Review: HAMLET HAIL TO THE THIEF, Barbican Theatre | BroadwayWorld

We all love villains from Darth Vader in “Star Wars,” to Ursula in “The Little Mermaid” to the classic characters of literature, we just love villains. These are people of immense power and focus who use their skills of intimidation and persuasion to hoodwink an entire country, empire, or an entire planet sometimes. I feel it’s safe to say though that when confronted with real life with villains we are quite disturbed and hope that their cruelty or destructive schemes will soon be brought to an end.
I’m sure you’ve been hearing in the news how Donald Trump is spreading highly xenophobic dogma about Muslims, and has been getting a lot of backlash in the press and from both political parties. In fact, scholar and activist David Signer has pointed out that Trump fits the profile of a modern-day demagogue on par with such figures as Idi Amin, Hitler, and even the head of ISIS. Is this fair comment, or just sensationalism on the part of the media?
A demagogue, according to dictionary.com is somebody who purports themselves to be a man of people somebody who tries to mobilize the public, and claims to be opposing the old guard, but who ultimately uses the prejudice and hatred of the masses to his or her advantage. In other words these are the type of people who want a revolution; people like Napoleon, Stalin, and especially Hitler are examples of demagogues.
Does Trump deserve to be lumped in with such a notorious group? He has been billing himself as an antidote to the people who currently hold the levers of power. He’s polling very well with people who are sick and tired of the current state of our country, which means he does in fact fit a demagogue’s profile. A demagogue isn’t necessarily bad, however their potential for evil is unsurpassed.
One writer who obsessed over the uses and abuses of power is of course William Shakespeare. Therefore I looked at some of Shakespeare’s greatest villains who all share the traits of demagogues and realize the Trump shares something in common with all of them. Here is my analysis of a few of Shakespeare’s greatest baddies, and how they are like our current Republican front runner.
Demagogue number one: Coriolanus, Coriolanus
![Coriolanus_2013_play[2]](https://shakespeareanstudent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/coriolanus_2013_play2.jpg)
Strictly speaking, this character could be a villain or a hero, depending on who you ask. In the play that bears his name, Coriolanus is a Roman general who wins a great victory fighting Rome’s enemies. Like Trump, Coriolanus’ name is a brand- his real name is Caius Martius, but was awarded a new surname in the Battle of Corioli.
After the battle, Coriolanus tries to capitalize on Rome’s gratitude to make himself Consul and govern most of the empire. In order to become Consul, he has to court the people, (most of whowhom don’t believe the Roman republic represents them). One of the senators, Menenius, compares Rome to a human body, and the senate to a stomach:
MENENIUS
The senators of Rome are this good belly,
And you the mutinous members; for examine
Their counsels and their cares, digest things rightly
Touching the weal o’ the common, you shall find
No public benefit which you receive
But it proceeds or comes from them to you
And no way from yourselves. Cor. I.I
This passage illustrates that, in order for a country to function, the people need to allow the government to distribute power to them. A demagogue like Coriolanus ruins the social contract by trying to get the people to rebel. Signer mentions in his interview that when Trump attacks the body politic with hateful rhetoric, he infects it like an autoimmune disease, which mimicks the body speech in Coriolanus.
Coriolanus and Trump both want to be put in charge, but whenever anyone questions their fitness to govern, they fly into rages, often resorting to childish name calling:
Compare this speech from Coriolanus to Trump, who has been known to call his critics, “liars,” “crooks,” “fat pigs,” ”dogs,” ”slobs,” and “disgusting animals.”
CORIOLANUS
You common cry of curs! whose breath I hate
As reek o’ the rotten fens, whose loves I prize
As the dead carcasses of unburied men
That do corrupt my air, I banish you;
And here remain with your uncertainty!
Let every feeble rumor shake your hearts!
Your enemies, with nodding of their plumes,
Fan you into despair!
Coriolanus hates the common people, but demands that they support him without question. In a sense, Coriolanus is the opposite of a demagogue since he sides with the elite against the common people and the republic that represents them.
Demagogue #2: Jack Cade from Henry VI, Part II
Cade is the best example of a man of the people who becomes a corrupt warlord. Like Napoleon and Hitler after him, he rises to power during a time of political unrest- in this case, the civil war known as The Wars Of the Roses. Cade leads a lynch mob who kills everyone with authority over the common people, with particular fierceness against anyone who can read or write. One of Cade’s soldiers utters the famous Shakespearean line: “First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” This line has become a funny catchphrase because we all want to shake off the chains of the legal system or the political checks and balances we live in, but as Cade demonstrates, when you give into mob rule, tyranny soon follows.
Cade claims to be fighting for the common people, but by the end of the play, he becomes a full-on dictator:
The proudest peer in the realm shall not wear a head on his shoulders, unless he pay me tribute; There shall not a maid be married, but she shall pay to me
Her maidenhead ere they have it: men shall hold of me in capite; and we charge and command that their wives be as free as heart can wish or tongue can tell (Act IV, Scene vii).
Men like Cade are power-hungry warlords and like Trump, they’ll say anything to attract the most malcontents. To quote Signer, once a demagogue takes over the state,”What they do is they create a substate that is accountable to them alone,” which is why Cade is willing to destroy and pervert all English laws that don’t suit his own selfish goals. Similarly, Trump’s proposal to refuse all Muslim immigrants flies in the face of the US Constitution and the principals of religious freedom that it guarantees.

