Cymbeline

The play Cymbeline tells the story of an ancient British king and his three children. The king, Cymbeline, is mentioned in chronicles in Shakespeare’s day, and may be historical or may be legendary. The chronicles say that he ruled at the time of Augustus Caesar, was brought up in Caesar’s court, and had a peaceful reign. His children—although the two sons, Guiderius and Arviragus, also appear in the chronicles—are presented in the play as if they have stepped in from romance or fairy tales. And Cymbeline himself, with his marriage to a beautiful but wicked queen and his almost miraculous victory in his war against Rome, also partakes far more of romance than of history.

Much of the play focuses on the story of the king’s daughter, Imogen, whose secret marriage to a gentleman named Posthumus Leonatus triggers a great deal of the play’s action. Her father, outraged at the marriage, banishes Posthumus, who is then maneuvered into making a foolish wager on Imogen’s chastity. The story that follows of villainous slander, homicidal jealousy, cross-gender disguise, a deathlike trance, the appearance of Jupiter in a vision, and final repentance, forgiveness, and reunion is the stuff of the popular fiction of the time, as well as of popular drama of an earlier period. The trials of Imogen, however, are also larger than life, reminding one of the sufferings of mythological heroines who anger powerful gods.

The story of Cymbeline’s two sons, which intersects with that of Imogen, is even more deliberately fictional. As the play tells it, Guiderius and Arviragus were kidnapped in infancy and raised in a cave in the Welsh mountains. (The play acknowledges the incredible nature of this part of the plot by having a gentleman say to a doubter: “Howsoe’er ‘tis strange, / Or that the negligence may well be laughed at, / Yet is it true, sir”). Knowing nothing of their heritage and remembering no life beyond their mountain cave and its environs, the young men yearn for adventure. In the course of the play, they rescue a starving young man (their sister Imogen in disguise); they kill and decapitate Cymbeline’s stepson; and they go into battle against the Roman army and prove almost superhumanly valiant.

The fairy-tale-like stories of Imogen and of her brothers play against the somewhat more realistic story of King Cymbeline as he takes on a Roman invasion rather than pay the tribute agreed to by his ancestors. References to such personages as Augustus Caesar and Julius Caesar and his conquest of Britain appear to ground Cymbeline’s story in history. But Cymbeline too is a familiar romance figure—a father who loses his children and after long years miraculously finds them; a king who, through what seems supernatural intervention, defeats an invading army and then grants pardon to all.

Shakespeare uses the long-ago-and-far-away fantasy quality of the stories dramatized in Cymbeline as the ground against which he displays unusually powerful human emotions. The play tells of love and loss, of jealousy and fury, of the joy of finding and the near-delirium of reuniting after heartrending separation; and the language in which the emotions accompanying these human states are expressed has never been more potent. The audience is seldom allowed to forget that the action is fictional; at the same time, the characters’ ordeals and triumphs and their responses to those moments carry a tremendous charge. The resulting drama, while reminding us at many times of stories and situations explored in earlier Shakespearean plays, has a quality that links it to his other late work—especially The Winter’s Taleand The Tempest—as a dramatization of improbable story lifted, through its characters and its language, into a realm that is nearly mythic in scope.

Shakespeare is thought to have written Cymbeline in 1609–10; a contemporary observer saw it performed in 1611. The play was published in the First Folio in 1623. Among Shakespeare’s sources for Cymbeline were Raphael Holinshed’s Chronicles (1587), The Mirror for Magistrates, Boccaccio’s Decameron, and The Rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune.

Hamlet

Hamlet is the most popular of Shakespeare's plays for readers and theater audiences. Superficially, it follows the well-worn path of a “revenge tragedy.” This popular type of play centered on a heroic figure—in this case, Hamlet, prince of Denmark—and his quest for vengeance against his father’s murderer—here, Hamlet’s uncle Claudius, now the king of Denmark in his dead brother’s place. Much of the play’s enduring fascination, however, lies in the uncertainties that Shakespeare chose to weave through this familiar plot. In the end, Hamlet is not only Shakespeare’s most popular work, but also his most puzzling.

Many questions about the play continue to fascinate readers and playgoers. What is this Ghost that appears to Hamlet? Is it Hamlet's murdered father returned from the everlasting fire to demand justice upon his murderer? Is it a "goblin damned"—that is, a demon bent on claiming Hamlet's soul by tempting him to assassinate his king? Or is the Ghost "a spirit of health," an angelic messenger revealing to Hamlet that the young man's mission in life is to cleanse the kingdom of Denmark of its corrupt king?

And what happens to Hamlet after the Ghost commands that the throne of Denmark be cleansed? Does Hamlet actually go mad, becoming unhinged by the accusation that his uncle murdered his father or by the ugly picture the Ghost paints of Hamlet's lustful mother? Or does Hamlet merely pretend to be mad, pretend so well that he makes us wonder if we can tell the difference between sanity and madness? Why is he so hostile to women, both to his mother and to the woman whom he once courted and whom he claims to have loved dearly? Why does he wait so long to confirm the guilt of the king after the Ghost has accused the king of murder? And once he is convinced that the king is a murderer, why does Hamlet not act immediately?

And what about Gertrude? Was she unfaithful to her husband during his lifetime? Was she complicit in his murder? What does she come to believe about Hamlet's madness? And about her new husband?

Beyond such questions about the play and its characters lie deeper issues about the rightness of revenge, about how to achieve an ethical life, and about how to live in a world where tears of sorrow, loving smiles, and friendly words are all suspect because all are "actions that a man might play." Hamlet's world is bleak and cold because almost no one and nothing can be trusted. But his world, and Hamlet himself, continue to draw us to them, speaking to every generation of its own problems and its own yearnings. It is a play that seems particularly pertinent today—just as it has seemed particularly pertinent to any number of generations before us.

