Garber has a truly engaging way of talking about Shakespeare, making his plays feel incredibly relevant and interesting, even centuries after they were written. She doesn't just summarize the plots; she dives into the language, the themes, and how these plays connect with us, suggesting all sorts of juicy ideas to chew on. So, let's settle in and explore some of the wonderful insights presented in these passages! ### Shakespeare: Timely, Not Just Timeless! One of the first and most compelling ideas Garber presents is that while we often hear about Shakespeare's "timelessness" – those transcendent qualities that make his plays loved around the world – perhaps a better way to think about it is his "uncanny timeliness". What she means is that his plays have this remarkable ability to speak directly to situations and circumstances that he couldn't possibly have known about or predicted. It's a bit like a portrait where the eyes seem to follow you; the plays and their characters feel constantly "modern," constantly like "us". This is such a neat way to look at it, isn't it? Instead of being some dusty relic from the past, Shakespeare's work feels alive and adaptable. It makes you wonder: What does this "timeliness" tell us about the enduring aspects of the human experience that Shakespeare captured so well? And how is our own age – with all its unique challenges and perspectives – creating _its_ version of Shakespeare? These are questions that Garber's approach encourages us to ask. ### The Elusive "Real" Shakespeare and the Winding Path of His Texts Now, because Shakespeare is so absolutely central to modern culture, there's this strong desire to pinpoint the "real" Shakespeare, both the person and the definitive version of his play-texts. But oh, what a complicated quest that turns out to be! The very nature of plays written for performance, coupled with the printing practices of the early modern period (when copyright was just a twinkle in someone's eye!), make this wish for a single, fixed authenticity quite tricky. Take _Hamlet_, for example. We don't have just one authoritative text; we have _three_ reasonably authoritative versions: the First Quarto, the Second Quarto, and the First Folio texts. And _King Lear_ has a Quarto and a Folio text that are so different, that major modern editions, like The Norton Shakespeare, print both versions so readers can compare them side-by-side. You can see differing versions of speeches, find lines assigned to different characters, and discover whole sections that vary significantly. This wasn't just academic nitpicking for early editors. Confronted with these different versions, editors often combined them, creating what's called a "conflated" text. They chose the word, phrase, or speech assignment that seemed to make the most sense or, perhaps tellingly, struck _them_ as the most "Shakespearean". This process, while understandable, actually helped _create_ our idea of "Shakespeare" through editorial choices. Garber points out that the First Folio version of "To be, or not to be" likely feels more "Shakespearean" to most people than the First Quarto's "To be or not to be—I, there's the point". Yet, she notes, each version is "authentic" in some way, and neither, strictly speaking, was written directly by Shakespeare in the form we read it. This textual adventure also highlights the practical needs of the stage. Directors, especially influenced by modern theater, have noted the playability of the shorter First Quarto of _Hamlet_ compared to the much longer versions. Experimental productions based on the First Quarto have even been successful with audiences. This reminds us that plays were meant to be performed! Directors constantly make choices – rearranging scenes, shortening speeches, cutting or conflating characters – and this is simply part of their craft. Garber suggests that finding theatrical invigoration in the First Quarto, partly because of its unfamiliarity, shouldn't be seen as a violation of essential truths. After all, "fidelity to the text" is always balanced with what truly "works on the stage". This raises an intriguing thought: How does the act of performance continue to shape our understanding of these fluid texts? This journey through the different texts also makes you pause and consider the nature of authorship itself. Our modern ideas about a writer's absolute "originality" and the concept of the "author" having sole authority over their work really solidified in the eighteenth century, coinciding with the establishment of copyright law and the first major edited editions of Shakespeare's plays. In Shakespeare's time, adapting source material and collaborative writing were standard practices. For example, Garber notes that _Henry VI Part I_ is likely a collaborative play but is listed in the First Folio as "a play by William Shakespeare". The editors of the First Folio made choices, including which plays