Shakespeare Fans discussion
Literary Criticism & Bard
>
What is the best order to read Shakespeare?
date
newest »
newest »
If you want to enjoy his works and see his overall progress as a playwright, read them in the order he wrote them. The histories get confusing because he wrote them out of order. But you can really see the different methods he come up with as a storyteller when you start from the beginning.
Dear Lidiana and friends of Shake-speare:No one is sure of the exact chronological order in which the plays were actually composed. This is a great question however, and should be addressed with a fair amount of scholarly caution. As a student of Shakespeare for over twenty years, I've been profoundly struck by the depth and richness of these plays. I've read many of them several times over, and viewed all of them at least once in performance. What I've realized, more than the order in which I viewed or read them, was that I was missing lots of real important bits of wisdom - without a solid philosophical and historical foundation, too much of the plays' subtle meanings were being lost. My advice to you myself, and anyone else, is this.
A: Acquire a solid foundation before you start through the plays again so you can get the most out of them.
1) Read everything you can by Ovid first- it really does help a lot, especially "Metamorphoses".
2) Read Montaigne's essays, and the complete works of John Lyly. Other books/works that were very influential in the 1590s were The Prince by Machiavelli, "Cardanus Comforte" by Girolamo Cardano, translated by Thomas Bedingfield, Orlando Furioso by Ariosto, and the Corpus Christi plays and essays by Francis Bacon(no, I don't think he wrote the plays).
3) The philosophers Cicero, Seneca, Juvenal, Plutarch, a working knowledge of the Stoic, and Epicurean schools of thought would be a real plus too and all the Major works in Philosophy if you have the time or inclination, Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" would be my first place to start.
4) The classics- The Iliad, the Odyssey, all the Greek comedy and tragedy you can handle, especially Terence and Plautus for comedy, and Sophocles for tragedy.
5) Get very familiar with everything you can about Greek mythology, and the Roman versions of the myths.
B: Keep in mind that every single play was a direct personal statement or letter to the Queen, except the Tempest- that is a letter to the court of King James
C: Watch all the History plays first on DVD from your local library. Start with Christopher Marlowe's Play Eduard the Second, and then watch each Shakespearean History play in Chronological order, not the order of their publication or initial public exposition.
The plays are listed here in the sequence of their action, rather than the order of the plays' composition. Short forms of the full titles are used.
King John
Edward III (not included in folio but often attributed to Shakespeare)
Richard II
Henry IV, Part 1
Henry IV, Part 2
Henry V
Henry VI, Part 1
Henry VI, Part 2
Henry VI, Part 3
Richard III
Henry VIII
Roman histories
the first folio groups these with the tragedies.
Coriolanus
Julius Caesar
Antony and Cleopatra
Other histories
As with the Roman plays, the first folio groups these with the tragedies. Although both are connected with British history, and based on similar sources, they are usually not considered part of Shakespeare's English histories.
King Lear
Macbeth
D: Watch/Read Romeo & Juliet, Timon of Athens, Hamlet, and Othello. Lot's of great examples at your local video store too. Follow along with the text next to you, and use a highlighter so you can read the powerful passages again later.
E: Read Venus & Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, Passionate Pilgrim, The Phoenix and the Turtle, and the Sonnets.
Familiarize yourself with Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, and whatever biographies on Shakespeare that seduce you, read them.
F: Read all the Comedies as they appear in the first folio (but leave the Tempest for the very last play you read).
1. The Two Gentlemen of Verona
2. The Merry Wives of Windsor
3. Measure for Measure
4. The Comedy of Errors
5. Much Ado About Nothing
6. Love's Labour's Lost
7. A Midsummer Night's Dream
8. The Merchant of Venice
9. As You Like It
10. The Taming of the Shrew
11. All's Well That Ends Well
12. Twelfth Night
13. The Winter's Tale
G: Read the remainder of the Tragedies:
14. Titus Andronicus (Many scholars consider this his first play)
15. Troilus and Cressida (Compare with Chaucer and Boccaccio's version)
20. Cymbeline
20B. The Two Noble Kinsman, a Jacobean tragicomedy by John Fletcher with snippets thought to be from the Bard (first published in 1634)
21. Reread Hamlet, or watch Sir Lawrence Olivier on DVD, better yet see it done whenever it comes to town, there's a metric ton of Hamlets to choose from :)
22. Read the Tempest and pay special attention to the
Act 5 epilogue:
Original Text
Spoken by PROSPERO
Now my charms are all o'erthrown,
And what strength I have’s mine own,
Which is most faint. Now, ’tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardoned the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell,
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands.