Demagogue #3: Richard III
I hesitate to compare Donald Trump to Shakespeare’s most diabolical villain, the hunch-backed cripple Richard of Gloucester, who murders his way to the crown in Richard III, but Trump’s shameless attacks on minorities to stir up support for his campaign echo Richard’s schemes to slander his opponents (in addition to slaughtering them).
According to David Signer, one tactic that demagogues use is to manipulate the emotions of their supporters, and the time honored way for demagogues to manipulate emotions is to blame all of the old regime’s problems on a common enemy. Trump has blamed our nation’s problems on Muslim and Hispanic immigrants, while Richard blamed many of the kingdom’s problems on the Queen, claiming her relatives were taking coveted positions from “more deserving” nobles, like in this speech where Richard convinces his brother that the Queen arrested him, when it was Richard himself who arrested his brother Clarence:
GLOUCESTER
Why, this it is, when men are ruled by women: ‘Tis not the king that sends you to the Tower:
My Lady Grey his wife, Clarence, ’tis she
That tempers him to this extremity.
Was it not she and that good man of worship, Anthony Woodville, her brother there,
That made him send Lord Hastings to the Tower,
From whence this present day he is deliver’d?
We are not safe, Clarence; we are not safe. Richard III, Act I, Scene i.
The other surprising comparison I can make between Trump and Richard, is that they are both related! According to the website MyHerritage.com, there is a genetic link (albeit small) between Trump and the notorious Richard of Gloucester!
To sum up, when politicians try to turn over the apple cart, puncturing the constitution of our country, and encouraging people to dispense with established political order, the result is a deeply wounded nation and the potential for numerous examples of tyranny and despotism.
Sources:













If you’re like me, you are still mourning the loss of beloved actor, Sir Patrick Stewart. Most visitors to my website know that he was more than a movie star, creator of such iconic characters as Professor X in X men and Captain Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek; he was also an accomplished Shakespearean actor. As I’ve written before, Sir Patrick was not only a great Shakespearean actor, he became an icon for Shakespearean acting, and was sort of an avatar for Shakespeare himself.
Since Sir Patrick meant so much to so many people, this tribute is only part of a series. What I want to do is start by showing you my journey of discovery- how I became acquainted with Stewart’s work, and how it helped shape my understanding of acting, Shakespeare, and the world at large.
I was born in 1984- the year Orwell told us would be a hideous technocracy with the government observing and controlling our every move.
In 1987, Gene Roddenberry created a much more optimistic vision of the future- a future where all peoples of the Earth live in peace and harmony, united on a misison of scientific discovery across the stars. As a kid, I was too young to see Star Trek once it came out, but soon, it would become an abiding obsession in my childhood.
My first introduction to Sir Patrick and Star Trek came from his friend LaVar Burton. At the time, I was an avid fan of the TV show Reading Rainbow, and as a child, I saw this:

I was too young to watch much Star Trek live, but once it was syndicated, I ate it up- I watched episode after episode, (and amassed an impressive collection of toys and other merchandise). More importantly, I was beginning to understand that Shakespeare was more than a lofty dead author, he was a writer who could inspire people and be used to help them understand the world (or galaxy).
Austin Tichenor of the Reduced Shakespeare Company pointed out that, although most of us read Shakespeare in school, we don’t engage with it much (no pun intended). In school, Shakespeare is a passive experience- plots, themes, and characters are spouted at us by a teacher, and we rarely learn how to apply Shakespeare to our daily life. In the world of Star Trek, Shakespeare is used like a secular Bible- whenever the human characters try to explain or understand human nature to themselves or to aliens, robots, or godlike entities, they quote Shakespeare. https://youtu.be/JWit15tvkBs?is=Dg7Dk0A6PA29kbo3
Commander Data’s struggle to understand humanity extends to reading and performing Shakespeare himself, as this clip shows:
Data even impersonates a Shakespearean actor playing Puck in the episode Time’s Arrow, (a preview of Spiner’s role as Puck in Gargoyles):
in the two-part episode “Chain Of Command,”another veteran Shakespearean actor David Warner, captures and tortures Captain Picard!
The chilling way Warner plays Gul Madred is one of the high points of the series. He and Stewart worked before on a production of Hamlet in 1965, and the way these two play off each other is masterful. Warner is powerful, in command, dangerous, and sly. Picard never knows when he is telling the truth, and as time goes on, Madred revels in how much closer he is to breaking the pitiful human. Still, Picard in his wonderful stoicism never breaks, and briefly manages to turn the tables on Gul Madred, when he makes the mistake of opening up to Picard about how in reality, he is a scared and miserable soul, trying to fill the emptiness of his heart with power and sadistic pleasure. Again, these two actors are so powerful that all you need is them, and a dark room to create compelling drama.

After Star Trek ended, I started seeing Sir Patrick in many Shakespeare-adjacent roles, such as the Shakespeare quoting Canterville Ghost or the King of Texas (which was itself a cowboy re-telling of King Lear). For me, these TV performances piqued my interest, and inspired me to study Shakespeare myself.

When I graduated from college and started trying to make a career in Shakespeare, I studied Sir Patrick’s early Shakespeare work, and found a great deal of inspiration in his control of the language.
I particularly learned a lot from his appearances on Playing Shakespeare, a 1975 TV show produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company. This show is an invaluable resource for Shakespearean actors because it parts the curtain and allows the actors to get at the way they approach Shakespeare’s language. One of the highlights of the show is an episode where Stewart and fellow RSC actor David Suchet, discuss their very different approaches to playing the same character- Shylock from The Merchant of Venice:
Stewart has given so many memorable Shakespearean performances over the years, but one of my favorites was when he played Marc Antony in Antony and Cleopatra. Sir Patrick played Antony as a shadow of his former self- a drunk, foolish old man who is completely blinded to the threat Octavian poses to him. Stewart said that he based his portrayal on his own father, who was himself a soldier and an alcoholic. With this in mind, the portrayal has an uncomfortable truth to it- you see a man who is destroying himself and undoing his golden reputation.

