wanted him to sound like a young Timon.

The incidental music sounds sufficiently Greek but too modern; still, Ingratitude knows no particular time period. A superior production of a much flawed play and a very welcome addition to any collection of recorded drama, especially since the old Decca set is long out of print and Harper audio does not yet have a "Timon" in their series.

One of the things you can assume when you write about Shakespeare--given the hundreds of thousands of pages that have already been written about him in countless books, essays, theses and term papers--is that whatever you say will have been said before, and then denounced, defended , revised and denounced again, ad infinitum. So I'm certain I'm not breaking any new ground here. King Lear, though many, including David Denby (see Orrin's review of Great Books) and Harold Bloom consider it the pinnacle of English Literature, has just never done much for me. I appreciate the power of the basic plot--an aging King divides his realm among his ungrateful children with disastrous results--which has resurfaced in works as varied as Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, A Thousand Acres (see Orrin's review), and Akira Kurosawa's last great film, Ran. But I've always found the play to be too busy, the characters to be too unsympathetic, the speeches to be unmemorable and the tragedy to be too shallow. By shallow, I mean that by the time we meet Lear he is already a petulant old man, we have to accept his greatness from the word of others. Then his first action in the play, the division of the kingdom, is so boneheaded and his reaction to Cordelia so selfishly blind, that we're unwilling to credit their word.

Then there's the fact that Shakespeare essentially uses the action of the play as a springboard for an examination of madness. The play was written during the period when Shakespeare was experimenting with obscure meanings anyway; add in the demented babble of several of the central characters, including Lear, and you've got a drama whose language is just about impossible to follow. Plus you've got seemingly random occurrences like the disappearance of the Fool and Edgar's pretending to help his father commit suicide. I am as enamored of the Bard as anyone, but it's just too much work for an author to ask of his audience trying to figure out what the heck they are all saying and what their actions are supposed to convey. So I long ago gave up trying to decipher the whole thing and I simply group it with the series of non-tragic tragedies (along with MacBeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar), which I think taken together can be considered to make a unified political statement about the importance of the regular transfer of power in a state. Think about it for a moment; there's no real tragedy in what happens to Caesar, MacBeth, Hamlet or Lear; they've all proven themselves unfit for rule. Nor are the fates of those who usurp power from Caesar, Hamlet and Lear at all tragic, with the possible exception of Brutus, they pretty much get what they have coming to them. Instead, the real tragedy lies in the bloody chain of events that each illegitimate claiming of power unleashes. The implied message of these works, when considered as a unified whole, is that deviance from the orderly transfer of power leads to disaster for all concerned. (Of particular significance to this analysis in regards to King Lear is the fact that it was written in 1605, the year of the Gunpowder Plot.)

In fact, looking at Lear from this perspective offers some potential insight into several aspects of the play that have always bothered me. For instance, take the rapidity with which Lear slides into insanity. This transition has never made much sense to me. But now suppose that Lear is insane before the action of the play begins and that the clearest expression of his loss of reason is his decision to shatter his own kingdom. Seen in this light, there is no precipitous decline into madness; the very act of splitting up the central authority of his throne, of transferring power improperly, is shown to be a sign of craziness.

Next, consider the significance of Edgar's pretense of insanity and of Lear's genuine dementia. What is the possible meaning of their wanderings and their reduction to the status of common fools, stripped of luxury and station? And what does it tell us that it is after they are so reduced that Lear's reason (i.e. his fitness to rule) is restored and that Edgar ultimately takes the throne. It is probably too much to impute this meaning to Shakespeare, but the text will certainly bear the interpretation that they are made fit to rule by gaining an understanding of the lives of common folk. This is too democratic a reading for the time, but I like it, and it is emblematic of Shakespeare's genius that his plays will withstand even such idiosyncratic interpretations.

To me, the real saving grace of the play lies not in the portrayal of the fathers, Lear and Gloucester, nor of the daughters, but rather in that of the sons. First, Edmund, who ranks with Richard III and Iago in sheer joyous malevolence. Second, Edgar, whose ultimate ascent to the throne makes all that has gone before worthwhile. He strikes me as one of the truly heroic characters in all of Shakespeare, as exemplified by his loyalty to his father and to the King. I've said I don't consider the play to be particularly tragic; in good part this is because it seems the nation is better off with Edgar on the throne than with Lear or one of his vile daughters.

Even a disappointing, and often bewildering, tragedy by Shakespeare is better than the best of many other authors (though I'd not say the same of his comedies.) So of course I recommend it, but I don't think as highly of it as do many of the critics.

GRADE : B-

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.

"Nothing will come of nothing" the fatal line Lear utters to Cordelia sums up the entire play. The wizened king believes he is urging Cordelia not to refrain from expressing her love for him when in fact he is unwittingly prompting her to use the same insincere flattery as her sisters. When Cordelia refuses to acquiesce to Lear's wishes, he banishes her from the kingdom and divides it among her nefarious sisters Goneril and Reagan. In doing this Lear accepts their empty flattery instead of Cordelia's austere profession of paternal love. Goneril and Reagan quickly betray Lear and then turn against each other. Thus Lear's preference for empty flattery (nothing) destroys his authority and embroils his kingdom in civil strife (generates nothing).

This theme runs like a thread through other parts of the play. Gloucester's blindness toward the nature of his sons results in his literal blindness later in the play. Metaphorical blindness generates physical blindness (nothing comes of nothing). Similarly, after Edgar is banished he avoids further harm by shedding his identity and disguising himself as a vagrant. In the new order of things eliminating one's status results in no harm (another version of nothing coming from nothing).

The motif of nothing coming from nothing has psychological and political ramifications for the play. From a psychological point of view Lear fails to realize that the type of adulating love he wants from Cordelia no longer exists because Cordelia is no longer a child. Her refusal to flatter Lear is, in a sense, an act of adolescent rebellion. Lear's failure to recognize the fact that Cordelia still loves him but not with the totality of a child proves to be his undoing. From a political point of view the fact that Lear divides his kingdom on the basis of protocol (who is the most flattering) instead of reality (whose words can he really trust) also proves to be his undoing. The fact that Lear sees what he wants to see instead of what he should see is the fulcrum of destruction throughout the play.

It is interesting to note that "King Lear" was staged barely one generation after England endured a bitter war of succession (The War of the Roses). The sight of Lear proclaiming his intention to divide his kingdom must have shocked contemporary audiences in the same manner that a play about appeasing fascists might disturb us today.

... the reviews for King Henry VIII by William Shakespeare (and all their other books as far as I can tell) as if different editions have the same content - obviously in the case of classics that is far from true.

... 3 editions of Henry VIII at this time: (1) Hardback edited by Gordon McMullar published in November 2000 (2) Paperback edited by Jay L. Halio published in September 2000 (3) Paperback edited by R. A. Foakes published in February 1998

Their editorial reviews describe ALL 3 of these editions as "This is the first fully annotated modern-spelling edition of King Henry VIII to appear for over a decade and includes up-to-date scholarship on all aspects of the play, including dating authorship, printing, sources and stage history." I don't think so! The reader reviews don't distinguish the editions but they are the same reviews posted for the different books. I wish I could contribute the answer but I am still trying to figure it out -- in the meantime, purchase cautiously or you may be disappointed.

Shakespeare managed to describe the later life of King Henry the eight, with much intelligence and gracefulness. This play, written centuries before, has captured my attention unlike any present-day play or novel. King Henry VIII was based on the life of the notoriously known King Henry the eight of England. To my dismay, only two of King Henry's wives were mentioned. This play showed how King Henry's life was never truly complete: he couldn't trust anyone, he was unfaithful to the Lord, his wives and his country, and he was never blessed with a son, to be heir to his throne. For myself, the climax of the play was viewing how the king dealt with the change of wives and the birth of his daughter, Elizabeth. The play King Henry VIII by William Shakespeare is a wonderful recommendation for anyone who wishes to understand the tidings of King Henry the eight from a fictitious, historical, personal point of view, rather than from historical facts.

This was an appropriate conclusion to Shakespeare's career. Not only are the characters such as Henry VIII, Cranmer, and Wolsey convincing, but the poetry and images are beautiful. In addition, through the fall of several characters such as Wolsey, we can see reflections of Shakespeare himself as he wrote his 37th and final play. It is also poetically appropriate that one of the greatest writers England ever knew ended his career by writing a play about one of the greatest kings that England ever knew! I DO NOT believe that Shakespeare only wrote parts of this play as many people do. With the beautiful images, poetry, and captivating characters, I am very confident in the belief that this play was written entirely by the one and only William Shakespeare.

This is the best work of Shakespeare that I have read. It contains jems of wisdom, such as the fall of Cardinal Wolsey, or the sympathetic speaches of Queen Catherine. These are also events of history, not far removed from Shakespeare's own times; tragic events which ultimately reshaped the world we live in.