What do you think?
Rate this book
How the Classics Made Shakespeare
From one of our most eminent and accessible literary critics, a groundbreaking account of how the Greek and Roman classics forged Shakespeare’s imagination
Ben Jonson famously accused Shakespeare of having “small Latin and less Greek.” But he was exaggerating. Shakespeare was steeped in the classics. Shaped by his grammar school education in Roman literature, history, and rhetoric, he moved to London, a city that modeled itself on ancient Rome. He worked in a theatrical profession that had inherited the conventions and forms of classical drama, and he read deeply in Ovid, Virgil, and Seneca. In a book of extraordinary range, acclaimed literary critic and biographer Jonathan Bate, one of the world’s leading authorities on Shakespeare, offers groundbreaking insights into how, perhaps more than any other influence, the classics made Shakespeare the writer he became.
Revealing in new depth the influence of Cicero and Horace on Shakespeare and finding new links between him and classical traditions, ranging from myths and magic to monuments and politics, Bate offers striking new readings of a wide array of the plays and poems. At the heart of the book is an argument that Shakespeare’s supreme valuation of the force of imagination was honed by the classical tradition and designed as a defense of poetry and theater in a hostile world of emergent Puritanism.
Rounded off with a fascinating account of how Shakespeare became our modern classic and has ended up playing much the same role for us as the Greek and Roman classics did for him, How the Classics Made Shakespeare combines stylistic brilliance, accessibility, and scholarship, demonstrating why Jonathan Bate is one of our most eminent and readable literary critics.
379 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 16, 2019
41 people are currently reading
411 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Bate
118 books129 followersJonathan Bate CBE FBA FRSL is an English academic, biographer, critic, broadcaster, novelist and scholar of Shakespeare, Romanticism and Ecocriticism. He is also Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford and Provost of Worcester College, Oxford. A Man Booker Prize judge in 2014.
He studied at the University of Cambridge and Harvard University. He has been King Alfred Professor of English Literature at Liverpool University, Professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature at the University of Warwick. He is married to author and biographer Paula Byrne. He has also written one novel, The Cure for Love.
He studied at the University of Cambridge and Harvard University. He has been King Alfred Professor of English Literature at Liverpool University, Professor of Shakespeare and Renaissance Literature at the University of Warwick. He is married to author and biographer Paula Byrne. He has also written one novel, The Cure for Love.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
April 23, 2019
'How the Classics Made Shakespeare' is an eclectic analysis—Jonathan Bate describes it "an extended argument"—on the classical bedrock Shakespeare built his writing upon. Bate traces these influences from the ancients Shakespeare studied in his youth to the language his contemporaries used to eulogize him in his death. The result is an exhaustive study that tracks the shared DNA in the bard's work with Ovid, Cicero, Horace, Virgil, Plutarch, Seneca, Greek and Roman mythology, the supernatural, and even the romanticized idea of fame that would ultimately cement Shakespeare legacy.
Bate's writing is a captivating, surprisingly accessible study that covers more than two thousand years of history without overwhelming its reader. It's a refreshing look at the bard's formative years that does not dwell on old questions with unknowable answers. Bate's focus is the ancients—whom he quotes in Latin and English—and the undeniable imprint they left on Shakespeare's imagination. One particularly charming example Bate mentions can be found in The Merry Wives of Windsor, where "a Welsh schoolmaster ([Shakespeare] apparently had one himself) gives a Latin lesson to a bright but cheeky schoolboy named William." Another striking example involves the Latin reliefs that dotted buildings Shakespeare would have certainly walked past in London. The result is such a captivating glimpse into the bard's life and mind that my first thoughts after closing this book were: "how did anyone doubt his existence?"
If the book has any fault, it is its lack of a clearly identified introduction and conclusion. While somewhat atypical, this should not deter students, teachers, or Shakespeare admirers from enjoying this book, which I should add is quite handsome and expertly formatted. I know few reviewers pay attention to such details, but I found them exceptional in this case. Its dust jacket feels as smooth as leather, its paper is thick, and its text is spaced in a way that I found easy on my eyes even after hours of reading. It's a welcome addition to any bookshelf, and I highly recommend it.