to include; _Pericles_, for instance, was not included in the First Folio. And scholarly consensus suggests that George Wilkins likely wrote most of the first two acts of _Pericles_. The idea of subdividing a play into "Shakespearean" and "non-Shakespearean" sections misses the point of collaborative authorship. So, when we talk about Shakespeare's texts, we're really talking about a fascinating history of writing, performance, printing, and editing, all contributing to the versions we read and see today. It's a collective creation across centuries! ### Shakespeare in the Wild: Quotations, Branding, and Cultural Enforcers Beyond the literary realm, Shakespeare has permeated our culture in countless ways. Garber talks about how politics, business, and popular culture have been "Shakspearized". Think about how lines from his plays pop up in speeches, articles, and advertising. This practice of citing "Shakespeare" can sometimes act as a kind of cultural enforcer, but it can also, perhaps ironically, obscure the wit and context of the original. Today, Shakespeare is often encountered as a citation, a tagline, an adage, or a slogan. It's like "sampling" in popular music or "branding" in advertising. Garber gives fun examples, like a business column asking "B2, or not B2" about a stealth bomber, or an airline asking "2B or not 2B" for seat selection. The assumption is that you'll get the reference and feel savvy, but not necessarily "highbrow," because, as Garber points out, "Shakespeare belongs to everyone". This is where things get really interesting. Phrases like "The lady protests too much, methinks" are regularly used to mean general insincerity, even if the person protesting is male. The quote becomes a "verbal macro," a shortcut implying generalized doubt, detached from its specific context in _Hamlet_ (where Gertrude ironically observes the Player Queen's overacting). It no longer requires knowledge of the play, Gertrude, or the idea of a play catching the conscience of the king. This phenomenon of sampling and branding Shakespeare raises great questions: What happens to the original meaning and complexity when a phrase becomes a tagline? Does this widespread, decontextualized use ultimately flatten our understanding of the plays, or does it keep Shakespeare relevant and alive in the cultural consciousness? ### A Whirlwind Tour Through Some Featured Plays Garber's work, as excerpted here, touches on a variety of plays, highlighting specific elements that reveal Shakespeare's developing craft, recurring themes, and engagement with his sources and contemporaries. Let's peek at a few: - _**The Two Gentlemen of Verona**_: This early romantic comedy serves as a "harbinger". It introduces elements Shakespeare will refine later, like a heroine cross-dressing as a boy to pursue her love (anticipating _Twelfth Night_), a love triangle involving banished lovers and forced marriage (_Romeo and Juliet_), outlaws in the woods (_As You Like It_), and elopement plots. It also features familiar types like the clown who speaks truth through mistakes and the duke-father figure. Garber also notes the use of "friend" to mean "a lover of the opposite sex," which appears frequently in his plays, and anticipates the delightful love banter found in later comedies. The play borrows from sources like George Gascoigne's _Supposes_, underscoring the common practice of adaptation. Gascoigne's prologue even highlights the multiple meanings of "suppose," which can mean "mistaking or imagination of one thing for another". - _**Titus Andronicus**_: This tragedy reflects the vogue for Seneca, featuring long, declamatory speeches. Garber points out the play's use of doubled language, particularly around the loss of "hands," connecting physical mutilation to rhetorical loss. The play begins with a scenario common in Shakespeare's early works: rival factions and a judge unable to contain the strife. She analyzes Marcus's language, noting the characteristic early-period balance and reversal ("gentle"/"ungentle") and how Lavinia's injuries explicitly echo the earlier execution of Alarbus, making it an act of revenge. Aaron, the villain, is presented as an Elizabethan Machiavel who declares his unchanging resolve even when facing death, recalling Marlowe's Barabas. - _**The Henry VI Plays**_: Garber notes that _Henry VI Part 1_ functions almost as a "prequel", written _after_ Parts 2 and 3, filling in historical context and foreshadowing events. She calls Part 1 a lively, smart play that works well onstage. In _Henry VI Part 2_, which she suggests was written before Part 1, she highlights the term "complot" (conspiracy/design) and its relation to "plot" and stage tragedy, linking it forward to _Richard III_'s famous declaration about laying plots. The figure of Margaret is particularly interesting; she is depicted as a "manly" woman with a ruthless talent for managing the King. Garber compares her