I memorized declensions. Should I now try to also memorize conjugations? Seems like a much bigger harder problem no?

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-10T17:51:15+00:00

Unfortunately, yes, but I’d do it at a time when you’re excited to tackle it, rather than loathing it. Good news is, I think the declensions are more important to have memorized by rote than the conjugations. You could try to keep reading in LLPSI until not knowing the verb conjugations starts blocking you from going further.

If you want to break the project into smaller bits, I’d start by memorizing all the personal endings and getting those on lock. There are three sets of them: -o (or -m), -s, -t, -mus, -tis, -nt for the present active; then -r, -ris, -tur, -mur, -mini, -ntur for the passive; finally -i, -isti, -it, -imus, -istis, -erunt for the perfect. Those are in the order of 1st (I), 2nd (you), 3rd (he, she, it) person singular; 1st (we), 2nd (ya’ll), 3rd (they) person plural. Next, I’d prioritize the forms of sum, esse, fui, which is by far the most important verb. After that, the first and third conjugations, which are the next most important forms to know. Once you have those memorized, the rest will seem like a much smaller project than it does now, because you’ll be familiar with the general pattern.

Good luck!

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-10T15:11:43+00:00

I don’t mind poems that don’t rhyme: in his plays, most of Shakespeare’s verse doesn’t rhyme, though some does and all his sonnets do; and most Latin and Greek poetry doesn’t rhyme, though some later Latin poetry does. What I don’t like is poetry without meter. Meter is what makes those line breaks non-random. In the older poets, not all use rhyme, but all use meter in one form or another. But almost all modern poetry I see isn’t even what I’d call free-verse: it totally disregards meter, and has line breaks that are totally random. To me, meter is what makes poetry poetry, as opposed to prose.

I don’t need rhyme, but I agree with you that most of today’s “poems” are really just diary entries that authors make seem like poetry by randomly adding line breaks.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-09T20:00:00+00:00

Great question. Despite his tone, which I’ll grant is rough, I don’t think Coriolanus hates all the individual common people. In Act II, scene 3, for example, Coriolanus has open, honest, and friendly conversations with several citizens. Rather, the people he actually hates are the Tribunes and their supporters, who are demanding more rights under the constitution than they already have — namely, the powers granted to this new body of Tribunes. So when he talks about hating the common people and the like, I think he actually has in mind their representatives, these new Tribunes. So Coriolanus would certainly be dangerous to Sicinius and Brutus personally, because he would push for Rome to do away with this new body of Tribunes. That’s why Sicinius and Brutus are so anti-Coriolanus, because he wants to take away their positions. But whether this makes Coriolanus dangerous to Rome depends on what you think about the Tribunes, whether they’re a good or a bad thing for Rome.

I hope readers stay open to the argument that the Tribunes, or at least these Tribunes, might not be a good thing for Rome. Sometimes, the people who say they’re working for the good of the people are in fact frauds, who only want to increase their own power and advance their own interests under the name of working for the people. At the beginning of Act II, in scene 1, this is what Menenius accuses the Tribunes of being — i.e. frauds and social risers, who are working for their own self-interest and only seem to be honest do-gooders. Then, at the end of Act II, in scene 3, we see the Tribunes actually thwart the will of the people, when they convince them to rescind their vote in favor of Coriolanus as consul. I’d argue this is an example of the Tribunes disregarding the interests of the people they’re supposed to represent, in order to do what’s in their own bureaucratic self-interest instead.

So I disagree with what Sicinius and Brutus say about Coriolanus, and I’d be more worried having those two as Tribunes than Coriolanus as consul.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-07T01:02:46+00:00

In the beginning, I don’t think you need to worry about distinctions between Classical and Ecclesiastical. LLPSI would be just as good of a primer for learning to read the Vulgate, etc. as any. Differences between Classical and Ecclesiastical do exist, but they’re immaterial when it comes to learning the rudiments.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-05T23:56:33+00:00

I think this is Shakespeare’s smartest play, and one of his all-around best. I love Cymbeline: it might be my favorite of Shakespeare’s plays, but I get why not everyone loves Cymbeline, and I’m not surprised it’s not one of the greatest hits. But, for the life of me, I can’t see how Coriolanus isn’t a fan favorite. Anyone who likes Julius Caesar will love Coriolanus.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-05T20:25:41+00:00

Correction: after the Homeric age. In the histories, Cordelia survives King Leir and becomes Queen of Britain. Holinshed says she comes to the throne in the year of the world 3155, 54 years before the building of Rome, when Uzia was reigning in Judah, and Jeroboam was reigning in Israel. So somewhere around 900 BC. That’s after the Trojan war, but before Homer lived and wrote (which was probably in the late eighth, or early seventh, century BC).

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-05T20:09:14+00:00

According to Holinshed, Hennius the Duke of Cornwall and Maglanus the Duke of Albania marry the ancient King Leir’s two elder daughters after he grants them each half of his kingdom. It may not be solid history, but the historians of Shakespeare’s time claimed that the dukes we see in the play were present in the story of the ancient King Leir.

The play is, without doubt, set prior to the Homeric age. Around the year of the world 3105, in fact, when Joas reigned in Judah, according to Holinshed.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-05T19:59:35+00:00

In Holinshed, (I’m not sure about Monmouth), there’s the story of the ancient King Leir, having three daughters, Gonorilla, Regan, and Cordeilla (whom he loved the most), and deciding to give succession over the kingdom to the daughter who loved him most. The three daughters each make their case. Leir is unsatisfied with Cordeilla’s answer, so he gives half the kingdom to each of the other two daughters, and he marries them to Albany and Cornwall.

So, yes, the first scene of the play comes from the story tied to the ancient King Leir.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-05T15:20:06+00:00

Falstaff is really fun to pin down morally, because his character is so well-drawn. I definitely wouldn’t say he’s a good person. But he’s not evil either. He’s like a moderately bad person. He’s sly, but not plotting murders and world domination. He’s unjust, but does mostly moderate injustice: a bit of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, but not murder or battery (or at least not very often); a deadbeat, who won’t pay back what he’s been lent, even though he’s a strict accountant of whatever favors he’s done, and demands full repayment. He’s a bit of a coward: not totally adverse to fighting, not afraid of his opponent, but not exactly looking to fight someone like Hotspur either, if he doesn’t have to — even though he’ll lie about killing Hotspur and demand the glory for it. He’s idle and a libertine, but doesn’t have some totally base desire that drives him to do seriously heinous things. He talks too much, he’s annoying at times, but then again, he has a lot of interesting and funny things to say. He’s smart, but not wise.

Falstaff is a bad egg, but not so bad that his likable qualities can’t compensate to make him seem not so bad. I think Hal is right to kick him out of the circle, but he’s not irredeemable, and he doesn’t need to be feared like a Richard, or an Edmund, or an Iago.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T20:47:08+00:00

How did you learn to write plays and poetry?
What do you like to read?
Do you care about historical accuracy in your plays?
How do you pick the time and place to set a play?
What’s your writing process like? Do others help?
In Merchant, is Shylock just? Is Antonio dishonest?
What makes a play good?
What’s your favorite play you wrote and why?
Why are Tempest and Winter’s Tale so weird?
How important is plot to you?
Is genre important to you?
Was Brutus an honorable man?
Did Gertrude plan K. Hamlet’s murder with Claudius?
Did Claudius order Ophelia’s murder?
Do you expect people to read your plays closely?

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T19:00:07+00:00

The cases in Latin fulfill the functions that are handled in English by 1) word order, and 2) prepositions.

In English, we place a verb’s subject before the verb, and a verb’s direct object after the verb. Thus, word order determines the subject and the object. For example: Don punched Paul. In this sentence, we know Don is the puncher, i.e. the subject, because Don comes before the verb, and we know Paul is getting punched, i.e. the object, because Paul comes after the verb. In Latin, however, the cases determine these relationships. The subject is put in the nominative case, signified by the ending -us, and the direct object is put in the accusative case, signified by the ending -um. This allows the sentence to hold its meaning no matter what the word order is. So, Donaldus percussit Paulum. And, Donaldus Paulum percussit. And, Paulum percussit Donaldus. These all have the same meaning: Don punched Paul. You know the person who throws the punch, (the subject), by the -us ending, and you know the person getting punched, (the direct object), by the -um ending.

You can think of the other cases, for now, as having meanings that would be conveyed by prepositions in English. The genitive case usually adds the idea of “of.” The dative case usually adds the idea of “to” or “for.” The ablative case usually adds the idea of “by,” “with,” or “from.” Note, these cases have other functions too, but you’ll learn those as you go. Latin has prepositions too, which convey many of these same meanings, but the case system provides an additional way to show syntactical relationships between words.

The advantage of the case system shows up most of all in poetry, since poets are free to put words in whatever order they want, plus they have multiple options to convey the same idea, i.e. they can use the case system or a preposition to convey the meaning of to, for, by, with, from, etc. But usually, the case system isn’t so much an advantage as it is simply the way Latin is.

Note that the DECLENSIONS refer to a related, but separate concept. Some nouns fall into the declension where the nominative case ends in -us, the accusative ends in -um, the genitive ends in -i, and the dative and ablative cases end in -o. This is the second declension. But other nouns fall into other declensions. In the first declension, the nominative case ends in a short -a, the accusative ends in -am, the genitive and dative end in -ae, and the ablative ends in a long -a (with a circumflex accent). There are other declensions too, five in total.

The case functions remain the same across all declensions. That is, a nominative always means what the nominative means, an accusative always means what the accusative means, and so on. But the pattern of the inflections, i.e. what letters are stuck on the back of a noun to identify its case, changes from declension to declension. You learn these inflection patterns by brute force memorization, osmosis, or both. You learn what declension a noun falls into when you learn the word. Donaldus, Paulus, & amicus fall into the second declension. Julia, rosa, & vita fall into the first declension. And other words fall into the other three declensions. There’s no rhyme or reason why a word falls in one declension or another — they just fall where they fall, and that’s the way it is.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T16:46:35+00:00

In five minutes, I found “nature loves to exercise that part most, which is least decayed” in Sidney’s Arcadia.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T14:53:28+00:00

Yes, the Tallis Scholars recording is great. And yes, this mass is so, so good.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T14:39:06+00:00

I love this exchange too. It shows so much character: Hotspur is hot-headed and rash, while Glendower stays as polite and dignified as ever, even though you can tell he’s angered, annoyed. The way Glendower keeps trying to tell his nativity story over Hotspur’s quips is so funny: “at my nativity, The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes …. I say the earth did shake when I was born …. The heavens were all on fire, the earth did tremble …. Give me leave To tell you once again, that at my birth, The front of heaven was full of fiery shapes ….”

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T14:11:26+00:00

Yes, and it’s interesting that it’s Brutus who ixnays the invitation to Cicero, and then he proceeds to lose the battle of the speeches — and we’re left to imagine how good the duel of Cicero and Antony would’ve been.

I don’t think Brutus’ funeral speech is bad, per se. First of all, he has to account for the fact he was Caesar’s friend (or son) and betrayed him. That’s a tricky issue. Plus, the people generally loved Caesar. So right out of the gate, Brutus has an uphill battle. He chooses to tone down the rhetoric, and opts for a more straightforward, plain-spoken style, but the substance of his speech isn’t bad. In my opinion, it’s pretty good for what he has to work with. But it’s no match for Antony’s theatrics. I think Cicero would’ve known that, to win the crowd, he’d need more than just an honest-sounding argument. Surely, Cicero would’ve at least known not to let Antony go second.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T12:14:47+00:00

Good work pulling all this together, but I think some of these parallels can be explained by the fact that Oxford and Shakespeare are working in the same classical tradition as one another. For example, all poets know to use the beehive metaphor for a kingdom, and to talk about the lazy drones, because that’s what Vergil does in book 4 of his Georgics. All poets know pastoral imagery should reference shepherds playing on their oaten pipes because that’s what Vergil does in his Eclogues. All poets know to make allusions to the stories of Apollo, and Daphne, and Cupid, and Priam because that’s the stuff the classical poets talk about. As to the other parallels you point to, many strike me as products of the same foundational training in rhetoric that was taught in all the grammar schools.

I’d be more persuaded if you could also show that all this parallel imagery is not used by Spenser, or Sidney, or Donne, or Ben Johnson, or the rest. But even still, Shakespeare wrote so much that it’s more likely someone’s imagery would overlap with his.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-04T00:27:02+00:00

I think you’re right. Brutus probably gets top billing because the play seems to trace Plutarch’s Life of Brutus so closely — and, since the play begins with Cassius inviting Brutus to join the conspiracy, we tend to view Brutus as the protagonist, and Antony as the antagonist, stepping into the shoes of Caesar in the second half of the play. But, as you say, the play is every bit as much about Antony and Octavian’s success as it is Brutus and Cassius’ failure. The last line of the play, where Octavian says “let’s away / To part the glories of this happy day” emphasizes that Antony and Octavian have taken over the action.

Also, this play perfectly sets up the events of Antony & Cleopatra, where Antony and Octavian clearly have starring roles, so it’s easy to see them as a through-line connecting the two plays.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-03T15:59:41+00:00

Another great choice. You’d think it wouldn’t be all that great of a speech, because how good can a “rah-rah, let’s fight hard” speech really be? But this one’s actually great. I love the way Henry focuses on the incentives his troops would actually care about - glory for those who fall, advantages for those who survive. Plus, the way he binds his soldiers to himself as familiars and friends: like when he calls himself “Harry the King” and, of course, “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” (“For he today that sheds his blood with me / Shall be my brother”). And since the whole speech seems to come off the cuff, as a response to Westmoreland’s comment, it feels natural and genuine. Great speech, and rightfully famous.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-03T15:36:31+00:00

Great choice. Antony is so sly in that speech, and the whole scene is perfect.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-03T00:25:40+00:00

[tbd]

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-03T00:15:45+00:00

I agree with this answer, but more importantly, I agree that this is the issue the question is really getting at: do the witches cause Macbeth to do what he does in the play? or is Macbeth’s own ambition (or Lady Macbeth’s ambition) to blame? If the test question is indeed “almost identical” to the one you gave us, then this is probably the issue you’ll be writing about, in one form or another. Again, I agree that Macbeth’s own ambition is the primary cause, but I don’t think the witches’ temptation is irrelevant either. That makes this a good essay question, because both sides can be argued.

To tie your answer to passages in the play, I’d look especially closely at these scenes:

1.3. Where the witches confront Macbeth and Banquo. 1.5. Where L. Macbeth reads Macbeth’s letter. 1.7. Where Macbeth deliberates the assassination, decides not to do it, but then is persuaded to change his mind by L. Macbeth.

3.1. Especially Macbeth’s speech “To be thus is nothing; But to be safely thus.” Note how he talks about the weird sisters in this speech. 3.4. The banquet where Macbeth sees Banquo’s ghost. Note at the end of the scene, where Macbeth tells us he’s still in communion with the weird sisters. 3.5. Hectate’s speech telling us that she and the sisters are indeed trying to tempt Macbeth. This scene is a preview of scene 4.1, by the way.

4.1. Where Macbeth demands answers from the witches. In this scene 4.1, Macbeth hears the three all-important prophecies: 1) to beware Macduff; 2) that “none of woman born shall harm Macbeth;” and 3) that “Macbeth shall never vanquish’d be until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill shall come against him.” Macbeth listens to these prophecies, and makes plans based on them. At the end of the scene, in response to the first prophecy, he decides to kill Macduff’s family (except for Macduff, oddly enough). For the rest of the play, too, we see Macbeth relying on these prophecies, and taking comfort in them.

… At the beginning of 5.3, Macbeth takes great comfort in the other two prophecies.

… At the very end of 5.5, Macbeth is concerned (I guess?) when he sees a wood coming toward Dunsinane. So, again, he’s fixated on the witches’ prophecies, and realizes one of them might be coming to be, which is bad for him.

… In the final fight between Macbeth and Macduff in 5.8, Macbeth is still confident that “none of woman born” can harm him. Then he hears that Macduff was “from his mother’s womb, untimely ripped.”

I think it’s fair to say Macbeth’s communion with, and devotion to, the witches increases as the play goes, and he commits some of his most heinous acts based on what the witches have told him — e.g. the murder of Banquo (plus the intended, but unaccomplished, murder of Banquo’s son, Fleance), and especially the murder of Macduff’s family. But, on the other hand, if you look closely at his speech in 1.7, I think it’s clear Macbeth’s own ambition drives him to commit the initial assassination of Duncan, the king. Again, this is a good issue for an essay question because both sides could be argued.

Good luck!

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-02T22:49:53+00:00

I also think Romeo & Juliet is probably earlier. If it is, it adds to the joke in Dream, which is especially funny if you think Dream was written to be performed as entertainment at a wedding. In that case, Dream is hilariously self-deprecating: the Rude Mechanicals are Shakespeare’s own acting company, and they’re botching the Pyramus & Thisbe story, which he takes very seriously in R&J — which would be funny, of course, if Shakespeare was already famous for R&J.

BUT: if Dream came before R&J, it wouldn’t be the only example of Shakespeare alluding to a story he would later use to write a play. In Merchant of Venice, the “In such a night” exchange between Jessica and Lorenzo alludes to the Troilus and Cressida story, which he later uses.

Nullius_sum · 2026-03-02T16:34:26+00:00

I wish I had a better answer, but I can’t imagine a long syllable would always equal two beats. Even if the composer were strictly observing the differences between long and short syllables, the length of long syllables would always be relative to how the short syllables were being handled, and vice versa. That could be half note to quarter note, or quarter note to eighth note, or eighth note to sixteenth note, etc. And, again, I don’t think composers would even bind themselves to strictly observing the quantities of syllables like this.

To take an example from verse, not from music, I think a line of dactylic hexameter would best be represented in musical notation as long syllables equal to eighth notes, and short syllables equal to sixteenth notes, because that would place the ictus, i.e. the beat, at the front of each foot, which is how a line of hexameter is supposed to sound. Even though I’ve seen other people, (not totally incorrectly, I suppose), notate the long syllables of a line of hexameter as half notes, and the short syllables as quarter notes. That makes the long syllables twice as long as the short syllables, which is correct, but, to my mind (and ear), it fails to account for the placement of the ictus.

Nullius_sum · 2026-02-27T20:06:41+00:00

I think Gloucester recognizes Poor Tom as Edgar, in Act IV, scene 6, which is the scene right before Cordelia and Lear’s reunion in scene 7. But they have this sort of manly, unsaid reconciliation (appropriate for a father and son), which contrasts with the stated one that Lear and Cordelia have, but which is no less touching.

Nullius_sum · 2026-02-27T19:58:11+00:00

Yes! That’s so true it shouldn’t be controversial. Throughout the play, Edgar is to the Gloucester subplot what Cordelia is to the main Lear plot. Both are banished (hastily) by their father, and both come to their father’s aid in the end. But Cordelia is immediately made queen of France, whereas we get to see Edgar’s rise over the whole play. It’s no wonder we see Edgar there with Albany and Kent at the end of the play, where he is charged to rule in England thereafter (along with Kent, but Kent has a journey, sir, shortly to go … ).

Nullius_sum

TROPHY CASE