4.5 stars
Bate's writing is a captivating, surprisingly accessible study that covers more than two thousand years of history without overwhelming its reader. It's a refreshing look at the bard's formative years that does not dwell on old questions with unknowable answers. Bate's focus is the ancients—whom he quotes in Latin and English—and the undeniable imprint they left on Shakespeare's imagination. One particularly charming example Bate mentions can be found in The Merry Wives of Windsor, where "a Welsh schoolmaster ([Shakespeare] apparently had one himself) gives a Latin lesson to a bright but cheeky schoolboy named William." Another striking example involves the Latin reliefs that dotted buildings Shakespeare would have certainly walked past in London. The result is such a captivating glimpse into the bard's life and mind that my first thoughts after closing this book were: "how did anyone doubt his existence?"
If the book has any fault, it is its lack of a clearly identified introduction and conclusion. While somewhat atypical, this should not deter students, teachers, or Shakespeare admirers from enjoying this book, which I should add is quite handsome and expertly formatted. I know few reviewers pay attention to such details, but I found them exceptional in this case. Its dust jacket feels as smooth as leather, its paper is thick, and its text is spaced in a way that I found easy on my eyes even after hours of reading. It's a welcome addition to any bookshelf, and I highly recommend it.
4.5 stars
October 14, 2020
A fascinating summary of what Shakespeare knew about the Latin classics, and what he expected his educated audience to know. "Small Latin and less Greek" is the tag everybody knows, but Bate explicitly suggests that Shakespeare knew more Latin than many modern classics majors. It was pretty much all anyone studied in school, and the teacher in Stratford was a first-rate scholar. Shakespeare's affinity with Ovid is well-known, but Bate shows how steeped he was in Virgil, Horace, Cicero, and Seneca as well. There is also a chapter on how Roman historians pretty much shaped the way the Elizabethans viewed the world. A very convincing and thorough study.
May 16, 2020
Insightful study of the many aspects of classical literature that Shakespeare embraced and which helped to shape his work. Bate sets Shakespeare’s understanding of Greek and Roman literature within the wider context of Elizabethan writers’ emulation of classical culture and literary style. While Shakespeare was influenced by the classical world, he went beyond imitation to create a new classic literary style in English.
August 26, 2019
I have written about this book in my "Talking Books Update" in SHAKESPEARE NEWSLETTER. I won't wrong my editor by writing more here..
May 6, 2021
I wish I liked this book more. There are some estitute observations about Shakespeares classical grounding. But, it is a series of essays, so a little disjointed. It is also filled with assumptions about what Shakespeare 'would of' done, read, said and thought. Also Bate can't help claiming that the Bard secretly believes much of Bate's 21st century convictions.
January 27, 2025
When I picked up this text I was expecting that Jonathan Bate would focus on a few areas of congruence between Shakespeare and the classics, viz the content of the so-called 'Roman plays', a discussion of Senecan tragedy, and some references to Ovid. Instead How the Classics Made Shakespeare was a far more comprehensive, complex and substantive discussion of the interplay between ancient Greek and Latin literary culture and the Bard's work, its broader context and its reception. The depth of the scholarship and the construction of additional or deeper meaning as related to Shakespeare's writing is impressive, and whilst it may be too academic for his less scholastic devotees it is still worth reading. Bate makes it abundantly clear that Shakespeare and his writing were suffused with the ideas and constructs of classical literature, and he does so in a most fulfilling manner.
Bate guides the reader through Shakespeare's writing, attempting to join the dots between how he either explouted, adapted or exemplified what had been transmitted from Roman and Greek authors, and he does this by examining particular aspects of the bard's work within the context of specific Graeco-Roman writers. For example, in the chapter on 'The Good Life' Bate examines how Horace and his Epicurean philosophy was embedded in Shakespeare's writing. That Bate is able to provide the following definition of Epicureanism is an example of how capably he constructs his analysis:
This form of intellectual writing makes Bate's analysis and contentions far more understandable than if he hadn't taken the trouble to make such an effort to develop his definition, and in the process not only does the reader develop an appreciation of what Bate is trying to say, but also recognises that the author has a clarity of vision that enhances his reputation and readability as a scholar.
