Will then, Shakespeare now.

On Ex Libris, I discovered an article written by Leland Ryken (English professor at Wheaton) about Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible.

I shall have to spend a bit of time reading Ryken’s essay more deeply.  A chunk on the bus, a chunk after work, a chunk with my cup of tea, and so on.  I can certainly appreciate these sorts of essays for whatever fruit they may potentially bear when the time comes to not only interpret Shakespeare’s writing in the rehearsal room, but understand the components of the man himself.

However, some thoughts did immediately surface.

Shakespeare’s Use Of The Bible

“There are passages in which reference to the Bible is not strictly required to construe what Shakespeare has written, but where we are invited to see an allusion or echo.”  (Ryken)

When we analyze Shakespeare now—we sometimes forget that we’re reading from our vantage point, atop the mountains of scholarship amassed in the 393 years since Shakespeare’s death.  When Shakespeare was alive, times were different, religion was different, popular culture was different,  household names were different.

In Shakespeare’s day, if someone wanted to make an illustrative comment about suffering, nothingness, or poverty, they may likely conjure up images of Job.   That would have been a story with which many people were familiar.  (Shakespeare makes this allusion himself, in fact, when he has Falstaff saying, “I am as poor as Job, but not so patient.” in Henry IV 2)  Today, if we wanted to make a similar comment, we might conjure up the image of King Lear.

Today, we quote Shakespeare frequently.  Shakespeare quoted (or wrote phrases that resembled) passages of the Bible.

It’s absolutely foolish to deny the fact that Biblical themes and characters are very frequently included as part of what makes Shakespeare’s writing work.  But also included are many mythical references (Roman, Greek, and other).  The Player’s speech about Priam in Hamlet, is just one huge example.

Shakespeare’s Religion

As for arguments about whether Shakespeare was Catholic or Protestant and how important that is to his success as a playwright.  It’s clear that Shakespeare had (though not forever) received some support from a Catholic patron (Lord Strange/fifth earl of Derby).  For a time, that meant some financial stabilization.  I have also read some scholarly ruminations that Shakespeare may have had some minimal connections (friends-of friends-of friends-of friends) to people connected to the Gunpowder plot.  However, I can’t see that as anything too profound.  Lots of people have friends, including our friends.

At the end of the day, Shakespeare was a working, writing adult in a time of enormous change for England. The death of Elizabeth, James’ ascension to the throne, the very slow and gradual change from a Oral/poetic tradition to a printed, literary culture.  Everything was being shuffled around.  This shuffling—and its components—certainly influenced Shakespeare’s body-of-work as much as anything else.

Shakespeare was a writer.  He worked with a company of players.  It was imperative for their survival that he—and the players—work frequently, quickly, and successfully in order to bring an audience, keep them happy, and keep them coming back.  I can’t help but believe then that Necessity, coupled with a keen sense for what would/wouldn’t work for his audience, were likely the Mother and Father of Shakespeare’s invention.

©  Jeffrey Puukka, 2009