Sos Bagramyan
Shakespeare’s works are often regarded as having qualities that transcend history, time and place. Shakespeare’s themes are considered immortal and universal, and thus enrich the intellect and spirit of his readership no matter where or when they live. This may well be true, but one must keep in mind that Shakespeare had almost nothing to do with the publication of his plays and poetry. Intellectual property over a piece of creative writing is a modern concept, and it did not exist in Renaissance England. Once a play or poem was written, it was sold to a theater company or a printer for a flat fee and all rights and privileges belonged to the owner of the piece of writing, not the author
This presents a problem for the sequencing of the sonnets, for example, because Shakespeare probably did not put them in the sequence in which they were published in 1609. And the publication of the First Folio in 1623 was done by Shakespeare’s colleagues and fellow actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell. It was Shakespeare’s friends, and not Shakespeare himself, who wanted to immortalize his work. Therefore it is safe to say that Shakespeare was very much a writer of his period and was interested in the business of the theater (he actually owned shares in the acting company in which he worked and earned most of his income from this investment, not his publications) as much as, if not more than, being remembered in posterity. He was a writer who followed contemporary trends and wrote specific roles for specific actors. Knowledge of Renaissance theater in general, and Shakespeare’s Globe theater in particular, is essential to fully appreciate the depth and breadth of Shakespeare’s works.
First and foremost, playwrights and actors were on the bottom of the social ladder in the Renaissance. Many people, particularly Puritans, considered actors and those who associated with them (i.e. playwrights) to be vagabonds and vagrants. In a society that tried very hard to preserve social stability, give professional and social designations to all of its inhabitants, and fit such stratifications into the world-view of early Protestantism and feudalism, actors gave the authorities a lot of problems with which to deal. Since actors usually traveled performing in villages, towns and cities around England (as well as a few rare ventures overseas), they did not fit into any of the fixed social categories of people with a more sedentary lifestyle, like farmers. They were seen as amoral and lawless troublemakers who corrupted the youth and put unhealthy ideas into people’s minds. Society today still has such a conception of actors and television shows today, and governments still try to preserve “decency” on pubic televisions, although no one can truly define what decency actually entails. So the problems faced by entertainers in the Renaissance persist. Then, as now, this problem has been addressed through government regulation aiming to promote an orderly society.
In order to avoid getting into trouble at the hands of the authorities, acting troupes appealed for the patronage of the nobility in order to show the government that they indeed had a place in society. The nobility provided such patronage not for monetary gain, but because they saw it as their responsibility to preserve social order and help the lower classes. The Vagabond Act of 1572, for example, aimed to severely punish those actors and acting companies that lacked patronage. Twenty years later, the Vagabond Act of 1592 reduced the severity of punishment, perhaps indicating that the laws in England were slowly reflecting the people’s toleration of actors, and the growing popularity of the theater, and the impracticality of enforcement. On a practical level, the aristocracy had nothing to do with the daily goings on of the acting troupes, and the acting troupes had little or no interaction with their patrons. The relationship between the two was of a purely formal and legal nature to satisfy the status quo and the expectations that came along with high social rank and the legal authorities.
It is also worth noting that actors were not the only class of people who did not fit into preexisting social stratifications. Lawyers, the rising merchant class (whose wealth, at times, rivaled that of low ranking aristocrats), and sailors are examples of other professionals who did into fit into the order of the feudal system, which was growing more and more outdated as time went on. These social tensions, and the attempts of the government to ease these tensions, indicate that the Renaissance was a period of great social change in England . What we today call capitalism (or rather, the nascent stages of mercantilism) gave rise to new classes that had trouble fitting into a rigid class system. Actors were caught in the process of a culture of trying reconcile inherited traditions with the changing times.
Although actors eventually found patrons and a “place” in the world, they had a long way to go to gain respectability. Their social standing was little above that of prostitutes and thieves. The first open air theaters built in London (the Red Lion Playhouse, which was the first public building in English history, was constructed in 1567) were outside the walls of the city, in the modern equivalent of the red light district. To be outside of London meant to be outside the grasp of the city authorities who sympathized with Puritan ideals. This caused for an uneasy but tolerable relationship between city officials and acting companies, and the general population was free to go to plays anytime they wanted. It is also rather ironic that actors and playwrights were a group of people who had a skill (literacy) that was still rare in the general population, yet they were relegated to the lowest ranks of society. Perhaps, for a time, the impulse to preserve status quo led them to overlook the contributions these actors and playwrights could make to society, but the situation was not altogether bleak.