Bate makes some astute and highly relevant observations as to the nexus between Shakespeare's classicism and the construction and meaning of his writing. In the chapter 'The Labours of Hercules' he looks at Antony and Cleopatra and says this
This is an impressive and highly appropriate reading of Roman constructs of masculinity, and that Bate then discusses how Antony has lost his martial manliness through his becoming besotted with eros and the luxuriant pleasures of Cleopatra and Egypt, demonstrates his significant capability to deconstruct what Shakespeare was able to apprehend and represent whilst adapting his source (Plutarch) for his own purposes. Bate is adoit in his ability to combine his classical awareness with his reading of Shakespeare, and thus demonstrate to the reader how key the classics were for the bard.
There are several other passages in How the Classics Made Shakespeare that could be cited to illustrate how well Bate develops his analysis and discussion of the book's subject. However one that perhaps resonates more deeply and more satisfactorily than most is what he states regarding Lady Macbeth and her similarity to the Greek tragic figure of Medea:
It is this kind of analysis. both of the contextual relationship between Shakespeare's historical and cultural orientation, as well as the insights an appreciation of his understanding of the classics offers, makes Bate's criticism of the playwright's text even more meaningful.
It goes without saying that Bate's writing demands quite a lot from the reader, and there are times when his erudition is more apparent than pleasureable prose. That Bate also integrates some of the 'pseudo-Shakespeare' materials into his analysis raises some questions, and both of these issues limited the appeal of the book to this reviewer. Perhaps I was operating at too basic an appreciation of Shakespeare's classicism, but I was expecting some discussion of the Senecan tradition, viz the examination fo what makes a worthy ruler and the blood and gore often seen in both the Latin and English writers' plays. These personal reservations about How the Classics Made Shakespeare should not be taken as a critique of Bate's scholarship, but instead a reflection on how I read the book.
As someone who loves both Shakespeare and ancient Greek and Roman history I would venture to suggest that Bate has written a most accomplished and rewarding book that draws these two subjects together. Not only does he make some highly valuable observations about Shakespeare's intellectual value and how his work embodies so much that was previously composed by the likes of Ovid, Virgil and Plutarch, he also makes a very sound and appealing argument as to how both the bard and his ancient literary sources can form the basis of a liberal education today.
Bate guides the reader through Shakespeare's writing, attempting to join the dots between how he either explouted, adapted or exemplified what had been transmitted from Roman and Greek authors, and he does this by examining particular aspects of the bard's work within the context of specific Graeco-Roman writers. For example, in the chapter on 'The Good Life' Bate examines how Horace and his Epicurean philosophy was embedded in Shakespeare's writing. That Bate is able to provide the following definition of Epicureanism is an example of how capably he constructs his analysis:
"Whereas Aristotle said that the cultivation of civic virtue should be the basis of philosophy, that we are political animals, and indeed that anyone who is not political, not political in civic life, is an idiot, Epicurus replied by extolling the virtues of radical idiocy, of a rejection of the political life. He proposed instead that we need to seek peace of mind, inner tranquliity. We find this by discovering the true nature of things.
This form of intellectual writing makes Bate's analysis and contentions far more understandable than if he hadn't taken the trouble to make such an effort to develop his definition, and in the process not only does the reader develop an appreciation of what Bate is trying to say, but also recognises that the author has a clarity of vision that enhances his reputation and readability as a scholar.
Bate makes some astute and highly relevant observations as to the nexus between Shakespeare's classicism and the construction and meaning of his writing. In the chapter 'The Labours of Hercules' he looks at Antony and Cleopatra and says this
"When Mark Antony says "though I make this marriage for my peace/If the east my pleasure lies," he is demonstrably pitting Roman vitus (dutiful union for a political end) against Egyptian voluptus."."
This is an impressive and highly appropriate reading of Roman constructs of masculinity, and that Bate then discusses how Antony has lost his martial manliness through his becoming besotted with eros and the luxuriant pleasures of Cleopatra and Egypt, demonstrates his significant capability to deconstruct what Shakespeare was able to apprehend and represent whilst adapting his source (Plutarch) for his own purposes. Bate is adoit in his ability to combine his classical awareness with his reading of Shakespeare, and thus demonstrate to the reader how key the classics were for the bard.
There are several other passages in How the Classics Made Shakespeare that could be cited to illustrate how well Bate develops his analysis and discussion of the book's subject. However one that perhaps resonates more deeply and more satisfactorily than most is what he states regarding Lady Macbeth and her similarity to the Greek tragic figure of Medea:
"In processing the gruesome picture of a mother dashing out her baby's brains, rhetorically minded members of Shakespeare original audience would have looked to the classical past for analogies. The obvious one would be Medea; at the end of Seneca's tragedy about her. Medea, in furious venegeance for her husband Jason's infidelities, ascends the palace roof, kills their two children, and flings their bodies down to her husband below. Dashed brains indeed. At this point in Shakespeare's play, it seems to me that many of his original spectators would have thought "Lady Macbeth is turning into Medea..."."
