Dr. White concludes his two-part direct analysis of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.In this comedy, we see the male ego at work and the wooing of a woman. Unlike the typical depiction of men and women today, we see – with all their flaws – a real man and woman interacting in this comedy. Dr. White brings out the concept of marital obedience and discusses St. Paul and his letter to the Ephesians. In the play, we are able to see the change made in Petruchio who gives Katerina his full affection in the end. There is a question and answer period where Dr. White speaks on chastity, the difficulty moderns have in understanding the ideabehind the play, and how Shakespeare speaks timeless truths.
Dr. White opens by drawing a parallel between Don Quixote (part one) and King Lear, both of which he sees as great counter-reformation works. He describes the independent assertion of man as a strictly Protestant notion and goes on to detail how Lear and Don Quixote both go mad in their own ways. With his dramatic readings from several sections of the novel, and while introducing Sancho Panza, he demonstrates its episodic nature and the absence of a narrative plot line. Dr. White points out that though it’s a comedy, there is something sorrowful in the story. He closes with a brief Q and A session.
Dr. explains the logic and anti-modernism of Kate’s final speech in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.Dr. White simply observes the real differences in nature between men and women. He then provides some real life examples of the difficult traditional Catholic women have in finding a good Catholic man. Women, in their nature, seek to find a man who will first pay attention to her. He then goes into Act V, Scene 2 and analyzes Kate’s final speech which brings forth the concept of hierarchy, and the consequences of not following God’s order. Dr. White then gives a brilliant description of feminism and how at its root it is a rebellion against divine order rooted in nature. What these women end up doing is making bad parodies of men.
Described by Dr. White as an elegy – both a paean and lament directed towards a dying and passing world – this second of Shakespeare’s plays on Henry IV features the recurring themes of death, disease, and corruption. Again, Hal (the future Henry V) takes center stage, with a view towards his eventual role in the final of the Henry plays. In this extensive conference, Dr. White addresses, along with making many other insightful and passing observations, the perplexing prologue offered by an allegorical character; a climactic battle which never occurs; themes of frustration and disappointment (consonant with the overall focus of the play); and, as in the play’s predecessor, Henry IV, Part 1, the person and wit of the inimitable Falstaff.
Dr. White’s second installment in his series of four comprehensive presentations on Shakespeare’s English history plays. This conference delves into the world of Henry IV, a historical comedy that affords a background glimpse into the life of Prince Hal, who will be the main character in Henry V. According to Dr. White’s account, the play unfolds simultaneously in three different settings: the court, the tavern, and the battlefield; and each one is dominated by a different character. Hal’s presence in each setting weaves the disparate dramatic backdrops together, and he learns vital lessons in each. Also discussed substantively is the nature and role of Falstaff, Henry’s bawdy and ultimately tragic companion.
In Shakespeare’s Henry V, Prince Hal, who was in effect the subject also of the preceding plays, Henry IV (parts 1 and 2), finally takes center stage in this play that chronicles the struggle of former Prince Hal to put away youthful ways and adopt the persona and integrity of a king. Dr. White, in this last of his four presentations on the Henry plays and Richard II, posits that Henry V is an epic of sorts, tracing as it does the chronological, emotional, and moral quest of the new young king Henry for greatness, maturity, nobility, justice, and mercy. Of note is the effort expended by Henry to become the opposite of the man of our age – integrated rather than alienated; a coherent whole rather than fragmented parts; a genuinely moral and stately figure, rather than a pathetically amoral and degraded vagabond.
