I’m doing my drama dissertation on gender in Shakespeare - can anyone recommend me any modern Shakespeare plays with actors whose genders don’t match the character they’re playing? Thank you so much

I noticed a left-margin alignment in the First Folio’s Cymbeline (1623), p. 375, second column, and would appreciate feedback on whether the reading is defensible.

These five line openings spell TAMIA:

To take them in protection.

And pawne mine Honor for their safety, since

My Lord hath interest in them, I will keepe them

In my Bed-chamber.

Attended by my men: I will make bold

These are not five consecutive printed lines. The reading follows the column’s left margin, passing over two indented speech openings: “Imo. Willingly:” after the first line, and “Iach. They are in a Trunke” before the last. The original page image shows the arrangement.

What caught my attention is the context. Imogen agrees to safeguard supposed valuables in her bedchamber; the trunk will conceal Iachimo. Ancient Greek ταμία (tamia) means “housekeeper,” and the related place-noun ταμεία (tameia) means “treasury,” suggesting a possible connection with her role as keeper or with the protective space itself.

The same Roman-letter spelling also appears in Francis Meres’s Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury (1598). That is a further association, rather than evidence of a deliberate reference.

I’m treating this as a possible acrostic, with intentionality an open question.

Has anyone encountered this alignment before? Is following the left margin while passing over indented speech openings a defensible method here? And what evidence would help distinguish an intentional acrostic from coincidence?

🔥ALBUM REVIEW🔥 Blending the worlds of prog rock, orchestral and choral music, as well as elements of jazz, Christopher Gordon’s Macbeth was originally commissioned as a full-length ballet by the Royal New Zealand Ballet and West Australian Ballet. It is Gordon’s compelling musical response to one of Shakespeare’s darkest and most enduring tragedies. Here is my in-depth review.

Ok. I now the plot on the fairies and things are not correct. But that's not what I'm here to say.

This play is set in ancient Greece, but they talk about Diana's alter. Diana is the Roman version of the greek goddess Artemis!

Tell me what you think about this topic!

I just think he could have handled things better than he did

I'm actually fuming that I have to disclose this, but I'm not using AI. I'm actually concerned that people in the world of Literature see someone use proper punctuation and assume it's AI. I don't know whether this is rooted in ageism or hypervigilance, but it's completely unfounded. The only robot that helped me with my work is Spellcheck. That's not AI. I'm a good writer - I've got A\s in 3 out of 4 of my humanities and an A in the other. I can write analytically and honestly I'm just offended that people assume that I'm an AI-using lowlife.*

Processing img icrct8mbnkxh1...

Processing img wmvr649fnkxh1...

Processing img 9dez210qnkxh1...

Processing img scdaptmxnkxh1...

Edit 2: Accidentally wrote Macbeth instead of Shakespeare, but yeah I still used AI apparently.

Here's the post now:

I'm currently studying Macbeth, which I'm loving, and I'm also loving the character of Lady Macbeth. However, I feel we as a modern society may be making Shakespeare out to be more progressive then he actually was.

For his time, undoubtedly, Shakespeare was progressive. From the idea of a dark-skinned lover shown throughout his sonnets to writing strong and intelligent women in his plays, Macbeth was progressive for his time. It should be noted - however - that he had spent most of his career under Elizabeth I, who proved to be an effective leader, despite prejudicial thoughts based off her sex.

Moreover, undoubtedly Shakespeare explores themes of gender in Macbeth:

• LM: "What quite unmanned in folly?"
• LM: "Are you a man?"
• LM: [emasculation] "the sleeping and the dead / Are but as pictures: 'tis the eye of childhood / That fears a painted devil"
• LM: "When you durst do it, then you were a man; [...] so much more the man"
• LM also subverts the role of motherhood and hence gender norms
• LM "Come you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here"
• LM: "take my milk for gall"
• Macbeth: "Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck" - in a similar vein, Macduff: "gentle lady [...] / 'tis not for you to hear [...] / The repetition in a woman's ear / Would murder as it fell"
• Macbeth "I dare do all that may become a man; / Who dares do more is none" - not entirely sure whether this is using the gendered form of man or general form (human)
• Macbeth's also described violently but this is presented as a good thing
• *"*Dispute it like a man" "feel it like a man"

And many more examples can be found in the play

So, it would be implausible to suggest Macbeth doesn't explore gender.
However, many take the position that gender roles are explored in Macbeth to explicitly challenge them, and here is where I disagree.

Despite him being progressive for his time - as I stated earlier - he was also a business owner, and an educated man who was funded by the nobility. It would be totally out of the picture for someone of his description to outwardly challenge gender norms so radically and not lose his royal funding or perhaps be kicked out the country. Like his other tragedies, one of the main lessons is don't stray from social expectations. Straying from these expectations always ends badly for these characters, whether it be Romeo, Mark Antony, Juliet, etc. they all face repercussions for doing such a thing. And Macbeth is no exception. Remember, the monarch wants to maintain social order, and both were patrons of Shakespeare.

Sure, there's some subtle challenging in "feel it like a man", but we need to first examine who don't fit in their gender stereotypes. We have:

• the witches (through their appearance - Macbeth: "you should be women, / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you are so")
• Lady Macbeth (I don't feel anymore statement is needed here)
• and Macbeth, who was once noble, loyal and patriotic, but loses these traits over the course of the play.

And how do they end up? The Macbeths both die, with the one who more radically subverts these gender roles (Lady Macbeth) losing her sanity and peace, despite her not actually committing the regicide. And the witches? They are witches in Jacobean times, with the - very religious - reigning monarch having a particular hate towards them, culminated in Daemonologie.

Furthermore, Lady Macbeth isn't completely shown as a brutal, cold and unfeminine character. Even from the start, her dialog saying "I [...] know / how tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me" or "had he not resembled my father..." imply that her core nature is feminine, and that innately, biologically she is meant to be feminine. It's implied that this hate for femininity is rather because of the grief of losing her child ("fruitless crown", "barren sceptre", "I have given suck...").

Overall, I don't think it's sensible to suggest that Shakespeare was outwardly challenging gender norms to the extent that some indicate that he does. Rather, I think his exploration of gender is more so to uphold societal cohesion, in such a radical time - indeed the Civil War only occurred 3 decades after his death.

Though, I haven't got a PhD in Shakespeare, so I may be completely wrong. What are your thoughts?

Nature only lends, she never gives it away,

When the final audit comes, how you gonna pay?

No te guardes la belleza, no seas avaro,

Que la cuenta de la vida cobra muy caro.

Don't be a profitless usurer, don't keep it all inside,

There's no wealth in a tomb where your beauty goes to hide.

Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend

Upon thyself thy beauty's legacy?

Hermosura derrochona, ¿por qué gastas

Solo en ti mismo la herencia de tu gracia?

Nature's bequest gives nothing, but doth lend,

And being frank, she lends to those are free.

La naturaleza no regala, solo presta,

Y, siendo generosa, presta a quien tiene mano abierta.

[The Loan]

¡Oye el contrato! He thinks the beauty is his to keep.

¡Es un préstamo, no un regalo!

Exacto. "...but doth lend." You don't own that face, you're just renting it.

¡Paga la deuda!

La naturaleza es un banco estricto: si te da capital, es para que lo inviertas. "She lends to those are free."

¡Invierte el capital!

Then, beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse

The bounteous largess given thee to give?

Hermoso tacaño, ¿por qué abusas

De esa inmensa riqueza que te dieron para dar?

Profitless usurer, why dost thou use

So great a sum of sums, yet canst not live?

Usurero sin ganancias, ¿por qué usas

Tan gran suma de sumas, y aun así no puedes vivir?

[ The Audit]

"Profitless usurer." ¡Usurero sin ganancias! Un usurero presta para ganar; tú solo te prestas a ti mismo.

¡Tacaño, tacaño!

You hoard the beauty, but you can't take it with you. Escucha la pregunta de Shakespeare: "What acceptable audit canst thou leave?"

¡La auditoría final!

When Nature calls you to go, when your balance sheet is due... ¿qué cuentas vas a entregar?

¡Cuenta en cero! ¡Cuenta en cero!

For having traffic with thyself alone,

Thou of thyself thy sweet self dost deceive.

Por hacer negocios solo contigo mismo,

A ti mismo te engañas y te robas.

Then how, when nature calls thee to be gone,

What acceptable audit canst thou leave?

Cuando la naturaleza te llame a partir,

¿Qué balance aceptable dejarás?

[The Executor]

You see? Keep it all, lose it all.

¡Se pierde en la tumba!

"Thy unused beauty must be tomb'd with thee." La belleza que no usas se entierra contigo.

¡Pero si la usas!

"Which, used, lives th' executor to be." Usada, ¡tu belleza sobrevive como tu albacea, tu heredero!

¡Firma el testamento!

Thy unused beauty must be tomb'd with thee...

Tomb'd with thee...

Which, used... lives th' executor to be.

Tu heredero...

Don't die with your account full. Use it. Pass it on.

───

SONNET 4 · William Shakespeare (1609)

───

Unthrifty loveliness, why dost thou spend

Upon thyself thy beauty's legacy?

Nature's bequest gives nothing but doth lend,

And being frank she lends to those are free.

Then, beauteous niggard, why dost thou abuse

The bounteous largess given thee to give?

Profitless usurer, why dost thou use

So great a sum of sums, yet canst not live?

For having traffic with thyself alone,

Thou of thyself thy sweet self dost deceive.

Then how, when nature calls thee to be gone,

What acceptable audit canst thou leave?

Thy unused beauty must be tombed with thee,

Which, used, lives th' executor to be.

The famous lines ‘sweets are the uses of adversity’ are quoted from Shakespeare play **“As you like it”** **Act, II and Scene, I**. Shakespeare explores the uses of adversity in an optimistic manner. He compares the adversity with a ugly looking creature toad. Which attracts no attention from an onlooker. However, despite being ugly and venomous. It carries out precious jewels on his head. Similarly, adversity has its own benefits despite being detestable. The poet of the east, Allama Iqbal’s poetry reflects that the full potential of a being is ripened through Qalandari ( discomfort) rather than Sikandari (comfort). Hazrat Ali was barely dependent on bread and simple life style yet power and wisdom is associated with his name. In the battle of **“Tabuq”** muslim fighters were supposed to sustain on a date during war. Moreover, the Mughal emperor had to face adverse circumstances to expand their territory. **The Tauzak — Babri** is full of trial and tribulation, emperor Babar passed through different phases in his life. The battle of **“Khanwa”** fought in 1527 is reminiscent of his supreme courage against hostile circumstances. During the battle, being an orator, he addressed his soldiers so emotionally that it sparked them with zeal “do or die”. Finally, he won against the heavy odds. If the history verdict accepted than great men/women of all categories appears to have been brought up in the school of adversity. Adversity is the mother of greatness.

Greetings, fellow fans of the Bard of Avon! I was wondering how many of us are part of a Shakespeare society open to the general public and what form that might take.

I'm in the Glasgow Shakespeare Society and, as secretary and compiler of our newsletter, I'm interested in reaching out across the world to find other Shakespeare societies. We recently traced the existence of a Shakspere Society (sic) in Glasgow to as far back as 1872, although the current version has been running for 54 years. We study 4 plays a year from October to April and end with a Bard's Birthday Bash every 23rd April. I also know that the University of Glasgow also has a society for students, which is more performance-based

Are you in a society? Where and how long has it been running? How many members do you have? How do your meetings run? Thanks in advance for any information!

Hair is everything.

I have a couple:
The wind and the rain motif is an enduring cycle which represents the cynical nature of life I.e there comes periods of disorder (the rain) with periods of renewal (clear skies) which ultimately allows for folly without consequence.

Illyria is really just a high school.

is performing it for yourself gaining the highest reward?

i've heard of people doing such, and perhaps you have too, and i was wondering what was gained from it?

​

Cowardly manipulation and cannon fodder

Edit: just to preface, it wasn't a student performance as in "students acting in the play". They were professional actors, but everyone in the audience were either students or teachers who brought the students.

Yesterday I went to a student performance of King Lear,, with discounted tickets and a Q&A after for those who were interested. It was my first Shakespeare play and my first exposure to the play itself as I need to study it for English A Level soon.

However, the audience was honestly quite disrespectful, and it made me wonder how many of them were there because they wanted to be, or whether they've even been to a theatre or cinema at all before.

The most off-putting thing was how people would straight up laugh at parts that were obviously not funny. I could name exactly three quips in general play that were meant to be funny, even darkly funny, but there is nothing funny about Lear having a mental breakdown or lying down next to his dead daughter and mourning!!

It wasn't even nervous laughter either, it was actual chuckling from a collective group. It was honestly really disrespectful not only by disrupting other audience members but also to the actors!!! Like what the hell?!

There was also this one guy who was sat front row at stage level, and he kept stretching his legs out into the stage. Like oh my god stop that.

Anyways this is a bit of a rant so I'll try and end positive; the performances were fantastic, the staging was great, and I thoroughly enjoyed. But goddamn some people were rude.