It is this kind of analysis. both of the contextual relationship between Shakespeare's historical and cultural orientation, as well as the insights an appreciation of his understanding of the classics offers, makes Bate's criticism of the playwright's text even more meaningful.
It goes without saying that Bate's writing demands quite a lot from the reader, and there are times when his erudition is more apparent than pleasureable prose. That Bate also integrates some of the 'pseudo-Shakespeare' materials into his analysis raises some questions, and both of these issues limited the appeal of the book to this reviewer. Perhaps I was operating at too basic an appreciation of Shakespeare's classicism, but I was expecting some discussion of the Senecan tradition, viz the examination fo what makes a worthy ruler and the blood and gore often seen in both the Latin and English writers' plays. These personal reservations about How the Classics Made Shakespeare should not be taken as a critique of Bate's scholarship, but instead a reflection on how I read the book.
As someone who loves both Shakespeare and ancient Greek and Roman history I would venture to suggest that Bate has written a most accomplished and rewarding book that draws these two subjects together. Not only does he make some highly valuable observations about Shakespeare's intellectual value and how his work embodies so much that was previously composed by the likes of Ovid, Virgil and Plutarch, he also makes a very sound and appealing argument as to how both the bard and his ancient literary sources can form the basis of a liberal education today.
June 25, 2019
Much more of a text book instead of just a fun read for the Shakespeare fan, but still a good book nonetheless. I was a bit shocked at some of the far reaching assumptions made by the author in the first few chapters, but he seemed confident in his findings. This book could've been much shorter, the premise is figuring out exactly what classics of Literature, Philosophy, Language, and Science influenced Shakespeare. Within the first chapter the author clearly lines out about ten pieces of writing that he is certain influenced his writings and plays. I would've liked the book more had there been reasons behind them. Instead of just assumptions that yes of course Shakespeare knew Latin and therefore was highly versed in Aristotle and Socrates and that of course they influenced plays A, B, and C.
Near the end of the book I really didn't appreciate the authors' leaps and basic stating that Shakespeare just took old Greek stories and remediated them into plays. (While I know many of the plays are not new ideas, his writing, language, rhetoric, and structure was something that was completely foreign before this time.)
Near the end of the book I really didn't appreciate the authors' leaps and basic stating that Shakespeare just took old Greek stories and remediated them into plays. (While I know many of the plays are not new ideas, his writing, language, rhetoric, and structure was something that was completely foreign before this time.)
July 1, 2022
A useful and insightful look at classical influences on Shakespeare
This book has many strengths. Rather than merely looking for classical allusions or parallels, Professor Bates explains how the attitudes and assumptions of various Roman authors found their way into Shakespeare’s works. That familiarity with Latin literature makes his analysis of Julius Caesar the very best I’ve encountered in many years of reading Shakespeare criticism. There are many other such gems in this book. But the real benefit of it is the unique perspective gained from a better understanding of the pervasive influence of Latin literature throughout 16th century culture, including Shakespeare, an influence that took hold by way of the study of Latin rhetoric and literature in Elizabethan grammar schools. While my own reading of many of the plays is based on the influence of Christian assumptions, Bates’ analysis is a reminder that Shakespeare’s works are multi-layered and complex, which is precisely why they continue to challenge and fascinate. This is a worthwhile read for any serious student of the plays.
This book has many strengths. Rather than merely looking for classical allusions or parallels, Professor Bates explains how the attitudes and assumptions of various Roman authors found their way into Shakespeare’s works. That familiarity with Latin literature makes his analysis of Julius Caesar the very best I’ve encountered in many years of reading Shakespeare criticism. There are many other such gems in this book. But the real benefit of it is the unique perspective gained from a better understanding of the pervasive influence of Latin literature throughout 16th century culture, including Shakespeare, an influence that took hold by way of the study of Latin rhetoric and literature in Elizabethan grammar schools. While my own reading of many of the plays is based on the influence of Christian assumptions, Bates’ analysis is a reminder that Shakespeare’s works are multi-layered and complex, which is precisely why they continue to challenge and fascinate. This is a worthwhile read for any serious student of the plays.
