As a past student of political science and philosophy, I could already see the sweeping, systematic and devastating critique of monarchy across Shakespeare's plays as a conceived project. This is what drew me to these lecture videos. However, Professor Cantor here has also opened my eyes to the religious, supernatural and natural dimensions; and the implications of top-down centralized monarchy (or tyranny) over slightly more bottom-up (feudal or here thane-appointed) kingship. Over these lectures, it indeed seems that Shakespeare addresses the possibility of a 'good' king (Henry V) only to show that this is exceptional and in any case can lead to horrors of its own. I appreciate the explanation that Banquo and other thanes might be on the competitiveness continuum of the ambitious Macbeths, while I wish that Malcolm's speech to Macduff was treated in more detail. It does seem that there is something wrong with modern political sensibilities if these key sections and themes are cut from or not understood in productions of Shakespeare, particularly in the UK where the populace are subjects of a theocratic monarchy and not citizens.
Macbeth wanted to achieve the witches prophecy with his own hand ," Oh stars hold your fire that no one can see my hidden desire. And this what happens today in many countries
Cantor's perspective here would make more sense if Duncan were simply deposed, perhaps banished, rather than murdered. Additionally, the speculative textual evidence on the personalities of MacDuff and Banquo is insufficient to support a thesis that if not MacBeth than another thane would have murdered Duncan. One can not divorce the play's evil murder conspiracy in order to present a political theory.
It was Charles I who was executed in 1649. Charles II was invited back at the Restoration in 1660. I'm not sure Shakespeare would've found the Civil War execution "shocking", I think he would've endorsed the Parliamentarians. What was shocking was the assassination of William the Silent (Dutch of Orange) by Catholic Philip II (of Spain) in 1584. Elizabeth I lived in constant fear of the same fate, which is why there was such hostility towards Catholics (Jesuits especially). More shocking still was the assassination of French (good) king Henry IV in 1610 by a deranged catholic. But the judicial execution of a liar, traitor and unprincipled opportunist, I don't believe would've shocked Shakespeare.
33:00 Oh come on. Can we not consider the idea that what Duncan is inquiring to in this matter is that this particular individual is standing out or gored if you will in either his blood and/or the enemies? (Get him surgeons ) Obviously this caught his attention. There is no reason to assume Duncan is shocked at the simple sight of blood. I choose to believe that Willy was sketching the man out to be bloody above the rest of the group in that scene.
Cantor's typical overreach in these lectures would be diminished IMHO with shorter lectures on more plays. However that would put greater strain on the students, who presumably enroll in a Shakespeare class as a relief from more relevant studies. Some schools have dropped WS from the required curriculum, and not simply bc of pressure from feminists.
@@sbnwnc At a purely utiliatarian level, perhaps not, but it always a good thing to stretch people's minds in a way that enables them to gain a richer understanding of human nature and the world; and from that point of view, the study - and experience! -of Shakespeare's plays is neither 'irrelevant' nor 'impractical'. Nor is the gaining of a wider historical perspective.
As a past student of political science and philosophy, I could already see the sweeping, systematic and devastating critique of monarchy across Shakespeare's plays as a conceived project. This is what drew me to these lecture videos. However, Professor Cantor here has also opened my eyes to the religious, supernatural and natural dimensions; and the implications of top-down centralized monarchy (or tyranny) over slightly more bottom-up (feudal or here thane-appointed) kingship. Over these lectures, it indeed seems that Shakespeare addresses the possibility of a 'good' king (Henry V) only to show that this is exceptional and in any case can lead to horrors of its own. I appreciate the explanation that Banquo and other thanes might be on the competitiveness continuum of the ambitious Macbeths, while I wish that Malcolm's speech to Macduff was treated in more detail.
It does seem that there is something wrong with modern political sensibilities if these key sections and themes are cut from or not understood in productions of Shakespeare, particularly in the UK where the populace are subjects of a theocratic monarchy and not citizens.
Macbeth wanted to achieve the witches prophecy with his own hand ," Oh stars hold your fire that no one can see my hidden desire. And this what happens today in many countries
Cantor's perspective here would make more sense if Duncan were simply deposed, perhaps banished, rather than murdered. Additionally, the speculative textual evidence on the personalities of MacDuff and Banquo is insufficient to support a thesis that if not MacBeth than another thane would have murdered Duncan. One can not divorce the play's evil murder conspiracy in order to present a political theory.
@Jimmy Johnston I would never presume to disagree with someone like you; thank you for your feedback.
Why? Who the phuck is Jimmy Johnston?
Nonsense.
It was Charles I who was executed in 1649.
Charles II was invited back at the Restoration in 1660.
I'm not sure Shakespeare would've found the Civil War execution "shocking",
I think he would've endorsed the Parliamentarians.
What was shocking was the assassination of William the Silent (Dutch of Orange) by Catholic Philip II (of Spain) in 1584.
Elizabeth I lived in constant fear of the same fate, which is why there was such hostility towards Catholics (Jesuits especially).
More shocking still was the assassination of French (good) king Henry IV in 1610
by a deranged catholic.
But the judicial execution of a liar, traitor and unprincipled opportunist, I don't believe would've shocked Shakespeare.
I see Jimmy Johnston's comments have been deleted. I'd like to have had the chance to read them, and think for myself.
33:00 Oh come on. Can we not consider the idea that what Duncan is inquiring to in this matter is that this particular individual is standing out or gored if you will in either his blood and/or the enemies? (Get him surgeons ) Obviously this caught his attention. There is no reason to assume Duncan is shocked at the simple sight of blood. I choose to believe that Willy was sketching the man out to be bloody above the rest of the group in that scene.
52:00, 59:34 Porter speech
@1:00:00
i guess it's kinda off topic but does anyone know a good site to stream new tv shows online ?
@Nicholas Ethan Lately I have been using FlixZone. You can find it on google =)
Cantor's typical overreach in these lectures would be diminished IMHO with shorter lectures on more plays. However that would put greater strain on the students, who presumably enroll in a Shakespeare class as a relief from more relevant studies. Some schools have dropped WS from the required curriculum, and not simply bc of pressure from feminists.
Johnston. Yes it shows what he means by "relevant" relevant to what? To becoming an active consumer and corporate drudge.
'More relevant studies'! As though the plays of a Sophocles, Shakepseare or Ibsen were not relevant to the human condition.
@@adagietto2523 He means "practical" and I guess he is right. This isn't very practical.
@@sbnwnc At a purely utiliatarian level, perhaps not, but it always a good thing to stretch people's minds in a way that enables them to gain a richer understanding of human nature and the world; and from that point of view, the study - and experience! -of Shakespeare's plays is neither 'irrelevant' nor 'impractical'. Nor is the gaining of a wider historical perspective.
@@adagietto2523 You are right, of course. Let's hope we can keep the Humanities alive.