Tribute to Patrick Stewart, Part 1

November 6, 2026November 10, 2026 | astronut1

I. Introduction

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.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hCl8ko_QvEojVIJXzFnUMSspRTLcS_SJ_CBPKsLrPNs/edit?usp=drivesdk

Beginnings

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:

Re-Trekking The Stars

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).

Shakespeare Moments From Star Trek

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 https://youtu.be/JWit15tvkBs?is=Dg7Dk0A6PA29kbo3

Q (John DeLancie) and Picard (Patrick Stewart) debate the virtues of the human race (Hide and Q, episode 10).

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):

Clash of the Shakespearean Titans

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.

2001-2007- I Wanna Act Like Pat

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.

Trailer for “King Of Texas”, 2002.

Playing Shakespeare

Montage of Stewart’s most iconic Shakespearean creations

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.

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.

St. Patrick

Sources:

https://geekfrontiers.com/pittsburgh-history/the-1975-star-trektacular-and-twelfth-night/

http://bardfilm.blogspot.com/2008/11/discoveries-in-undiscovered-country.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/christopher-plummer-was-a-diehard-trekkie-before-being-cast-in-undiscovered-country-4128612/

Is Romeo and Juliet Supposed to Be Scary?

October 25, 2026November 7, 2026 | astronut1

Come death and welcome, Juliet Wills It So

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.

What is Gothic Horror?

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.

Lithograph of the 1883 Lyceum Theater production of *Romeo and Juliet,* starring Sir Henry Irving and Ellen Terry

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)

Violent Delights/ Monstrous Ends

Friar Lawrence (Pete Postelwhite) warns Romeo (Leonardo DiCaprio) that “These violent Delights have violent ends.” From the 1996 movie directed by Baz Lurman.

Courtly love- the trope of star-crossed lovers requires a tantalizing distance; the feelings engendered are primarily longing and unfulfilled desire; the lovers express joy from finding love, but they also suffer as long as they cannot totally be together. In Romeo and Juliet, the distance is simply an accident of birth- they happened to be born into families that hate each other. It is a simple step to turn this fate unto something much more horrible
Romeo in particular, rather than using lawful means to overcome the stars, use violence to express their love- Romeo can and does kill for Juliet, twice. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine Romeo as a vampire or some other monster who kills to maintain his relationship. In our culture, such relationships are toxic, but the romantics ate them up.

The Play’s obsession with Death

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:

Juliet mourns the dead Romeo by Charles Diebold, 1823.

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.

Case Study- Twilight: A Failed Attempt To Make Shakespeare Cool for goth kids

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

Edward (Robert Pattinson), compares his life to Romeo. New Moon, 2009.

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

Title image for my online course 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 on Bread

October 16, 2026November 10, 2026 | astronut1

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!

So, did Shakespeare Make Bread?

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.

The Mill

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

Original Millstone from St Benedict’s Mill.

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://artaalba.ro/en/bread-in-the-Middle-Ages-was-the-essential-food-and-reason-for-religious-disputes/

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

Review: Tim Curry as William Shakespeare

August 29, 2026September 26, 2026 | astronut1

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

Episode 1: Dead Shepherd

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.

https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/william-shakespeares-family/hamnet-shakespeare/

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.

Tim Curry on Playing Shakespeare

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/

Intro to Locrine

August 9, 2026August 29, 2026 | astronut1

Title page for the 1595 edition of *Locrine.*

Locrine is an Elizabethan play, first published in 1595, whose author is, sadly, lost to history. The title page says the play was “Newly set forth, corrected, and overseen, by W.S.” As you might expect, scholars and theater practitioners have eagerly tried to prove that this means the play was written, (or at least revised), by Shakespeare. So far, no proof has been found.

“Historical” Context

The play is a tragedy based on the founding of Britain. Over 2,000 years ago, a father and his three sons flee the destroyed Troy, tame the wild landscape of England, and become its first kings. After his father’s death, the eldest son, Locrine, must defend his land from barbarian invaders with the help of his brothers.

Semi-mythical characters

Brutus is the patriarch of the Britons who, according to legend, was descended from Aeneas the sole survivor of the infamous Trojan War. Brutus preserves the legacy of Troy by founding a new city in Britain, Troynovant (New Troy), and establishing his three sons as heirs to his kingdom.

Camber, Brutus’ young son

Albanact is the great warrior whom Brutus puts in charge of Scotland. He has his hands full defending Britain against the Scithian invaders.

