The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on August 23, 2014, 12:02:37 PM
-
I am doing some rereading of William Shakespeare. Most of you are from English speaking countries, and so know that he is regarded (correctly, in my opinion, for whatever that is worth) as the finest author in the English language.
I began reading Shakespeare when I was eight. I always had a rather advanced intellect, as I am sure many of you have. As I grew older, and studied more history, and then went to college, and studied, and got my MA in British History, Renaissance Period, I realised that Shakespeare was a SHAMELESS propagandist for the Tudor State!
In fact, he was so shameless about it that he might well be called the father of modern day propaganda, and I don't mean that in a good way. For his time period, with the techniques that they had, he did rather well at getting it across to people that mattered that the Tudors were the legitimate dynasty in England, and the Stuarts after them.
Obviously, he was not trying to propagandise the whole country. That wasn't necessary. He only needed to convince the higher levels of society. The mass of peasants, who did not patronise the Old Globe Theatre, were not his concern. But as for the people who did, from your middle classes on up, these were the people who needed convincing.
After all, there was, from the time when Henry VII became King, a considerable number of people in England who felt that he was illegitimate. This feeling continued through Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and into Elizabeth. It was Shakespeare's job to shake that feeling during the long reign of Elizabeth. He was (mostly) successful, although he continued doing it into the reign of King James, her nephew.
So, can we learn history from Shakespeare's History Plays? Yes, we can, as long as we are prepared to discount A LOT of the partisan, pro-Tudor bullshit that comes along for the ride.
But, enough of my ramblings. Anybody else have any thoughts on the subject? My thoughts are the perspectives of an historian on Shakespeare. Anybody here have thoughts on him from a more literary point of view? Do respond! Or any other point of view? Fire ahead!
-
Well duh.
If you want to be popular you suck up to the king. Or queen.
PS: your history masters is in British history? That explains a lot.
-
He wasn't trying to convince the higher ups that it was a good thing, he was trying to convince them that *he* thought it was a good thing. Keep in mind, this was old timey England. If the aristocracy thought you didn't like the Queen, they could ruin you or throw you in the tower. Playwrights like Shakespeare had to take great pains to avoid pissing people off, because their freedom of speech was not strongly protected. That's why the really messed up stories, like Hamlet and Macbeth, happen outside of England. Otherwise someone might think he was criticizing the government and that would be the end of his career.
-
TAUSAMI, I am inclined to believe you've got something there. But I think it's more than just convincing the State that he, Shakespeare, thinks that things are great. I think if you look at the number of people who disliked Elizabeth and would have happily seen her off the throne at least, and dead at best, and replaced by Mary Queen of Scots in either case, and the fact that he WAS paid by the Lord Chamberlain, and later, after his death, by the King himself (by then, Elizabeth had died, James had taken over, and Shakespeare's job became a bit different, namely, to justify the new Stuart Dynasty), I think there was more than just convincing the Lord Chamberlain and the Queen or King that he (Shakespeare) believed that the monarch was legitimate.
You are certainly right that this was an era before freedom of speech was a particularly relevant thing. If you were paid by the Queen or an official of hers, you said what the hell she wanted you say, and you STFU and liked it. But you didn't just say it for your own sake. You said it to please her, and part of that was convincing your audience that she was what she wanted them to believe she was.
And Elizabeth herself was no slouch in propaganda. I mean, all that crap about "the Virgin Queen" and all that nonsense, and the English People actually bought into that. And she used the defeat of the Spanish Armada for literally years to her benefit, and in fact, so did monarchs afterwards.
So, while I certainly agree with you that Shakespeare definitely did not want to get on the Queen's bad side, he also had a job to do, which was to convince his audience that Elizabeth (and later James) were what they claimed to be, namely, the best thing for England since sliced bread and forks (forks having arrived in England about the time that Elizabeth became Queen).
-
LORD DAVE, don't be a schmuck. My degree in British History explains nothing more than it would if it were in say, Russian History, or Chinese History (in which I have a secondary emphasis). Grow up, and please cease to act like an ass. I realise, of course, that might be difficult for you, since ass-ness appears to be bred into your very being, but do try, for the sake of everyone else here on the board.
-
LORD DAVE, don't be a schmuck. My degree in British History explains nothing more than it would if it were in say, Russian History, or Chinese History (in which I have a secondary emphasis). Grow up, and please cease to act like an ass. I realise, of course, that might be difficult for you, since ass-ness appears to be bred into your very being, but do try, for the sake of everyone else here on the board.
