"How Accurate Were Shakespeare's Histories?"

Lithograph depicting a scene from Henry V.

Lithograph depicting a scene from Henry V.

Apparently I answer Tudor and Shakespeare questions in way too much depth on Reddit for fun now. I’ve had trouble writing or revising fiction since the pandemic and self-isolation began, but researching and writing about history calms me down in a way nothing else does. And AskHistorians on Reddit has a wonderful supply of various questions that haven’t been answered yet.

So here ya go.

Original source of the question

“How accurate were Shakespeare’s histories?”

Shakespeare's English history plays were based on a variety of historical sources, so he made /some/ attempt at having /some details/ correct, but he certainly also embellished some facts and highly simplified or deleted other facts to increase drama and simplify plot. His sources themselves were often very biased toward a version of history that supported Tudor legitimacy (although I'm unclear on whether that bias was widely known in Shakespeare's time or not). He also definitely shaded some facts and characters one way or another in order to keep the political leaders and censors of his time happy.

Important Sources for Shakespeare:

Basically every English history play - Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1587 - 2nd edition) - This was a highly dramatized version of English history that is apparently just really inaccurate in a lot of places. I really need to read it someday. [also a source for Macbeth and King Lear]

Richard III - Thomas More's History of King Richard the Thirde (1513) - More's portrayal of Richard III as deformed, to the point of causing his mother a particularly troublesome birth, is probably the most famous bit that Shakespeare took from that source. In actuality, though Richard III's skeleton showed that though he had significant scoliosis and likely had visibly uneven shoulders, he wouldn't have had a hunchback.

Simplification -

Shakespeare HIGHLY simplified a lot of the events of the Wars of the Roses in his Henry VI Parts II and III. And honestly....you can't really blame him. I made a simplified timeline of the main events of the Wars of the Roses in November and it's still incredibly complicated (and honestly, it took forever). You can see it on my blog here - https://www.rachaeldickzen.com/blog/2019/11/11/the-wars-of-the-roses-a-timeline-of-main-events

Examples:

- In Henry VI Part 3, as soon as the Earl of Warwick discovers that his protege Edward IV had secretly married Lady Grey (Elizabeth Woodville) while Warwick is off trying to organize a French alliance and marriage for Edward IV, he joins forces with Margaret of Anjou, marries his daughter Anne to her son Edward, and frees Henry VII. This all happens in the space of two acts.

IN ACTUALITY, Edward married Elizabeth Woodville in 1464, but Warwick didn't rebel against Edward IV until April 1469 (rebellion #1). He joined forces with Edward's brother George, Duke of Clarence, and actually captured Edward IV, but eventually released him when it became clear that Parliament wouldn't cooperate with his plan to rule the country through Edward. He and George/Clarence rebelled AGAIN in July 1470 (rebellion #2), but this one didn’t go so well and their plan quickly falls apart. Warwick flees to France, plots with Margaret of Anjou (rebellion #3), marries his daughter to her son Edward, and goes back to England in October 1470 to put Henry VI back on the throne.

I mean. It's easy to understand why Shakespeare cut out a few rebellions there, just for the sake of time and to keep things from being super confusing.

Richard III portrays Richard marrying Anne Neville immediately before the death of his brother Edward IV and becoming king not too long after. In actuality, Richard and Anne married in spring 1472, Edward IV didn't die until April 1483, and Richard III didn't become king until July 1483.

"Plucking the Red and White Roses in the Old Temple Gardens" after the original 1910 fresco painting by Henry Albert Payne (British, 1868-1940) based upon a scene in Shakespeare's Henry VI.

"Plucking the Red and White Roses in the Old Temple Gardens" after the original 1910 fresco painting by Henry Albert Payne (British, 1868-1940) based upon a scene in Shakespeare's Henry VI.

Dramatic alterations:

Various examples:

Henry IV Part 1 - Sir Henry Percy (Hotspur) is portrayed as a young man the same age as Prince Hal, but in reality, Hotspur was actually three years older than Hal's dad Henry IV. This increases drama by placing pressure on Hal to behave more like the ambitious leader Hotspur.

Henry V - In the play, it's stated that the English had fewer than 30 casualities while the French had 10,000! In actuality, about 112-600 of the English and about 6,000 of the French were killed.

- Henry VI Part 1 - The famed "roses" of the Wars of the Roses are a bit of a Tudor invention, which Shakespeare expanded on. Although the Yorks did use the white rose as a symbol from early on in the conflict, the Lancastrian red rose wasn't used until after Henry Tudor defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth. These two roses were combined to form the "Tudor Rose," a symbol of the unity of the two houses.

In addition, it also just isn't accurate to imagine that only one symbol was used by each noble family. Just among the York brothers alone, in addition to the white rose, Edward IV used the sun in splendor, a falcon, a black dragon, and a white lion (among several others), while Richard used a white boar and "a white falcon with a virgin's face holding a white rose." But again, portraying that in a play would make things very confusing (and Shakespeare’s histories are already confusing enough when it comes to names, since he often refers to characters by their titles, which often change!).

Henry VI Part 2 - Richard of Gloucester (the eventual Richard III), and his brother Edward (eventual Edward IV) are both portrayed as adults at the time of the first battle of St. Albans. Historically, Richard was only 3 years old and Edward was only 13 when this battle occurred.

- In addition, a TON of the events in Richard III are inserted for dramatic effect. There is zero evidence that Richard killed his wife Anne (she probably died of tuberculosis), and he definitely didn't seduce her at the funeral for her father-in-law Henry VI. Henry VI died in May 1471 and Anne and Richard didn't marry until the spring of 1472. There's also good evidence that Richard and Anne actually really had a lovely romance; he was determined to marry her and may have rescued her from his brother Clarence's attempts to hide her away. Anne and Richard were crowned in the first joint coronation in almost 200 years. But this doesn’t suit the Tudor propaganda need to portray Richard as a villain.

