This is not really a review.

I started reading Brooke's "dissertation" on John Webster and Elizabethan drama a few weeks ago after The Duchess of Malfi left quite an impression on me but somehow got sidetracked by a lot of other books since. Not sure how that happens...

Anyway, I thought I'd share some pictures of the actual copy I have on loan from my city's library because it very much encapsulates why I love our library.

So, here we have it. A 1916 edition of Rupert Brooke's work (written in 1913) that gained him a fellowship at King's College (Cambridge).

I am not sure when the last time was that someone borrowed the book, but the fact that I actually can borrow a book printed in 1916 to take home and adore for a few weeks is enough for me to say that libraries are awesome. There are countless other reasons of course. 

I don't even mind the scribbles that previous readers have left. Yes, these people deserve a stern talking to and should really reflect on their shortcomings as readers, but some of the comments do crack me up. 

As for the contents... It has been an interesting place to start reading about Webster and to add other points of view on Elizabethan theatre in general, but Brooke was a poet and this comes across in this work. His focus is on structure, style and on the realisation of emotive expression through the medium of dramatic speech rather than on content or context of Webster's plays, both of which would have been of more interest to me.

I was going to have a look at both of these plays as a whole, but it appears that both of these plays are in fact a ten act play divided into two parts. This seemed to also be something of a debate with some of Shakespeare's plays, however the ones that are in two, or three, parts (actually, there is only Henry IV in two parts, and Henry VI in three parts, and it could be argued that all of these plays form one continuous play from Richard II to Richard III) seem to have their own internal consistency, of which this play seems to lack. In some cases it could be argued that some of the acts are superfluous as it appears that they are simply a bunch of kings making a stand against Tamburlaine, claiming that their army is bigger than his army, and then getting resoundly defeated by Tamburlaine, and thus starting all over again.

However, it could be argued that both of these plays do have an internal consistency, with the first play looking at the rise of Tamburlaine's power, which concludes with him standing on top of his conquests claiming to be prepared to move out and conquer the rest of the world, and part two dealing with his demise, as he becomes more and more caught up in his own sense of pride and self worth that he steps over the line by burning a copy of the Alcoran, and making mockery of the Muslim god by claiming that if he existed, why did he allow Tamburlaine so many victories.

The play was based on a real person named Timur, and you can read about him here (on Wikipedia). Timur is probably not one of the best known of the conquers (unlike figures such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Genghis Khan) and that is probably because he did not pose mush of a threat to Europe. In fact his war against Bayezid the Turk, who was attacking the Balkans and other parts of Eastern Europe (though Constantinople was still in the hands of the Byzantines at the time), is probably why Timur is considered a popular figure in European History. The other thing about Timur (or Tamurlaine) was that he was from central Asia and was only attempting to follow in the footsteps of Genghis Kahn (of which he failed, when you consider the extent of Genghis Kahn's territory and Timur's territory). He was also seen as being responsible for basically returning Persia, and much of the Middle East, to the stone age, as well as pretty much wiping out most, if not all, of the Nestorian Church (though you must admit that the American adventures in the Middle East in recent times have also assisted in that task).

Anyway, this is a map of Timur's empire:

and this is a picture of Timur himself:

It is interesting though how certain characters are seen differently under a different light. Here Tamurlaine is being painted in a light that is not all that bad, though we must also remember that Marlowe's version does not necessarily have Timur portrayed in the light of a hero, but rather as a conquerer that inevitably overstepped the natural boundaries, in relation to believing he was better than god. Also note that Marlowe uses the Alcoran as the means of his downfall as opposed to the Bible, despite Islam being considered an alien, and in some cases an enemy, culture to that of the Europeans. While this is a broad generalisation, remember that for a period of around four hundred years Europe were sending troops to the Middle East in an attempt to capture Jerusalem, and while the first couple were, to an extent, successful, they began to wane in popularity and effect as time drew on (probably because most of the capable fighting men had been killed off in the first couple of invasions, and also probably because the inhabitants of the Levant had become more prepared in the face of further crusades).

