The Author And His Times Essay, Research Paper
THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES
William Shakespeare lived in a time of great change and excitement
in England- a time of geographical discovery, international trade,
learning, and creativity. It was also a time of international
tension and internal uprisings that came close to civil war.
Under Elizabeth I (reigned 1558-1603) and James I (reigned
1603-1625), London was a center of government, learning, and trade,
and Shakespeare’s audience came from all three worlds. His plays had
to please royalty and powerful nobles, educated lawyers and
scholars, as well as merchants, workers, and apprentices, many of whom
couldn’t read or write. To keep so many different kinds of people
entertained, he had to write into his plays such elements as clowns
who made terrible puns and wisecracks; ghosts and witches; places
for the actors to dance and to sing the hit songs of the time; fencing
matches and other kinds of fight scenes; and emotional speeches for
his star actor, Richard Burbage. There is very little indication
that he was troubled in any way by having to do this. The stories he
told were familiar ones, from popular storybooks or from English and
Roman history. Sometimes they were adapted, as Hamlet was, from
earlier plays that had begun to seem old-fashioned. Part of
Shakespeare’s success came from the fact that he had a knack for
making these old tales come to life.
When you read Hamlet, or any other Shakespearean play, the first
thing to remember is that the words are poetry. Shakespeare’s audience
had no movies, television, radio, or recorded music. What brought
entertainment into their lives was live music, and they liked to
hear words treated as a kind of music. They enjoyed plays with
quick, lively dialogue and jingling wordplay, with strongly rhythmic
lines and neatly rhymed couplets, which made it easier for them to
remember favorite scenes. These musical effects also made learning
lines easier for the actors, who had to keep a large number of roles
straight in their minds. The actors might be called on at very short
notice to play some old favorite for a special occasion at court, or
at a nobleman’s house, just as the troupe of actors in Hamlet is asked
to play The Murder of Gonzago.
The next thing to remember is that Shakespeare wrote for a theater
that did not pretend to give its audience an illusion of reality, like
the theater we are used to today. When a housewife in a modern play
turns on the tap of a sink, we expect to see real water come out of
a real faucet in something that looks like a real kitchen sink. But in
Shakespeare’s time no one bothered to build onstage anything as
elaborate as a realistic kitchen sink. The scene of the action had
to keep changing to hold the audience’s interest, and to avoid
moving large amounts of scenery, a few objects would be used to help
the audience visualize the scene. For a scene set in a kitchen,
Shakespeare’s company might simply have the cook come out mixing
something in a bowl. A housewife in an Elizabethan play would not even
have been a woman, since it was considered immoral for women to appear
onstage. An older woman, like Hamlet’s mother Gertrude, would be
played by a male character actor who specialized in matronly roles,
and a young woman like Hamlet’s girlfriend Ophelia would be played
by a teenage boy who was an apprentice with the company. When his
voice changed, he would be given adult male roles. Of course, the
apprentices played not only women, but also pages, servants,
messengers, and the like. It was usual for everyone in the company,
except the three or four leading actors, to “double,” or play more
than one role in a play. Shakespeare’s audience accepted these
conventions of the theater as parts of a game. They expected the words
of the play to supply all the missing details. Part of the fun of
Shakespeare is the way his plays guide us to imagine for ourselves the
time and place of each scene, the way the characters behave, the parts
of the story we hear about but don’t see. The limitations of the
Elizabethan stage were significant, and a striking aspect of
Shakespeare’s genius is the way he rose above them.
Theaters during the Elizabethan time were open-air structures,
with semicircular “pits,” or “yards,” to accommodate most of the
audience. The pit could also serve as the setting for cock fights
and bear baiting, two popular arena sports of the time.
The audience in the pit stood on three sides of the stage. Nobles,
well-to-do commoners, and other more “respectable” theatergoers sat in
the three tiers of galleries that rimmed the pit. During breaks in the
stage action- and sometimes while the performance was underway-
peddlers sold fruit or other snacks, wandering through the audience
and calling out advertisements for their wares.
The stage itself differed considerably from the modern stage. The
main part, sometimes called the “apron” stage, was a raised platform
that jutted into the audience. There was no curtain, and the
audience would assume when one group of actors exited and another
group entered there had been a change of scene. Because there was no
curtain someone always carried a dead character off. It would, after
all, have spoiled the effect if a character who had just died in the
play got up in full view of the audience and walked off stage to
make way for the next scene. The stage often had one or more
trapdoors, which could be used for entry from below or in graveyard
scenes.
Behind the main stage was a small inner stage with a curtain in
front of it. During productions of Hamlet, the curtain served as the
tapestry (or arras) that Claudius and Polonius hide behind when they
spy on Hamlet, and later it was opened to disclose Gertrude’s
bedchamber.
Above the apron stage, on the second story, was a small stage with a
balcony. In Hamlet this small stage served as a battlement and in
Romeo and Juliet as the balcony in the famous love scene.
Still higher was the musicians’ balcony and a turret for sound
effects- drum rolls, trumpet calls, or thunder (made by rolling a
cannon ball across the floor).
-
Now that you know something about the theater he wrote for, who
was Shakespeare, the man?
Unfortunately, we know very little about him. A writer in
Shakespeare’s time was not considered special, and no one took pains
to document Shakespeare’s career the way a writer’s life would be
recorded and studied in our century. Here are the few facts we have.
Shakespeare was born in 1564, in the little English country town
of Stratford, on the Avon River. He was the grandson of a tenant
farmer and the son of a shopkeeper who made and sold gloves and
other leather goods. We know that Shakespeare’s family was well off
during the boy’s childhood- his father was at one point elected
bailiff of Stratford, an office something like mayor- and that he
was the eldest of six children. As the son of one of the wealthier
citizens, he probably had a good basic education in the town’s grammar
school, but we have no facts to prove this. We also have no
information on how he spent his early years or on when and how he
got involved with the London theater.
At 18 he married a local girl, Anne Hathaway, who gave birth to
their first child- a daughter, Susanna- six months later. This does
not mean, as some scholars believe, that Shakespeare was forced into
marriage: Elizabethan morals were in some ways as relaxed as our
own, and it was legally acceptable for an engaged couple to sleep
together. Two years later, Anne gave birth to twins, Hamnet (notice
the similarity to “Hamlet”) and Judith, but by this time Shakespeare’s
parents were no longer so well off. The prosperity of country towns
like Stratford was declining as the city of London and its
international markets grew, and so Shakespeare left home to find a way
of earning a living. One unverified story says Shakespeare was
driven out of Stratford for poaching (hunting without a license) on
the estate of a local aristocrat; another says he worked in his
early twenties as a country schoolmaster or as a private tutor in
the home of a wealthy family.
Shakespeare must somehow have learned about the theater, because the
next time we hear of him, at age 28, he is being ridiculed in a
pamphlet by Robert Greene, a playwright and writer of comic prose.
Greene called Shakespeare an uneducated actor who had the gall to
think he could write better plays than a university graduate. One
indication of Shakespeare’s early popularity is that Greene’s
remarks drew complaints, and his editor publicly apologized to
Shakespeare in Greene’s next pamphlet. Clearly, by 1592 the young
man from Stratford was well thought of in London as an actor and a new
playwright of dignity and promise.
Though England at the time was enjoying a period of domestic
peace, the danger of renewed civil strife was never far away. From
abroad came threats from hostile Roman Catholic countries like Spain
and France. At home, both Elizabeth’s court and Shakespeare’s
theater company were targets of abuse from the growing English
fundamentalist movement we call Puritanism. In this period, England
was enjoying a great expansion of international trade, and London’s
growing merchant class was largely made up of Puritans, who regarded
the theater as sinful and were forever pressing either the Queen or
the Lord Mayor to close it down. Then there were members of
Elizabeth’s own court who believed she was not aggressive enough in
her defiance of Puritans at home or Catholics abroad. One such man was
the Earl of Essex, one of Elizabeth’s court favorites (and possibly
her lover), who in 1600 attempted to storm the palace and overthrow
her. This incident must have left a great impression on Shakespeare
and his company, for they came very close to being executed with Essex
and his conspirators, one of whom had paid them a large sum to
revive Shakespeare’s Richard II, in which a weak king is forced to
abdicate, as part of a propaganda campaign to justify Essex’s
attempted coup d’etat.
The performance, like the coup, apparently attracted little support.
Elizabeth knew the publicity value of mercy, however, and
Shakespeare’s company performed for her at the palace the night before
the conspirators were hanged. It can hardly be a coincidence that
within the next two years Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, in which a play is
performed in an unsuccessful attempt to depose a reigning king. The
Essex incident must have taught him by direct experience the risks
inherent in trifling with the power of the established political
order.
Elizabeth’s gift for keeping the conflicting elements around her
in balance continued until her death in 1603, and her successor, James
I, a Scotsman, managed to oversee two further decades of peace.
James enjoyed theatrical entertainment, and under his reign,
Shakespeare and his colleagues rose to unprecedented prosperity. In
1604 they were officially declared the King’s Men, which gave them the
status of servants to the royal household.
Shakespeare’s son Hamnet died in 1596, about four years before the
first performance of Hamlet. Whether he inspired the character of
Hamlet in any way, we probably will never know. Some scholars have
suggested that the approaching death of Shakespeare’s father (he
died in 1601) was another emotional shock that contributed to the
writing of Hamlet, the hero of which is driven by the thought of his
father’s sufferings after death. This is only speculation, of
course. What we do know is that Shakespeare retired from the theater
in 1611 and went to live in Stratford, where he had bought the
second biggest house in town, called New Place. He died there in 1616;
his wife Anne died in 1623. Both Shakespeare’s daughters had married
by the time of his death. Because Judith’s two sons both died young
and Susanna’s daughter Elizabeth- though she married twice and even
became a baroness- had no children, there are no descendants of
Shakespeare among us today.
On Shakespeare’s tombstone in Stratford is inscribed a famous rhyme,
putting a curse on anyone who dares to disturb his grave:
-
Good friend, for Jesus’ sake forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here.
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones.
-
The inscription had led to speculation that manuscripts of
unpublished works were buried with Shakespeare or that the grave may
in fact be empty because the writing attributed to him was produced by
other hands. (A few scholars have argued that contemporaries like
Francis Bacon wrote plays attributed to Shakespeare, but this notion
is generally discredited.) The rhyme is a final mystery, reminding
us that Shakespeare is lost to us. Only by his work may we know him.