to Old Hamlet as a "living ghost" or "revenant," coming from banishment and the past to deliver a message of revenge, linking her to revenge tragedy traditions and Seneca. She even connects Margaret's curse on Richard to ideas in _Macbeth_, particularly the tormenting dreams. - _**Love's Labour's Lost**_: This comedy, while lighthearted in tone, touches on the dangers in the pursuit of knowledge. There's playful language, including a literary joke about putting love poetry in a large-format "folio" book. A key speech by Berowne abjures artificial language and courtly compliments. Garber notes that, characteristic of Shakespearean comedies, the play is framed by intimations of mortality, with deaths occurring offstage, which can alter the course of the drama. She also points out Shakespeare's wide social reference, beginning with the King but ending with a reference to "greasy Joan," representing the common man's beloved. - _**A Midsummer Night's Dream**_: The play-within-the-play, "Pyramus and Thisbe," serves as a metadramatic device, allowing Shakespeare to gently mock other writers and old-fashioned, overly dramatic (or "Senecan") styles. Garber connects the actor who played Bottom (Will Kemp) to the actor who played Dogberry in _Much Ado About Nothing_, suggesting audiences might have made this connection. She also mentions Puck's epilogue as an early example of the play's theme that life might be an illusion, "no more yielding but a dream". - _**King John**_: Garber highlights the character of the Bastard (Philip/Richard), noting his colloquial language, wit, and ability to engage directly with the audience. She compares him to later, more famous Shakespearean characters like Edmund, Mercutio, Jaques, and even Falstaff, but points out that, unlike them, the Bastard survives and retains central power. - _**The Henry IV Plays**_: Garber presents _Henry IV Part 1_ as exploring the complex character of Prince Hal, who uses the language of economic reality alongside more transcendent language. She discusses the audience's complex response to Hal and Falstaff, noting how Falstaff's "counterfeit resurrection" invites judgment and how Hal, destined to be king, must separate himself. She describes Hal as a "double man," embodying the limitations and possibilities of kingship. _Henry IV Part 2_ is presented as a counterfoil to Part 1, beginning with the allegorical figure of Rumour, painted with tongues, linking the play to classical sources and the chaos of language seen in the Tower of Babel. Garber notes the increase in prose scenes, suggesting the poetic world is being swallowed up. The heroic Hotspur of Part 1 is replaced by Ancient Pistol in Part 2, a braggart soldier who spouts jumbled fragments of other playwrights, embodying the decline and tawdriness of the world. Hal's entry into the tavern world in Part 2 feels like a "low transformation" or a descent into the underworld, contrasting with the energy of Part 1. - _**The Merry Wives of Windsor**_: This play is traditionally said to have been written at Queen Elizabeth's request to see Falstaff in love. Garber notes that while it references characters from the _Henry IV_ plays, it mixes time periods and stands alone. Its popularity today is linked to the victory of the "merry wives" and the many female roles. She compares the humiliation of the foolish Slender to Malvolio's fate in _Twelfth Night_. - _**Much Ado About Nothing**_: Garber focuses on key verbal dynamics, including the play on "nothing" and "noting". She discusses the witty banter and the comedic deceptions, noting Benedick's self-aware reaction to being tricked into thinking Beatrice loves him, comparing it to Malvolio's less self-aware reaction to the letter in _Twelfth Night_. The play features hasty, misinformed rejections and dramatic moments of "resurrection" and remarriage. The comic deception involving Benedick and Beatrice is undone by written proof – letters they wrote declaring their love. Garber highlights the play's juxtaposition of spoken and written language, particularly Dogberry's reliance on writing to pin down facts and his desire to be "writ down an ass," which she calls a favor the playwright does the character. - _**Henry V**_: Garber discusses Henry V's St. Crispin's Day speech on the eve of Agincourt as a powerful moment focused on memory, fame, and the creation of a "band of brothers". This speech, she notes, presents a patriotic account of reputation that contrasts with its negative portrayal in _Richard II_. Henry's connection to common comforts makes him the "modern king a modern England needs". - _**Julius Caesar**_: Garber notes Brutus's sleeplessness and encounter with Caesar's ghost, comparing it to similar scenes in _Richard III_ and _Macbeth_. She discusses Caesar's use of "will" and "shall" as the language of power and command, comparing it to Marlowe's Tamburlaine. The play features letter reading and