Shakespeare is thought to have written Hamlet in 1599–1601. It was published as a quarto in 1603. In 1604–05 a second quarto containing another, much fuller text superseded this first printing. The Folio version of 1623 is much closer to this second quarto than to the first, but differs from the second by hundreds of lines. There are thus three texts of the play. A major source for the plot may have been an earlier Hamlet play, mentioned in contemporary documents, but now lost. Shakespeare also may have drawn on several other contemporary works, including accounts of drinking at the Danish court and of “melancholy.”

Henry IV, Part 1

At the center of Henry IV, Part 1 (which is called “Part 1” because it has a sequel, “Part 2”) are several family relationships—primarily pairs of fathers and sons, but also brothers, husbands and wives, and uncles and nephews.

King Henry and his son, Prince Hal, form one major father-son pair. When the play opens, Henry is in despair because Hal lives a dissolute life. Henry himself has won (rather than inherited) the throne of England; Hal’s way of living can be seen as calling into public question Henry’s and his family’s right to the throne. In seeming contrast to the king and prince are the father-son pair of Hotspur (Lord Henry Percy) and his father, the earl of Northumberland. Hotspur accomplishes deeds that “a prince can boast of”— as Henry is reminded—and Henry openly envies Northumberland “his Harry,” wishing that it could be proved that the two sons had been exchanged in their cradles so that Henry could be rid of Hal and could claim the gallant Hotspur as his own. In the meantime, Hal himself has entered into a quasi-father-son relationship with a disreputable knight, Sir John Falstaff.

Much of the action of the play can be seen as the interactions of these pairs of fathers and sons. The fathers, Henry and Northumberland (along with Northumberland’s brother, Worcester), fight for control of England while Henry and Falstaff seem to fight for Hal’s love and loyalty. At the same time, the sons Hal and Hotspur fight for the place of honor in the eyes of the English nobility.

Another strand of action centers on a different set of family relationships. Hotspur’s stand against King Henry, engineered by his uncle Worcester and colluded in by Hotspur’s father, focuses on Hotspur’s brother-in-law, Mortimer. As this play presents English history, this is the Mortimer whom Richard II had proclaimed heir to the throne. Mortimer has led “the men of Herefordshire” to fight against the great Welsh magician Owen Glendower, has been defeated and captured, and has married Glendower’s daughter. King Henry has declared Mortimer’s defeat a defection and, because Mortimer is now his captor’s son-in-law, has pronounced Mortimer a traitor whom Henry will not ransom. Hotspur, in declaring war on England’s king, sees himself as fighting for the honor and rescue of his wife’s brother.

This play’s highlighting of family patterns and family struggles is most clear in such scenes as the two father-son scenes in mid-play. The first, parodic scene is staged in the tavern when Falstaff and Hal pretend to be father and son, followed by the second scene played out in earnest between King Henry and Prince Hal. Between these two scenes comes the remarkable domestic scene in Wales, where Mortimer, the supposed heir to the throne, and Hotspur, valiant leader of rebel forces, are presented primarily as husbands and brothers-in-law and where Owen Glendower, legendary wizard and military commander, is presented as doting father and concerned father-in-law.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that several of the important details that, in the play, bring father-son and other family relationships into prominence are Shakespeare’s own creations—are not found, that is, in the chronicles of English history that provide the play’s historical narrative. To mention only a few examples: Hal’s offer to fight Hotspur in single combat, Hal’s rescue of his father in battle, and Hal’s final battle with Hotspur—none of these appear in the chronicles. (The fact that Hal and Hotspur are presented in the play as being the same age, when, in fact, Hotspur was older than King Henry himself, may not be a change that Shakespeare himself made, but may instead indicate that Shakespeare was here following Samuel Daniel’s Civil Wars [1595] rather than Holinshed’s Chronicles.) Second, the domestic scene in Wales depends upon major changes of chronicle material. In the chronicles, the meeting to divide the kingdom and to draw up the indentures was not attended by the rebel lords but was conducted by their representatives, and it did not take place at Glendower’s home but at the residence of the Archbishop of Bangor. Thus the presentation of the rebel lords in a family setting required a significant rewriting of history.

Such rewriting and the play’s resulting focus on family relationships have two important effects. First, they pull us into the play: Henry, Hal, and Hotspur are not so much distant historical figures as they are persons caught up in relationships and struggles that resemble family situations even today. Second, the play’s focus on the family reminds us that the wars for control of England, Scotland, and Wales in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were basically family struggles. When the oldest son of King Edward III died prematurely, leaving behind an infant son to inherit the kingdom (as Richard II) at Edward III’s death, the stage was set for the bloody centuries that followed, as brothers, cousins, and nephews fought each other to win and retain the tantalizing prize of the crown.

Scholars believe that Shakespeare wrote Henry IV, Part I in 1596-97. It was published as a quarto in 1598

Henry VI, Part 2

Henry VI, Part 2 puts onstage a kind of story that was very popular in the years before Shakespeare began writing, a story of the fall, one after another, of men and women from positions of great power to their untimely deaths.

Such a pattern in this play was obvious to the publishers who first put a version of it into print in 1594. They chose not to call the play by the name of its king, as did the First Folio, and as we do. Instead they gave it the title The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Iacke Cade: and the Duke of Yorkes first claim vnto the Crowne. This title, typical of the time in its length, indicates a reading of the play as the beginning of “First part” of a succession of catastrophes.