As for the play, and this is the case with many of the plays around this time, the story has been borrowed either from legend or history. Marlowe is doing the same thing that Shakespeare would go on to do with his great tragedies: take a little known character and little known story and turn it into a great play. Notice that it is Hamlet and the Scottish Play that are his most famous, and while they are based upon historical characters and events, they are such minor occurrences that most of us would not realise that these plays have actually been inspired by true stories (in the Hollywood sense of the phrase, of course).

The Ascension of an Emperor (Part 1)

This first part documents the rise of Tamburlaine from a simple goatherd from the plains of Scythia to becoming the emperor of the Middle East. The play opens with the king of Persia being declared Emperor after his army had just sacked India, however one of the reasons for this is because Tamburlaine was a part of his army. However Tamburlaine, who is a cunning general, ends up turning on the emperor of Persia and defeating him and taking his place. However, he is not satisfied at simply taking Persia and moves west to capture Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Arabia. The play then ends with him standing victorious, but looking further West with the dream of conquering and becoming Emperor of Europe.

The thing that I remembered about this play is that there are scenes (I think about two acts worth) where the emperor of Turkey is being carted around in a cage, as if he were an animal. However, I suspect that there is some idea behind this in that what Tamburlaine represents is a reversal. He is a goatherd become emperor, and the other kings, the ones that have arrayed against him, as they are defeated the situation is reversed so that they go from being emperors to little more than animals. In fact, in once scene we have the emperor of Turkey bash himself to death against the cage, and another scene has a king commit suicide at the fear of going from a powerful monarch to a prisoner.

We see this even in our world as well, such as the suicides that occur when there is a stockmarket crash and a billionaire is turned into a destitute. This is the idea of the bankers throwing themselves out of windows in 1929 because they had lost all of their money, or the German millionaire who threw himself in front of a train because he could not handle the idea of living penniless. In a way it goes to show how much of an idea wealth and power can being when somebody will actually commit suicide when that idol deserts them, and in fact when they realise that all of their hopes and dreams were built on nothing more than shifting sands.

The Folly of Pride (Part 2)

I have noticed that there seems to be a lot less reviews of this play than there are of the first one – actually on Goodreads there is only one. Maybe it is because most people either read the two plays as a unity, or maybe they did read both plays, but if they wrote a review, they would have simply written it on the first one. This I can understand because it seems that there is little difference between the two plays with the exception of one act, that being act 1 in the first play (where Tamburlaine first comes onto the scene) and act 5 in the second play (where Tamburlaine finally takes one step two far and ends up dying of a disease).

The reason I say that is because the first play seems to, after the first act, simply have another group of kings appear making statements as to how their army is superior to Tamburlaine, and then they go to war with Tamburlaine and end up losing, and the kings are either captured and reduced to animals, or they end up killing themselves so as to retain at least some form of self respect (in the Ancient World, the act of suicide was seen as an honourable action, especially if it was a choice between poverty, imprisonment, or death – which in many cases is probably still the same today), and then it repeats itself in the next act.

A part of me was hoping to see that what this play encompassed was Tamburlaine's fall, but instead it seemed to have him becoming more powerful and, to put it bluntly, more cocky. In this play we have a number of kings who are defeated in battle, and by the end of the play are pulling Tamburlaine's carriage as if they were horses. Also it seems that we have Tamburlaine extending his kingdon into Egypt, the Levant, and Turkey, and even crossing into Greece and the Balkans, however, near the end of the play, he suddenly decides to turn around and make a path towards Babylon.

This I found rather odd because one would have expected that if he had been conquering the lands off to the west, why would he leave a fortress in the middle of his empire undefeated. Most, if not all, generals worth their salt would at least attempt to make an alliance with them, but would not leave them standing because capturing it would have been a little too hard. This was the case with Tyre and Alexander the Great, and as it turned out, capturing Tyre was not all that difficult anyway, despite the fact that it had been moved onto an island just off shore after Nebucadnezzar had successfully defeated them about three to four hundred years earlier.