Despite Puritan disapproval, playwrights had their supporters among the aristocracy. Theatre was a favorite pastime of nobility and royalty (including Queen Elizabeth I, and her successor King James I). This behavior on the part of the ruling class was looked down upon by the Puritan portion of the population, but it was a reality that existed and had a significant impact on the theatrical world. Plays were therefore written for members of all social standings, educational levels and hereditary backgrounds. The idea of a lowly shoemaker being entertained by the same piece of drama as the Queen herself not only established a unique link between subject and ruler, but it also meant that playwrights had to be versatile enough to entertain all members of society. This need to write for a very broad audience is indeed one of the secrets of Shakespeare’s broad and lasting appeal. The more appealing a play was, the more famous it got, and the more famous it got, the more the reputation of the playwright rose along with the prestige of the theater company and ticket sales.
This was the world into which William Shakespeare was born, and the society in which he worked had a significant bearing on the literature that he produced. Shakespeare set plays in locations as exotic as Venice , Vienna , Egypt , Troy and Rome , but his place of reference was always London . These locations made for interesting settings that would grab the interest of his audience, but they also served as useful veils for social commentary. When Shakespeare wrote about Venice , he was commenting on London . In a play like Much Ado About Nothing filled with Italian names like Pedro, Cassio and Beatrice, the villain is given the conspicuously English name of Don John. Many of Shakespeare’s comic villains have English names, and this only one example among many. The overtly English presence in plays set in foreign lands draws attention to the fact that Shakespeare is not discussing the ethical, social and philosophical conditions abroad, but those at home. He himself never ventured beyond the borders of England , and London was the constant reference point for the settings of his plays, but this doesn’t mean Shakespeare could write anything he wanted to without fear of repercussion. It was easier to get away with social commentary in the comedies, tragedies and romances than in his history plays, which are inescapably English. Shakespeare always had to be careful about what he wrote, and about whom he wrote, because sayingthe wrong things about the wrong people could have serious repercussions . It is no accident, then, that Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather, is the virtuous figure who overthrows the deformed and evil King Richard III. This is a historical fact, but it is Shakespeare who heightens Henry VII’s savior status, and Richard III duplicity, in the play.
The playwright’s aim was not only to become a popular and successful writer, but also to write plays good enough to appeal to the highest ranking aristocrat in hope of patronage. From 1594 to 1603 the Lord Chamberlain was the patron of Shakespeare’s company, and thus the company was known as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. By 1603, Shakespeare was the premier playwright of London and King James I decided to patronize his company. From that point on, The Lord Chamberlain’s Men became known as The King’s Men. In a society with no easily accessible means of upward social mobility, this was the highest honor a playwright and a company could receive. Shakespeare’s company’s success was founded not only on his talents as a playwright, but also on the versatile talents of the company’s actors.
Shakespeare is often considered an actor’s writer. Many actors, past and present, have attested to the fact that Shakespeare is a joy to perform, and that they feel as if he wrote the part for them. These actors are not far from the truth because Shakespeare had his own actors in mind when he wrote his greatest roles. Richard Burbage, for example, was widely regarded as one of the best actors of the London stage and, not surprisingly, he was the lead actor in Shakespeare’s troupe. The symbiosis between playwright and player, role and performer, is undeniable and particularly striking in this instance.
Shakespeare wrote such demanding, and now famous, roles like Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello and King Lear with Burbage in mind. Until 1599, the comic actor William Kemp was the person who played most of the comic roles in Shakespeare’s plays. It was for him that Shakespeare wrote such comic roles as Peter in Romeo and Juliet Launcelot Gabbo in The Merchant of Venice , and Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing. These characters are primarily the comic relief in these plays, who have a habit to confuse words and make fools of themselves.
These characters exist because these are the types of roles Kemp was adept at playing. After Kemp left the company in 1599, a new comic actor named Robert Armin join the company. At this point, Shakespeare’s fool-like characters changed. It is after Armin joined the company that we see the serio-comic roles of Feste from Twelfth Night, Jacques from As You Like It and the Fool from King Lear appear in Shakespeare’s plays. They are court jestors who offer as much wisdom as they do humor in their language, and they rarely confuse one word for another in their speech. Shakespeare’s writing shifted and adapted to the skills and strength of his actors, and some of his best known roles were written with a specific actor in mind.
This short overview cannot possibly present the full picture of the drama and society of the Renaissance. It is meant to only introduce the reader to the complex, exciting, and ever-changing world in which Shakespeare wrote. It also shows how the content and depth of Shakespeare’s work was not limited by his environment while it was nonetheless a product of it. With these social and cultural restrictions imposed on him, in addition to the artistic and technical restriction he imposed on himself, it is even more remarkable that Shakespeare’s works have enjoyed the universal appeal and longevity they still have.