William Shakespeare: Historical Interpretation #3

William Shakespeare: Historical Interpretation #3

 

Shakespeare certainly wrote his plays more than four hundred years ago. So how much should we reckon the past?

I have received a comment from under “A Frame of William Shakespeare's Life: Timeline”:

“Nothing. "Probably". "Would have". "Could have". Ridiculous myths, speculation and wishful thinking pawned off as biography. Nonsense. If you have evidence this man was a writer, please post it. We've been waiting for 400 years.”

As well as literature, I'm interested in history. I'd rather read and research about history. In fact, this comment touches on a good point to understand. Surely, history is a science. However, we need proof and documents to make history. Otherwise, we can't convince anyone of anything. In this context, most people believe that history is fiction. For instance, a historicist critic is someone who seeks to place a text in its context, revealing the embeddedness of, for example, Shakespeare's Macbeth in the witch-hunting mania of King James I's early reign. A historicist critic tries to understand a text by examining the time and place it was written, showing how, for example, Shakespeare's Macbeth reflects the widespread fear of witches during the early rule of King James I. (I will mention "New Historicism" that pertains to this issue). They might also conduct primary research in a historical archive, uncovering documents that shed new light on aspects of the text that readers removed by several centuries from its original publication could not previously see.

'The Enchanted Island Before the Cell of Prospero - Prospero, Miranda, Caliban and Ariel (Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 1, Scene 2)', engraved after Henry Fuseli by Peter Simon

We know very little about the time between the birth of Hamnet and Judith Shakespeare, the twins, and the moment when Shakespeare is first mentioned in the theatre scene in London. This intervening period, often referred to as the lost years of Shakespeare, remains largely mysterious. However, it is certain that he somehow made his way from Stratford-upon-Avon to London. Whether he joined a traveling theatre company in need of an extra actor or fled due to trouble with a local landowner for poaching deer, remains unknown. Despite numerous stories circulating since the 18th century about why Shakespeare left Stratford, no concrete records exist from Shakespeare's lifetime or shortly after to clarify the circumstances surrounding his move to London with three young children and no clear career prospects. Nonetheless, Shakespeare did make this daring move and began establishing himself in the London world from the early 1590s onwards.

As a young boy, Shakespeare would have witnessed actors in Stratford-upon-Avon, as touring acting companies frequently visited the town. These companies would seek permission from the town's bailiff, the administrative leader, before performing. In 1569, when Shakespeare was five, this would have been his father. It's likely that permission was granted, and the first performance, known as the mayor's play, would have taken place. The mayor and his family were expected to attend, and even a curious 5-year-old Shakespeare might have witnessed his first play not far from where he grew up. Touring companies continued to visit Stratford, and in Shakespeare's early 20s, the renowned Queen's Men came to town. While we don't know what they performed, we do know that shortly before their visit, two of their actors were involved in a serious brawl, resulting in one fatality. This incident might have created an opportunity for Shakespeare to enter the professional theatre world, as the troupe may have been in need of additional talent. Thus, despite his humble origins as the son of a glover in Stratford, Shakespeare likely demonstrated enough promise to be recruited into the world of professional theatre.

Shakespeare's house, New Place, the Chapel and Grammar School, Stratford-on-Avon. From Samuel Ireland "Picturesque Views on the Upper or Warwickshire Avon"

Stephen Greenblatt describes the area we are currently in, on the south bank of the Thames in London, as a vibrant entertainment zone. People from different parts of the city would visit, knowing they had various activities to choose from. They could hire a boatman to ferry them across the river and then attend theaters like The Globe or The Swan. Alternatively, they could engage in other pastimes such as archery practice, visiting brothels, or patronizing taverns. Additionally, they could watch bull baiting and bear baiting exhibitions, where savage dogs attacked these animals, providing excitement for spectators. However, during the English Civil War, Puritan soldiers killed most of the bears, leading to the decline of this practice.