Camber is given Cambria, (modern day Wales)

Illustration of King Locrine from the Genealogical Chronicle of the Kings of England to Edward IV (c. 1461)

Locrine is Brutus’ eldest son, and as such he is crowned king over all Britain. According to legend, Locrine changes the capital of England from New Troy, to Locrindom, which then became London.

The Plot

Title page illustration from Locrine, 1709

The prologue

Prologue describes Prometheus’ punishment as a tragedy, and his gift is a blessing. Prometheus also warns that Zeus will be overthrow if he succumbs to his desire for Thetis
Ate the Goddess of revenge introduces the play, making it very clear that this is the fall of the royal house of Brutus.
As the play continues, we see Brutus die, leaving his kingdom to his children

4. Humber is humbled- the villainous emperor Humber tries to conquer Britain. Many battles and many tears ensure

Locrine is conquered- without giving too much away, Locrine is defeated in battle by his former wife, Gwendoline. It’s possible that, since the play was written in the last few years of the Elizabethan era, that the writer of Locrine chose Gwendolyn to be a stand in for Queen Elizabeth herself.

Gwendoline, legendary Queen regent of Britain.

A Senecan Tragedy

Locrine probably isn’t a Shakespearean play- it’s characters communicate mainly in operatic speeches that are full of passionate feelings. Plays like this are called Senecan Tragedies, based on the ancient Roman playwright Seneca.

As I mentioned in my podcast, these speeches are fun to give, but it’s a challenge to deliver them in a way that connects with an audience.

Humber’s monologue from Locrine

Dumb Shows

To illustrate key moments of the play, each act begins with a dumb show, a short pantomime which usually involves some kind of animal. For instance, when Humber defeats Brutus’ son Albanact, there is a dumb show where a crocodile kills a fish, echoing how Humber (who carries a crocodile on his shield), deceived and murdered Albanact.

Our version of Locrine chooses to use puppets instead of real animals, most notably crows and vipers. The Mexican folktales that we intertwine with the text of Locrine mention a beautiful serpent named Kwinim Tsan, which represents the power of nature.

Our team works on the great serpent puppet

Our Interpretation

https://orangemite.org/laviborayelcuervo

La Vibora e Cuervo

Our production, Víbora y cuervo: Locrine and Other Tales, pairs this origin myth with other origin myths to explore their power and purpose in our world. Orangemite.org

Poster for Orange Mite’s 2026 production of *Locrine and Other Tales*

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:

https://orangemite.org/laviborayelcuervo

Friday, August 21, 7pm – at DreamWrights, part of the York Fringe Festival

Sunday, August 23, 2pm – at DreamWrights, part of the York Fringe Festival

Sources

https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/locrine-play-curious-complicated/

Crafting A Character: Humber from Locrine

July 28, 2026August 29, 2026 | astronut1

I’m pleased to announce that I will be playing Humber, the Scithian Emperor who tried to conquer England, in a very special adaptation of Locrine in August of 2026.

What is Locrine?

Locrine is an Elizabethan play, first published in 1595, whose author is, sadly, lost to history. The play is a mythologized history of the founding of Britain, which the play calls New Troy.

Our Interpretation

Our version of Locrine is a hybrid between the original play, and stories from the indigenous people of Mexico in the huasteca region. Our director chose to reinterpret Humber as an existential threat to the natural world of Mexico- a threat to the people and the environment, who is defeated not just by Locrine’s army, but by the forces of nature themselves.

Myth vs History

The Scythian Emperor- Scythia was originally modern day Iran, but many Scithian tribes also lived in places like Ukraine and Russia. They were nomads who primarily used their skills in mounted warfare to conquer regional fifedoms, organized under a single emperor.

Function Within the Play

Ravisher of Nature- as Humber tries to conquer the people of England, he also destroys the natural world.
Usurper/ Conqueror of the Britains- in our version of Locrine, Humber’s war to conquer Britain is analogous to the European colonizers who fought to dominate America such as the French, the Dutch, and of course, the Spanish.

We are retired with joyful victory. The slaughtered trojans squeltering in their blood, infect the air with their carcasses, and are a prey for every ravenous bird.

Locrine, Act 2 Scene 6

Playing Humber

Right now, I am playing Humber as a narcissist, a man who, at his core, is deeply insecure but tries to overcompensate it by acting like an invincible monarch- one who fills the void in his soul with land, slaves, possessions, and gold. He is good at persuading people and inspiring them to fight for him, but he cares for no one but himself.