However, as I have suggested before, and will continue to suggest, and that is that this play is, to an extent, about the fall of Tamburlaine, despite the fact that most of this occurs in the last act. Here he has finally captured Babylon and is in the library ordering the books be burnt and he is brought a copy of the Koran (written in this play as Alcoran). When presented with the book Tamburlaine mocks the religion upon which it is based, claiming that if Allah had any power whatsoever then he would have intervened and prevented Tamburlaine from conquering all of the said territory (despite the fact that the real Tamburlaine was actually a Muslim and this event would probably not have happened).

It is interesting that Marlowe takes this approach, namely having Tamburlaine mocking a god and the having the said god step out and demonstrating his power by inflicting Tamburlaine with a disease. It is true that the Bible says 'God shall not be mocked' but we see a lot of Bible burning and god mocking in our society (at least towards Christianity) and I must admit that we do get the same statements directed against Islam, and we do not see hordes of god mockers succumbing to disease, though I must admit that in the end everybody dies.

I guess the idea that comes out here is how, in many cases, people like Tamburlaine will, in many cases, end up overreaching and becoming overconfident in their abilities. We see that at the end of the first play where Tamburlaine had already dreamed of taking over the world, and at the end of this play, as he lies on his deathbed, looks at what he hasn't conquered, and then anoints his son to continue where he left off. It is interesting how when we review our lives, many of us look at what we have not accomplished, and actually forget what we have accomplished, and regret what we haven't done rather than look at what we have done.

Othello is can be a very painful play both to read and to watch. It is not that it is a bad play, no, it is a brilliant play - the reason that I say Othello is painful is because it is one of those plays that makes you squirm and feel really uncomfortable because it is doing what literature is supposed to do: hold a mirror up to life. The first time I read it in university it was painful and I thought that it was because at university you tend to overanalyse pretty much everything. However I have come to understand that there was nothing necessarily wrong with what my lecturers said, and in fact in the edition that I read I noticed that there was a long discussion of misogyny as it exists in Western Literature (namely because, as I have indicated elsewhere, it is the woman who actually holds the power over the man because it is the woman who seems to be able to pick and chose, where as the man simply has to put up with whoever says yes to him).

Anyway, in the years since I studied this play in English One, the more I read it the more painful the play becomes. Take for instance the two bedroom scenes in the play. In the first bedroom scene we have Othello and Desdemona passionately making love (though this was clearer in the Lawrence Fishburne movie than in the play), however in the second bedroom scene we have Othello killing Desdemona in a fit of rage fuelled by jealousy. It is in this scene that we realise that Othello has reached the point of no return. It is probably the most heart wrenching scene in the play because we know that Desdemona is innocent and we know that Othello has been played for a fool, but we also know that once he has committed this act that is it, there is no going back. In both of these scenes we see the emotion that fuels Othello: in the first he is fuelled by passionate love; in the second he is fuelled by jealousy.

When I read the introduction to this play I came to understand why this play was chosen with the other plays that we had read in English One. It was chosen because of the idea of moving from the centre, being civilisation, to the fringe, being the border fortresses. While Jacobean England was only beginning its expansionist push, there was still the idea that England, the centre, was civilised, while the colonies, being the fringe, were lawless. This is mimicked in this play (as it is in numerous other plays) with Venice being the centre and Cyprus being the fringe. This also brings up the idea that the centre represents peace while the fringes represent war. Even though the Turks had already been defeated before the action of the play begins, there is still this idea of the fringe being in a perpetual state or war, and while it may not be a war with flesh and blood enemies, it is still a war, a war not so much of ideas but rather a war between civilisation and barbarity, or a struggle between the rule of law and the rule of the sword.