At the same time, Stewart makes us feel for him; since so many people admired Stewart (myself included), seeing him play a man who is bringing himself low, makes us all want to save him from himself. It’s the definition of catharsis.

https://geekfrontiers.com/pittsburgh-history/the-1975-star-trektacular-and-twelfth-night/
http://bardfilm.blogspot.com/2008/11/discoveries-in-undiscovered-country.html





Was the most classic love story of all time actually meant to be gothic horror?
Is Romeo and Juliet supposed to be Scary?
Good morrow my Gothic gogglers! Since Spooky Season is upon us, I’d like to discuss the notion that, rather than being an iconic story of romantic love, maybe Romeo and Juliet is actually supposed to be gothic, disturbing, and maybe even terrifying!
I got the idea for this post after perusing the Michaels halloween displays, and realizing that many of them are Shakespeare themed in general, and Romeo and Juliet in particular. It got me thinking that, although Shakespeare died before such writers as Poe, Shelly, and Byron, his work has many ideas, themes, and tropes that are common in what we call Gothic literature; a kind of genre dominated by imagery of terror, disgust, and a fascination with the macabre.
Point 1: Romeo and Juliet was originally a cautionary tale.

One common trend in horror is punishing young people for their indescretions, especially disobedience and premarital sex. This is still common today; once you see a couple kiss in a horror movie, you know a grizzly death is coming. People see this story as the ideal love story, which it definitely is not. Shakespeare isn’t trying to put these lovers on a pedestal, he’s trying to show how hard it is for love to flourish in such a toxic, violent world.
This might shock you, but Shakespeare didn’t invent the story of Romeo and Juliet; he based it on an English poem by poet Albert Brooke, whose attitude to young lovers would’ve made Norma Bates blush! Look at the Introduction to the 1593 edition of the poem Romeus and Juliet:

The good
man’s example biddeth men to be good, and the evil man’s mischief warneth men not to be evil. To this good end, good
Reader, is this tragical matter written, to describe unto thee a couple of unfortunate lovers, thralling themselves to
unhonest desire ; neglecting the authority and advice of parents and friends ; conferring their principal counsels
with drunken gossips and superstitious friars (the naturally fit instruments of unchastity) ; attempting all adventures of
peril for th’ attaining of their wished lust ; using auricular confession, the key of whoredom and treason, for further-
ance of their purpose ; abusing the honourable name of lawful marriage to cloak the shame of stolen contracts ;
finally by all means of unhonest life hasting to most
unhappy death. -Albert Brooke
Brooke’s introduction reads like a sermon, suggesting that we look at the lover’s unfortunate lives like a parable designed to “scare us straight.” Even though Shakespeare takes a more sympathetic tone to the story, he actually makes the love story even more rushed and intense. Shakespeare’s play makes it so Romeo and Juliet only know each other for six days! Again, even though Shakespeare resfuses to judge them, Romeo and Juliet’s roots as a cautionary tale come through in the plot and characters.

Probably these days when you think of “gothic.” you think of a pale person with black hair wearing piercings, crosses and black clothes, but back in the 19th century, gothic was a genre of “Romantic literature” that emphasized the unusual, the mysterious, the grotesque, and the terrifying.
To understand what gothic literature is, you have to first understand what Romanticism is. Elizabethans like Shakespeare emphasized the concept of reason and a devotion to logic and subduing passion and superstition to reason, which is why most of his tragic heroes fall victim to their passions and almost never use their reason. By contrast, 19th century Romantic literature favored the opposite approach- rejecting cold reason and machine-like rationality and embracing the passions that make people human- passions like love and awe and devotion, but also terror and desire, which became the tentpoles of gothic literature. Gothic stories like those of Mary Shelly (Frankenstein), Bram Stoker ( Dracula) and of course Edgar Allen Poe, took the Romantic concept of emphasizing feeling and mood, and crafted masterpieces of terror and suspense.
In short, you could think of Romanticism as the moody child of Shakespeare, and gothic literature as his even moodier grandchild.
As Romanticism took hold in literary circles, it also took hold in the way Romeo and Juliet was staged too. In 1882, a celebrated production of the play debuted at the Lyceum theater in London, the same theater managed by Dracula author Bram Stoker.

The production had an emphasis on the gothic elements of the story with dark, moonlit scenery, gothic crypts, and an eerie scene where Sir Henry Irving as Romeo carries the slaughtered body down a long, winding staircase to lay him in Juliet’s tomb.

Thou detestable maw, thou womb of death,
Gorged with the dearest morsel of the earth,
Thus I enforce thy rotten jaws to open,
And, in despite, I’ll cram thee with more food!
A few years later, Stoker would finish Dracula, and adapt it as a stage play at the Lyceum.Legend has it that Stoker based the character of Dracula on Sir Henry. Sadly for Mr. Stoker, Irving never played the role onstage. Therefore you can see how Shakespeare’s writing helped form the ideas of gothic writers like Shelly and Stoker, and Romeo and Juliet was re-interpreted from a medieval morality tale into a Romantic story of two people whose desire is both powerful and destructive (Source: Royal Shakespeare Company)


Romeo and Juliet is just as obsessed with Death as it is with love. One classic trope of gothic literature is the concept of Death as a character that physically lusts after a beautiful woman. Look at this disturbing passage by Lord Capulet:

O son! the night before thy wedding-day
Hath Death lain with thy wife. There she lies,
Flower as she was, deflowered by him.
Death is my son-in-law, Death is my heir;
My daughter he hath wedded: I will die,
And leave him all; life, living, all is Death’s.
Even more striking is the passage where Romeo discovers Juliet in the tomb, and feels that Death himself has claimed her:

O my love! my wife!
Death, that hath suck’d the honey of thy breath,
Hath had no power yet upon thy beauty:
Thou art not conquer’d; beauty’s ensign yet
Is crimson in thy lips and in thy cheeks,
And death’s pale flag is not advanced there.Shall I believe
That unsubstantial Death is amorous,
And that the lean abhorred monster keeps
Thee here in dark to be his paramour?
For fear of that, I still will stay with thee;
And never from this palace of dim night
Depart again: here, here will I remain
With worms that are thy chamber-maids;O, here
Will I set up my everlasting rest,
And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars
From this world-wearied flesh

Once Twilight became popular, it spawned a massive backlash against teen romance, and Shakespeare’s play faced some of the same criticism. Twilight exposed the toxic nature of age gaps, using the threat of suicide as a guilt tactic, the ludicrous nature of “love at first sight.” Once Twilight exposed how unhealthy the star-crossed romance of Romeo and Juliet is, the play’s popularity never recovered.
The man difference between Twilight and Romeo and Juliet, is that that Shakespeeare intentionally gave star crossed lovers a boundary that was easy to morally get past- the feud is arbitrary and pointless. By contrast, Edward’s desire for Bella is physically and emotionally unhealthy- he could literally kill her and Edwrd worries that Bella will cause him to lust after human blood. He even compares himself to a drug addict who is in love with his own drug. While this might please the Romantics, it strikes modern people as a deeply toxic basis for a relationship.

Like Romeo, the vanpiric hero is a reluctant killer who is skilled in wooing using music and poetry, but is also a bloodsucking monster. Bella is attracted to him because he makes her feel special, but he is tortured because he’s afraid being with her will kill her. Twilight wants to be Romeo and Juliet so badly that it directly parallels the plot in book 2.
1. Edward tells Bella they can’t be together
2. There’s a love triangle with a guy her father approves of
3. Edward hears she’s dead and goes to Italy to kill himself
In addition- they even reference Romeo and Juliet
In short, there are some great gothic potential in the story of Romeo and Juliet, and I’d love to explore a more explicit interpretation, which is why it’s so sad that the most high-profile one is so sickly and pale. Then again, I might satisfy my craving in another fashion… stay thirsty my friends!
If you enjoyed this post, please consider signing up for my online courses on Romeo and Juliet



Get $10 off my class “Romeo and Juliet: Why Do We Still Read This Play?” with coupon code HTHES4KG1E10 until May 23, 2026. Get started at
https://outschool.com/classes/romeo-and-juliet-why-do-we-still-read-this-play-wAhPqsrx
and enter the coupon code at checkout.
Continue reading






Shakespeare and Bread
October 17th is national bread day. Bread has enormous cultural, political, and poetic significance in western culture, so it makes sense that Shakespeare would talk about it. What follows is by no means a comprehensive analysis, but hopefully enough to what your ‘appetite.’
Analysis of Shakespeare quotes
Bread- the yardstick of humanity

Bread is one of the first foods ever devised by humanity, and it is one of the few foods that is enjoyed by everyone regardless of age, race, culture, creed, or country. Shakespeare knows this, which is why he frequently refers to any kind of generic, regular “honest joe” as being, “one who eats bread,” or “as honest as any who broke bread.” To eat bread in Shakespeare’s mind, is to be quintessentially human.
“I speak this in hunger for bread, not in thirst for revenge.”
Just like today, bread had a commonplace connotation in Shakespeare’s culture as the unassuming food of both rich and poor. In Elizabethan times, meat and spices were the foods that impressed upper-class courtiers. Bread was simple, plain, and eaten by all.
In this passage from Pericles, Governor Cleon uses the desire for bread to poetically show the horror of famine:
Those palates who, not yet two summers younger,
Must have inventions to delight the taste,
Would now be glad of bread, and beg for it:
Cleon muses how, before his citizens were so rich (and by extension, such picky eaters), that they needed to invent new forms of food to suit their sophisticated tastes. Now, humbled by the famine, Cleon’s citizens would see a plain loaf of bread as the pinnacle of meals.
Shakespeare again alludes to the ubiquity of bread in a famous speech from Richard II, where the king finally acknowledges his own humanity by mentioning that he eats bread just like a common man. The fact that he does something so simple and human as eating bread strips the king of all pretense of divine right. Gods live on ambrosia, but Richard lives by bread.
Trenchers-
“ He scraped a trencher,”
‘Tis burnt; and so is all the meat.
What dogs are these? Where is the rascal cook?
How durst you villains bring it from the dresser
And serve it thus to me that love it not?
There, take it to you, trenchers, cups, and all;
[Throws the meat, etc., at them]
Over 11 times, Shakespeare refers to trenchers- a trencher (from the Old French “to cut”) was originally a thick, flat round of stale bread used as a plate during medieval times.
“The place setting also included a trencher, a round slice of bread from the bottom or the top of an old loaf, having a hard crust and serving as a plate. After the meal, the sauce-soaked trenchers were probably distributed to servants or the poor. Food was served on platters, commonly one platter to two diners, from which they transferred it to their trenchers.” -The Middle Ages, Everyday Life in Medieval Europe by Jeffrey L. Singman
You had musty victual, and he hath holp to eat it:
he is a very valiant trencherman; he hath an
excellent stomach.- Much Ado About Nothing
By Shakespeare’s time, upper class people no longer used trenchers, favoring wooden plates. Thus the trencher was the old-fashioned plate of common folk, which is why he frequently uses the term “trencherman” as a derogatory remark for lower-class people. Beatrice here is mocking Benedick by calling the proud nobleman no better than a yokel eating from a trencher.
“God’s Bread”-
Many of Shakespeare’s references refer to communion wafers- the little sliver of bread given at the ceremony of communion (aka the eucharist or the holy supper).
“He took my father grossly, full of bread”- The ghost of Hamlet’s father is murdered while sleeping, which means he was not allowed to receive the last rites, in particular, his final communion. As I mentioned in my “Shakespeare on Ghosts post,” The Ghost might be suffering in Purgatory because (according to Catholic beliefs), he cannot ascend to Heaven if he didn’t receive final communion. Hamlet, (and Shakespeare through him), is musing on how important one little wafer of bread is to Catholics- their souls literally depended on them!
The bread throughout the land is made of such graine as the soil yieldeth: nevertheless the gentilie commonlie provide themselves sufficientlie of wheat for their owne tables, whilest their household and poore neighbours, in some shires, are inforced to content themselves with rie or barleie; yea, and in time of dearth, manie with bread made either or bran, peason, or otes, or of altogether, and some acorns among; of which scourge the poorest doe soonest tast, sith they are least able to provide themselves better. I will not saie that this extremitie is oft so well to be seene in time of plenty as of dearth; but if I should, I could easily bring my triall.”
-William Harrison, Description of England, (1577)
Well, the short answer is No; most middle class and poor houses didn’t have dedicated ovens for baking bread. In Shakespeare’s home town of Stratford, he would depend on farmers to harvest grain, millers to grind it into flour, and bakers to work the flour into dough and bake it.
You’ve probably heard fairy tales about millers and miller’s daughters who grind grain for bread.
The Shakespeare home in Stratford Upon Avon is about half a mile away from Lucy’s Mill Weir- a man-made dam used to rise the water level of the River Avon, and divert it to a drain to turn a mill wheel.
Your eyes drop millstones, when fools’ eyes drop tears. -Richard III