The first of those catastrophes afflicts “the good Duke Humphrey,” or the Duke of Gloucester, who at the beginning of the play is Lord Protector of England and therefore the most powerful man in the kingdom—the one on whom King Henry relies absolutely to dispense justice to all his subjects. Gloucester will be murdered, but only after his beloved Duchess has herself fallen, sent into exile through her own ambitions and the conspiracy of their enemies.

After Gloucester’s murder, as the title goes on to say, comes “the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke.” Another of the most powerful men in England, Suffolk was the noble who arranged King Henry’s marriage to Queen Margaret and who, as the queen’s lover, ruled England through the influence he exerted over the queen, who in turn prevailed over the king. But when Suffolk conspired with the “Cardinall of Winchester” to kill Gloucester, Suffolk was banished. In his newly vulnerable state, he became the victim of assassination.

“The Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester” seems almost the result of Gloucester’s murder, as the Cardinal dies raving about his guilt and the punishment waiting for him in the next world.

The play shows that the fall of these English nobles and their ability to prey on each other come about through the weakness of their king. Uninterested in politics, King Henry sought a life of spiritual contemplation; almost all of his speeches reveal in their allusions to the Bible his otherworldly interests. Largely absent from deliberations of the affairs of state, King Henry left his royal family and aristocrats free to contend for power.

As the conclusion of the long title of the 1594 quarto reveals, however, the king's own liberty is thereby also put at risk, as first Jack Cade and then the Duke of York openly rise up against him. Henry VI, Part 2 keeps its audience in suspense about the ultimate fate of the king by ending at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, which set the white rose of the Duke or York against the red rose of King Henry of the House of Lancaster. The outcome of these wars will be presented inHenry VI, Part 3.

The Chinese Theatre in Hollywood

The Chinese Theatre in Hollywood is the most famous movie theatre in the world. Millions of visitors flock here each year, most of them drawn by its legendary forecourt with its footprints of the stars. Yet the Chinese Theatre is also a fine place to see a movie in its own right, a spectacular movie palace with a unique history.

Grauman's Chinese Theatre opened over 70 years ago, with the 1927 debut of the original silent version of "King of Kings," produced by Cecil B. DeMille. Since then, the Chinese Theatre has been the site of more gala Hollywood movie premieres than any other theatre. (In 1939, for instance, over 10,000 spectators showed up for the world premiere of "The Wizard of Oz.)

And those big premieres are still being held at the Chinese on a regular basis. If you would like to watch the stars arrive in person on the red carpet at these premieres, just see my Calendar of Events page for the dates and times of upcoming premieres. Then show up early and wait (hint: wear comfortable shoes.)

Back in the 1940's, Grauman's Chinese Theatre also hosted the annual Academy Award ceremonies. And the theatre has appeared in quite a few movies itself, including the opening scene of 1952's beloved musical "Singing in the Rain," and at the climax of the recent action-adventure "Speed." More recently, it played a major role in the remake of the "Mighty Joe Young," in a scene where the giant gorilla climbs up the side of the theatre and perches atop its ornate roof.

It's been featured on TV sitcoms as well - remember the episode of "I Love Lucy" where Lucy stole the cement block bearing John Wayne's footprints? Or how about the episode of "The Beverly Hillbillies" where Jed and Jethro thought that the forecourt had been vandalized by the stars, and were caught trying to pave over the "evidence " with wet cement!

The Chinese Theatre was built by legendary showman Sid Grauman, the man who also built the nearby Egyptian Theatre and the Million Dollar Theatre on Broadway. Sid had a flair for the dramatic, and he was the one who came up with the idea of putting the stars' footprints in wet cement. Sid Grauman owned a one-third interest in the theatre, along with partners Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks.

For a while, the theatre was renamed "Mann's Chinese Theatre" after it was purchased by Ted Mann in 1973, the owner of the Mann's Theatre chain (and husband of actress Rhonda Fleming). But fortunately, the landmark later regained its original name.

The ornate exterior of the theatre is almost as enticing as its celebrated forecourt. Resembling a giant, red Chinese pagoda, the theatre's architecture features a huge dragon snaking its way across the front, two stone lion-dogs guarding the main entrance, and the silhouettes of tiny dragons racing up and down the sides of the theatre's ornate, copper roof.

Outside, near the forecourt, you'll find that the fist business is thriving, with several booths set up hawking various guided bus tours of Hollywood, the movie stars' homes, and greater L.A. Two theatre gift shops offer the usual selection of touristy Tinseltown souvenirs, at outrageous prices. And it isn't unusual to see street performers (such as a Charlie Chaplin look-alike) milling with the crowd of tourists on the fabled forecourt.

And of course, for the price of a movie ticket, you can go inside and see the theatre's well-preserved interior as well.

You might suspect that after seven decades, the theatre's interior would be dilapidated, like many of the other older theatres in L.A. But in fact, the Chinese Theatre remains in surprisingly good condition. Its interior decor is a dazzling blur of exotic Asian motifs.

The lobby boasts elaborate wall murals depicting life in the Orient, bold red and gold columns, and a colossal, intricate Chinese chandelier. In the lobby's west wing is a glass case containing three wax figures (from the Hollywood Wax Museum) wearing authentic Chinese costumes from Cathay. The three female figures surround a now-empty chair that once held the wax likeness of actress Rhonda Fleming, wife of owner Ted Mann. Movie-makers used to consider it good luck to come to the theatre and touch these wax figures before embarking on a new film project.