Now, I probably should spend some time discussing the character of Iago, namely because Iago is the most important character in the play. Iago is the quintessential villain. In a way he could be the villain that many other villains are based upon. He is not evil, nor is he ruled by his passions, but rather he displays a cold and calculating reason. He is a deceitful man who is in full control of his mental faculties. Yes, he is a villain, but he is not evil, and the reason I say this is because evil, technically, has no purpose other than to spread pain and misery for the sake of doing spreading pain and misery. Evil is not inflicting pain for the sake of pleasure, that is madness, nor is it waging war against somebody for the purpose of your own advantage, that is ambition. No, evil, in and of itself, is doing such things for the simple purpose of doing it.

So, if Iago is not evil, why does he hate Othello? Well, in the story that the play is based upon, it is because of his desire of Desdemona and his anger that she married the Moor. What adds insult to injury is the fact that Othello is not even European. This is not the case in the play, but rather bitterness for being passed over for promotion. I myself have experienced that by simply seeing somebody given a promotion instead of me, particularly when that person seems to be competing with me and gloats because of his promotion. This is not the case with Othello because we know and can see that he is a very honourable person. Further, it is clear that Iago is racist, not racist in the sense that he hates Othello because he has black skin, but that he hates Othello because he is not Venetian. He is given a commanding role, and then Othello adds insult to this by making Cassio his second. The race issue can be a distraction, as some have said, because viewing this play in the post civil-rights era makes us focus more upon the racism aspect as opposed to the idea that Iago simply wanted Othello's job.

One of the things that went through my head while reading this play was the question of what was Iago hoping to gain through his manipulation of Othello, and I suspect that it has something to do with the issue of Othello not being European. This has been something that has existed for a long time, and that is the idea that we as humans have treated race in the same way as we see animals. I say this in a sense that a dog will aways act like a dog and a cat will always act like a cat: it is in their nature. However, the reality is that race is like a breed, so by using a dog as an example, it does not matter whether one is a Pitbull, or a German Shepherd, or a Poodle, they are still dogs and they all behave like dogs. However, the idea was that Europeans were civilised, and the other races were not, and as such it appears that what Iago is trying to do (and I could be wrong) is to prove that it does not matter how long Othello has been around Venitians, he is still a Moor and he will behave like a Moor, and as such I suspect that what he is trying to do is to expose the belief that once a barbarian, always a barbarian.

However, the catch is that what is being exposed is the base human nature. It is a shame that Shakespeare uses the Moor because to many of the people watching the play, they would have accepted that it is not surprising that the Moor, overcome by jealousy, reveals his barbaric nature. That simply is not true because it does not matter what colour your skin is there is still that base human nature that exists within us, that part of us that fights against the civilising force. If that were not true, why is it that a bulk (if not all) serial killers are white?

I also wondered whether Iago was overwhelmed by hate, and in answer to that question I have to say no. Iago is not ruled by his passion or his emotion because it is clear that he is clever, calculating, and manipulative. These actions require a sound mind that is able to think and to reason. His jealousy is based on reason, and that reason is that underneath the civilised exterior, Othello is a barbarian, and to expose that he needs to have all of his wits about him. Notice that throughout the play Iago is always seen as 'honest Iago' and it is not until his wickedness is exposed that he is correctly identified as a villain.

Thus it seems that the main theme that runs through this play is the question of civilisation verses barbarity. The Moor is a barbarian, a warrior at heart, and on the battlefield he is unstoppable, which is why he has been promoted to the rank of general, but it is clear that he does not understand the political battlefield. He does not see Iago manipulating him, but rather trusts him, believing that he is a friend. It is not that Othello is at heart a barbarian, but rather that he is innocent. In the end, it is Iago who is the barbarian, the one who plays upon other people's innocence, and his refusal to accept that a non-European can be a decent and honest man. In the same way, during the 19th century, it was the Australian Aboriginals who were called the barbarians, however the real barbarians were the English colonists who stole their land and murdered their birthright.

In the particular edition of this play that I read the editors included and essay by Harold Jenkins (not that that name means anything to me) about whether Henry IV is two five act plays or one ten act play. Personally I don't care either way and would really not want to write a major thesis on that particular point, but that is probably because there is so much more with regards to Shakespearian plays, such as the nature of the human condition, and also the nature of political revolt, that I consider that an essay on whether two plays are one or one play is two is probably just a waste of my time. Then again, each to his own, and if this is what interests Jenkins then who am I to criticise him. Anyhow, my position with regards to that question is that it is neither because I actually see it as one forty act play (beginning with Richard II and ending with Richard III) that has been split into eight parts that, in a sense, each can stand on their own as individual plays.

I recently saw this play performed in Sydney by the Bell Shakespeare Company (which is probably the leading Shakespearian theatre group in Australia) and they had performed the two plays as an amalgamation, however since the entire performance was a little under three hours (excluding the twenty minute interlude) there was a number of scenes that had been dropped, and I suspect most of them were from the second play (the rebellion of Northumberland and the Archbishop Scroop was not included, despite the scene where Falstaff examining troops with Justices Swallow and Silence being included). The play itself, as with most Shakespearian performances these days, had been brought into the modern setting with the nobility dressed in suits and the scenes in Eastcheap done as if it were in a modern Australian pub. Falstaff himself did change his style in this play going from being little more than a bum to being a well dressed bum, however that had something to do with his elevation from being a trouble maker to a knight in the second play.

What I didn't notice in the first play but did notice this time was that Falstaff actually claims the credit for killing Hotspur. We know that Hal kills Hotspur, but leaves the scene before anybody can confirm the kill, and Falstaff, who had been playing dead for most of the battle (which is not surprising) then gets up and puts a knife in Hotspur's body and claims the kill. As such, when the King enters the scene, he immediately strips Hal of the kill and awards it to Falstaff.

Now this is actually an important event, especially for those who claim that Hal's return to his wild ways in the second part is inconsistent with the first part where he goes from being a tavern rat to being an honourable battlefield commander. Firstly, Hal is quite bitter at the award for killing Hotspur going to Falstaff on the grounds that he knows that Falstaff is a liar, a cheat, and incredibly lazy (as well as being a coward). In fact, in the second play Falstaff and Hal only encounter each other twice, and where the only change in Falstaff is his title, Hal's attitude has changed dramatically. In fact of both times that Hal and Falstaff meet, the former is rebuking the latter (the first time is where Hal masquarades as a servant boy to listen to what Falstaff says about him when he is not around, and the second is during the coronation parade when Falstaff foolishly expects that Hal will turn England into a thieves' paradise).

In a way the play of Henry IV (in two parts) is not so much about the redemption of a wayward child (though in some aspects it is) but rather about a boy's journey into adulthood. By the second part, Hal has already been redeemed: the prodigal son has returned and he is not going out again. The only reason he returns to Eastcheap is to see if Falstaff himself has changed, but that is not going to happen. Shakespeare is too realistic with his characters, and it is clear that Falstaff is simply too old to be able to break away from a lifetime of bad habits. It is interesting too that even though Falstaff does not appear in Henry V, many of the other companions from Eastcheap do and form a part of the irregular army. Once again, Hal, in the next play, puts on a disguise and goes and mingles with them, but this time he does not reveal himself, he just listens. In Henry V we learn of Falstaff's fate: in Act 2, Scene 1, when Falstaff's page enters and tells his companions advising that he is sick as the king has broken his heart. However, we never actually hear of his fate (and since the fleet was setting sail to France, and since we know that Falstaff is, well, basically a coward, it is not surprising that he would be hiding under his sheets and not wanting to go and fight a real war).

Thank God for Youtube. As I have said before reading a Shakespearian play that I have not seen on either stage or screen can be a difficult task at best. In fact reading any play that I have not seen on stage or screen can be difficult, since they are generally not meant to be read but performed. The printed plays seem to supplement the performances rather than to take their place, so when I came to read this play I searched Youtube and discovered that the BBC versions of the history plays are available for viewing, so once I finished this play I ended up watching it and I must say that it really added to my appreciation of the play.

