I love Much Ado About Nothing, it's my favorite of Shakespeare's plays. I love Beatrice, remember that no matter what Leonato said, Beatrice never doubted Hero's honor. She stood by her cousin the whole time and worked to have her reputation restored.
There are so many examples in literature of two heroines, one of them very pure and quiet and well-behaved, and the other one active--but often not ending up with the man. I'm thinking of "The Castle of Otranto" and "The Woman in White". It's so cool that Shakespeare doesn't seem to punish Beatrice for being an active (and angry!) heroine and rewards her with a happy ending, too!
I love these videos - and was so happy to pass them on to my history mad dad going stir crazy in lock down in the US - 'did you try them?' I asked him - 'I watched them all' he said and then 'Teach me how to subscribe!' Thanks so much xx
this is my favorite play and I love how you start the video by discussing the title in length. That is what makes your videos special, I would not have thought about this at all
Benedick's speech about how a man can come to hate the meat he loved in his youth--and his transformation from a misogynist to a lover--give the lie to Don John's assertion that you can't change what you are. Both Benedick and Beatrice realize that their behavior is giving others a poor impression of them, and they intentionally change. But Don John knows perfectly well that his behavior is not socially acceptable, and he continues in it anyway. If anything, I think the play argues that you can't use your birth as an excuse for your bad behavior. (Of interest on this subject is also the conversation between Beatrice and the Prince about whether she was born in a merry hour. She says no, because her mother cried, but then a star also danced. This seems to indicate that whether someone is born under auspicious circumstances or not is a matter of interpretation, not clear-cut fact.)
I am enjoying immensely working through your videos. Especially I love the fact that you speak clearly and never depend on crutch words, e.g. err, you know, like etc. Thank you for your hard work in your research and the delivery of the text.
I think it is the "Much ado about Noting". Shakespeare is showing how even news from a bad source is more readily accepted when scandal is involved, more than any other sort. He goes out of his way to show the Don John is bad, but the man himself admitting it and wanting to stay that way. Further the falsehood is laid out to the audience before it is enacted. Yet the Prince and Claudio accept the lie as fact without questioning it. They even reject counter-intelligence, from good people, that Hero is wronged. This is counterpointed by deception put on Benedict and Beatrice. In both these characters, they had to talk themselves in believing it, mainly because the agents giving the information are beyond reproach. Hence the Good People giving information led to a good thing, Beatrice and Benedict getting married. Bad People giving information (and being believed) led to very bad things, mainly Hero's death...which is also accepted without question. Yes there are all the other things too. Shakespeare's plays are not only about one thing. I still think it is a caution tale about who you get your info from and still you should question it.
Dr. Kat- your channel gives me life. Thank you for you for bringing european history to life. You are an excellent educator, storyteller, and it wouldn't shock me a bit to see you hosting your own show on BBC, History channel, etc someday. Thanks again!
The play is one of my favorites despite the ways in which it violates modern sensibilities. It is pretty clear I think that the action of the play revolves around the values of the patriarchy. Beatrice has to be tamed to give Benedick what he "deserves." Hero has to be redeemed from the scandal of premarital sex, which she did not engage in, and proven innocent to be reunited with Claudio, who now does not deserve her. As you say, she must become passive and neutral. She is already innocent, yet on the basis of false rumor needs redemption and resurrection, a rebirth. Much ado about nothing!! As you also point out, it is in her father the patriarch's mouth that the values of the patriarchy are summed up--better she be dead than live with the shame she has (not) brought upon him and herself. Once the villains have been exposed and dealt with, Hero restored to virtue, and Beatrice tamed, the patriarchy is ready for a celebration. And isn't the patriarchy's paranoia about the chastity of women and the authority, honor, and lineage of men much ado about nothing. The patriarchal values and anxiety are no thing. Nonetheless, I have always thought that this play is at the heart of all romantic comedy, played again and again on large and small screens, written again and again in myriad novels. These stories depend on misunderstandings (which could really be easily resolved), jealousy, resistance to a suitor, and some nefarious character selfishly plotting against the protagonists, problems all to be unraveled in the course of the tale. Frustration with the characters' blindness creates such tension in the audience, and waiting to see how all will be resolved, for the happy ending, keeps the audience enrapt. I enjoyed your analysis, but it would be better for me if you did not reveal the text you will read as you introduce it and discuss its context because I want to read it while you are talking and cannot do both. Thank you for sharing all the content you do and inviting us into these discussions. You are generous.
We must watch a different play! I actually see this as a celebration of womanhood. Shakespeare is poking fun at your 'patriarchy' It is not Beatrice that is 'tamed' it is Benedick. Also Hero is not 'passive' but a willing participant in the restoration of her reputation. Claudio is humbled, the bad Guys are taken down and her father actually stands up for her. Jut like in the 'Merry Wives' the women make Falstaff look an idiot, Rosalind, Viola. Miranda, Kate, Portia and many more are Huge statements for women. You need to re read Shakespeare was a feminist before the idea was even fashionable. I suspect he was reflecting life then.
I wonder what it means that these female roles were written for men? Do you think it would be possible for Shakespeare to be an outlier for his time and take a stand against the patriarchy? Would he want to?
@@ReadingthePast Well, considering his monarch was Elizabeth 1st, and she herself was a groundbreaker I think it is highly likely. Also if you look at what little we know of his personal life, women are very prominent and dear to him. I think the idea that Elizabethan women were somehow subservient is a relatively modern concept. There were women pirates, women innkeepers... people like Bess of Hardwick. Katherine of Aragon ran the country quite well while Henry was off posturing in France. As did many lesser ladies while their lords were off accompanying him.
@@ReadingthePast I think the fact that women's roles were played by men is more evidence of the patriarchy's control over women and their image. The struggle of women under male domination is ancient, and in the modern era, many educated women have been able to articulate their complaints and work for equality and engage in a lively debate. I think Shakespeare was exploiting the debate for comic effect. Maybe the title of the play says that the status quo is fine, women shouldn't complain (their complaints are not a thing). The play implies that everyone is much happier when they just go along, when they don't think so much. In the end, Beatrice's feisty, independent stance is overturned, and she decides the better course is to follow her heart (which she needs help to discover) and submit to a union with Benedick. He too is a renegade. We know even today that people who couple up are very uncomfortable with those who remain single and gradually exclude them from their society if they can't manage to find them a match. This is what I see being played out in "Much Ado about Nothing." The patriarchal ideal is all out of whack in the play until its resolution, and the resolution is two marriages. I know this is only one way to see it, but I think it at least has good evidence. I doubt Shakespeare seriously cared about women's rights or thought the status quo should be changed. I think he was amused, just as most characters were in the beginning of the play before they set up their plots to bring Benedick and Beatrice together. From within the patriarchy, males enjoy so much privilege that it's hard to imagine a man really agitating for change. Look how long it has taken to get where we are four hundred years later, and we are still struggling with all of this. There seems to be something deeply rooted in the human psyche that resists the logic of sexual equality and human diversity.
I love this play and I loved your piece on it...what happened to Hero has always upset me...what an “ado” about such nonsense (although I realize it wasn’t nonsense at the time, which is also nonsensical). I’ve always said that if I were Hero, I would’ve gone along w the plan only to tell Claudio to piss off for humiliating me and for casting me aside so roughly and for showing me no love nor compassion and for immediately believing a rumor wo even asking me about it and for not wanting to marry me anymore bc I was no longer - in his mind - a virgin, as if that was the sum total of my worth...I would’ve let him see it was me, told him, “yes, I am a maid”, and then thrown my flowers in my face and walked away. Who needs such a gullible, shallow, untrusting person such as that as their spouse?? As for my father...he would rather me be dead than not a virgin? He’s known me (Hero, obviously, not ME) my whole life but wishes me dead based on one rumor? His only, beloved daughter?? A lovely, virtuous, intelligent, truthful, loving, well brought up young lady of great character, who knows all the societal rules and norms of the time and would never sleep w someone before marriage??? He can piss off as well! How was she so immediately forgiving and so quick to marry a man who had basically wished her dead over a lie? Ugh!! Definitely suspect and questionable by today’s standards... I realize that was how things were done back then, but I find it demeaning and misogynistic and difficult to stomach w my current day intellect, living in the US (current president aside). I know this still goes on in other countries and cultures even today, and it is JUST as upsetting!! But I guess that’s Shakespeare! My favorite characters are Beatrice and Benedic...their witty repartee is just delightful, right up to the end when Benedic kisses Beatrice’s mouth... Thanks for a great video and for explaining parts of the text...you cleared up a few things for me. I’m never going to be great at Shakespearean English... Thank you, Dr. Kat!!!! I love ALL your videos!! -Emma
