I’m pleased to announce that I’ve created a fully online, interactive Shakespeare class for kids ages 6-11 to start them on a lifelong journey of Shakespeare! The course will include games, videos, webquest activities, and puppet shows!
Title: Shakespeare for Kids!
Purpose:
Video trailer
The goal of this class is to introduce Shakespeare to young children in a fun and interactive way. For example, each lesson starts with a fun and funny introduction to a Shakespearean topic by our friend Puppet Shakespeare. Each class will also feature interactive games and quizzes that break down the poetry, language, characters, and plots of Shakespeare to help kids lose their “Shakes-fear” and begin engaging with classic literature
Each class builds from learning about Shakespeare to learning about the language and poetry of his plays, to finally an in-depth analysis of one play: “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” After watching videos, playing games, and filling out handouts about these topics, the student will go on a “webquest,” that is, a series of webpages that feature activities, outside websites, and a short- puppet show retelling of “Midsummer” for the student. The goal is that by the end of the course, the student will be able to understand the dialogue of the play, summarize the story, know the characters, and enjoy the poetry.
Format: Nearpod with video and web links.
Ages 6-10
Description: 2 week course, $10 per week.
Part I: Who Is Shakespeare?
Learn about Shakespeare’s life and career with an interactive timeline, handouts, and an engaging puppet show! This section will include me reading from the excellent children’s book: William Shakespeare and the Globe by Aliki.
Part II: Words, Words, Words
WIlliam Shakespeare (Or Bill as I like to call him), wrote in a very special way. Back then playwrights were called poets, so not only did he have to make plays, he had to write them so they would sound like lines of poetry.
Part III: Shakespeak
Figure out how to translate all the “thees” and “thous” that make reading Shakespeare a challenge nowadays
Part IV The Play’s the Thing!
What kinds of plays did Shakespeare write? This handy lesson will teach you about the basic types of plays Shakespeare wrote, and give you a quick summary of each!
Part V: Disney vs. Shakespeare
Poster for Disney’s Elemental, which bears many similarities to Shakespeare’s Romeo and JulietContinue reading →
This is a story of two boys, centuries apart, but united by their love of theater in general, and the Globe Theater in particular. The first is William Shakespeare, whose story Aliki tells from his birth, to his boyhood days, to his rise to prominence in the theater. The second is Sam Wannamaker, the man who spearheaded the project of re-building the Globe Theater from 1949 to the first performance of the Globe in June of 1997.
Aliki tells this story in the format of an Elizabethan play, dividing it into five acts. Acts I-4 tell the story of Shakespeare’s life while Act V focuses on Sam Wannamaker pursuing his dream. The book concludes with a chronology of Shakespeare’s plays, and a table of his most famous words and expressions, illustrated with adorable characters.
Illustrations: Medium and Style of Illustration
Like many of her books, Aliki’s illustrations are layered and detailed. She uses ink pen outlines to draw her characters, but then fills them in with bright, vibrant colors. She then painstakingly shades them using the crosshatching technique, to create textures that are complex but have a hand-drawn almost impressionistic feel. The characters aren’t ultra-realistic, and the color palette is limited mainly to bright primaries and warm browns, making it look like a child’s box of crayons or colored pencils. This book is designed to appeal to children with its hand-drawn quality.
Format:
Cover- The cover makes the subject of the book clear to the audience. We see Shakespeare and Globe Theater, but also illustrated moments from his plays. This helps establish that this is not only a biography, it is an introduction to Shakespeare’s plays and poems as well.
Front Matter: The book opens with four pages of quotes from Shakespeare’s plays illustrated with fairies, pipers, and Elizabethan men and women. There is no half-title, no frontispiece and no Half title verso.
Title page verso (copyright page) In the center of the copyright page is an Illustration of Shakespeare standing atop a globe, over the famous lines: “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Below the quote in very small letters is the copyright date, a short summary, the ISBN data, card catalog information, and the typography information.
Title Page The title is laid out on a white background with a thin black border. Below the title is an image of a boy (presumably Sam Wanamaker), assembling a paper model of Shakespeare’s globe, with a portrait of Shakespeare in the background. This helps establish that this biography focuses on both Shakespeare and Wanamaker, and makes the reader excited to see the real Globe brought to life in full illustration.
Table of Contents As stated before, the book is organized like an Elizabethan play, so rather than Chapter 1, etc. the book has five Acts with 1-4 scenes in them. Each chapter in the table of contents is labeled with a description that sets the scene; either a location (like London, Stratford, The Globe), or what will happen in the scene (such as “Building” or “Uncovering”). The table then details four appendices that are part of the back matter.
Preface: The Preface is referred in the book as an aside, (an Elizabethan theater term meaning something spoken between a character and the audience). This preface acknowledges that, because of the lack of surviving historical information on William Shakespeare, Aliki, like many Shakespearean biographers, has to use some guesswork to fill out the narrative of his life. A second preface (referred to as a Prologue), introduces the story of the book, (namely the lives of Will Shakespeare and Sam Wanamaker). This preface mimics how in Shakespeare’s plays, a prologue would tell the audience what would happen before the narrative started.
Back Matter/ Appendices: There are four appendices in the back matter- A table of Shakespeare’s collected works, a timeline of the book’s events from 1564-1999, an illustrated list of Shakespearean words and expressions, and finally a list of Shakespearean sites to visit in London and Shakespeare’s home town of Stratford Upon Avon. These appendices show the reader that Shakespeare has an important role in history and in the English language, and encourage the reader to learn more about him.
