On 'the writer's intention' (teachers)
As teachers of literature, we are tasked with asking candidates to interpret 'the writer's intention' - welcome to the world of mind reading!
Or crystal ball gazing:
This is difficult enough when the writer is still alive: I think it was Gillian Clarke who complained, with some spirit, to AQA when one of her poems was seriously misinterpreted on a mark scheme. How much more difficult for a writer who has been dead for more than 400 years, lived in a totally different time in every conceivable way and was working in what was then a new medium. Remember, the first purpose built theatre was constructed by James Burbage in 1576 only around 10 years before Shakespeare went to London.
This is not about interpretation. There are as many Macbeths or Hamlets as actors who have played them or productions over the years. No, this is about why Shakespeare wrote the plays and what, if anything, his intention was in doing so.
Stephen Greenblatt will tell you that the plays are autobiographical (Will In The World) and mines the plays, poems and sonnets for proof.
Stanley Wells condemns this as 'reductive'. (No reference. He said it to me.)
Emma Smith tells us that Shakespeare asks questions, but provides no answers (This Is Shakespeare).
Michael Wood, Richard Wilson and others find a Roman Catholic subtext. The plays are coded Catholic polemics. (In Search of Shakespeare; Secret Shakespeare: Studies in Theatre, Religion and Resistance) Graham Holderness makes a persuasive case that Shakespeare's Calvinism is evident throughout the works (The Faith of William Shakespeare).
Feminist readings find Shakespeare subverting the accepted contemporary views about women and their place, whilst condemning his treatment of his 'abandoned' wife. (Shakespeare and Feminist Theory - Marianne Novy and Shakespeare's Wife - Greer).
Depending on the time of interpretation, Lear is either a Christian narrative of redemption through suffering (Knight 1930) or an exploration of the existentialist, indifferent universe (Kott 1962).
You get my general drift.
In my view, the best explorations of the works look at them in the context in which they were written and do not impose anachronistic modern ideas on Shakespeare's 'intention'. The easiest way to illustrate this is by looking at the sonnets (other than Sonnet 145, which is unique, and uniquely awful) and that means looking at sonnets as a type of poem, originating in Italy in the 13th century with Petrarch who dedicated a long series of sonnets to his idealised love Laura, who probably only existed in Petrarch's imagination.
The Petrarchan sonnet is structured octet/sestet with a volta between lines 8 and 9 and became to 'go to' form for love poetry. This version was adopted in England by Sydney, Wyatt (who translated Petrarch) and Drayton to name but a few. It is mercilessly satirised by Shakespeare, most notably in Romeo and Juliet, but also in As You Like It.
The so-called Shakesperean sonnet consist of three quatrains and a summary or comment couplet and was not - shock, horror - invented by Shakespeare. That was Spenser.
Whoever was writing it and in whatever form, the sonnet came to be considered the apogee of the poet's art to which he should aspire to excel.
With the possible exception of Hamlet, Shakespeare showed no apparent interest in publication of his plays. The poetry, though, was a different matter. Though you will often read that Shakespeare went to London in 1594 (because if Greene's A Groatsworth of Wit), Venus and Adonis was published in 1593 and, like The Rape of Lucrece published a year later, was dedicated to The Early of Southampton Henry Wriothseley (pronounced 'Rizley'). The Phoenix and the Turtle was included in an anthology called Love's Martyr in 1601.
Traditionally, sonnets were written to be circulated privately amongst a select circle of friends and were not intended for publication. There is considerable discussion that the sonnets were never intended for publication and that when they were published in 1609 along with A Lover's Complaint, they were actually pirate copies. Since there are no, to date, surviving copies of any complete work in Shakespeare's hand, perhaps we should thank the thief, whoever he was.