Like a lot of Americans you don't do nuance. It is not what is said, it is how it is interpreted. Most Europeans do not take things literally, and much fun can be had by saying the opposite of what you mean. When her father says he would rather Hero be dead than not a virgin, I have always interpretated that as him sticking up for her. The idea that someone could so sully her honour as to imply it is so repugnant to him that he would rather she was dead than have to live with the fallout Seems a very paternal thing to say to me. And you are right,; you are putting a 21st century twist on words written over 500 years ago. You have to take them in context. It is clear that Claudio loves Hero, he was duped.and he acknowledges that. But his reaction would have been normal in a time when a man was judged partly on the fidelity of his wife. It crops up time and again in Shakespeare and other texts from that time. Hell, Henry VIII rid himself of 2 wives on charges of adultery. Othello kills Desdemona (again on rumour) because he did not want to be seen as a Cuckold. In a time when paternity was a big issue amongst the upper class men they wanted to know the sprog they were bringing up was theirs and not a cuckoo If a young lady of Hero's status was shown to have 'played the field' her chances of matrimony would have been zilch. Which is why she was happy to accept him. Also they genuinely love each other.,He made a bad mistake, but her telling him to do one would have been disastrous for her. Also he grew up! He was a sadder and wiser person afterwards and she could recognise that. You know that they are going to be the happiest couple ever at the end of the play. Nothing has changed that much. Men like sleep arounds, until it comes to marriage . Then they want a virgin. I can give you an example. In my circle there was a certain pair that clearly had deep affection for each other. They dated, as you would say, off and on and slept together., Common knowledge. But she was also known for sharing her favours. He did too. Even had an affair with a married woman, and another friend was bringing up His kid, thinking it was His! See the links yet? When we asked him if he had ever considered marrying her, as they were clearly well suited he said 'Hell, no! She has slept around too much!' That is why Shakespeare is still entirely relevant. He wrote about Human Nature, and sadly that never changes.
My favorite film version is the one with Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh and Michael Keaton. It had the right balance between comedy, drama, pathos. Maybe Shakespeare's mocking himself and his writing. Maybe he's saying "Here's my New Play, everyone will praise it but it's not that good (Much ado about nothing).
Dr. Kat, you are always a joy to listen to & wonderfully entertaing. When you began this video - I wondered, If anything has ever really changed. I could see clearly, far into the future, some poor students running across Facebook, Instagram & Random tweets. We, Today, Do just as Shakespeare had done many times- from creating words out of thin air - Using innuendo & vagueness or false praise to do exactly the opposite as it might seem we intend. As a poor Example "Trolls", "Guru" & "shenanigans". This would be an interesting thought project for myself, But I would enjoy more of this man's work. He danced a fine line himself as we understand now, I can't help but wonder, however - do you think He understood how thin the line was he danced upon.
I think that, if he wasn't sure before, the official response to his company staging Richard II before the Essex rebellion must have made it clear that "discretion was the better part of valour"!
I am intrigued by the thought of the double meaning of nothing and noting. I have always thought that in this play Shakespeare was questioning the whole system of honor: that it is 'nothing' of value because it is just another way those that can afford to be judgmental can give themselves reasons to be better than others. I also feel that Shakespeare was a champion for the terrible way women were treated as trophies and possessions rather than people, and this play is an example of that as well. If I may wade into the 'debate' that has once again has been raised in these comments, these two views-- looking with skepticism on (and questioning) the moral system of the upper crust, and presenting women in a different light --are two of the best arguments that Shakespeare was the son of a glover (married at a young age to an apparently strong women of business) and not a person of Nobel birth. Shakespeare's detailed portrayal of people of all social classes speaks against he himself being Nobility. He sought to learn the power of language and used it to its fullness and we are all better for him having done so.
Great video! I'd like to know more about the role of astrology for different classes of people in this time period. Was everyone aware of their sign and did they think it had an impact on their lives? (And if you do Shakespeare again like this, I'd love it if you did a weird one, like Titus Andronicus! Was Shakespeare playing for the cheap seats, having a bit of fun, or something else? It's an awfully fun tragedy...)
I've just discovered your channel and I absolutely love it :) Thanks for making such interesting and engaging videos. Combines my two loves of History and Literature :)
Love, love, love Much Ado! I fell in love with it in high school when the Kenneth Branagh version came out. It has one of my favorite villainous lines: If I can cross him in any way, I bless myself in every way.