By Shakespeare’s day, every town in England had a mill that harnessed the power of water to turn a wheel that operated a heavy circular rock called a millstone designed to crush corn and wheat into flour to bake bread. It was the baker’s job to take the flour and add yeast (which was usually run off from beer or wine) to make the bread dough rise and then use their ovens to bake it.
Bread
Unleavened bread
Brown Bread
Communion Bread (Eucharist)
For those who don’t know- between the birth of Shakespeare’s father to Shakespeare’s own death, England’s national religion changed several times from Catholic to Protestant, and a tiny way that manifested was the celebration of the Eucharist- what Christians now call “Holy communion.”
As I mentioned before, In Hamlet, (a play obsessed with rituals about death), The Ghost agonizes about how he was denied the rite of Eucharist before death. When Elizabeth I took the throne, she changed the very meaning of bread. Medieval Catholics believed that during the ceremony of communion, the bread literally became the body of Christ, (a moment referred to as transubstantiation), which meant that Catholics believed that every Sunday, they could have a little piece of God himself, (albeit a small one), inside them and carry it with them. Elizabethan protestants changed the ritual into a memorial, a kind of passion play, to remind people of Christ’s sacrifice with no mention of transubstantiation. It must have been very difficult, (perhaps even impossible) for Catholics like Shakespeare’s parents, to completely redefine their relationship to this ritual they’d practiced their whole lives. It makes sense that some Catholics would rather practice their beliefs in secret, (even with the risk of ruinous fines and prison), to keep their faith in their own way. This was the power that a tiny piece of bread had in these people’s minds.
Sources:
Websites:
Life in Elizabethan England 19: Food
Eucharistic Doctrine in the Church of England 1534–1934: An Overview — The Anglican Way
Food & Drink in the Elizabethan Era – World History Encyclopedia
https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/blogs/recipe-honeyed-flatbreads/
http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2014/03/elizabethan-bread.html?m=1
Videos
The Most Important Job In The World – The Baker
How to Make a MEDIEVAL TRENCHER – Torte Bread
Personal visit to the Grist Mill
Happy 9/25! If you’ve never watched the 1980 movie 9 to 5 before, it’s a wonderful classic comedy, and of course, it’s a great way to honor the incomparable Dolly Parton, who played Dora Lee. Today I’d like to discuss the plot and themes of this movie, and compare them to classic Shakespearean comedy.
The themes of 9 to 5 are truly universal, and it should never be described as a ‘chick comedy’- the same dehumanizing nature of capitalism and the unfair concentration of wealth is something everyone with a job can relate to. Just look at the lyrics of Dolly’s song:
In spite of the upbeat tune, Dolly hits on some serious grievances that working people have had since Shakespeare’s day and even older
Women taking over male institutions for comedic purposes is not new- in the ancient Greek comedy Lysistrata, women take over the Acropolis- mocking the pointless fighting of the Peloponnesian War. Like all comedies, you can see it from two sides- From a liberal lens, the men are so dumb and so self absorbed Ithat women could easily solve this conflict. From a conservative lens, you could see it as a cruel satire – things have gotten so bad that even a woman could do a better job than the men in power. Likewise- 9 to 5 works both as a progressive ode to women in the workplace, a universal condemnation of unbridled 80s capitalism, and a conservative absurdist look at work- stay in your lane, work up the ladder and eventually you’ll get noticed.
I bring this up because that’s how Shakespeare wrote his comedies, criticising institutions but not outright rejecting them. In addition, Shakespeare lived in a time of economic revolution- he saw workers directly rebel against corrupt local lords during the Diggers Revolt of the early 1600. Though their efforts never succeeded in his time, the Diggers inspired the democratic form of free enterprise that America was built upon. After all, monopoly is very close to monarchy.
Sexism is a theme in Shakespearean comedy, especially in Measure For Measure, the play in which a corrupt man in a position of authority, tries to take advantage of a nun. Angelo, the antagonist of the play represents how in patriarchal society, Sexual Assault and inequality is extremely prevalent, and very hard to fight against. I’ll discuss this further in my podcast later this week. For now, let’s just say that there is a direct link between Measure For Measure, 9 To 5, and the #metoo era.