:)
I'm not sure what you assumed my meaning was but rather than ask for clarification you went to insults.
How quaint.
-
In fact, he was so shameless about it that he might well be called the father of modern day propaganda, and I don't mean that in a good way. For his time period, with the techniques that they had, he did rather well at getting it across to people that mattered that the Tudors were the legitimate dynasty in England, and the Stuarts after them.
Its actually very possible that Shakespeare didn't know any different. The Tudors were document shredders and only left information that showed their enemies in a bad light. Shakespeare relied heavily on Sir Thomas More's 'History of Kind Richard III' for his depiction in the play Richard III, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#History_of_King_Richard_III
Shakespeare could only research the material that is out there. If everything you see depicts an evil hunchback child murderer, you have yourself a fantastic anti-hero.
When reading Shakespeare, the impression I get is that he is actually more interested in people's motives, thoughts and interactions, than he is in history. He's a great story teller. Not an historian.
Let me tie your two threads together. What do you think of Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock? Is this why you have a beef with Shakespeare?
-
In fact, he was so shameless about it that he might well be called the father of modern day propaganda
Have you ever read The Divine Comedy? Dante was at the propaganda game long before Shakespeare. In fact I would imagine propaganda has been around almost as long as language itself, and aside from better printing techniques and a deeper understanding of human nature I doubt it's changed all that much over all that time.
-
I can't seem to think of any form of literature that isn't propaganda of some fashion.
-
What about the dictionary? What about the manual for my car? What about Mein Kampf?
-
What about the dictionary?
It tries to tell you what words mean, but did you know that there is no authoritative body in the English language to really tell you????
What about the manual for my car?
This great piece of literature conveniently omits to mention any and all known flaws of your car.
What about Mein Kampf?
oh you :^)
Mein Kampf is not literature, but rather a piece of technical writing.
-
To be honest, I've only ever read "The Merchant of Venice" once. Shylock has been variously studied as both a sympathetic character and as a negative one. When the play was written, Jews had not lived in England since the year 1290, and were not permitted to do so again until 1656 under Oliver Cromwell.
Englishmen generally knew nothing about Jews, and the only thing that they thought about them was a vague negative concept of them as moneylenders. Was England Judeophobic during Shakespeare's time? Probably. Did it matter? Most likely not. To put it bluntly, I doubt the average Englishman who watched the play gave much more than two shits about that aspect, except to say, oh, what a filthy Jew. If asked, I expect his response would have been something along the lines of "Ugh, a Jew. Go away."
No, I have no beef with Shakespeare over his portrayal of Shylock. He was merely reflecting the broader English perspective, and for that matter, the broader European view. Except that Europeans continentally were often MUCH more ferociously anti-Semitic than Englishmen ever thought of being!
I think Shakespeare was interested in history, but only insofar as it served the greater purpose (in his mind) of helping to penetrate the deeper puzzle that lay behind "people's motives, thoughts, and interactions", as you so well put it. I actually think he was a decent historian, so long as that greater purpose was not lost, AND so long as he did not piss off the wrong people and lose his livelyhood or his head.
The biggest problem I think that both England and America have is that we see English history in large part THROUGH the lens of Shakespeare, whether we care to admit it or not. I mean, even now, when we have found the bones of Richard III, how many newspapers have had to say that he was NOT hunchbacked? In fact, it DOES appear that one shoulder was slightly lower than the other, but not enough to mess him up per se.
So, how much more do we see through Shakespeare? I mean, I am not saying the Master's Degrees, the Doctors. I am saying the average college graduate or high school graduate. And God forbid the people that don't have an education!
Granted, England's educational system is better than ours, that can't be denied, so they might do a bit better, but still.The Tudors, and Shakespeare, did a damn fine job, of shaping history to their will.
MAJOR EDIT:
It should be noted that there are some scholars who believe that the Tudors (particularly Henry VIII) tolerated secret Jews at the court, possibly even allowing a secret synagogue to function. Although there is no conclusive proof of this, there are some rather suspicious names that appear to be Jewish, both Spanish and especially Italian, musicians, who wrote music for the court. Many of them were, of course, members of the Church, presumably converts (first Roman Church, and later English Church), but it appears that some may have been secret Jews that Henry may have known about and tolerated. In fact, some appear to have written music for Jewish prayers. I actually have a CD of Jewish musicians at the Tudor court that includes a few Jewish prayers on it. So, there you are, for whatever its worth.