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardoned be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
MODERN TEXT TRANSLATION:
PROSPERO
Now my spells are all broken,
And the only power I have is my own,
Which is very weak. Now you all
Have got the power to keep me prisoner here,
Or send me off to Naples. Please don’t
Keep me here on this desert island
With your magic spells. Release me
So I can return to my dukedom
With your help. The gentle wind
You blow with your applause
Will fill my ship’s sails. Without applause,
My plan to please you has failed.
Now I have no spirits to enslave,
No magic to cast spells,
And I’ll end up in despair
Unless I’m relieved by prayer,
Which wins over God himself
And absolves all sins.
Just as you’d like to have your sins forgiven,
Indulge me, forgive me, and set me free.
Best wishes to you and happy readings!
Jake M.
To Jake M.Thank you. For the most cogent, complete compilation of how to get the most out of one's time with Shakespeare!
I've cut and pasted your letter into a section of my long-term to-do list. And I intend to give your recommendations to my own high-school students.
In my effort to make him more accessible to them, I wrote a series of Shakespeare raps, hired singers, and set them to music.
Here's a 3-minute sample on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6nkCU...
Thanx, much needed guidance instantly available, much appreciated.
Thanks Bob,Thanks Gijs-
Glad it was of help.
It's truly a fun journey when you have a group of fellow adventurers.
Cheers!
Bob wrote: "To Jake M.Thank you. For the most cogent, complete compilation of how to get the most out of one's time with Shakespeare!
I've cut and pasted your letter into a section of my long-term to-do lis..."
Thanks for the rap Bob- excellent work!
I've been working with high school students as well for many years, and wrote some rap lyrics from time to time.
I don't have a lot of samples online, but we did do a spoken word piece. Hope you enjoy :)
http://youtu.be/ka7uQ0rQ57s
Right now I'm working on a young adult opera- hope to get a grant in the upcoming year to get it produced. It'd be great to stay in touch, and thanks for the inspiration.
Best regards,
j
Thanks for sharing your rap-rant with me.Loved it!
Now, if you ever write another one, consider using a musical background or "beats," to give your lyrics the dimensions of rhythm and music.
I know my students like my Shakespeare raps a lot more when they hear them put to music and sung by professional rappers.
Good luck with all of it!
Bob wrote: "Thanks for sharing your rap-rant with me.Loved it!
Now, if you ever write another one, consider using a musical background or "beats," to give your lyrics the dimensions of rhythm and music.
I k..."
Thanks Bob!
I'll definitely work it :)
Sending a little soul music your way-
Hope you enjoy.
http://worldfaithsoulclub.podomatic.com/
Cheers, and best wishes to you and all your students!
I would suggest that the best order depends on who is doing the reading and what their purpose is.If, for example, your purpose is to get to know Shakespeare the playwright, then reading them in order may be a good option, although I do think it's better to read the history plays in their chronological order rather than in the order Shakespeare wrote them. (Before reading the history plays, I suggest that you get a copy of Peter Saccio's book Shakespeare's English Kings. Especially for those who don't know the history of the English monarchy, it's very helpful in understanding what was going on and, also, where Shakespeare was making up history to kowtow to Queen Elizabeth.)
(Another book I very highly recommend is Asimov's Guide To Shakespeare. It's probably still out of print, but available from second hand sources. He goes through each play in some detail, explaining background, explaining some of the jokes, and really making Shakespeare come alive.)
If your purpose is to try to get gently into Shakespeare, either for yourself or for a class, I suggest starting with some of the comedies -- The Taming of the Shrew is a riot, as is As You Like It.
If you want to know what all the fuss is about, and get into the meat of Shakespeare right off, go with King Lear. It's extraordinarily powerful, and less cultish than Hamlet.
Lidiana wrote: "Hi guys! I'm new to the group, and I searched for a topic about this but I couldn't find it. Sorry if I'm repearting something already discussed, yet I'm quite curious: what order do you consider t..."
Jake's suggestions are impressively structured and cogent but I have to say I disagree. Dip in, Lidiana. I started with Henry IV Part One and it was a perfect place to start; Falstaff is extraordinary. Read one you've seen; read a comedy; read anything - you can check the context as you go along. I suppose what I'm saying is that Shakespeare is good - and modern - enough to be read for pleasure. The better you get to know him, the more aware you'll be of what you need or want to know.
Jake's suggestions are impressively structured and cogent but I have to say I disagree. Dip in, Lidiana. I started with Henry IV Part One and it was a perfect place to start; Falstaff is extraordinary. Read one you've seen; read a comedy; read anything - you can check the context as you go along. I suppose what I'm saying is that Shakespeare is good - and modern - enough to be read for pleasure. The better you get to know him, the more aware you'll be of what you need or want to know.
Hi Guys, Just wanted to thank you for the input and suggestions!