October 10, 2020
This is a fabulous book! Bate is well organized, thoughtful, insightful and never condescending. He argues well the influence of the classical writers on Shakespeare’s products while giving the reader an understanding of these texts on 16th Century Renaissance Britain culture.
Personally, I was left with a better understanding of how Shakespeare might have thought when he created his masterpieces, his intent and message. I have a deeper appreciation for a whole host of Shakespearean characters and I was introduced to some plays for which I had little knowledge.
It would certainly help any reader to have a basic understanding of classical literature. Knowing something about Homeric epic poetry, Virgil’s Aeneid, Ovid and Seneca makes the comparisons to Shakespearean character, plot and theme present by the author easier to comprehend
Hats off to Bate.
Personally, I was left with a better understanding of how Shakespeare might have thought when he created his masterpieces, his intent and message. I have a deeper appreciation for a whole host of Shakespearean characters and I was introduced to some plays for which I had little knowledge.
It would certainly help any reader to have a basic understanding of classical literature. Knowing something about Homeric epic poetry, Virgil’s Aeneid, Ovid and Seneca makes the comparisons to Shakespearean character, plot and theme present by the author easier to comprehend
Hats off to Bate.
August 29, 2019
Great stuff. This is exactly the type of book that makes Shakespeare more comprehensible—and more enjoyable. Jonathan Bates’s biography of Shakespeare (Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare) is probably the best I have ever read, so I really had no choice but to read this latest book. It is tremendous. For those of us who have only a passing familiarity with much of Shakespeare’s source material, the context Bates provides is like a tall drink of water. For those interested in the subject, this book is a must-read.
September 3, 2019
An absorbing read!
Gave me wonderful and inspired insights imipramine Anthony and Cleopatra, Winters Tale, and Hamlet. I had no idea how significant was Ovid’s, Virgil, Horace, and Seneca’s influence had upon Shakespeare and how highly respected Shakespeare was during his lifetime. Enthralled!
Gave me wonderful and inspired insights imipramine Anthony and Cleopatra, Winters Tale, and Hamlet. I had no idea how significant was Ovid’s, Virgil, Horace, and Seneca’s influence had upon Shakespeare and how highly respected Shakespeare was during his lifetime. Enthralled!
September 16, 2019
Bate demonstrates that Shakespeare read (in English translation) and was influenced by the classical writers Ovid, Horace and Virgil, among others. Ironically, by using the classical writers Shakespeare became a classical English writer.
January 17, 2021
Every chapter can be treated as independent essays. Some are less direct discussions of classical authors and/or Shakespeare than others, which more serve to describe broader cultural trends in Elizabethan England.
March 13, 2024
i started reading this book MONTHS ago (last year :() and just picked it back up recently. it's fine, somewhat dense, but very good criticism and connections - it definitely helped when i wrote my huge research paper on henry IV part 1 and classics last fall.
June 27, 2019
Various essays
March 1, 2021
Mostly skimmed for uni but interesting perspective, easy to read despite a potentially progressive rereading of the past.
June 26, 2022
An in-depth yet accessible survey of Classics in Shakespeare which also takes into account his contemporaries and the wider Tudor world. Also well complemented with pertinent, good quality illustrations.
Goes well beyond the scope of the usual "Classical" plays in the Shakespeare canon (Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Antony & Cleopatra, Titus Andronicus etc...) to also consider classical themes in more "mainstream" plays (Hamlet, Macbeth etc...) not to mention the narrative poems Venus & Adonis (as depicted on the cover) and The Rape of Lucrece.
Ultimately, this book carves a fresh path through Shakespearean Classical Reception.
Goes well beyond the scope of the usual "Classical" plays in the Shakespeare canon (Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Antony & Cleopatra, Titus Andronicus etc...) to also consider classical themes in more "mainstream" plays (Hamlet, Macbeth etc...) not to mention the narrative poems Venus & Adonis (as depicted on the cover) and The Rape of Lucrece.
Ultimately, this book carves a fresh path through Shakespearean Classical Reception.
January 13, 2024
Incredible book, immensely helpful for anyone who studies Shakespeare closely. I recommend it to anyone who loves classics and Shakespeare, you'll learn a lot.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews