Preeminent Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro shows how the tumultuous events in 1606 influenced three of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies written that year–King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra. “The Year of Lear is irresistible–a banquet of wisdom” (The New York Times Book Review). In the years leading up to 1606, Shakespeare’s great productivity had ebbed. But that year, at age … had ebbed. But that year, at age forty-two, he found his footing again, finishing a play he had begun the previous autumn–King Lear–then writing two other great tragedies, Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra.
It was a memorable year in England as well–a terrorist plot conceived by a small group of Catholic gentry had been uncovered at the last hour. The foiled Gunpowder Plot would have blown up the king and royal family along with the nation’s political and religious leadership. The aborted plot renewed anti-Catholic sentiment and laid bare divisions in the kingdom.
It was against this background that Shakespeare finished Lear, a play about a divided kingdom, then wrote a tragedy that turned on the murder of a Scottish king, Macbeth. He ended this astonishing year with a third masterpiece no less steeped in current events and concerns: Antony and Cleopatra.
“Exciting and sometimes revelatory, in The Year of Lear, James Shapiro takes a closer look at the political and social turmoil that contributed to the creation of three supreme masterpieces” (The Washington Post). He places them in the context of their times, while also allowing us greater insight into how Shakespeare was personally touched by such events as a terrible outbreak of plague and growing religious divisions. “His great gift is to make the plays seem at once more comprehensible and more staggering” (The New York Review of Books). For anyone interested in Shakespeare, this is an indispensable book.
more
I purchased this volume after reading Shapiro’s “A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599”, for I really enjoy his efforts to place Shakespeare and his inspiration firmly within the issues of the day. The year 1606 was permeated with the Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath, as the government shifted from horror to relief to extreme paranoia, all while James I was doing his best to unite England and Scotland under one flag (a very unpopular effort). It was a busy year, and the more turmoil wracking the country, the more grist for the playwright’s mill. 1606 saw three new plays: King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra, all fraught with symbolism.
For instance: Macbeth, which was written shortly after the Gunpowder Plot was exposed, shockingly showed the murder of a Scottish king and its terrible repercussions. But on a more topical level, Shakespeare took advantage of the contemporary trial and execution of Henry Garnet, who composed the “Treatise of Equivocation”—a how-to guide for Jesuits put to the question. In essence, Garnet demonstrated that a prisoner could say one thing to the authorities, while reserving in his mind the real truth, and hence save his soul because God knew the difference. The government was horrified at the repercussions, and Garnet was eventually captured, tried, and executed. But Shakespeare was fascinated, and most of his characters equivocate their way through the play. The Witches equivocated in every utterance, such as telling Macbeth he will be king, but neglecting to tell him he won’t keep the crown. Lady Macbeth equivocated when she covered for her husband’s behavior at the banquet after he saw Banquo’s ghost. Macbeth neglected to tell his wife what the Witches said Banquo would be the father of kings. Macduff’s wife equivocated when telling her son “that Macduff is a ‘traitor’ who ‘swears and lies’ ” because he fled Scotland, leaving them behind. Even the Porter’s speech was full of the word equivocate, which occurred five times in his short diatribe. I had never interpreted the play this way before, but I see that “Shakespeare’s Macbeth was written not for posterity but for contemporaries…”, and it “touches on, and, to a surprising degree, exploits deep cultural anxieties that had now risen to the surface.” Equivocate was the word of the day and every playgoer knew the reference, even if we don’t.
And this, I think, is the overall theme of the book. Shakespeare was a man of his times and became the mouthpiece of current events. After all, newspapers hadn’t been invented yet, so the best way to get news was either from the pulpit or from the theatre. Staying ahead of the royal censor was a skill Shakespeare apparently mastered, for he never seemed to get himself into trouble like many of his contemporaries. At the same time, part of Shakespeare’s genius is that his plays could appeal and seem relevant to successive generations, because he speaks to our deep-set fears and desires, no matter what the setting. Shapiro does a great job getting these themes across, though at times he seems to digress a bit too much and his writing bogs down in his efforts to say everything. But when you see his extensive Bibliographic Essays, it’s easy to understand how one can get buried under so much information. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, this is a great resource for scholarly study.