Monday 12th April 2021
Sarah Slater: 'Secrets, Sex, Scandal and Salacious Gossip of the Royal Court, 1660 to 1830' - Reviewer: Janette Sykes
Anyone who ever thought that the permissive society was invented in the ‘swinging’ 1960s is at least three centuries shy of the mark, according to Sarah Slater, guide lecturer at London’s Hampton Court Palace. According to Sarah, the vivacious colleague of equally vibrant joint chief curator at Hampton Court and television historian Lucy Worsley, sexual liberation began back in the 1660s with the restoration of the monarchy and the reign of Charles II.
Dispirited by a decade of austerity under Oliver Cromwell, which Slater likened to living in lockdown, British aristocrats embraced the ‘Merry Monarch’s’ debauched lifestyle with gusto. Emulating his excessive drinking, gambling and whoring – including countless mistresses and a host of illegitimate children – they earned the nickname ‘The Libertines’. Despite his lascivious habits, Charles failed to sire any legitimate children of his own, so the throne passed to joint monarchs William and Mary, who were both rumoured to have homosexual tendencies. William is said to have had a same-sex relationship with Arnold Joost van Keppel, 1st Earl of Albemarle, ancestor of both Alice Keppel, mistress of Edward VII, and Camilla Parker-Bowles, Duchess of Cornwall.
The last Stuart monarch, Anne, had 18 children – only five of which were born alive, and none ever survived to adulthood. However, anyone who has seen the recent film ‘The Favourite’ will know that she took secret lovers – Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough and ancestor of Sir Winston Churchill, and Sarah’s younger cousin, Abigail Hill.
Sarah (Slater’s) self-made evening gown of green silk over white linen and pinned-up hair with curly tendrils framing the face supported her claim that the Stuart period was a ‘very sexy age’. Dresses supported the breasts and nipped in the waist, while showing off as much flesh as possible – particularly the shoulders, neck and back. Pearls were worn to indicate a woman’s purity and virginity, and these qualities were emphasized throughout both Stuart and Georgian eras. In stark contrast, the opposite qualities were encouraged in men – particularly in kings and aristocracy – who were expected to take a succession of mistresses to prove their masculinity.
Rulers and the nobility would have a favourite mistress, or ‘maitresse en titre’, and women would jealously vie for the prestigious title. Various terms were used to describe prostitutes, ranging from the euphemistic ‘Women of Fashion who Intrigue’ and ‘Good Natured Girls’ to earthier terms such as ‘Ladies of Pleasure’, ‘Whores’ and worse. By 1811, The Dictionary of Vulgar Tongue defined a ‘punc’ as a whore or prostitute and a ‘quean’ as a disreputable woman, prostitute or slut – very different to their meanings in the modern era. Anyone who watched ‘The Harlots’ drama series on BBC TV will be familiar with Harris’s List, which appeared on Georgian times. This popular publication listed between 150 and 190 prostitutes operating around Covent Garden, including their contact details, sexual specialities and descriptive ditties praising their various attributes.
Double standards governing attitudes to male and female infidelity were graphically illustrated in the union of George I and his first cousin, Sophia Dorothea of Celle. George ran off with his mistress and Sophia took a lover, Count Christoph von Königsmark. Their affair became public knowledge and Königsmark was murdered in mysterious circumstances. Sophia was found guilty of adultery, was imprisoned for 30 years and was never allowed to see her children again.
George IV was profligate both sexually and financially, acquiring an official mistress at the age of 16 and, as Prince of Wales, running up massive debts of £500,000 (around £75 million in today’s values). George III agreed to settle the bill, providing his son settled down. Young George duly wed Caroline of Brunswick, but the couple were reportedly disgusted by the sight of each other and the marriage soon foundered. George IV’s sister, Princess Sophia, like other women of the time, was expected to remain chaste until she married. However, her mother Charlotte refused to grant her permission to tie the knot, so she embarked on a relationship with Major General Thomas Garth, George III’s chief equerry, and 33 years her senior. Sophia gave birth to an illegitimate son in 1800, who was widely believed to be either Garth’s son, or the product of an incestuous relationship with her brother Ernest Augustus, Duke of Northumberland (a story which was said to have been circulated by the Duke’s political enemies).
Sarah also took us on a whistle-stop tour of sex toys, contraceptives and aids to abortion that prevailed during the period – ranging from dildoes made of wax, horn, leather or wood and imported from Italy during James II’s reign to ‘French letters’ made from sheep’s intestines, which could be washed and re-used.
Other, more dubious, contraceptive methods included breast feeding, sponges or linen soaked in lemon juice or vinegar, douches or, even more bizarrely, drinking the urine of a healthy stallion! Herbs taken to abort pregnancies included angelica, tansy, wormwood, yarrow and essential oil of pennyroyal – all of which made their victims very ill.
The Stuarts’ and Georgians’ libertarian lifestyle eventually gave way to the more (publicly) repressed Victorian era, when Queen Victoria and Prince Albert became role models for sexual fulfilment within the framework of a happy marriage. The widespread crackdown on morals was fuelled by the need to control rampant sexual disease and reduce the size of families, which were an increasing financial burden in a rapidly industrialising age.
During the Q&A session, Sarah revealed that she makes all the gowns she wears while welcoming visitors to Hampton Court Palace, from a red ‘robe à la française’ for day wear to a Victorian mourning gown, which she dons for spooky night-time ghost tours. She bases her designs on scaled up patterns from both books and portraits and it generally takes around a week to make them – though the first she ever worked on took a month. Unlike the women in Stuart and Georgian times, who literally ‘pinned’ their garments, Sarah uses safety pins and Velcro to keep them in place. Perhaps just as well, given the revealing nature of the favoured fashions of the day!
------
Thursday April 1st 2021
Evan Davis: ‘Lies and fake news: are we living in a post-truth age? - Reviewer: Janette Sykes
Television and radio journalist Evan Davis is clearly someone with a penchant forgetting straight to the point. His engaging online talk to Buxton u3a members was officially entitled ‘Lies and fake news: are we living in a post truth age?’, but he deftly distilled the topic into a single word: bullshit. Rather disarmingly, he revealed that his recent book, Post Truth, has been described as a ‘grand theory of bullshit’. In reality it’s the demystification of a somewhat complicated concept, unravelling the complex reasons why humans are inclined to believe what they want to believe, rather than seeking rational explanations.
Davis, presenter of BBC TV’s Newsnight and Dragon’s Den and also of BBC Radio 4’s PM, began by pointing out that many people are understandably concerned about the prevalence of fake news, lies and misinformation in public discourse about subjects ranging from Brexit to the safety of Covid 19 vaccines. But, he argued, the nonsense often aired on social media or the internet is the symptom, rather than the source, of the problem, which in his view is based on tribalism and deeper divisions in society. Davis, who was the BBC’s Economics Editor for seven years, trained in economics when the prevailing view was that human beings are rational, we know what’s best for us and therefore do not say or do stupid things. The conundrum for him was that if this were the case, no- one would ever say or do stupid things in the real world – which is patently not true. He explained that, over the past 20 years, many economists have given more weight to the idea that people can be irrational. We all take mental short cuts in the way that we process the information that is constantly thrown at us, and so are susceptible to having psychological tricks played on us. In this way, communicators (particularly professional ones) who are not honest can distort or change our perceptions.
One of the examples he cited was a device commonly used in politics – ‘expectations management’ – that is, if you are told that something is going to be terrible and it isn’t, it doesn’t sound as bad as it could have been and so can work to persuade you to accept it. In analysing how worried we should be about lies in the public realm, Davis pinpointed the often-quoted claim by Prime Minister Boris Johnson that the UK would take back control of roughly £350 million per week, made during the polarised pre-referendum Brexit debate. He identified this as the point at which many people became deeply worried about the misuse of information, but contested that the lie didn’t cause people to believe in Brexit, the lie was believed because some people supported Brexit. We believe something, a lie is said, and it gives us confidence in our belief. In deciding whether to believe the figure of £350 million, people broadly followed their preconceptions – and the lie fell on very fertile ground for pro-Brexiteers.
On a more optimistic note, Davis suggested that, in the long term, lies don’t work nearly as well as people think – based on his conviction that people are pretty bright - and that eventually the truth will out. He cited the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in the USA, when Joe Biden triumphed over Donald Trump, as a recent example. Davis’s contention was that we should be more worried about our tendency towards tribalism, where people adhere to a particular belief system because it is a badge of membership to a particular tribe – citing football fans, Brexit and Trump supporters as prime examples. In what he described as a ‘culture war’ on the extreme ends of social media, there is a tendency to belief things that suit your world view. Tribal and argumentative thinking and the ‘group view’, he asserted, were the true opponents of truth and the true supporters of fake news. Davis posited that it is because we are divided as a society that there is a current preoccupation with fake news, rather than because there is more fake news. We live in a divided age, rather than a ‘uniquely lying’ age. Social media is part of the reason why we worry so much, because it amplifies the speed at which nonsense is disseminated.
So what can we do to protect ourselves? Davis’s advice was to worry about ‘friendly fire’ from people with similar beliefs, rather than the views of people with opposing opinions. We should be most careful in examining our own side of the argument, because we are more likely to believe what our friends say. We should also seek news from a variety of accredited sources, whether in print or online, allowing the ‘vibrant and diverse eco-system’ of modern media to fight out issues over time and gradually arrive at the truth. After a stimulating Q&A session, Davis reached the upbeat, some might say idealistic, conclusion that we should all be more open-minded when debating our differing opinions. We should focus on our similarities and points of agreement and stress the sincerity, integrity and intelligence of our opponents. We should hug our enemy, show respect and give dignity to the other side, interacting as mature adults, rather than shouting at each other. If we show that we are willing to engage and understand each other’s viewpoints, people who think differently will return the compliment. The question is: can we embrace the challenge?
------
Monday 22nd March 2021
Professor Sir David Omand - #'How Spies Think' 10 lessons in Intelligence'# - Former Director of GCHQ and visiting professor, Department of War studies, King's College London - Review by Janette Sykes
As someone whose scant knowledge of international espionage has been gleaned from the glitz and glamour of James Bond films, I welcomed the opportunity to get an expert’s insight into the mysterious machinations of global intelligence.
Sir David Omand, the UK’s first Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, former director of GCHQ and Principal Private Secretary in Defence during the Falklands conflict, lifted the lid on the Pandora’s box that is information gathering during ‘How Spies Think: Ten Lessons in Intelligence’.
Based on his book of the same name, Omand’s online talk took Buxton u3a members through a series of rigorous intellectual steps that, he believes, can empower ordinary people to take better decisions in key areas such as choosing a career or deciding how to vote.
So, what’s the secret? According to Omand, we need to learn how intelligence analysts think, so that we can make more sense of an increasingly fractured and chaotic world.
In his view, the process is being further complicated and undermined by the rise of the internet, social media, fake news and the relentless spread of ‘truth decay’. We are, he asserts, living in a climate where respecting truth does not seem as important as it used to be, and agitation and argumentation are prioritised over education, learning and thoughtfulness.
Omand, who was with Defence Secretary John Nott when GCHQ notified him (and Margaret Thatcher) of the imminent invasion of the Falkland Islands, and made the phone call that sent the UK taskforce to the South Atlantic, trained as an intelligence analyst at the start of his career in 1969. He posits that such analysts can reach a high standard of impartiality and truth telling, and that their principles can be effectively applied in politics, business and everyday life.
He was moved to write the book after Brexit and the 2016 Presidential elections in the USA, in an attempt to unravel and examine the increasing power of social media to spread ‘lies and deceptions aimed at widening divisions and setting us at each other’s throats’.
Analysts, he explained, consider four key outputs, abbreviated as SEES:
• Situational awareness – the what, when and where of what is happening, both on the ground and in cyberspace.
• Explaining the data – the how, why and who of what is happening – bearing in mind that there can be multiple explanations.
• Estimation and modelling – looking at how events are likely to unfold, how others might respond and assessing what is likely to happen next.
• Strategic notice – considering all possible future challenges/consequences that may arise, to inform and underpin both contingency and strategic planning and pre-empt what may happen. The value of such intelligence, said Omand, was to enable decision makers to make better decisions – though he described analysis and policy making as two conflicting spheres, often with different motives, perceptions and expectations - ‘rather like hearing but not really listening’.
Unsurprisingly, Omand’s view is that intelligence analysis is best undertaken as a ‘team sport’ involving more than one person, to better overcome the perils and pitfalls of simply being human – that is, fallible, all too easily influenced and open to ‘consensual hallucination’, or instinct to believe what our group believes and tell our leaders/bosses what they want to hear.
The ten lessons he outlined were:
• Our knowledge of the world is always fragmentary, incomplete and sometimes wrong. Humans are both rational and emotional beings, and we live in a digital age in which our emotional vulnerabilities are exploited and manipulated.
• Data needs explanation – arguably the most difficult aspect of data analysis. Does it indicate coincidence, or it is a sign of a wider design?
Alternative explanations should be thoroughly tested. Prominence should not necessarily be given to the explanation that has most evidence for it, but to the one that has the least evidence against it.
• Avoid the ‘inductive fallacy’, or jumping straight from considering the ‘facts’ and thinking about what is likely to happen to making decisions without a sound explanation. A good explanatory model, not just sufficient data, is needed as a credible basis on which to model different futures on different assumptions.
• If you do devote enough attention to acquiring strategic notice and use it to be prepared, you are not so surprised by the surprise itself when it happens.
• Our own demons are most likely to mislead us.
• We are all susceptible to obsessive states of mind and ‘conspiracy’ theories.
• Seeing is not always believing. There may be manipulation, deception and faking at work, as witnessed on social media.
• Put yourself in the shoes of the person on the opposite side when negotiating so you fully understand their position – for example the KGB agent who briefed both Gorbachev and Thatcher before Gorbachev’s successful visit to the UK.
• Value the concept of trustworthiness over a period of time to create beneficial and lasting partnerships – for example what Omand refers to as the ‘long-standing, remarkable and uniquely valuable’ intelligence and security links between the UK and the USA.
• Be aware of the amplified threats of subversion and sedition in the digital age. It is vital that we learn how to stay safe, stay sane and protect democracy in an increasingly complex online environment.
During a lively and stimulating Q&A session, Omand pointed out that we have become completely dependent upon the internet for our economic, financial and social needs, and that we have ‘mortgaged our future’ to it.
He pointed out that the future of the internet is now the focus of one of the biggest international struggles, with Russia and China favouring censorship and ring-fencing, the US West Coast’s relaxed, laissez-faire stance and the EU’s heavily-regulated approach – all of which will vie for prominence over the coming ten to 15 years.
In a week when it was announced that computer scientist and crack codebreaker Alan Turing’s achievements will be commemorated on the UK’s new £50 note, it seemed entirely appropriate to reflect on his eerily prophetic words: ‘This is only a foretaste of what is to come, and only the shadow of what is going to be’.
------
Monday 8th March 2021 - Review: Janette Sykes
Crime and Punishment: Black People at the Old Bailey 1674 - 1913
Current debates about the corrosive impact of racism on life chances, levels of achievement and mental health were thrown into sharp focus during a challenging online Zoom lecture spotlighting black people’s experience of Britain’s legal system.
Crime and Punishment: Black People at the Old Bailey, 1674 – 1913, presented by qualified London tour guide Avril Nanton, took a forensic look at a wide range of fascinating, and often disturbing, court proceedings featuring black people as defendants, complainants and witnesses over the centuries.
Around 50 Buxton u3a members joined Avril for a thought-provoking analysis focusing principally on two major trials, The Zong Case of 1783 and the Thomas Picton Trial of 1806, on Monday March 8.
Avril, whose walks in the capital highlight black people’s history, began by scotching what she highlighted as a popular misconception that black people arrived in Britain en masse in 1948, as part of the so-called ‘Windrush generation’.
They had, she asserted, been here for centuries, and had been referred to by a wide variety of names – so much so that in conducting her research she had had to use often derogatory terms to pinpoint court cases in which they were involved – all chronicled on the Old Bailey’s website.
The Zong Case and the Thomas Picton Trial, explained Avril, were different in context but had very similar outcomes.
The Zong was a slave ship that travelled regularly between Britain, Africa and the Caribbean, carrying enslaved people and goods for profit. It was designed to carry 200 people, but by the time it left Africa it had 442 enslaved people on board. Cramped conditions led to disease and death among both the enslaved people and crew.
Delays en route led to a shortage of water, and it was decided to throw 133 disabled, sick and elderly people overboard, all of whom were alive when they met their grisly fate. When the ship finally arrived in Jamaica, 200 surviving African captives were advertised for sale.
As the enslaved people were considered ‘cargo’, the ship’s Liverpool owners filed a claim for lost ‘goods’ that was disputed by its maritime insurance underwriters, and so the case came to court in Britain. Though it had previously been accepted that, under certain conditions, compensation would be paid for dead enslaved people, this was understood to be the first time that it had been claimed for those who had been deliberately killed.
A key witness in the trial was former slave, writer and abolitionist Olaudah Equiano, also known as Gustave Vassa. Vassa had served in both the British and Merchant Navy and had first-hand knowledge of the deplorable conditions on slave ships, but his graphic evidence on the subject was discounted as irrelevant. The Solicitor General argued that the killings were not a matter of murder or killings but a question of property and insurance.
Though Vassa’s bid to bring the people responsible for the deaths of the enslaved people was unsuccessful, the outcry following the case led was instrumental in the formation of the Abolition Society in 1787 and the eventual abolition of slavery in the UK in 1833.
Equally shocking was the Trial of Thomas Picton, Governor of Trinidad, for the torture of teenager Louisa Calderon, who had been accused of stealing from her master.
Calderon maintained her innocence throughout, so was tortured several times until she was insensible in Picton’s quest to persuade her to admit guilt. The treatment left her with horrific injuries to her feet, but Picton argued that the extent of the torture had been exaggerated for the court’s entertainment.
Picton’s claims that Trinidad was a hotbed of crime and voodoo witchcraft demanding harsh measures to maintain law and order, and his salacious allegations about Calderon’s character were dismissed by barrister Sir William Garrow, who declared: “The beast in Trinidad was you. It is you who must be tamed.”
Garrow, a leading abolitionist lawyer, judge and politician, went on to become Solicitor General. He played a key role in the reform of the advocacy system and coined the phrase ‘presumed innocent until proven guilty’, still used today.
Though Picton was found guilty of torture, and the ‘unlawful deaths’ of slaves, free people of colour and some of his own soldiers, the Privy Council elected to address many of the charges behind closed doors. Two years later, Picton’s conviction for torture was overturned based on Spanish legal precedents. Picton went on to serve under the Duke of Wellington in the Iberian Peninsula War and was killed at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.
These two cases, plus a range of other court proceedings, gave illuminating historical context to how past events are interpreted in the 21st century, and the extent to which they inform continuing global concern about what many perceive as the persistent prevalence of racism, both in Britain and beyond.
------
Monday 8th February 2021
WITCHES IN HISTORY: ‘THE HOLOCAUST OF WOMEN’ LIFE – Reviewer Janette Sykes
What kind of image does the word ’witch’ conjure up for you? Maybe a wizened creature crossing the night sky on her broom, with a pointed hat and long grey hair streaming in her wake? Or perhaps the traditional pantomime ‘baddie’, who either comes to a sticky end or sees the error of her ways and is magically reformed?
Whatever your preconceptions, it would have been difficult not to have come under the spell of the fascinating talk ‘Witches in History’ by Professor Suzanne Kord, Chair of German at University College, London, at our online Zoom lecture.
For Professor Kord, the process of witch hunting always serves a wider purpose beyond the destruction of witches, whether spreading Christianity, thwarting nations’ aspiration to self-govern or simply keeping women in their place. It cannot be blamed on a single nation, specific period or particularly horrible human being, but is a constant that seems to link centuries and continents.
Professor Kord suggested that before 1100, there was general scepticism about the existence of witches, and that religious leaders’ main concern was the Christianization of the world. Post 1100, the victory of Christianity was seen as incomplete, so the church authorities’ (principally Catholic) fear of diabolical sorcery and witchcraft increased,
In contrast to the Hebrew tradition, which perceived Satan as more annoying than scary, Christianity believed him to have awesome powers second only to God, employing an army of demons and witches, and that humans were helpless in the face of his malevolent strength. Harsher measures were needed.
By the 13th century, a body of investigators, judges and clergy had emerged to root out demonology and witchcraft, and eventually the belief that anyone could be a witch and could strike anywhere took firm hold. Civil authorities became involved, and witch trials began in earnest, spreading throughout Europe and North America.
Over the five centuries between 1400 and 1900, witches were routinely burned at the stake. Bad record-keeping makes it impossible to calculate how many died; estimates range from just 50,000 to a staggering nine million. Eighty to ninety percent of the victims were women, so Professor Kord suggested the phenomenon could accurately be described as ‘the holocaust of women’.
In Trier and Mainz, Germany, both Catholic cities and seats of bishops, women were exterminated entirely. Trier, with a population of 120,000 people, did this twice and was forced to import women from surrounding villages so that the population could be regenerated.
Astonishingly, anyone could accuse someone of being a witch for her to be arrested and tried – including children, other witches and, in one case, an axe murderer. Confessions were forced from victims through torture, and many died in prison before their trial.
The practice continued throughout and beyond the Age of Enlightenment, and the last woman to be tried and executed was Irish farmer’s wife Bridget Cleary, as recently as 1895.
Professor Kord revealed that even in the 21st century, people have been executed for witchcraft, usually by lynching but some seized by government-sponsored witch doctors. Examples cited by Amnesty International include Gambia, Cameroon and Tanzania, where an estimated 20,000 have been killed as ‘witches’ over the past 20 years.
And if you are reassured that we now have the spectre of witchcraft firmly in its box, I was disturbed to read in the i newspaper that prominent academic and broadcaster Professor Mary Beard received remarks on social media that she looked ‘like a witch’ as she rose to prominence. Perhaps times have not changed as much as we like to think.
------
Monday 11th January 2021
SIZZLING ONLINE LECTURE BRINGS SHAKESPEARE TO LIFE – Reviewer Janette Sykes
Reading Shakespeare Hot Off the Press was the tempting title of a live online lecture to Buxton U3A to get 2021 off to an inspiring start – and it proved to be an absorbing and fascinating topic. More than 40 members tuned in on Zoom to share Emma Smith’s engaging enthusiasm for – and extensive knowledge of - the Bard’s dramatic output at the first monthly meeting of the year.
Emma – Professor of Shakespeare Studies, Fellow Librarian, Hertford College, University of Oxford – took us on a whistlestop tour of the prolific playwright’s printed works, which were intended to be read as well as performed.
She explained that many of them were published in quarto format, what we would now recognise as paperback size, and were not meant as permanent copies, but ‘throwaway’ editions that were often annotated and dog-eared.
Save for the posthumous publication of Shakespeare’s first Folio of plays in 1623, Emma pointed out that most of them would not have survived.
Only around 250 copies of the first Folio still exist, and, even so, she estimated that a staggering 80 per cent of his dramatic works have been lost.
The first play to be published during Shakespeare’s lifetime was Titus Andronicus, and the most popular at the time proved to be what we now know as Henry IV Part I and Richard III.
Least popular were comedies such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream. On a humorous note, Emma revealed that the heavyweight tragedy King Lear was popular when performed on St. Stephen’s (Boxing) Day – hardly our 21st century concept of festive entertainment!
A hand-drawn map of the skyline of London at the time gave a fascinating window into the way the capital looked before the Great Fire of London - dotted liberally with soaring spires, including St. Paul’s Church (later rebuilt as the Cathedral), in whose precincts major government announcements were made. Another prominent landmark was the original Globe Theatre where Shakespeare’s plays were primarily performed, then on the north bank of the Thames.
Somewhat surprisingly, Emma said that around 40 per cent of men in London would have been literate enough to read the plays during Shakespeare’s lifetime, though that percentage would have been lower among women and also in the provinces.
The talk also gave a brief insight into the centuries-old printing industry, which continued to operate on similar principles until the technological revolution of the late 1970s/early 1980s.
Font sizes on title pages varied wildly and didn’t necessarily reflect the importance of the words they highlighted – unlike today’s technique of devoting the biggest type to key information.
Emma also revealed that printers at the time had no qualms about changing names if expedient. The letter ‘e’ was in particularly short supply because of its prominence in stage directions, so names beginning thus were often replaced, sometimes with terms that today would be considered somewhat impolite – in one example, ‘Bastard’.
Interestingly, when I was a journalism student in the mid-1970s and studied printing, one of the terms used (and considered completely acceptable) at the time was ‘bastard measure’, referring to a layout that deviated from standard column or multi-column widths.
So plenty of food for thought – and I was thrilled later that day to hear Emma name-checked in a question on University Challenge, about one of Shakespeare’s best-known plays. And the answer? A Midsummer Night’s Dream – one of those comedies that were so unpopular during the Bard’s heyday!