Violet, a senior supervisor and Hart’s second in command, is a woman trying to succeed in a man’s world. Of the three leads, she seems the least traditionally feminine- she has no husband, wears dark clothes, minimal makeup and jewelry, and devotes herself to her work, and has given her time, energy, and creativity to the job. The cruel irony is, even though she subverts her femininity, she’s never seen as anything other than “Hart’s girl.” She’s passed up for promotions, Hart steals her ideas and takes the credit, and even though she is a senior supervisor, Hart forces her to get him his coffee as if she has nothing better to do. Violet is a scathing critique of corporate culture, and she dreams in her fantasy to take Hart’s coffee, and give him a taste of his own toxic medicine.
Violet’s Shakespearean counterpart is Viola from Twelfth Night. To succeed in a man’s world, Viola disguises herself as a man and gets a job. She is quickly rewarded and noticed once she hides her identity as a woman. This must have been extremely subversive for the 1600s.
If we compare Violet’s “I’m not a girl,” speech with Viola’s “In faith, they are as true of heart as we,” both speeches show a woman who is asking for equality.
Both speak of suffering in silence, waiting for a man to notice them. In Viola’s case, she wants her boss, Duke Orsino to realize she’s a woman and fall in love with her, while Violet wants to be treated as a grown woman and an employee. Both speeches are about a man who is blinded by his preconceived notions of what a woman is, and the women eloquently shatter them.

VIOLET: You gave that promotion to Bob Enright instead of me? I trained him for God’s sake! Oh, so it’s the old boys club. I’m going, but before I do, I have one more thing to say. Don’t you ever refer to me as your ‘girl’ again. I am no girl. I am a woman. W-O-M-Y-N! I’m not your wife, your mother or your mistress. I’m your employee and I expect to be treated equally, with a little dignity and a little respect! Oh, come off it, Doralee. Everyone knows you and Mr. Hart are having an affair.
Violet represents the best of working women, and the worst of how they are treated.
At first glance, Dora Lee seems like a naive blond country bumpkin. She also appears, (as Violet alluded to earlier), to be having an inappropriate relationship with her boss. In reality, she is another victim of Hart’s cruelty. Because she’s Hart’s secretary, he feels entitled to a relationship with her, (even though both Dora Lee and Hart are married). Even worse, Hart openly flirts and leers at Dora Lee and makes up excuses to ogle and pinch and harass her. Why does she put up with this? First, because she knows how this kind of behavior is encouraged in all workplaces. This is why in her revenge fantasy, Dora Lee subjects Hart to the same kind of harassment that she has endured, before hog tying him like the sexist pig he is!
As you might have guessed, Dora Lee’s Shakespeare avatar is Isabella- the nun from “Measure For Measure” in Shakespeare’s darkest comedy, Isabella is a nun who tries to plead for clemency to an unjust judge. He then offers a horrific quid pro quo bargain- he will pardon her brother and save him from execution, but only if she sleeps with him.
Ha! Little honor to be much believed,
And most pernicious purpose! Seeming, seeming!
I will proclaim thee, Angelo; look for't:
Sign me a present pardon for my brother,
Or with an outstretch'd throat I'll tell the world aloud
What man thou art.
While Isabella threatens to tell the world on Angelo, Dora Lee favors a more… aggressive approach:
DORALEE: What! You’ve been telling everyone I’m sleeping with you! That explains why everyone’s been treating me like a dime store floozy! They all think I’m banging the boss! And you love it, don’t you. It gives you some sort of cheap thrill, like knocking over pencils and picking up papers. I’ve put up with your grabbing and chasing me around the desk, ‘cause I need this job, but this is the last straw! I’ve got a gun out there in my purse and up to now I’ve been forgiving and forgetting ’cause that’s the way I was brought up but I swear, if you say another word about me, I’ll get that gun of mine. And I’ll change you from a rooster to a hen with one shot!
Like Isabella, Dora Lee’s speech emphasizes her Christianity, (note the use of the term: “forgiving and forgetting”) but unlike the nun, Dora Lee makes it clear in no uncertain terms that she NEED NOT, SHOULD NOT, and WILL NOT put up with Hart’s behavior.
Judy is the new girl at the company. In addition to being an important fish-out-of water character who helps explain the plot to the audience, Judy has the most dynamic arc in the movie. She starts as a divorcee with no home, no job experience, and no husband. Her vulnerability makes Hart eager to take advantage of her, like he did Dora Lee. Fortunately, Violet and Dora Lee warn Judy and she quickly makes friends with them.