interpretation. Garber points out that the famous phrase "Great Caesar's ghost" doesn't actually appear in the play, though both the ghost and "great Caesar" do. The ghost scene draws on traditions like medieval dream visions. - _**As You Like It**_: Garber explores Rosalind's rapid-fire questioning and witty commentary, particularly her reflections on love being akin to excess and her playful interjections reminding the audience of her female identity beneath her male disguise. She frames the play as a "fantasy about gender" and desire, noting the contrasts between different pairs of lovers (romantic excess vs. earthy carnality). Touchstone's view of poetry as "feigning" or lying is also highlighted. Rosalind's epilogue, spoken directly to the audience, is discussed as linking the actor to the human identity and bridging the gap between stage and spectators, a technique also used in epilogues by Puck and Prospero. - _**Hamlet**_: Beyond the textual issues already discussed, Garber delves into key aspects of _Hamlet_. She compares his famous soliloquy on "being" to inquiries about "doing" in _Macbeth_ and _Othello_, emphasizing how _Hamlet_ focuses on existence and memory. The Ghost's language is analyzed as drawing from Seneca and epic drama, embodying a lost heroic past. Garber points out how Hamlet becomes a "ghostwriter" when he revises Claudius's script (the letter requesting his death), an act parallel to his earlier insertion of lines into "The Mousetrap" play. She also notes Hamlet's skill as a scribe. Hamlet's scene with his mother and the pictures of her husbands is later echoed in _The Two Noble Kinsmen_. - _**Twelfth Night**_: Garber discusses Duke Orsino's melancholy and love of music, comparing him to Cleopatra and Jessica. She highlights Malvolio's gullibility, comparing his reading of the counterfeit letter to the self-regarding Princes in _The Merchant of Venice_ choosing caskets. The famous line about greatness is presented in its original context within the forged letter to Malvolio. Sir Andrew Aguecheek's foolish challenge letter is compared to the "Pyramus and Thisbe" prologue. Malvolio's harsher punishment compared to Sir Andrew's is noted. The theme of a lost sister, touched upon with Viola's imaginary sibling, is a recurring motif in Shakespeare. - _**Othello**_: Garber positions Iago as the play's "malign and conscienceless stage manager," essential to the unfolding tragedy. She explores the enduring question of his motives. Othello's final speech is analyzed as a moment where he speaks directly to the onstage spectators and the audience, much like Hamlet, asking to be remembered accurately. The ending is described as giving the audience a role in the drama through language, allowing them to "replay, remember, and even edit the play". - _**All's Well That Ends Well**_: Garber uses the question "Who cannot be crushed with a plot?" as a key to understanding this play's structure, where the plot must work out for the heroine despite obstacles. Helena's success is attributed to her patience and ingenuity. Garber details the "bed trick" and Diana's clever double meanings, contrasting them with the comedic hoodwinking of Paroles, who is tricked by made-up language, recalling a similar scene in _Love's Labour's Lost_. The play concludes with a comic epilogue spoken by the King, seeking applause and emphasizing the playful reversals and happy endings. - _**King Lear**_: Garber focuses on Cordelia's refusal to articulate an exaggerated love ("Love and be silent") as introducing a "rhetoric of silence," an acknowledgment of language's limitations. This refusal to "play the game" contrasts with Hamlet's use of theatricality. She notes the parallel father-child relationships (Lear/Cordelia, Gloucester/Edgar). Garber suggests that the play ultimately turns towards romance, fantasy, and dream, particularly in its treatment of Lear and Cordelia, anticipating Shakespeare's later plays. She also connects Lear's need for patience to Pericles's. The play's ending is compared to those of _Macbeth_ and _Richard III_. - _**Macbeth**_: Garber contrasts Hamlet's focus on "being" with Macbeth's on "doing" ("To do, or not to do"). She notes the complexity of Macbeth's language, especially his internal struggles. While Macbeth's despair is humanizing, the play ultimately moves towards restoration of order through Malcolm, who uses language of fertility ("planted newly with the time"). Macbeth is ultimately turned into a spectacle or warning. Lady Macbeth is implicitly compared to the "manly" Margaret in _Henry VI Part 2_. - ***The Late Romances (Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, The Tempest, Henry VIII, The Two Noble Kinsmen)***: These plays are often grouped together, though categories vary. Garber discusses how they differ from the tragedies, enacting patterns of desire and loss as if in imagination or dream. - _**Pericles**_ is presented as differing