Shakespeare's Play

The scenario: You have awaken this morning to a very interesting prospect. You have been offered all the money in the world -- the only thing you must do in order to receive this sum of money is to attend a live performance of any of William Shakespeare's comedies or tragedies sometime this year (the sooner you see it, the sooner you become rich). So, when, where, and what play?

For me, that's easy. Let's work backwards...

What Play?
Hamlet -- my favorite of any Shakespeare tragedy, and the one that I have seen performed the best in any on-screen adaptation. For myself, the story is much more meaningful and intriguing than any other work of Shakespeare. When reading the play write in high school, I found myself really enjoying the story Shakespeare created. The complex character that is Hamlet, the unique love he has with Ophelia, and the interesting dynamic between Hamlet, his mother, and his uncle, the murderous King Claudius.

Where?
Originally, I thought it would be best for me to find a theater somewhere in my city, as to not be burdened by the worries of traveling. However, this event will grant me more money than any individual could ever hope to spend, so why be modest or cautious? We'll go international, somewhere overseas and nice, but also renowned for their theatrical spectacles, and also English-speakers. That only brings one place to mind... England, the same land that Shakespeare himself originated from.

When?
The sooner the better. In doing some research for a performance of Hamlet in England, I found the perfect showing. The Almeida Theater in London's West End is having its official opening performance of Hamlet on Feb. 28, 2017, five days from today (link to the webpage: https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/show/hamlet-almeida-theatre-2017). If I left tomorrow, I could even have time to tour London before becoming the richest man ever, not that becoming rich would give me less time to work with. From what little I can gather from the webpage, the performance does seem to be some adapted and "revived" form of Shakespeare's original piece, but not much else it given. The cast seems normal, no names pop out at me in the cast listing, and everything besides that appears to be in place. Nothing special I can gather, but that doesn't bother me. As long as the actors put on a great show, I'm satisfied.

So, if the same scenario happened to you, when, where, and what play would you choose?

Poetic Explication: John Donne's "Death be not proud"

"Death be not proud" is the tenth of the 19 holy sonnets written by the 17th century English writer John Donne. In this post, I will try to perform an explication of this poem.

This sonnet's main topic relates, very clearly, to death. Death is personified by Donne as an intelligent, powerful entity that is problematic to the people of the world. His objective in this poem is to almost deflate the idea of death from a monstrous, evil thing, to a permeable, flimsy idea. In his first two lines here, Donne tells Death that it is not as big and bad as everyone makes it out to be, and that it should not be "proud" of its false prestige. The next four lines confuse me, but within them, Donne claims that Death cannot kill him, almost as though he is more powerful than Death. Skipping down to line 7 and 8, Donne appears to admit that, in the end nobody, not even the "best men" can avoid death. He then makes a plea for their bones to rest while their souls are "delivered" (I assume to heaven). In the next two lines, Donne seems to reveal Death's flaw: that Death is a "slave" to the work of man. I believe this means that Death may only come when men kill or are killed, whether by "fate, chance" or the work of man. This idea is supported by the next line wherein Donne describes how Death dwells with things that kill (poison, war, sickness, etc.). Again, I am at a loss, the next two lines are a mystery to me. Donne speaks about poppies and charms (or something) and how they help with providing sleep (perhaps some sort of deterrence from Death?). In the last two lines, I assume that Donne speaks about an eternal wake, likely alluding to the day when all go to heaven, and never have to sleep again. There, Donne says Death dies, meaning the idea, and perhaps even the reality, of people dying ends.

This sonnet is about not only Death, but also about how we perceive it. It is only as strong as we allow it to be, and it is only beyond our power when fate takes the wheel, or when men act wrongfully. It is about religion and a deeper faith in God and the belief that entry into heaven will provide eternal life without Death.

I liked this poem. It was thought provoking and deep, and it gave me a light sense of hope. It taught me that Death may be inevitable, but fearing it only gives it greater clout.

Bosch's Vision on the Future of Humanity

The image above is called "The Garden of Earthly Delights." This legendary triptych is the work of the 15th Century painter Hieronymus Bosch. Its deep, cryptic imagery has many meanings, but the work as a whole tells a very clear message. It is a progression. A progression of mankind through time. It is a warning to us, from Bosch, about our ungodly ways. From the mind of a more religious man, this painting tells of where we came from, where we are, and where we will soon be. Bosch believed that destruction and grief would follow those who were not careful of which earthly delights they partook in, and the result would be what is seen in the last pane of this work: Damnation. Even today, Bosch's work remains a popular, and relevant, commentary on the choices of human kind. Some  say we have already reached that point, others believe we are fast approaching it. Either way, I believe humanity does need to be careful, not only from a religious sense, but from a realistic one, too. Our constant consuming and creating and spending is depleting this world of its life and resources. We, as a species, must realize our flaws and reverse our damage to this world, lest we end up like the poor souls in Bosch's last panel here... or worse.

A Machiavellian Leader vs. A Modern Day Leader

Niccolo Machiavelli's list of principle qualities for a successful leader, outlined in his timeless literature The Prince, still appear to have some semblance of truth and accuracy some five centuries later. It is interesting that, in a world with few powerful autocracies, so many autocratic leader qualities described by Machiavelli apply to the leaders of the world's republics and democracies today. As a reference, here is a paraphrased list of those five "Qualities of a Prince:"

1.  It is better for a leader to be feared than loved
2. A leader must have the support of his or her people
3. A leader must hold, or at least appear to hold, good virtues
4. A leader must only ever rely on his or her own arms
5. A leader should be intelligent

In my opinion, these all make sense. I'm no more a fan of any autocratic government than the next guy, but I can understand how these qualities would prove useful, in that type of government. In a democracy or republic, however, one of these traits becomes problematic. 

The first of Machiavelli's qualities could never really be seen in a leader in a non-autocratic government. If the majority of people fear a particular politician or candidate, then that person is unlikely to be voted into an office by those that fear him or her. (Not making a political statement...) Though, the recent election of US President Donald Trump may provide slight evidence to the contrary.  

All of the other Machiavellian qualities, however, are commonly seen among most governments. From needing support to be elected, to the creation and maintenance of militaries, to elected individuals campaigning with bold promises, but eventually falling back on them once in office. So, if most of these qualities still work, what should be changed?

If I had to change this list in any way, all I might do is switch the wording on the first quality to "it is better to be loved than feared," and call the list "Qualities for a 21st-century President or Prime Minister." Then, most recent politicians could fit on this list. People like Reagan, or Churchill, or Teddy Roosevelt, or Lincoln, or... the list goes on, even applying to leaders today.

In all, a Machiavellian leader is not too different from most leaders today, and in recent history. Everybody wants power, but the rules have changed ever so slightly since Machiavelli's time.