This is a test
- 448 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
A study of theatre and sovereignty that situates Shakespeare's plays in the contraflow between two absolutisms of early modern England: the aesthetic and the political
Frequently asked questions
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access Free Will by Richard Wilson in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Literature & North American Literary Criticism. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
1
The picture of Nobody
Shakespeare in the time of the political
Bare life
At the end, âhis nose was as sharp as a penâ as he âbabbled of green fieldsâ [Henry V, 2,3,15]. In September 1615, a few weeks before Shakespeare began to make his will and a little over six months before his death, Thomas Greene, town clerk of Stratford, wrote a memorandum of an exchange biographers treasure as the last of the precious few records of the dramatistâs spoken words: âW Shakespeares tellyng J Greene that I was not able to beare the enclosinge of Welcombeâ.1 John Greene was the clerkâs brother, and Shakespeare, according to previous papers, was their âcousinâ, who had lodged Thomas at New Place, his Stratford house. So the Greenes had appealed to their sharp-nosed kinsman for help in a battle that pitted the council against a consortium of speculators who were, in their own eyes, if ânot the greatest ⊠almost the greatest men of Englandâ.2 The plan to enclose the fields of Welcombe north of the town was indeed promoted by the steward to the Lord Chancellor, no less. But the predicament for Shakespeare was that it was led by his friends the Combes, rich money-lenders from whom he had himself bought 107 acres adjacent to the scheme. This land was his daughter Susannaâs inheritance, and he had raised her interest in its development by investing in a half-share of the tithes on Welcombeâs corn and hay. Critics like to read into Prosperoâs vision of ânibbling sheep and flat meads thatched with stoverâ [Tempest, 4,1,62â3] âShakespeareâs figurative return homeâ.3 But at the close of his life, the dramatist was pitched into the thick of the epoch-marking conflict that was tearing this English idyll apart, for he now had to weigh his rental income from arable farming against the potential profits from those sheep.4
In his last days the great dramatist of indecision had to make a momentous decision. For the certain losers from sheep farming on Stratfordâs âflat meadsâ would be the tenants, who when âwoolly breedersâ [Merchant, 1,3,79] ate fields, in a notorious image from Moreâs Utopia, must âdepart awayâ with babes and chattels on their backs.5 Shakespeare had set these wrenching words in Sir Thomas More, where Moreâs phrase about the destitute with babes and baggage at their backs was reassigned, however, to asylum-seekers [Add.II, 81â2]. When it came to evictions on his own turf his last recorded utterance that âI was not able to bear the enclosingâ is harder to read. Was his parting word on the most divisive social problem of the age that he could not bear or bar the change? Did he regret he had not barred the enclosure? Or that he could not bear its cost? And was the âIâ who he said âcould not bear the enclosingâ even Shakespeare, indeed, or Greene? It seems more than chance that the Bardâs valediction is such a bar to understanding we cannot tell whether he could not prevent, endure or carry the enclosing. We know he was aware of such ambiguities because he had a joke that sheep âmake me cry âbaaââ [Two Gents, 1,1,91]; his Macbeth would sooner bar the door than âbear the knifeâ [Macbeth, 1,7,16]; and he has Antigonus abandon a bairn in bearing-cloth before he is eaten by a bear [Winterâs, 4,1,105]. But was Shakespeare, as a landowner and interested party, unable to stop, suffer or support the barring of his neighbours? In what did this lack of success consist? We cannot find our bearings. For as Terence Hawkes comments, âan entire spectrum of potential meaningâ is offered by the indeterminacy of these famous last words, as if their weakness and indecision were signifiers of some irresolvable confusion not only over the barring of real estate, but the bearing on the writer of his own life and times:
Plurality invests all texts of course, but none more so than this. Its very subject guarantees it a talismanic, even votive status in our culture which offers to propel the words beyond the page. They seem to present, after all, a record of oral utterance, of actual speech on the Bardâs part which, at this date, might almost lay claim to the aura of last words, significant beyond the context of their saying.6
Whatever their meaning Shakespeareâs last words seem to speak of a profound failure. Yet in his critique of speech act theory Jacques Derrida opened a new itinerary for criticism by connecting art precisely with the experience of failure or ineptitude, and with the counter-intuitive idea that what is most powerful is âoften the most disarming feeblenessâ; so as a sign of the queer power of weakness, we might perhaps consider Shakespeareâs reported statement that âI was not able to bear the enclosingâ as what Roland Barthes termed a biographeme: that quantum of truth that embodies a lifeâs work.7 For âWho would fardels bear?â asks his Hamlet [Hamlet, 3,1,75]; âIâll bear / Affliction till it do cry outâ, responds Gloucester [Lear, 4,6,75]; and Macbeth: âbear-like I must fight the courseâ [Macbeth, 5,7,2]. But âI had rather bear with you than bear youâ, sighs Touchstone [As You, 2,4,8]; and âHeâs a lamb indeed that âbaasâ like a bearâ, sneer the Citizens of Coriolanus [2,1.10]. Baring, in all its multiple connotations of comportment, endurance, exemption, exposure, orientation and prevention, seems to have been this writerâs habitual mode. We would thus surely like to know what the author of such lines thought about the condition of bare life, for human beings cannot bear too much reality, quips Hawkes, after T.S. Eliot, which is why they tell tales to paper over the cracks.8
