What do you think?
Rate this book
The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606
Preeminent Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro shows how the tumultuous events in England in 1606 affected Shakespeare and shaped the three great tragedies he wrote that year—King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra.
In the years leading up to 1606, since the death of Queen Elizabeth and the arrival in England of her successor, King James of Scotland, Shakespeare’s great productivity had ebbed, and it may have seemed to some that his prolific genius was a thing of the past. 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—and a grim one, in the aftermath of a terrorist plot conceived by a small group of Catholic gentry that 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.
The Year of Lear sheds light on these three great tragedies by placing 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. For anyone interested in Shakespeare, this is an indispensable book.
In the years leading up to 1606, since the death of Queen Elizabeth and the arrival in England of her successor, King James of Scotland, Shakespeare’s great productivity had ebbed, and it may have seemed to some that his prolific genius was a thing of the past. 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—and a grim one, in the aftermath of a terrorist plot conceived by a small group of Catholic gentry that 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.
The Year of Lear sheds light on these three great tragedies by placing 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. For anyone interested in Shakespeare, this is an indispensable book.
Audible Audio
First published January 1, 2015
301 people are currently reading
3656 people want to read
About the author
James Shapiro
21 books199 followersA specialist in Shakespeare and the Early Modern period, James S. Shapiro is Larry Miller Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, where he has taught since 1985. He has been awarded fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Guggenheim Foundation, the New York Public Library Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, and the American Academy in Berlin. In 2011, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He currently serves as a Shakespeare Scholar in Residence at the Public Theater in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 456 reviews
January 8, 2021
The Year of Lear focuses on one specific year as it pertains to Shakespeare's life and works--1606, the year he wrote Antony and Cleopatra, Macbeth, and King Lear. This is a historical rather than literary text--Shapiro doesn't give a line-by-line analysis of any of the aforementioned plays, but rather, he fills in the historical context surrounding their respective compositions, particularly highlighting the Gunpowder Plot and its aftermath.
It's an interesting text as long as you're compelled by this level of historical specificity. If you're looking for a literary analysis of Lear or a biography of Shakespeare's life, look elsewhere, but as a piece of historical nonfiction this is a fascinating snapshot into a turbulent piece of early modern history and the literature it directly and indirectly inspired.
It's an interesting text as long as you're compelled by this level of historical specificity. If you're looking for a literary analysis of Lear or a biography of Shakespeare's life, look elsewhere, but as a piece of historical nonfiction this is a fascinating snapshot into a turbulent piece of early modern history and the literature it directly and indirectly inspired.
October 16, 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqdwmDescription: Ten years ago James Shapiro won the Samuel Johnson Prize for his bestseller 1599: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.
1606: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND THE YEAR OF LEAR is a compelling look at a no less extraordinary year in his life. The book traces Shakespeare's life and times from the autumn of 1605, when he took an old and anonymous Elizabethan play, THE CHRONICLE HISTORY OF KING LEIR, and transformed it into his most searing tragedy, KING LEAR.
1606 proved to be an especially grim year for England, witnessing the bloody aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot, divisions over the Union of England and Scotland, and an outbreak of plague. But it turned out to be an exceptional one for Shakespeare who, before the year was out, went on to complete two other great Jacobean tragedies that spoke directly to these fraught times: MACBETH and ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.
1/5: The Theatre: The ferment in the country and King James' insistence on an Oath of Allegiance brings religious tensions to the fore in 1606. Anyone refusing to take communion (and therefore presumed to be Catholic) was fined. These matters come very close to William Shakespeare when a member of his family refuses communion in Stratford Upon Avon.2/5: The Gunpowder Plot: The impact of the Gunpowder Plot of late 1605 has implications not only for the monarchy and aristocracy but also for the work of the contemporary playwrights, including William Shakespeare. 3/5: Plague: An outbreak of the plague threatens the livelihood of William Shakespeare when the theatres are closed. It also looms close to his home in London. 4/5: Religion: The ferment in the country and King James' insistence on an Oath of Allegiance brings religious tensions to the fore in 1606. Anyone refusing to take communion (and therefore presumed to be Catholic) was fined. These matters come very close to William Shakespeare when a member of his family refuses communion in Stratford Upon Avon. 5/5: Union: King James' quest for the union of England and Scotland is not easily resolved. SEE ALSO...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007728hDescription: King Lear on Boxing Day 1606, the entertainment offered to King James I and his guests at Whitehall Palace was a new play by William Shakespeare - King Lear.
Four hundred years on, Francine Stock and a studio full of guests, including actors Fiona Shaw and Oliver Ford Davis; scholars Jonathan Bate, Richard Dutton, Brett Dolman and Tiffany Stern; food historian Ivan Day and musicians Passamezzo (along with some distinguished contributors from the BBC Archives), bring to life every aspect of that momentous opening night.
January 5, 2025
Bombers, Executions, Treason, Witches, Oh My!
A review of the Tantor Audio audiobook (January 26, 2016) narrated by Robert Fass of the earlier released hardcovers/eBooks (Faber & Faber UK September 29, 2015 and Simon & Schuster US October 6, 2015).
A story of suicidal bombers inspired by religious zealotry*, brutal public executions**, religious leaders inspiring followers to treason*** and nationalists versus immigrants****. No, this isn't about ISIS in Iraq & Syria and immigrant-phobia in 2016, this was Jacobean England in 1606!
Even if James Shapiro wasn't thinking of these modern day parallels while writing “The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606” it is impossible to read it now and not think about them. Regardless of Shapiro’s speculations on when and where Shakespeare wrote “King Lear”, “Macbeth” and “Antony and Cleopatra” there is no getting away from the post-Gunpowder Plot atmosphere of England in 1606 which is generally accepted as the latest year they were written. Add a July 1606 Plague outbreak in London to the mix and then think of modern day pandemic fears to further complete the parallel.
Shapiro can certainly be accused of wide-ranging speculation. A group of Oxfordians even wrote a rebuttal to the present book with Contested Year: Errors, Omissions and Unsupported Statements in James Shapiro's "The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606", which would also seem to serve as payback for Shapiro's Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? which debunked the case for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford as the writer of Shakespeare).
Still, this is an entertaining story of life in England in 1606 and the atmosphere during which Shakespeare lived and worked in the latter part of his career.
* The Gunpowder Plot was a Catholic plan to blow up the Protestant King James I (and James VI of Scotland) and the Houses of Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder hidden in the cellar. It was foiled on Nov. 5, 1605 with the capture of Guy Fawkes, who was to set off the gunpowder.
** To be hanged, drawn and quartered sounds bad enough. That description actually leaves out the parts about castration and disembowelment.
*** Henry Garnet, the Jesuit superior of England, was tried and executed for treason for complicity in the Gunpowder Plot and for writing a treatise on equivocation, which instructed Catholics on how to lie under oath by omitting details of the truth.
**** “To blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains.” was Guy Fawkes’ reported response to his interrogators as to what he planned to do with all that gunpowder.
A review of the Tantor Audio audiobook (January 26, 2016) narrated by Robert Fass of the earlier released hardcovers/eBooks (Faber & Faber UK September 29, 2015 and Simon & Schuster US October 6, 2015).
A story of suicidal bombers inspired by religious zealotry*, brutal public executions**, religious leaders inspiring followers to treason*** and nationalists versus immigrants****. No, this isn't about ISIS in Iraq & Syria and immigrant-phobia in 2016, this was Jacobean England in 1606!
Even if James Shapiro wasn't thinking of these modern day parallels while writing “The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606” it is impossible to read it now and not think about them. Regardless of Shapiro’s speculations on when and where Shakespeare wrote “King Lear”, “Macbeth” and “Antony and Cleopatra” there is no getting away from the post-Gunpowder Plot atmosphere of England in 1606 which is generally accepted as the latest year they were written. Add a July 1606 Plague outbreak in London to the mix and then think of modern day pandemic fears to further complete the parallel.
Shapiro can certainly be accused of wide-ranging speculation. A group of Oxfordians even wrote a rebuttal to the present book with Contested Year: Errors, Omissions and Unsupported Statements in James Shapiro's "The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606", which would also seem to serve as payback for Shapiro's Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? which debunked the case for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford as the writer of Shakespeare).
Still, this is an entertaining story of life in England in 1606 and the atmosphere during which Shakespeare lived and worked in the latter part of his career.
* The Gunpowder Plot was a Catholic plan to blow up the Protestant King James I (and James VI of Scotland) and the Houses of Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder hidden in the cellar. It was foiled on Nov. 5, 1605 with the capture of Guy Fawkes, who was to set off the gunpowder.
** To be hanged, drawn and quartered sounds bad enough. That description actually leaves out the parts about castration and disembowelment.
*** Henry Garnet, the Jesuit superior of England, was tried and executed for treason for complicity in the Gunpowder Plot and for writing a treatise on equivocation, which instructed Catholics on how to lie under oath by omitting details of the truth.
**** “To blow you Scotch beggars back to your native mountains.” was Guy Fawkes’ reported response to his interrogators as to what he planned to do with all that gunpowder.
February 3, 2017
Original take on the history of a pivotal British year through the lens of the words of Shakespeare, contemporaneous sermons, and a few diarists (in an era when critical words in a secret notebook were treated as treason). James Shapiro--a retired Shakespeare professor--begins the previous November 5, 1605: the exposure of the Gunpowder Plot. After the Kingdom first is relieved by the deliverance of the King, his family, the aristocracy and Parliament from being atomized, repercussions soon divide the England. It turns out the Catholic plotters used a Papal-sanctioned technique called "equivocation" that allowed them to lie, even under oath. Suspicions, including of witches and demons, soon swept the kingdom.
All this at a time when King James is seeking to consolidate his grip on the throne as a legitimate Tudor successor (through his mother-in-law), and dim the memory of Good Queen Bess. He also wants to unite the thrones of England, Ireland, Scotland and (rump) France into a single "Great Britain"--as James believed were united by God in his person.
The national mood found its way into Shakespeare's 1606 trio of plays: Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, and King Lear. (Keep in mind that 1606 also was the year of the King James Bible--quite an English language milestone.) Although Shakespeare starts writing Lear in expectation of Union, the play isn't performed until December 26, 1606--by which time Parliament had rejected accepting Scotland. Given Lear is about dividing a kingdom, Shakespeare likely originally intended it as warning against disunion. By December, it's astounding the play survived--because the message received was not to tinker with borders. Unsurprisingly, the play's brutal ending has been altered continuously since it first was published.