I just finished reading "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece". Hadn't read them since high school- really nice way into the Shakespeare cannon as well.
I don't want to create an intro strategy that appears too stifling for anyone. I've always had a tendency to sprint into these didactic systems and over do it on occasion. I realize nobody here needs another pedagogue with a lesson plan-
I like Everyman's approach too- "The Taming of the Shrew" was really fun going, and of all the plays I came across as a kid, that would've been a great one to start with. I wish I'd read that one first to be honest! I started with "A Midsummer Night's Dream" way back in the eighth grade and struggled with it, I've read it again since then, and I've seen it performed, but it's still not in my top ten.
I think the only concern with dipping in like Thomas suggests, is to set your path preferences. Do you want to wade in the water and then get fully immersed later, stay on the shallow end of the oeuvre for most of the time, or do you prefer to dive into the deeper waters?
If you don't want to start with a comedy as Everyman suggests- and the whole expansive Elizabethan version of history doesn't really appeal to you, I really enjoyed "Timon of Athens" and "Coriolanus". I thought "Measure for Measure" was outstanding as well, it's categorized as a comedy, but it has an added dimensionality, if you like a bit of morality play and fable thrown in, then I highly recommend it.
I also really connected with "Love's Labour's Lost"
and the lesser known, but really fun to read, "Pericles, Prince of Tyre".
Last year I did a fun study that you might appreciate Thomas: I Went back through "The Merry Wives of Windsor" and also reread "Henry IV & V" looking specifically at the character development of Falstaff. I didn't know that he was based on a real guy named John Fastolf (1380–1459). I even went to the local Met Opera screening of Verdi's Falstaff to see how the great maestro interpreted the character. I got maximum nerd status at work, but it was totally worth it :)
Cheers!
J
Yes: top points, Jake. My understanding was that Falstaff was based on a knight called Sir John Oldcastle; he was a companion of Henry V. He's also adapted from the figure of the Vice in the old morality plays. It's a part of Shakespeare's genius that he can take figures that are, essentially, made of rumour and cardboard and give them what feels like life. Falstaff is who you remember: he seems to devour everything around him, which is why, I suppose, he hardly appears in Henry V; you can't take all that heroism seriously when Falstaff's around.
Thomas wrote: "Yes: top points, Jake. My understanding was that Falstaff was based on a knight called Sir John Oldcastle; he was a companion of Henry V. He's also adapted from the figure of the Vice in the old mo..."Hey Thomas,
Definitely agree with you-
The most interesting part of my study was relating the differences between the two men used to create the character- Oldcastle seems a lot like a mask to me employed to describe someone Shakespeare actually knew, and wanted to satirize. A man which, oddly enough, had to be changed more than half way through. We have several etymological indicators to suspect this was the case.
There's a really interesting amalgamation going on, and it's hard to pin down completely. Every theory I have leads to conjecture. As I said earlier, I tend to get carried away, but here's what I was going through in a nutshell:
"Sir John Oldcastle (died 14 December 1417), English Lollard leader. Being a friend of Henry V, he long escaped prosecution for heresy. When convicted, he escaped from the Tower of London and then led a rebellion against the King. Eventually, he was captured and executed in London. He formed the basis for William Shakespeare's character John Falstaff, who was originally called John Oldcastle."
When Shakespeare changed the character's name from Oldcastle, most scholars assert that it's because the family complained. I don't think that was the main motivation. I started looking into the historical and psychological dynamics of the play- this is what one of the wiki-articles says:
"Fastolf appears in Shakespeare's early play Henry VI, part 1 as a cowardly knight who abandons the heroic Lord Talbot. In the first two folios the name of the character is given as 'Falstaffe' not Fastolf. When Shakespeare came to write Henry IV, part 1, set in the early years of Fastolf's career, he created a disreputable boon companion for the young Prince Hal called Sir John Oldcastle. The descendants of the real Oldcastle complained, so the name was changed to Sir John Falstaff, under which name he is identified in three later plays.
The tradition of Fastolf's braggart cowardice may have suggested the use of his name. Some writers have also suggested that Fastolf favored Lollardy, which was also associated with Oldcastle, so this circumstance may have aided the adoption of the name.
Other points of resemblance between the historic Fastolf and the Falstaff of the dramatist are to be found in their service under Thomas Mowbray, and association with a Boar's Head Inn. But Falstaff is in no true sense a dramatization of the real soldier, more an amalgam of a few real personages with a dash of creative license. Indeed the aged Falstaff dies early in the reign of Henry V, when Fastolf was mid-way through his career."
Shake is to Spear as Fall is to Staff.
The dramatist is clearly trying to tell his close friends an inside joke about a person he knows. Some scholars have suggested that Falstaff is satirizing the Queen- nothing new if you're a reader of Aristophanes. We have some historical evidence that she was fond of the Falstaff character, and applauded the character's reappearance in "The Merry Wives of Windsor".