Inside the vast auditorium, the 2,200 bright red seats and red carpeting are kept clean and in excellent condition. Overhead, a spectacular chandelier illuminates the center of a mammoth, ornate starburst, surrounded by a ring of dragons - which is, in turn, encircled by a ring of icons portraying scenes from Chinese drama. Smaller Oriental lamps glow at the sides of the auditorium, hanging between intricately-carved stone columns; black & white murals of trees and pagodas fill the spaces in between.

Turn around and look behind you in the theatre, and you'll discover that what would usually have been the balcony section was divided into four private opera boxes for visiting celebrities. Also, note the large number of assorted Asian statues, gongs, vases, shields, and friezes employed to add to the theatre's overall exotic ambiance. (My only complaint is that the interior lighting is kept so dim that it is difficult to appreciate all of the theatre's lavish detail.)

The Chinese Theatre may not be the best-preserved theatre in Hollywood - that honor would go to Disney's recently-restored El Capitan, across the street - but it is certainly in fine condition for a 70-year-old movie palace. And they've kept up with the times when it comes to movie technology, too: the theatre offers 70mm projection and a state-of-the-art THX sound system (which can actually be a little too loud at times).

But whether you plan to see a movie here or not, if you're going to make the pilgrimage to Hollywood, the Chinese Theatre is a must-see.

The famous courtyard is open free of charge to all visitors. You do not have to buy a ticket to a movie to view the forecourt and its footprints.

Update: On Jan 11, 2000, it was announced that the entire Mann's theatre chain, including GRAUMAN'S CHINESE Theatre, has been purchased by a partnership of Warner Bros and Paramount Studios (WF Cinema Holdings) after the Mann's theatre chain filed for bankruptcy protection last year. It was then that they changed the name back to the original "Grauman's Chinese Theatre."

But the biggest news is that the brand new Hollywood & Highland project has opened right next door to Grauman's Chinese. In fact, the spectacular new development takes up the entire block, from Orange to Highland, and essentially surrounds the historic theatre. The $600 million project includes the permanent home for the Academy Awards show (the Kodak Theatre), a grand ballroom for post-Oscar parties, restaurants, nightclubs, retail shops, a luxury hotel and parking for 3,000 cars. Six smaller, modern cinemas have been built next door (to the east of the existing theatre), and the main Chinese theatre has undergone a major renovation, removing the box office and some of the more recent signs, to return the theatre to the way it looked when it first opened.

Parking: Parking can be a real problem on Hollywood Blvd. There is some limited free street parking on the residential streets just south of the boulevard, such as Hawthorne. There is a one-hour limit on these streets, but not if you visit on Sunday. Parking is now available in the garage under the new Hollywood & Highland project (be sure to get your parking ticket validated, for a reduced fee) - enter on Orange Ave. There are also paid lots south of Hollywood Blvd (and east of Orange), and there is a paid parking lot on the west side of Highland, just south of Hollywood Boulevard.

(The outdoor courtyard is open 24 hours a day, but use common sense and come at a sensible hour.)

Also see the separate pages about the Chinese theatre forecourt, and the installation ceremonies where you can see the stars put their footprints in cement.

Grauman's Chinese Theatre to Be Sold to Producers Elie Samaha, Don Kushner

Everett Collection

UPDATED: Changes could be in store for the Hollywood landmark, with the new owners considering advertising opportunities, special events and product promotions as ways to increase revenue.

Grauman's Chinese Theatre, a Hollywood landmark and perhaps the most famous movie theater in the world, is being sold.

Controversial nightclub operator-turned-film producer Elie Samaha and producer Don Kushner are buying the theater from a joint venture of Warner Bros. and Viacom Inc. for an undisclosed price. The transaction is expected to close May 20. As part of the deal, the buyers will take over the long-term lease of the adjacent Mann Chinese 6 Theatre, which is housed in the Hollywood & Highland Center.
The famed theater, which is on local and national historic registries -- protecting it from demolition or significant alteration -- has long been home to some of Hollywood's biggest movie premieres. Mann Theatres, which is co-owned by Warner and Viacom, operates the theater and the Mann 6 multiplex.
Changes could be in store for the Chinese Theatre. The new owners are exploring ways to maximize "the real estate opportunity," said commercial real estate broker John Tronson, who has been informally consulting on the project for Samaha and Kushner, whose credits include Tron: Legacy and Monster.

Tronson, a Hollywood expert and principal at Ramsey-Shilling Commercial Real Estate Services, said that the new owners are considering advertising opportunities, special events and product promotions as ways to wring more revenue out of the property.

"They do movie premieres there, but that's all they really do in the way of events," said Tronson, who is consulting on the project along with Ramsey-Shilling CEO Chris Bonbright. "They could do a lot of other things there that would drive people who come and visit and see it."

Several Hollywood sources said they had heard that the new owners are considering turning the theater, which has 1,152 seats, into a nightclub. It's worth noting that Samaha has interests in two historic Hollywood Boulevard movie theaters that have recently been transformed into nightlife venues: the Fox Theatre and Vogue Theatre.

Leron Gubler, CEO of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and Nicole Mihalka, a commercial real estate broker at Cushman & Wakefield, both said they had heard talk about the Chinese Theatre being converted to a nightclub. However, Tronson said he doesn't expect that to occur, adding that the new owners had not mentioned such a potential change to him.

"That would kill all the interest from people who are interested in coming there," Tronson said.
Samaha has a checkered history in the entertainment business. Before segueing into the movie business, he owned a dry cleaners operation -- called Celebrity Cleaners -- and several nightclubs, including a stake in the original Roxbury in Hollywood. Though he has produced films such as Heist, The Whole Nine Yards and The In-Laws, Samaha is best known for his high-profile legal battle with Intertainment Licensing over allegations that he committed fraud by distorting the budgets of films made by his Franchise Pictures.