Value As an Educational Tool
This story not only tells Shakespeare’s life, it also introduces the reader to his plays and his influence on the English language through the illustrations and frequent Shakespearean quotations. The reader also gains an insight into Elizabethan life and culture by following Will’s journey from Stratford to London. Finally, by juxtaposing Shakespeare’s life with Sam Wannamaker’s, the reader sees Shakespeare through Sam’s eyes as he works his whole life to restore Shakespeare’s Globe to its former glory. The reader develops a love of Shakespeare, (or at least an empathetic respect), and may feel empowered to read more about Shakespeare, see his plays or maybe even become a Shakespearean artist in the future. In short, Aliki’s book brings the world of Shakespeare to young readers in a way that is beautiful to look at, full of insight, and with enough supplemental materials to encourage them to learn more.
Overall Impression:
Like Prospero’s magic in The Tempest, this story is magically told- it is not intended to create a totally realistic representation of Elizabethan life, but to give an exciting, colorful impression of Will’s life and work to the reader. Due to the scant historical details of Will’s life, Aliki chose not to do a standard biography, but, like Shakespeare’s own history plays, to tell a historically authentic story, rooted in truth that brings a time and a place to life, while portraying it an exciting and visually appealing way.
Citation:
Aliki. (2000). William Shakespeare & the Globe. HarperCollins Publishers.
I am just ecstatic to talk about this year’s hit Broadway Musical Six. It swept the Tonys, and has opened up touring productions across the country, and I JUST GOT TO SEE IT!
This vibrant, clever retelling of Tudor her-story was created by TOBY MARLOW & LUCY MOSS in association with the Chicago Shakespeare Festival. The show is incredibly smart, and creative, and delves into the lives of some fascinating women, re-told as a singing contest with the characters singing their lives for you to judge what it was like being the queen of England and living with the turbulent and fickle Henry VIII.
What really appeals to me in this show is that like Hamilton, the musical takes these six semi-mythical women and tells their story in a way that is fresh and exciting. It bridges the gap between Tudor History and the modern-day by equating being a queen with being a celebrity, with all the drama of ambitious parents, romantic drama, public opinion, and even being exploited and sexualized by a male-dominated society. This comes across in the music, the costumes, the lyrics, and even the lighting!
Why “Six” Slaps
The costumes are brilliant and iconic. Catherine Of Aragon is like a cross between Beyonce, a saint, and a medieval knight. The lighting is incredible! You could tell the whole story using the lighting design as it pulsates, dances, changes into different colors, turns into different shapes, and finally flashes the name of the show in triumphant gold letters.
One particularly brilliant way the music works in “Six” is the fact that it uses the song “Greensleeves” as a motif both musically and thematically. One big theme of the show is how, unlike Henry VIII, most of the history of his six queens is lost and replaced by legends and even songs. The first line of the show is the famous rhyme about their fates: “Divorced. Beheaded. Died. Divorced. Beheaded. Survived.” As the video above helps illustrate, Marlowe and Moss know that most people only know the rhyme about their deaths and the myth that Henry wrote a song about one of them; that their lives are overshadowed by their deaths and the misconceptions that people have written over the years. Howard Ho points out how the song musically forces itself into the first number, “Ex Wives,” but by the end of the show, the six queens break free from these musical bars! You can hear the change of key and notes during this performance at the Tonys, which puts the opening number and closing reprise together.
The Cast of “Six” perform live at the 2021 Tony Awards.
But how do the queens go from “one word in a stupid rhyme,” to a group of powerful, individual queens singing in harmony, without the man who made them famous? That’s what the solo numbers in “Six” do so incredibly well- tell each queen’s solo stories as rocking ballads, hilarious dis-tracks, soulful love songs, and… well stay tuned.
Catherine of Aragon was Henry’s first wife and is still universally beloved, even though Henry decided to divorce her. As the epitome of a stand-alone power queen, it makes sense that Six modeled her character, costume, and songs after Beyonce, with a Shakira-inspired Spanish beat for good measure:
My favorite thing about her solo, “No Way” is how the writers paraphrase her real-life speech during the divorce trial in 1529. Below are the lyrics and the real speech:
Alas, Sir, where have I offended you? Or what occasion have you of displeasure, that you intend to put me from you? I take God and all the world to witness that I have been to you a true, humble and obedient wife, ever conformable to your will and pleasure. This twenty years and more I have been your true wife, and whether it be true or no, I put it to your conscience.
— Katherine of Aragon, 1529
2. Anne Boleyn
In some ways, the version of Anne Boleyn in “Six” is less a pop version of the real queen and more of a commentary on the nature of celebrity. If you watch the video, you can see how in life she was admired for her beauty and fashion but hated for her comments on Queen Katherine, her scandalous love affairs, and her brash nature. This explains the spiky pop-punk princess look they gave her, (which evidently resonates with many audiences since I saw at least two girls cosplaying as Anne in the audience). Sort of like a celebrity who gets canceled on Twitter or Princess Diana, Anne shows how a person can be undone when they dare challenge an established order, especially the Royal Family.