Lear and Macbeth each includes ample equivocation, a word not even in the language (much less Shakespeare) before 1606. Equivocation is the signature device of Macbeth: it makes the dialogue a "mentally exhausting experience for most playgoers". The Sisters' advice is the most famous equivocation, though nearly every line of Macbeth is equivocal. Still, no one can forget Macbeth's astonishment when "Great Birnam Wood . . . comes to Dunsinane" (in the form of cut branches) and Macbeth is attacked, though safe from any man "of woman born" (Macduff had a caesarean birth):
"equivocation of the fiend/
That lies like the truth."
Lady Macbeth equivocates plenty on her own; even Macduff.
Also common to Lear and Macbeth are quotes from books about demonic possession (most obviously, Macbeth's Three Sisters). Shapiro traces this to where the blame for evil lay:
"[A]fter November 1605, the dynamic [of blaming human frailties] shifted. Perhaps it was the shear magnitude of the threatened destruction from the vault below Parliament that led to the demonization of the plot. In the first official sermon after Guy Fawkes was caught, William Barlow had spoken of a 'fiery massacre [that didn't occur, of course] kindled and sent from the infernal pit.'… By the time we get to young John Milton's poems on the Gunpowder Plot, human responsibility hardly figures, the focus almost exclusively on evil's satanic origins. The increasing weight given to diabolical forces suggests that the executions at St. Paul's and Westminster that stretched from late January into early May of 1606 served, in part, as a kind of public exorcism meant to rid the kingdom of that devilish evil--A RITE RECALLED AND SYMBOLICALLY REENACTED EVERY FIFTH OF NOVEMBER." (Emphasis added.)
Shapiro makes a similar connection later:
"Though no destructive attack took place on the Fifth of November, something had changed irrecoverably in the culture, a change registered in Macbeth. Its moment of creation may partly explain why Macbeth's ending feels so unsatisfying, its hasty restoration of order so flimsy and inadequate. [NOfP note: Shakespeare HAD just killed off a Scottish King; perhaps it was a requirement of the royal censor.] … Social historians tend to fix 1615 as the moment when the great hopes for King James's reign ended… Literary historians would probably locate the end of high hopes for James's reign as early as the spring of 1606, and Londoners who saw Macbeth and passed below the severed heads [of those executed for the Gunpowder Plot] likely would have agreed."
Given the increased suspicion after the plot, it is surprising, on its face, that Shakespeare would have devoted the latter part of 1606 to writing a sequel to Julius Caesar. Although, obviously, Shakespeare make a living off of history play sequels (there are how many parts of Henry 4th?), history had not treated Antony or Cleopatra well, and reminding audiences about a powerful Queen who was beautiful even as she aged was an unlikely topic for a member of "The Kings Players." But Shakespeare didn't hesitate, so "Antony and Cleopatra" is best seen as a "nostalgia play"--all but wishing for return of the now spent Tudor line.
As a result, rather than treating Antony as debauched and effeminate, Shakespeare made him seem even greater than Caesar--sending gold to the Roman soldier who betrays him, and telling Cleopatra not to mourn, for he was bested by the best, a Roman soldier. Shakespeare then re-invents the famous death scene by transferring the snake's bite to her bare breast (easier to do with boy actors playing women's parts) where it has remained in popular thought ever since. Indeed, he even provides Cleopatra with the noblest of motives: she dons her crown and takes hold of the asp that will kill her "to meet Mark Antony."
Shakespeare would write again after 1606, including great works such as "All's Well That Ends Well" and "The Tempest", and some very good plays, including "Coriolanus." But it took until 1776 for the world to turn on its literary AND political axis in the same way as it did in The Year of Lear.
All this at a time when King James is seeking to consolidate his grip on the throne as a legitimate Tudor successor (through his mother-in-law), and dim the memory of Good Queen Bess. He also wants to unite the thrones of England, Ireland, Scotland and (rump) France into a single "Great Britain"--as James believed were united by God in his person.
The national mood found its way into Shakespeare's 1606 trio of plays: Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, and King Lear. (Keep in mind that 1606 also was the year of the King James Bible--quite an English language milestone.) Although Shakespeare starts writing Lear in expectation of Union, the play isn't performed until December 26, 1606--by which time Parliament had rejected accepting Scotland. Given Lear is about dividing a kingdom, Shakespeare likely originally intended it as warning against disunion. By December, it's astounding the play survived--because the message received was not to tinker with borders. Unsurprisingly, the play's brutal ending has been altered continuously since it first was published.
Lear and Macbeth each includes ample equivocation, a word not even in the language (much less Shakespeare) before 1606. Equivocation is the signature device of Macbeth: it makes the dialogue a "mentally exhausting experience for most playgoers". The Sisters' advice is the most famous equivocation, though nearly every line of Macbeth is equivocal. Still, no one can forget Macbeth's astonishment when "Great Birnam Wood . . . comes to Dunsinane" (in the form of cut branches) and Macbeth is attacked, though safe from any man "of woman born" (Macduff had a caesarean birth):
"equivocation of the fiend/
That lies like the truth."
Lady Macbeth equivocates plenty on her own; even Macduff.
Also common to Lear and Macbeth are quotes from books about demonic possession (most obviously, Macbeth's Three Sisters). Shapiro traces this to where the blame for evil lay:
"[A]fter November 1605, the dynamic [of blaming human frailties] shifted. Perhaps it was the shear magnitude of the threatened destruction from the vault below Parliament that led to the demonization of the plot. In the first official sermon after Guy Fawkes was caught, William Barlow had spoken of a 'fiery massacre [that didn't occur, of course] kindled and sent from the infernal pit.'… By the time we get to young John Milton's poems on the Gunpowder Plot, human responsibility hardly figures, the focus almost exclusively on evil's satanic origins. The increasing weight given to diabolical forces suggests that the executions at St. Paul's and Westminster that stretched from late January into early May of 1606 served, in part, as a kind of public exorcism meant to rid the kingdom of that devilish evil--A RITE RECALLED AND SYMBOLICALLY REENACTED EVERY FIFTH OF NOVEMBER." (Emphasis added.)
Shapiro makes a similar connection later:
"Though no destructive attack took place on the Fifth of November, something had changed irrecoverably in the culture, a change registered in Macbeth. Its moment of creation may partly explain why Macbeth's ending feels so unsatisfying, its hasty restoration of order so flimsy and inadequate. [NOfP note: Shakespeare HAD just killed off a Scottish King; perhaps it was a requirement of the royal censor.] … Social historians tend to fix 1615 as the moment when the great hopes for King James's reign ended… Literary historians would probably locate the end of high hopes for James's reign as early as the spring of 1606, and Londoners who saw Macbeth and passed below the severed heads [of those executed for the Gunpowder Plot] likely would have agreed."
Given the increased suspicion after the plot, it is surprising, on its face, that Shakespeare would have devoted the latter part of 1606 to writing a sequel to Julius Caesar. Although, obviously, Shakespeare make a living off of history play sequels (there are how many parts of Henry 4th?), history had not treated Antony or Cleopatra well, and reminding audiences about a powerful Queen who was beautiful even as she aged was an unlikely topic for a member of "The Kings Players." But Shakespeare didn't hesitate, so "Antony and Cleopatra" is best seen as a "nostalgia play"--all but wishing for return of the now spent Tudor line.
As a result, rather than treating Antony as debauched and effeminate, Shakespeare made him seem even greater than Caesar--sending gold to the Roman soldier who betrays him, and telling Cleopatra not to mourn, for he was bested by the best, a Roman soldier. Shakespeare then re-invents the famous death scene by transferring the snake's bite to her bare breast (easier to do with boy actors playing women's parts) where it has remained in popular thought ever since. Indeed, he even provides Cleopatra with the noblest of motives: she dons her crown and takes hold of the asp that will kill her "to meet Mark Antony."
Shakespeare would write again after 1606, including great works such as "All's Well That Ends Well" and "The Tempest", and some very good plays, including "Coriolanus." But it took until 1776 for the world to turn on its literary AND political axis in the same way as it did in The Year of Lear.
December 1, 2020
4.5 stars. I wish I could give this brilliant, powerful, and surprisingly moving analysis of the year 1606 and the impact 1605 and 1606 had on not only Shakespeare but England as well the full 5 stars. However the occasional factual error and frequent jumping around in the timeline was occasionally jarring. His chapters on the Gunpowder Plot and the impact not only it but also the various government propaganda versions of it had on the national psyche were, pardon the pun, mind blowing. It left me speechless. I focus on the why. This book tells the story as it would have unfolded to the unsuspecting citizens. I think this was the first time the weight and horror of what was attempted really hit me with any force. His analysis of King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra made me wish he'd published this book in 2012 when I was taking Dr. Veith's Shakespeare class. He does a much better job of exploring and explaining how the Gunpowder Plot impacted the writing of Macbeth concerning equivocation than my jumbled mess of a paper did. His reading of Antony and Cleopatra makes me want to reread it. It is one of my least favorite plays by Shakespeare alongside Romeo and Juliet. I will definitely be buying and rereading this one and finding and reading his other books on Shakespeare. They belong on my Shakespeare scholarship bookshelves.
February 5, 2017
I was interviewed a few weeks ago(https://watermelonisotope.com/2016/12...). One question was "If you could be present at any moment in history...what event would you visit and why?" My answer, at the time, was 66 million years ago, at the mass-extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous, where I could witness the kind of devastation from a future nuclear war. After reading James Shapiro's magnificent The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606, I should have said the year 1606, hovering over Shakespeare's shoulder during his most brilliant and creative period. You do not need to be a Shakespearean scholar to devour this book, but if there is even the slightest hint of ambivalence, this book will cure you, forever.
July 21, 2016
In this follow-up to his groundbreaking 1599, Shapiro looks at the fateful year of 1606 and how it might have inspired, inflected and influenced Shakespeare's Macbeth, King Lear and Antony & Cleopatra.