Intertainment, a German company, accused Samaha of defrauding it out of $75 million, arguing that he kept multiple sets of books for his films. The years-long case was settled in 2006, with Samaha paying $3 million to Intertainment.
Samaha did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
Preservationists will be watching the new owners closely. Though the Chinese Theatre's placement on historic registries offers some protection, it is possible that the new owners could attempt to make changes to the property.

"Any renovation would need to comply with nationally recognized preservation standards. That's our primary concern -- the proper treatment of the historic building -- though it's always ideal to maintain a landmark's intended use," said Adrian Scott Fine, director of advocacy for the Los Angeles Conservancy, a nonprofit preservation watchdog organization.

The Chinese Theatre has been on the market since August 2009. Located at 6925 Hollywood Blvd., the theater, which opened in 1927, includes a concrete forecourt in which the hand and footprints of dozens of movie stars are preserved. The property is next door to the Hollywood & Highland Center -- where the Mann 6 is housed -- and is a key stop for tourists who frequent the boulevard. It will host the TCM Classic Film Festival, which kicks off Thursday night.

The sale does not include the land on which the Chinese Theatre is situated; real estate developer and investment firm CIM Group, owner of Hollywood & Highland, owns the land, having purchased it in 2008.
Warner and Viacom had been leasing the space that houses the Mann 6 theaters from CIM; Samaha and Kushner will assume that lease.
Warner and CIM declined to comment. Viacom and Mann did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Henry V

  

Henry V is Shakespeare's most famous "war play," perhaps because it represents war in such a variety of ways and thereby tests whatever understanding of war we may bring to it. Some of the play glorifies war, especially the play’s Choruses and Henry's speeches urging his troops into battle: "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, / Or close the wall up with our English dead!"

During this first engagement between the invading English army and the French at Harfleur, Henry tells his men that they can never be more truly and gloriously the sons of their fathers than in making war. The play's Chorus urges us to join the invasion by grappling our imaginations to the sterns of Henry's ships as they set sail for France, and then to join with the Chorus in praise of Henry on the eve of his greatest battle, Agincourt: "'Praise and glory on his head!" Repeatedly the Chorus glorifies the warlike king, calling him "the mirror," or paragon, "of all Christian kings" and "this star of England."

But when the Chorus is offstage we hear other voices of war that are far less alluring. We hear bishops conniving for war so that they can postpone a bill in Parliament that would heavily tax the Church's wealth. Then we hear soldiers in a tavern enthusiastic for war, not in the hope of winning glory, but in the expectation of reaping profits (“To suck, to suck, the very blood to suck”).

Even in the impressive speeches of Henry and his nobles threatening the French, there are many chilling references to the human cost of war, to "the widows' tears, the orphans' cries, / . . . the privèd maidens' groans" for dead combatants, as well as to the horrors awaiting the non-combatants: "the filthy and contagious clouds / Of heady murder, spoil," rape, and infanticide.

Scholars believe William Shakespeare wrote Henry V in 1599. It was first published as a quarto in 1600. Among Shakespeare’s sources for the play are Raphael Holinshed’sChronicles and an early play, The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth.

Henry VI, Part 1

Henry VI, Part 1 is an uncompromising celebration of early English nationalism and imperialism. The play defines the English against the French, whom it degrades as scheming, effeminate, and willing to consort with the devil. It idealizes the English king Henry V for his successful conquest of much of France during the Hundred Years War. But Henry V has died just as the play begins, and leadership of the English cause in France has passed to Talbot, an indomitable, fierce, almost perpetually enraged, and therefore altogether masculine warrior hero. Yet Talbot is not as fortunate as Henry V. While all of France, we are told, shakes in terror at the name of Talbot, the French still refuse to yield. Opposed to the idealized Talbot are a number of other characters who fail to match him. One is the official leader of the French, Charles the Dauphin, whose status as a military hero suffers a blow very early in the play when he must yield a single combat to Joan La Pucelle, or Joan of Arc. She then becomes the captain of the French, showing admirable cunning and resourcefulness in devising strategy and remarkable boldness in carrying it out. She fulfills for the French her claims to have been chosen by the Virgin Mary as the chaste instrument of France’s liberation from the hated English invaders. However, for the English, her shrewdness and power issue from the practice of filthy witchcraft, and her pretensions to chastity mask a characteristically French sensuality. Also opposed to Talbot are many of the English, especially those who remain for the most part in England. They include Gloucester and Winchester, two bitter rivals more intent on defeating each other than the French. Gloucester, the Protector of the boy king Henry VI and therefore ruler of England, and Winchester, a bishop and cardinal, urge their servants on to brawl openly in the streets of London. Before their quarrel can be silenced, another breaks out between the Duke of Somerset and Richard Plantagent, soon to be powerful as Duke of York. Once in France, they and their followers seek royal permission to fight each other, rather than the French. The play demonstrates, especially from this point on, that the French owe their victory to the English defeat of themselves. Talbot and his son, despite their glorious self-sacrifice in the English military cause (presented to inspire imitation among all Englishmen), cannot prevail against the French, because the rest of the English nobility are intent on preying on each other in the service of their own ambitions. Henry VI, Part 1 may have been staged as early as 1592, when a play referred to as "Harey the vj" was performed several times. (The "vj" is equivalent to the Roman "VI.") It first appeared in print in 1623. Shakespeare apparently drew on several sources for the play; scholars believe his main reference was a history by Edward Hall, Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancaster and York.