-
I don't think people go to Shakespeare as a historical source about Kings and Queens do they? It's like going to Michael Crichton on the history if science. Shakespeare was a poet and a storyteller first. He had to fulfill those duties before any imposed role as a historian.
-
Not consciously, no. On a strictly conscious level, I don't think people go to Shakespeare to learn history. But at a sub-conscious level, how much of what we think we know is seen through a Shakespearean lens? Richard killed the boys in the Tower. We don't KNOW that. It certainly is possible, but it is equally possible he didn't. But part of our assumption is based on the fact that our culture is raised on the tale Shakespeare has woven for us.
Richard III was NOT a hunchback. We've already discussed this. I seriously doubt if that finding will change productions of Shakespeare much, though. Shakespeare, and his interpretation of history, is here to stay. Even his Tragedies which have elements of the History of them have helped dictate how their subject matter is viewed. "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!". "When shall we three meet again, in thunder, lightning, or in rain?"
Was there a MacBeth in history? Yes. Mac Bheatha mac Fhionnlaigh died in 1057. But who, other than a Scotsman, and not all of those, knows ANYTHING about that individual apart from what is in "the Scottish Play"? One can certainly look him up, and I intend to do so for curiosity's sake, but I think you get my point.
I do agree. People don't consciously go to Shakespeare with a historical question, nor do they use him for citations in their dissertations. But we still get A LOT of our ideas REGARDING history from the Bard.
-
So, how much more do we see through Shakespeare? I mean, I am not saying the Master's Degrees, the Doctors. I am saying the average college graduate or high school graduate. And God forbid the people that don't have an education!
Granted, England's educational system is better than ours, that can't be denied, so they might do a bit better, but still.The Tudors, and Shakespeare, did a damn fine job, of shaping history to their will.
I would be the "average college student or high school graduate". I didn't study history past the age of 16. That doesn't mean I only know what you get taught in school. This is the information age. People can educate themselves. And the thing I find as I get older and my friends too, is that less and less people believe what they are told as they get older. Most think for themselves and propaganda is something you can use on young adults, but the middle-aged are a hard sell.
And by the way, the skeleton found under a car park did reveal he had a curved spine and a withered arm. I saw on TV they found a young man of Richard III's age with the same severity of condition. They wanted to see if he could ride a horse into battle in full medieval armour with his handicap. And it turns out he could. However, if knocked off the horse and onto his back, unlike most men, he would not have been able to get up again.
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/spine.html
-
I had heard he was not hunched to the degree he was portrayed in Shakespeare. And the plot thickens...
-
Now that was interesting! I had read about the historical MacBeth before, but had forgotten most of what I had read. It turns out that he was not at all the betraying asshole that Shakespeare makes him out to be, but rather, a bit of a hero in Scottish history. I'm afraid my knowledge of Scottish history, until such time as it intersects with English history, is less than perfect. I know probably more than your average John Q. Public, but rather less than I would like. Once we reach the point where the English start getting involved, then my knowledge picks up, around Edward I, perhaps a bit before.
Because I've always taken England as the height of civilisation, I've basically regarded Celtic Scotland and Ireland as pretty savage until the English get involved. I am starting to revise my view of the world a bit. The reason for viewing the world with such an Anglophilic, Anglocentric approach is simple. I am an English Jew. I shan't tell the story of how me and my relations ended up in the American Midwest, but it is what it is.
-
Now that was interesting! I had read about the historical MacBeth before, but had forgotten most of what I had read. It turns out that he was not at all the betraying asshole that Shakespeare makes him out to be
Have you actually read MacBeth? MacBeth himself is a figure of tragedy. He ends up doing something he could never have done by himself nor could Lady MacBeth. The dynamic is exploring a folie a deux relationship; again its about the psychology of his characters. You then see the remorse and disbelief of their actions as the play goes on. Lady MacBeth who seems more of the instigator is riddled by guilt and no matter how much she washes, she still sees blood on her hands. Its a metaphor for guilt and remorse ... a redeeming characteristic. Shakespeare doesn't do black and white good and evil. That's why people still read his turgid shit 500 years later.
-
I agree with you, of course, and yes, I have read MacBeth. Your observations are quite accurate, but that guilt and remorse, however strong it may be, doesn't change the fact that MacBeth, in the play, betrays his King. And MacBeth's wife is still a total bitch who pushes her husband to commit such an act.
The point that I am making is that the character in "the Scottish Play" has virtually no resemblance to the Mac Bheatha of history. Mac Bheatha betrayed no one. For that matter, Duncan was not the aged King that Shakespeare portrays, but rather, a man in the prime of his life.