Above all, the sonnets need to be considered as things which demonstrate Shakespeare's skill as a poet. They are perfect (other than 145) and perfectly crafted. There is nothing to suggest that they are in any way autobiographical, any more than Petrarch's Laura actually was a woman of flesh and blood. Because more modern poets pour their hearts and feelings into their poetry, we tend to assume it to be a universal truth that poetry reflects the poet's inner feelings, but this view is anachronistic and 'the dark lady' may well be a conceit:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
Whilst this quotation is not from one of the 'dark lady' sonnets, the idea that the poems give 'life' is not, I think, too outrageous an idea. After all, Shakespeare spent most of his time conjuring imaginary people into existence.
If you are interested to read more about contemporary views about poets and Shakespeare in particular, I recommend The Sonnets and A Lover's Complaint - Google books.
Shakespeare was, first and foremost, a jobbing writer. His plays had to make money for the company and, once he became a sharer, for himself. An unsuccessful play was of no use to anyone and there is no record of Two Noble Kinsmen, for instance, ever having been performed. Others stayed in the repertory (Richard II) for a very short time before being abandoned. It's often pointed out that Shakespeare was unique in always writing for the same company and rarely collaborating. This is rarely linked to his well documented business acumen - he died a rich man, but that money didn't come from writing. It's been calculated that Shakespeare made just over £2,000 for his first 20 plays - and that's how much it would be now, not in 1600!
(New Place, which Shakespeare bought in 1597, cost 6 plays and there has been a deal of speculation as to how he could have afforded it. At this time he was also applying for a coat of arms which cost 2 plays.)
So, Shakespeare's initial purpose was to make money for The Lord Chamberlain's Men, The King's Men and himself. Prior to that he would have made less as some of the early (and late) plays are are collaborative and he was unknown, selling to whoever would buy. Unfortunately, whilst incontestably true, examining bodies are unlikely to accept this 😋😋
Other than commissioned pieces, such as Macbeth, Merry Wives of Windsor and the lost Jacobean masques, I think it very unlikely that Shakespeare was trying to get some kind of universal 'message' across, other than ideas which reflected Jacolethan society and which can be found in other plays of the period.
In my view, 'intention' should be viewed from the point of view of language, form, structure and how characters are constructed (AO2) - a mine with an inexhaustible supply of nuggets - rather than looking for proof that Shakespeare was/not racist or a proto-feminist or sending coded messages about his marriage.
Or crystal ball gazing:
This is difficult enough when the writer is still alive: I think it was Gillian Clarke who complained, with some spirit, to AQA when one of her poems was seriously misinterpreted on a mark scheme. How much more difficult for a writer who has been dead for more than 400 years, lived in a totally different time in every conceivable way and was working in what was then a new medium. Remember, the first purpose built theatre was constructed by James Burbage in 1576 only around 10 years before Shakespeare went to London.
This is not about interpretation. There are as many Macbeths or Hamlets as actors who have played them or productions over the years. No, this is about why Shakespeare wrote the plays and what, if anything, his intention was in doing so.
Stephen Greenblatt will tell you that the plays are autobiographical (Will In The World) and mines the plays, poems and sonnets for proof.
Stanley Wells condemns this as 'reductive'. (No reference. He said it to me.)
Emma Smith tells us that Shakespeare asks questions, but provides no answers (This Is Shakespeare).
Michael Wood, Richard Wilson and others find a Roman Catholic subtext. The plays are coded Catholic polemics. (In Search of Shakespeare; Secret Shakespeare: Studies in Theatre, Religion and Resistance) Graham Holderness makes a persuasive case that Shakespeare's Calvinism is evident throughout the works (The Faith of William Shakespeare).
Feminist readings find Shakespeare subverting the accepted contemporary views about women and their place, whilst condemning his treatment of his 'abandoned' wife. (Shakespeare and Feminist Theory - Marianne Novy and Shakespeare's Wife - Greer).
Depending on the time of interpretation, Lear is either a Christian narrative of redemption through suffering (Knight 1930) or an exploration of the existentialist, indifferent universe (Kott 1962).
You get my general drift.
In my view, the best explorations of the works look at them in the context in which they were written and do not impose anachronistic modern ideas on Shakespeare's 'intention'. The easiest way to illustrate this is by looking at the sonnets (other than Sonnet 145, which is unique, and uniquely awful) and that means looking at sonnets as a type of poem, originating in Italy in the 13th century with Petrarch who dedicated a long series of sonnets to his idealised love Laura, who probably only existed in Petrarch's imagination.