Henry IV Part One comes immediately after Richard II and begins after a slip of the tongue in anger in which Henry Bollingbrook (now Henry IV) causes the death of the previous monarch Richard II. Remember, during this period of English history England was in the middle of the Hundred Years War with France, and historians consider Henry (and Richard) to be weak kings during their reigns the war in France was not persued. However, England controlled a lot of French land at this time and keeping the peace in this land was difficult at best. At the beginning of the play Henry calls off an pilgrimage to the Holy Land (a crusade) to deal with some rebellions in Scotland and Wales (and I suspect that he never got to go on that pilgrimage).

The problem wasn't that Henry had usurped the throne (though his own inner guilt did have something to say in regards to this) but that he had to deal with rebellions in Scotland and Wales. His first decision ends up alienating his former friends because he decides not to seek the release of another Englishman namely because he had formed a marriage pact with Owen Gwendoler (more on him in a bit). As such these former friends end up rebelling against his rule and going over to his enemies.

There are also family problems as well because his son, Henry (who is to become Henry V) has fallen in with the tavern crowd (the Boars Head Tavern at Eastcheap which, unfortunately, is no longer there, though I do plan on going to Eastcheap when I am in London). I am not sure where Henry's castle is supposed to be, but if we know London, we know that Eastcheap is quite close to the Tower of London (in those days it wasn't a prison). The tavern crowd is run by the infamous Falstaff, one of the characters that seems to have obtained a legendary status in English Literature. While the plays in which he appears are not remembered, the character is. Falstaff is the fat, loud, cowardly, oaf that forms the comic relief of many a book and film (as well as this play) however he has a very important role here. While Owen Glendower has taken Henry's lords from him, Falstaff has taken is son, therefore Henry faces problems both in his position as a king and a rule as a father.

The robbery scene is very important as, while it seems to be only a minor part at the beginning, it has a very significant impact. Robbery, particularly armed robbery, is a very serious offence, and while today you may only land up in gaol (though I would not call that a particularly light sentence, especially since it can stain your character for life) in those days you would be executed. Basically the only reason Henry gets away with it is because he is the Prince of Wales. Even then there is a very serious father and son talk when he admits to his participation in the robbery (and it also appears that he does not implicate Falstaff, who would have been executed for the deed).

Act II, Scene IV is probably the longest, and the best, scene in the play in that it is the turning point for Hal's (the Prince) life. It begins with riotous merry making with Falstaff as the central figure, and ends with the sheriff coming in asking questions about the robbery. While Hal manages to keep the Sheriff off of Falstaff's back (and while the pickpocketing incident leads to a rather interesting result, with Falstaff claiming that bonds were stolen, only to realise that everybody knows they were simply records of what he owes) Hal ends up confessing to his father, and his father's act of mercy has Hal turn around and become the Prince of Wales. In the end he is on the battlefield, rebuking Falstaff for his tomfoolery, and becoming the hero by slaying Hotspur in single combat.

Owen Glendower was a Welsh rebel who was at war with the English during this period. I actually saw a documentary on Glendower and their suggestion was that it was during this time that Wales was transformed from being a wild and savage place to becoming that quaint place that we all associate with Wales today. It is similar to Scotland, with the place going from the wild and savage land of Macbeth and the Highlander, to the bagpipe playing centre of learning that produced the likes of Adam Smith.

In the same way that Richard III is demonised by Shakespeare, Glendower is also receives the same treatment. He his made to appear as a sorcerer in league with demonic forces, and that his victories against the English are not due to his skill as an insurgent but due to his dabbling in the occult. He only appears in a couple of scenes in the play, yet he the focus the part of the play that is not dominated by Falstaff. Where Falstaff has stolen the King's son, Gwendower has stolen the King's knights. However, in the same way that Henry brings order back to his family, he brings order back into the kingdom during the Battle of Shrewsberry, after which the play suddenly ends (obviously in anticipation for part 2).