1606 was the year that James I was negotiating the Union of England and Scotland; the year that the perpetrators of the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605 were brought to trial; and a year that, according to Shapiro's readings, changed the thought-world and language of England.
What Shapiro's books do is make evident to a general readership some of the ways in which academia is thinking about Shakespearean studies at the moment: rather than the plays being rigidly, statically 'timeless', they are shown to be mobile or portable but also deeply inflected by the world from which they sprang. As a corollary to this way of thinking about historicisation, Shapiro implicitly reads the plays in terms of our own horizons so that he focuses on issues such as terrorism, violence, the nature of evil, the way language changes in response to political events - all issues with a chilling contemporary resonance. There's even a touch of prescience in the debate about the union, or not, of Scotland and England, brought to the fore again in the wake of Brexit...
It's a testament to Shapiro's light touch that he never explicitly has to lay out his theoretical stance but carries readers with him anyway. This isn't quite as startlingly original as 1599 and some of the connections are less convincing but an excellent read all the same.
1606 was the year that James I was negotiating the Union of England and Scotland; the year that the perpetrators of the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605 were brought to trial; and a year that, according to Shapiro's readings, changed the thought-world and language of England.
What Shapiro's books do is make evident to a general readership some of the ways in which academia is thinking about Shakespearean studies at the moment: rather than the plays being rigidly, statically 'timeless', they are shown to be mobile or portable but also deeply inflected by the world from which they sprang. As a corollary to this way of thinking about historicisation, Shapiro implicitly reads the plays in terms of our own horizons so that he focuses on issues such as terrorism, violence, the nature of evil, the way language changes in response to political events - all issues with a chilling contemporary resonance. There's even a touch of prescience in the debate about the union, or not, of Scotland and England, brought to the fore again in the wake of Brexit...
It's a testament to Shapiro's light touch that he never explicitly has to lay out his theoretical stance but carries readers with him anyway. This isn't quite as startlingly original as 1599 and some of the connections are less convincing but an excellent read all the same.
January 6, 2016
“The Year of Lear” is not an academic book—no aspiring assistant professor shooting for tenure would want to hang his career prospects on it as a first or even second book. It isn’t about how the academy views Shakespeare’s late works. Shapiro doesn’t attack scholarly rivals nor does he break new ground analyzing the plays. It is, however, a serious book, or at least a book for serious readers who are familiar with “King Lear”, Antony and Cleopatra” and “Macbeth”. Shapiro assumes the reader knows the basics of the religious/political conflicts of the time--Catholic recusancy, Puritan intransigence and Anglican willingness to sanction torture and disemboweling of heretics.
Shakespeare’s response to the chaos that ruled the social and political Stuart world was a burst of sustained creative energy. 1606 was dominated by the foiled Gunpowder Plot and the government response to it. “Lear”, “Macbeth” and “A&C” are focused on regicide, civil strife and anarchy; they have devils, witches and hellfire much in keeping with the Stuart government’s presentation of the plotters as Catholic servants of Satan. . The unease expressed in these tragedies is as much a reaction to government hysteria – the anti-Catholic propaganda, the reprisals and interrogations, the extravagant displays of judicial butchery – as to the actual threat of Catholic terrorism. Government hysteria and blood soaked reprisals were given the sheen of legality by the courts where torture was just another tool used by the prosecution and defendants weren’t allowed to question witnesses.
It is an incredible year of artistic labor, and Shapiro shows how powerfully these plays addressed the political and social upheavals of the time: they “collectively reflect their fraught cultural moment”. As Hamlet had said, in his famous advice to the players, the “purpose of playing” was not only to hold that universal “mirror up to nature”, but also to “show … the very age and body of the time his form and pressure”
Talk of “equivocation” was everywhere in 1606. The word appears just once in Shakespeare before Macbeth, and even then it seems to be a mere synonym for ambiguity. By 1606, it has acquired a more specific meaning, one that Macbeth himself explicates when he says that “I…begin/To doubt th’ equivocation of the fiend,/That lies like truth.” In the early years of James’s reign, the practice of equivocation, of constructing lies that have the appearance of truth, acquired an urgent political currency. The Gunpowder Plot of November 1605, in which a well-organized group of Catholic conspirators installed thirty-six barrels of gunpowder under the chamber where Parliament was to meet, with the aim of killing James, his heir Prince Henry, and the entire government, concentrated royal attention on the threat of Catholic disloyalty.
A particular source of anxiety was the Catholic doctrine of “mental reservation,” which allowed those being questioned under oath to give answers that seemed true even while they withheld the real truth. Shapiro quotes a broadsheet ballad that sums up the accusation against Catholic leaders: “The Pope allows them to equivocate,/The root of their abhorred intents to hide.” That Shakespeare expects the previously arcane word to be widely understood and associated with religious treason is evident from the monologue of the Porter in Macbeth, imagining who might be hammering on the gate as if it were the gate of Hell:
“Knock, knock! Who's there, in the other devil's name? Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven: O, come in, equivocator.”
“Macbeth” is so full of equivocal statements by the principals that following the dialog can be mentally exhausting—but exhilarating. The audience must be alert and will still be fooled, as is, for example, Macbeth, by the prophecy of the weird sisters. He feels he is safe in his treachery since “none born of woman/Shall harm Macbeth” and that he will never be vanquished until “Great Birnam Wood” shall come to Dunsinane. Macbeth, master of evasion, ambiguity and mental reservation is done in by his faith in the words of the greatest equivocators, the sisters on the “blasted heath”.
Shakespeare’s response to the chaos that ruled the social and political Stuart world was a burst of sustained creative energy. 1606 was dominated by the foiled Gunpowder Plot and the government response to it. “Lear”, “Macbeth” and “A&C” are focused on regicide, civil strife and anarchy; they have devils, witches and hellfire much in keeping with the Stuart government’s presentation of the plotters as Catholic servants of Satan. . The unease expressed in these tragedies is as much a reaction to government hysteria – the anti-Catholic propaganda, the reprisals and interrogations, the extravagant displays of judicial butchery – as to the actual threat of Catholic terrorism. Government hysteria and blood soaked reprisals were given the sheen of legality by the courts where torture was just another tool used by the prosecution and defendants weren’t allowed to question witnesses.
It is an incredible year of artistic labor, and Shapiro shows how powerfully these plays addressed the political and social upheavals of the time: they “collectively reflect their fraught cultural moment”. As Hamlet had said, in his famous advice to the players, the “purpose of playing” was not only to hold that universal “mirror up to nature”, but also to “show … the very age and body of the time his form and pressure”
Talk of “equivocation” was everywhere in 1606. The word appears just once in Shakespeare before Macbeth, and even then it seems to be a mere synonym for ambiguity. By 1606, it has acquired a more specific meaning, one that Macbeth himself explicates when he says that “I…begin/To doubt th’ equivocation of the fiend,/That lies like truth.” In the early years of James’s reign, the practice of equivocation, of constructing lies that have the appearance of truth, acquired an urgent political currency. The Gunpowder Plot of November 1605, in which a well-organized group of Catholic conspirators installed thirty-six barrels of gunpowder under the chamber where Parliament was to meet, with the aim of killing James, his heir Prince Henry, and the entire government, concentrated royal attention on the threat of Catholic disloyalty.
A particular source of anxiety was the Catholic doctrine of “mental reservation,” which allowed those being questioned under oath to give answers that seemed true even while they withheld the real truth. Shapiro quotes a broadsheet ballad that sums up the accusation against Catholic leaders: “The Pope allows them to equivocate,/The root of their abhorred intents to hide.” That Shakespeare expects the previously arcane word to be widely understood and associated with religious treason is evident from the monologue of the Porter in Macbeth, imagining who might be hammering on the gate as if it were the gate of Hell:
“Knock, knock! Who's there, in the other devil's name? Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale; who committed treason enough for God's sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven: O, come in, equivocator.”
“Macbeth” is so full of equivocal statements by the principals that following the dialog can be mentally exhausting—but exhilarating. The audience must be alert and will still be fooled, as is, for example, Macbeth, by the prophecy of the weird sisters. He feels he is safe in his treachery since “none born of woman/Shall harm Macbeth” and that he will never be vanquished until “Great Birnam Wood” shall come to Dunsinane. Macbeth, master of evasion, ambiguity and mental reservation is done in by his faith in the words of the greatest equivocators, the sisters on the “blasted heath”.
January 12, 2016
Shapiro's is a neat mixture of history and Shakespeare's plays as he zeroes in on that troublesome year, 1606. It was the year of the Gunpowder Plot, bringing us Guy Fawkes Day (5 November) to commemorate the day the designs of religious terrorists (Catholic, not Muslim) were foiled in their attempt to blow Parliament (complete with seated King James & fellow ministers in attendance) to Kingdom Come (and Gone).
Seems there was a basement below Parliament. Where there was a lot of wood and such. Enough to hide all manner of gunpowder (anyone got a match?).
What can I say? Security wasn't what it's come to be, but boy oh boy did 5 November change THAT. The Protestants of the Scottish (now British) King became absolute bird dogs as they chased down not only the conspirators but, ever after, any Papist (called "recusants") still on England's green and pleasant land.
They were hanged but not until death (except for lucky Guy Fawkes, whose spinal cord accidentally snapped), taken down from the gallows, eviscerated while still alive, and finally killed before their heads were hacked off and displayed in London. Nice.
Where's Shakespeare in all this? Well, as we all know, records of the Bard are slim and shady. But Shapiro's point is that all this tumult was reflected in the output of one of Will's most creative years: King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony & Cleopatra all appear in the year to end all years.
Shapiro goes to great pains to show how echoes of politics and terror of the day are reflected in each of these three plays, where W.S. must step carefully due to censors and a touchy king (the longer James reigns, the more fondly Londoners look back on Good Queen Bess).
I must admit, though I love Shakespeare as much as the next guy, that all this history-play paralleling was less entertaining than the bloody history and intrigue itself. I always thought Elizabethan England was fairly tolerant of its Catholics, who were allowed to worship in peace as long as they gave allegiance to the Queen, but Jacobean England was another matter altogether.
Can you say "witch"? How about "hunt"? It was no time to be a Catholic, lapsed or otherwise, in London and surrounding areas. You paid with your life once they tracked you down. And they did, thanks to informants.