George Duke of Clarence is portrayed very sympathetically in Richard III, but in reality, he was kind of a jerk who rebelled against his own brother 2-3 times and continually tried to start up trouble. The play also shows Clarence being murdered by Richard's (hilarious) henchmen, but in actuality, Clarence was put on trial for treason, and privately executed on the order of his brother Edward IV.

The disappearance of the Princes in the Tower was blamed on Richard III at the time, but there's no actual evidence connecting him (or really anyone) to their deaths.

Propaganda Elements:

Shakespeare was writing and producing plays under Queen Elizabeth I and King James I, only a few generations away from the intense violence of the Wars of the Roses, so obviously, he needed to represent Elizabeth's famous ancestors as being on the right side of history. Even after her death, Elizabeth I remained incredibly popular with the people, so Shakespeare had to be careful with portrayals of her ancestors and lineage.

richard+iii+lithograph.jpg

Henry VIII is perhaps the best example of Tudor propaganda. This play covers Henry VIII's break from Catherine of Aragon and joining with Anne Boleyn (Elizabeth's mother) and covers the downfall of Cardinal Wolsey, but strategically ends right at Elizabeth's birth and doesn't discuss, oh, Anne's downfall and beheading, or Henry's four other wives. The play is remarkably stilted and boring compared to all of Shakespeare's other plays, likely because he felt inhibited by the restrictions and expectations of the time (in fact, plenty of people have speculated that Shakespeare didn't write Henry VIII or wrote it with a co-writer because it's so different from his other plays). The play also ends with huge adulation of the baby elizabeth and what a blessing she will be upon her people; as the second daughter of the king who already had a bastard son (Henry Fitzroy) he was in the process of making legitimate, she was not expected to inherit at her birth so this is just obvious propaganda here.

Tudor propaganda elements are also obvious in Richard II, in which John of Gaunt is portrayed very differently than he is in Holinshed's Chronicles, Shakespeare’s primary sources for his histories. Holinshed didn't portray Gaunt in a terribly flattering way, but in Richard II, he's the wisest, most reasonable, and most patriotic character in the play. This is likely because Queen Elizabeth traced her lineage directly back to John of Gaunt. (Gaunt's characterization in the play is much closer to his portrayal in Froissart's Chronicles.)

Richard II is also an interesting play to look at, as it portrays the rebellion against and downfall of a king, who was believed to be divinely anointed by god as the country's leader. That's not the type of idea you want to put in your subjects' heads (The deposition scene in the play is missing from most printed editions of the play until the fourth quarto, well into the reign of James I). But the play is written to make it very clear that Elizabeth's own ancestors disagreed with the rebellion. It's an interesting tightrope to walk- as the next few history plays basically emphasize how awesome Henry IV and Henry V are, and just sort of strategically ignore that the only reason they were in power was because of Henry Bolingbroke's rebellion against the rightful king.

Richard III is portrayed as an outright villain in Shakespeare's histories for propaganda reasons as well. Queen Elizabeth's grandfather Henry VII killed Richard on the battlefield at Bosworth and took his crown by right of conquest. Since this was again, a divinely anointed sovereign, Tudor writers really wanted to portray Richard III as just the WORST of the worst to justify the Tudors' actions in overthrowing him. The Tudors' claim to the English throne was not terribly strong, so this propaganda against Richard III was also necessary to increase their own legitimacy.

Breaking the Fourth Wall: Shakespeare’s Richard III and Fleabag

Richard III updated flier.jpg

I’m a big Shakespeare nerd, in addition to my love for history, and have spent the last few months stage managing a community theater production of Shakespeare’s Richard III, one of my favorite plays. The timeline and family tree of the Wars of the Roses I posted a while back were specifically created to walk the cast through the historical background of the play. That production is going up THIS WEEKEND in Northern Virginia; if you’re nearby, please do come! The cast is incredibly talented and our director Megan Fraedrich has such a wonderful vision for the show.

Richard III and Hamlet regularly battle it out for the title of my favorite Shakespearean play. Richard may slightly win out due to its historical roots (even though it’s…terribly inaccurate). It’s a beautiful play with a very intelligent, twisted anti-hero at its center, who you can’t help but cheer for, even though he’s awful. It’s a little like Tudor Breaking Bad in many ways.

Over the course of the rehearsal for the play, I’ve noticed some similarities between Richard III and Fleabag, the acclaimed Amazon series from Phoebe Waller-Briggs. I know, I know, it sounds wacky at first, stay with me here and I’ll explain it all.

Phoebe Waller-Brigg, the creator of Fleabag, playing the main character in season 2.

Phoebe Waller-Brigg, the creator of Fleabag, playing the main character in season 2.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard III in The Hollow Crown.

Benedict Cumberbatch as Richard III in The Hollow Crown.

Richard III:

Throughout Richard III, Richard has a habit of talking directly to the audience about all his plots, like we’re his friends. Though many Shakespearean plays feature characters with muttered asides or longer soliloquies, which no other character on stage can hear, Richard’s are a bit different.

DISCLAIMER: I am getting into a bit of literary analysis here but haven’t taken an English class since college, and that one was pretty useless, so let’s say I haven’t taken a GOOD English class since…oh, 2006? So be nice, friends, lol.

Though both asides and soliloquies indicate private thoughts and are, as a rule, not heard by the other characters, they have some key differences. An aside is usually a short, direct and simple line pointing out an immediate conflict, issue, secret, or judgment; a soliloquy is longer and more complex, and shows the character wrestling with an internal struggles, motives, or moral dilemmas. Soliloquies date back to ancient Greece, where they were seen in Oedipus Rex and Antigone (although it could be argued that they served a different function in this genre of play, in which choruses commonly served as narrators and commentators on the events shown onstage). And plenty of Shakespeare’s contemporaries used them as well. So Shakespeare wasn’t by any means the only playwright to use them, but his plays are probably the most famous example we have of them that you commonly see in society today.