Because of her kind nature, Judy is disgusted by Hart’s callousness and cruelty. This is why her fantasy for doing away with Hart paints her as a fearless hunter, scaring him and destroying him, like he did poor meek creatures whose heads he mounts on his office wall:
Judy grows from being a broken woman to a strong, valuable ally whose kindness is seen as a strength, not a weakness. Her husband even comes back and tries to get back together with her and, for the first time, Judy stands up for herself and says no. She had an easy out- become a wife and mother again, but finds strength from her friends and realizes she deserves better than him. By the end of the film, she becomes the heart of the team.
To conclude my Analysis, let’s look at the scene at the bar between all three women:

V: What a rat.
D: What a liar.
J: What a creep.
D: To think he told everybody
I was sleeping with him…
J: It’s so unfair. Just so unfair.
V: Twelve years of service,
and he shoots me down.
J: We’ve got to do something. He can’t treat people like that.
V: Do? What’s to do? Quit?
D: – I can’t quit.
V: – It’s the same all over.
J: Look, couldn’t we just all get together and complain?
V: – Complain to who?
Let’s face it- We’re in a pink-collar ghetto.
J: Let’s have another drink.
And this:
To whom should I complain? Did I tell this,
Who would believe me? O perilous mouths,
That bear in them one and the self-same tongue,
Either of condemnation or approof;
Bidding the law make court'sy to their will:
Hooking both right and wrong to the appetite,
To follow as it draws!
Measure For Measure, Act II, Scene 4
First off, let’s address the obvious parallels- both Dora Lee and Isabella have been assaulted and harassed and the man’s defense is exactly the same: “no one will believe you.” Both women know that in a patriarchial society society, both the offender and the judge allow this kind of culture of sexual abuse, which leads to a vicious cycle. As Violet points out, all companies have the same attitude towards women, which means that even if they quit, they’ll just find another Hart if they go work someplace else.

What Shakespeare doesn’t mention is that Hart’s view of women is intertwined (get it?) with his attitude towards his employees- female and male. He has no interest in them other than as objects to improve his wealth and status, which is also true in most companies. Violet’s phrase “pink collar ghetto” refuses to the all-too common practice of putting women in low-paying jobs with no chance for advancement.
What Would Shakespeare Do? not much- I think I’ve emphasized that the themes, characters, and clever satire of 9 to 5 perfectly parallel Shakespearean comedies like Measure For Measure, Twelfth Night, and others. Nevertheless, the fact that the same issues workers in general and women in particular are just as prevalent in Shakespeare’s day as in 1980, and today, means we have quite a way to go to have a truly egalitarian a workplace, so hopefully some of you will watch the movie and get inspired to change the world like Violet, Judy, and Dora Lee!

Happy Battle Of Actium Day! On this day in 31BC, Marc Antony and his Egyptian army faced off against the might of Octavius Caesar! Here’s a documentary to explain more:

On August 25th, 2026, the world lost an incredible performer. Notable for his film roles in Clue,Muppet Treasuren Island It, the Rocky Horror Picture Show, as well as countless voice-over roles in film, TV, and audiobooks, Mr Curry had an incredible onstage personality and a versitile, commanding voice that landed itself well to slimy villains, megalomaniacal tyrants, and delicate fey characters.
If you’re familiar with his work, you probably won’t be surprised that Curry was a classically trained stage actor with equally impressive credits onstage. He originated the role of Mozart in Amedeus, played Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pirate King to great acclaim, and won numerous theater awards on both sides of the Atlantic.
For a while, I’ve wanted to honor this great performer, but I couldn’t find a way to do it on this platform. That is until I found this:
This was a 1978 British TV mini series about the life of Shakespeare, with Mr Curry as the title character. This is why I will provide a series of summaries of these episodes and discuss how Mr Curry adds to the mythos and historiography of Shakespeare
We’re all dying, for poets it just comes earlier
Christopher Marlowe
We begin with Hamnet, no not Shakespeare’s ill-fated son, but Hamnet Sadler, Shakespeare’s friend from Stratford (and his son’s godfather). The fish-out-of water from Stratford has come to pass along messages (and a roasted chicken) to Shakespeare. As he delivers it, Shakespeare boasts about his success as an actor, performing in Doctor Faustus and winning the acclaim of both his fellow actors and the public. The problem is… this tale is a lie; Shakespeare is just a horse valet for the theater, while the brash and flamboyant Christopher Marlowe (Ian McShane), is the greatest playwright in London…for now.
Dead shepherd, now I see thy saw of might;
Whoever loved, that loved not at first sight?
William Shakespeare- As You Like It
The title refers to how Shakespeare falls in love with theater at first sight, and how London immediately falls in love with his talents.
He’s a kind of ambitious country boy who learns fast” driven by the intense, fast-paced survival energy of the Elizabethan age.
Curry’s Shakespeare is full of energy and bravado. This is best demonstrated in the scene where he gets out of a cart full of straw, jumps up to the rafters of the Globe, jumps onstage, recites Faustus, and sings! He has a fiery energy and you can see how this Shakespeare is a man of ambitious energy, yet still possessed of an idealistic soul.
Ian McShane by contrast, is witty and world-weary with a dangerous edge. He has fallen out of love with theater; more interested in court intrigue. This leads him to spy for the Queen like an Elizabethan James Bond. Unlike Bond however, Marlowe is brutally murdered by agents from his own government! While all the London theater mourns his loss, his death also sets the stage for Shakespeare’s meteoric rise as the premier poet of England.
I’ll continue reviewing each subsequent episode on this page and also my podcast. Stay tuned!
Tim Curry Starred In A Forgotten Series About Shakespeare With An Impressive Cast https://share.google/skBs5Kd5NgtOnMPrO
https://share.google/skBs5Kd5NgtOnMPrO
Period Documents
Document-specific information
Creator: Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon
Title: Parish Register of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon
Date: 1558-1776
Repository: The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Stratford-upon-Avon, UK
Call number and opening: DR243/1: Baptismal register, fol. 22v
View online bibliographic record
Web
King Edward Grammar School History: https://www.kes.net/about-us/history-of-the-school/
Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust- The Second Best Bed: https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/second-best-bed/
Coffin Archive.org- The Evolution of the English Shroud: From Single Sheet To Draw-Strings and Sleeves: http://www.archive.coffinworks.org/uncategorised/the-evolution-of-the-english-shroud-from-single-sheet-to-draw-strings-and-sleeves/
You might have read my previous post about Locrine and Humber from that play. Well, today I will continue this series by discussing the other character I play, the mythical founder of Britain, King Brutus.