Whoever he's making fun of, it's clear that Shakespeare is identifying himself with the Prince Hal character. I've also heard from a few Oxfordian proponents that say Oldcastle was supposed to stand for Christopher Marlowe, and that Falstaff stands for the man from Stratford- the historical William Shaxper.
Fun Stuff, I think my favorite character in the history plays is Jack Cade, and who he would "supposed to be for Shakespeare" I have no idea :)
Hmmm. Interesting. It's "clear" that Shakespeare is identifying with Hal, is it? Why? I mean, one can make a case for certain resemblances - the familiarity with both the high and the low; the mimicry, etc. - but, as an author, Shakespeare's more slippery than most. There's the guesswork that we have to do (all those different manuscripts); the rhetorical conventions; the fact that this was a communal enterprise; the fact that the plots were often pre-packaged... No. I think the safest thing that you can say is either that Shakespeare was all of his characters or he was none of them.
In relationship to Falstaff, I meant to say. I feel his character development was, and is, the best in the history of literature- it's just from the perspective of satire and pertaining to that particular series of history plays that I refer. I think because the theme of succession was so prevalent in those works. I should've said I feel he is speaking to us most directly from Prince Hal's point of view. That being said, your point is well taken.
As a teacher, I want to create a love of Shakespeare. So my advice is simply to keep it simple. Which one sounds interesting to you? Do you prefer drama or comedy? Start with what you enjoy, the rest will follow.
Jake wrote: "Dear Lidiana and friends of Shake-speare:No one is sure of the exact chronological order in which the plays were actually composed. This is a great question however, and should be addressed with ..."
Excellent post, and exactly what I was looking for; I've written my own "lesson plans" for studying French and Russian literature and the Sengoku Jidai period in Japan. This was exactly what I wanted in regards to Shakespeare.
Best -
Michael
It doesn't really matter where you start with Shakespeare but once you're into it there's much to be said for looking at the probable order the plays were written in , which has been established with a fair degree of confidence. You can then see his preoccupations moving for example from 'who shall be king?' to 'what is a king?', from war as heroism to war as squalor, from woman as either angel or demon to healer, from machiavellianism to accountability. It's not that simple of course, but I've traced the pattern in 'Shakespeare and Democracy'. It helps to see where any given play stands on the journey. Falstaff for example represents, amongst other things, the intrusion of a big element of comedy and fiction into the middle of known history, which Shakespeare either couldn't or didn't want to do in the earlier-written histories. It's useful to compare the histories both in historical order and in the order of writing. There is a cumulative ideology in the historical order but a cumulative moral complexity and subversion in the written order. I provide a comparative chart and explanation.
Michael wrote: "Jake wrote: "Dear Lidiana and friends of Shake-speare:No one is sure of the exact chronological order in which the plays were actually composed. This is a great question however, and should be ad..."
Michael, would you be willing to share your plans for French, Russian, and Japanese literature? I would be really interested in seeing how you compiled and ordered works
I love Shakespeare very much and I can read it all day. I'll tell you right away that the consistency of reading is not the most important thing in such a literary format. You can visit article www.festivalsherpa.com/best-shakespea... and find out about the fastest Shakespeare-themed festival in America. I am sure such news will be able to please the world of literature.
I read the histories in chronological order of when the events took place.
Reading the plays in historical order is a good way to get an overall sense of the events. King John is the first (leaving aside ancient mythical kings Cymbeline and Lear). From that point on it's a good idea to read Marlowe's Edward II and then the multi-authored Edward III (in which Shakespeare had a hand) before getting on to the canon of Richard II, Henry IV (1 and 2), Henry V, Henry VI (1, 2 and 3), Richard III and Henry VIII. That way you get a continuous story from Edward II through to the end of the Plantagenets with Richard III. Edward III is particularly important for understanding the overall trajectory as he's referred to as a baseline of successful kingship throughout the decline and problems of the rest of the Plantagenets. Having said all that, it's a good idea then to look afresh at the plays in the order in which Shakespeare wrote them in order to see HIS development. This goes more or less from questions of legitimacy and sheer power in Henry VI and Richard III, through inward doubts in Richard II and Henry IV, morally dubious glory in Henry V to questions of rulers' accountability in the tragedies and Roman plays.
I was discussing this with a friend on the other day and we couldn't get to an agreement. He thinks the order Shakespeare wrote them is the best, however the first time I took the challenge of reading all the Bard's work, there were times when I got a bit confused because some plays refere to others in a non-chronological way. Right now I want to go back to the plays I've already read and read the ones I failed to do it before.
Any advices? What do you guys think?!