Richard’s lines, particularly his opening soliloquy, generally are long and detailed, commenting on immediate issues and his current plans, thereby having the length of a soliloquy, but the function more of an aside. Throughout the play, he displays no sign of a conscience, happily seducing women who hate him into marrying him, having family members, enemies, friends, women, and children alike all killed in his quest for power, without ever expressing any sort of regrets.

Only in one speech towards the end of the play really ever demonstrates any remorse or wrestling with morality, and that one is brought on by an attack of ghosts telling him to “despair and die” during his dreams (which, you know, could bring feelings out of even the most hardened sociopath, i would imagine). As you can see in the excerpt below, he’s clearly tormented in this scene, and audibly goes back and forth on his own nature; is he a villain? Does he love himself? If so, why? What has he done to deserve such love? He has committed such horrible acts. No one truly knows or loves him, not even Richard himself.

(I stylized several of my favorite portions because it’s my blog and i can do what i want. :D)

O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!
The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.
What do I fear? myself? there's none else by:
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am:
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why:
Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself?
Alack. I love myself. Wherefore? for any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O, no! alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself!

I am a villain: yet I lie. I am not.
Fool, of thyself speak well: fool, do not flatter.

My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.

Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree
Murder, stern murder, in the direst degree;
All several sins, all used in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all, Guilty! guilty!
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;
And if I die, no soul shall pity me:
Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?

-Richard III, Act V, Scene 3-

These asides/soliloquys set the entire tone of the play and make Richard’s motivations very clear. If you took out these speeches to the audience and just had the rest of the play to go on, you would only see the face Richard shows to the world and miss an awful lot of his machinations. These also show Richard’s state of mind; the number of his asides and soliloquies distinctly decrease over the run of the show, as he becomes more and more stressed and agitated by his responsibilities as king and as he begins to face the consequences of his various murders and manipulations.

The only person who ever hears any of his asides is his nephew, Edward V (who is only ever referred to in the play as a prince, but was in fact, actually a king by the time we see him in the play, even if he’s still a minor. This…irritates me). Richard improvises quickly when he realizes Edward can hear him, but at least in our version, evinces surprise at the incident, for no one has ever heard his asides before.

It’s unclear /why/ Edward hears his uncle; we certainly don’t get a chance to find out, since Prince Edward only ever appears in this one scene (well, except as a ghost, but he doesn’t exactly show us his innermost thoughts at that point). Perhaps the young boy is more connected to the Duke of Gloucester than we realize. Could he be as intelligent as Richard is? Or is he perhaps already suspicious of his uncle?

Richard III (Duke of Gloucester)[Aside] So wise so young, they say, do never
live long.

Prince EdwardWhat say you, uncle?

Richard III (Duke of Gloucester)I say, without characters, fame lives long.
[Aside] Thus, like the formal vice, Iniquity,
I moralize two meanings in one word.

He’s young, but appears to be rather perceptive, as demonstrated in a later quiet exchange with his uncle Richard:

Prince EdwardI fear no uncles dead.

Richard III (Duke of Gloucester)Nor none that live, I hope.

Prince Edward. An if they live, I hope I need not fear.
But come, my lord; and with a heavy heart,
Thinking on them, go I unto the Tower.

* In case you can’t read the caption on the photo, it says: “Photo of Matthew Rauch as Richard, Duke of Gloucester in Richard the Third by Scott Suchman.”

* In case you can’t read the caption on the photo, it says: “Photo of Matthew Rauch as Richard, Duke of Gloucester in Richard the Third by Scott Suchman.”

Phoebe Waller-Brigg, the creator of Fleabag.

Phoebe Waller-Brigg, the creator of Fleabag.

*I saw this production last year at the Shakespeare Theater Center in DC and it was really well done, although some of the production choices were….very different. It had a very mad scientist/dystopian/steampunk feel to it and featured growing stomp percussion/dance sequences building throughout the second half of the play, indicating a growing tension as Richard takes the crown. I actually really liked its effect, but it was divisive, and I know a lot of my friends hated it.

Fleabag:

I recently watched the acclaimed comedy series Fleabag; the unnamed protagonist of the show is constantly giving asides to the camera (literally known only as Fleabag, although no one actually ever refers to her that way), breaking the fourth wall to comment on whatever’s happening at the moment. These asides are definitively from her own biased point of view and are usually jokes; she does not usually use them to discuss moral dilemmas or issues with the audience. No one in the show ever hears her asides or even notices the pauses….until Season 2.

Fleabag really doesn’t talk about these asides at all until Season 2, Episode 2, when she sees a therapist (after her father gives her a voucher for a free session). In this brief session, the therapist describes her as “a girl with no friends and am empty heart.” Fleabag defensively responds.

FB: “I have friends.
Counsellor: “Oh so you do have someone to talk to?”
FB: “Yeah.” /clicks tongue and grins at camera with a grin/ “Oh they’re always there. they’re always there.” /chuckles/
C: “Why do you find that funny?”
FB: “Look, I don’t need to be analyzed, i have a nice life.”

By admitting that she has friends that are “always there,” but who do not actually respond to her (as the very medium prevents such a response), the dialogue highlights the narrator’s loneliness and raises questions about the audience’s role in the show’s universe. It becomes more apparent that FB specifically slips into these “asides” when she’s feeling intensely, and uses them as a way to slip out of the situation and detach herself from it.

Although this narrator’s interaction with the therapist is short and limited to just one episode, it seems to have far-reaching consequences, as for the rest of the season, Fleabag seems to actually want to understand her actions and interactions with the audience and do the right thing. Although, according to the therapist, maybe Fleabag was always going to get to that place.

FB: “Can you just tell me what to do?”
C: “You know. you already know what you’re going to do. Everybody does.
FB: “What?”
C: “You’ve already decided what you’re going to do.”
FB: “So what’s the point of you?”
C: /visibly annoyed/ “You know what you’re going to do.”