Thank you for this! My mum named me after Beatrice and I watch the film every year on my birthday the 28th may (Kenneth and emma version of course). Such a coincidence you uploaded this! X
Hi! I love watching your videos about history. I love learning more about English history. I’m not sure if you’ve ever done a video about Mary Queen of Scots but I’d love to see one if you haven’t. Thanks
Thank you for another great video! I don’t know a lot about this play, but what you said about Hero having to play dead until others restored her reputation seems comparable to the fate of Hermione in ‘The Winter’s Tale’. When she tries to prove herself innocent nothing comes of it. It is only through the course of time that her innocence truly comes to light and she is revealed to be alive. I wondered if you knew anything about Margaret Cavendish? I’d love to see a video on her as she’s a fascinating woman
Absolutely, there are definitely parallels between Hero and Hermione! Thank you for the suggestion about Margaret Cavendish, I'll add her to my list for future video topics 🌟
Dr. Kat, a question: I just watched your "Shakespeare's Trash" video, in which you state that it was not in fact illegal for women to act. I can't find any laws prohibiting acting by women, but one Can find the laws against play-acting in the 1640s and Charles II's permits for two acting companies. Since there seems to be no actual evidence of "the illegality of women acting," why is that so universally accepted? Could it have been local ordinances? I noticed you theorize that perhaps the prohibition of women actors in Tudor times was because the theaters organized themselves in imitation of craft guilds, which would have prohibited women. But I want to know why scholars have so conflated "considered immoral" and "illegal," resulting in false history. In reference to this video, your discussion of the layers of meaning and wit in Shakespeare's comedies is excellent, enlightening, and entertaining. You are a superior lecturer.
Thank you so much! I'm not sure where the misunderstanding has come from - perhaps because scholars have stated that women were not permitted to act on the professional early modern English stage it has been assumed that this was a legal decision rather than one enforced by the playing companies? The laws issued by Charles II are, I believe a slightly different case, he had to issue laws to permit playing to recommence after it had been prohibited by the post Civil War protectorate government led by Oliver Cromwell.
I would love it if you could do a video discussing Catherine Howard’s relationships with Henry Mannox, Francis Dereham and Thomas Culpeper. There’s a lot of debate surrounding whether or not Catherine was truly guilty of adultery, as some historians are now suggesting that she could have been a victim of abuse and manipulation. I think it would make make an interesting topic of discussion since there are so many different interpretations of the evidence and viewpoints put forward by her biographers. Anyway, thank you so much for all your great content! I recently found your channel and your videos are really excellent.
I can't watch this yet bc my daughter & job requires all my attention, but I can't help but notice how fast you gained 10k more subscribers in a week or two's time, and you're so worth it! I love this channel & it's author so much! I need to attend your lectures in person!
I watched the Branagh/Thompson film version of this. I have since wondered about the many double standards, the patriarchy etc.. I understand there were social expectations and all, but why was Margaret let off so easily, to the point of joking, when Hero was thought to be better off dead, than "not a maid"?
Difference of class? Margaret is basically a maidservant and so really can't help herself but those of better social rank must be held to a higher standard. And, in my opinion, that hypocrisy is the real theme of the play.
I wonder if we are spared seeing Margaret's shaming because we don't meet her father/brother/husband in the play - her "lightness" does not diminish the "property value" of a man with a speaking part?
Great video Dr K, I really look forward to and always enjoy these essays of yours. Thank you for taking the time to put together such tightly packed arguments that it usually takes me three passes to absorb all of it. I’m then happily busy for a week chasing down little bits of history that catch my fancy on the net. This is what the internet was made for and I will never lose my amazement over this resource (I am an older person so I remember the world of steam driven crystal sets an the like☺️☺️☺️) I have raised this elsewhere and it’s possibly an issue that bores you rigid but how about addressing the authorship controversies surrounding Shakespeare’s plays? I’m of the single Genius persuasion as that’s what the available evidence we have points to so conjecture is pretty meaningless but I would really love to hear your thoughts on this. Before the lockdown I had an er, ‘lively’ argument with “a man in the pub” who thought the film ‘Anonymous’ was practically a documentary 🤷🏻♀️
I'm really glad you are enjoying my content! I have made a video discussing my thoughts on the authorship debate, here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0_Og0WgNMLg.html
“Sprezzatura” - I love the term, although I’d never heard it before. It brings to mind my undergrad years at Stanford University, where this was very much the practice; in fact, Stanford is known for this in The US. We all very much appeared to follow the kick-back California lifestyle in public but once in our dorm rooms it was all hard work. Thanks for the great episode!
