Tyrant: Shakespeare on Power

by Stephen Greenblatt

Οι ηγέτες συχνά είναι επιρρεπείς στη διαφθορά και στους ανέντιμους συμβιβασμούς· το πλήθος συμπεριφέρεται συχνά με ανοησία και αγνωμοσύνη, άγεται και φέρεται από τους δημαγωγούς και αργεί να αντιληφθεί τα πραγματικά συμφέροντά του. Υπάρχουν περίοδοι, κάποτε μακρόχρονες, στις οποίες φαίνεται να θριαμβεύουν τα ωμότερα κίνητρα των πιο φαύλων ανθρώπων. Ο Σαίξπηρ όμως πίστευε ότι οι τύραννοι και οι υποτακτικοί τους είναι καταδικασμένοι να αποτύχουν: θα τους γκρεμίσει η ίδια η κακία τους και η ανθρωπιά της λαϊκής ψυχής, που μπορεί να κατασταλεί αλλά όχι να εξουδετερωθεί εντελώς. Θεωρούσε πως ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να ξανακερδηθεί η συλλογική αξιοπρέπεια είναι να αναλάβουν πολιτική δράση οι απλοί πολίτες. Ποτέ του δεν ξέχασε ο Σαίξπηρ όσους κράτησαν το στόμα τους πεισματικά κλειστό όταν τους ζητούσαν να ζητωκραυγάσουν τον τύραννο· ποτέ του δεν ξέχασε τον υπηρέτη που θέλησε να εμποδίσει τον βασανισμό ενός κρατουμένου, όταν ο βασανιστής ήταν ο ίδιος ο αφέντης του· ποτέ του δεν ξέχασε τον πεινασμένο πολίτη που απαίτησε οικονομική δικαιοσύνη. «Τί είναι η πόλη αν όχι ο λαός της;» (Από το Επίμετρο του συγγραφέα)
Περιεχόμενα
Πρόλογος του μεταφραστή
1. Λοξώς και υπό γωνίαν
2. Κομματικές σκοπιμότητες
3. Παραπειστικός λαϊκισμός
4. Ζήτημα χαρακτήρα
5. Νεροκουβαλητές στον μύλο του τυράννου
6. Ο θρίαμβος της τυραννίας
7. Ο υποκινητής
8. Η τρέλα των μεγάλων
9. Πτώση και ανόρθωση
10. Ανασχετή άνοδος
Επίμετρο
Ευχαριστίες
Ευρετήριο

Genres: Nonfiction, History, Shakespeare, Politics, Literature, Literary Criticism, Criticism

170 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 8, 2018

About the author

Stephen Greenblatt (Ph.D. Yale) is Cogan University Professor of English and American Literature and Language at Harvard University. Also General Editor of The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Eighth Edition, he is the author of nine books, including Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare; Hamlet in Purgatory; Practicing New Historicism; Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World; Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture; and The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. He has edited six collections of criticism, is the co-author (with Charles Mee) of a play, Cardenio, and is a founding coeditor of the journal Representations. He honors include the MLA's James Russell Lowell Prize, for Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England, the Distinguished Humanist Award from the Mellon Foundation, the Distinguished Teaching Award from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and in Vermont.

Stephen Jay Greenblatt is a Pulitzer Prize winning American literary critic, theorist and scholar.

Greenblatt is regarded by many as one of the founders of New Historicism, a set of critical practices that he often refers to as "cultural poetics"; his works have been influential since the early 1980s when he introduced the term. Greenblatt has written and edited numerous books and articles relevant to new historicism, the study of culture, Renaissance studies and Shakespeare studies and is considered to be an expert in these fields. He is also co-founder of the literary-cultural journal Representations, which often publishes articles by new historicists. His most popular work is Will in the World, a biography of Shakespeare that was on the New York Times Best Seller List for nine weeks.

Reviews

[Jeffrey Keeten · Rating 4 out of 5]

”Why would anyone, he asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth? Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?”

I have never really thought about before how many times William Shakespeare warned us about the dangerousness of tyrants. Macbeth, Winter’s Tale, Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, Henry VI parts one through three, King Lear, and, of course the play involving the most notorious hunchback in history, Richard III all are explorations of the darkness of power that leads to evil deeds, madness, and malicious intentions. Once power is gained, by hook or by crook, then begins the game played mostly in the mind of the tyrant of paranoia, fear, and political intrigue that eventually, if things work as they should, leads to his destruction.

Stephen Greenblatt, by writing this book, is using Shakespeare to remind us of our duties not to let tyranny go unchecked. It is not as if tyrants are crafty individuals, hiding their true natures, for they see nothing wrong with their persona or their naked ambitions. In fact, with Coriolanus specifically, it is because his disdain for the public is so high that he is incapable of hiding his true intentions. This, fortunately, eventually brings about his downfall. This is what happens most of the time, but sometimes the public, bafflingly, embraces the exposed tyrant, even if to bring him to power is voting against their own best interests. ”They know that he is a pathological liar and they see perfectly well that he has done this or that ghastly thing, but they have a strange penchant for forgetting, as if it were hard work to remember just how awful he is. They are drawn irresistibly to normalize what is not normal.”

These tyrants have no loyalty to country, and if they are ousted from power, they are quick to turn on their country, even embracing the nation’s enemies to punish those who would not let them be the dictator they dreamed to be. Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III brilliantly illustrates how tyrants view the world. “He is pathologically narcissistic and supremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can do whatever he chooses. He expects absolute loyalty, but he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of humanity, no decency.

He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt.”

The tyrant is utterly obsessed with winning, and any losses he may experience are always going to be blamed on those around him. He is too childish to accept his own missteps; therefore, valuable lessons are not learned that would help him to become a better leader. He never has to feel personal regret.

We have a current leader who frequently uses the term…”he hears things.” They are not based on any concrete facts, but really are just gut reactions that also happen to dovetail or support, in lieu of facts, the narrative he wishes to share with the public. Any criticism of his actions are labelled as “fake news,” or they are all part of a witch hunt conspired by his enemies to destroy him. Leontes, from The Winter’s Tale, has a dream that embraces all of his fears. ”If the tyrant dreams that there is fraud, or betrayal, or treason, then there is fraud, or betrayal, or treason.”

I’ve always found that, when people start believing falsehoods about the intentions of the people they disagree with, some of that is rooted in what they would be willing to do to help the cause of their party. If I would do it, of course they ARE doing it. It reminds me of all the voter fraud accusations that have been cast about without evidence in recent elections towards one party when the only voter fraud that has come to light has been perpetrated by the party that has cried foul.

We are living in a age where, no matter how grotesquely improbable the charge of indecency may be, we believe it about our opponents from the other party.