(it occurs to me that a few episodes later, in the midst of a near breakdown, she expresses her desire to have someone tell her what she’s going to do - every moment of every day - to the priest. She doesn’t want to have control over her own life anymore. It’s interesting to see that desire outlined earlier in this exchange with the therapist)

In season 2, she also befriends the priest (also unnamed) who is performing the marriage ceremony of her father and his girlfriend. This character, played by the brilliant Andrew Scott, is super interesting and curses, drinks beer, writes restaurant reviews, and has an intense fear of foxes. The two bond very quickly and have a very tight connection, along with romantic and sexual chemistry that the priest tries to deny for several episodes. Their connection is highlighted in Season 2, episode 3, when the priest becomes THE FIRST character in the series to ever notice her mental or emotional absence from a conversation, specifically, in a conversation about his celibacy in which he explicitly states that he’s not going to have sex with her. The intensity of the conversation seems to get to Fleabag, who glances away at the camera several times, visibly uncomfortable.

Priest: “I’d really like to be your friend though.”
FB: “I’d like to be your friend, too. /aside, looking at camera/ We’ll last a week.”
P: “What was that?”
FB: “What?”
P: “Where’d you, where’d you just go?”
FB: “What?”
P: “You just went somewhere.”
/looks questioningly at camera/
P: “There. There. Where’d you just go?”
FB: “Nowhere.”
/looks at camera with a look of panic and confusion/

Since the only really close friend Fleabag has ever been shown to really connect with died before season 1 began, it’s truly touching to see that someone notices her enough to see when she’s gone somewhere else. She seems flabbergasted by it. This connection later proves a bit embarrassing to Fleabag, as he hears her cooing about “his beautiful neck” while they’re out on a shopping trip together. It seems that he /sees/ her, even when she’s at her worst.

FB: “His beautiful neck”
P: “What?”
FB: /looks at camera in panic/ “What?”
P: “You just said ‘his beautiful neck.’”
FB: “No, i no, i-i- said th-that they were already gone.”
P: “Okay. Weird.”

Later in the day, the priest gives more attention to the guinea pig at Fleabag’s cafe more than anyone else in the show has really since Boo died, petting her and cuddling her sweetly, calling her “a gorgeous little thing” and continuing to pet her while carrying on a different conversation with FB. This connection to a pet that no one else has ever really paid attention to seems to, again, symbolize Fleabag’s close connection with the priest.

It’s later in that conversation, when the priest asks FB whether she runs the cafe by herself and she tries to tell him about her dead friend Boo that she, first, does the aside to the audience again, and second, he notices again. (If you’ve watched the first season of Fleabag, you’ll realize that the mention of Boo specifically brings up a lot of complicated, conflicting feelings in FB).

P: "Do you run this place on your own?”
FB: “No, I opened it with a friend.”
P: "Oh cool, so you run it together?”
FB: “No, she….she uh,” /sees flashback of Boo in the corner, stares at the camera in a panic/
P: "What?”
FB: “What?”
P: “She what?”
FB: ”She” /laughs uncomfortably/ ”He’s a bit annoying actually.” /behind her back, to camera/
P: ”What is that?”
FB: ”What?”
P: ”That thing that you’re doing, it’s like you disappear.”
FB: ”Nothing.”
P: ”What are you not telling me?”
FB: ”Nothing.”
P: ”Tell me what’s going on underneath there.”
FB: ”Nothing”’
P: ”Tell me, come on, tell me.”
FB: ”nothing, nothing.” /directly to camera/
P: /screams quietly/ “Ahhk what are you doing?” /looks directly to camera/
FB: ”No, stop being so churchy.”
P: ”I’m not being churchy, I”m just trying to get to know you.”
FB: ”Well I don’t want that.”

He seems concerned when he notices her disassociation from the present, and expresses the desire to help her. This ends up pissing her off and she kicks him out of the cafe. The next scene we see, she’s hurriedly trying to walk around the corner and lose the camera/audience, as she flashes back to her mother’s funeral.

Later, when the two characters finally, ah, connect, Fleabag straight up pushes the camera away, and in turn, the audience, possibly indicating that she is at home with her own emotions and doesn’t need to joke about them in this moment.

At the very end of the season, she says goodbye to the audience and her habit of saying asides entirely, joyfully walking down the street and waving goodbye to the camera. She’s grown as a person. She doesn’t need to dissociate herself from the present anymore. She’s accepting her intense feelings.

Breaking the fourth wall is just an interesting way of building the story now as it was in Shakespeare’s time, and it feels just as revolutionary.

(Sidenote: Fleabag is based on Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s original one-woman play, which apparently was quite a bit darker, at least in terms of how it handled the guinea pig! Eek.)

OTHER SHAKESPEARE EXAMPLES OF BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL:

At least some of Shakespeare’s characters seem to be aware that they ARE characters in a play, and comment on it in a lampshading style fashion.

  • Julius Caesar: "How many ages hence shall this our lofty scene be acted over in states unborn and accents yet unknown!" (Act 3 Sc 1)

  • Twelfth Night: "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I would condemn it as improbable fiction" (Act 3 Sc 4)

  • As You Like It: "All the world's a stageand we are but players." (Act 2 Sc 7)

  • The Merchant of Venice: "I hold the world but as the world, Gratiano; / A stage where every man must play a part, / And mine a sad one." (Act 1 Sc 1)

    1. Henry VI, Part 3:

  • Macbeth: "Life is but a walking shadow[= actor], a poor player [= actor] who struts and frets his hour upon the stage" (Act 5 Sc 5)

You often see this lampshading specifically at the end of a play, as a character speaks directly to an audience. These tend to comment on the play itself as a play, in a terribly meta fashion.

  • A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 5, Scene 1, Epilogue

    Puck
    If we shadows have offended, 
    Think but this and all is mended: 
    That you have but slumbered here 
    While these visions did appear. 
    And this weak and idle theme, 
    No more yielding but a dream, 
    Gentles, do not reprehend. 
    If you pardon, we will mend. 
    And, as I am an honest Puck, 
    If we have unearnèd luck 
    Now to ’scape the serpent’s tongue, 
    We will make amends ere long. 
    Else the Puck a liar call. 
    So good night unto you all. 
    Give me your hands, if we be friends, 
    And Robin shall restore amends.