After the show, I found it a bit weird that they portrayed Anne Boleyn as a jetsetting airhead, but then again she is one of the best-known queens in history, so they can get away with it. In reality, Anne Boleyn was highly educated and a member of an ambitious and social climbing family who basically pushed her to woo Henry. As you can see in this clip from “Anne Of A Thousand Days,” Henry and Anne’s family bullied her constantly to become the King’s mistress after HE ALREADY GOT HER SISTER PREGNANT, so Anne knew that the only way to keep Henry from ruining her life was to convince him to divorce Katherine of Aragon and marry her.
Of course, this strategy didn’t save Anne in the end, which says more about how cruel Henry VIII was, chewing up women and spitting them out in his ravenous quest for a son. So is this an accurate portrayal of Anne’s life? No. Is it fun, ABSOLUTELY!
III. Jane Seymore
I’m more than I seem, or am I?
“Six” The Musical.
This version of Jane Seymore was inspired by Adele, so appropriately, she has a heart-wrenching power ballad about her turbulent relationship with Henry. Sadly, we don’t know much about Jane’s real life, so the song takes some liberties. If you go to the Hampton Court Website, you can actually vote as to whether Jane was a devoted wife or a social climbing gold-digger. Probably the real woman was something even more complicated, though we’ll never know for sure.
IV. Anne of Cleaves
Anne of Cleaves is the funniest part of the show! Many of us have heard the story that Henry divorced Anne after he found her ‘ugly.’ What “Six The Musical” does is amend the story, by pointing out that after he divorced her, Henry gave her a castle and a huge retainer, allowing her to live like a queen, without being married to a king! Accordingly, her song is a Rhianna-style dis track that shows off her awesome lifestyle, and spits in Henry’s stupid face!
As fun as this, rags-to-riches story is, the truth is less fun- Anne was the sister of a German duke, so Henry’s lord Chancellor Thomas Cromwell probably forced Henry to marry her for diplomatic reasons (source: Hampton Court: “Anne of Cleaves”). Naturally, Henry didn’t like being told what to do- I suspect he resented Anne before even meeting her because he didn’t get to pick her himself.
As for whether Anne was actually ugly, the truth is really surprising- Henry actually disguised himself as a peasant during a masked ball when he first courted Anne, and she foundhim repulsive. At the time, Henry was 49 years old, and in very poor health. As such, he was intermittently impotent and blamed his inability to conceive a child with her on her supposed ugliness to save face.
Even though Anne in the show hates Henry, in reality, once the marriage was annulled, Anne and Henry remained good friends for years! She attended his next wedding to Katherine Howard, and, just like in the show, Henry treated her much better after the divorce:
‘YOU SHALL FIND US A PERFECT FRIEND, CONTENT TO REPUTE YOU AS OUR DEAREST SISTER. WE SHALL, WITHIN FIVE OR SIX DAYS …DETERMINE YOUR STATE MINDING TO ENDOW YOU WITH £4000 OF YEARLY REVENUE…YOUR LOVING BROTHER AND FRIEND.’
Henry VIII, 1548, six months after their wedding, when the annullment went through.
V. Katherine Howard
Without question, Katherine Howard is portrayed as the most tragic of Henry’s six wives and her song is a huge sucker punch. The writers never let you forget that Katherine’s first affair was when she was 13, and she died at age 19. Like Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymore, Henry picked Katherine for his queen among his ladies in waiting and her song “All You Wanna Do” satirizes his and many other men’s lustful appetites. The song begins as a raunchy, sexy pop ballad in the vein of Britney Spears’ “Toxic” and “Womanizer” about Katherine Howard’s love affairs, but then devolves into a cry for help, as Katherine confesses how she was abused, used, and manipulated by the men in her life, (including her own cousin Thomas Culpepper) until she was beheaded in 1542. It masterfully satires both Henry’s cruelty and the hypersexualization of teenage pop stars which certainly took its toll on Britney Spears and Ariana Grande, Katherine’s major ‘Queenspirations.’
VI. Katherine Parr
Historically, Katherine Parr had to turn away her fiancee Thomas Seymore (just like Anne Boleyn was previously engaged to Henry Percy) once the king set his eyes on her for his wife, so her song is a sad, soulful Alicia Keys-inspired bittersweet song where she tearfully says goodbye to Thomas to spare his feelings and probably his life.
Not only does this song once again show how Henry’s selfishness and his lust ruined the lives of the women he married, (as well as the men who already wanted to marry them), but it also sets up the main idea of the show:
His-Story overthrown
In the final number, the wives turn the tables on Henry- they have spent centuries being defined by him, but in reality, he is just as much defined by them! Going forward, history should not define these great women as just, “The Six Wives of Henry the Eighth,” but to celebrate their individual lives and contributions to history. Katherine Parr mentions this when she points out that in life, she fought to allow women to be educated, she wrote books, and was a scholar of theology. Historically, Henry and Katherine would argue about religion and he nearly executed her after she disagreed on points of theology, but Katherine kept her life by claiming she was “Not disagreeing with [him], but simply learning from [him].”
I Don’t Need Your Love is sung by Catherine Parr in SIX: The Musical. The first part of the song refers to her love of Thomas Seymour, whom she probably wanted to marry rather than Henry (and did marry after Henry’s death). However, the song also protests at the fact that women are often defined by their relationship with men, rather than as people in their own right. Catherine wants to be remembered for what she did, rather than the men she married or loved.
Katherine Parr, Six.