textually from the Folio plays and likely co-authored. It draws heavily on sources like Gower, who appears as a prologue figure speaking in archaic language. The play uses dumb shows and explores the theme of action versus words. Garber highlights the "multiplicity of resonances" in its imagery, connecting to history, politics (the Stuart family), and archetype. She notes Pericles's need for patience, linking him to Lear. The play uses symbolism over psychology, presents myth straightforwardly (like the Proserpina myth), and features a powerful recognition scene with the riddle "Thou that begett'st him that did thee beget," which purges the original riddle's sin and speaks to literary engagement with the past. The reunion of father and daughter (Pericles and Marina) seems prioritized. - _**Cymbeline**_ explores the idea of characters being believable individuals before symbols. It features a heroine (Imogen) disguised as a boy, with the play subtly highlighting her gender through language and action. Garber links a reading scene in _Cymbeline_ to one in _Julius Caesar_. The play also includes the reunion of father and sons. - _**The Winter's Tale**_ features an offstage revelation of Perdita's identity, enhancing the wonder for the onstage characters, a technique also used in _Macbeth_'s sleepwalking scene. Language in the revelation scene anticipates the statue coming to life, turning "marble" into color. The play also includes a reunion of husband, wife, and daughter. - _**The Tempest**_ features Miranda, the "ideal spectator" whose name means "to wonder at". Prospero's magic creates the play's events, leading Garber to explore the framing of the play by "art" as both magic and being. The theme of life as a dream is central. Prospero is seen as a "playwright figure". His epilogue directly addresses the audience, emphasizing the human reality of the actor and bridging the gap between stage and spectators, linking him to Puck and Rosalind. Garber challenges the romantic notion that this was Shakespeare's last play or farewell. - _**Henry VIII**_ (likely co-authored) is described as weaving together speeches of downfall, spectacles, and scenes reporting offstage events. Its effectiveness doesn't depend on it being solely "Shakespearean". - _**The Two Noble Kinsmen**_ (likely co-authored) uses a jaunty prologue and an epilogue to frame the play and address the audience, linking it to plays like _Romeo and Juliet_ and _The Tempest_. It replaces the Gower figure from _Pericles_ with a standalone Prologue speaker. The play features philosophical conversations and the recurring "dead twin" theme, which Garber notes is a "trope of stage" citing earlier Shakespearean moments like Ophelia's madness and Hamlet's picture scene. The madness scene of the Jailer's Daughter explicitly references Desdemona's "Willow" song. ### Further Ideas and Questions to Explore! As you can see, Garber provides a rich tapestry of ideas that make Shakespeare accessible and thought-provoking. Here are just a few threads you might pull on for further exploration: - **The Power of Performance:** How do Garber's comments on textual variations for the stage, directors' choices, the nature of characters needing voice and motive for audience engagement, and the significance of epilogues addressing the audience highlight the importance of experiencing these plays _onstage_? - **Shakespeare's Self-Referentiality:** Garber frequently points out how later plays echo or "cite" earlier ones, sometimes turning tragic moments into comedic tropes, or using recurring character types and structural devices. How does this internal dialogue within Shakespeare's works deepen our understanding of his development as a playwright? - **Language and Meaning:** The discussion of different versions of speeches, the multiple meanings of words like "suppose" and "Joan", the contrast between formal and colloquial language, the use of doubled language, the rhetoric of silence, and the transformation of language from poetic to prose in _Henry IV Part 2_ – all underscore the vital role of language in shaping meaning and character. What other linguistic patterns and shifts can be found across the plays? - **Characters as Archetypes and Individuals:** Garber notes the balance between characters linked to allegorical types (Vice, Machiavel) and their need to be believable individuals. She discusses figures embodying lost heroic values, "playwright figures" who manipulate others, and characters whose journey reflects a shift towards symbolism over psychology. How does Shakespeare manage this blend of archetype and individual psychology? - **Shakespeare in _Our_ Age:** Given Garber's point that "every age creates its own Shakespeare", how is the widespread "sampling" and "branding" of Shakespeare today unique to the digital age? How do modern adaptations in film, TV, and other media continue the tradition of reimagining his work?