Henry VI, Part 2

Henry VI, Part 2 puts onstage a kind of story that was very popular in the years before Shakespeare began writing, a story of the fall, one after another, of men and women from positions of great power to their untimely deaths.

Such a pattern in this play was obvious to the publishers who first put a version of it into print in 1594. They chose not to call the play by the name of its king, as did the First Folio, and as we do. Instead they gave it the title The First part of the Contention betwixt the two famous Houses of York and Lancaster, with the death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke, and the Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of Iacke Cade: and the Duke of Yorkes first claim vnto the Crowne. This title, typical of the time in its length, indicates a reading of the play as the beginning of “First part” of a succession of catastrophes.

The first of those catastrophes afflicts “the good Duke Humphrey,” or the Duke of Gloucester, who at the beginning of the play is Lord Protector of England and therefore the most powerful man in the kingdom—the one on whom King Henry relies absolutely to dispense justice to all his subjects. Gloucester will be murdered, but only after his beloved Duchess has herself fallen, sent into exile through her own ambitions and the conspiracy of their enemies.

After Gloucester’s murder, as the title goes on to say, comes “the banishment and death of the Duke of Suffolke.” Another of the most powerful men in England, Suffolk was the noble who arranged King Henry’s marriage to Queen Margaret and who, as the queen’s lover, ruled England through the influence he exerted over the queen, who in turn prevailed over the king. But when Suffolk conspired with the “Cardinall of Winchester” to kill Gloucester, Suffolk was banished. In his newly vulnerable state, he became the victim of assassination.

“The Tragicall end of the proud Cardinall of Winchester” seems almost the result of Gloucester’s murder, as the Cardinal dies raving about his guilt and the punishment waiting for him in the next world.

The play shows that the fall of these English nobles and their ability to prey on each other come about through the weakness of their king. Uninterested in politics, King Henry sought a life of spiritual contemplation; almost all of his speeches reveal in their allusions to the Bible his otherworldly interests. Largely absent from deliberations of the affairs of state, King Henry left his royal family and aristocrats free to contend for power.

As the conclusion of the long title of the 1594 quarto reveals, however, the king's own liberty is thereby also put at risk, as first Jack Cade and then the Duke of York openly rise up against him. Henry VI, Part 2 keeps its audience in suspense about the ultimate fate of the king by ending at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses, which set the white rose of the Duke or York against the red rose of King Henry of the House of Lancaster. The outcome of these wars will be presented inHenry VI, Part 3.

Henry VIII

In Henry VIII , the last of his plays about English history, Shakespeare presents monarchy in a state of crisis.

In the play, noblemen are embattled with the enormously powerful Lord Chancellor Cardinal Wolsey, as both parties level charges of treason against each other almost indiscriminately. Wolsey, without the king’s knowledge, has taxed the people to the point of rebellion.

Yet the politics of the play are so subtle that the true cause of this crisis is not clear. In the case of the duke of Buckingham, for example, witnesses brought before Henry by Cardinal Wolsey claim that the duke, deceived by the prophecies of an evil monk, is conspiring to usurp Henry’s throne. Nonetheless, as Buckingham goes to his death for treason, he seems the innocent victim of suborned testimony.

Perhaps, then, the root of the crisis is Henry’s failure to recognize Wolsey’s exploitation of the king’s favor, which, we learn later, has enabled him to amass a huge fortune through extortion and to feed his own pride and spite. Or perhaps the crisis arises from the ambition of noblemen who would strip Henry and his heirs of the throne.

The monarchy also faces a succession crisis, for Henry is without a male heir. Though Henry’s queen, Katherine, has been pregnant many times, all but one of the pregnancies have resulted in miscarriages or in infants who died soon after birth. Worse, the single survivor is the girl Mary.

After meeting the young and beautiful Anne Bullen, one of Katherine’s ladies-in-waiting, Henry says that he is tormented by the suspicion that God has denied him a male heir because his marriage to Katherine—the widow of his brother—is invalid. The royal marriage begins to come apart.

Again the precise nature of the crisis put in question. Is Henry indeed experiencing a crisis of conscience about the sanctity of his marriage, or is he experiencing a crisis of desire provoked by the opportunity to take the young and beautiful Anne as a new wife and queen.

Whatever the ethics of Shakespeare’s Henry, Katherine’s integrity glows so splendidly in the play’s action and dialogue that her role has long been coveted by actors. She first takes the stage as the advocate for all the English people crushed by Wolsey’s oppressive taxes, and then she is properly suspicious, as Henry is not, of the motives of the witnesses who send Buckingham to his death.

Katharine's fierce opposition to Wolsey is repeatedly justified by the play’s depiction of the cardinal’s vices. When she is summoned to the church court that is deliberating the propriety of her marriage, her defense of her conduct as Henry’s wife is resounding in its eloquence. She has been admired for centuries by readers and playgoers alike.

Henry VIII was first performed in 1613, with some unanticipated results. During a performance on June 29, a cannon fired from the stage started a fire, burning the Globe to the ground. (No lives were reported lost, and a new Globe was soon constructed.) The play was first printed in the 1623 First Folio. Shakespeare's primary source for this history play is thought to be Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles.

Henry Maximilian

Henry Maximilian (Max) Beerbohm was born at 57 Palace Gardens Terrace, London, on 24th August 1872. His father, Julius Ewald Edward Beerbohm (1810–1892), had come to England in about 1830 and established himself as a successful corn merchant.

In 1885 he entered Charterhouse School. He later wrote: "My delight in having been at Charterhouse was far greater than my delight in being there… I always longed to be grown-up!". Beerbohm began drawing caricatures of his teachers and of public figures, while at school.

