Reputation of William Shakespeare received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Please don't nominate this for Featured article, just in case anybody drops by and thinks of doing that (a conceited idea, I know!). It's fairly new, it's in flux, and it's far from comprehensive. Please see To-do list below (please help with the tasks!).-- Bishonen (talk) 19:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC).
And please also see Peer review. I posted it there today, along with an appeal on Talk:William Shakespeare. That's it from me, I'm fresh out of ideas.-- Bishonen | Talk 18:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed listing from Peer review after three weeks without comment. Bishonen | Talk 23:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To-do list for Reputation of William Shakespeare: An international perspective for each century, plus for the lead section. Elizabethan theatrical conditions. Most of the 20th century. Please note suggestion below for creating a separate article for Shakespeare movies! Inline citations |
This is a great article. I would like to read a section on the 20th and 21st century reputation as well (in particular the shift from the perception of Shakespeare as populist anti-classicist to the common modern perception of him as associated with intellectual elitism?). The Singing Badger 21:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely this should be titled William Shakespeare's reputation? violet/riga (t) 22:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've rearranged the small matter on popularity of staging and trimmed it and mentioned the great critical editors with the textual editors. I've consciously left out some folks like Hanmer and Warburton, as the former used Pope's text, and the latter didn't do much to improve Theobald's, and neither have lasting critical insights. Geogre 03:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Drury Lane and Covent Garden did the competing Shakespeares. However, I can't find, yet, the exact seasons. This was Rich vs. Cibber, and this was Garrick vs. all comers. Bishonen, do you know when this happened? This is what I got from the fusty musty 1911:
"Rich's management occurred the rival performances of Romeo and Juliet--Barry and Mrs. Cibber at Covent Garden, and Garrick and Miss Bellamy at Drury Lane--and the subsequent competition between the two rival actors in King Lear. "
Bad old 1911 habit of perpetuating the 18th c. habit of not giving women's names. Figured this might ring a bell for you.
Geogre 14:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, by now we have the seasons in question, as well as (and I don't feel like stating it, as it's irrelevant except to this talk page) that it was Mrs. Theophilus Cibber that would have been the draw. The reason that I thought the dueling Shakespeares was a good thing to put in, though, is that, while we know that it was a theater war, it's also a sign of Shakespeare's reputation that both houses felt that Shakespeare was the cudgel with which to beat the other guy. I.e. rival Lillo's wouldn't have gotten an audience sufficient for anyone to care, but a rival Shakespeare was the talk of the town. The implication is that everyone wanted to see the great actor play the great role, the great actress in the great part. Therefore, I think that this use of Shakespeare testifies to the regard in which he was held in the 18th c. Geogre 17:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any plans for a 20th century section? I could probably add a few lines on the modernists and bollocky bill from over the hill. Filiocht 15:32, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I started that up for you guys. I've always wanted to use the word "punk" in an article on Shakespeare :> The Steve 05:23, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
On the 20th c., it's one of those potentially very touchy things. I mean, on the stage, the biggest thing seems to me the advent of psychoanalytic approaches and Marxist approaches to the plays. Hamlet we all know about: everyone wants Oedipus in there. Seems to me that if the article goes into any depth on the 20th c. stage vs. page, we get the fact that the stagings seem to respond to the challenges/innovations of Freud and Marx in one broad swathe, but then that two other swathes exist. One is the a democratic impulse, where various nations established programs to try to get Shake performances out to children, and free or low-cost productions about (Shakespeare in the Park in NYC is one good example of this, but just one), while some nations also set up official Shakespeare theaters, with the Royal being most important. These theaters do nothing but Shake and pals. Also, some libraries, like the Folger Library in Washington DC, do nothing but work on getting absolute authority of text and times. (As for the High Modernist reading, Hamlet, in particular, as a victim of "dissociative sensibilities" and the indecisive prince is kind of It.) Random thoughts, but all things in there, I suppose. Geogre 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if more should be said regarding the influence of Cultural Materialism (specifically Sinfield and Dollimore's 1994 Political Shakespeare and its ramifications) on Shakespeare's critical reputation in the last two decades of the 20th century. Also, need anything be said regarding the reputation of Shakespeare since the dawn of the internet? It seems to complicate the stage/page dichotomy. Cfsibley ( talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That