The area's history as the center of monasteries in the Middle Ages meant it had different legal arrangements from the rest of the city, allowing activities that the city authorities disapproved of but couldn't prevent. The city fathers had various concerns about the theatres, including traffic congestion, people skipping work, the potential for prostitution, and the spread of diseases like bubonic plague. Due to outbreaks of plague, the theatres would periodically be shut down until the death rates decreased. This caused economic difficulties for theatre companies, like Shakespeare's, who had to find ways to pass the time until the theatres reopened.

Stephen Greenblatt 

The Globe, where we're currently positioned, stands as the most renowned among England's grand amphitheatres during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It emerged from a groundbreaking initiative in 1576 by James Burbage, a builder and entrepreneur originating from the carpentry trade. Burbage ventured to invest his resources in a groundbreaking endeavour: a purpose-built, freestanding theatre—an unprecedented concept not seen since late antiquity. This endeavour involved substantial risk capital, banking on the idea of attracting large audiences willing to pay upfront for entertainment, rather than relying on post-performance donations as customary in inn yards. The model operated on a system of admission fees, with patrons paying a penny for entry or more for premium seating, ensuring performers received their due applause after the show.

However, The Globe wasn't the sole venue for Shakespearean or contemporary playwrights' performances. Officially, acting as a profession was forbidden, categorized as vagrancy, and punishable by whipping. To circumvent this restriction, actors claimed to be servants of nobility or royalty, thus legitimizing their performances as entertainment for their employers. While court appearances provided prestige, theatres like The Globe and others generated the bulk of their revenue from ticket sales. Performances also took place at venues like the Inns of Court, and legal institutions in 16th-century London, with known productions of Shakespeare's works such as Comedy of Errors at Gray's Inn in 1594 and Twelfth Night at The Middle Temple in 1602. Additionally, plays were staged at universities like Oxford and Cambridge. The necessity for mobility was ingrained in theatre practice; companies had to adapt to closures due to plague outbreaks and relocate for various reasons, reflecting the transient nature of theatrical performances during Shakespeare's era and continuing into modern times.

George Eliot: A Journey into 19th-Century British Literature

George Eliot: A Journey into 19th-Century British Literature

In this blog, I will continue studying 19th-century British novelists. In the previous entry, I introduced Charles Dickens, one of the most distinctive novelists of Victorian England. That entry does not include much detail because I plan to examine deeper into his novels, such as David Copperfield and Hard Times (which I am currently reading). After discussing Dickens' short biography and literary style, I will introduce George Eliot, another renowned novelist of the Victorian era.

Eliot, along with other British novelists, started writing novels at an early age. Her first novel, Adam Bede (1859), was a tremendously popular work, published when she was forty years old. I have mentioned that Dickens's depiction of characters in his novels reflects his personal experiences and relationships. Similarly, Eliot's characters' lives are viewed from the perspective of maturity and extensive experience. This perspective is further emphasized by her practice of setting her stories in the past, during her own childhood, or even earlier periods. For instance, in most of her novels, Eliot evokes a pre-industrial rural scene or the small-town life of the English Midlands. She views this setting with a combination of nostalgia and candid awareness of its limitations.

In her true identity as Marian Evans, she spent her early years at Arbury Farm, where her father Robert Evans served as the overseer and land agent. During her youth, Marian Evans (George Eliot) read extensively both in and out of school and was strongly influenced by Evangelism. Her mother's death led her to leave school at sixteen, and in the next few years, she experienced bouts of depression and self-doubt. Marian Evans' intellectual horizons were greatly expanded when she moved with her father to Coventry at the age of twenty-one. Because of her connections with a community of forward-thinking intellectuals and her own examination of theology, she reluctantly reached the conclusion that she could no longer adhere to the Christian faith. Her decision caused a painful rift with her father, which was eventually reconciled when she consented to accompany him to church as a formality. In return, he accepted that during these church visits, she was free to choose her own thoughts.