You're right, though. Shakespeare doesn't do just straight, black-white-good-evil stuff. I wouldn't define his stuff as "turgid", given that he invented about a third of the words we currently use in the language, though. I mean, seriously, between Shakespeare, the Authorised Version of the Bible (sometimes called the King James Version), and the Book of Common Prayer, you basically have the entire development of the English language in the course of about 75 years.
-
You wouldn't describe it as turgid because you weren't brought up in England. This explains. Back story is Blackadder has a time machine and meets Shakespeare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5jB2tl70M
Again, Shakespeare is not an historian. He's a playwright, he writes fiction. Rabbits don't actually talk to each other, but that didn't stop Beatrix Potter making a killing. Being as you come from Murica, you should know all about bastardising history for fictional gain. See Braveheart. >:(
-
Well, I won't argue with your characterisation of Braveheart! An American friend of mine and I watched Braveheart together. I had already seen it once. So had he. But this time, as the film proceeded, I paused the DVD periodically to fill him in on the ACTUAL history of what we were watching. The film is itself about 3 hours long. It took an extra hour and a bit more to watch it, because I had to correct, add to, and otherwise inform him of how messed up the film was. And for Hollywood, it was actually not bad, that is the scary part!
I remember when the film about Elizabeth came out years ago at the end of the '90s, I went to see it with my then girlfriend. I forget the title of it. But by the time we left the theatre house, the only thing I could do was try not to scream. It was SO inaccurate it was atrocious. I mean damn, it made me want to have a heart attack.
And most Americans would describe Shakespeare as turgid. In high school, we read Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, and MacBeth, at least, sometimes more, depending on the school and the state. In college you generally get a few more. I also got Hamlet in high school. On my own, I've read the histories and the tragedies. I haven't read much in the comedies. A few of them, but not a lot. I don't find them that interesting.
I've also seen a few of the plays on stage, including one that was particularly interesting, Ricardo III, in Costa Rica, put on by the National Theatre Troupe of the Republic of Costa Rica. In other words, Richard III, translated into Spanish, and put on by the National Theatre Troupe. In Costa Rica, the Republic is rather small, so things are done on a national basis. There is a National Orchestra, and a National Theatre Troupe, whereas here you would have city orchestras, and things like that. But their National Orchestra and the National Theatre Troupe are both FUCKING BRILLIANT.
When my ex first told me we were going to see Shakespeare translated into Spanish, I thought she was nuts. But, it was one of the best plays I've ever seen performed in any language. The translation was as perfect as it can be, and the performance was incredible. I mean, wow.
I'll admit, the video was funny. But I actually liked the four hour version of Hamlet, thank you.
-
Well, I won't argue with your characterisation of Braveheart! An American friend of mine and I watched Braveheart together. I had already seen it once. So had he. But this time, as the film proceeded, I paused the DVD periodically to fill him in on the ACTUAL history of what we were watching. The film is itself about 3 hours long. It took an extra hour and a bit more to watch it, because I had to correct, add to, and otherwise inform him of how messed up the film was.
Wow. You are literally the worst person in the world.
-
Wow. You are literally the worst person in the world.
Really, Saddam? After all of his talk of genocide, this is what makes him the "literally the worst"?
-
Not really. He had asked me to do that. Grow up. Your ASSumptions are making you look like, well, an ASS. And I have said nothing about genocide. All I have spoken about is putting Muslims back in the Muslim World where they belong.
-
And I have said nothing about genocide.
No, but interestingly Jewish Holocaust survivors have come out and condemned Israel accusing them of genocide. So even the Jewish community can't defend Israel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28916761
So why do you?
-
Get four Jews in a room, and you have FIVE opinions. Trust me, for every Jew who disagrees with Israel, there are about ten that don't. And if Israel were committing genocide, they would have killed off the "Palestinians". After all, they've had 47 years to do it. Instead, the population of so-called "Palestinians" has quadupled. Hitler killed 2/3 of Jews in Europe in 12 years. You're truly going to tell me that Jews in Israel couldn't have completely wiped out "Palestinians" in 47? Cut the crap. If that's what they wanted, they could starve them out, or just carpet bomb them into a parking lot, and build a very large fucking Wal-mart there to go along with it. Don't be a schmuck.
And if you read the article closely, you'll notice that it is a very small group, representing a tiny number of anti-Zionist Jews, who certainly make up a TINY minority among our population. Hardly, "The Jewish Community". Most Holocaust survivors are very proud of Israel's accomplishments.
-
Israel can't do any of the things you suggest because they would lose US support and funding and the surrounding Arab nations would descend to give Israel the kicking it so sorely needs.
-
Get four Jews in a room, and you have FIVE opinions.
Did the Jews summon a ghost or something?
-
Israel is a bit more sneaky than Hitler. They have gradually wiped out the populations that lived on their borders and then expanded the border. The politicians of Israel know that outright slaughtering the population in the span of a few years would cause their international relations to go down the toilet. Unlike you, who would gladly warn them to leave, then murder them in the streets if they don't, as if that somehow placates your own twisted morality. At least you're not sneaky about it.
Israel should treads carefully for good reason. The US makes a lot of money off of your military endeavors, but keep in mind that the day it becomes more profitable and morally positive to do it, the US will crush Israel under its boot.
-
It really depends, doesn't it? Lets see what our friends the Muslim Neandertals do in the next few years to fuck up the world. Depending on how many innocent people they manage to kill with groups like ISIS, the average American might finally wake up to the danger global Islam represents, and might just be willing to let Israel do what is necessary to protect itself. In fact, maybe America itself will finally wake up and start protecting itself. Unfortunately, the average American is a fucking idiot, so something horrible is going to have to happen, but eventually it will, and then we can get about forcing the filthy bastards back into their own part of the world where they belong.
The last comment is just stupid. It just doesn't fit. If, after all, Jews control the US boot as so many Americans say we do, then that could never happen, now could it? And no, Israel never wiped out populations living on their borders. In fact, At one point, they had about triple the territory they now have, which they gave BACK to Egypt for peace (namely, the Sinai). Get your facts right.
-
It's more like ethnic cleansing than genocide, destroy the infrastructure of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and use blockades to try to force the population away so you can take over the land.
-
Also, if we wanted, as Jews, or if Israel wanted, as a country, to engage in ethnic cleansing, they would have in 47 years. There are still about 4 & a half million so-called "Palestinians" living there. And none of them have left. The demographics alone prove you to be full of shite, I'm afraid.
-
Israel has blasted the crap out of Gaza, shelling hospitals and schools, instituted an unlawful trade embargo, and deprived Gaza of a third of the arable land available and 85% of the fishing areas. It certainly seems possible that Israel could be waging a covert ethnic cleansing campaign.
Besides which you've repeatedly advocated ethnic cleansing policies (send the Arab savages back when they belong, shoot them if they won't go, stop them from mixing with other races).
-
Please try to keep this on topic, guys. There's already a thread going on with this stuff in it.
-
SNUPES, I won't argue with that.
-
I have often wondered what Shakespeare would have done if he'd been given an assignment to actually write biographies of the Kings who were the subjects of his plays, rather than plays. Aside from pooping himself, he would have actually had to do more that just basic research. I mean, his education at the Grammar School that his father was permitted to send him to was excellent by the standards of the time and by our standards (since our education has degraded so badly, at least here, Stateside), but he would actually have needed to cite his claims. For example: Richard killed the Princes? citation, please. He was a hunchback outright, as opposed to having a deformity? Citation, please.
If he were asked to write historical biographies, would he have written good ones? I expect he would have, because he still know how to write well. But would it have been as interesting as his plays? No. And we wouldn't be reading it today. They would be gathering dust, I expect, the province of scholars, rather than the patrimony of the entire English-speaking world.
-
I have often wondered what Shakespeare would have done if he'd been given an assignment to actually write biographies of the Kings who were the subjects of his plays, rather than plays. Aside from pooping himself, he would have actually had to do more that just basic research. I mean, his education at the Grammar School that his father was permitted to send him to was excellent by the standards of the time and by our standards (since our education has degraded so badly, at least here, Stateside), but he would actually have needed to cite his claims. For example: Richard killed the Princes? citation, please. He was a hunchback outright, as opposed to having a deformity? Citation, please.
If he were asked to write historical biographies, would he have written good ones? I expect he would have, because he still know how to write well. But would it have been as interesting as his plays? No. And we wouldn't be reading it today. They would be gathering dust, I expect, the province of scholars, rather than the patrimony of the entire English-speaking world.
How is it you still don't understand that it is fiction? Not an historical report. Shakespeare is held up as an artesian. Are you going to criticise Michelangelo for painting cherubs for the Vatican? If ever there was a propaganda pamphlet, it is the Sistine chapel. But he created art. He wasn't interested in the politics, just the money. Shakespeare is no different.
-
What, are we upholding him as an artesian well or something? Or at least as a source of water?