The Petrarchan sonnet is structured octet/sestet with a volta between lines 8 and 9 and became to 'go to' form for love poetry. This version was adopted in England by Sydney, Wyatt (who translated Petrarch) and Drayton to name but a few. It is mercilessly satirised by Shakespeare, most notably in Romeo and Juliet, but also in As You Like It.
The so-called Shakesperean sonnet consist of three quatrains and a summary or comment couplet and was not - shock, horror - invented by Shakespeare. That was Spenser.
Whoever was writing it and in whatever form, the sonnet came to be considered the apogee of the poet's art to which he should aspire to excel.
With the possible exception of Hamlet, Shakespeare showed no apparent interest in publication of his plays. The poetry, though, was a different matter. Though you will often read that Shakespeare went to London in 1594 (because if Greene's A Groatsworth of Wit), Venus and Adonis was published in 1593 and, like The Rape of Lucrece published a year later, was dedicated to The Early of Southampton Henry Wriothseley (pronounced 'Rizley'). The Phoenix and the Turtle was included in an anthology called Love's Martyr in 1601.
Traditionally, sonnets were written to be circulated privately amongst a select circle of friends and were not intended for publication. There is considerable discussion that the sonnets were never intended for publication and that when they were published in 1609 along with A Lover's Complaint, they were actually pirate copies. Since there are no, to date, surviving copies of any complete work in Shakespeare's hand, perhaps we should thank the thief, whoever he was.
Above all, the sonnets need to be considered as things which demonstrate Shakespeare's skill as a poet. They are perfect (other than 145) and perfectly crafted. There is nothing to suggest that they are in any way autobiographical, any more than Petrarch's Laura actually was a woman of flesh and blood. Because more modern poets pour their hearts and feelings into their poetry, we tend to assume it to be a universal truth that poetry reflects the poet's inner feelings, but this view is anachronistic and 'the dark lady' may well be a conceit:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
Whilst this quotation is not from one of the 'dark lady' sonnets, the idea that the poems give 'life' is not, I think, too outrageous an idea. After all, Shakespeare spent most of his time conjuring imaginary people into existence.
If you are interested to read more about contemporary views about poets and Shakespeare in particular, I recommend The Sonnets and A Lover's Complaint - Google books.
Shakespeare was, first and foremost, a jobbing writer. His plays had to make money for the company and, once he became a sharer, for himself. An unsuccessful play was of no use to anyone and there is no record of Two Noble Kinsmen, for instance, ever having been performed. Others stayed in the repertory (Richard II) for a very short time before being abandoned. It's often pointed out that Shakespeare was unique in always writing for the same company and rarely collaborating. This is rarely linked to his well documented business acumen - he died a rich man, but that money didn't come from writing. It's been calculated that Shakespeare made just over £2,000 for his first 20 plays - and that's how much it would be now, not in 1600!
(New Place, which Shakespeare bought in 1597, cost 6 plays and there has been a deal of speculation as to how he could have afforded it. At this time he was also applying for a coat of arms which cost 2 plays.)
So, Shakespeare's initial purpose was to make money for The Lord Chamberlain's Men, The King's Men and himself. Prior to that he would have made less as some of the early (and late) plays are are collaborative and he was unknown, selling to whoever would buy. Unfortunately, whilst incontestably true, examining bodies are unlikely to accept this 😋😋
Other than commissioned pieces, such as Macbeth, Merry Wives of Windsor and the lost Jacobean masques, I think it very unlikely that Shakespeare was trying to get some kind of universal 'message' across, other than ideas which reflected Jacolethan society and which can be found in other plays of the period.
In my view, 'intention' should be viewed from the point of view of language, form, structure and how characters are constructed (AO2) - a mine with an inexhaustible supply of nuggets - rather than looking for proof that Shakespeare was/not racist or a proto-feminist or sending coded messages about his marriage.
Comments
Post a Comment