sound great, Filiocht. I'm also painfully aware of how London-centric the article is at this moment, I'm hoping you will redress that somewhat in the projected 20th-century section. It would also be a very good thing if anybody had any input to giv e about Billy's rep in the rest of the world in the 18th-19th centuries. (How about the lively 18th c Dublin scene, Filiocht, do you know if it just reflected London, Bill-wise?) At a pinch, I could put in something myself about French neoclassical stand-offishness and German Romantic bard worship (worst case of bardolatry anywhere, I believe), I suppose, sigh... but real French and German contributors would do it better, and, anyway, coverage would still be very patchy. What about the U. S. in the 19th-c, did that merely reflect the British scene? Maybe I need to take International Billy to the Pump.--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 12:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kind of a warning. I think we need to think about whether Shake in film is a good thing or not. Once that can of film gets opened, a lot of stuff will come flying out. My suggestion is that Shake on Film be only a hint in this article -- just as it relates to his reputation -- with possibly some suggestion that the number of adaptations (from West Side Story to King of New York) -- but that it transclude to another, separate article. Shakespeare films is either already or should be a separate, full length article. Geogre 21:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article probably needs something on Tolstoy's extensive (and vitriolic) criticism of Shakespeare. Haukurth 22:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you work on this article, and look things up and stuff, maybe you'll come across some cool passages about Shakespeare. Please consider adding them to the Critical quotations section! It only runs from 1668 to 1775 right now, it could sure stand extending in both directions.--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 15:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe this could help fill a gap in the critical quotes between Johnson and Carlyle. On the other hand, it's pretty darned fulsome, which is why I didn't just go ahead and paste it in:
Thomas de Quincey, "On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth" (1823) (concluding paragraph):
O, mighty poet! Thy works are not as those of other men, simply and merely great works of art; but are also like the phenomena of nature, like the sun and the sea, the stars and the flowers,--like frost and snow, rain and dew, hail-storm and thunder, which are to be studied with entire submission of our own faculties, and in the perfect faith that in them there can be no too much or too little, nothing useless or inert--but that, the further we press in our discoveries, the more we shall see proofs of design and self-supporting arrangement where the careless eye had seen nothing but accident!
If that's just too much, there's probably something in Lamb that's a little more restrained that would fill the gap too. PRiis 05:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have just created breakout article Quotations about Shakespeare and moved the critical quotes to it, please add to it!--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 21:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Quotations about Shakespeare has been moved to Timeline of Shakespeare criticism, in the hope that under this title, it will be the less likely to offend as being not a proper article (in contrast to, say, List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded") and get transwikied to Wikiquote. The reason I broke out the quote section at all, if it needs stating, is that Shakespeare's reputation is already long (nudging the recommended 32k limit) and will clearly need to be longer before it's comprehensive. Notable gaps: international perspective, Elizabethan theatrical conditions, most of the 20th century.--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 18:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your input, allie. To keep the discussion chronological and yet be able to respond point-by-point, I'll repeat your comments in italics here, and interline my own responses.
The Carlyle quote appears in the introduction as well as the last paragraph. Use it once for punch - otherwise it loses its effectiveness. The "emblem of pride" appears again in the para at the end of the 19th century. So...he's been pretty consistent as an emblem of pride, yes? Why not state it that way? Throughout his time, Shakespeare has consistently been an emblem of pride?
I don't state it because I don't think it's true. Longer articles like this one have a "Lead section", which introduces and summarizes the article, before the TOC. The Lead isn't about the first period of Shakespeare's rep, but is a representation in little of the whole of the article. Thus the mention in the Lead of "an emblem of national pride" refers to the 19th century, just as it does in the 19th-century section below. I don't by any means believe that Sh has been consistently an emblem of pride--a rallying-sign for patriotism--but that he specifically became one in the 19th century, in a way that Carlyle endorses, but also very acutely analyses, in Heroes and Hero-Worship in 1841. Thank you for telling me that this lends itself to misunderstanding, that's useful, and I'll certainly try to make it clearer.
What's the article's focus? On his reputation as a writer? Or his reputation as a theater dramatist?
Well, I think the article should appropriately be about both aspects. Wikipedia is meant to provide encyclopedic information to those who seek for it, rather than a means of self-expression for me (or even for a grouop of editors). The article's not an essay or academic paper: intrinsically, it doesn't have a focus. That said, pattern-making is pleasing to both writers and readers, and I've tried to provide some of that by doing a bit of a running comparison between the theatre rep and the literary rep—Shakespeare on the stage vs Shakespeare on the page—though apparently without much success, if you didn't pick up on it.
Remember: In an age when books were hard to come by, households often kept two books and two books only: The Bible and a copy of Shakespeare. This held true for centuries. You are relying on your strength here - as a historian of the British theater - instead of stretching your wings and presenting a more encompassing view of the Shakespeare who was a primary literary source. Does that go a long way to explain why he wasn't as popular in the Puritan era?
I started the article, but it isn't "mine"—fortunately, as the subject is both huge and pretty specialized—it covers 400 years of world literary and theatrical history! No one person is likely to be able to cover that little lot, unless by relying on received clichés. Knowing just how ignorant the clichés are that surround the drama of my own favorite period 1660-1700—they are basically the handed-down rags of Victorian prejudice—I'm very reluctant to venture into other well-researched fields that I in my turn only have a few half-baked notions about, and would write equally ignorantly about. But then this is exactly the kind of situation where, I hope, the wiki principle will come into its own. I've put in what I know—say, British theatre and literature (I do feel able to manage literature as well as the theatre, in fact it's my primary field) 1660—1800 or so, and even, when nobody else seemed to want to do it, writing a piece on the 19th century. Obviously that leaves a lot, compare the "To do" template I've put at the top of this page. Other people have chipped in, but with rather small-scale contributions so far. The 20th century is one big hole, and so is the international perspective. If possible, I'd also like a Victorian specialist to rewrite the 19th century bit—I'm fervently hoping that part isn't an actual disgrace, but I would sure like for someone who really knows to review it, at least.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice by breaking this down into centuries, instead of by the highs and lows of his popularity - both in theatre - and as an "emblem of pride." You know that centuries don't begin with dates - they begin with movements. For example, we can debate when this century began - 2000 was relatively unremarkable. 9/11 however, was the defining moment. So it was with the 20th c. Edwardian era v. WWI was the defining moment of the 20th c. The point? You are creating artificial boundaries by keeping within these "century" definitions and it's strangling you.
The difficulty to my mind is in breaking down the development of Shakespeare's reputation chronologically at all, because there were no sharp breaks in it, and all divisions will artificially suggest that there were. Still, for convenience of reference, 400 years do need to be broken down into smaller units, it can't be helped. Making those smaller units specifically centuries, on the other hand, is to my mind no problem at all. You'd have to make an ideological analysis, and be sure of a coherent view of world history and what its defining moments were, before subdividing according to "movements". The Victorians had the confidence to do that, because they just knew their view of history was the only correct view; modern historians don't, and certainly modern Shakespeare scholars don't. If you doubt that an analysis that sees the 21st century as beginning with 9/11 is idelogically based, compare Giano's answer to it. You think dividing the huge time-span by centuries is strangling me? A century is just a figure. It's an obviously artificial division, which leaves the reader as free as possible to see through it. A division by movement would really need just as much simplification, and would be a sneakily artificial division, that attempts to impose its values on the reader. You could summarize my argument here by saying that I think you're more concerned with not strangling the writer, while I'm more concerned with not strangling the reader.
Or, to put it at the most practical level, compare with your own statement that "we can debate" when this century began (and when all the others did, too). Right, if we abandon the neutral nakedness of centuries, we not only can, we must, debate it. We'd have to debate it in the article itself, obviously, in order to be NPOV about it, and try to reach consensus about it. Sheesh. Heat and dust of "debate" about when periods properly begin, and what their significant features are—that would strangle this article.
You make a lot of literary references to why he's the crowning glory of the British empire
You really think I do? As I mention above, I only believe Shakespeare was constructed in this way in the 19th century (and in the early 20th c, actually, but that section's basically still to do). Intentionally, I only mention national pride and the British empire with ref. the 19th c, so please let me know if it's snuck in anywhere else, and I'll take it out.
but you don't touch why he has endured four centuries. Why? What is it about Shakespeare?
Because there is an article William Shakespeare, and articles about the separate plays. My own feeling is that discussion of enduring or somehow context-transcending qualities goes better in those, though certainly others may disagree. Mind you, few modern Shakespeare scholars believe there are any context-transcending qualities, but then that fact needs to be part of the discussion, too.
He's not easy to read, yet we still do...And you are corrrect- actors still jump through hoops to play Shakesperian roles on the stage. your citations: you could find a dozen written within the past five years. That alone is a testament to his reputation. -- allie 10:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah—not sure what your point is here. I could probably find a thousand. There's a huge academic Shakespeare industry out there, growing almost by the hour. The nearer we get to our own time, the easier it becomes to find, and the harder to select. The 20th century section really needs to be written, or at least largely contributed to, by a Shakespeare specialist, by somebody in the industry, IMO: only they are likely to have the bird's eye view needed for good selection. There are people like that on wikipedia, too—I don't know why they've so far been too lazy to help out here! ;-)
Thanks very much for thinking about the article, allie, you've certainly given me food for thought. Many things in there need further work to make them clearer, obviously. -- Bishonen | Talk 01:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a hugely impressive article, and I'm reluctant to add my tuppenyworth to it for fear that I'll disrupt the flow of it, but I have a couple of comments, and maybe I'll try to add some stuff at the weekend (just a warning!) Firstly, I think the distinctiveness of the Romantic Shakespeare is played down too much. Yes, of course, the contrast of Jonson's 'learned sock' and Shakespeare, 'fancy's child', warbling his native woodnotes is longstanding, but the the difference is, surely, that Romanticism transformed that notion of what 'nature' means - no longer simply unfettered and untutored, but rather something 'far more deeply interfused' than rules could ever achieve. This notion that there is an organic unity to S's work could, perhaps, be explored more. I think the tendency of some Victorian writers - e.g. Ruskin and Delia Bacon - to treat S as though his works are a kind of secular Bible could also be mentioned.
My main problem, though, is the British emphasis of the article. There's nothing on Shakespeare in the writings of the Schlegels, or Hugo's essay on the grotesque for example. There's nothing on the famously intense relationship that many Russian writers have had to the Shakespeare canon. There's a brief, dismissive, reference to Voltaire -- who was the primary source of Shakespeare in translation during the 18th century, not just in France but across Europe -- but that's about it.
Obviously there's a danger that the article might become unwieldy if we add too much, but at the moment there's no explanation for the fact that it is only about Shakespeare's reputation in Britain. Paul B 13.22 15 March 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps these should be a 'dissenting voices' section, otherwise this seems rather tacked-on and irrelevant,
Seems to me that bit would seem tacked on and irrelevant whatever the section, actually. Surely there must be some more articulate, analytic, and illuminating dissent to quote. Returning to the present incompleteness of the article, I hope any further passing Shakespeareans and other specialists will take the time to read my pleas for assistance with this incompleteness all over this Talk page, rather than expect explanations of shortfalls in the article itself, as that is not where such explanations appropriately go ("Avoid highlighting the incomplete state of an article", or words to that effect, is Wikipedia policy.) Please pitch in rather than point to the outrages by omission that I have committed. -- Bischånen| Tåk 16:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I recently purchased a book on Auden's lectures concerning all of Shakespeare's plays, and I know his obsession with the Bard (leading, of course, to his lengthy poetic treatment of The Tempest) was a lifelong one. Is he a prominent enough critic to warrant mention? If so, should I be looking for a good quotation? And would it be better to bring in more of Auden's praise of Shakespeare, or his criticisms? In my limited awareness, Auden seems willing to do both. Any thoughts or guidance would be most welcome. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I doubt a dispute over dates is a good reason to remove all reference to Sarah Siddons. Leading men of the eighteenth century get named in this article. Right now the piece says nothing at all about the emergence of women in the profession, which is certainly a major change in theatrical custom. Was there any renowned and influential actress who predates Sarah Siddons? Durova 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the quotation by "Terry Hawkes" from the caption of the lead image. There is no Terry Hawkes article and no other reason to believe that it is encyclyopedic that Terry Hawkes said Shakespeare was "up for grabs". Mike Dillon 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added a cite and external link. I hope that's alright. Adam Cuerden talk 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A link to Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool somewhere in the article might not be amiss. Haukur ( talk) 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"In his own time, William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) was seen as merely one among many talented playwrights and poets, but ever since the late 20th century he has been considered the supreme playwright,"
you say 20th century, but shakespeare's fame took off in the early 19th century (as is stated later in the article). a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.50 ( talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Per the discussions at Talk:Leonhard Euler and WikiProject Mathematics, I am removing the discussion of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment from the body of the article, for the same basic reasons mentioned in the above discussions. Murray's work is primary research about a topic that Murray is is not a recognized expert. aprock ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose the addition of a 21st century section. In the last twenty years the body of Shakespeare criticism have been seriously concerned with the effects of its own existence: this article, by nature, is part of that metacritical body and would benefit from such a reflection. I propose consideration of the following: Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World, Majorie Garber's Profiling Shakespeare and Shakespeare and Modern Culture. Thoughts? Cfsibley ( talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Shakespeare's influence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the best way to improve the following sentence with citation: "After the Licensing Act of 1737, a quarter of plays performed were by Shakespeare,[citation needed] and on at least two occasions rival London playhouses staged the very same Shakespeare play at the same time (Romeo and Juliet in 1755 and King Lear the next year) and still commanded audiences." The statistic about one in four plays performed on the London stage being Shakespeare plays refers to the 1740-1741 season (source is Michael Dobson's The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769 p. 161. And as Dobson points out that statistic was not repeated during Garrick's time on stage (so through until his retirement in 1776). It is also significant to note that Shakespeare scholars Michael Dobson, Gary Taylor, and Emmett Avery attribute the one in four ratio of Shakespeare plays performed during the 1740-1741 season to the efforts of the Shakespeare Ladies Club, this information should be reflected in this section of the Shakespeare's reputation article. Ladytheatrehistorian ( talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I clicked through the link for the Thomas Rymer material on _Othello_, and the destination all but took over my desktop, what with spawning browser windows all over the place, etc etc etc. I feel fortunate I was running Linux at the time, because I suspect more noxious things might happen to, say, a Windows machine. If anyone can uncover a replacement link for this one it'd be a Good Thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesonyrra ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't found another link with the text, so I expand the text of the link for clarification Alexcalamaro ( talk) 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I was pretty disappointed not to see Tolstoy's criticisms of Shakespeare, summarized in https://bigthink.com/high-culture/tolstoy-shakespeare/ Earlier in this section Bukowski is mentioned. Also https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/complete-guide-to-hating-shakespeare/ This entire article seems to have been started as some thesis of how 18th century scholars really admired Shakespeare, contrary to later writings by 19th century Romantics that he wasn't. Which is fine, but the rest of the article seems to be propaganda, as "communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented" Why are there literally no references to legitimate complaints about Shakespeare. Even specifically how the end of "Hamlet" just stinks, as T.S. Elliot wrote? It's like a predecessor to Game of Thrones, lol 75.71.166.197 ( talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention in this article of the 1911 Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet directed by Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig. It's considered one of the most important and influential stagings not just of a Shakespeare play in Russia but of any play anywhere, and it had an enormous impact on both theatre in Russia and on modern productions and interpretations of Shakespeare. However there currently is no section in the article which would allow mentions of Shakespeare in 20th century Russia before the 1917 revolution, since the article is divided into "19th century" and "20th century" sections, and in the 20th century section the segment on Russia begins with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if the 1911 MAT production should be included in the section on 19th century Russia as an example of Shakespeare's influence in the 1800s extending to the immediate early years of the next century, or in the Soviet Union section where it's mentioned as the immediately pre-revolutionary background context for later Soviet adaptations. But in any case I think it should be mentioned somewhere. -- VolatileChemical ( talk) 22:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Reputation of William Shakespeare received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Please don't nominate this for Featured article, just in case anybody drops by and thinks of doing that (a conceited idea, I know!). It's fairly new, it's in flux, and it's far from comprehensive. Please see To-do list below (please help with the tasks!).-- Bishonen (talk) 19:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC).
And please also see Peer review. I posted it there today, along with an appeal on Talk:William Shakespeare. That's it from me, I'm fresh out of ideas.-- Bishonen | Talk 18:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Removed listing from Peer review after three weeks without comment. Bishonen | Talk 23:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To-do list for Reputation of William Shakespeare: An international perspective for each century, plus for the lead section. Elizabethan theatrical conditions. Most of the 20th century. Please note suggestion below for creating a separate article for Shakespeare movies! Inline citations |
This is a great article. I would like to read a section on the 20th and 21st century reputation as well (in particular the shift from the perception of Shakespeare as populist anti-classicist to the common modern perception of him as associated with intellectual elitism?). The Singing Badger 21:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely this should be titled William Shakespeare's reputation? violet/riga (t) 22:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've rearranged the small matter on popularity of staging and trimmed it and mentioned the great critical editors with the textual editors. I've consciously left out some folks like Hanmer and Warburton, as the former used Pope's text, and the latter didn't do much to improve Theobald's, and neither have lasting critical insights. Geogre 03:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Drury Lane and Covent Garden did the competing Shakespeares. However, I can't find, yet, the exact seasons. This was Rich vs. Cibber, and this was Garrick vs. all comers. Bishonen, do you know when this happened? This is what I got from the fusty musty 1911:
"Rich's management occurred the rival performances of Romeo and Juliet--Barry and Mrs. Cibber at Covent Garden, and Garrick and Miss Bellamy at Drury Lane--and the subsequent competition between the two rival actors in King Lear. "
Bad old 1911 habit of perpetuating the 18th c. habit of not giving women's names. Figured this might ring a bell for you.
Geogre 14:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, by now we have the seasons in question, as well as (and I don't feel like stating it, as it's irrelevant except to this talk page) that it was Mrs. Theophilus Cibber that would have been the draw. The reason that I thought the dueling Shakespeares was a good thing to put in, though, is that, while we know that it was a theater war, it's also a sign of Shakespeare's reputation that both houses felt that Shakespeare was the cudgel with which to beat the other guy. I.e. rival Lillo's wouldn't have gotten an audience sufficient for anyone to care, but a rival Shakespeare was the talk of the town. The implication is that everyone wanted to see the great actor play the great role, the great actress in the great part. Therefore, I think that this use of Shakespeare testifies to the regard in which he was held in the 18th c. Geogre 17:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any plans for a 20th century section? I could probably add a few lines on the modernists and bollocky bill from over the hill. Filiocht 15:32, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I started that up for you guys. I've always wanted to use the word "punk" in an article on Shakespeare :> The Steve 05:23, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
On the 20th c., it's one of those potentially very touchy things. I mean, on the stage, the biggest thing seems to me the advent of psychoanalytic approaches and Marxist approaches to the plays. Hamlet we all know about: everyone wants Oedipus in there. Seems to me that if the article goes into any depth on the 20th c. stage vs. page, we get the fact that the stagings seem to respond to the challenges/innovations of Freud and Marx in one broad swathe, but then that two other swathes exist. One is the a democratic impulse, where various nations established programs to try to get Shake performances out to children, and free or low-cost productions about (Shakespeare in the Park in NYC is one good example of this, but just one), while some nations also set up official Shakespeare theaters, with the Royal being most important. These theaters do nothing but Shake and pals. Also, some libraries, like the Folger Library in Washington DC, do nothing but work on getting absolute authority of text and times. (As for the High Modernist reading, Hamlet, in particular, as a victim of "dissociative sensibilities" and the indecisive prince is kind of It.) Random thoughts, but all things in there, I suppose. Geogre 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if more should be said regarding the influence of Cultural Materialism (specifically Sinfield and Dollimore's 1994 Political Shakespeare and its ramifications) on Shakespeare's critical reputation in the last two decades of the 20th century. Also, need anything be said regarding the reputation of Shakespeare since the dawn of the internet? It seems to complicate the stage/page dichotomy. Cfsibley ( talk) 20:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That sound great, Filiocht. I'm also painfully aware of how London-centric the article is at this moment, I'm hoping you will redress that somewhat in the projected 20th-century section. It would also be a very good thing if anybody had any input to giv e about Billy's rep in the rest of the world in the 18th-19th centuries. (How about the lively 18th c Dublin scene, Filiocht, do you know if it just reflected London, Bill-wise?) At a pinch, I could put in something myself about French neoclassical stand-offishness and German Romantic bard worship (worst case of bardolatry anywhere, I believe), I suppose, sigh... but real French and German contributors would do it better, and, anyway, coverage would still be very patchy. What about the U. S. in the 19th-c, did that merely reflect the British scene? Maybe I need to take International Billy to the Pump.--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 12:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kind of a warning. I think we need to think about whether Shake in film is a good thing or not. Once that can of film gets opened, a lot of stuff will come flying out. My suggestion is that Shake on Film be only a hint in this article -- just as it relates to his reputation -- with possibly some suggestion that the number of adaptations (from West Side Story to King of New York) -- but that it transclude to another, separate article. Shakespeare films is either already or should be a separate, full length article. Geogre 21:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The article probably needs something on Tolstoy's extensive (and vitriolic) criticism of Shakespeare. Haukurth 22:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If you work on this article, and look things up and stuff, maybe you'll come across some cool passages about Shakespeare. Please consider adding them to the Critical quotations section! It only runs from 1668 to 1775 right now, it could sure stand extending in both directions.--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 15:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe this could help fill a gap in the critical quotes between Johnson and Carlyle. On the other hand, it's pretty darned fulsome, which is why I didn't just go ahead and paste it in:
Thomas de Quincey, "On the Knocking at the Gate in Macbeth" (1823) (concluding paragraph):
O, mighty poet! Thy works are not as those of other men, simply and merely great works of art; but are also like the phenomena of nature, like the sun and the sea, the stars and the flowers,--like frost and snow, rain and dew, hail-storm and thunder, which are to be studied with entire submission of our own faculties, and in the perfect faith that in them there can be no too much or too little, nothing useless or inert--but that, the further we press in our discoveries, the more we shall see proofs of design and self-supporting arrangement where the careless eye had seen nothing but accident!
If that's just too much, there's probably something in Lamb that's a little more restrained that would fill the gap too. PRiis 05:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have just created breakout article Quotations about Shakespeare and moved the critical quotes to it, please add to it!--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 21:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Quotations about Shakespeare has been moved to Timeline of Shakespeare criticism, in the hope that under this title, it will be the less likely to offend as being not a proper article (in contrast to, say, List of books with the subtitle "Virtue Rewarded") and get transwikied to Wikiquote. The reason I broke out the quote section at all, if it needs stating, is that Shakespeare's reputation is already long (nudging the recommended 32k limit) and will clearly need to be longer before it's comprehensive. Notable gaps: international perspective, Elizabethan theatrical conditions, most of the 20th century.--[[User:Bishonen| Bishonen (talk)]] 18:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your input, allie. To keep the discussion chronological and yet be able to respond point-by-point, I'll repeat your comments in italics here, and interline my own responses.
The Carlyle quote appears in the introduction as well as the last paragraph. Use it once for punch - otherwise it loses its effectiveness. The "emblem of pride" appears again in the para at the end of the 19th century. So...he's been pretty consistent as an emblem of pride, yes? Why not state it that way? Throughout his time, Shakespeare has consistently been an emblem of pride?
I don't state it because I don't think it's true. Longer articles like this one have a "Lead section", which introduces and summarizes the article, before the TOC. The Lead isn't about the first period of Shakespeare's rep, but is a representation in little of the whole of the article. Thus the mention in the Lead of "an emblem of national pride" refers to the 19th century, just as it does in the 19th-century section below. I don't by any means believe that Sh has been consistently an emblem of pride--a rallying-sign for patriotism--but that he specifically became one in the 19th century, in a way that Carlyle endorses, but also very acutely analyses, in Heroes and Hero-Worship in 1841. Thank you for telling me that this lends itself to misunderstanding, that's useful, and I'll certainly try to make it clearer.
What's the article's focus? On his reputation as a writer? Or his reputation as a theater dramatist?
Well, I think the article should appropriately be about both aspects. Wikipedia is meant to provide encyclopedic information to those who seek for it, rather than a means of self-expression for me (or even for a grouop of editors). The article's not an essay or academic paper: intrinsically, it doesn't have a focus. That said, pattern-making is pleasing to both writers and readers, and I've tried to provide some of that by doing a bit of a running comparison between the theatre rep and the literary rep—Shakespeare on the stage vs Shakespeare on the page—though apparently without much success, if you didn't pick up on it.
Remember: In an age when books were hard to come by, households often kept two books and two books only: The Bible and a copy of Shakespeare. This held true for centuries. You are relying on your strength here - as a historian of the British theater - instead of stretching your wings and presenting a more encompassing view of the Shakespeare who was a primary literary source. Does that go a long way to explain why he wasn't as popular in the Puritan era?