The final number completes the idea of the ‘historemix’ by having the Six queens/pop stars come up with a re-imagined happy ending for themselves, one that doesn’t include the pain that Henry inflicted on them: Katherine A becomes a singing nun, (like Whoopi Goldberg in Sister Act), while Anne Boleyn starts writing lyrics for Shakespeare (which is a fun idea since he does mention “Greensleeves” twice). Jane Seymore forms a band with her many surviving children, Katherine Howard goes solo, and Katherine Parr joins the other queens in a supergroup. It’s not at all historical, but it is a fun and sweet way to put an epilogue on these (mostly) tragic lives.
It’s odd, however, that the show invents an epilogue instead of talking about the six queen’s greatest legacy- Queens Elizabeth and MaryI. For a show that wants to highlight the often-forgotten legacy of these queens, it is an odd oversight. Remember Catherine and Anne gave birth to queens who eventually ruled England without a king. Jane Seymore gave birth to a king, and Catherine Parr helped raise them and restored them to the line of succession- She’s the reason her stepdaughters were able to become queens in the first place.
My issues with the epilogue aside, it is great to see history be recontextualized and shared in such an accessible way. We all know that European history is dominated by the names of white guys- king whoever, duke what’s-his name. To see important women in history be given a voice by a multi-ethnic cast is a great way to make it resonate, and using the metaphor of pop stars works extremely well in this context- these women mostly didn’t choose stardom, but they deserve it for what they went through.
Brava.
Educational links related to the six wives of Henry VIII:
As you probably know, I love to review children’s adaptations of Shakespeare (whether direct or indirect). “The Lion King,” (Hamlet), “Encanto” (King Lear), and of course, the many adaptations of “Romeo and Juliet,” are mainstays on this website: Gnomio and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet: Sealed With A Kiss, even Pocahontas have their basic plot and characters firmly rooted in Verona Italy.
Then one day by chance, I found this book in a local park, and I knew I had to review it!
THe Premise
This is a simple re-telling of the story of Shakespeare’s play that focuses on just the young lovers. You feel for these cute little animals and in a way, making them a kitty and a dog smitten with puppy love, makes them more understandable and sympathetic than Shakespeare’s youthful teenagers, who indulge in violent delights without using their human reason.
What It Keeps
The Story
The book keeps the feud between the two families, has the young lovers meet in disguise at a ball, fall in love on a balcony, get married, and amazingly, DIE! Laden still manages to tell the story in a kid-friendly way, though giving it tragic weight.
THe Language
The book opens with a rhyming prologue, which, although it isn’t in sonnet form, has the same function as Shakespeare’s prologue- to explain the plot before we see it played out in the book, thus giving the whole story a sense of dramatic irony. Plus, as you can see, Laden also imitates Shakespeare’s love of wordplay with metaphors and puns, (a tale of tails), and alliteration to give the dialogue some wit and effervescence. Reading it gave me giggles like I’d just popped open some champagne.
What it changes: Spoiler alert
All throughout, Laden makes small changes to simplify the plot and remove characters that don’t directly impact the main plot. The characters of Lord/Lady Capulet and Lord/Lady Montegue, The Nurse, Paris, Peter, the servants, and the friars are completely absent, turning an already brief play into an even more compressed story.
Like a lot of animal retellings I’ve seen of this story, the author recasts the human leads as animals that are natural enemies- in this case, cats and dogs. This makes the story easier for kids to understand- as I’ve said before, it’s often difficult to keep track of who belongs to which house in Shakespeare’s version. All you need to know is that Romeo and his brothers are cats and Juliet’s family are dogs.
Funnily enough, my daughter actually complained that the story would’ve been better if Juliet were a cat instead of Romeo, which I agree with for very specific reasons. The character of Tybalt is named after a character from a prose story called “Reynard the Fox,” who had the epithet, Prince of CATS. Mercutio annoys Tybalt by taunting him with this title before challenging him to a duel:
Tybalt: What would you with me? Mercutio: Good Prince of Cats, nothing but one of your nine lives! Romeo and Juliet, Act III, Scene i.
It would’ve been a funny Shakespeare easter egg to have Juliet and Tybalt be portrayed as cats, but I understand why they went with dogs- Drooliet is a hilarious pun, and having Tybalt be a vicious, rabid dog helps set him up as a fearsome antagonist.
I suppose you’re wondering, how can the author keep Shakespeare’s tragic ending in a children’s book? Well, like Shroedinger’s cat, she manages to make Romeow die and not die at the same time. He gives Drooliet one of his 9 lives, allowing them both to ‘die’ and then come back for a happy ending. It’s a brilliant way to nod at the original, while also keeping the kid-friendly tone.
My Reaction
This book is really fun and very enjoyable for kids, parents, and teachers who want to introduce kids to Shakespeare at an early age!
Just below you can watch the book being read by actress Hayle Duff:
Hello everyone! I’m back from break and happy to celebrate one of my favorite holidays with you- the one that gave its name to one of Shakespeare’s greatest comedies- Twelfth Night
I’ve been in this play three times and I’m continually struck by how fun, romantic, and progressive it is. It raises questions about gender roles, social norms, bullying, and even catfishing and heteronormativity! It’s a fascinating and thought-provoking play and it’s my favorite of Shakespeare’s comedies!
Shakespeare’s early comedies are about young love, infatuation, and being ‘madly in love’ (sometimes literally). His middle plays are about mature relationships between men and women and the need for commitment. I would argue that Twelfth Night, (and possibly Much Ado About Nothing), are the best examples of Shakespeare telling meaningful stories about romantic relationships.
