The Bard's Tale: The Lasting Influence of Shakespeare, Lessons for All Artists

Over the past few weeks, I've had the opportunity to attend a few Shakespearean-related events. On Saturday, July 19, I hosted "A Midwinter Day's Awakening", replete with Shakespearean readings, people in appropriate costume (I quite enjoy the role of being the wizard Prospero), Elizabethan music, and some impressive operatic singing (thank you, Angela L). Several days later, on July 27, Justine M., Simon S., Kate R., and I ventured to the Fairfax at the Arts Centre to see Bell Shakespeare put on their performance of "Coriolanus", a marvellous take on arrogance, betrayal, and vengeance. which has been very well received, which has not been performed outside of the UK since 2000. Peter Carroll provided an especially superb performance as the elder statesman Menenius and, as one would hope, Hazem Shammas provided a very fine Coriolanus.

Continuing on the theme, Kate and I delved into a viewing of Julie Taymor's "Titus", a violent, indulgent, and surreal piece of work with Anthony Hopkins and Alan Cumming being particularly excellent in their performance. Then, a few days later, Martin P., took me out to the Brighton Palace to see a pre-release screening of "Mr. Burton", which involves the days of Richard Burton at the start of his career and his friendship (and eventual adoption) by the teacher, director, and producer, Philip Burton. Strictly not a Shakespeare performance, it makes a multitude of direct references to The Bard and is very notable for its emotional depth and portrayal of poverty among the Welsh working class. Finally, I have Luhrmann's 1996 "Romeo + Juliet" on order to re-watch, notable for its 1990s "crass, violent and superficial" setting, which juxtaposed the contemporary setting with Elizabethan dialogue. Naturally enough, I have taken the opportunity to reread "The Complete Works" (a truly dedicated person should be able to get through this in several days).

Inevitably, because it is in my character, as these events accumulated,I started to ask myself, "Why Shakespeare?" After all, he is hardly the only playwright and poet of the English Renaissance; Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Heywood, John Fletcher, Thomas Dekker, and John Webster all come to mind. But for various reasons, the reputation of Shakespeare towers above them all. Not only among playwrights, however, but also in other arts, the period also witnessed great writers such as Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, John Donne, and Walter Raleigh, musicians and composers like John Dowland, William Byrd, John Bull, architects like William Arnold and Inigo Jones, and among visual artists, Nicholas Hilliard. Certainly, there are famous names among this list, but none so nearly as famous as Shakespeare. In answering the question "why Shakespeare?" investigations suggest it was a combination of talent, knowledge, acclaim, connections, persistence, and situation. Each of these is explored in turn, and various speculations about Shakespeare (e.g., authorship, sexuality, religion) are not considered.

As a bare minimum, an artist's ability requires creativity and technique, and a successful artist needs to have both. To a limited extent these can be taught and improved, but a great deal comes down to inheritance, neurology, and dexterity. Evidentially, Shakespeare was fortunate enough to have both. Not only did show creativity in plots, characters, setting, and dialogue, but also in words themselves; of more than 17000 words employed by Shakespeare, 10% of them were new, making a significant contribution to Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language", along with a multitude of phrases that are in everyday English hundreds of years later (e.g., "strange bedfellows", "a plague on both your houses", etc). In terms of writing his technique, he displayed a great command of rhythmic verse, especially of the iambic pentameter (lines of ten syllables, alternating stressed and unstressed syllables); this was also employed by Chaucer, Milton, Keats, Shelley, Pope, et. al.

It is almost certain that Shakespeare attended the King's New School in Stratford and would have received an education in Latin grammar using the classical authors, as required by Royal Decree. It is unknown whether he ever received a university education, however, based on textual analysis, there is "ample evidence that their author ... had a very extensive and accurate knowledge of law" (e.g., "The Merchant of Venice", "Measure for Measure", "Hamlet"). It is considered more likely that he had formal legal training than not. Further, he displayed a good knowledge of classical history ("Julius Caesar", "Antony and Cleopatra", "Coriolanus", "Troilus and Cressida"), English history ("Richard II", "Richard III", "Henry IV", "Henry VI" & etc), and mythology ("King Lear", "Midsummer Night's Dream", "The Tempest", "Macbeth"). For a contemporary, every artist should have an education (formal or otherwise) in the classics and aesthetic critique. If one does not know what constitutes a classic in the arts, it is going to be very difficult indeed to produce one in any contemporary setting. Further, Shakespeare was able to discern from this knowledge the universal and existential themes of the human condition, especially those with extreme emotional states, and apply them across a multiplicity of genres: comedy, tragedy, romances (tragiccomedies), histories, and the curious category of the social "problem plays", and, of course, a combination of all. Whereas most playwrights have expertise in one or two of these genres, Shakespeare was a master of all.