  • As You Like It, Act 5, Scene 4, Epilogue:

Rosalind
It is not the fashion to see the lady the epilogue;
but it is no more unhandsome than to see the lord
the prologue. If it be true that good wine needs
no bush, 'tis true that a good play needs no
epilogue; yet to good wine they do use good bushes,
and good plays prove the better by the help of good
epilogues. What a case am I in then, that am
neither a good epilogue nor cannot insinuate with
you in the behalf of a good play!
I am not
furnished like a beggar, therefore to beg will not
become me: my way is to conjure you; and I'll begin
with the women. I charge you, O women, for the love
you bear to men, to like as much of this play as
please you: and I charge you, O men, for the love
you bear to women--as I perceive by your simpering,
none of you hates them--that between you and the
women the play may please. If I were a woman I [this slyly refers to the fact that female characters were played by young men in shakespeare’s time]
would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased
me, complexions that liked me and breaths that I
defied not: and, I am sure, as many as have good
beards or good faces or sweet breaths will, for my
kind offer, when I make curtsy, bid me farewell.

QUICK HISTORICAL NOTE ON THE ACCURACY OF THE PLAY:

I also find Richard III a legitimately fascinating historical character and have based my character Claudius in my Hamlet prequel “Most Horrible” on him (King Hamlet is based on Richard’s older brother Edward IV). He was definitely not the villain that Shakespeare portrayed him as. I could seriously give a whole TED talk on how badly Richard III has been treated by history, but I’ll just give a few quick examples.

  • The play has Richard taking credit for killing Edward, Prince of Wales (Henry VI’s son) and Henry VI himself. However, the only historical sources that claim that Prince Edward was killed by Richard 1) were highly biased Tudor propaganda tools designed to impugn Richard III, the king that Henry Tudor killed and unseated, and 2) also said that Prince Edward was killed by all three York brothers (Edward, George, Richard) together, not just Richard alone (interestingly enough, Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part 3 has the story of all three brothers killing Edward as well, but Richard III itself has Richard as the only killer).

  • In the Shakespearean play, Richard ends up wooing Lady Anne Neville during the mourning rites for her father-in-law, Henry VI. He later kills her in the play. In real life, Richard married Anne after tracking her down from the London cookshop his greedy brother George of Clarence had hidden her in. It’s a terribly romantic story and I so wish they had portrayed that instead of just showing him as an outright villain. They were married for 13 years and had a child together; they also adopted George’s son Edward, Earl of Warwick, after his death. Anne was very ill when she died and there’s no sign that she was poisoned or hurt in any way by her husband.

#ShakespearesPlaylist: A Midsummer Night's Dream

This is part of the #ShakespearesPlaylist series! You can read all of those posts here!

A scene from the 1999 film version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, featuring Michelle Pfeiffer as Titania and Kevin Kline as Nick Bottom.

A scene from the 1999 film version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, featuring Michelle Pfeiffer as Titania and Kevin Kline as Nick Bottom.

So I LOVE finding songs to fit the mood of #Shakespeare plays. Basically every time I hear a song I love on the radio, I think about how I could fit it into a production. I can’t help it. My brain just does that, which is funny, because I’ve only directed one production (my own one-act) and questioned myself and my abilities the entire time, so I don’t necessarily see myself directing anything else any time soon, but I just like to dream about the music anyway.

I’ve decided to play with this habit of mine more and make full-fledged Spotify and Youtube playlists for each play by Shakespeare, under the umbrella name and hashtag #ShakespearesPlaylist .

This week we’re looking at A Midsummer Night’s Dream, one of the most loved and commonly performed Shakespeare plays! And why not? It has fairies, magic, love, mistaken love, hilariously inept actors, and general shenanigans galore; it’s considered one of the most accessible and kid-friendly of the bard’s works. It’s also Shakespeare’s second shortest play at 16,511 words (the actual shortest is Comedy of Errors, which is 14,701 words), which makes it a great choice for community productions and films. You don’t have to make as many cuts to it as you would to say, Hamlet (30,557! There’s a reason it’s rarely performed in full without cuts.), to fit it into a reasonable period of time for a modern audience.

Quick Wikipedia Summary: Midsummer has three main interwoven plots and one plot which serves as a frame story for all the others. The frame story is that the Duke Theseus of Athens and Hippolyta, the Queen of Amazons, are getting married, and everyone’s coming together for the celebration.

The first plot focuses on the lovers- Hermia is in love with Lysander, but her father Egeus wants her to wed Demetrius (to the extent that he threatens to kill her if she doesn’t do what he wants!). Hermia arranges to run away with Lysander and tells her best friend Helena about it, swearing her to secrecy. Helena pines after her former lover Demetrius, who broke up with her to chase after Hermia, and somehow thinks that telling Demetrius about Hermia and Lysander’s plans will endear him to her.

The second plot looks to the fairy king Oberon and fairy queen Titania, who are currently quarreling, as Titania refuses to give a child in her care to Oberon (the child’s mother was one of her worshippers). Oberon summons fairy Puck (also known as Robin Goodfellow) to fetch a flower with magical properties - when applied to a person’s eyes during sleep, that person, upon waking, falls in love with the first living thing they see. Oberon intends to use this to charm Titania so he can steal the child from her while she’s obsessed with some other being.

The third plot focuses on a group of common Athenians (“Rude Mechanicals”) who are putting together a comically inept production of Pyramus and Thisbe to perform at the Duke’s wedding. While rehearsing in the forest, Puck plays a trick on Bottom, the most arrogant member of the troupe, and gives him the head of a donkey, which frightens all his friends away.

These plots all become quickly interwoven. Oberon applies the love flower to Titania’s eyes while she is sleeping so that he can take away the child while she’s distracted; the first thing she sees upon waking is the donkey-headed Bottom. Shenanigans ensue! In addition, Oberon, after seeing Demetrius spurn the pathetic Helena, orders Puck to apply the love flower to Demetrius’s eyes. Puck mistakenly initially gives the flower to Lysander instead, who spies Helena upon waking and professes his undying love for her, abandoning Hermia in the woods in the process. Puck tries to amend this by also giving the flower to Demetrius, but all this does is result in Demetrius and Lysander fighting over Helena, who is convinced that both of them are making fun of her. Hermia flies into a rage over the whole situation and attacks Helena. Further shenanigans ensue!

In the end, Puck removes the flower from Lysander’s eyes and all the lovers end up happy and married by the end. Bottom also is returned to his prior shape as a human and Titania’s love potion is removed after Oberon steals the child; the fairy queen and the king reunite. They all gather together to celebrate Theseus and Hippolyta’s wedding and watch the Rude Mechanicals’ play, poking fierce fun at the hapless actors in the process.

First up on the playlist is The Beatles’ She’s Leaving Home, referencing Hermia running away from her father’s house to be with Lysander. To be fair, he literally threatened to kill her if she didn’t marry Demetrius so…good decision.

Wednesday morning at five o'clock
As the day begins
Silently closing her bedroom door
Leaving the note that she hoped would say more

She goes downstairs to the kitchen
Clutching her handkerchief
Quietly turning the backdoor key
Stepping outside, she is free

She(we gave her most of our lives)
Is leaving (sacrificed most of our lives)
Home (we gave her everything money could buy)
She's leaving home, after living alone, for so many years (bye bye)

Next up is Kanye West’s Heartless, referring to how heartlessly Demetrius treats Helena. Just switch the gender in the chorus lyrics and it applies perfectly to the situation.
“In the night I hear ‘em talk” - everyone knows about what Demetrius did to Helena; Lysander uses it as an example for why Hermia should be with him, and Theseus admits that he’s heard of Demetrius’s behavior and had wanted to talk to him about it.

In the night, I hear 'em talk
The coldest story ever told
Somewhere far along this road, [she] lost [her] soul to a [man] so heartless
How could you be so heartless?
Oh, how could you be so heartless?

David Bowie’s Magic Dance, from the movie Labyrinth, is a personal favorite of mine. I’ve loved that movie since I was just a child. And fortunately, it’s all about magic, dancing and kidnapping children, all things that are very present in Midsummer!

I saw my baby, trying hard as babe could try
What could I do?
My baby's fun had gone
And left my baby blue
Nobody knew
What kind of magic spell to use
Slime and snails
Or puppy dogs tails
Thunder or lightning
Then baby said

Dance magic, dance (dance magic, dance)
Dance magic, dance (dance magic, dance)
Put that baby's spell on me (ooh)
Jump magic, jump (jump magic, jump)
Jump magic, jump (jump magic, jump)
Put that magic jump on me (ooh)
Slap that baby, make him free

Billie Holiday’s You Go to My Head stands for Helena’s feelings for Demetrius. She loves him hopelessly and desperately; even though it seems like their relationship is truly over and he’s not interested any more, she pursues him.

The thrill of the thought
That you might give a thought to my plea
Casts a spell over me
Still I say to myself "Get a hold of yourself"
Can't you see that it never can be

You go to my head
With a smile that makes my temperature rise
Like a summer with a thousand Julys
You intoxicate my soul with your eyes
Though I'm certain that this heart of mine
Hasn't a ghost of a chance in this crazy romance
You go to my head

The Chordettes’ Mr Sandman refers simultaneously to a magical figure bringing sleep and love to the singer and the titular “dream.” After the night is over, all the humans involved in the shenanigans believe they have only dreamed of falling in love with various different people and having donkey’s heads and such.

Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream
Make him the cutest that I've ever seen
Give him two lips like roses and clover
Then tell him that his lonesome nights are over

Mr. Sandman, I'm so alone
Don't have nobody to call my own
So, please turn on your magic beam
Mr. Sandman, bring me a dream

I actually have been really struggling to find a song that represents the Rude Mechanicals and had some trouble. Yackety Sax maybe, but I already used that for my #ShakespearesPlaylist on The Comedy of Errors. What do y’all think? In any case, here’s an old video of The Beatles performing the Pyramus and Thisbe scene of Midsummer with a few other random dudes I don’t know on a variety show they hosted in 1964!

Finally, I’m closing out this post with a video of the recent production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, put on by my Shakespeare troupe The Britches and Hose! I’m not in it (I didn’t have a car at the time so I didn’t try out, no good way to get to rehearsals), but half my friends are! Also it’s the funniest version of this play I have EVER seen and you can probably hear me laughing hysterically throughout.

What suggestions do y’all have for A Midsummer Playlist? Please commen tor send them to me @RachaelDickzen on Twitter ! I’d love to hear your ideas. :)

Shakespeare English History/War of the Roses Family Tree: Unnatural Deaths

Taking a quick break from coverage of The Crown season 3 (don’t worry, I’ll have another post up later today!) to get back to Wars of the Roses for a minute. I’ve heard it said before that a lot of Tudor history was influenced by the Wars for the purely practical reason that most of the nobles with a claim to the throne were killed off. Really, Henry VII had a pretty weak claim to the throne, and a big reason Henry VIII’s daughters were allowed to take the crown was because there really weren’t any viable male alternatives. I decided to test this out myself by simply crossing off all the people on my family tree who were killed “unnaturally,” that is, not dying of old age or illness. I may have missed a few side people here, as my history knowledge gets shakier the further back we go or the more Scottish we get, so please let me know if you see anyone I’ve missed!

If you missed seeing the original Shakespeare English History Royal Family Tree, it’s over here.

