X Rated Shakespeare

William Shakespeare knew what his audiences wanted.   He produced plays that were topical, controversial, and also quite risqué!   Ask any advertiser in the 21^st century and they will tell you, “sex sells!”   It seems that some things never change.   Similar to Shakespeare’s use of topical references, many of the more bawdy lines go unappreciated by modern audiences.   Shakespeare used bawdy humor in his dialogue to entertain theater-goers in the same way that current day stand up comedians and PG rated films does.

Gordon Williams published a rather detailed dictionary of sexual  language in 1994 in which he states, “On the whole, and certainly in discursive writings of Shakespeare’s day, the blunt monosyllable gets into print chiefly by way of punning allusion”  (Williams.10).   It is well established that William Shakespeare was the master of the pun in all of his works.   It is interesting that this skill was also used to weave into plays some of the most outrageous sexual references right under the censor’s noses.

Pauline Kiernan, in her book Filthy Shakespeare, makes an interesting point about the Elizabethan audience, “Shakespeare’s audiences were fine-tuned to hearing what we now call subtext in a way that we can hardly begin to imagine.  When they talked of going to the theater, they called is going to hear a play, not to see one” (Kiernan.12).

Enough with the tease, shall we take a closer look at the bawdy references in the plays studied this Spring term 2010; Twelfth Night, Othello and The Tempest. There are several examples in each of these plays of how Shakespeare kept things lively in the Globe, regrettably have space for only a sample in this format.

Perhaps the wildest lines that made it past the censors were in Twelfth Night, where the Puritan Malvolio says, “By my life, this is my lady’s hand.  These be her very C’s, her U’s aNd her T’s and thus makes her great P’s” (12thN.2.5.72-74).  Shakespeare has great fun in presenting Malvolio, a Puritan as a fool, with his aspirations to social climbing and class envy.   The groundlings would have been rolling in the isles over this one.  This line is often cut from productions.   It would seem that the Puritans had their way with this passage, even to modern times.

In Act 1, scene 3, Sir Toby Belch has an exchange with Sir Andrew where he makes fun of “hair”.   “Excellent, it hangs like flax on a distaff, and I hope to see a housewife take thee between her legs and spin it off” (12thN.1.3.84-85).   A fairly tame sounding line, to today’s audience.   The references are to a penis (distaff) and a woman (whore) masturbating (spin it off) Sir Andrew.  Again, this line is also over the heads of modern audiences, who laugh without really getting the joke.

There are many sexual references in the play, Othello, the Moore of Venice. Perhaps one of the lines that a modern audience would get the meaning of is given by Iago in Act I.   “I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are now making the beast with two backs (O.I.1.115).   This is an Elizabethan slang term that was documented by Eric Partridge in his book Shakespeare’s Bawdy. This book was written in the early 1950s and was quite controversial for the times.   The sensibilities of the era are reflected in his definition of Iago’s obscenity, “A man and a woman in coitu obviously resemble a two-headed animal with two backs, four arms, and four legs”. (Partridge.144).   This definition was a polite way of saying “doggie style” today.

Another famous quote from Iago is both racial and sexual.   “Even now, now, very now, and old black ram is tupping your white ewe” (O.I.1.89-90).  This reference is fairly easy to understand, in any culture, and any era.   Both of the texts make reference to “tup” as a term for sex.  Other references are found in this play which revolves around the sexual puns exchanged between Iago and Desdemona.  In Act V, Scene 1 there is a reference to the sexual double standard that allowed men to be unfaithful while women who did so were considered whores.   Emilia says, “I do think it is their husband’s faults if wives do fall.   Say that they slack their duties and pour our treasures in foreign laps…And have not we affections, desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?” (O.5.1)   This would be defined as what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

The final play studied was The Tempest, which is fairly “clean” as far as sex goes.   Prospero warns Ferdinand in Act 4, Scene 1 that “If thou dost break her virgin-knot before all sanctimonious ceremonies …be ministered” (T.4.1.15-17).   Here the reference to virginity is illustrated with a period term that is fairly straight-forward.   An interesting reference in regard to the late Queen Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen.   Kiernan tells of a quote by Ben Johnson where he said “that she had a membrane on her so thick that no man could penetrate her, though for her delight, she tried many” (Kiernan.283).   Johnson went on to publish this story in Conversations with Drummond in 1618-19.

The topic of bawdy language in Shakespeare’s works is a discipline all on its own to research.   There are more references and puns in his works that it is an area that a Shakespearean scholar could spend a lifetime researching.   Perhaps Pauline Kiernan states it best, “His plays and poems are stuffed with the kind of double entendres and obscene wordplay that would make our most risqué stand-up comics blush” (Kiernan, 12).

Works Cited

Kiernan, Pauline.  Filthy Shakespeare. New York:  Gotham Books. 2006.

Partridge, Eric.  Shakespeare’s Bawdy.  London: Routledge.  1968

Williams, Gordon.  Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and

Stuart Literature. New Jersey:  Athalone Press. 1994

Before milk-white, now purple with love’s wound, and maidens call it “Love in Idleness”     (Oberon, Mid Summers Night Dream, Act II, Scene 1)

It is evident that William Shakespeare was fluent in the folklore and history of the flora and fauna of his homeland.   You can find references to different species of plants and their related superstitions and histories in all of his published works.   Many Shakespearean scholars have devoted entire works to his botanical and folklore references.   Here we will deal with only one species, Heartsease (Viola tricolor) otherwise known as the Love in Idleness Pansy.  A common wild flower of the day, it was well-known to the Elizabethan herbalists.

Research of the name “love in Idleness” yields a treasure trove of information based on science as well as folklore.   M. Grieve, in The Modern Herbal, lists some of the many names this plant has been known as over the past 400 years: Wild Pansy, Love-Lies-Bleeding, Love-in-Idleness, Live-in-Idleness, Loving Idol, Love Idol, Cull Me, Cuddle Me, Call-me-to-you, Jackjump-up-and-kiss-me, Meet-me-in-the-Entry, Kiss-her-in-the-Buttery, Three-Faces-under-a-Hood, Kit-run-in-the-Fields, Pink-o’-the-Eye, Kit-run-about, Stepmother, Herb Trinitatis, Herb Constancy, Pink-eyed-John, Bouncing Bet, Flower o’luce, Bird’s Eye and Bullweed.[i] Many of these synonyms come from the plant being introduced into the new world by English settlers in the early 17^th century.     This wild flower is common all over the British Isles and was long associated with love potions or love philtres for casting spells over people.     Love in Idleness is also mentioned by Shakespeare in the Taming of the Shrew, where in Act I, Scene I, Luciento claims he feels the effects of Love in Idleness, alluding to its qualities to stimulate love.  The theme of “love at first sight” is associated with this flower again in this later play.

Shakespeare was probably aware of one of the well-known herbalists of the period, John Gerard (1545-1612).

In his The Herbal or Generall  Historie of Plantes [ii],  which was published in 1596, he listed the medicinal properties of many of the plants and herbs known at the time.   Elizabethan herbalists relied on a number of herbs and flowers to cure all kinds of ailments and conditions.   There was a strong relationship between physicians and herbalists in Elizabethan England.    Another famous herbalist, Nicholas Culpepper published The Complete Herbal in 1653.     He specifically lists the qualities of the Heartsease (Love in Idleness).   “Government and virtues: The herb is really saturnine, something cold, viscous, and slimy. A strong decoction of the herbs and flowers (if you will, you may make it into syrup) is an excellent cure for the French pox, the herb being a gallant antivenereal: and that antivenereals are the best cure for that disease, far better and safer than to torment them with the flux, divers foreign physicians have confessed. The spirit of it is excellently good for the convulsions in children, as also for the falling sickness, and a gallant remedy for the inflammation of the lungs and breasts, pleurisy, scabs, itch, &c. It is under the celestial sign Cancer.” [iii] As an aside, it was entertaining to note the use of Heartsease for “an excellent cure of the French Pox”, a rather pointed English term for Syphilis.

In his book, Folk-Lore of Shakespeare, Rev. T. F. Dyer states: “Midsummer Eve appears to have been regarded as a period when the imagination ran riot, and many a curious superstition was associated with this season.  Thus people gathered on this night the rose, St. John’s Wort, vervian, trefoil and rue, all of which were supposed to have magical properties.” [iv] Shakespeare could not have selected a better night to set his mystical and comedic characters in.    Folk-lore had a major influence on the plot of the story.

Herbal medicine was also strongly linked with astrology and was an art taken up by many herbalists.  Culpepper made special note of the astrological signs that ruled each species of plant.   This was to insure that the plants could be harvested at their peak of potency.    This concept of astrology leads to Shakespeare’s folklore reference to midsummer’s eve, or the summer solstice.

The juices of the Love in Idleness flower alone were all that was needed for the desired effect in the play.  However, modern-day scientists feel that the love potion was more of a metaphor than an effective aphrodisiac.  Dr Charles Sell, the head of organic chemistry at Quest and a fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said: “Wild pansies were noted in herbal folklore medicine. It was attributed with many properties but falling in love was probably the invention of Shakespeare.” [v] Dr Sell described the potion as having “a nice fragrance”, but said it had not triggered any amorous behavior.

Shakespeare uses references to many species of plants throughout his works.   His rural upbringing led to an advanced knowledge of the plants used in herbal medicine of the era.  He made more than one reference to the pansy, “Love in Idleness” in his plays.  What the significance of this particular plant was to him one can only ponder.

[ii]Gerard, John, The Herbal or The General History of Plants, c. 1596, web, http://dewey.library.upenn.edu

[iii]Culpepper, Nicholas, The Complete Herbal, c.1653, web, http://www.bibliomania.com

[iv] Rev. Dyer, T.F, Folk-Lore of Shakespeare, New York, Dover Pub,  1966, Reprinted from c. 1883

[v] Derbyshire,David, Midsummer Nights Love Potion Proves a Work of Fiction, London Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk, 14 Feb 2002

The Two Princes in the Tower of London:  What Could Today’s Forensic Anthropology tell us About the Mystery?

The story of the two princes in the tower is one of the great mysteries of the English monarchy.   The historical background of the two princes and their fates closely follows Shakespeare’s portrayal in Richard III.   Shakespeare uses Sir James Tyrrel’s soliloquy in Act IV, Scene 3 to illustrate the murders of Edward V and his brother Richard, 1st Duke of York, in great detail.   He further places guilt on Richard with him saying “Kind Tyrrell am I happy in thy news?”   Historical records do show that the princes were never seen again after the summer of 1483. Their fate remains unknown, and it is presumed that they either died or were killed there. There is no record of a funeral.

.   The remains of the two princes were left untouched from 1674 until being studied in 1933.   With the Permission of King George V, the bones were opened and studied.   This investigation, conducted by Drs. Wright and Tanner in 1933, was done under constraints that could have affected the accuracy of their findings. There is a possibility of bias on their part because they knew in advance the ages of Edward and Richard in 1483. Since 1933, there have been those who have made credible challenges to their findings.  Finally, even without the constraints, Wright and Tanner did not have the technology at their disposal to end speculation. They could not DNA-test the remains and thus end all arguments. Through the dental remains there appeared to be some kind of blood relation between the two skeletons, but this could not be proved. [2] At the time, the dental problems with the two skulls only linked them circumstantially to the written records.   A later archeological find 30 years later of another skeleton of the same period could have offered some comparisons.

In January of 1965, the London Museum announced that the remains of Anne Mowbray, the child wife of Richard, 1^st Duke of York had been discovered.   Her skeletal remains were found by workers in a lead coffin.   The condition of the skull and teeth was very good, lending them to possible DNA testing at some point.    An observation from the Richard III Society website about the scientific information and its usefulness is noteworthy: “Further, scientific methods of dating bones have advanced much since 1933 and the differences in development between mediaeval and modern children may, in principle, be addressed because of the discovery in 1964 of the coffin and remains of Anne Mowbray, child wife of Richard of York, whose age and date of death are known. This gives a direct contemporary parallel by which to judge the age and development of the controversial skeletons.”[3]

This brings us to the question at hand. With the advances in forensic anthropology since the original investigation in 1933, will it be possible to identify the bones as belonging to Edward V and Richard 1^st Duke of York?

Through the use of radio carbon dating of the bones, the age of the bones could only determined within a window of years.   There is a great deal of controversy around the accuracy of C-14 carbon dating[4].   The accuracy of this type of dating is not exact.  Radio Carbon dating of the bones through this method might not yield a definitive identification to the exact date in 1483.   It could however, show that the bones are from the correct general time period and not “leftovers” from a Roman burial centuries before.  Also, as noted above, there could be comparisons made with the remains of Anne Mowbray where the actual dates are known.

Perhaps the most promising new scientific tool that could be used is Mitochondrial DNA testing.   The science here is far more reliably accurate.   It was noted in the 1933 investigation that one of the skulls had teeth that viable DNA could be extracted from.   If this DNA could be tested against bloodlines existing today through a matriarchal connection, an accurate determination one way or the other could be made.   Also, the DNA from Anne Mowbray could also be utilized, as she was a cousin to the Princes.

The use of new scientific methods and forensics on the two skeletons might offer the cause of death.   The 1933 study made mention of blood stains around the mouth of the older skull, but no definitive findings could be made at that time.   Today’s forensic science and the use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging could give us a more accurate picture of the damage to the skull.

Even if the two skeletons were identified as Henry V and his younger brother Richard 1^st Duke of York, would this put an end to the controversy?   It only would solve one part of the mystery, identification of the remains.   Would this prove Richard III’s guilt or innocence?    I think not.   The battle between the current day “Ricardians” and the “Yorkists” seems to be one of the most heated debates in historical circles.   Until more definitive evidence about the motives and actions of Richard III can be found, I feel no resolution is possible.

However, at the present time all of this is moot, as the remains are not available for study.   Queen Elizabeth has not given her permission for the study of the Princes’ remains.   They remain in the urn in Westminster Abbey.   The last request for study was rejected by the queen in 2002.  For the use of the current forensic science, it would be necessary to have access to the remains.   Prince Charles, next in line to the throne, has indicated interest in reopening this study. Until he becomes King, he does not have any power in this matter.  Will this change open up opportunities for further study of the princes’ bones?   This is a scenario that only time will reveal.    I am often reminded that Winston Churchill was right, “history is written by the victor.”

Maurer, Helen The Ricardian Vol. 8, No. 111 December 1990

[2] www.fifteenthcentury.net/skeletons

[3] To Prove a Villain, The real Richard III, Exhibition at the Royal National Theater, London, 1991
http://www.r3.org/rnt1991/deadbones.html

Shakespeare’s “One-Liners” – Unappreciated by Modern Audiences?

There are many levels of appreciation for the plays of William Shakespeare.   They should always be enjoyed for their literary artfulness at face value.  Theatrical productions are sensory experiences of the Bard’s works through costume, acting, and stage business.  The study of his plays for their historically topical references to Elizabethan England takes Shakespeare to a new level of understanding.   How many of these topical “one-liners” go totally unappreciated by the average theater patron?  Throughout my study of William Shakespeare this year, I have learned of several historical nuggets woven into each script.

Just by taking some of the topical references out of Twelfth Night offers hours of delightful research.  Sir Toby Belch’s line in Act I, scene 3, is a topical one-liner; “Wherefore have these gifts a curtain before ‘em?  Are they to take dust, like Mistress Mall’s Picture?” (12thN, I.3.102-103).   This is a reference to Mary Fitton, where Mall, like Moll, is a nickname for Mary.  Roger Warren’s notes in his edition of Twelfth Night single out this reference with “…various Malls have been suggested for this allusion (if it is one).  The likeliest is Mary Fitton, one of Elizabeth I’s maids of honor, disgraced for bearing the Earl of Pembroke’s child in 1601″ (Warren).  Here is a prime example of a reference that would go totally unnoticed as it passes by in lively dialogue.

Perhaps the most target-rich environment for historical research is the character of Malvolio.  Shakespearean scholars have expended gallons of ink trying to get a handle on Malvolio’s quirky nature.   The gulling of the steward in Act II, scene 5 is a treasure trove of topical Elizabethan references and comic one-liners to research.  The yellow stockings proved to be a belly laugh for the groundlings in the audience.  In a critical essay, Loreen Giese discusses a number of historical ties to their relevance, she states; “The wearing of yellow stockings had particular resonance, as two well-known usages suggest. The wearing of yellow stockings may be most commonly associated with two contexts: the children at Christ’s Hospital, which opened in 21 November 1552 and was officially founded on 26 June 1553, and the dramatic figure Malvolio in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, the first performance of which was 6 January 1601/2. Indeed, evidence of this sartorial practice from other literary and legal texts supplements and refines our understanding of their meaning by indicating the sexual symbolism of wearing yellow stockings in early modern London. Specifically, this evidence indicates that some early modern Londoners understood the wearing of yellow stockings to signal illicit sexuality and marital betrayal”(Giese).

Further, she also notes that the color of yellow was not only disfavored by Olivia, but also “Queen Elizabeth I (whose own personal colors were white and black) abhorred yellow. For six years yellow had been the color of danger in her Court–being flaunted by the faction of the Duke of Norfolk until his attainder

and execution in 1572. And the flag of her arch-enemy, Spain, was yellow”(Giese).   The Yellow stockings become a significant plot component in Twelfth Night, and stand alone comically to today’s audience, but to Shakespeare’s contemporaries, their meanings took on a larger context.

“There is example for’t: the Lady of the Strachy married the yeoman of the wardrobe”, Malvolio (12thN.II.5.34-35).  Here, with an explanation during lecture in class, I set out on a new journey of research into a topical reference which would sail over the heads of a modern audience.   William Strachy (or Strachey -1572-1621) is best referenced for his connection to The Tempest from a letter about the shipwreck of the colonial ship Sea Venture off Bermuda in 1609.  Digging for some “Elizabethan scandal” about him was unproductive, but again, Shakespearean studies often yield many interpretations of topical references within Will’s plays.

My research led me to a scholarly work posted online which was available as a book excerpt.   One other possible annotation of this seemingly obscure historical one-liner is proposed by David Frydrychowski.  The abstract for the paper immediately got my attention; “a new solution for the textual cruces of Malvolio’s “Lady of the Strachy,” (TN 2.5.35) a longstanding puzzle of Shakespearean textual annotation. Following George Stevens suggestion that the word might be read as “Starchy,” the author suggests that the reference was to Frances Howard, Countess of Somerset, and a politically significant contemporary Of Shakespeare, whose household was linked in the popular mind with a certain fashion of yellow starch”( Frydrychowski).

If there is indeed a misspelling in the text of this line, this proposed explanation is but one more plausible topical reference to Elizabethan current events that would entertain and educate Shakespeare’s audience at the Globe Theater in 1601/2.   Again, to a modern day audience watching Twelfth Night on stage in the 21^st century, the line makes a whizzing sound as it shoots over their heads.

Frydrychowski states; “the reference was an interpolation which alluded to a matter which had shaken the Crown itself and consumed the popular imagination of the capital – the death of Thomas Overbury and the subsequent popular vilification of Frances Howard, Countess of Somerset and Robert Carr, arriviste courtier”(Frydrychowski).  Which annotation to this reference is correct?  Like many of the obscure historical references in Shakespeare’s works, there can be numerous references, all depending on the Historian’s interpretation and frame of reference.

There is a lifetime of historical research that can be obtained through just the study of Shakespeare’s one-liners.  This small sample is just the tip of the ice berg in only one of the Bard’s masterpieces.   Shakespearean scholars will continue to find new historical nuggets in the cannon, building on the new research into the Elizabethan era today.   How does this affect the audiences of today?  Most patrons of the dramatic arts are not in theaters for a history lesson, they are there to see the plays of William Shakespeare for the enjoyment of the production and entertainment.   Just as they have for the past four hundred years.

Works cited

Warren, Roger Ed. Shakespeare, William, Twelfth night, or What you Will. Ed. Warren, Roger, Stanley Wells .Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.17 April 2010.web

Giese, Loreen. Malvolio’s Yellow Stockings: Coding Illicit Sexuality in Early Modern London. AccessMyLibrary.com. 2006. Promoting Library Advocacy Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England.17 April 2010.web

Frydrychowski, David. “Some old story”: A new conjecture on Malvolio’s “Lady of the
Strachy”.  2010. PL Ballaney Book Online.com. 17 April 2010. Web

Amblothae the Jutlander – the Real Hamlet?

William Shakespeare used many sources for the body of work he produced for the world.   His histories illustrate his acumen for research in the chronicles of Sir Thomas Moore, Rafael Holinshed and John Hardyng.   Shakespeare was also influenced by the classics, such as Virgil, Plutarch and Homer.  The inspiration for the greatest play ever written, Hamlet comes from a more obscure source.  How did William Shakespeare come about the story of the Danish Prince?

The legend of Amleth, Prince of the Danes, dates back to the middle of the 12^th century, in Scandinavia’s violent early history.   Louise Cary, in an article for ELH noted, “By the time Shakespeare took on Hamlet, both the character and the basic outlines of the story were antiques. The misadventures of the Danish hero Amleth circulated as a folk-tale before they were given connected, if episodic, written form by Saxo Grammaticus in the twelfth century.” (Cary).  The author of the Gesta Danorum (Deeds of the Danes), Saxo Gramaticus, was probably a cleric writing the history of Denmark  c.1200.    The chronicle, written in Latin, comprised sixteen large volumes of Denmark’s history up to the year 1185.  The volumes tell of the rise and fall of the great rulers of Denmark. The tale of Amleth (Latin: Amblothae),  Saxo’s Hamlet, is recounted in books three and four.  The works of Saxo Gramaticus were first printed in Paris in 1514, and Francois de Belleforest translated it into French in 1570, as part of his collection of tragic legends, Histories Tragiques. “Saxo’s text did not appear in English until 1608, so either Shakespeare was fluent in French or he used another English source based on the French translation.” (Mabillard).    Shakespeare probably would have had access to these volumes and could have translated the Latin versions himself.

The story of Amleth’s tragedy is too close to Shakespeare’s Hamlet to be a coincidence, even the names were not changed much to “protect the innocent”.  Amanda Mabillard in her article, Shakespeare’s Sources for Hamlet, on website Shakespeare Online, summarizes the story of Amleth from the original chronicle.  ”King Rorik of the Danes places his trust in two brothers, Orvendil and Fengi. The brothers are appointed to rule over Jutland, and Orvendil weds the king’s beautiful daughter, Geruth. They have a son, Amleth. But Fengi, lusting after Orvendil’s new bride and longing to become the sole ruler of Jutland, kills his brother, marries Geruth, and declares himself king over the land. Amleth is desperately afraid, and feigns madness to keep from getting murdered. He plans revenge against his uncle and becomes the new and rightful king of Jutland.” (Mabillard).

The basic plot of the Saxo Gramaticus account is the basis for Shakespeare’s Hamlet.    To be fair, it amounts to a mere skeleton for the great work of literary art that Shakespeare developed it into.   The characters of the tale of Amleth were translated

into Hamlet some 400 years later.   But was Saxo Gramaticus the only influence on Shakespeare for his writing of this play?

One other source for Shakespeare quite possibly was the Ur Hamlet.  The prefix “ur” is a German term for “primordial”.  This is the name given by Frederick Samuel Boas to a play mentioned as early as 1589, a decade before most scholars believe Shakespeare’s version of the story was written.   References indicate that such a play was well-known throughout the decade of the 1590s and was a popular tragedy or revenge play so popular at the time.  Unfortunately, the play has been lost and no copies exist.

Rebekah Owens discusses the evidence of Ur-Hamlet, writing: “Evidence for the existence of such a play appears in two important sources. Phillip Henslowe’s Diary for Newington Butts has an entry for the performance of a Hamlet on 9 June 1594. Henslowe does not annotate the entry with “ne”, his code for new. This indicates that an early Hamlet was performed by the Lord Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men who were then resident at Newington Butts. A second reference comes from Thomas Lodge’s Wit’s Misery and the World’s Madness of 1596.” (Owens).

Not having an existing copy of the Ur-Hamlet is problematic; however, the story seems to have been a telling of the Amleth legend by Saxo Gramaticus.   This production was performed during Shakespeare’s early years as a playwright and was very popular.   It is also proposed that Shakespeare himself could have been the writer of both Ur-Hamlet and Hamlet.    There is no existing evidence to prove this theory, but it does suggest a possible connection to the c.1601 Hamlet.

My research suggests that both of these sources could have been used by William Shakespeare to pen the ultimate play for the ages, Hamlet. Even with the caveat that the sources were the basic plot of the story of Amleth, Prince of Denmark, it still remains that the play we have today is much more than the sum of its parts.  What William Shakespeare was able to do with this “skeleton” plot was to flesh it out with muscles of deep characters, a nervous system of twisting themes and the eyes to see deep into the human psyche.