Hi Dr Kat. I would be VERY interest in your analysis of the video of the "Pregnancy Portrait of Elizabeth 1" (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n2wiooH5v40.html). An art historian makes a detailed examination of the symbology in the painting which seems to co-date with the "Rainbow Portrait". I don't personally think Elizabeth could have even concealed a pregnancy but he raises some really interesting points, and also brings up some very odd ways the English royal family have treated this painting, including several re-painting of major areas and a severe cutting down of the canvas.
The “Kill Claudio” scene is my favorite love scene in all of literature. It does strike me that Shame is the great motivator in this play. Beatrice and Benedict are shamed into loving each other, Hero is falsely shamed and the Claudio is rightly shamed. And Don John never seems to feel shame at all though even his henchmen regret their actions on his behalf and are ashamed
i know this is a random question, not pertaining to this video but here goes anyway.....can you do a video about what happened to Anne Boleyn's father after her death? on the Tutors tv show, which i know is just entertainment, not real history, he just seems to slink off into his shame , but what really happen to him, did he loose all that he had gained while being in favor with Henry? did he ever get back in favor? and how did he do it if he did get back into favor.
I haven't searched your past videos, but what are your thoughts on the idea that Shakespeare's plays were written by Edward DeVere (not sure of spelling)?
Just think - 1 week ago you were celebrating 20,000. Now you are creeping up on 30,000! 👑🎎🎉🎉 Congratulations! I have a request for your thoughts on the “Doomsday Book” as this is a census year here in the USA and there is a bit of suspicion of contrivance amongst the masses here.
What always strikes me is that it is the friar who instantly comes up with the elaborate scam to restore Hero’s honor. In this case it works, but Romeo and Juliet taught me to be wary of scheming friars. There is a fine line between comedy and tragedy. And yes, Dr. Kat. I find Leonato’s reaction to be extremely disturbing.
Hello, I love the videos you make. Please can you make an informative video about Mary Stuart, Queen Regnant Of Scots, Queen Consort Of France And The Rightful Catholic Monarch Of England.
While I do appreciate the need for ads and keep them on to show my enjoyment of the work you put in to these lectures, I am very interested in the algorithms that calculate which ads I should be shown. I get jewelry ads (also one that invites me to sell exclusive baubles to my friends) - one for a same sex couple (thin white and beautiful to modern beauty standards) Clothes ads with women modelling who are on the cusp of an unhealthy weight Diet ads and fitness ads my ip address may jump around but my account is based in France, I get ads in both French and English. The only information they seem to have locked on to is that I am a woman. Their road is long.
I have always thought that Shakespeare portrayed women 1) in the full range of types, just as his male characters are; and 2) as being able to find agency in spite of social norms. They engage in deceptions, cross-dressing, arguing legalities, and so forth, presumably just as real women did in Tudor times. Some of Shakespeare's words uphold the status quo, but the actions he gives his female characters show that life is more complicated and his plays can be read with many layers of messages.
I agree, however, what do you think it means when we consider that Shakespeare knew that he was creating these fascinating female characters to be played by males?
Tragically, the tradition of “honour” killings of wives, daughters, mothers or sisters deemed by the man of the family to be unchaste is still practiced in some countries, like Iran, India Aghanistan and Pakistan, as well as by immigrants from there. These murders usually aren’t even prosecuted because the mind-set of the man owning his women like chattels is so deeply ingrained in the culture that they are accepted as justified. The unmarried women don’t necessarily need to be non-virgins, dating someone from another culture or anyone else disapproved by the head of the family can be enough. Thank God I live in USA.
Question. Why is it women are rarely permitted to be direct? We are only rewarded when we are indirect. Little girls towards their father's, courting or dating, working with certain men... I'm not surprised Hero was forced to freign death and rewarded for deception. It seems the irony is where Shakespeare finds the humor.