Images from various productions and paintings of “Twelfth Night.”
In honor of “Twelfth Night,” I’ve created a coupon for my course on Shakespeare’s comedies from now till January 31st: Get $10 off my class “Shakespeare’s Comic Plays” with coupon code HTHESYTIT110 until Jan 31, 2023. Get started at https://outschool.com/classes/shakespeares-comic-plays-868BR5hg and enter the coupon code at checkout.
To finish I wanted to give you a complete production of Twelfth Night for your viewing pleasure, but I can’t decide which one, so I will post a bunch today!
1. 1996 TV movie starring Geoffrey Rush (Pirates of the Caribbean)
No, you aren’t hallucinating. This is a clip from the short-lived Warner Brothers kids cartoon show “Histeria,” an educational variety show, sort of like Horrible Histories or “Who Was.” This clip is a song about the life of Henry VIII.
The show was produced by Worner Brothers for the WB back in 1996. It starred many successful voice actors from other WB projects like Billy West (Renn and Stimpy), Tess McNeill (Tiny Toon Adventures), and Frank Welker (The current voice of Curious George). In addition, the show was created by Tom Ruegger, Executive Producer of Warner Animation, who also created Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, and Pinky and the Brain. Those of you who grew up in the 90s know that the WB occasionally sprinkled their shows with educational sketches especially with Animaniacs:
So the idea of using these creative people to create a show about history was not a bad one in and of itself. It could have been a modern-day Schoolhouse Rock. The problem is that the characters are TERRIBLE.While Tiny Toons had likeable characters who were the modern-day successors to classic Warner characters like Buster Bunny, Plucky Duck, and Hampton pig, Histeria has lame characters nobody knows or has any interest in like Froggo, World’s Oldest Woman, and Big Fat Baby. In addition, there is no through line to any of these sketches so it seems like a bunch of random skits. While the Animaniacs was about crazy weird characters trying to escape from the Warner Bros. lot, it seems unclear as to why these characters are talking to me about history.
In short, Histeria feels like a bunch of talented people were forced to make it, and they gave little thought to how to make it a popular series. Still, the animation is good, the voice acting is top-notch, and occasionally, the jokes land very well, and the songs are very catchy. Not surprisingly, my favorite song is this one, where the cast summarizes in song, all 37 plays of William Shakespeare:
One really fun thing I like to see each Thanksgiving is the live previews of some of Broadway’s hottest shows. You may remember that I first became acquainted with the musical “Something Rotten,” after seeing a live performance at the Macy’s Day Parade. I am just ecstatic to see and talk about this year’s hit Broadway Musical Six. It swept the Tonys, and has opened up touring productions across the country.
The Cast of “Six” perform live at the 2021 Tony Awards.
This vibrant, clever retelling of Tudor her-story was created by TOBY MARLOW & LUCY MOSS in association with the Chicago Shakespeare Festival.
The show is incredibly smart, and creative, and delves into the lives of some fascinating women, re-told as a singing contest with the characters singing their lives for you to judge what it was like being the queen of England, and living with the turbulent and fickle Henry VIII. What really appeals to me in this show is that like Hamilton, the musical takes these six semi-mythical women and tells their story in a way that is fresh and exciting.
Part I: Shakespeare’s “Henry VIII:” How NOT to tell a queen’s story
Around 1613, Shakespeare wrote his final play- his 10th history play which loosely told the life of English king Henry the Eighth.
I happen to know a lot about this play since I was in it back in 2008, as you can see in the slideshow above. As you might notice, this play doesn’t tell the story of all of Henry’s wives. We only see the last few years of Catherine of Aragon’s life, and the beginning of Henry’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. Most of the drama actually centers around Henry and his scheming advisor, Cardinal Wolsey. Maybe I’m biased because I played this role, but frankly, Woolsey is treated in the play as a stereotypical Machiavellian villain, who conveniently leads the king astray so he can be the hero of the play. Woolsey does all of Henry’s dirty work; taking over his government, spearheading his divorce to Catherine, and trying to dissuade the king from listening to Anne Boleyn’s Protestant ideas, dismissing her as a “spleeny Lutheran.” Shakespeare leaves it ambiguous as to whether Henry actually told Woolsey to do any of these things so the audience will blame Woosey, instead of the king.
I’ll be blunt, aside from the courtroom scene at Blackfriars, where Katherine pleads for Henry not to dissolve their marriage, and the fun dances and costumes in the scene where Anne flirts with Henry, the play is really quite boring. though I blame Jacobean censors more than Shakespeare for this. Even after the entire Tudor dynasty was dead and buried, powerful people in the English government controlled what Shakespeare could say about them.
Part II: The women take wing
During Shakespeare’s life time, the wives of Henry VIII were bit players at best. With the exception of Katherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn (who in most narratives have often been cast as either virgins or whores), the lives of Jane Seymore, Anne of Cleaves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr were barely told until the 20th century, where new feminist scholarship sparked renewed interest in these women and how they lived.
TV series like The Tudors, movies like The Other Boleyn Girl, and of course books and documentaries by
Well, I can’t yet give an objective view of the plot and characters of “Six,” because I haven’t seen it…(yet). But until then, let’s just say that like “Hamilton,” it is great to see history be recontextualized and shared in such an accessible way. We all know that European history is dominated by the names of white guys- king whoever, duke what’s-his name. To see important women in history be given a voice by a multi-ethnic cast is a great way to make it acessible.
Bravo.
Educational links related to the six wives of Henry VIII:
“There is a tendency for us to view Shakespeare as this unquestionable monolithic genius. But there is also in us all that iconoclast that wants to tear him off his pillar or plinth.”
–Dr. Katrina Marchant
There are few things that will drive a Shaespeaeran scholar more skull-shatteringly livid than when someone asks them if Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. There are dozens of YouTube rants, bile-dripping academic papers, tinfoil-hat Tweets, and of course, centuries of anti-academic book bashing and counter-bashing research on the subject. So I won’t try to settle this debate, but I think the debate itself is worth looking at.
The authorship controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory- Was some unknown writer sending scripts to Shakespeare’s company and using the actor from Stratford as a patsy, or a pen name? Is there a massive cover-up to disguise the author of the most celebrated works in the English language? If so, why? How? and what else are they hiding?
The Malleus Malefecarum, “The Witch’s Hammer,” a 15th century book that posits that there is a vast conspiracy of witches living among us.
Now if there’s one thing I’ve learned over the past four years is that it’s extremely rare to change anyone’s mind about any kind of conspiracy theory, and there are hundreds! Ancient Aliens, Bill Gates, Covid vaccine microchips, Elvis isn’t dead, The Illuminati, Kennedy Assassination, Pizzagate, Q-Anon, Trump’s Russia connections, the list goes on. Several recent studies show that the majority of Americans have heard at least one conspiracy theory, and many of us believe these theories to varying degrees. Sadly, the internet, which was designed to share information, is extremely good at sending misinformation as well.
So as an en educator and a father, I want to focus on the Shakespeare conspiracy not just because it gets my dander up, but also because, compared to these other theories, it is actually one of the least harmful. Conspiracies like the Plandemic hoax are extremely dangerous because they dissuade people from getting a life-saving treatment, and allow this pandemic to continue. By contrast, ultimately it doesn’t really matter who wrote Shakespeare’s plays, so I think this kind of exercise is useful for educators to challenge students to think critically about this low-stakes theory, and then applying the same skill to others to become better-informed thinkers.
How to break down the Shakespeare conspiracy theory
First, let’s summarize the most compelling points of the theory that Shakespeare didn’t write his plays. This is a video by director Roland Emmerich, which he made to help promote his film “Anonymous.” Emmerich dramatizes the controversy by portraying the Earl of Oxford writing the plays of Shakespeare anonymously, and sending them to Shakespeare’s company, giving the man from Stratford credit for writing them.
There’s an old saying in science that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,” and, aside from the fact that the Earl of Oxford wrote poems, there is no evidence that Oxford ever even spoke to Shakespeare’s company. In fact, almost none of this video is supported by any historical evidence. Now it would be a lot of work to refute each argument of this video point by point right? And surely I have better things to do than do a point-by-point refutation, but…
A Point-by Point refutation of the Roland Emmerich video:
– Shakespeare did leave evidence of his handwriting, just not evidence of his dramatic writing. The fact that his correspondence didn’t survive doesn’t mean there wasn’t any. The kind of cheap parchment that writers of the period used dissolved very easily, especially when they used ink with high iron content. The examples we have of Shakespeare’s writing are mainly legal records and books that were designed to last. In short, there’s no conspiracy to hide Shakespeare’s manuscripts, they simply didn’t survive.
The dedication page of the 1623 First Folio.
– We don’t know for sure that his parents were illiterate, or that his daughters were. That is based on an urban legend, not actual proof. Also, plays were not written to be read, that’s why TV viewers are viewers and the grounding are called an audience.
A. Shakespeare wrote about aristocratic people because they were paying his rent. His company was literally named “The Lord Chamberlain’s Men.” One reason why Shakespeare was more successful than Ben Johnson was that he was deferential and obsequious to the English aristocracy; he had to sing their praises to stay in business.
Dedication page of Venus and Adonis, which Shakespeare wrote to the Earl Of Southampton.
B. Every character that Emmerich mentions is not an aristocrat- Bottom is a lower-class weaver, Mistress Overdon is an inn-keeper. The only aristocrats Shakespeare ever insults are Polonius (who isn’t real), and Sir John Oldcastle in the early draft of King Henry IV, which he immediately changed to Sir John Falstaff once Oldcastle’s family members complained about it to Shakespeare’s company. Emmerich is flat-out lying when he says Shakespeare mocks the English upper class like an equal.
C. There’s a very simple explanation of how Shakespeare was able to write about the manners and lives of the English aristocratic class: he didn’t. All of Shakespeare’s comedies (except for Merry Wives which has the aforementioned Falstaff as a character), and tragedies take place in other countries like Italy, France, Sicily, or Greece. His History plays are set in England, but they dramatize events that happened 100-200 years before Shakespeare was born, meaning that he didn’t need to know too much about contemporary court politics. Furthermore, the majority of the plots he used were recycled from history books, poems, and prose romances.
It’s useful to think of Shakespeare not as a novelist like Dickens or Tolstoy and more like a TV or film screenwriter like George Lucas or Aaron Sorkin. He didn’t write based on real-life experiences or conjure new ideas out of thin air. He was a popular dramatist who adapted existing works of literature to be dramatized onstage. This is why I created my YouTube comedy series “If Shakespeare worked for Disney.” Emmerich, like many Anti-Stratfordians, is assuming that Shakespeare couldn’t have written plays about the nobility without being one himself, but that’s not what Elizabethan dramatists did- they adapted pre-existing work to fit on the public stage, which means anyone with a good education and knowledge of the theater could have written them, regardless of his or her upbringing.
If you are wondering how I could possibly know Shakespeare’s writing process,, the answer is simple: All of Shakespeare’s sources have survived, which means that I can prove that his plays are adaptations. This is a common problem with most conspiracy theories- they never take the straightforward way to explain something. Instead, they take a theory and twist facts to suit that theory. In this case, they twisted the facts about the Earl of Oxford’s life to make him look like Hamlet and based on that, they made him look like the true author of Shakespeare.
D. Honestly the handwriting is the weakest point- yes Shakespeare spelled his name differently in documents but this was before standard English spelling. The first English dictionary was at least 100 years after Shakespeare’s death. This point is clearly designed to discredit Shakespeare and make him seem uneducated. But again, this point is irrelevant when you consider that Shakespeare wrote for theater, where standard spelling is completely unnecessary.
By the way, Ben Johnson spelled his name differently in his manuscripts.
The Debate- Feelings vs. Facts. Modern vs. early modern
When I was in high school, taking my first class on Shakespeare, I watched this documentary which almost convinced me that Oxford was the true author of Shakespeare. The researcher they interviewed seemed so passionate and I wanted to believe what he said was true. But that was before I started reading about Shakespeare’s life for myself, and looked at the evidence myself.
The common traits of Conspiracy Theories from the Conspiracy Theory Handbook
If you look at many different conspiracy theories, they often exist in a form outside of normal reality, to the point where the believers have no interest in any kind of contrary evidence, logic, or any person who even questions it. Essentially the conspiracy becomes their identity, and they will virulently defend this conspiracy from anyone and anything that opposes it. Below is an explanation of the basic parts of a Conspiracy theory, with some points on how they all apply to the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy
Contradictory Beliefs:
Believers in conspiracies are motivated by feelings, not facts, and they don’t care how inconsistent those theories are. For example, the same people who believe Joe Biden lost the presidential election, also believe that the president (Joe Biden) is also being played by an actor. This might explain why many people believe that people like Christopher Marlowe wrote the works of Shakespeare, despite the fact that he died 9 years before Shakespeare started writing.
Overriding suspicion:
Again, since the believer is motivated by feelings, they are naturally suspicious of any contrary evidence and just assume anyone who contradicts them is in on the conspiracy. This is called self-sealing the conspiracy.
Nefarious intent:
One question that inevitably comes up with the Shakespeare Authorship debate is: “Who cares?” Usually, this means “Does it really matter who wrote the plays?” However, I want to use this question in this context: “Why go through the trouble to conceal who wrote these plays?” As I mentioned earlier, though Shakespeare is very famous and culturally important now, he certainly wasn’t back in his lifetime. Playwriting was not a venerated profession, and socioeconomically, Shakespeare was little better than a tailor. Why would it be worth it to conceal who wrote a few, fairly popular plays in 1616?
It would take an enormous amount of effort to conceal who wrote these plays for 400 years- you’d have to pay off publishers, fake court records (like the one I showed you above), keep an entire court quiet, and make sure nobody ever wrote down the truth for 400 years. Why would it be worth it? This kind of logic is why the Moon Landing and the Flat Earth conspiracies don’t hold up to rational thought- there’s simply no reason to go through the effort of concealing the alleged truth. The truth itself is just easier to defend.
Something Must be wrong:
As the name implies, Anti-Stratfordians don’t so much believe in Bacon, Pembroke, Oxford, etc, so much as they actively choose not to believe in William Shakespeare of Stratford. This means they will use every bit of their energy trying to prove that theory, and won’t stop until they find something, no matter how nonsensical, to prove their Shakespeare is the real Shakespeare.
Persecuted victim:
Let me be blunt- a conspiracy is very simmilar to a delusion, and any attempt to shatter that delusion is a form of persecution for the conspiracist. The most infamous example of how conspiracy theorists can feel persecuted and empowered at the same time is the way it permeated Nazi Germany and neo-Nazi units. Hitler came to power by spreading the theory that the Jews were secretly controlling the world and Germany was persecuted, while at the same time, Germany was destined to control the world in the eyes of the Nazis. I mention this not because I think Anti-Stratfordians are Nazis (how could I watch I Claudius otherwise?), but that conspiracy theories are potentially very dangerous because they foster a self-serving victim mentality where people are constantly looking for someone to blame for their problems and they will sometimes become violent against anyone who challenges them.
Immune to Evidence
One of the most important concepts in law is the notion that someone is ixznnocent until proven guilty. Along those lines, the prima facie, the accepted truth is accepted as truth, until new evidence contradicts it. If you look at the Supreme Court mock trial for the Authorship question back in 1987, that was the conclusion they came to in the end. Though little historical evidence for Shakespeare has survived, there is NO PHYSICAL evidence that contradicts it, so in the interest of prima facie evidence, they ruled for Shakespeare.
Now real conspiracy believers never believe in the merits of contrary evidence. They will just assume it is manufactured or faulty; part of the attempts of those nefarious truth concealers to pull the wool over their eyes.
Re-Interpreting Randomness
I’ve seen many people claim that the evidence for conspiracies is not found in documents or in scientific explanation, it’s in some kind of code or cipher or series of clues that only the believers understand. As you’ll see below, some of the most famous Anti-Stratfordians claimed to find hidden codes and ciphers in Shakespeare’s plays that prove that he was concealing his true identity. They will also cite coincidental details like the fact that the crest of Edward DeVere was an eagle shaking a spear, and claim this proves his identity as the true author of the plays. When you see a theory like like this, remember, correlation is not causation. Just because a few bad things happened when a few people said “Macbeth,” does not mean Macbeth is cursed. Some things actually are coincidences and not everything has a dramatic or sinister cause. This brings me to my next point:
The real enemy of conspiracies: Disappointing facts (Spoilers ahead for the movie “Coco”)
Let’s do a little thought experiment: Let’s imagine that you were Miguel from Disney’s Coco, and you discovered that your hero Ernesto Dela Cruz murdered your grandfather Hector, but (unlike in the movie), he actually DID write the songs he said he did. How would you feel about Hector? Would you hope and pray that Ernesto lied and your virtuous grandfather was the real author? Might you even concoct a conspiracy theory to rewrite Ernesto’s history and get Hector celebrated as the real author of “Remember Me?”
I’m not suggesting that Shakespeare is guilty of murder, or any other crime (apart from usury, hoarding grain, and a few minor tax violations). What I’m trying to do is to draw parallels between two men who are icons that are beloved by their hometowns, who created work that resonates with a lot of people.
We all have a tendency to take people we admire and put them on pedestals, (like the quote at the beginning mentions), and many people try to identify with their heroes. This is really easy with Shakespeare because most of the personal details of his life have vanished, so we can imbue him with our own sensibilities. Case in point- when Mya Angelou read Shakespeare’s sonnets as a little girl, she initially thought that he was a black girl. Likewise, Eugene O’Neill and other Irish and Irish American writers have thought he might be been Irish.
Some of the most outrageous anti-Stratfordians clearly have an axe to grind because they have a family connection (real or imagined) to the man they believe to be Shakespeare. In the 19th century, Delia Bacon wanted to prove that the real author of Shakespeare’s plays was the 17th-century poet, philosopher, and essayist, SIR FRANCIS BACON. Ms. Bacon hated Shakespeare because she thought he was an illiterate sheep-poaching commoner. She, therefore, used her theory to hoist Shakespeare off his literary pedestal, and therefore elevate herself because she believed she was descended from Sir Francis (though in reality, she wasn’t).
Rather than using any kind of historical evidence to prove her theory, Ms. Bacon claimed there was an elaborate code hidden in the iambic pentameter. Subsequent literary pseudo-scholars have attempted to hack the code and prove that they can prove that Sir Francis was the real author of the plays. In the late 1800s, American politician and author Ignatius Donnelly appropriated Ms. Bacon’s theory and claimed he had found the code, which rested on the pagination of the First Folio.
Donnelly had a knack for spreading conspiracy theories; as the title page of his book shows, he also authored a book where he claimed he correctly identified the location of the lost city of Atlantis. He also hated Shakespeare because Donnelly believed he was nothing more than a businessman, exploiting the talent of others, so like Bacon, he cooked up these ‘facts’ to suit his theory in order to take Shakespeare down.
Like many conspiracy theories, Anti-Stratfordians don’t have any factual basis for the ideas they hold, they are responding to an emotional need or desire. Donnelly and Bacon wanted fame, recognition, and revenge against a man they hated. J. Thomas Looney, who proposed that the Earl of Oxford wrote Shakespeare, wanted a ‘fairy prince’ that is, a semi-mythical Bard who would lead England into a golden age. All these people were dissatisfied with the man from Stratford, so they created a Shakespeare of their own, and tried to justify his existence.
Title page of the 1623 Folio, the first complete edition of Shakespeare’s plays.
To briefly sum up why the Bacon/ Donnelly theory is false, it hinges on the page numbers of the Folio, but Shakespeare didn’t print the first Folio. If you look at the title page, it was assembled by two actors from Shakespeare’s company- Henry Condell and John Hemmings, and it was printed by Isaac Jaggard, the same man who printed Shakespeare’s Sonnets in 1609. Writers had no say in how their work was printed and in fact Jaggard actually printed the sonnets without Shakespeare’s permission! The notion that Jaggard had any interest in properly printing a secret code in the pages of his posthumous book seems to me, incredibly unlikely at best.
I’ve adapted a lesson plan about conspiracy theories to include a discussion of the Shakespeare authorship question. I’ll also include a worksheet that you can use in your classroom to distribute among your students if you choose to use it as well. I think it’s a good way to foster critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and historical curiosity, and if it prevents more people from joining Q-Anon, so much the better!
This lesson plan makes use of the Conspiracy Theory Handbook, and it has great, easy to read activities about how to spot a conspiracy theory, how to talk to a conspiracy theorist, and how to avoid being taken in by a conspiracy.
Outschool.com will be honoring the contributions of Shakespeare during the very first Shakespeare Week on March 21-27th.
course image: Immersive Guide To Romeo and JulietCourse image: Intro To Stage Combat
Course image: Shakespearean Acting Course image: The Violent Rhetoric Of Julius Caesar Course image: Basics of Shakespearean ActingCourse image: Immersive Guide To Macbeth course image: How to Write Like Shakespeare course image: Intro to Shakespeare
I’m honored to take part in this celebration, and I’m offering several aclasses which relate to Shakespeare in an engaging way. Here’s the schedule below:
If you want to sign up for one of my classes, please visit my Outschool page:
The Shakespearean Student 