Shakespeare span many sad stories about the âbare / ruinâd choirsâ [Sonnet 73] and âthorny point of bare distressâ [As You, 2,7,94], caused by Englandâs textile-driven capitalist revolution. Yet when his townsmen gave him a leading part to play in this historic tragedy, it appears he almost literally sat on the fence, retreating behind a barrier of words into what Stephen Greenblatt calls the double consciousness with which an actor hides from view, and echoing his questioners with what they already knew, or even had themselves just said.9 And this impression is reinforced by an earlier interview when Shakespeare had tried to calm their fears. For on 17 November 1614 Thomas Greene called on the great man at his London house in Blackfriars. But what the town clerk did not know, as Shakespeare and his son-in-law Dr. John Hall gave reassurances about going with the flow of events, was that on 28 October the poetâs pen had signed a secret covenant to secure his own compensation âfor all such loss detriment or hindranceâ as he might suffer âby reason of any Enclosureâ:
At my cousin Shakespeare, coming yesterday to town, I went to see him how he did. He told me that they assured him they meant to enclose no further than to Gospel Bush and so up straight (leaving out part of the dingles to the field) to the gate in Clopton hedge, and take in Salisburyâs piece. And that they mean in April to survey the land and then to give satisfaction, and not before. And he and Mr Hall say they think there will be nothing done at all.10
Perhaps his cousin Greene called âto see how he didâ because Shakespeare was already ill, and so too infirm to join the fight. Certainly, his reported attitude seems of a piece with the wish that warms his plays, to âlaugh this sport oâer by a country fireâ [Merry Wives, 5,5,219]. Yet when the town clerk returned to Stratford he learned that âthe survey there was passedâ, despite his cousinâs certainty that it would not take place until spring, and by the first days of December the trenches were being dug for the fences. Embarrassingly, when Greene tried to halt the developers on the 10th he went looking for their lawyer at Shakespeareâs New Place, though it would be a month before lawyers tipped him off about the secret pact.11 Biographers wring their hands at this sequence of events, which âreveals a hitherto unseen side to the playwright of the people ⊠quietly hedging his betsâ, in Anthony Holdenâs words, âby doing clandestine deals with the enemyâ.12 âEither Shakespeare was lied to or he was lyingâ, as Greenblatt admits.13 So was he âdisinterested, or was he a schemer?â wondered Dennis Kay: âWas he duplicitous or naive?â14 Peter Levi feared the moneymen were âtoo sharp for himâ; and RenĂ© Weiss thinks him too âcasualâ; but Park Honan accepts his âwish to protect the value of his assetsâ with the tired excuse that âhe had earned some restâ.15 Likewise, while allowing that enclosure would be in his financial interests, Peter Ackroyd exonerates his reluctance to align himself as the result of a temperamental ambivalence: âHe seems to have been incapable of taking sides and remained studiedly impartial in even matters closest to himâ.16 Thus, as Greenblatt sums up a sorry story, âShakespeare stayed out of it, indifferent to its outcome perhaps. He did not stand to lose anything, and did not choose to join in a campaign on behalf of others who might be less fortunateâ.17
If the spy Marlowe was transfixed by how much theatrical and political plotting had in common, the property-owner who called England a âblessed plotâ [Richard II, 2,1,50] liked to pun on the topos that made his old plays exchangeable for a New Place. So his ambiguity over this plot of green fields has become an epitome for his biographers of Shakespeareâs famed disinterestedness. Yet it is the interest in his disinterest that is a focus of the most unforgiving treatment of the business, when a suicidal Shakespeare is portrayed in Edward Bondâs 1973 drama Bingo. âYou read too much into itâ, Bondâs playwright tells William Combe, as though addressing his later critics: âIâm protecting my own interests. Not supporting you, nor fighting the townâ. The banker knows, however, that Shakespeareâs covert indemnity means he will never lift a finger against the plan. Thus, âBe noncommittalâ, Combe slyly urges, âor say you think nothing will come of it. Stay in your garden. It pays to sit in a garden.â18 Bond sets his play in the bleak midwinter of the Christmas after Shakespeare struck his deal, when the town council begged him and other freeholders to prevent âthe ruin of the boroughâ, and the confrontation turned violent as two aldermen mandated to fill the ditch were roughly thrown into it by Combe, who âsat laughing on horseback and said they were good football playersâ but âpuritan knavesâ.19 In Bingo one of the protestors who cry for liberty is shot dead in the snow, while Shakespeare frets about the ice in his own soul: âI must be very cold ⊠Every writer writes in other menâs blood.â20 These winter words may well be melodramatic, but they underline Bondâs message, which is that Shakespeareâs creative freedom, as the sovereignty of an artist who sits serenely cultivating his own garden, is the aesthetic interest earned from a deadly non-commitment:
I howled when they suffered, but they were whipped and hanged so that I could be free. That is the right question: not why did I sign one piece of paper ⊠Stolen things have no value. Pride and arrogance are the same when theyâre stolen. Even serenity.21
âIt pays to sit in a gardenâ: for Bond Shakespeareâs serenity in his country garden was the stolen fruit of a ruthless privatization. From the opposite ideological perspective Jonathan Bate agrees it was this private place, and the selfishness of âkeeping to oneselfâ, that sustained the public plays. Just as Montaigne retreated from the French court â...
Table of contents
- Cover
- Half Title
- Title Page
- Copyright
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Note on texts
- Introduction
- 1 The picture of Nobody: Shakespeare in the time of the political
- 2 Welsh roots: Shakespeareâs brute part
- 3 O World: The echoes of Rome in Julius Caesar
- 4 Denmarkâs a prison: Hamlet and the rules of art
- 5 Great stage of fools: King Lear and the Kingâs Men
- 6 Double trouble: Regime change in Macbeth
- 7 Your crownâs awry: The visual turn in Antony and Cleopatra
- 8 Like an eagle in a dovecot: The intrusion of the time into the play
- No sovereignty: Shakespeareâs voyage to Greece
- Index