Yay! I'm here early!! Question please: Is there a book you recommend (collectors edition maybe) of Tudor letters, King Edward kept a diary and I think Queen Elizabeth did too. Are copies of these sold? Probably a stupid question..sorry..much love from N.C. USA
Thank you so much for asking this question, it led me to do an Amazon book browse and this book popped up (here's the USA store link): www.amazon.com/Tudor-Monarchs-Letters-Andrea-Clarke/dp/0712357742/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=tudor+monarchs+lives+in+letters&qid=1590767081&sr=8-1 Check out the sample pages! The facsimile copies of the letters got me very interested. I think this looks beautiful and will be treating myself to it!!
Reading the Past I saw Ms Clarke has a book of letters to/from famous lovers coming out in September. I’m going to snag that one too. Also from NC- Go Tar Heels!
In my opinion those who interpret the word "Nothing" as "No-Thing," referring a woman's maidenhead, are way off base. I really doubt that in Shakespeare's time the word "thing" would have been used in the same context as it is often used today, e.g., to refer to a penis or other private part. In any case, Shakespeare would have been much better at coming up with a pun.
Thank you! You’ve made me think about the film “it’s all True” and how Shakespeare was portrayed ( in my mind) as a somewhat melancholy figure, could this be any reason for his comedies being tinged With drama and sadness?? Just a thought, I know it would have to proved, if possible! 🥰
I occasionally like to ponder what would happen if, in one of the stately piles that dot the U.K. in a mouldy library somebody finds a long overlooked diary and opens it to find the legend “My life in the Theatre and sundry musings on the bloody stupidity of messing about with Mother Nature by Will. Shakespeare” - can you imagine?
Although I enjoy the coming together of Benedict and Beatrice, I hate the Hero/Claudio storyline in this play. Realistically, if Hero ever wanted to marry ANYONE it would have to be Claudio because even after her name is cleared she would likely have been looked at with suspicion and thus passed over for marriage by other men.
16:55 Re: Why do we not see the scene of Don John framing Hero? I tend to think Shakespeare chooses to do things based on their theatrical impact more than any other. First to see this third scene would be boring, and frankly spoil the delicious humor of the previous scenes. We must not emotionally or viscerally equate what has been done to Benedick and Beatrice to what has been done to Hero. Second, I would maintain the nature of these events is fundamentally different, and so must feel so. In fact, I've never seen a production of MUCH ADO that didn't have at its heart the fact Beatrice and Benedick already love one another. Both are too witty, too invested in proving their mutual cleverness and winning against one another to admit it, but they clearly have strong feelings for one another. Shakespeare explores this often--the process of creating a deception versus that of unmasking some truth. Yet they are not so different as one might think, vast though the difference in their impact. 19:42 I agree. This is more disturbing than almost anything one can imagine. But here again we learn people are not what they seem to be. The Prince and Claudio are in fact revealed to be cruel. A loving father Leonato shows an equally horrible streak. It is not the whole truth of them, but it remains a real part. Thus the Prince and Claudio find shame in looking at their true selves. But Benedick and Beatrice, they find love and happiness by two strong people who stop competing with each other to absurd lengths. Hero, absurdly, marries the man who so distrusted her--and they hopefully have a good life together? Maybe? In a way, I truly think this might be the precursor to Theatre of the Absurd, although not by twisting all things into absurdity. Rather it shows the world as absurd to a real degree, with lots of nonsense, but forgiving it, at least to some degree. And of course if you compare the two couples, we have little doubt who will be the happier, do we?
I think I may be one of the few people who is troubled by Midsummer. It very possibly is my modern mind fighting something Shakespeare's contemporaries wouldn't think twice about. It has to do with Hermia ending up in love, but only because of a spell -- she's not really under her own power. The misogyny of it, I think, is what doesn't sit well with me. I can suspend a modern look at other plays, Titus Andronicus for example, and see them as they were intended. I just don't know why I can't with Midsummer.
@@amybeth323 Re read the play. She is not 'under a spell' They all are at one point, but the whole idea is to make sure they end up with the people they need to be with. The concept has been the basis of so many Rom Coms and films ever since. And give the teenage feminism a rest. Shakespeare is full of Amazing Women, some good, some bad, and at the end of the day you are You. Gender does not come into it, unless you make it an issue.
With your specialist knowledge it would be good to go through all the plays. May be good to fit in with those plays that the Globe is releasing for free on RU-vid - currently Merry Wives Hope you don’t mind me saying but you need the microphone a bit nearer for this video - it sounds like you are on a speaker phone
Yours is one of two comments I’ve seen here that make complaint about the sound/audio, I’m in the US and I’ve not noticed any discernible issue with either the sound or audio.
Another possibility of the title and 'No thing', (so I have heard), is that the 'thing' refers to the male member and the difference in the acceptance of moral behaviour between men and women. The speech by Hero's father would have been completely different had she been his son instead, in fact he wouldn't have said anything at all. On another note, I found it odd that Claudio should behave in a 'couldn't care less' attitude when Hero has supposedly died - a woman he was supposed to be in love with! - and then his sudden rekindled love when she is discovered to be alive.
I heard that Nothing was a Elizabethan slang for female genital. So it could be said it's: Much to do About 😻. I must say I don't much about this play, but from what I understand this works. I'm a Taming of the Shrew fan. Discuss....😷😎😷
Shooki Keinan No S*it Sherlock! This is the first of all of Dr K’s vids that the sound has been a bit off so obviously a smart arse is going to turn up to point out the blindingly bloody obvious.
If you listened to all her videos, you would know that this is clearly a problem with this one particular upload and not of her recordings as a whole. Don't be nasty.
So at some point, I can't remember where, when, or by who, I heard/read something that has stuck with me. I can't remember the exact words but it was something like the mistreatment of women was brought about by men's jealousy. Because women are closer to being like God than a man could ever be. Meaning since God is the creator of all things and women have the ability to literally create another human. They are more like God than men. My question is do you think, given how religious everyone was back then, that in a way that could have consciously or unconsciously formed thier understanding of the difference between men and women?
@@hogwashmcturnip8930 I agree but I was thinking medieval times in general. I was asking her about medieval history since I know it's her around of interest. I think the long and short of question is because of the belief they had in relation to women being imperfect forms of men.
For the most part, in the medieval/early modern mind, the "natural order" saw females subjugated by males - principally there are two explanations given for this: 1) as daughters of Eve, women are the root of temptation and sin, they must be controlled to avoid a repeat of events 2) in medical/biological/humoural understanding women were thought to be the inversion of men, unfinished, less perfect - improperly heated in the womb. Women were understood to be physically, mentally and morally weaker.
Hope they get this kind of analysis in schools. The sexual morals expressed here makes you appreciate the Enlightenment, does it not? Thank you Dr Kat.
I have always found this play difficult. It's a bit personal because I was essentially a "good kid" but my parents were inclined to believe every rumour about me no matter how disreputable the source. Luckily, it was the 1980s and not the 1600s, so I was not harmed by what they believed. Modernly, of course, we want to see Hero flip Claudio and her father the bird and go off in triumph to some positive fate. Obviously that was never going to happen in Shakespeare's time. Still, although a historian myself, I cannot watch this play and put aside my feelings about one's "loved ones" being so false and unsupportive.
Try again 'historian' The play is not about that. It is actually the opposite. Like so many of Shakespeare's plays the women carry it and win. Twelfth Night? Viola is the only one who has even a clue what is going on. And Maria bests the drunks at every turn Merry Wives. Where the 2 married ladies run rings around Falstaff. Rosalind and Celia? Portia? Even Lady McBeth and Juliet. They all leave the male characters standing. Winter's tale, where the wronged woman reappears, once her honour is re established. It is Men that are made to look fools in Shakespeare.
This is my favorite Shakespeare play. Beatrice is my favorite character because of her quick wit and firey temper...."Oh God, that I were a man! I'd eat his heart in the market-place."
If Shakespeare was the author of these plays, where did he get access to the manuscripts he copied? Every play he wrote was taken from plays from other countries and Royal records. So how did he have access to them? How could he read them even if he did have access to them?
dbeezy To have such material in the Renaissance would be something you got bragging rights over and would have been flaunted at every possible opportunity. As a result it’s likely that amongst the self styled intelligentsia such material was available to anyone who wanted it. These are just my thoughts of course.
First he could read them because he could read and write lol He was educated at a Grammar school. Secondly He could buy books etc from various bookseller many of which were in St Pauls churchyard Thirdly he didn't access Royal records His history plays mainly came from Holinsheds Chronicles. And the plays he took some of his plots from would have been played and sometimes published in England
Disappointing. I've read this play numerous times, as well as having seen it performed and adapted to different eras, so I am obviously not the target audience for this introductory video. Still, I expect more from RtP than something this basic. This is a brilliant play, and it deserves more than reading several passages aloud and providing absolutely minimal context.