My Obsessive Shakespeare English History Play Family Tree (from Richard II, Henry IVs, Henry V, Henry VIs, Richard III, AND NOW HENRY VIII))

Originally published October 21, 2019

Things I should have blogged about today: Six the Musical costumes (still working on it!), things I learned at the Emerging Writers Festival, the authors I met at the National Book Festival, TudorCon (just got back!), More #ShakespearesPlaylist

Things I actually worked on today: An overly detailed family tree of English monarchs involved in the Hundred Years’ War and the Cousins’ War (also known as the War of the Roses), as portrayed in various Shakespeare plays, including Richard II, Henry IV Part 1 and 2, Henry V, Henry VI Part 1, 2, and 3, and Richard III. This started as a way for me to sort out my own thoughts and for eventual distribution to the cast members of the Richard III production for which I’m stage managing, but it may have gotten a little too obsessive to be helpful at this point, lol.

Updated on 10/22 to add in the Woodvilles- while not royal, they are very important! I’m going to keep editing and working on this to make it more comprehensive and also to clear up some of the more obscured names on here.

I started with the wonderful family tree over at The History of England Podcast website (Thank you very much!) and modified it in a lot of ways, erasing some descendants that aren’t mentioned in the plays or super relevant, adding in others that are, etc. I also added in various notes to indicate “who killed whom” (or was ultimately responsible for the death) according to Shakespeare and “who had an affair with whom” (according to Shakespeare or historical fact or rumor). [NOTE: a lot of these deaths and affairs are not at all confirmed in history and I am in no way saying it actually happened that way, don’t at me.]

My conclusion is that everyone’s related (thus, the cousins’ war!), no one has ANY IMAGINATION WHATSOEVER when it comes to naming, and everyone killed everyone else’s relatives in some way.

Did I miss someone important? It’s totally possible! Half of these people have the same damn names!

Shakespeare has a whole bit in Richard III Act IV Scene 4 poking a little fun at that. I’ve put in notations to indicate which one is being talked about at which point because it is DAMN CONFUSING.

Queen Margaret. (speaking to Elizabeth Woodville)
Tell o'er your woes again by viewing mine:
I had an Edward (Edward, Prince of Wales [son of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou]), till a Richard kill'd him; (Richard, Duke of Gloucester/Richard III)
I had a Harry (Henry VI), till a Richard kill'd him: (Gloucester/R 3)
Thou hadst an Edward (Edward V [son of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville]), till a Richard kill'd him; (Gloucester/R 3)
Thou hadst a Richard (Richard, Duke of York [son of Edward IV’s and Elizabeth Woodville), till a Richard killed him; (Gloucester/R 3)

Duchess of York. I had a Richard too, and thou didst kill him; (Richard, Duke of York [father of Edward IV, Clarence, and Gloucester/R 3; also Duchess of York’s late husband])
I had a Rutland too, thou holp'st to kill him.

Anyway, If I DID miss someone or got something wrong in this family tree, please let me know; it would be most appreciated!

UPDATED NOVEMBER 11, 2019

I added a few more generations and cleaned up a lot of the more illegible names. : ) This goes far beyond anything mentioned in Shakespeare’s history plays, but I wanted to add in all the relevant potential heirs under Elizabeth I.

I also reformatted and cleaned it up a lot. I printed out a big copy of this and mounted it on foam-board for demonstration purposes at Richard III rehearsal. I got to teach all about the wars of the roses and history and it was so much fun. :D Please feel free to download it and use it for your own purposes! But if you do so, please comment and let me know what you’re doing with it, I’d love to know!

If you’d like to download the family tree, you can do that here.

#ShakespearesPlaylist: Twelfth Night

This is part of the #ShakespearesPlaylist series! You can read all of those posts here!

So I LOVE finding songs to fit the mood of #Shakespeare plays. Basically every time I hear a song I love on the radio, I think about how I could fit it into a production. I can’t help it. My brain just does that, which is funny, because I’ve only directed one production (my own one-act) and questioned myself and my abilities the entire time, so I don’t necessarily see myself directing anything else any time soon, but I just like to dream about the music anyway.

I’ve decided to play with this habit of mine more and make full-fledged Spotify and Youtube playlists for each play by Shakespeare, under the umbrella name and hashtag #ShakespearesPlaylist .

So Twelfth Night has long been one of my favorite Shakespeare plays (like, since age 10) and I’ve performed in it twice myself, so the summary and song list in this post are longer than any I’ve written so far in this series! I just can’t help myself, I really love this play, hah.

The Britches and Hose Production of Twelfth Night in 2011. I was Viola!

The Britches and Hose Production of Twelfth Night in 2011. I was Viola!

The Britches and Hose Production of Twelfth Night in 2017. I was a wandering singing musician person - we called ourselves the Festettes!

The Britches and Hose Production of Twelfth Night in 2017. I was a wandering singing musician person - we called ourselves the Festettes!

Quick Wikipedia Summary: Viola is shipwrecked on the coast of Illyria. Believing that her twin brother Sebastian is dead, she disguises herself as a young man under the name Cesario and enters the service of Duke Orsino. Duke Orsino has convinced himself that he is in love with the noble lady Olivia, who is mourning the recent deaths of her father and brother and refuses to see any men or entertainments. Duke Orsino then uses 'Cesario' as an intermediary to profess his passionate love before Olivia. Olivia, however, falls in love with 'Cesario', setting her at odds with her professed duty. In the meantime, Viola has fallen in love with Duke Orsino, creating a love triangle: Viola loves Duke Orsino, Duke Orsino loves Olivia, and Olivia loves Viola disguised as Cesario.

In the comic subplot, several characters conspire to make Olivia's pompous steward, Malvolio, believe that Olivia has fallen for him. This involves Olivia's riotous uncle, Sir Toby Belch; another would-be suitor, a silly squire named Sir Andrew Aguecheek; her servants Maria and Fabian; and her melancholy fool, Feste. Through a fake love letter, Malvolio is encouraged to make a fool of himself in front of Olivia, who is convinced that he is mad and leaves him to be cared for by his tormentors. Pretending that Malvolio is insane, they lock him up in a dark chamber. Feste visits him to mock his insanity, both disguised as a priest and as himself. Sir Toby later marries Maria for this jest. When Malvolio is finally released, he swears revenge on all who conspired against him.