Now before you ask- NO, THIS IS NOT Marcus Brutus, the man who stabbed Julius Caesar. This Brutus actually lived before said conspirator, around the year 11000 BC. Writers like Geoffrey of Monmouth, writing after the Norman Conquest of England, recorded the story of Brutus as a way of getting the British people on board with a single king uniting all of the kingdoms of England.

According to Monmouth (who clearly had an influence on the writer of Locrine), Brutus was the grandson of Aeneas, the sole survivor of the infamous Trojan War. Like the ancient Greek legends of Perseus or Hercules, Brutus is exiled from Italy for accidentally killing his father, and must then create a new empire in Britain.
Brutus! there lies beyond the Gallic bounds
An island which the western sea surrounds,
By giants once possessed; now few remain
To bar thy entrance, or obstruct thy reign.
To reach that happy shore thy sails employ;
There fate decrees to raise a second Troy,
And found an empire in thy royal line,
Which time shall ne’er destroy, nor bounds confines – Diana’s speech to Brutus




To secure his empire, Brutus must tame the savage giants that rule the untamed wilderness of Britain, in a mythical battle that is still celebrated to this day.



At the beginning of the encounter, Corineus and the giant, standing, front to front, held each other strongly in their arms, and panted aloud for breath, but Goëmagot presently grasping Corineus with all his might, broke three of his ribs, two on his right side and one on his left. At which Corineus, highly enraged, roused up his whole strength, and snatching him upon his shoulders, ran with him, as fast as the weight would allow him, to the next shore, and there getting upon the top of a high rock, hurled down the savage monster into the sea; where falling on the sides of craggy rocks, he was torn to pieces, and coloured the waves with his blood- Monmouth
The island was then called Albion,[9] and inhabited by none but a few giants. Notwithstanding this, the pleasant situation of the places, the plenty of rivers abounding with fish, and the engaging prospect of its woods, made Brutus and his company very desirous to fix their habitation in it. They therefore passed through all the provinces, forced the giants to fly into the caves of the mountains, and divided the country among them according to the directions of their commander. After this they began to till the ground and build houses, so that in a little time the country looked like a place that had been long inhabited. At last Brutus called the island after his own name Britain, and his companions Britons; for by these means he desired to perpetuate the memory of his name.
2. Corineus’ Brother In Arms
Like a lot of characters in Shakespeare’s history plays, Brutus has a loyal second in command, Corineus, the mythical founder of the kingdom of Cornwall. After Brutus dies, Corineus is a sort of Lord Protector, lending his council and military experience to Locrine and his brothers:
The name of their commander was Corineus, a modest man in matters of council, and of great courage and boldness, who, in an encounter with any person, even of gigantic stature, would immediately overthrow him, as if he were a child. When they understood from whom he was descended, they joined company with him and those under his government, who from the name of their leader were afterwards called the Cornish people, and indeed were more serviceable to Brutus than the rest in all his engagements. – Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth, c1136

During these transactions, Brutus had by his wife Ignoge three famous sons, whose names were Locrin, Albanact, and Kamber. These, after their father’s death, which happened in the twenty-fourth year after his arrival, buried him in the city which he had built, and then having divided the kingdom of Britain among them, retired each to his government.









Locrin, the eldest, possessed the middle part of the island, called afterwards from his name, Loegria. Kamber had that part which lies beyond the river Severn, now called Wales, but which was for a long time named Kambria; and hence that people still call themselved in their British tongue Kambri. Albanact, the younger brother, possessed the country he called Albania, now Scotland. After they had a long time reigned in peace together, Humber, king of the Huns, arrived in Albania, and having killed Albanact in battle, forced his people to fly to Locrin for protection.

Those who sought to deface our memory,
wipe the name of Trojans from the earth
Those did I captivate with this mine arm.
And in this Isle at length I placed you.
– Locrine, Act I.i
I see Brutus as an intimidating king like Hamlet’s Father (before he became a ghost). I also see him as similar to an Old Testament patriarch like Moses or Isaac- he was led by a god to the promised land, and gave it to his children, who must now protect and defend it.


On the other hand, one could also see Brutus as a colonizer- he takes land that wasn’t his and overthrows the natural order. This is a dimension that is not explored in the original story, but our version highlights it.
It’s interesting that most of Brutus’ lines are in Trochaic, rather than iambic verse, which could be a way to emulate older forms of verse, but I also suspect that it is designed to emphasize Brutus’ commands.
From Troy to Totnes – The Tale of the Brutus Stone
Then now, my son, thy part is on the stage,
For thou must bear the person of a King.
[Puts the Crown on his head.]
Locrine, stand up, and wear the regal Crown,
Cherish and love thy new betrothed wife.
Locrine, Act I.i
Well, there you go, Hope you enjoyed this overview of the play Locrine. If you like this review, you might like to see the show itself. Click here to purchase tickets: