Will in the World
Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare
By Stephen Greenblatt
Shakespeare was the English language’s greatest writer and quite probably the greatest writer of the last 500 years (Cervantes and Dante are arguably at his level). He is also a man of whose life we only know bits and pieces. I don’t say “surprisingly little,” because, given the record keeping of the time and Shakespeare’s profession, it really isn’t that surprising that we don’t know more. While we know a lot about royalty and some of the nobility, we know comparatively little about most others. And while we know a bit more about a few of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, we know even less about some of them.
We do know many of the important facts – when and where he was born, a bit about his parents, who he married, who his children were (at least the legitimate ones), what property he owned, what he invested in, some of his travels, and so on. We know about when he wrote most of his major works, and who he collaborated with on a few of the minor ones. And we know when and where he died and the contents of his will. Stephen Greenblatt has taken these known facts, combined them with some speculation – some based on knowledge of what most did at the time (e.g., we know what school most children in Stratford went to, thus, even without records to definitely prove it, it’s a good bet that Shakespeare went there also) and some based on historical events that might have driven him – and some extrapolation from the plays to construct an interesting biography of sorts of Shakespeare. Greenblatt plays fair: the speculation is clearly labeled as such, and he gives the reader a good idea of how likely he various speculations are. It creates a very plausible picture of Shakespeare’s life, even if you decide that some of it is stretching it just a bit.
One of the more fascinating points of the book (and one of the less known parts of Shakespeare’s life) is the time from when he was a boy until he moved to London in the late 1580s. He was married – to a woman he had already gotten pregnant; was that the cause? Was he trying to escape a bad marriage. Or, there are some hints that Shakespeare’s father (and perhaps young Will) had some connections with the Catholic parts of the population. This was a time, soon after the ascent of Elizabeth to the throne, when religious strife was particularly bitter. Religion at the time was closely tied to politics; not following the state religion was looked at as disloyal. And things became worse when the Pope declared that anyone who killed Elizabeth would not be guilty of a mortal sin and when Catholic Spain made overtures to English Catholics, looking for their support in a possible attack on England. Did Shakespeare flee to London to escape this? This is interesting history and fascinating speculation, though this is also the part of the book where Greenblatt has to go farthest out on a limb in his speculations, given how little we actually know about this period.
Greenblatt presents Shakespeare as being in some ways connected to but in many ways separate from the other playwrights of the time (of whom Christopher Marlow was the most famous). Unlike them, Shakespeare was not educated at one of England’s two great universities, and there was some snobbery on their part, aimed at an actor who was getting above himself in actually writing plays. Yet Shakespeare rapidly became a success as a writer. Shakespeare was also s shrewd businessman, investing in the theatre and the company, and taking his cut.
Greenblatt, of course, does spend some time on examining the works, looking at what made Shakespeare great. He does a competent job discussing how Shakespeare, moving beyond playwrights before him, was able to find ways to show the inner character, to truly show to the audience how his characters thought, and to create real characters (though Harold Bloom, among others, goes into more depth on this aspect of things). He also tries to tie the plays to Shakespeare’s life. Did he see the humiliation and execution of Elizabeth’s Jewish physician (accused of treason), and did his reaction to the crowd there cause him to create a Shylock who his audience couldn’t just laugh at but also feel pain over. (Contrast this with, for example, Marlowe’s Barabas.) Did the death of his son cause such a shock to his life that he moved to the next level and thus write Hamlet. Did his fears of losing his powers and approaching retirement effect his writing of King Lear?
While all this is interesting speculation, the relationships between the plays and actual historical events is perhaps better grounded. For example, Greenblatt ties Macbeth to both James I’s fascination with witches (he even wrote a book about witches) and with his desire to in all ways appear legitimate (he viewed Banquo as his ancestor).
The book also contains a lot of interesting detail about how the theatres worked, how administrators viewed them, how prone they were to be closed (bubonic plague was still a common occurrence, and if it reached a certain level, officials closed the theatres), and so on. It also explains how plays were printed (and why they rarely were and thus why so many plays from the period were lost). Plays were considered the valuable property of the company. It wasn’t in the company’s interest to print copies that other companies could steal and use. In fact, individual actors only had a roll of paper with their own lines to study (our modern “role” comes from this “roll”).
There’s much more here, ranging from the sonnets to details of the other great plays. It’s all – even the parts were Greenblatt is speculating – interesting and informative. There is enough detail of the history to make what’s going on intelligible to even those who don’t know much about the history of the time and enough about the works such that even a casual reader of Shakespeare (that is, someone only really familiar with perhaps the half-dozen most famous plays) to find something of merit. Highly recommended.
By Stephen Greenblatt
Shakespeare was the English language’s greatest writer and quite probably the greatest writer of the last 500 years (Cervantes and Dante are arguably at his level). He is also a man of whose life we only know bits and pieces. I don’t say “surprisingly little,” because, given the record keeping of the time and Shakespeare’s profession, it really isn’t that surprising that we don’t know more. While we know a lot about royalty and some of the nobility, we know comparatively little about most others. And while we know a bit more about a few of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, we know even less about some of them.
We do know many of the important facts – when and where he was born, a bit about his parents, who he married, who his children were (at least the legitimate ones), what property he owned, what he invested in, some of his travels, and so on. We know about when he wrote most of his major works, and who he collaborated with on a few of the minor ones. And we know when and where he died and the contents of his will. Stephen Greenblatt has taken these known facts, combined them with some speculation – some based on knowledge of what most did at the time (e.g., we know what school most children in Stratford went to, thus, even without records to definitely prove it, it’s a good bet that Shakespeare went there also) and some based on historical events that might have driven him – and some extrapolation from the plays to construct an interesting biography of sorts of Shakespeare. Greenblatt plays fair: the speculation is clearly labeled as such, and he gives the reader a good idea of how likely he various speculations are. It creates a very plausible picture of Shakespeare’s life, even if you decide that some of it is stretching it just a bit.
One of the more fascinating points of the book (and one of the less known parts of Shakespeare’s life) is the time from when he was a boy until he moved to London in the late 1580s. He was married – to a woman he had already gotten pregnant; was that the cause? Was he trying to escape a bad marriage. Or, there are some hints that Shakespeare’s father (and perhaps young Will) had some connections with the Catholic parts of the population. This was a time, soon after the ascent of Elizabeth to the throne, when religious strife was particularly bitter. Religion at the time was closely tied to politics; not following the state religion was looked at as disloyal. And things became worse when the Pope declared that anyone who killed Elizabeth would not be guilty of a mortal sin and when Catholic Spain made overtures to English Catholics, looking for their support in a possible attack on England. Did Shakespeare flee to London to escape this? This is interesting history and fascinating speculation, though this is also the part of the book where Greenblatt has to go farthest out on a limb in his speculations, given how little we actually know about this period.
Greenblatt presents Shakespeare as being in some ways connected to but in many ways separate from the other playwrights of the time (of whom Christopher Marlow was the most famous). Unlike them, Shakespeare was not educated at one of England’s two great universities, and there was some snobbery on their part, aimed at an actor who was getting above himself in actually writing plays. Yet Shakespeare rapidly became a success as a writer. Shakespeare was also s shrewd businessman, investing in the theatre and the company, and taking his cut.
Greenblatt, of course, does spend some time on examining the works, looking at what made Shakespeare great. He does a competent job discussing how Shakespeare, moving beyond playwrights before him, was able to find ways to show the inner character, to truly show to the audience how his characters thought, and to create real characters (though Harold Bloom, among others, goes into more depth on this aspect of things). He also tries to tie the plays to Shakespeare’s life. Did he see the humiliation and execution of Elizabeth’s Jewish physician (accused of treason), and did his reaction to the crowd there cause him to create a Shylock who his audience couldn’t just laugh at but also feel pain over. (Contrast this with, for example, Marlowe’s Barabas.) Did the death of his son cause such a shock to his life that he moved to the next level and thus write Hamlet. Did his fears of losing his powers and approaching retirement effect his writing of King Lear?
While all this is interesting speculation, the relationships between the plays and actual historical events is perhaps better grounded. For example, Greenblatt ties Macbeth to both James I’s fascination with witches (he even wrote a book about witches) and with his desire to in all ways appear legitimate (he viewed Banquo as his ancestor).
The book also contains a lot of interesting detail about how the theatres worked, how administrators viewed them, how prone they were to be closed (bubonic plague was still a common occurrence, and if it reached a certain level, officials closed the theatres), and so on. It also explains how plays were printed (and why they rarely were and thus why so many plays from the period were lost). Plays were considered the valuable property of the company. It wasn’t in the company’s interest to print copies that other companies could steal and use. In fact, individual actors only had a roll of paper with their own lines to study (our modern “role” comes from this “roll”).
There’s much more here, ranging from the sonnets to details of the other great plays. It’s all – even the parts were Greenblatt is speculating – interesting and informative. There is enough detail of the history to make what’s going on intelligible to even those who don’t know much about the history of the time and enough about the works such that even a casual reader of Shakespeare (that is, someone only really familiar with perhaps the half-dozen most famous plays) to find something of merit. Highly recommended.
posted by Jim Mann at 9:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home