Beerbohm met Oscar Wilde in 1888. Wilde's biographer, Richard Ellmann, has claimed: "Beerbohm was quick and clever: Wilde taught him to be languid and preposterous.... Beerbohm admired, learned, and resisted; aware that Wilde was homosexual, and anxious not to to follow him in that direction, he drew back from intimacy. He was to caricature Wilde savagely; this was ungrateful, but it was a form of ingratitude, and of intimacy, into which other followers of Wilde lapsed."

Beerbohm won a place at Merton College in 1890 to study classics. While at university he became friends with Oscar Wilde, Robert Ross, Alfred Douglas and William Rothenstein. He continued with his drawing and in 1892 The Strand Magazine published thirty-six of his caricatures. He later wrote that this success provided "a great, an almost mortal blow to my modesty".

The publisher, John Lane, invited Aubrey Beardsley and his friend, Henry Harland, to produce a new quarterly, called The Yellow Book. The first edition was published in April, 1894. The reviewer in The Times, pointing to the cover that had been produced by Beardsley and wrote of its "repulsiveness and insolence". The drawings by Beardsley created a great deal of controversy and because of this, the first edition of 5000 copies sold out in five days.

John Lane, was pleased with the success of the book and invited Beardsley and his friend, Henry Harland, to produce a new quarterly, called The Yellow Book. The first edition was published in April, 1894. The reviewer in The Times, pointing to the cover that had been produced by Beardsley, wrote of its "repulsiveness and insolence". The drawings by Beardsley created a great deal of controversy and because of this, the first edition of 5,000 copies sold out in five days.

The author of Max Beerbohm: A Kind of Life (2002) has argued: "Max's reputation as a caricaturist was if anything higher than that as an essayist. In the late 1890s his drawing had also developed: it became more subtle, more intricate, more understated, the general softening of tone owing much to the addition of light colour washes, something Will Rothenstein had urged on him. Max himself remarked that as he got older (on into his late twenties) he found that his two arts... were growing more like each other... Max's was one of those rare talents equally distinguished in two arts. His sister arts sometimes come together in those of his drawings with more or less lengthy captions."

Beerbohm's close friend, Oscar Wilde was arrested and charged with offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act (1885). The trial of Wilde and Alfred Taylor began before Justice Arthur Charles on 26th April, 1895. Of the ten alleged sexual partners Queensberry's plea had named, five were omitted from the Wilde indictment. The trial under Charles ended in jury disagreement after four hours. The second trial, under Justice Alfred Wills, began on 22nd May. Douglas was not called to give evidence at either trial, but his letters to Wilde were entered into evidence, as was his poem, Two Loves. Called on to explain its concluding line - "I am the love that dares not speak its name" Wilde answered that it meant the "affection of an elder for a younger man".

Wilde attempted to defend his relationship with what became known as the "Love that dare not speak its name" speech: "It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michaelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the Love that dare not speak its name, and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it."

Max Beerbohm, was in court at the time and wrote to his friend, Reginald Turner: "Oscar has been quite superb. His speech about the Love that dares not tell his name was simply wonderful and carried the whole court right away, quite a tremendous burst of applause. Here was this man, who had been for a month in prison and loaded with insults and crushed and buffeted, perfectly self-possessed, dominating the Old Bailey with his fine presence and musical voice. He has never had so great a triumph, I am sure as when the gallery burst into applause - I am sure it affected the jury."

Drawing of Max Beerbohm by William Rothenstein.

Beardsley invited Beerbohm to contribute essays and caricatures to the journal. He also wrote for other publications, and he drew caricatures for Pick-Me-Up, Sketch, and the Pall Mall Budget. He also published, under the imprint of The Bodley Head, a collection of essays, entitled The Works of Max Beerbohm (1896). Leonard Smithers, who was a thirty-four-year-old ex-solicitor who sold old books, prints, and pornography from a shop in Arundel Street, off the Strand, published a collection of his drawings, Caricatures of Twenty-Five Gentlemen (1896).

Beerbohm became very close to William Rothenstein. He later wrote: "He (Rothenstein) wore spectacles that flashed that flashed more than any other pair ever seen. He was a wit. He was brimful of ideas... He knew everyone in Paris. He knew them all by heart. He was Paris in Oxford... I liked Rothenstein not less than I feared him; and there arose between us a friendship that has grown ever warmer, and been more and more valued by me, with every passing year."

Beerbohm, whose elder half-brother, Herbert Beerbohm Tree, was one of London's foremost actor–managers, took a keen interest in the theatre. Frank Harris appointed Beerbohm as the drama critic of The Fortnightly Review. In 1898 he began to write a regular column for The Saturday Review, a journal recently purchased by Harris. He held the post for the next twelve years.

Beerbohm was a great supporter of the work of George Bernard Shaw. Although he did not share Shaw's socialist beliefs, described him as "the most brilliant and remarkable journalist in London." He also considered him a great playwright. He was especially complimentary about Man and Superman (1902), which he considered to be his "masterpiece so far". He described it as the "most complete expression of the most distinct personality in current literature".

He also liked John Bull's Other Island (1904): "Mr Shaw, it is insisted, cannot draw life: he can only distort it. All his characters are but so many incarnations of himself. Above all, he cannot write plays. He has no dramatic instinct, no theatrical technique... That theory might have held water in the days before Mr Shaw's plays were acted. Indeed, I was in the habit of propounding it myself... When I saw John Bull's Other Island I found that as a piece of theatrical construction it was perfect... to deny that he is a dramatist merely because he chooses for the most part, to get drama out of contrasted types of character and thought, without action, and without appeal to the emotions, seems to me both unjust and absurd. His technique is peculiar because his purpose is peculiar. But it is not the less technique."

After a series of failed relationships Beerbohm married an American actress, Florence Kahn on 4th May 1910, at the Paddington register office. Enid Bagnold saw them together just after they got married: "She wore her bracelets outside her black net gloves. I was thrilled by the way the top of Max's head steamed in a spiral." William Rothenstein commented: "Max supports matrimony with a charm and grace which is the despair of other husbands."

Beerbohm's biographer, N. John Hall, has pointed out: "He quit his post at the Saturday Review, and went to live the rest of his life in the Villino Chiaro, a small house on the coast road overlooking the Mediterranean at Rapallo, Italy. Max and his wife seem to have had a thoroughly happy life together. There has been speculation that he was a non-active homosexual, that his marriage was never consummated, that he was a natural celibate. The fact is, not much is known of Max's private life."

Beerbohm did over forty caricatures of George Bernard Shaw during his lifetime. He did not find Shaw's appearance attractive. He mentioned his pallid pitted skin and red hair like seaweed. "The back of his neck was especially bleak; very long, untenanted, and dead white". He admitted that Shaw's political views did not help: "My admiration for his genius has during fifty years and more been marred for me by dissent from almost any view that he holds about anything."

Beerbohm held an exhibition of his work at the Leicester Galleries in April 1911. The Times, reviewing the show, claimed that he deserved the title of "the greatest of English comic artists". Beerbohm later defined caricatures as "the delicious art of exaggerating, without fear or favour, the peculiarities of this or that human body, for the mere sake of exaggeration... The whole man must be melted down, as in a crucible, and then, as from the solution, be fashioned anew. He must emerge with not one particle of himself lost, yet with not a particle of himself as it was before."

Beerbohm told William Rothenstein that he was partly responsible for his success: "As you will know, your belief in me has always been a great incentive to me to believe in myself; and your creative, suggestive, fertilizing mind has enormously helped me from time to time. I remember, for example, that it was you who, at Oxford, first told me that I ought to try washes of water-colour - things of which at that time I supposed myself to be quite incapable at the age of ninety. And it was you who made me see the difference between line-y drawing and drawing that had an unjournalistic grace. And it was you, later, whose advice helped me to keep within my own little spiritual way of expression and not to try for external accuracies. And - but I won't enumerate the heaps of ways in which, to me, as to many other more important persons, you have been ballast and inspiration."

In 1911 Beerbohm published to great critical acclaim his only novel, Zuleika Dobson. It has often featured in the list of the 100 best novels ever published. This was followed by a collection of seventeen parodies of contemporary writers, A Christmas Garland (1912). The Saturday Review claimed that "He (Beerbohm) has not only parodied the style of his authors, but their minds also".

In February 1914 Frank Harris was sent to Brixton Prison for contempt of court following an article on Earl Fitzwilliam, who had been cited as a co-respondent in a divorce case. His assistant editor, Enid Bagnold, went around to Beerbohm's flat to ask for his help. "I rung his doorbell, and sent up a message as urgent as I could make it by the maid. He was not dressed, but came down in a wonderful dressing-gown, and as he listened his two very blue eyes were serious with anger, though his eyebrows, his mouth, and the rest of his charming face would not go any great lengths. He was angry enough to dress very quickly, and came with me, carrying his cane."

As well as helping editing Modern Society, that week he drew a cartoon for the front cover. It showed Beerbohm having dinner with Harris. Underneath he wrote: "The Best Talker in London, with one of his best listeners".

Drawing by Max Beerbohm of Frank Harris and himself at dinner.
Beerbohm wrote: "The Best Talker in London, with one of his best listeners".

Beerbohm's next book, Seven Men (1919), was a collection of short stories. One of his greatest fans was Virginia Woolf. She wrote to Beerbohm: "If you knew how I had pored over your essays - how they fill me with marvel - how I can't conceive what it would be like to write as you do!" Beerbohm himself was greatly influenced by the work of Henry James. He told Frank Harris that he "gets effects through those elaborate sentences that you could hardly get otherwise."

Beerholm had further exhibitions at the Leicester Galleries in 1923 and 1925. The New York Herald Tribune published a review which argued: "In terms of aesthetics Mr Beerbohm is not a draughtsman at all; he has a delicate sense of color, decorative felicity… but he has never learned to draw… For his own purposes, however, his drawing is consummate… He has a genius for likenesses; better than anyone else he understands how to convey the attitudes of his subject… Add to these humor without venom and refined imagination and you have lifted caricature into the realm of art."

Max Beerbohm, A Momentary Vision Once Befell Young Millais (1922)

Beerholm drew caricatures of Oscar Wilde, William Rothenstein, George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Hardy, W. B. Yeats, Lytton Strachey, John Ruskin, William Morris, Aubrey Beardsley, John Singer Sargent, Augustus John, William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, James Whistler, George Meredith, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Queen Victoria, Edward VII, George V and Edward VIII. In 1930 he gave up caricaturing: "I found that my caricatures were becoming likenesses. I seem to have mislaid my gift for dispraise. Pity crept in. So I gave up caricaturing, except privately".

In 1939 George VI offered him a knighthood. To the surprise of his friends he accepted the honour. After the ceremony, he wrote to a friend: "My costume yesterday was quite all right… Indeed, I was (or so I thought, as I looked around me) the best-dressed of the Knights, and quite on a level with the Grooms of the Chamber and other palace officials. I'm not sure that I wasn't as presentable as the King himself - very charming though he looked."

After the death of his wife in 1951, Elisabeth Jungmann, became his secretary and companion. He married her just before his death at Rapallo on 20th May 1956.