Marian Evans' deep inclination to theological matters aroused her to release her debut book in 1846, a translation of The Life of Jesus by D.F. Strauss, a prominent figure in the Higher Criticism movement in Germany. Modern research methods were used in this approach to test the historical authenticity of biblical narratives. Evans never stopped reading extensively in English and Continental philosophy throughout her life. Upon relocating to London in 1851 following her father's passing, Marian Evans' remarkable intellectual qualifications earned her the position of assistant editor at the Westminster Review, a prestigious scholarly journal formerly managed by John Stuart Mill. Marian Evans' time at the Westminster Review provided her with opportunities to engage with many notable writers and thinkers. One such individual was George Henry Lewes, a renowned critic of literature and philosophy, with whom she fell deeply in love. However, Lewes was already married and unable to obtain a divorce. Despite this obstacle, Evans made the decision to live with him as his common-law wife, and their relationship brought them both happiness until Lewes's passing in 1878. In her final year, Evans entered into marriage with J.W. Cross, a friend and admirer who eventually became her biographer.

Her decision to live with Lewes was not taken lightly, as she expressed:

"Light and easily broken ties are what I neither desire theoretically nor could live for practically. Women who are satisfied with such ties do not act as I have done—they obtain what they desire and are still invited to dinner."

Evans expresses her disdain for "light and easily broken ties," indicating her rejection of superficial or fleeting connections. She values deeper, more meaningful relationships that endure over time. Moreover, she expresses her disdain for "light and easily broken ties," indicating her rejection of superficial or fleeting connections. She values deeper, more meaningful relationships that endure over time. These choices, as depicted in works such as The Mill on the Floss (1860), are often fraught with painful dilemmas. Although she was familiar with fiction before, it was only after establishing her relationship with Lewes that she fully embraced this literary form. "Scenes from Clerical Life" was serialized in magazines in 1857 under a pen name that, except for Dickens, led most readers to assume the author was male—a misconception that both amused and satisfied Eliot. When Eliot began writing fiction, she and Lewes were reading to each other the novels of Jane Austen. Eliot's fiction is heavily influenced by Austen's, with its concern with provincial society, satire of human motives, and emphasis on courtship. There are no rules, which is why Eliot chose to write fiction rather than moral treatises. Eliot's characters are different from the novel of manners', but he brings a philosophical and psychological depth to these subjects. Eliot's fiction usually combines extensive philosophical meditation with a thorough examination of her characters' motives and feelings. 

She often compared herself not just to a historian, but also to a scientist who, like using a microscope, meticulously observes and analyses the intricate interplay of character and circumstance that shapes human history. These comparisons suggest Eliot's aim to present her fiction as a mirror reflecting our life experiences without distortion. However, her insistence on art's transparency is frequently challenged by her awareness of its fictitious nature and by her understanding of how our shared egoism distorts our perceptions. Eliot's claim to be a historian suggests that her novels will provide significant insight into contemporary issues. Eliot seems sympathetic to a feminist point of view. George Eliot wrote, "My function is that of the aesthetic, not the doctrinal, teacher." The impressive vision that allows Eliot to look into the consciousness of all her characters renders the perspective of her novels on many issues complex. Ultimately, it is the way these issues are refracted through the lens of human character that captivates her interest.

Once the good and the truth disappear, everything is permitted. Beauty is hardly an afterthought. This critique depends oddly on assumptions that are both cynical and reactionary. Namely, that people only believe in behaving morally out of hope for heaven and fear of hell or fire.

For Eliot, few things could be more inimical to morality. In her sarcastic early essay on the religious poet Young, she wrote:

“It is quite possible that you would be a knave and love yourself alone, were it not for your belief in immortality, but you are not to force on me what would result from your own utter want of moral emotion. If you feel no motive to common morality but your fear of a criminal bar in heaven, you're decidedly a man for the police on earth to keep their eye on.' Since it's a matter of worldly experience, the fear of distant consequences is a very insufficient barrier against the rush of immediate desire.”

She is quietly young, known. As well as it's an incredibly scathing thing to write. From Eliot's perspective, anyone who is motivated to be decent solely by traditional religion is driven not by morality but by desire and fear. The implication, spelled out in her later work, is clear: few of us possess the kind of criminal mentality that can only be restrained by a vision of the torments of the damned. However common it may be to claim today that nothing truly moves us besides desire and fear. Few of us actually behave that way in practice, our motives for everything, as Elliott shows, are usually mixed. Eliot deeply believes that the majority of human beings possess natural moral sentiments. However, it is just as natural for us to disregard these sentiments with clever rationalizations when other interests intervene. In truth, we feel sorrow and pity for others' suffering and, occasionally, even gladness for others' joy. There are plenty of studies from primatology to social psychology that demonstrate this. Eliot's work is too rich to be reduced to any single theme or thought. Her works have mythological reverberations, yet they are expanded by her commitment to realism, which obscures myths entirely. More importantly, she maintains a constant awareness of one central truth: the world is not mindful of us. She observes that examining the world to find a constellation is very much like looking carefully over the pages of a great book to find our own name.

To sum up, her remarkable talent and insight are the reason why George Eliot's legacy in literature is enduring. She sets herself apart as an exceptional writer by her ability to explore the complexities of human nature, while simultaneously incorporating mythological elements and staying committed to realism. Her works encourage us to contemplate our place in the world by reminding us of the profound truths of existence. Through our continued engagement with her novels, essays, and observations, we gain a deeper understanding of the human condition and the timeless relevance of her storytelling. One of the most influential voices in literary history, George Eliot continues to enrich our lives and inspire readers around the world through her contributions to literature.

The Tragedy of Mustapha by Fulke Greville

 The Tragedy of Mustapha: struggle of the throne 

 

• History and Plot  

Queen Elizabeth I was formally cursed by the Catholic church by Pope Pius V in February 1570. The religious Brexit labelled Elizabeth as illegitimate and a nonbeliever, while also declaring Protestant England a lawless nation, separated from the rest of Catholic Europe. Elizabeth was faced with an invasion and financial ruin as a result of the Low Countries prohibiting the country's main wool exports. Her counsellors suggested that the only means of survival was to create an alliance with the adversary of her enemy. The negotiations started with the Ottoman Empire, the great power of the 16th century which was an Islamic empire. 

     

• Ottoman Turks: from a dream to a reality 

Elizabeth's policies aimed to be closer to Ottoma, but probably these policies were not supported by the people. We came across the reactions of William Shakespeare and his peers in a short time, and from the late 16th century, the Elizabethan theatre was full of Turks, Moors, Persians and Saracens. 

 

• The Tragedy of Mustapha: the story of power struggle 

A concept of a father-son war for power. Grevilleillustrates both the history and the present condition of the religion-military confrontations of the two parties and thus reproduces the hostile rhetoric about the Turk as the perpetual threat to Christendom. 

 

• Ottoman Danger: god's punishment 

Greville’s interpretation of the history of Christian-Muslim struggles does not differ much from his sources. Greville’s narration of the history of the conflicts between the parties through the chorus of “Mahometan priests”, presents a different perspective, but by revealing the boastful comments of the Ottomans about their deeds, it only serves to confirm the hostility and the threat they pose for Christianity. Greville depicts the Sultan of Ottoman as a tyrant. Nicholas de Moffan’s slave account is one of the first historical sources of the death of Mustapha, probably it is the major source of Greville. This source interests the Ottoman political structure, admiring the way the offices are gained not for wealth or nobility, but for talent and success. 

 

Analysis 

The representation of the historical Ottoman prince Mustapha, the oldest son of Suleiman I (Magnificent Suleiman) is symbolic in the Elizabethan Age as a reflection of paternal filicide. Initially, I want to throw light on the events in the play. The author provides information about the Ottoman dynasty as if he lived in Topkapı Palace. Therefore, I can say the play was written perception of Europeans. The Ottoman Empire was very much in contact with the European countries during the Renaissance time. And in this time, for the most part, largely the Ottoman Muslims were reflected as some negative people. Greville was very much impacted by some historical sources. Also, he had a creative intellectuality while trying to fictionalise his historical knowledge. This is totally fiction. The Tragedy of Mustafa is a fictional work.  

The tragedies were altered twice. The initial revision flooded the area with extensive political debates in its choruses to elaborate on the matter of the desires of aspiring leaders. As Gravel has clearly stated, the issues discussed by the choruses were not a result of the current action. However, these were included to indicate a potential timeframe and to demonstrate the lack of success. This would render the tragedies more acceptable to the objectives of every good reader in the second revision.

 

Roxolana, Sultan Suleiman and the supporters of Suleiman, also Mustafa, all people in the play reflect their individualistic power expectations. We can observe the Christianity perspective through the execution of Mustapha. Mustafa was in some way to be alike and to the crucifixion of Christ or Jesus because he was an innocent and he was very much loved and respected by the whole society. Soleiman, Rosa, and Rostan are depicted as avaricious, aggressive, and cruel, as required by the story for dramatic purposes. In contrast, other characters are portrayed less negatively and thus last. Mustafa, Ahmed, and Camena are commonly associated with discussing Soleiman's faithful decision from political, religious, or moral perspectives. To sum up, the play revolves around the struggles for power, love, and loyalty among the characters. Even if this play is fiction, Greville's depictions pertain to political, religious, and law. 

Ben Jonson: A turbulent story of a poet in Renaissence

 Ben Jonson 

 

Ben Jonson, born between 1572 and 1573 and passing away in 1637, was a notable English playwright, poet, and literary critic of the early modern era. He is considered one of the most important figures in English Renaissance theatre, alongside William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe. He has risen from modest beginnings to become England's unofficial poet laureate, with a pension from the king and honorary degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge.  

 

Jonson was born in Westminster, London, to a Protestant family. He was educated at St. Martin's Church of England School and then became an apprentice bricklayer and took part in military service. Johnson's early life was quite turbulent. He escaped to join the English forces in Flander; he killed a man. When he came back to London, he attempted to make a living as an actor and playwright, but this endeavour almost ended in disaster. He was jailed in 1597 for collaborating with Thomas Nashe on the scandalous play The Isle of Dogs (now lost), and not long after his release he killed one of his fellow actors in a duel. Jonson was not executed on the gallows by pleading benefit of clergy (a medieval privilege exempting felons who could read Latin from the death penalty). Thanks to the influence of a priest imprisoned with him, he converted to Catholicism. Ben Jonson was becoming increasingly more of a marginal, not accepted by the society he had cleverly mocked in his past plays. In 1603 he was called before the Privy Council to answer charges of "popery and treason" found in his play Sejanus. He was in jail again for his part in the play Eastward Ho a little more than a year later, which openly mocked the king's Scots accent and propensity for selling knighthood. In 1605, he received the preparation to organize the Twelfth Night entertainment; The Masque of Blackness was the first of twenty-four masques he would produce for the court, most of them in collaboration with the architect and scene designer Inigo Jones. In the same years that he kept on writing the masques, he produced his greatest works for the public theatre. His first successful play, Every Man in His Humor (1598), inaugurated the so-called comedy of humour, which ridicules the eccentricities or passions of the characters.   

 

Despite his antagonistic nature, Jonson had a great friendship with Shakespeare, Donne, Francis Bacon, and John Selden. While Shakespeare is known as the greatest playwright of the English Renaissance, Jonson's work is often seen as more intellectually challenging and sophisticated. Jonson was also known for his role as a literary critic and his work in establishing the first English literary tradition. Ben Jonson died in 1637 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. His legacy as a playwright and poet continues to be celebrated today. 

 

Ben Jonsons’ major plays are the comedies  

Every Man in His Humour (1598) 

Volpone (1605)  

Epicoene; or, The Silent Woman (1609) 

The Alchemist (1610) 

Bartholomew Fair (1614).