Meanwhile, Viola's twin, Sebastian, has been rescued by Antonio, a sea captain who previously fought against Orsino, yet who accompanies Sebastian to Illyria, despite the danger, because of his admiration for Sebastian. Sebastian's appearance adds the confusion of mistaken identities to the comedy. Taking Sebastian for 'Cesario', Olivia asks him to marry her, and they are secretly married in a church. Finally, when 'Cesario' and Sebastian appear in the presence of both Olivia and Orsino, there is more wonder and confusion at their physical similarity. At this point, Viola reveals her identity and is reunited with her twin brother. The play ends in a declaration of marriage between Duke Orsino and Viola.

I chose “Hey Brother” by Avcii to demonstrate the familial love between Viola and Sebastian. Both of them believe the other has drowned in the crash and are pretty devastated about it. The chorus in particular fits this storyline:

What if I'm far from home?
Oh brother, I will hear you call!
What if I lose it all?
Oh sister, I will help you out!
Oh, if the sky comes falling down, for you
There's nothing in this world I wouldn't do

Amy Winehouse’s cover of “To Know Him is to Love Him” is a perfect illustration of Viola’s love for Duke Orsino.

To know know know him
Is to love love love him
Just to see that smile
Makes my life worthwhile

Why can't he see?
How blind here he be?
Someday he'll see
That he was meant just for me, oh oh oh oh

Taylor Swift’s “You Belong with Me” also represents Viola’s situation, simultaneously in love with Orsino but pretending to be his male friend, having to woo another lady on his behalf. It’s so bubblegum pop that I really resisted including it in this list, but honestly, the lyrics are so ridiculously perfect for this plotline that it had to happen.

If you can see I'm the one who understands you
Been here all along so why can't you see
You belong with me
You belong with me

Walkin' the streets with you and your worn-out jeans
I can't help thinking this is how it ought to be
Laughing on a park bench, thinking to myself
Hey isn't this easy

And you've got a smile that could light up this whole town
I haven't seen it in a while since she brought you down
You say your fine
I know you better then that
Hey what you doing with a girl like that

…I'm the one who makes you laugh
When you know you're about to cry
And I know your favorite songs
And you tell me about your dreams
I think I know where you belong
I think I know it's with me

I’ve chosen Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain” to represent Malvolio, who is so overproud that he willingly believes his mistress Olivia is in love with him, despite the ludicrousness of the fake love letter and the situation as a whole. He literally thinks the letter is about him!

You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain,
I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? Don't you?

I chose Mad World by Gary Jules to represent Sebastian’s massive confusion about arriving in Illyria. Everyone seems to know him and have strong opinions about him, but he just got there! What the heck is going on. (I’m not so certain on this choice, as I think the overall mood of the song is too melancholy for Twelfth Night, but I really want something in here about Sebastian’s POV. I may replace this one later if anyone has any good suggestions!)

The Lumineers’ “Hey Ho “is a great song to represent Feste, as Feste’s song in the show literally includes the words “Hey Ho, the wind and the rain.” Plus, the laid-back troubador style of Hey Ho works really well for Feste’s casual and humorous approach to life.

Finally, here’s a video of an actual production of Twelfth Night which I actually was in. It’s the final song in the show, The Rain it Raineth, with music by Dave Seidman-Joria. Feste in this version is played by Sam Stenecker! Then from left to right in the back is: Lauren Sutton, Leandra Lyn, Megan Fraedrich, Rachael Dickson (my non-writing superhero alter ego), and Dan Clark.

Wedding Craft Tutorial: Shakespeare and Glitter Flower Girl Scatter

Glitter and Shakespeare Heart scatter! I also painted the flower girls’ baskets bright sparkly red.

Glitter and Shakespeare Heart scatter! I also painted the flower girls’ baskets bright sparkly red.

We decided not to have any real flowers at our wedding. I have a great love for paper crafting, so I ended up making all the bouquets, boutonnieres, and corsages out of paper flowers. I’ll write about that more later. :)

Anyway, my two nieces were our flower girls/ring bearers and I really wanted them to have something special to scatter down the aisle - something that actually represented me and John .

I got two little paper punches - one heart and one cherry blossom. The cherry blossom punch didn’t work too well - it was too complicated and I could never get it to cut any paper cleanly. So most of our scatter was heart shaped.

I did cut a lot of hearts out of various covers of glitter paper and other pretty papers, but I wanted something more personalized as well, even if no one would even really notice except me.

I wanted to incorporate Shakespeare somehow. I’ve been part of Shakespeare productions on and off since 2010, and was a founding member of the Britches and Hose Shakespeare troupe. John also loves Shakespeare and one of our first dates was going to see Julius Caesar at Chicago Shakespeare Theater. Our wedding ceremony included Shakespeare quotes from Much Ado About Nothing, Richard III, Julius Caesar, and Henry V. I even walked down the aisle to a version of “Sigh Not So” from the 1992 Kenneth Branagh film of Much Ado About Nothing!

A friend of mine had an awesome master document of Shakespeare quotes for various situations; I took that doc, put all the text in a pretty cursive font, and removed all the lines and paragraph breaks and such until I had several solid pages of Shakespeare text. I printed that document out on both sides of some nice leftover resume paper I had lying around. And then, all I had to do was cut the remaining white margins off the paper and bam - I had my own personalized Shakespeare stationery. I used it for the flower girl scatter and also for a few of the roses in my bouquet and my bridesmaids’ bouquets. :)

Again, it was a tiny detail and I’m not sure anyone else noticed it at all, but it made me very happy, and it was super simple. When I walked down the aisle, my cathedral length veil ended up catching the scatter and pulling them along with me. People started laughing and it was amazing; it resulted in one of my favorite photos from the day!

Anyone else is welcome to use my Shakespeare stationery as well! You can download a pdf of it on Google Drive here.