High on a bank by Nilus’ boistrous streams,
Fearfully sat the Egyptian Crocodile,
Dreadfully grinding in her sharp long teeth
The broken bowels of a silly fish.
[A crocodile swims across the stage, eating a
fish.]
His back was armed against the dint of spear,
With shields of brass that shined like burnished gold;
And as he stretched forth his cruel paws,
A subtle Adder, creeping closely near,
Thrusting his forked sting into his claws,
Privily shed his poison through his bones.
So Humber, having conquered Albanact,
Doth yield his glory unto Locrine’s sword.
Mark what ensues, and you may easily see,
That all our life is but a Tragedy. –Locrine, Act III prologue.

A snake struggling with an alligator, eventually gets the upper hand, or coil.

In the play, Humber is compared to a fearsome predator- a crocodile, which was actually the sigil on his shield. I took inspiration from the animal, and used a serpentine physicality when playing him. I also decided to give myself a crocodile smile- I keep my head down, stared my enemies in the eye, and then- struck!

Gloucester’s show
Beguiles him as the mournful crocodile
With sorrow snares relenting passengers- Henry VI, Part II.

Inspirations

From History-

Again, Locrine is not a history play and Humber, as far as we know, was not a real person. Rather than a legitimate chronicle, Locrine is a mythologized history of the founding of Britain. The Scithians never actually invaded Britain, (although some early chronicles claim that the Saxons were descended from them). Our version of Locrine conflates the foundation of Britain with the conquest of America, (specifically the struggle between English colonists and the Spanish conquistadors,) and there is one man who has come to symbolize the ruthless might and lust for gold that the Spanish had in the early conquest of the American continent more than any other Conquistador- Hernan Cortez, governor of New Spain, and conqueror of the Mexican empire.

Statue of Cortez. Notice the broken Aztec statue under his foot.

We Spaniards know a sickness of the heart that only gold can cure- Hernan Cortez (allegedly)

Cortez was a man of insatiable greed and lust for power. He was born a minor noble with a gift for diplomacy and exceptional courage. He eventually slaughtered thousands of the Mexican people, supplanted their ruler Montezuma, and razed their capital city of Tenochtitlán, rebranding it as Mexico City, capital of the New Spanish empire.

Mural on the Battle of Centla and the conquest of Tabasco, by Homero Magaña Arellano.

Like Humber, Cortez was more of an administrator than a soldier, but nevertheless, he did lead his army successfully against the native people in several key battles, where they used their cavalry and cannons to devastating effect. He also ravished hundreds of Indigenous women who sired his illegitimate children- like our Humber, he lusted for women in addition to gold.

Cortez was careful to appear pious to his soldiers and respectful to the native people he encountered, but this was a calculated act designed to get loyalty and obedience from the people around him. According to his biography, Cortez had a zero-tolerance policy for blasphemy, and told his soldiers to respect the native Mexica. Again, Cortez’s real goal was to keep his men loyal to their “pious” commander and to make the people trust him…while he robbed them blind. Talk about crocodile tears.

Cortez’s victories allowed him to build palaces for himself to rule over the Mexica, as well as a royal charter for himself, and of course, GOLD.

The Spaniards appeared to be much delighted, they seized upon the gold like monkeys, their faces flushed. For clearly their thirst for gold was insatiable; they starved for it; they lusted for it; they wanted to stuff themselves with it as if they were pigs. They went about fingering handling the streamers of gold, passing them back and forth, grabbing them one to the other babbling, talking gibberish among themselves. – Bernardino de Sahagún

In Locrine, Humber is defeated offstage and forced to starve to death in a desert wilderness. To fill in the blanks, I looked at events from Cortez’s life and death. The real Cortez died of dysentary in 1547, but I like to imagine Humber- Cortez being chased away by Locrine’s army, similar to his narrow escape from Tenochtitlán during the famous Noche Triste (30 June – 1 July 1520)

Cortez and his soldiers narrowly escape Tenochtitlán

From Shakespeare-

Shakespeare rarely writes characters who are wholy evil, so for the first three acts, I mainly thought of another Sythian conqueror- Christopher Marlowe’s Tamborlaine. He is not so

much a man as a force of nature, eager to kill, conquer, and take power and riches from the natural world.

The Roman Goddess Fortuna, with her wheel and orb.

In the later acts of Locrine however, Humber is… well humbled ater losing the war, losing his son, and losing his wife. His laments for his son bear a striking resemblance to Titus Andronicus.

Humber speech III, Scene 5, performed by One Woman Shakespeare

Verse

At the end of his life, Humber reverts to a primitive shadow of his former self- Humber is forced to hide in desert caves, and live on berries and roots. His cruel, bitter laments and desire to cast himself into the sea is almost perfect parallel to Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens.

What basilisk was hatched in this place,
Where everything consumed is to nought?
What fearful Fury haunts these cursed groves,
Where not a root is left for me to eat?
Hath fell Alecto, with invenomed blasts,
Breathed forth poison in these tender plains?
What, not a root, no fruit, no beast, no bird,
To nourish Humber in this wilderness?
My very entrails burn for want of drink,
These foul accursed groves afford no meat,
The gods, hard-hearted gods, yield me no meat.
Was ever land so fruitless as this land?
Was ever soil so barren as this soil?
No, even the climate of the torrid zone
Brings forth more fruit than this accursed grove

In Conclusion

Humber is a great deal of fun- he’s a cartoon-like villain at first, but after he loses to Locrine, he seems more human, longing to be reunited with his son. Even though he’s not the main character, he has a tragic character’s arc. In short, he’s great to play, and I hope he’ll be great to watch!

Sources

https://lostplays.folger.edu/Estrild

https://orangemite.org/laviborayelcuervo

https://historum.com/t/cort%C3%A9s-and-the-conquest-of-mexico.184401/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic

Review: Kentucky Shakespeare’s “Two Gentlemen Of Verona”

July 10, 2026July 14, 2026 | astronut1

Free Shakespeare Festival in Central Park

In Case You Haven’t Heard

Two Gentlemen Of Verona is probably Shakespeare’s first comedy, maybe even his first play. A lot of the plot devices and themes Shakespeare explores in later plays were first set down in Two Gentlemen.

The Plot

Two Gentlemen Of Verona is about two best friends, Valentine and Proteus, who start out as young men yearning for adventure and to seek their fortune in Milan. As you might have guessed from his name, Valentine finds love instead of fortune, and so does his friend Proteus. What makes the play unique is that Proteus falls in love with Valentine’s betrothed Silvia, forsaking his faithful sweetheart Julia. The two virtuous girls support each other and fight to stop Proteus from sabotaging their relationships. In the end though, Valentine forgives Proteus and Valentine takes him back, which makes the play a little controversial for modern audiences.

The Concept

What happens in Milan, stays in Milan! Shakespeare’s gleefully silly comedy is set in 1940’s Las Vegas, where love and friendship are put to the test. A charming adventure navigating a love triangle, betrayal, disguises, an escape into the forest, and a dog. -Quoted from the official program.

The play is set in 1940s Las Vegas, which works well with the theme of young, impressionable men trying to make their fortunes in a place where luck can change in an instant. Proteus goes from a lover and loyal friend to a liar and traitor. Meanwhile, Valentine’s luck changes from a favored gentleman at court, to a banished vagabond.

The performances had the air of a 1940s classic comedy, with a lot of stylized slapstick and over-the top characters. It echoes the work of Laurel and Hardy or Abbot and Costello, which I feel was a wise choice- even if the audience couldn’t understand a word of the dialogue, they could still be entertained by the actors’ over-the top comedy.

Free Shakespeare In the Park

This was my first KY Shakespeare production, and I enjoyed the overall vibe a lot. According to kyShakespeare.com, the company is enjoying its 66th year of being the longest running, non-ticketed Shakespeare festival in the United States. The company prides itself as being accessible, inclusive, anti-racist, and generally committed to welcoming all people to enjoy their shows. From what I saw from my seat on a balmy day in Olmstead Park, Kentucky Shakespeare is doing a great job accomplishing its goals. I saw people from many different walks of life come by, laugh at the jokes, clap and cheer, and have a good time.

The Cast

The cast has a great grasp of Shakespeare’s language and comic timing. Like I said before, the cast performed as if they were in a 1940s classic comedy, which helps sells some of the absurd moments in the play. That said, across the board, the actors also knew how to deliver the serious moments of the play with grace and pathos.

Crystian Wiltshire (Proteus)

As you read earlier, Proteus’ character commits some very questionable actions- betraying his friend and forsaking his girlfriend for no good reason. In order to make the audience feel even a tiny amount of sympathy for him, would require an actor with charm, and a great sense of humor. Fortunately, Chrystian Wiltshire brings both of these qualities, as well as a great deal of skill. His Proteus is basically a young, naive fool, who never considers the long term consequences of his actions. One gets the impression that by the end of the play, he will learn his lesson and become a better man. Still, I heard a few people booing when Valentine forgave him at the end of the play. It’s a testament to Mr Wiltshire’s performance that he inspired such an emotional response from the audience.

Justin Jackson (Valentine) Obviously, any production of Two Gentlemen depends upon the actors playing the title characters. The play’s central tension is Proteus changing from a lover to a liar and Valentine from a libertine to a lover. Fortunately, Mr Jackson is a great foil for Mr Wiltshire as Proteus. He excellently portrays the change of Valentines heart. At the beginning of the play he is charming and devil-may-care. If you haven’t read the play before, you might expect that Valentine might be the real liar and cheat from the way he teases Proteus about his lovesick behavior. But, once he meets Silvia, Valentine is utterly sincere and his smarmy looks are replaced by a rock solid earnestness. Jackson expertly conveys this startling metamorphosis with his powerful voice, imposing height, and dashing good looks. I wish I could see him in a tragic role like Hamlet or Brutus, but with his masterful portrayal of Valentine, I’m sure he’ll have many more memorable performances in the future.

Kate Drury (Julia) I hope I have established by now that the main idea Shakespeare conveys in this play is that people transform when they fall in love, and neither the exterior nor interior man (or woman), resembles who they were. This is especially true with Julia, who starts out as a simpering, childish girl who tears up Proteus’s love letter to prove that she is not in love, but then agonizes over her cruel destruction of the note. This speech could seem cloyingly sweet or annoying in the wrong hands, but Miss Drury pulls it off to great effect.

Even more impressive is the transformation Julia undergoes in Act 2, where she disguises herself as a man and faces many dangers to find and confront Proteus. She even has the heart to befriend Silvia, the woman Proteus forsakes her for. The childish Julia from Act I might not understand that Proteus is unfaithful, not the virtuous Silvia, but Kate effortlessly shows Julia’s wisdom to see that Silvia never entices Proteus, and scolds his behavior on behalf of Julia herself. It’s rare to see an Elizabethan playwright portray a female friendship that is mature and genuine, but Shakespeare manages to do so, and the actresses mirror this relationship flawlessly.

Tilly as Crabbe the Dog

For most people in the audience, the true star of the show was Tilly as Crabbe the dog. When my kids and I took our seats, my son’s immediate question was “When is the dog coming?” To be fair, Tilly is very cute and never once breaks character.

My Reaction

I tried my best to separate my feelings about Two Gentlemen Of Verona from the production. As I mentioned earlier, as Shakespeare’s first comedy, many of his more famous works are actually derived from this one. For instance, we have an Italian hero who visits his beloved by night, whose love is denied and he is banished from Verona, (sound familiar?) We also have a heroine who disguises herself as a boy, (a device which Shakespeare employs at least six times), a comic servant, a maid, pirates, a foppish suitor, and a bit where the heroine secretly obtains her beloved’s ring. As a hardcore Shakespeare fan, seeing these repeated devices and characters was a little tedious after recognizing them from other plays. I also felt that the dialogue should have been edited a little bit more- the play was about 2 1/2 hours which I felt was a little too long. That said, the skill of the actors and the creative use of the setting helped make Two Gentlemen Of Verona an enjoyable experience for all.

In conclusion, I can see why people like this play and I too enjoy it, despite its questionable subtext.

If you like this analysis, you might be interested in signing up for my Outschool Course on Shakespeare’s Comedies. Link down below. Share this class with a friend and you will get $20 USD off!
You’ll also get $20 USD when you sign up with your link and take their first class!

https://outschool.com/classes/shakespeares-comic-plays-868BR5hg?sectionUid=420e2feb-050f-456b-8d06-6510f6b9ad2c&usid=MaRDyJ13&signup=true&utm_campaign=share_activity_link

Sonnet inspired by the Mandolorian

May 31, 2026August 15, 2026 | astronut1

The Child is locked within that room, alack!
Too high to fly and the doors are far too thick
Perhaps this console I can disarm or hack
O Fate! Thou play'st upon me yet another trick.
To enter I must show this Droid my face 
A thing most vile, against my holy creed.
Methinks I hear The Armorer's voice 'cross space:
"This is the way of Mandalore, take heed."
This is MY WAY, MY QUEST, MY SACRIFICE 
Behold my face, thou cold and lifeless sentry.
A few seconds shame should thee suffice
Open the gate! Let me have present entry!

Strange, up to now, my face hath been my mystery
My Grogu's life is far more dear to me.

If This Be Magic by Daniel Hahn review – how on earth do you translate Shakespeare? | Literary criticism | The Guardian

May 22, 2026 | astronut1

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/may/19/if-this-be-magic-by-daniel-hahn-review-how-on-earth-do-you-translate-shakespeare

	Mary Rycik on Is Romeo and Juliet Supposed t…
	If Shakespeare Wrote… on Shakespeare On Epidemics
	Mary Rycik on If Shakespeare Wrote 9 to…
	Mary Rycik on Review: Tim Curry as William…
	Announcing Father… on Top Five WORST Shakespearean F…