The next thing that Shakespeare achieved was contemporary acclaim. This does not, unfortunately for those with business degrees, just mean good marketing of product, place, and price; that constitutes a necessary, but insufficient condition. In his own life, Shakespeare's success and social status are inferred from the membership of the "Lord Chamberlain's Men", a leading theatrical company that he was a part-owner of and which, as the name implies, had the Lord Chamberlain as their patron, who was in charge of court entertainments. The company became the "King's Men" in 1603 when King James took the throne and became the company's patron. Not everyone was a fan, however; playwright Robert Greene, one of the "University wits" refers to Shakespeare as "an upstart crow". As a writer (and apparently he was more famous for his sonnets in his own time), Shakespeare was certainly not as famous as the scholar-soldier Philip Sidney or Edmund Spenser, or the playwright Ben Jonson. Whilst a competitor at the time, Jonson was prepared to give testimony to Shakespeare, saying with some prescience that his works were "not of an age, but for all time".

Another cause of Shakespeare's success were the connections he had established; this is not just obvious from the aforementioned status in high society (which cannot be underestimated; ruling class, ruling culture), or the exceptional theatrical companies that he was involved in that had these connections, or their performances at the famous Globe and Blackfriars Theatres, but also the connections he made in the arts. Richard Burbage, the most actor of his time and who has a lasting influence to this day, was a close friend of Shakespeare and played the title role in the first performance of Hamlet. Shakespeare's lasting influence was also helped by Richard's brother, Cuthbert Burbage, who owned The Globe and was a major agent for the King's Men for over four decades. In addition to the Burbages, Shakespeare's plays and company also included famous actors such as comic William Kempe, Henry Condell and John Heminges (both of whom would also help edit the First Folio). Combining the connections, one must also mention the destruction of the Globe Theatre when, during a performance of Henry VIII, a cannon was misfired, setting the building aflame, the event recorded by author and diplomat Sir Henry Wotton. It is almost certain that without these connections, which suggest an affable character, Shakespeare would not be famous today, let alone during his time.

Many people display persistence in their chosen field of endeavour, and Shakespeare is no exception to this. Persistence is requisite to success, and those who, with a crass sense of entitlement or a tragic degree of anxiety, wait for the world to admit to their genius will receive neither recognition nor success. The historical record is less than perfect, but the evidence that does exist suggests that he spent approximately thirty years (c1585-1613) writing, acting, and as part-owner of the Lord Chamberlain's Men. A few years after his retirement, Shakespeare died and several years after that the First Folio ("Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies") was published in 1623. With almost a score of plays already published, and some in widespread circulation, the First Folio consists of 36 plays, almost half of which had never been seen prior to publication. With the First Folio recognised now as perhaps the most influential book in English literature, the success of Shakespeare is at least partially attributed not only to his own persistence, but also to the persistence of others who wished to ensure that his name and plays continued posthumously.

Finally, attention must be drawn to the circumstances of Shakespeare that contributed to his enduring success and recognition. All efforts aside, the contribution of fortune is the largest determinant in life and the most overlooked. Shakespeare had many advantages in life; he was the son of a well-to-do English family, he received a good education, and, well, he was a he. He took up a profession that was extremely popular at the time; London had a population of approximately 200,000, of which 15,000 attended plays on a weekly basis. Curiously, the Interregnum (1642–1660) aided his continued popularity; public theatres were closed, partially and officially because of the need to redirect finances and partially because of Puritan influence. Sections of Shakespeare's plays were popular in this period as "drolls", short comic sketches. After the Restoration, a return to Shakespeare was inevitable and proved to be ongoing.

Lord Byron (George Gordon Byron) once wrote that Shakespeare had flashes of genius, "but this was all". It is fairly clear that Byron has erred in this assessment; in addition to his genius, Shakespeare had knowledge, and critical acclaim, and remarkable social connections, a great deal of persistence, and benefited from circumstances. Certainly, the artist is prone to the experiential inducements of the Bohemian lifestyle. For some, this is all they want; they are "lifestyle artists", more than producers of meaning and motivation. Increasingly, those that take this path are lost; with the overwelming influence of technology, the world of the arts is a "rock star" market - a tiny percentage become very famous for a brief time, a small number can make a living out of it, and the overwhelming majority rely on other sources of income or have a lifetime of impoverishment. Even among the successful, fewer still produce anything of lasting recognition, managing to cut the path between a contemporary popularity and universal themes and appeal (curious exceptions like Van Gogh and Dickinson confirm the general principle).

These all serve as lessons for success for even contemporary artists, no matter what field of endeavour. A thorough review of the life and approaches of Shakespeare, even if one doesn't quite have the same brilliance as The Bard, will help any artist achieve recognition and success and produce their art. Not everyone can be a Shakespeare, of course. Four hundred years later, apart from the countless adaptations, we have five hundred feature-length films of his plays, and some 20,000 theatrical and non-theatrical musical pieces. But certainly, any artist can aspire to make a lasting contribution like Shakespeare; to produce great art with determination, to appeal to the universal themes of the human spirit, and to make something lasting in a world where all is so ephemeral.