You know the saying: You can pray, but you can't hide--especially when there's money to be had.
Seems there was a basement below Parliament. Where there was a lot of wood and such. Enough to hide all manner of gunpowder (anyone got a match?).
What can I say? Security wasn't what it's come to be, but boy oh boy did 5 November change THAT. The Protestants of the Scottish (now British) King became absolute bird dogs as they chased down not only the conspirators but, ever after, any Papist (called "recusants") still on England's green and pleasant land.
They were hanged but not until death (except for lucky Guy Fawkes, whose spinal cord accidentally snapped), taken down from the gallows, eviscerated while still alive, and finally killed before their heads were hacked off and displayed in London. Nice.
Where's Shakespeare in all this? Well, as we all know, records of the Bard are slim and shady. But Shapiro's point is that all this tumult was reflected in the output of one of Will's most creative years: King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony & Cleopatra all appear in the year to end all years.
Shapiro goes to great pains to show how echoes of politics and terror of the day are reflected in each of these three plays, where W.S. must step carefully due to censors and a touchy king (the longer James reigns, the more fondly Londoners look back on Good Queen Bess).
I must admit, though I love Shakespeare as much as the next guy, that all this history-play paralleling was less entertaining than the bloody history and intrigue itself. I always thought Elizabethan England was fairly tolerant of its Catholics, who were allowed to worship in peace as long as they gave allegiance to the Queen, but Jacobean England was another matter altogether.
Can you say "witch"? How about "hunt"? It was no time to be a Catholic, lapsed or otherwise, in London and surrounding areas. You paid with your life once they tracked you down. And they did, thanks to informants.
You know the saying: You can pray, but you can't hide--especially when there's money to be had.
September 8, 2015
Because I have such a massive literary crush on James Shapiro, it's quite possible this review is biased. But it's equally possible that Shapiro is simply a scholastic genius. As in 1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare, Shapiro's wit and insight and--perhaps above all else, sense of narrative style--make for a read that is both delightful and informative in The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606. He weaves together with spectacular finesse what little we know of the man Shakespeare, what can be gleaned from his works, and all that was afoot in this turbulent year of James I's reign. What with plague and the famous Gunpowder Plot, a bid for Union and the momentous visit of King Christian of Denmark, it's a wonder that Shakespeare got any writing done at all, but Shapiro helps the reader see how the three major works he put out in this year--namely, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, and, perhaps most significantly, King Lear, both shaped and were shaped by the turmoil of the times. A must-read for any Shakespearean scholar, or anyone with a craving for a truly remarkable work of literary and historical exploration.
October 16, 2015
From BBC Radio 4 - Book of the Week
Episode One : The Theatre
In 1606, Shakespeare was writing for a Royal Family hungry for new entertainment while the threats of plague, insurrection and rebellion threatened English society. At the peak of his powers, he was writing for actors who he knew well within a theatre company with which he had been involved for more than a decade. The resulting plays, KING LEAR, MACBETH and ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA were extraordinary.
Episode Two: The Gunpowder Plot
The impact of the Gunpowder Plot of late 1605 has implications not only for the monarchy and aristocracy but also for the work of the contemporary playwrights, including William Shakespeare.
Episode Three : Plague
An outbreak of the plague threatens the livelihood of William Shakespeare when the theatres are closed. It also looms close to his home in London.
Episode Four : Religion
The ferment in the country and King James' insistence on an Oath of Allegiance brings religious tensions to the fore in 1606. Anyone refusing to take communion (and therefore presumed to be Catholic) was fined. These matters come very close to William Shakespeare when a member of his family refuses communion in Stratford Upon Avon.
Episode Five : Union
King James' quest for the union of England and Scotland is not easily resolved.
Ten years ago James Shapiro won the Samuel Johnson Prize for his bestseller 1599: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.
1606: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND THE YEAR OF LEAR is a compelling look at a no less extraordinary year in his life. The book traces Shakespeare's life and times from the autumn of 1605, when he took an old and anonymous Elizabethan play, THE CHRONICLE HISTORY OF KING LEIR, and transformed it into his most searing tragedy, KING LEAR.
1606 proved to be an especially grim year for England, witnessing the bloody aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot, divisions over the Union of England and Scotland, and an outbreak of plague. But it turned out to be an exceptional one for Shakespeare who, before the year was out, went on to complete two other great Jacobean tragedies that spoke directly to these fraught times: MACBETH and ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.
Abridged by Anna Magnusson
Read by Ian McDiarmid
Produced by Gaynor Macfarlane.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqdwm
Episode One : The Theatre
In 1606, Shakespeare was writing for a Royal Family hungry for new entertainment while the threats of plague, insurrection and rebellion threatened English society. At the peak of his powers, he was writing for actors who he knew well within a theatre company with which he had been involved for more than a decade. The resulting plays, KING LEAR, MACBETH and ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA were extraordinary.
Episode Two: The Gunpowder Plot
The impact of the Gunpowder Plot of late 1605 has implications not only for the monarchy and aristocracy but also for the work of the contemporary playwrights, including William Shakespeare.
Episode Three : Plague
An outbreak of the plague threatens the livelihood of William Shakespeare when the theatres are closed. It also looms close to his home in London.
Episode Four : Religion
The ferment in the country and King James' insistence on an Oath of Allegiance brings religious tensions to the fore in 1606. Anyone refusing to take communion (and therefore presumed to be Catholic) was fined. These matters come very close to William Shakespeare when a member of his family refuses communion in Stratford Upon Avon.
Episode Five : Union
King James' quest for the union of England and Scotland is not easily resolved.
Ten years ago James Shapiro won the Samuel Johnson Prize for his bestseller 1599: A YEAR IN THE LIFE OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.
1606: WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE AND THE YEAR OF LEAR is a compelling look at a no less extraordinary year in his life. The book traces Shakespeare's life and times from the autumn of 1605, when he took an old and anonymous Elizabethan play, THE CHRONICLE HISTORY OF KING LEIR, and transformed it into his most searing tragedy, KING LEAR.
1606 proved to be an especially grim year for England, witnessing the bloody aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot, divisions over the Union of England and Scotland, and an outbreak of plague. But it turned out to be an exceptional one for Shakespeare who, before the year was out, went on to complete two other great Jacobean tragedies that spoke directly to these fraught times: MACBETH and ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA.
Abridged by Anna Magnusson
Read by Ian McDiarmid
Produced by Gaynor Macfarlane.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqdwm
April 23, 2025
Shapiro obviously knows his stuff, and I appreciated the introduction into events and movements of the early Jacobean era and how it influenced Shakespeare’s plays during the titular year. I dock a star because there were times where the book went off on tangents, in terms of tracing a minor character’s family tree, or getting too in the weeds about some details, when a sentence or paragraph could’ve sufficed. I dock another star because some chapters again, did not have enough meat to be a whole chapter and could’ve been summarized in a few sentences, ie. dedicating a whole chapter to a not well known play about matrimony to explain how it reflects King James’ attempts to unify two cultures, religions, and political ideas. I still learned a lot; I especially liked the chapters about equivocation and why people of that time did so, and just how much it’s used in Macbeth. It’s much deeper than just lying to deceive; it was religiously justified to some, which is an interesting way of seeing it. Overall, 3.5 stars!
November 13, 2021
This was extremely interesting. I am not deluded enough to think that it would be interesting for everyone. If you like historical analysis of notable literary texts, this book will be your jam. Especially if you are into Shakespeare. I have decided that this combination of historical context and literary analysis is something I really like. One of my favorite books of the last several years was Jane Austen, the Secret Radical, which did something similar, except across Austen's entire career instead of focusing on only one year (plus several months) in Shakespeare's life/England's history.
1606 was the year that Shakespeare wrote King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra, and it was also a year full of political upheaval, treason, fear of religious persecution, and plague. King James was still a relatively new King, having only inherited the throne from Good Queen Bess three years earlier. England was still adjusting to their new monarch and his way of doing things, on top of him being a Scot, and pushing very hard to unify Great Britain as a country. He didn't just want to be King of England and King of Scotland as two separate things. He wanted to be King of Great Britain, which he saw as England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. He was ultimately unsuccessful and unification didn't happen in his lifetime.
Shapiro did such a great job with this book. His writing is clear, precise, and interesting. He traces the context of the times through Shakespeare's works, giving new perspective on things I had either interpreted differently before or completely ignored as irrelevant. I have already returned the book to the library so I can't go into specifics, but the most interesting bits of this by far were those about the Gunpowder Plot. Even though those events happened (or rather, didn't happen) on November 5, 1605, they loomed large over the following year, changing the political and religious climate (the terrorists were Catholic). Shapiro gives a full recounting of the plot, its participants, and how it was thwarted, and then how that affected James's reign, England's culture, and finally Shakespeare's writing.
Well worth a read.
1606 was the year that Shakespeare wrote King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra, and it was also a year full of political upheaval, treason, fear of religious persecution, and plague. King James was still a relatively new King, having only inherited the throne from Good Queen Bess three years earlier. England was still adjusting to their new monarch and his way of doing things, on top of him being a Scot, and pushing very hard to unify Great Britain as a country. He didn't just want to be King of England and King of Scotland as two separate things. He wanted to be King of Great Britain, which he saw as England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. He was ultimately unsuccessful and unification didn't happen in his lifetime.
Shapiro did such a great job with this book. His writing is clear, precise, and interesting. He traces the context of the times through Shakespeare's works, giving new perspective on things I had either interpreted differently before or completely ignored as irrelevant. I have already returned the book to the library so I can't go into specifics, but the most interesting bits of this by far were those about the Gunpowder Plot. Even though those events happened (or rather, didn't happen) on November 5, 1605, they loomed large over the following year, changing the political and religious climate (the terrorists were Catholic). Shapiro gives a full recounting of the plot, its participants, and how it was thwarted, and then how that affected James's reign, England's culture, and finally Shakespeare's writing.
Well worth a read.
Read
January 12, 2025Picked up after a Dana Stevens recc on the Slate Culture Gabfest (one of my rediscoveries in the past year) and this is terrific
Did I need to know more about Shakespeare? Probably not. But here Shapiro nests the writing & presentation of Anthony and Cleopatra, King Lear and Macbeth precisely within their moment — the transition of power from Elizabeth I to James I; the Gunpowder Plot; witch-hunts and miracles; waves of the plague; persecution of Catholics and the doctrine of “equivocation” and “mental reservation” — the use of ambiguous or misleading speech when lying is more important than telling the truth
It’s an incredibly dense period which Shapiro does an amazing job of walking us through. He does (what seems to uninformed me to be) an excellent job of holding the line of how little we actually know about Shakespeare, balancing different trends in analysis, textual sources and colorful detail.
The business of writing, censorship, fashion and performance is brilliantly articulated, and I understand the plays themselves so much more deeply by virtue of understanding the contexts in which they were written and the sources (historical, contemporary and lived) that Shakespeare was using.
Did I need to know more about Shakespeare? Probably not. But here Shapiro nests the writing & presentation of Anthony and Cleopatra, King Lear and Macbeth precisely within their moment — the transition of power from Elizabeth I to James I; the Gunpowder Plot; witch-hunts and miracles; waves of the plague; persecution of Catholics and the doctrine of “equivocation” and “mental reservation” — the use of ambiguous or misleading speech when lying is more important than telling the truth
It’s an incredibly dense period which Shapiro does an amazing job of walking us through. He does (what seems to uninformed me to be) an excellent job of holding the line of how little we actually know about Shakespeare, balancing different trends in analysis, textual sources and colorful detail.
The business of writing, censorship, fashion and performance is brilliantly articulated, and I understand the plays themselves so much more deeply by virtue of understanding the contexts in which they were written and the sources (historical, contemporary and lived) that Shakespeare was using.
May 13, 2016
This book does what I HATE, which is presume all sorts of stuff about Shakespeare that is not known and present it as fact. There are so many egregious examples of this here that I was happy to see that there is available "Contested Year: Errors, Omissions and Unsupported Statements in James Shapiro's "The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606" which I read alongside it. I had read a good chunk before I discovered this, and I was already shaking my head at what seemed to me to be some bizarre statements, so I was glad that someone else took Shapiro to task. Don't tell me that Shakespeare was present at a certain play on a certain date and then tell me what he thought of it, or not only that he bought a book that we have no idea if he ever owned but THE PLACE WHERE HE BOUGHT IT. I mean really. Also much of this book has nothing to do with Shakespeare, it is, as it says, about the year 1606 in England, so I'm not really sure who this book is for. If your knowledge of English history is scant, it wouldn't mean much to you, and if you were well read on the subject, this would be stuff you already knew.
December 9, 2019
One of the main reasons I write the odd review on Goodreads.com is to try and maintain my written English to at least a basic standard. I don't get much opportunity to write anything substantial these days and worry that my literacy level is in perpetual decline.
So when I saw a novel that combines history and the greatest writer ever to put pen to paper in the English language, I thought here is a chance for genuine self-improvement.
The history I loved, especially the minutiae which is right up my alley. Shapiro did an excellent job of transporting me back to 17th century London and Warwick
The Shakespeare, unfortunately, was lost on me.
There are two types of people in the world. Those that love and enjoy the great bard and those who find him a chore, a slog, where every sentence has to explained. I, to my shame, am in the latter group. My two stars are a reflection of my inability rather than the skill of the author.
I’m going to tackle Bill Bryson’s Shakespeare in the new year. So all is not lost even for someone like me.
So when I saw a novel that combines history and the greatest writer ever to put pen to paper in the English language, I thought here is a chance for genuine self-improvement.
The history I loved, especially the minutiae which is right up my alley. Shapiro did an excellent job of transporting me back to 17th century London and Warwick
The Shakespeare, unfortunately, was lost on me.
There are two types of people in the world. Those that love and enjoy the great bard and those who find him a chore, a slog, where every sentence has to explained. I, to my shame, am in the latter group. My two stars are a reflection of my inability rather than the skill of the author.
I’m going to tackle Bill Bryson’s Shakespeare in the new year. So all is not lost even for someone like me.
December 7, 2015
“Let every man be master of his time.”
In 1606, Shakespeare wrote three plays – King Lear, Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra. James Shapiro sets out to show how this burst of creativity reflected the events and concerns of the times and to reveal what Shakespeare may have been thinking as he wrote.
Shapiro reminds us that Shakespeare was as much a Jacobean playwright as an Elizabethan one, and suggests that these later plays show how the English world had changed since James I came to the throne in 1603. For most of the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, the major concern of the political classes had been the question of succession, but now that question had been resolved. Not only had James succeeded peacefully to the throne but he had two sons, securing the continuance of his dynasty for at least another generation. There was now a new question – as King of both Scotland and England, James was eager to create a union between them, a plan that was less attractive to the powerful elites in either nation. It was in this context that Lear was written, though Shapiro makes the point that it's unclear whether the play is pro- or anti-Union – apparently scholars have continued to argue it both ways over the intervening years.
As well as the contemporary context, Shapiro looks at Shakespeare's use of sources. In the case of Lear much of the play is based on an earlier play, King Leir by Samuel Harsnett. Shapiro shows how Shakespeare retained the basic structure and some of the language of the earlier work, while changing much of the text and creating a considerably darker ending. He speculates on how these changes would have played with the expectations of a contemporary audience familiar with the earlier play, making Shakespeare's ending even more shocking in its unexpectedness.
The end of 1605 was marked by the Gunpowder Plot which, though it failed, revealed the rising anxiety over religious divisions and led to an atmosphere of fear and tension. Shapiro shows the links of the plotters to the Midlands and hence to the society that Shakespeare knew well. Following the plot, there was a threatened uprising near Stratford with friends and neighbours of Shakespeare on either side. Shapiro gives a good picture of how small the world of the gentry was at this time, and how Catholicism may have gone underground but hadn't gone away. All of this would have meant that Shakespeare would have felt more than interested – involved almost – in the plots and their aftermath.
This was also a time obsessed with tales of witchcraft and demonic possession, subjects in which James himself was deeply interested, becoming personally involved in investigating some of the cases of alleged possession. Shapiro shows how both these contemporary concerns – plotting and the supernatural – fed into the writing of Macbeth.
Shapiro's own writing is very readable and it's clear he has researched both the period and the plays thoroughly. However, I feel the book sometimes lacks focus, becoming more of a history of the year than an analysis of the plays. While he ties contemporary concerns well into both Lear and Macbeth, I felt the section on Antony and Cleopatra was looser and therefore less successful. He also discusses some other aspects of the year, such as theatre closures due to plague, which, while interesting in themselves, didn't seem to have much relevance to the creation of these specific plays. I feel the book rather falls between two stools – the attempt to tie everything back to the plays makes the history feel a bit superficial and occasionally contrived, while the lack of information about Shakespeare's life means that a lot of Shapiro's analysis is necessarily based on assumption rather than fact. In terms of interest, I found parts of it fascinating and other parts frankly rather dull – of course, I realise that much of that is subjective. But I felt that a tighter structure focused more clearly on the plays would have worked better. Or alternatively perhaps, a structure that focused exclusively on the events and concerns of the year with less of an attempt to show their relevance to the plays. Trying to do both somehow left me feeling a bit shortchanged on each.
However, there is certainly enough of interest to make the book well worth reading even if it didn't quite meet my expectations. In amongst the other stuff, Shapiro gives a good picture of contemporary theatre, from Ben Jonson's masques to the collapse of the boys' companies as a result of the plague. He discusses how Shakespeare's own company was ageing by this period, allowing Shakespeare to write some older parts. He shows the pressure that companies were under to produce new plays to feed the appetite for performances at court. But he also goes off at a tangent at times – for example, discussing how Kings were traditionally expected to 'cure' the King's Evil (scrofula) – leaving me wondering about the relevance to the subject of the book.
A bit of a mixed bag then – I'd be tempted to recommend it more strongly to people with an interest in the society and culture of the period than to people primarily interested in Shakespeare. And, since I am interested in the period, in the end I got enough from it to feel my time had been well spent. 3½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Simon & Schuster.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
In 1606, Shakespeare wrote three plays – King Lear, Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra. James Shapiro sets out to show how this burst of creativity reflected the events and concerns of the times and to reveal what Shakespeare may have been thinking as he wrote.
Shapiro reminds us that Shakespeare was as much a Jacobean playwright as an Elizabethan one, and suggests that these later plays show how the English world had changed since James I came to the throne in 1603. For most of the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, the major concern of the political classes had been the question of succession, but now that question had been resolved. Not only had James succeeded peacefully to the throne but he had two sons, securing the continuance of his dynasty for at least another generation. There was now a new question – as King of both Scotland and England, James was eager to create a union between them, a plan that was less attractive to the powerful elites in either nation. It was in this context that Lear was written, though Shapiro makes the point that it's unclear whether the play is pro- or anti-Union – apparently scholars have continued to argue it both ways over the intervening years.
As well as the contemporary context, Shapiro looks at Shakespeare's use of sources. In the case of Lear much of the play is based on an earlier play, King Leir by Samuel Harsnett. Shapiro shows how Shakespeare retained the basic structure and some of the language of the earlier work, while changing much of the text and creating a considerably darker ending. He speculates on how these changes would have played with the expectations of a contemporary audience familiar with the earlier play, making Shakespeare's ending even more shocking in its unexpectedness.
The end of 1605 was marked by the Gunpowder Plot which, though it failed, revealed the rising anxiety over religious divisions and led to an atmosphere of fear and tension. Shapiro shows the links of the plotters to the Midlands and hence to the society that Shakespeare knew well. Following the plot, there was a threatened uprising near Stratford with friends and neighbours of Shakespeare on either side. Shapiro gives a good picture of how small the world of the gentry was at this time, and how Catholicism may have gone underground but hadn't gone away. All of this would have meant that Shakespeare would have felt more than interested – involved almost – in the plots and their aftermath.
This was also a time obsessed with tales of witchcraft and demonic possession, subjects in which James himself was deeply interested, becoming personally involved in investigating some of the cases of alleged possession. Shapiro shows how both these contemporary concerns – plotting and the supernatural – fed into the writing of Macbeth.
Shapiro's own writing is very readable and it's clear he has researched both the period and the plays thoroughly. However, I feel the book sometimes lacks focus, becoming more of a history of the year than an analysis of the plays. While he ties contemporary concerns well into both Lear and Macbeth, I felt the section on Antony and Cleopatra was looser and therefore less successful. He also discusses some other aspects of the year, such as theatre closures due to plague, which, while interesting in themselves, didn't seem to have much relevance to the creation of these specific plays. I feel the book rather falls between two stools – the attempt to tie everything back to the plays makes the history feel a bit superficial and occasionally contrived, while the lack of information about Shakespeare's life means that a lot of Shapiro's analysis is necessarily based on assumption rather than fact. In terms of interest, I found parts of it fascinating and other parts frankly rather dull – of course, I realise that much of that is subjective. But I felt that a tighter structure focused more clearly on the plays would have worked better. Or alternatively perhaps, a structure that focused exclusively on the events and concerns of the year with less of an attempt to show their relevance to the plays. Trying to do both somehow left me feeling a bit shortchanged on each.
However, there is certainly enough of interest to make the book well worth reading even if it didn't quite meet my expectations. In amongst the other stuff, Shapiro gives a good picture of contemporary theatre, from Ben Jonson's masques to the collapse of the boys' companies as a result of the plague. He discusses how Shakespeare's own company was ageing by this period, allowing Shakespeare to write some older parts. He shows the pressure that companies were under to produce new plays to feed the appetite for performances at court. But he also goes off at a tangent at times – for example, discussing how Kings were traditionally expected to 'cure' the King's Evil (scrofula) – leaving me wondering about the relevance to the subject of the book.
A bit of a mixed bag then – I'd be tempted to recommend it more strongly to people with an interest in the society and culture of the period than to people primarily interested in Shakespeare. And, since I am interested in the period, in the end I got enough from it to feel my time had been well spent. 3½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Simon & Schuster.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
December 8, 2022
Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro takes a deep dive into the tumultuous Jacobean world to flesh out the historical and cultural context in which Shakespeare completed the three great tragedies he wrote in 1606: King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra. Scholarly but free of strangulating academic prose, this is a fascinating account quite accessible to the layperson that helped me appreciate that Shakespeare’s writing was much influenced by real-world events unfolding around him (well, duh, right?) and that the plays are not just timeless, standalone monoliths. I’m definitely going to read Shapiro’s earlier A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599.
January 18, 2016
I’d like to say that I was really wowed by this book because it seems that most readers were; but, truth to tell, I found it a bit tedious and plodding, so I’ll give it my honest reaction. This is not to say “The Year of Lear…” is not a worthwhile read. It’s meticulously researched. And that’s one of the problems I had with it. It seemed that there was not a detail too small or a linkage too tenuous for the author to claim its influence on Shakespeare. And perhaps it was so.
The year is 1606, the year when “King Lear” and “Macbeth” were written and staged and probably “Antony and Cleopatra” as well, although the date for the latter is less certain. Strange and frightening events were occurring in England that year and the years leading up to it. Even as we read Shakespeare according to what’s going on in our time so did Shakespeare write according to what was going on in his time, Shapiro not unreasonably argues.
In the mid to late 20th Century, for example, when we were seized by post Holocaust fears and nuclear threats, an apocalyptic world seemed absolutely to be the central focus of “Lear.” In the early 21th Century, however, we became more focused on Lear as a father than as a king and dementia loomed larger perhaps than apocalyptic events shaking the world. “King Lear,” Shapiro writes, is no less of its time. So not only did the social and political influences and events of Shakespeare’s day influence Shakespeare’s writing but also Shakespeare responded to what his audience was most concerned about and interested in.
James I has been three years on the throne of England and his greatest desire is to unite the divided kingdoms of England and Scotland. There also has been a gunpowder plot – an attempt at regicide – that has resulted in very deep mistrust and paranoia. The world seemed dark and unsettled. Questions such as how can ordinary people commit such horrible crimes were being fearfully asked. Where does this evil come from - without or within? What binds us together? What can destroy these bonds? All of these questions find their way into “Lear” and “Macbeth.” In addition, James evidenced a huge interest in a case of suspected demon possession in England. The case, ultimately proved to be a fraud, made big “headlines” at the time. It’s easy to draw a line between this event and events in the troubled plays.
Shapiro also gives us facts about Shakespeare’s changing status as he shifts from being part of the Lord Chamberlain’s Company during Queen Elizabeth’s time to belonging to the King’s Men under James. The King’s Men were required to put out many more performances than Elizabeth had demanded. Styles were changing too. Ben Jonson’s masques were elaborately staged and Shakespeare, Shapiro argues, was forced to compete with this splendor and, thus, Antony and Cleopatra.
All of these influences and many more are traced in great deal detail in Shapiro’s argument. Some of them are interesting. Some of them are significant. In my opinion, some are not. A word of warning: don’t read his book if you don’t know these plays. Shapiro presumes his readers will have more than a passing familiarity with them. (This is not a bad thing.) But the pleasure of a Shakespeare play is in its language, not in these influences interesting as they may be.
The year is 1606, the year when “King Lear” and “Macbeth” were written and staged and probably “Antony and Cleopatra” as well, although the date for the latter is less certain. Strange and frightening events were occurring in England that year and the years leading up to it. Even as we read Shakespeare according to what’s going on in our time so did Shakespeare write according to what was going on in his time, Shapiro not unreasonably argues.
In the mid to late 20th Century, for example, when we were seized by post Holocaust fears and nuclear threats, an apocalyptic world seemed absolutely to be the central focus of “Lear.” In the early 21th Century, however, we became more focused on Lear as a father than as a king and dementia loomed larger perhaps than apocalyptic events shaking the world. “King Lear,” Shapiro writes, is no less of its time. So not only did the social and political influences and events of Shakespeare’s day influence Shakespeare’s writing but also Shakespeare responded to what his audience was most concerned about and interested in.
James I has been three years on the throne of England and his greatest desire is to unite the divided kingdoms of England and Scotland. There also has been a gunpowder plot – an attempt at regicide – that has resulted in very deep mistrust and paranoia. The world seemed dark and unsettled. Questions such as how can ordinary people commit such horrible crimes were being fearfully asked. Where does this evil come from - without or within? What binds us together? What can destroy these bonds? All of these questions find their way into “Lear” and “Macbeth.” In addition, James evidenced a huge interest in a case of suspected demon possession in England. The case, ultimately proved to be a fraud, made big “headlines” at the time. It’s easy to draw a line between this event and events in the troubled plays.
Shapiro also gives us facts about Shakespeare’s changing status as he shifts from being part of the Lord Chamberlain’s Company during Queen Elizabeth’s time to belonging to the King’s Men under James. The King’s Men were required to put out many more performances than Elizabeth had demanded. Styles were changing too. Ben Jonson’s masques were elaborately staged and Shakespeare, Shapiro argues, was forced to compete with this splendor and, thus, Antony and Cleopatra.
All of these influences and many more are traced in great deal detail in Shapiro’s argument. Some of them are interesting. Some of them are significant. In my opinion, some are not. A word of warning: don’t read his book if you don’t know these plays. Shapiro presumes his readers will have more than a passing familiarity with them. (This is not a bad thing.) But the pleasure of a Shakespeare play is in its language, not in these influences interesting as they may be.
January 6, 2016
James Shapiro is my favorite Shakespearean critic. This book, true to form, is excellent.
In an earlier book, Shapiro described what Shakespeare's life was probably like in 1599. I enjoyed that book, and this is just as enlightening.
The plot to blow up Parliament, and King James and his family with it, was set to culminate in November 1605. Although it failed, the public was traumatized. Protestants especially were upset at the thought of losing their king, and Catholics feared retaliation because the plotters were Catholics.
What we consider extreme punishments today were more common then. The plotters were castrated and eviscerated before they were beheaded. And retaliation took many forms. Some members of Parliament wanted to forbid Catholics to marry. Instead, Catholics were forced to receive communion in Church of England churches, and had to pay exorbitant fines if they failed to do so.
This was the atmosphere in which Shakespeare wrote King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra, his great works of 1606. Shapiro shows how the political climate made attacks on kings even more terrifying than they would otherwise be. He also says that many people were nostalgic for Queen Elizabeth and the portrayal of the powerful Cleopatra may have played into that nostalgia.
Shapiro has also written other books that are well worth reading. Shakespeare and the Jews discusses the situation of Jews in England in Shakespeare's day and how that affected his plays. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare examines the controversy over whether Shakespeare wrote the plays and points out that no one doubted that he did until the nineteenth century, more than two hundred years after he died.
In an earlier book, Shapiro described what Shakespeare's life was probably like in 1599. I enjoyed that book, and this is just as enlightening.
The plot to blow up Parliament, and King James and his family with it, was set to culminate in November 1605. Although it failed, the public was traumatized. Protestants especially were upset at the thought of losing their king, and Catholics feared retaliation because the plotters were Catholics.
What we consider extreme punishments today were more common then. The plotters were castrated and eviscerated before they were beheaded. And retaliation took many forms. Some members of Parliament wanted to forbid Catholics to marry. Instead, Catholics were forced to receive communion in Church of England churches, and had to pay exorbitant fines if they failed to do so.
This was the atmosphere in which Shakespeare wrote King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra, his great works of 1606. Shapiro shows how the political climate made attacks on kings even more terrifying than they would otherwise be. He also says that many people were nostalgic for Queen Elizabeth and the portrayal of the powerful Cleopatra may have played into that nostalgia.
Shapiro has also written other books that are well worth reading. Shakespeare and the Jews discusses the situation of Jews in England in Shakespeare's day and how that affected his plays. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare examines the controversy over whether Shakespeare wrote the plays and points out that no one doubted that he did until the nineteenth century, more than two hundred years after he died.
January 29, 2019
I'm more interested in the history here than the thoughts about Shakespeare's plays. These were interesting times in English/British history. The perpetrators of "Gunpowder Plot" were being drawn and quartered, people were still adjusting to the break from the Catholic church, and were learning to live with a Scottish king in England. And we round the year out with plague, again.
I most enjoyed the chapter on "Equivocation". Catholics were concerned with just how close they could come to making false or misleading statements without committing a sin. (Important when trying to deny they are Catholic, or are protecting a friend.) The king's men were equally interested in the question of how much "enhanced interrogation" techniques they could use without crossing the line into torture. (Answer: a lot.) At the same time, playwrights were testing how close they could come to alluding to current events without crossing a line into treason. Definitely these were "interesting times".
I most enjoyed the chapter on "Equivocation". Catholics were concerned with just how close they could come to making false or misleading statements without committing a sin. (Important when trying to deny they are Catholic, or are protecting a friend.) The king's men were equally interested in the question of how much "enhanced interrogation" techniques they could use without crossing the line into torture. (Answer: a lot.) At the same time, playwrights were testing how close they could come to alluding to current events without crossing a line into treason. Definitely these were "interesting times".
November 12, 2020
In my recollection - which may well be wrong - 1599 was less coherently focused on certain historical developments than 1606. That actually ended up making 1606 really interesting. Reading about surprisingly topical historical events was a good reminder of the useful perspective offered by history. What we're going through is often not so special, but a variation on a theme.
March 6, 2023
I'm part way through a reread of Shakespeare's plays, so this seemed like a good time to read this book. I found it very readable and illuminating both of the plays and British history at the time. I'm not expert on either, especially as most of my knowledge of British history comes from decades of novel reading, not classes or nonfiction. I especially liked the way he interwove history and the three plays from that year - Macbeth, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra.
I’ve been rereading WS’s plays, and read Lear and A & C while finishing this; it definitely helped me appreciate them more. I find Lear to be very hard to get through, as it's so brutal. And I've not even tried A&C since I was six and my mom couldn't get a babysitter so she took me to the 4+ hour movie with Elizabeth Taylor. I kind of remember the costumes. lol So the help I got in this book to relating some events to the play was appreciated.
I also liked all the use of letters and diaries to take us inside the thoughts of people at the time. My only quarrel with this was sometimes the author spent too many pages on descriptions that I didn’t really need. All in all it was entertaining; an accessible read that helped me understand history and the plays better - plus I have straightened a fair amount of British history out in my brain now. How long it will stay straight, I can't say. But I can always pull the book off the shelf and read it again, right?
I’ve been rereading WS’s plays, and read Lear and A & C while finishing this; it definitely helped me appreciate them more. I find Lear to be very hard to get through, as it's so brutal. And I've not even tried A&C since I was six and my mom couldn't get a babysitter so she took me to the 4+ hour movie with Elizabeth Taylor. I kind of remember the costumes. lol So the help I got in this book to relating some events to the play was appreciated.
I also liked all the use of letters and diaries to take us inside the thoughts of people at the time. My only quarrel with this was sometimes the author spent too many pages on descriptions that I didn’t really need. All in all it was entertaining; an accessible read that helped me understand history and the plays better - plus I have straightened a fair amount of British history out in my brain now. How long it will stay straight, I can't say. But I can always pull the book off the shelf and read it again, right?
September 20, 2015
"Shapiro effectively shows how the beliefs, fears, and politics of Shakespeare’s day were reflected in his plays. Highly recommended for readers interested in Shakespeare or British History."
– Library Journal
1606 was an eventful year in the history of England. King James, son of Queen Mary of Scotland, was on the throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth. The kingdom struggled with what it meant to have a king who ruled both England and Scotland. England's Anti-Catholic repression spurred a rebellion, the Gunpowder Plot, foiled at the last minute. All of England was shaken knowing how close they were to the destruction of government and most of London. It spurred and enforced Anti-Catholic legislation and a search for closeted Catholics, who had a pamphlet on how to 'equivocate' to sidestep direct questioning. Plus, the reoccurring Plague took its toll and closed the theaters and demon possession took even the king's interest.
Forty-two-year-old William Shakespeare had been in a lull for several years. He wasn't publishing his new plays and few of his old ones were available at the bookstalls. He wasn't appearing on stage consistently. He was a ripe old age (for those days) and he had amassed enough money to retire. Were his most productive days behind him?
Not at all. For in 1606 Shakespeare finished his masterpiece King Lear and wrote Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra.
James Shapiro's book Year of Lear links these three plays to the events of 1606, showing how Shakespeare used buzzwords, current events, and the fears and concerns of his time. Because there is so little information about Shakespeare's life and thought, it is Shapiro's deep knowledge of the plays that enable him to link them to their times. His exploration of King Lear is most successful and of the greatest interest. Readers learn about Shakespeare's sources, how he altered and improved the stories, when they were acted, and about changes made over time. While King James quested for Union, Shakespeare wrote about a king who divided his kingdom with dire consequences.
I am no Shakespeare scholar, and knew only the basics about the Gunpowder Plot and Anti-Catholic repression. I studied King Lear three times during the course of my education, but never have read Antony and Cleopatra. I found the book very interesting and accessible, and I enjoyed it very much.
I thank the publisher and NetGalley for a free ebook in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
– Library Journal
1606 was an eventful year in the history of England. King James, son of Queen Mary of Scotland, was on the throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth. The kingdom struggled with what it meant to have a king who ruled both England and Scotland. England's Anti-Catholic repression spurred a rebellion, the Gunpowder Plot, foiled at the last minute. All of England was shaken knowing how close they were to the destruction of government and most of London. It spurred and enforced Anti-Catholic legislation and a search for closeted Catholics, who had a pamphlet on how to 'equivocate' to sidestep direct questioning. Plus, the reoccurring Plague took its toll and closed the theaters and demon possession took even the king's interest.
Forty-two-year-old William Shakespeare had been in a lull for several years. He wasn't publishing his new plays and few of his old ones were available at the bookstalls. He wasn't appearing on stage consistently. He was a ripe old age (for those days) and he had amassed enough money to retire. Were his most productive days behind him?
Not at all. For in 1606 Shakespeare finished his masterpiece King Lear and wrote Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra.
James Shapiro's book Year of Lear links these three plays to the events of 1606, showing how Shakespeare used buzzwords, current events, and the fears and concerns of his time. Because there is so little information about Shakespeare's life and thought, it is Shapiro's deep knowledge of the plays that enable him to link them to their times. His exploration of King Lear is most successful and of the greatest interest. Readers learn about Shakespeare's sources, how he altered and improved the stories, when they were acted, and about changes made over time. While King James quested for Union, Shakespeare wrote about a king who divided his kingdom with dire consequences.
I am no Shakespeare scholar, and knew only the basics about the Gunpowder Plot and Anti-Catholic repression. I studied King Lear three times during the course of my education, but never have read Antony and Cleopatra. I found the book very interesting and accessible, and I enjoyed it very much.
I thank the publisher and NetGalley for a free ebook in exchange for a fair and unbiased review.
December 8, 2016
Although we tend to think of Shakespeare as an Elizabethan playwright, some of his greatest plays were written in the early Jacobean years - Lear, Anthony and Cleopatra, and Macbeth.
Shapiro places these plays in the context of the year they were completed in; England in 1606 after an attempt to behead the state by destroying all of the political establishment during the opening of Parliament (for Americans, probably equivalent to planting a massive bomb in the Capitol to explode during the State of the Union speech).
In the circumstances, it is amazing that Shakespeare was able to write plays that were topical, had a popular audience, were acceptable to the political establishment, and of lasting appeal to other times and places. As Shapiro notes, many of Shakespeare's contemporaries were not able to navigate the treacherous political shoals and currents; Jonson, Nashe, Kyd and Matlowe all had dangerous brushes with the establishment.
Shapiro shows how Shakespeare was able to recycle old plays and stories and introduce new elements that allowed him to illuminate current concerns.
Shapiro places these plays in the context of the year they were completed in; England in 1606 after an attempt to behead the state by destroying all of the political establishment during the opening of Parliament (for Americans, probably equivalent to planting a massive bomb in the Capitol to explode during the State of the Union speech).
In the circumstances, it is amazing that Shakespeare was able to write plays that were topical, had a popular audience, were acceptable to the political establishment, and of lasting appeal to other times and places. As Shapiro notes, many of Shakespeare's contemporaries were not able to navigate the treacherous political shoals and currents; Jonson, Nashe, Kyd and Matlowe all had dangerous brushes with the establishment.
Shapiro shows how Shakespeare was able to recycle old plays and stories and introduce new elements that allowed him to illuminate current concerns.
July 9, 2016
Edit: I have put this review off for a long time and am not sure why. I struggled with getting through this one and I think maybe I was Shakespeared-out in terms of reading about him - I'd read A LOT around the time the First Folio was on display at the Durham. I think I will give this book another chance at a later date so I can put together a better review.
I wanted to love this book, because it's Shapiro and Shakespeare. But it was not nearly as engaging as Shapiro's other books about Shakespeare. Part of the reason might be I don't care as much for James and his heirs. I don't know. Full review to come.
I wanted to love this book, because it's Shapiro and Shakespeare. But it was not nearly as engaging as Shapiro's other books about Shakespeare. Part of the reason might be I don't care as much for James and his heirs. I don't know. Full review to come.
April 9, 2017
I really enjoyed this book! King Lear is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, and Columbia professor James Shapiro does a great job showing how Shakespeare rebuilt the story from the ground up by borrowing from an earlier play called "King Leir."
What I loved best about being a Columbia undergraduate more than thirty years ago was the way professors emphasized close reading of the text. Shapiro follows that approach here. In Shakespeare's play the word "nothing" takes on an almost terrifying significance, since Cordelia says "nothing" about how much she loves her father, and he then gives her "nothing" in return. And when she dies, "nothing" is left! But in the old time source play, the tone is very different. The king of France asks Cordelia almost flirtatiously "but did he leave nothing for your lovely self?" And Cordelia replies very demurely, and a touch flirtatiously, "He loved me not, and so left me nothing at all." The circumstances are the same but the tone is completely different.
Interestingly, Shapiro insists that there were certain plot points and themes that Shakespeare took from the old play that didn't make sense in the new version, such as the invasion of France and good son Edgar's continuing in disguise even when his blinded father is on the point of suicide. Personally, however, I've always felt that Edgar's behavior towards his blinded father makes perfect sense. It's his duty to protect his father and lead him along the road, but Edgar has been deeply hurt by his father's earlier rejection and is perhaps even a little angry at him. That's why he never reveals himself to the blind man and that's why he feels so guilty afterwards. Most critics see Edgar as such an upstanding symbol of goodness that they don't make any allowance for his human feelings. Personally I think Edgar is very angry at his father, even if he's too loyal to admit it even to himself. The old man turned on him without cause and threw him out of the house to die, just like Lear's daughters did to King Lear!
Reading this book really brought back my time at Columbia in a wonderful way. Not only were there great professors but the whole experience of living on campus really made Shakespeare come alive. For example, I'll never forget the time I was trying to make the Columbia rowing team and some numb nuts coach suggested we all go on a five mile run through Central Park. This was in November, and it was getting dark and already about thirty degrees outside. So off we go! But the other guys on the team, all rich kids from private rowing clubs and schools like Andover and Exeter, were a whole lot faster than me. And soon they were all out of sight. So there I was, lost in Central Park after dark, freezing to death, miles from campus. Next thing I know, I'm lost and wandering through Harlem! Moments like that will really teach you what King Lear is all about. Columbia walls itself off from the surrounding community with high fences, security guards, and locked gates, but there's always the promise (or the threat) that the real slum life of NYC is just one unlucky block away. And if you aren't "really" the Columbia type, if you aren't fast enough to keep up, well then you really have no right to be there. And the big boys will turn you out to die just like Lear!
It was shocking to me, as it was shocking to Lear, to discover that there was a whole world outside the palace walls. It was even more shocking to discover that the lowly, forgotten people outside were more human than the people inside. I was way up on Lenox Avenue and 125th Street before I worked up the nerve to ask a black man in a fur coat for directions back to the Columbia campus. Of course I was a punk kid from the suburbs and I was sure I was about to die. After all, I'd been told by Columbia professors ever since orientation that the streets were dangerous!
Looking back, that guy in the fur coat didn't need to pull a gun or a knife to kill me. All he had to do was point the wrong way and I would have been dead. He had no reason to help me, but he did. Those rich boys had no reason to ditch me, but they did. Lessons like those are what King Lear is all about. Reading this book reminded me just how grateful I am to fine Columbia professors like James Shapiro for creating an atmosphere where King Lear lives!
What I loved best about being a Columbia undergraduate more than thirty years ago was the way professors emphasized close reading of the text. Shapiro follows that approach here. In Shakespeare's play the word "nothing" takes on an almost terrifying significance, since Cordelia says "nothing" about how much she loves her father, and he then gives her "nothing" in return. And when she dies, "nothing" is left! But in the old time source play, the tone is very different. The king of France asks Cordelia almost flirtatiously "but did he leave nothing for your lovely self?" And Cordelia replies very demurely, and a touch flirtatiously, "He loved me not, and so left me nothing at all." The circumstances are the same but the tone is completely different.
Interestingly, Shapiro insists that there were certain plot points and themes that Shakespeare took from the old play that didn't make sense in the new version, such as the invasion of France and good son Edgar's continuing in disguise even when his blinded father is on the point of suicide. Personally, however, I've always felt that Edgar's behavior towards his blinded father makes perfect sense. It's his duty to protect his father and lead him along the road, but Edgar has been deeply hurt by his father's earlier rejection and is perhaps even a little angry at him. That's why he never reveals himself to the blind man and that's why he feels so guilty afterwards. Most critics see Edgar as such an upstanding symbol of goodness that they don't make any allowance for his human feelings. Personally I think Edgar is very angry at his father, even if he's too loyal to admit it even to himself. The old man turned on him without cause and threw him out of the house to die, just like Lear's daughters did to King Lear!
Reading this book really brought back my time at Columbia in a wonderful way. Not only were there great professors but the whole experience of living on campus really made Shakespeare come alive. For example, I'll never forget the time I was trying to make the Columbia rowing team and some numb nuts coach suggested we all go on a five mile run through Central Park. This was in November, and it was getting dark and already about thirty degrees outside. So off we go! But the other guys on the team, all rich kids from private rowing clubs and schools like Andover and Exeter, were a whole lot faster than me. And soon they were all out of sight. So there I was, lost in Central Park after dark, freezing to death, miles from campus. Next thing I know, I'm lost and wandering through Harlem! Moments like that will really teach you what King Lear is all about. Columbia walls itself off from the surrounding community with high fences, security guards, and locked gates, but there's always the promise (or the threat) that the real slum life of NYC is just one unlucky block away. And if you aren't "really" the Columbia type, if you aren't fast enough to keep up, well then you really have no right to be there. And the big boys will turn you out to die just like Lear!
It was shocking to me, as it was shocking to Lear, to discover that there was a whole world outside the palace walls. It was even more shocking to discover that the lowly, forgotten people outside were more human than the people inside. I was way up on Lenox Avenue and 125th Street before I worked up the nerve to ask a black man in a fur coat for directions back to the Columbia campus. Of course I was a punk kid from the suburbs and I was sure I was about to die. After all, I'd been told by Columbia professors ever since orientation that the streets were dangerous!
Looking back, that guy in the fur coat didn't need to pull a gun or a knife to kill me. All he had to do was point the wrong way and I would have been dead. He had no reason to help me, but he did. Those rich boys had no reason to ditch me, but they did. Lessons like those are what King Lear is all about. Reading this book reminded me just how grateful I am to fine Columbia professors like James Shapiro for creating an atmosphere where King Lear lives!
October 24, 2022
real review: 4.5/5
I feel like my brain expanded by 200x while reading this book; the amount of research that went into it must have been extortionate (as evidenced by the 41-page bibliographical essay at the end). Shapiro paints a vivid image of England in 1606, detailing the various factors which may have influenced Shakespeare in his writing of three famous tragedies - Macbeth, King Lear, and Antony and Cleopatra. Surprisingly, though it took me a while to get through, 1606 was highly captivating, even turning into something of a pageturner at points - namely the comparison between Shakespeare's Lear and the Elizabethan Leir; the exploration of the Jesuit Treatise of Equivocation and its influence on Macbeth; and the story of the potential inspiration for the famous dagger speech (involving a twelve-year old girl being persuaded she was possessed by Satan). Although the book focused more on the historical than the literary towards the end, a good balance was sustained in the first half, and the historical details remained interesting throughout, despite the tangential relationship some of them held to Shakespeare's work.
One thing I will briefly comment on is the alleged lack of historical accuracy in this book - there has even been a book published, 'Contested Year', solely criticising Shapiro's book for presenting speculation as fact. While I haven't read Contested Year, and don't have enough background information to be able to form my own opinion, I think it's likely that some of these accusations may be correct, as a lot of the book seems to be based on 'this would have had x influence on Shakespeare' and other vague (equivocal? that's a stretch but let's make this topical) statements such as that. However, if you bear in mind that some of the book's content is purely speculative, and perhaps could have been written more tentatively, I still think it is an immensely valuable account of the background against which Shakespeare wrote some of his most famous plays, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about Shakespeare or the atmosphere of early 17th century England.
I feel like my brain expanded by 200x while reading this book; the amount of research that went into it must have been extortionate (as evidenced by the 41-page bibliographical essay at the end). Shapiro paints a vivid image of England in 1606, detailing the various factors which may have influenced Shakespeare in his writing of three famous tragedies - Macbeth, King Lear, and Antony and Cleopatra. Surprisingly, though it took me a while to get through, 1606 was highly captivating, even turning into something of a pageturner at points - namely the comparison between Shakespeare's Lear and the Elizabethan Leir; the exploration of the Jesuit Treatise of Equivocation and its influence on Macbeth; and the story of the potential inspiration for the famous dagger speech (involving a twelve-year old girl being persuaded she was possessed by Satan). Although the book focused more on the historical than the literary towards the end, a good balance was sustained in the first half, and the historical details remained interesting throughout, despite the tangential relationship some of them held to Shakespeare's work.
One thing I will briefly comment on is the alleged lack of historical accuracy in this book - there has even been a book published, 'Contested Year', solely criticising Shapiro's book for presenting speculation as fact. While I haven't read Contested Year, and don't have enough background information to be able to form my own opinion, I think it's likely that some of these accusations may be correct, as a lot of the book seems to be based on 'this would have had x influence on Shakespeare' and other vague (equivocal? that's a stretch but let's make this topical) statements such as that. However, if you bear in mind that some of the book's content is purely speculative, and perhaps could have been written more tentatively, I still think it is an immensely valuable account of the background against which Shakespeare wrote some of his most famous plays, and I would definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about Shakespeare or the atmosphere of early 17th century England.
February 11, 2021
'The Year of Lear' is a thrilling piece of literary detection. James Shapiro puts Shakespeare and his work in 1606 in historical context, showing how the volatile events of the time affected his writing.
November 1605 was the time of the aborted Gunpowder Plot, which had tremendous repercussions throughout English society, from dozens of executions to increased severity of laws governing recusant Catholics. The early years of James I's reign were ones of optimism and change that slowly transformed to grim gridlock and puritanism. The Jacobean court was vastly different than the court during the declining years of the old Queen, Elizabeth I. James hoped to push through an official unification act that would smooth the relationship between England and Scotland. The theatres and actors had close relationships with the king and lords in power. All of this I was vaguely aware of but I had not put the historical events in context with the plays Shakespeare wrote that year--King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra. Each play has subtle hints about how Shakespeare experienced and processed the changes in society.
I am most familiar with Macbeth and have never particularly cared for King Lear. I have seen all of them in performance. Now I want to revisit the plays, understanding a bit more about their historical context. Highly recommended for anyone who loves Shakespeare.
November 1605 was the time of the aborted Gunpowder Plot, which had tremendous repercussions throughout English society, from dozens of executions to increased severity of laws governing recusant Catholics. The early years of James I's reign were ones of optimism and change that slowly transformed to grim gridlock and puritanism. The Jacobean court was vastly different than the court during the declining years of the old Queen, Elizabeth I. James hoped to push through an official unification act that would smooth the relationship between England and Scotland. The theatres and actors had close relationships with the king and lords in power. All of this I was vaguely aware of but I had not put the historical events in context with the plays Shakespeare wrote that year--King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra. Each play has subtle hints about how Shakespeare experienced and processed the changes in society.
I am most familiar with Macbeth and have never particularly cared for King Lear. I have seen all of them in performance. Now I want to revisit the plays, understanding a bit more about their historical context. Highly recommended for anyone who loves Shakespeare.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 456 reviews