*Sigh*

Greenblatt is using Shakespeare very effectively to warn us about the dangers of complacency. We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders at the latest outrageous Tweet or policy change or creation of chaos or even consider sacrificing upholding our laws because we believe a strong economy (keep in mind, leaders can have some influence on economic matters, but they do not control the economy) is more important than reining in tyranny. We should not embrace fascism because we fear liberal socialist policies. The extremes of the hard right or the hard left are too dangerous to play with. Our greatest assets have been our laws and our institutions, though flawed, that allow us to conduct ourselves with civility and with a certain amount of safe expectations.

The sound of a buzzing phone.

Hello. Is this really POTUS?

Now why would you ever think this book and review have anything to do with you?

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at: https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whenever Trump brazenly arrogates another royal prerogative to himself, I find myself thinking of him—solemnly, and in horror—as if he were Donald of Orange, America's very bad king. And when I do, my mind turns to Shakespeare. Now, what would that sage observer of power, plots, and hubris say about a would-be tyrant like this?

Harvard professor Stephen Greenblatt—author of the Shakespeare biography Will in the World, and founder of the “New Historicism”—was way ahead of me. He was thinking about stuff like this even before the election, and writing about it too. (“Shakespeare Explains the 2016 Election,” NYT Op-Ed, 10/8/16.) After the election he couldn’t stop thinking about it, and this book (Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics) is the result.

Greenblatt extends his initial explorations beyond matters Trumpian. He begins with Shakespeare’s connection to a treasonous plot (a special performance of the “regicide” play Richard II in 1601 for friends of the Earl of Essex), goes on to discuss political parties (the White Rose and the Red Rose in Henry VI), bogus populism (Jack Cade in the same play), the non-psychopathic, guilt-ridden tyrant (Macbeth), the tyrant mad or senile (A Winter’s Tale, King Lear), and how a republic may prevent the tyrant’s rise (Coriolanus).

Greenblatt never explicitly mentions Trump, and most of the topics he covers apply to him only tangentially (though his treatment of the mad, senile Lear occasionally comes close). It is in the forty pages devoted to Richard III that Greenblatt deals directly—well, as directly as a restrained scholarly treatment may deal—with the reality of Trump our own personal “Lord Protector.”

My advice, for those with even a slight taste for Shakespeare: pick up the book, read chapters 4, 5, and 6, and, if you like them, sample the rest. Greenblatt knows what he’s talking about, and he shows us the connection between Shakespeare’s plays and our politics in surprising, illuminative ways.

Here is a bit of Greenblatt from the beginning of Chapter 4 (“A Matter of Character”) in which he discusses the personality of Richard III:

He is pathologically narcissistic and extremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can do whatever he chooses. He loves to bark orders and to watch underlings scurry to carry them out. He expects absolute loyalty, but he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of shared humanity, no decency.

He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt. He divides the world into winners and losers. The winners arouse his regard insofar as he can use them for his own ends; the losers arouse only his scorn. The public good is something only losers like to talk about. What he likes to talk about is winning.

. . . He is a bully. Easily enraged, he strikes out at anyone who stands in his way. . . . He is gifted at detecting weakness and deft at mockery and insult. These skills attract followers who are drawn to the same cruel delight, even if they cannot have it to his unmatched degree. . . .

His possession of power includes the domination of women, but he despises them far more than he desires them. Sexual conquest excites him, but only for the endlessly reiterated proof that he can grab anything he likes . . .

Sooner or later, he is brought down. He dies unloved and unlamented. He leaves behind only wreckage. It would have been better had Richard III never been born.

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"What is the city but the people"
- Coriolanus: Act 3 Scene 1

"Tyrants are enemies of the future."
- Stephen Greenblatt, Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics



Stephen Greenblatt, like Harold Bloom, is a man steeped in Shakespeare. So, it is obvious that Greenblatt would be a wise choice to turn to to see if Shakespeare can give us any information (via Shakespeare) on the behavior, motives, and reason for tyrants. And he does, well. He examines such plays as Henry VI (all three), Richard II, Richard III, King Lear, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, and Coriolanus to better understand, via Shakespeare, Tyrants.

The subtitle is a bit oblique. He isn't looking at politics. Greenblatt is looking squarely at Trump and the demagogues across the pond. The parallels he finds and the examples he gives square too close to our modern political realities. He looks at questions like: "Why do large number of people knowingly accept being lied to? How does a figure like Richard III or Macbeth ascend to the throne." He also asks fundamentally important questions like: "Why would anyone...be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to truth? Why in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?" It sounds like Greenblatt had a model tyrant in mind as he wrote this book.

That said, it isn't Greenblatt's most inventive or insightful book. IT is timely, and I guess that is the reason for it. Interesting, timely, not his greatest.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Tyrants are enemies of the future.”

“Tyrant” could have been a great book. Unfortunately too often Mr. Greenblatt allowed this text to descend into something it never should have been, a thinly veiled justification of his political views thru the study of Shakespeare.
First, my issues with this book.
The first part of the chapter “Enablers” is a cheap shot at Greenblatt’s political foes. He makes a lot of unsupported (textually) leaps and bounds to connect the psychology of Richard III to Donald Trump. All while never mentioning Trump’s name, which seems even more disingenuous to me. Because he can’t rise above his ideology (some of his points are valid, and some are egregious) in the service of a great premise, Greenblatt makes that time honored mistake of telling us what Shakespeare thought about certain things. The danger of this is that you are guessing, projecting, and invariably contradicting yourself. Greenblatt does, often. One example, towards the end of the book (page 186) is when he talks about Shakespeare’s views on political parties. Earlier in the book, he acknowledges that political parties (based on ideology) would have been an alien concept to Shakespeare. It is just a lame attempt to foist his beliefs on Shakespeare in that moment to give credence to his argument on that page. He also extols the virtues of dissent and claims that Shakespeare believed highly in the value of people’s “refusal to march in lockstep to any one person’s orders.” However, one gets the impression (based on this book) that he only finds dissent that he agrees with virtuous. Which makes Greenblatt wonderfully human…if he acknowledges that hypocrisy in himself. I know I struggle with that open mindedness, as does everyone.
Now, as to why I enjoyed reading the book…
Greenblatt is a good writer and he has an excellent idea for this text, and he gives interesting analysis of Shakespeare’s depiction of tyranny, in many forms. He makes a stunningly astute (and lovely) point about a small moment in “King Lear” that I had never considered, and has changed my entire outlook on a play I have read many times. “Madness in Great Ones” is an excellent chapter on “King Lear” and “The Winter’s Tale”. Greenblatt offers some very interesting insights into those texts. I also enjoyed some of the analysis of “Richard III”, a text ripe for discussion!
I do think a knowledge of the following Shakespeare plays enhances the text for the reader: “King Lear”, “The Winter’s Tale”, “Richard III”, “Julius Caesar”, “Coriolanus”, & “Macbeth”. Greenblatt does a nice job of summarizing relevant plot points with his analysis, but knowing the plays adds dimension to the reader’s experience.
I guess I am disappointed in Greenblatt. Dude, just write a critical examination of tyranny as depicted in Shakespeare, and trust the reader to make connections. Or at least examine real tyrants, not some loud mouth oaf. There are plenty to choose from, in history and in the modern day. North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, China are tyrannies today. Heck, as I type this review Putin has been “re-elected” to serve as leader of Russia until 2036!
Any half-wit reader of Shakespeare can appreciate his modern relevance. Examine that, look into its layers, but don’t forsake real depth, intellectual honesty, and a wonderful topic for political theatrics. Not always, but often enough, “Tyrant” is alas only that.

[Heather Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book about Shakespeare. It doesn't mention contemporary politics at all, not even once. Why would it? It is a book about how Shakespeare's plays explore the concept of tyranny, and of what happens in a country when flawed, selfish, foolish people use power for their own benefit. Any connections between the contents of this book and contemporary politics are entirely in the mind of the reader. And, of course, completely intentional.

[Sherwood Smith]

One of the reasons Shakespeare is still passionately read today is how extraordinarily sharp was his insight into the complexities of human nature—and how he managed to make poetry even of the muck of evil.

The opening chapters are worth the price of the book alone as Greenblatt gives the reader a precis of Tudor history and culture, focusing on playwrights, censorship, and the social as well as political climate.

The specifics are so enlightening. I had not known, for example, that a couple of would-be rebels against Queen Elizabeth paid for a private performance of Richard II (a play, one of them seemingly remembered, depicting the downfall of a monarch) not long before they were arrested and executed. The actors were briefly arrested, but released when they pointed out that they were paid to give their play, and knew nothing of politics. They were actors, and that was an old, out-of-fashion play.

But this and other instances of danger for artists apparently, Greenblatt feels, inspired Shakespeare to set his plays firmly in the past. Mixing geography and names and cultures didn’t matter. Bohemia could border the sea. The fanciful trappings enabled him to make his commentary on current life safely oblique (or, as Emily Dickinson wrote a few centuries after, “Tell it slant”).

Greenblatt first examines the histories, then other plays centered around tyrants, the corruption of their morals and manners, and the way they prey on the common people while using them. Slogans are so easy to create an us against them mentality: “rage generates insults, and insults generate outrageous actions, and outrageous actions, in turn, heighten the intensity of the rage.”

Sound familiar?

There is no doubt that Greenblatt had current American politics in mind when he wrote this book, which focuses on the psychotic, sociopathic, narcissistic and venal tyrants of the plays, and how and why they were defeated. He contrasts these tyrants, and the circumstances in which each rose, sending me paging through my Shakespeare time after time to reread passages with renewed insight.

Furthermore, Greenblatt incisively teases out Shakespeare’s most powerful observations on the irreparable cost of tyranny even after the tyrant is finally gotten rid of.

Shakespeare was aware, centuries ago, that the common folk cannot always be counted on as a bulwark against tyranny. Greenblatt writes, “They were, [Shakespeare] thought, too easily manipulated by slogans, cowed by threats, or bribed by trivial ‘gifts’ to serve as reliable defenders of freedom.” Shakespeare knew well that it was difficult to stand up for human decency if the threat (right now) is not directly relevant to you.

It is said that hard times make heroes, but what exactly is a hero? In examining Julius Caesar, Greenblatt pulls out Brutus’s chilling ruminations on why it was necessary to kill the tyrant.

His long soliloquy undermines any attempt to draw a clean line between abstract political principles and particular individuals, with their psychological peculiarities, their unpredictability, their only partially knowable, opaque inwardness. The verbs “would” and “might” shimmer and dance their ambiguous way through the twists and turns of a mind obsessed.

Further, Greenblatt comments on how, in this play, the violent act made in desperate attempt to save the republic destroyed it: with the death of Caesar, Caesarism emerged triumphant.

I found especially interesting Greenblatt’s commentary on that hot mess, Coriolanus. He begins the section by observing that societies, like individuals, generally protect themselves from sociopaths. But sometimes they can’t.

He goes on to talk about how, yet again, though Shakespeare sets the play safely in the distant past, it appears to be addressing urgent and immediate affairs such as food shortages and bad harvests, exacerbated by rich landlords practicing enclosure of common lands. This play begins with a food riot, and as it progresses, it underscores the scorn that the wealthy hold for the common people as they connive and fight for power and more wealth.

When they have to address the common folk, “Just lie.”

Master of the oblique angle, Greenblatt states, Shakespeare was—in an age in which you could be drawn and quartered for writing political pamphlets, or even speaking out in the wrong place at the wrong time—able to get someone on stage and tell the two thousand listeners, some of whom were government agents, that “a dog’s obeyed in office.”

Shakespeare was against violence, especially state-organized violence, and while acknowledging that tyrants will rise, his plays breathe the conviction that the best chance for the recovery of collective decency lies in the political action of ordinary citizens.

Copy provided by NetGalley

[Michael Finocchiaro · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a relatively short but good book talking about tyrants in the various plays of Shakespeare. Mr. Greenblatt is (justifiably) making many allusions to the current dystopian mess with the orange, tiny-fisted tyrant wannabe in the states, but never calls him out by name, only by inference. The textual analysis is relatively superficial, this is more about characteristics of tyrants and their occurrences in the Bard's plays than a literary criticism. Nonetheless, I found it was an interesting and readable treatise that helped me better appreciate the historical plays: the Henriad and the War of the Roses (Richard II, Henry IV 1-2, Henry V, Henry VI 1-2-3, Richard III).

Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)

Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)

Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)

Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro

Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare

[Gabrielle (Reading Rampage) · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Why would anyone, he (Shakespeare) asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth? Why, in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?”

We’re not talking about Macbeth here, are we, Stephen?

As a Shakespeare nerd (and daughter of a Shakespeare nerd), there was no way I could resist this. The Bard’s tyrannical characters are fascinating creations in their own rights, but looking at them through the political lens Greenblatt proposed had intriguing and timely implications. Don’t you love it when something someone wrote over 400 years ago is still relevant? It makes me cringe, but it’s also just very interesting to observe to what degree history keeps on repeating itself.

Greenblatt is an expert on Shakespeare’s plays, and his insight into the work is wonderful and layered. Putting characters such as Richard III, Macbeth and Coriolanus on the spot, to look at the role of tyrants in societies, and how such people would have been thought about in a day and age where you could get your hand cut off for questioning the Queen’s legitimacy is both very interesting from a historical perspective, but also quite thought-provoking because there are some screaming parallels to be drawn with such characters and modern politicians.

Now he never names any name, but it is fairly obvious who he is thinking of: I mean, someone who is surrounded by enablers who will either try to take advantage or stay safe by nodding along, divisive party politics, a false front of populism, the personality disorders that make a bad situation worse…

I enjoyed this little book, and found it to be a very informative analysis of some legendary characters. I’m going to go re-watch “The Hollow Crown” now (especially the War of Roses plays), and think about it all in a different perspective.

[Barbara K · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I first selected this book the word “Tyrant” caught my attention, and I assumed it would be some form of analysis of Shakespeare’s more loathsome heads of state. Later I looked closer and noticed the “on Politics” at the end. What to make of this? Is Greenblatt suggesting that all politics is equivalent to tyranny? Not really, though the interaction of the two is frequent.

Greenblatt’s primary goal is to draw parallels between Shakespeare’s tyrants and those of the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, the major object of his attention, though never actually named, is clearly Donald Trump.

This is most obvious in the chapter on Richard III. Consider this passage:

“He is pathologically narcissistic and extremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can do whatever he chooses. He loves to bark orders and to watch underlings scurry to carry them out. He expects absolute loyalty, but he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of shared humanity, no decency.

He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt. He divides the world into winners and losers. The winners arouse his regard insofar as he can use them for his own ends; the losers arouse only his scorn. The public good is something only losers like to talk about. What he likes to talk about is winning.”

A description that could apply equally to Richard or Donald, right? Not exactly subtle.

Other chapters are less heavy-handed, but still carry the message of the universal consequences of the lust for power. The exploration of how the Duke of York manipulates Jack Cade’s rebellion to his advantage in Henry VI is strikingly similar to contemporary populist movements led by whose who have no respect for the common man. “Party warfare cynically makes use of class warfare. The goal is to create chaos, which will set the stage for the tyrant’s seizure of power.”

Lear, of course, is a textbook case of courtiers (read: politicians’ aides and advisers) facilitating reckless decision-making. Coriolanus is a man who wants the power, but lacks the political ability to dissemble in order to achieve it and becomes treacherous when thwarted. And so on.

Greenblatt is at his strongest when using direct quotes from the plays to illustrate his points. It is when he extrapolates and uses 21st century language to describe his conclusions that he raises the question of whether he himself is a manipulator. (My emphasis below.)

”Then there are those who cannot keep in focus that Richard is as bad as he seems to be. They know that he is a pathological liar and they see perfectly well that he has done this or that ghastly thing, but they have a strange penchant for forgetting, as if it were hard work to remember just how awful he is. They are drawn irresistibly to normalize what is not normal.”

I suppose this is nitpicking. Overall the book represents extensive research and it’s very readable. I actually listened, and the always reliable Edoardo Ballerini did a magnificent job of narrating.

[Joy D · Rating 4 out of 5]

“[Shakespeare] seems to have grasped that he thought more clearly about the issues that preoccupied his world when he confronted them not directly but from an oblique angle. His plays suggest that he could best acknowledge the truth- to possess it fully and not perish of it- through the artifice of fiction or through historical distance.”

The author examines characters from Shakespeare’s Richard III, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Henry the VI, King Lear, Macbeth, and The Winter’s Tale. He is interested in how societies fall under the spell of a tyrant, and the manner in which Shakespeare’s writings influenced audiences of his time. At the same time, Greenblatt sheds light on the ways we can learn from the past, as reflected in works of art, to better understand today’s world.

This book works well for those who want to gain a deeper understanding of Shakespeare’s writings. Shakespeare had an amazing grasp of human motivations, particularly evident is his depiction of tyrants. His observations are still valid today. It inspired me to read more of Shakespeare’s tragedies.

The audio book is nicely read by Edoardo Ballerini. I am torn about the inclusion of the reading of the footnotes. I usually prefer to add them, but in this case, it is a little distracting to have frequent mentions in the format: Play, Act #, Scene #, Line #.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Greenblatt has written a highly readable, important book on tyranny. He examines Shakespeare's beliefs on the subject through the characters in many of his plays including Richard III, Macbeth, Caesar, Coriolanus, and King Lear. Unable to speak the truth about the tyranny that existed in his own time (Elizabethan England) because his life would have been cut short, he instead focuses on the past.

As one of the foremost Shakespearean experts, Greenblatt's work examines his characters tyranny which sometimes result from insanity. With the Shakespearean references deleted, one might easily be tempted that he was writing about Trump. It is as if Shakespeare explained Trump to us from the distant past of 500 years. I hardily recommend this book to those who know the playright's work and to those who do not.

[Ken · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Shakespeare's Richard III brilliantly develops the personality features of the aspiring tyrant already sketched in the Henry VI trilogy: the limitless self-regard, the law-breaking, the pleasure in inflicting pain, the compulsive desire to dominate. He is pathologically narcissistic and supremely arrogant. He has a grotesque sense of entitlement, never doubting that he can do whatever he chooses. He loves to bark orders and to watch underlings scurry to carry them out. He expects absolute loyalty, but he is incapable of gratitude. The feelings of others mean nothing to him. He has no natural grace, no sense of shared humanity, no decency.

"He is not merely indifferent to the law; he hates it and takes pleasure in breaking it. He hates it because it gets in his way and because it stands for a notion of the public good that he holds in contempt. He divides the world into winners and losers. The winners arouse his regard insofar as he can use them for his own ends; the losers arouse only is scorn. The public good is something only losers like to talk about. What he likes to talk about is winning.

"He has always had wealth; he was born into it and makes ample use of it. But though he enjoys having what money can get him, it is not what most excites him. What excites him is the joy of domination. He is a bully. Easily enraged, he strikes out at anyone who stands in his way. He enjoys seeing others cringe, tremble, or wince in pain. He is gifted at detecting weakness and deft at mockery and insult. These skills attract followers who are drawn to the same cruel delight, even if they cannot have it to his unmatched degree. Though they know that he is dangerous, the followers help him advance to his goal, which is the possession of supreme power." (pp. 53-54)

You get the idea. At times you wonder if you are reading about Richard III or Donald I. And though Greenblatt never mentions He That Shall Not Be Named once in the text itself, it's clear. If it isn't, Greenblatt will spell it out in the final installment, "Coda."

Is this balm for the legions of literate anti-Trumpists, one of many books that have come out to appease this market? Well, yes. And do all the angles of tyranny, replete with quotes, from Macbeth and Richard III and King Lear and Julius Caesar and Coriolanus begin to blur the eyes at times as well as fascinate at times. Let's give a "yes" to that, too.

So it's a good book but not a great one. And though Shakespeare proves that people love to be lied to when it's the lies they want to hear, he also details the bad boys' ultimate demise and how fickle the masses can be.

Meaning: What cheers me most is Greenblatt's conclusion regarding Shakespeare's conclusion. Shakespeare put faith in the unpredictability of life, how it can as quickly undo a tyrant as make him.

Let's put our faith in the Bard, then, who surely would have seen Donald Trump as just another iteration of corruption and vanity, the type person that history is rife with. If Donald be a spot on our collective dignity, then, repeat after me: "Out, damned spot!"

[Jaclyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading IS political.

"Tyranny attempts to poison not just the present but generations to come."

Wow, I loved this! Stephen Greenblatt is a scholar on all things Shakespeare, and I'm glad to have read something he's written finally. Tyrant is a tour through the ages and Shakespeare’s tragedies, complete with glaring parallels to today.

This book won't appeal to all readers. BUT, if you love Shakespeare, are a lit nerd (said affectionately), or feel compelled to learn about Tyranny, you may find nuggets of wisdom in these pages. OR, at the very least, you will find interesting facts to spout at parties. You be the judge of that.

Written in the wake of the 2016 election, Greenblatt never directly names the political parties he is analyzing with his discussion of Shakespeares tyrants. Neither will I. If one is able to see with ease who he is comparing the likes of Lear, Richard II, Coriolanus and others, than perhaps there is more to it than (as one reviewer put it) a thinly veiled justification of Greenblatt's political views. Perhaps, if a ruler has more in common with a tyrant than a peacemaker, we should be wary. If that offends you, that may be a problem you need to examine within yourself.

This book is smart in that Greenblatt is in effect doing the same thing as Shakespeare: discussing Tyranny at a remove from our current age, yet still hitting on relevant discussions for current events. Greenblatt opens the book by talking about the questions Shakespeare grappled with.

During Shakespeares time, speech was not free, and one had to be careful with their words, especially on the Elizabethan stage. Many fellow playwrights had been found guilty of crimes for being too free and loose with their words. I really enjoyed the discussion of how Shakespeare approached dangerous topics through oblique angles. He found he could best acknowledge the truth through the addition of fiction or with historical distance.

Shakespeare was preoccupied with how to discuss tyranny, without upsetting the crown. Queen Elizabeth was refusing to name a successor, and as she grew older, the uncertainty of the future was on everyone's mind. There were many rumors of assassination attempts, as well as actual attempts.
This may be my favorite part of the book, as the history here is so rich and exciting. Maybe it's because I'm American, but I didn't learn about any of this in school. I'm not going to rehash it all here. I'll suggest, however, that you look into John/Jack Cade, Anthony Babington, and Shakespeare's near miss with becoming hanged, drawn, and quartered, himself.

Tyranny was a legitimate fear. The chance to even have a taste of power could bring out the worst in men.

He wondered: "How is it possible for a whole country to fall into the hands of a tyrant?""Why do large numbers of people knowingly accept being lied to?"

Greenblatt is interested in how Shakespeare sought to answer these questions. Greenblatt's own question becomes: Can Shakespeare's plays prove what psychological mechanisms cause a whole nation to abandon its' morals and self interest?

He wonders: "Why would anyone, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viscously conniving or indifferent to the truth? Why is some circumstances does evidence of mendacity, crudeness, or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?"

Greenblatt goes through each of Shakespeare's tyrants, discussing what could have caused them to become tyrants, as well as analyzing their rise and fall. He mostly focuses on the Henriad (the Henry VI plays), Richard II, Richard III, A Winters Tale, King Lear, Macbeth and Coriolanus. He briefly touches on others, such as Hamlet and Julius Caesar.

With Henry VI, Shakespeare is showing us the invention of political parties and the change from aristocratic rivals to political enemies. This play is relevant to the party rage we see today. This me vs you attitude. The right vs the left. This formation of lines in the sand leads to a a group loathing, and eventually, rage. Shakespeare and Greenblatt are pointing out that this loathing eventually leads to social breakdown. Think of today, the disgusting comments by faceless people on the internet; the things they say that you (hope) they wouldn't say in real life, to your face. They argue that "feverish party struggles are a perverse distraction that keeps us from the issues that actually matter." Greenblatt also points out that "Chaos and manufactured chaos set the stage for the tyrants seizure of power."

We continue on throughout the rest of the book like this, discussing plays and trying to learn from the mistakes of the past. Learning from the past and from literature is something we should all take time to do.

In discussing Jack/John Case, Greenblatt discusses fraudulent populism. Party warfare often makes use of class warfare. He promises that he'd get rid of the need for money. He promised people would eat for free. He made up the necessary aristocratic lineage. Instead of offering actionable ways to solve problems, he spurs his campaign on with hatred and the promise of a destruction of systems. One of the big issues at the time was literacy. Literacy was becoming necessary to increase financial standing. Instead of encouraging his followers to pursue education, he berates the educated, going so far as to encourage his followers to hang a clerk that could write. "He promises to make England great again." "He attacks education." "He pledges to dredge the swamp of the higher elite political class."

He pulled on lower class resentment of which there was a lot. An illiterate person was more likely to be hanged than others. There was something called a benefit of clergy, that allowed those who were literate to be remanded to jurisdictions with no death penalty. Thus The upper class loathes the upper and the upper loathes the lower for being beneath them.

Greenblatt argues a breakdown of basic values such as a respect for order, civility, and common decency leads to a tyrants rise.

After the Henriad, we move on to Richard III. Here we discuss the characteristics of a tyrant: "limitless self regard, narcissistic, supremely arrogant, grotesque entitlement, loves to bark orders and watch others scurry off. Expects absolute loyalty but will not give the same. Unfeeling, no decency. Hates the law and takes pleasure in breaking it. It gets in his way. Divides the world into winners and losers. He likes to talk about winning not the public good. Wealthy and bully. Deft at mockery and insult. Cruel delight. Sexual conquests excites him but he hates women."

Later we move on to read about how tyrants are enabled to power, and how they rise, and how they fall.

On enablers: “Then there are those who cannot keep in focus that Richard is as bad as he seems to be. They know that he is a pathological liar and they see perfectly well that he has done this or that ghastly thing, but they have a strange penchant for forgetting, as if it were hard work to remember just how awful he is. They are drawn irresistibly to normalize what is not normal.”

Greenblatt discusses legitimate rulers(King Lear, Leontes) who, through succumbing to madness, turn into tyrants.

“Even in systems that have multiple moderating institutions, the chief executive almost always has considerable power. But what happens when that executive is not mentally fit to hold office? What if he begins to make decisions that threaten the well-being and security of the realm?”

Despite not having read the Henriad, Richard III, or Coriolanus, I was able to enjoy this experience. I definitely can see myself returning to this book while studying those plays in the future. I think that regardless of political affiliation, Tyrant has information within it that readers can reflect upon and SHOULD reflect upon.

"It is a heretic who makes a fire, not she who burns in it." - A Winters Tale

*also, i'm not here to argue. I'm just here to discuss books. If you want to have a nice discussion i'm here, but if you want to lead with anger, i'm not.*

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Orangeth maneth badeth."

- William Shakespeare, apparently

[Michael Austin · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the first chapter of Tyrant, Stephen Greenblatt tells us that Shakespeare lived in a politically perilous time, that it would have been his death to talk about or criticize the politicians of his day, but that he and other playwrights developed a way to talk about current events in code. They could talk about Elizabeth, or Essex, or Mary--but they had to do it by talking about Ancient Kings, or mythical monarchs, or English Kings dead for at least a hundred years. By working his political commentary into other political contexts, Shakespeare could talk about contemporary politics without talking about contemporary politics.

With this trope establish, Greenblatt goes on to write a book about Donald Trump without every saying the name “Donald Trump.” But he makes it clear that every one of the Shakespearean villains that he introduces to us is actually just Donald Trump in disguise. Jack Cade, the demagogue in Henry VI, Part II, gives a speech that Greenblatt summarizes as “Make England great again” (41). Richard III is a bully and a sexual predator who believes that he can “grab from any woman anything he wants” (91).

A little of this goes a long way, and Greenblatt gives us well more than a little bit. Consider the following paragraph from a chapter describing Richard III’s enablers:

.They persuade themselves that there will always be enough adults in the room, as it were, to ensure that promises will be kept, alliances honored, and core institutions respected. Richard is so obviously and grotesquely unqualified for the supreme position of power that they dismiss him from their minds. (67)

.
This could have come from any recent new story discussing the Trump White House staff. It is clearly meant to describe what is happening in the United States in 2018 rather than what happened in either Richard III’s or Shakespeare’s day. It is good to know that history repeats itself, but a little more subtlety might have made the whole exercise more useful to a broader audience.

But there is a point to be made, and Greenblatt is intent on making it. Shakespearean kings who are not really tyrants, but who are foolish and impulsive, lend their stories to the critique of Donald Trump: Lear’s capricious division of his kingdom, Leontes’ (The Winter’s Tale) foolish accusations against his wife. These are instances where the king becomes obsessed with something and proceeds without evidence to make ridiculous claims--certainly part of Donald Trump’s executive style, but not quite the same as tyranny. But Greenblatt must make it fit, so we get:

.A tyrant does not need to traffic in facts or supply evidence. He expects his accusation to be enough. If he says that someone has been betraying him, or laughing at him, or spying on him, it must be the case. Anyone who contradicts him is either a liar or an idiot. The last thing the tyrant wants, even when he appears to solicit it, is an independent opinion. What he actually wants is loyalty, and by loyalty he does not mean integrity, honor, or responsibility. He means an immediate, unreserved confirmation of his own views and a willingness to carry out his orders without hesitation. When an autocratic, paranoid, narcissistic ruler sits down with a civil servant and asks for his loyalty, the state is in danger. (123-124)

.
Only McBeth really escapes the trap of being shoehorned into a contemporary context. I thought that this was the best chapter because it abandons both the caricature and the allegory and presents us with a character who is a tyrant, knows he is a tyrant, and struggles with his own moral judgments as they oppose his ambitions. Nothing terribly original here, but a powerful set of observations nonetheless.

Greenblatt knows Shakespeare and is capable of stunningly original and insightful criticism. But this is not that book. This is one of those hurried-to-market creations designed to cash in on a popular anti-Trumpian sentiment. Which does not mean that he isn’t right, or that his insights aren’t useful. Many of them are. But a single ton of bricks will suffice to get the point across. No need for quite this many bricks in the wall.

[Carol Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics, noted Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt draws comparisons between Shakespeare's tyrants and contemporary politics. Greenblatt never says outright the name of the modern leader who has the personality of a tyrant, but it is obvious whom he means.

Shakespeare knew about the domination of Protestants by Catholics and Catholics by Protestants. He could see the Puritans' potential for tyranny. As Greenblatt points out, Shakespeare lived in a time when people were afraid of a foreign conspiracy (the Roman Catholic Church) that said killing England's monarch would be a virtuous action. The parallels Greenblatt makes with our fears today are apt.

Greenblatt's Shakespeare perceives populism as a tool of tyrants. He looks at Bolingbroke's use of the people in seizing the throne from Richard II. Richard III's use and discarding of those who helped him gain power, not to mention his blatant delight in lying and his scorn for women, are well depicted.

Greenblatt seems to sympathize with Brutus, whom I've never believed was the "noblest Roman of them all," but points out that the conspirators who killed Caesar to save the Roman Republic actually caused the Republic's downfall.

Greenblatt's analysis of Jack Cade's rebellion in Henry VI, Part 3, is an excellent depiction of populism espoused by a character who wanted to be king himself, and doubtless a tyrant. Cade asserted that educated people were the enemy of the common people, and that men should be killed because they could write their names or could speak French. That sort of incitement against intellectuals is all too common today.

Shakespeare was a property owner and had no desire for social turmoil. But he also had respect for ordinary people.

Greenblatt sees the somewhat venal tribunes in Coriolanus as true heroes: ordinary politicians who saved the people from a man who despised them and wanted to starve them.

Shakespeare's plays suggest that tyrants will always be defeated -- eventually. Greenblatt has found an elegant way to speak out against today's dangers.

[Linda Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Breathtakingly current, terrifyingly close to what we are experiencing in the U.S., and maybe the entire world. Greenblatt combines all his interests in this book. For those not familiar with his CV, here 'tis. https://english.fas.harvard.edu/facul...

The politics in Shakespeare's plays have always been the trickiest for me. I'm not good at treachery, especially at court, but Will sure was. "How is it possible for a whole country to fall into the hands of a tyrant?" Greenblatt educates us in the first chapter that this was Shakespeare's fixation from early days in 1590 to his death. Coriolanus was the last play he wrote. The duration of his writing coincided - except for a few years between 1603-1616 - with the reign of Elizabeth I. Whether Shakespeare thought she was a tyrant, we don't know, which is a darn good thing because playwrights who wandered anywhere near disparaging the rule of the Virgin Queen lost various body parts first, and then their lives.

Shakespeare mused over tyranny, and retained his hands and his head, by going way back in history and being the master of "strategic indirection." Similarities between events in the late 16th / early 17th century were displaced. Henry V. King Lear. Macbeth. The War of the Roses trilogy of Henry VI, Richard III. And Julius Caesar.

How does the public embrace a dictator, a psychopath? We don't see much of the plebian reaction to its lord and master's voice, but we are privy to the intrigues of those around The King. Machinations behind curtains, in hallways, on battlefields at a distance. We don't see the women plotting much, except for mothers and complicit wives. Where is the voice of reason and restraint? King Lear's nameless servant. Eventually Volumnia in Coriolanus does a 180.

Shakespeare didn't believe that the public could be "counted upon as a bulwark against tyranny." Too easily swayed by slogans and flags and pomp and boast.

"His tyrannicides are drawn, for the most part, from the same elite whose members generate the unjust rulers they oppose and eventually kill." Well, well.

Shakespeare was not a sedition stirrer, nor a malcontent. "His words speak a deep aversion to violence" yet, as well "an aversion to the government-sanctioned platitudes in texts like the 'Homilies on Obedience' - perhaps believing that this celebration of those in authority, the "perpetual invocation of God's partisan support for whoever was on top" may have the opposite effect overall.

This is a difficult book to read at this time, but there is a glimmer of hope to be had. Hope triumphs over despair, even if it's only in the comedies of The Bard. I have a renewed interest in seeing Shakespeare's plays performed again. Lucky me to have seen Maggie Smith play Lady Macbeth. I've never seen Coriolanus, but just found there was a movie made with Ralph Fiennes as Coriolanus, and Gerald Butler. And Vanessa Redgrave as Volumnia, Coriolanus' monster-making momma - a part I'm sure she gobbles on the screen. Jessica Chastain as Virgilia, Coriolanus' wife. It's set modern, but Shakespeare's words. I hope.

[Bettie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Description : As an aging, tenacious Elizabeth I clung to power, a talented playwright probed the social causes, the psychological roots, and the twisted consequences of tyranny. In exploring the psyche (and psychoses) of the likes of Richard III, Macbeth, Lear, Coriolanus, and the societies they rule over, Stephen Greenblatt illuminates the ways in which William Shakespeare delved into the lust for absolute power and the catastrophic consequences of its execution.

Cherished institutions seem fragile, political classes are in disarray, economic misery fuels populist anger, people knowingly accept being lied to, partisan rancor dominates, spectacular indecency rules—these aspects of a society in crisis fascinated Shakespeare and shaped some of his most memorable plays. With uncanny insight, he shone a spotlight on the infantile psychology and unquenchable narcissistic appetites of demagogues—and the cynicism and opportunism of the various enablers and hangers-on who surround them—and imagined how they might be stopped. As Greenblatt shows, Shakespeare’s work, in this as in so many other ways, remains vitally relevant today.

Oooo - that section on Richard III is indi1 described to a tee (~ 1hr 25mins ->)

[Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book discusses Shakespeare's different portrayals of the Tyrant. It is broken down into chapters about conditions necessary for the Tyrant's rise to power, specific aspects of the Tyrant's personality, and the eventual fall of the Tyrant. Greenblatt relates 6 plays: Richard III, Macbeth, King Lear, A Winter's tale, Julius Caesar and Coriolanus, drawing parallels to one Tyrant currently in power. Greenblatt makes no attempt to hide his inspiration in writing this book, which was refreshing.

Tyrant was well done, it was though provoking and made me want to re-read plays like Richard the III and Macbeth which were my 2 favorites as a child, and inspires me to read Coriolanus and Winter's Tale which I have never read or seen performed. It also tied in nicely with my reading this year on the subjects of Tyranny and Fascism, so it was an all-around good read.

Thank you to the publisher for the ARC.

[Rainer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Untersucht Shakespeares tyrannische Charaktere – u.a. Macbeth und Richard III – und lässt dabei subtile Parallelen zur heutigen politischen Realität zu. In 2016 kurz vor Trumps erstem Wahlsieg verfasst. Dank der Inhaltsangaben auch geeignet für Leser, die nicht alle Stuecke schon kennen.

[C.L. Clark]

Good book if you are both a) in to Shakespeare/fiction and b) watching the tide of fascism rise ever higher. But also it’s just reading someone’s literary analysis, so.

[Jason Furman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I saw this in the bookstore and thought it was essentially going to be "how Shakespeare shows us how terrible Donald Trump is" and since I already knew the terrible part I thought I didn't really need Shakespeare's help on the topic so I passed on reading the book. Then I was given it as a present and I generally try to read books given to me as presents and was happy to learn that the words "Trump" and 2016 were no where to be found in the book itself--although in the acknowledgments Stephen Greenblatt says it was (at least part) of what motivated him to write the book. Instead the book is a look at the many tyrants portrayed by Shakespeare (including Richard III, Coriolanus, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, the King in Winter's Tale, and also King Lear--who I would not have classified in the group before reading this book) and the ways that Shakespeare used them to shine a light on questions ranging from the politics of Elizabethan England, how enablers help a tyrant, how people turn bad over time, or how their badness undoes them, etc. All of this in a series of chapters the cover different aspects, use different plays, and are generous in the quotations. All an enjoyable and insightful read, appropriately on the short and slightly breezy side.

[Amy Layton · Rating 4 out of 5]

YES.  This was a book where I underlined practically everything.  Was Greenblatt speaking about Shakespeare or today's current climate?  And how is it possible that Shakespeare is so politically relatable today?  Perhaps, like McGinn might think, there's a human nature within politicians.  But the more that Greenblatt spoke to the past political climate in Elizabethan England, the more it rang true and important.

Going over the teopics of multiple historical and tragedy plays such as the Henriad, Richard III, and Macbeth, Greenblatt makes the strong argument in the name of equivocation and how such strategies were necessary in a time when speaking against the crown could end with death.  

And how did Shakespeare manage when the queen herself requested a play, and he had to perform said play in front of her?  Certainly, he was playing with fire.  And he had to.  

So, Greenblatt asks us, what are we to do in the face of a tyrant?  We must survive, certainly, and use the tools we have in order to survive, but we must also leave an impression if we are able--of our disdain, dissent, disapproval.  We cannot let kings and presidents and prime ministers go unchecked.  Not when peoople are at risk  

Overall, this was a compelling read.  Normally, when I read Shakespeare or think about the state of things today, it's sometimes hard for me to comprehend politics--I'll be honest.  So much goes on all the time that it's difficult to catch up and understand what's happening.  And by the time that understanding is there, politics has moved on to change something else.  Such is the state of the state.  I will say that this madde me understand the political aspect of Shakespeare much better, and I'm excited to read and reread the histories with my new understanding.  Certainly a must-read if you're a Shakespeare scholar!

Review cross-listed here!

[Ярослава · Rating 4 out of 5]

Кожній епосі - свого Шекспіра. Шекспір у Грінблатта завжди політичний, а в цій книжці, написаній після ганебної передвиборчої кампанії Трампа і його приходу до влади, і поготів. Власне, ця коротенька книжечка - щось на кшталт спроби "продати" Шекспіра юним читачам, яким та доба видається дуже припалою пилом і далекою від їхнього живого досвіду.

Гріблатт пише про те, шо одна з центральних тем у Шекспіра - це те, як тиран може прийти до влади, і як суспільство схиляється до співучасті чи бодай бездіяльності при цьому. На матеріалі історичних драм + "Короля Ліра" + "Коріолана" розглядає різні сценарії (зловтішна насолода тим, що хтось gets away with saying the nasty things you'd never dare to voice; political infighting, etc.), проводячи дуже жирні паралелі з часом нинішнім. Подобається, як Грінблатт оживлює ту епоху в уяві нинішнього читача (наприклад, пише, як тоді боялися неприкаяної молоді, що проходила релігійну радикалізацію, вивчалася в таборах для бойовиків за кордоном, а потім поверталася вчиняти теракти - та це ж точнісінько як страх перед ісламським тероризмом, думає читач! насправді йдеться про католиків у єлизаветинській Англії). Написано, як завжди, блискуче. Ідея трошки gimmicky ("у Шекспіра точнісінько, як у нас" нічого не говорить ані про нас, ані про Шекспіра), але як спосіб заманити читачів до давніх текстів, звісно, круто.

[Owain · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best bits of this book are the opening chapter (on how Shakespeare was forced to write about Elizabethan politics obliquely by setting his plays in foreign countries and the distant past) and the coda (which returns to this topic). The inner chapters are a series of thematic summaries of a range of plays shaped deliberately so as to make us aware of their 21st century resonances. For example, there is a long description of the character of Richard III using only the pronoun ‘he’ so that you almost think he is writing about Donald Trump. This is quite entertaining and even thought-provoking, but Greenblatt’s reading of the plays in the context of their own times is so much more compelling and insightful that you wish he had stuck to this method for the whole book.

[Alisi ☆ wants to read too many books ☆ · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short read. Woohoo! After the past couple books I've read, that was refreshing.

The specific tyrants the book goes over in-depth are Richard 3, Macbeth, King Lear, and A Winter's Tale. He goes into detail (but not as much) with Julius Caesar, Anthony and Cleopatra, and Coriolanus.

This is obviously a political piece meant to reflect the politics of modern day USA. You should know that going in. If you're a fan of Trump, you probably won't like this. I have no love for the guy so it didn't bother me.

[Katie Dimtses · Rating 5 out of 5]

An engaging look at Shakespeare's construction of tyrants in the Early Modern era, as well a topical and unfortunately necessary discussion that applies to how tyrants are born, raised, and enabled in our current socio-political climate.

Greenblatt thoroughly breaks down the historical context of the political situation of England at the turn of the seventeenth century, and explores the ways in which Shakespeare, while never directly involved in political commentary unlike many of his contemporaries, managed to explore nearly all the corners of the political institution in which he lived. Greenblatt suggests that Shakespeare's depiction of the political game forces us to ask how "a leader unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth" (2) could be elevated to the highest political station in the land, even at times with ardent support. Why, he also asks, do some leaders that have seemed fit in the past descend into the role of the tyrant? And how, of course, is an individual or a country to resist? To answer these questions, Greenblatt takes as his case studies Shakespeare's most famous tyrants: Richard III, Macbeth, King Lear, Julius Caesar, Leontes, and Coriolanus. Most importantly, however, Greenblatt includes thorough close readings of the plays and their contextual settings, while illuminating the seemingly minor characters or events that actually play key roles in defending, enabling, and, ultimately, defeating such rulers/systems.

In his final chapter, Greenblatt emphasizes the ways in which Shakespeare's plays offer a commentary on politics that "strikingly embrac[es] unpredicatbility" (188). Shakespeare's plays ultimately end with the tyrant overthrown, but the return to order--whatever that means--is never without violence, sacrifice, and suffering. Greenblatt reminds us, however, with excellent textual examples, that Shakespeare's plays do offer us some very real forms of resistance--often in surprising and subtle instances: "The best chance for the recovery of collective decency lay, [Shakespeare] thought, in the political action of ordinary citizens. He never lost sight of the people who steadfastly remained silent when they were exhorted to shout their support for the tyrant, or the servant who tried to stop his vicious master from torturing a prisoner, or the hungry citizen who demanded economic justice" (189).

There are some who might criticize Greenblatt's take here as a not-so-subtle stab at the current political chaos engulfing the US, but he is always grounded in the text and the literary and historical context of Shakespeare's plays. If there are any similarities between Shakespeare's tyrannical rulers and a certain orange cretin, one must ask why are they so visible? Indeed, to call attention to it is only to admit to tyranny. And, of course, to acknowledge that Shakespeare's plays exist both inside and outside of time, and are infinitely translatable to nearly any time or setting.

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

While working through the entire collected plays of William Shakespeare I'm also devouring anything and everything written about the man and his work, and so I picked up this book because I was passing a coworker at the library who was just about to finish entering it into the system.

Stephen Greenblatt's book is a fascinating observation of how power operates in the writings of William Shakespeare, and how the actions of the powerful in said plays implicate both the reader, the audience, and the writer himself. Rather than just analyze the behavior of tyrants like MacBeth, Richard III, or Julius Caesar, Greenblatt attempts to observe how their power is presented in the play and how Shakespeare is able to make powerful political statements through these characters. Tyrant is a book that attempts to understand what happens when terrible or inept people acquire power, and how Shakespeare demonstrate the effect such leadership has upon common people. It's a book about power and it's effect, and the reader who appreciates Shakespeare's platys will certainly find inspiration from this book.

[lainey · Rating 2 out of 5]

there is almost no real analysis in this book. most of it is spent summarizing the relevant plays (henry vi, richard iii, macbeth, king lear, a winter’s tale, and coriolanus) which, if you’re already familiar with the plots and characters, is utterly pointless.

the commentary is very obvious, but might’ve been more hard hitting right at the time this was released. some connections were made so abundantly clear that the refusal to actually say the word trump started to feel annoying (richard iii). other connections were paper thin to the point where their inclusion in the book was confusing (macbeth, lear). it seemed like greenblatt looked up “shakespearean tyrants” and felt like he had to include all of the results even when they don’t serve his argument in a meaningful way.

this might be more interesting to someone less familiar with the plays he discusses, but was very dull and surface-level to me

[Ed Erwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quick and easy to read survey of the many ways Shakespeare depicted tyrants in his plays. He could not possibly have written about Elizabeth or James and lived long, but he could tell psychologically complex tales of tyrants in other lands or other times. From Coriolanus to Richard III, all tyrants are sort-of the same, so you can easily see parallels to current leaders (in multiple countries). But the details, as well as the bravery, or absence of it, in those around them, leads to very different outcomes.

There are many interesting historical details here, told in simple, short and easy to understand form.