I started the article, but it isn't "mine"—fortunately, as the subject is both huge and pretty specialized—it covers 400 years of world literary and theatrical history! No one person is likely to be able to cover that little lot, unless by relying on received clichés. Knowing just how ignorant the clichés are that surround the drama of my own favorite period 1660-1700—they are basically the handed-down rags of Victorian prejudice—I'm very reluctant to venture into other well-researched fields that I in my turn only have a few half-baked notions about, and would write equally ignorantly about. But then this is exactly the kind of situation where, I hope, the wiki principle will come into its own. I've put in what I know—say, British theatre and literature (I do feel able to manage literature as well as the theatre, in fact it's my primary field) 1660—1800 or so, and even, when nobody else seemed to want to do it, writing a piece on the 19th century. Obviously that leaves a lot, compare the "To do" template I've put at the top of this page. Other people have chipped in, but with rather small-scale contributions so far. The 20th century is one big hole, and so is the international perspective. If possible, I'd also like a Victorian specialist to rewrite the 19th century bit—I'm fervently hoping that part isn't an actual disgrace, but I would sure like for someone who really knows to review it, at least.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice by breaking this down into centuries, instead of by the highs and lows of his popularity - both in theatre - and as an "emblem of pride." You know that centuries don't begin with dates - they begin with movements. For example, we can debate when this century began - 2000 was relatively unremarkable. 9/11 however, was the defining moment. So it was with the 20th c. Edwardian era v. WWI was the defining moment of the 20th c. The point? You are creating artificial boundaries by keeping within these "century" definitions and it's strangling you.
The difficulty to my mind is in breaking down the development of Shakespeare's reputation chronologically at all, because there were no sharp breaks in it, and all divisions will artificially suggest that there were. Still, for convenience of reference, 400 years do need to be broken down into smaller units, it can't be helped. Making those smaller units specifically centuries, on the other hand, is to my mind no problem at all. You'd have to make an ideological analysis, and be sure of a coherent view of world history and what its defining moments were, before subdividing according to "movements". The Victorians had the confidence to do that, because they just knew their view of history was the only correct view; modern historians don't, and certainly modern Shakespeare scholars don't. If you doubt that an analysis that sees the 21st century as beginning with 9/11 is idelogically based, compare Giano's answer to it. You think dividing the huge time-span by centuries is strangling me? A century is just a figure. It's an obviously artificial division, which leaves the reader as free as possible to see through it. A division by movement would really need just as much simplification, and would be a sneakily artificial division, that attempts to impose its values on the reader. You could summarize my argument here by saying that I think you're more concerned with not strangling the writer, while I'm more concerned with not strangling the reader.
Or, to put it at the most practical level, compare with your own statement that "we can debate" when this century began (and when all the others did, too). Right, if we abandon the neutral nakedness of centuries, we not only can, we must, debate it. We'd have to debate it in the article itself, obviously, in order to be NPOV about it, and try to reach consensus about it. Sheesh. Heat and dust of "debate" about when periods properly begin, and what their significant features are—that would strangle this article.
You make a lot of literary references to why he's the crowning glory of the British empire
You really think I do? As I mention above, I only believe Shakespeare was constructed in this way in the 19th century (and in the early 20th c, actually, but that section's basically still to do). Intentionally, I only mention national pride and the British empire with ref. the 19th c, so please let me know if it's snuck in anywhere else, and I'll take it out.
but you don't touch why he has endured four centuries. Why? What is it about Shakespeare?
Because there is an article William Shakespeare, and articles about the separate plays. My own feeling is that discussion of enduring or somehow context-transcending qualities goes better in those, though certainly others may disagree. Mind you, few modern Shakespeare scholars believe there are any context-transcending qualities, but then that fact needs to be part of the discussion, too.
He's not easy to read, yet we still do...And you are corrrect- actors still jump through hoops to play Shakesperian roles on the stage. your citations: you could find a dozen written within the past five years. That alone is a testament to his reputation. -- allie 10:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah—not sure what your point is here. I could probably find a thousand. There's a huge academic Shakespeare industry out there, growing almost by the hour. The nearer we get to our own time, the easier it becomes to find, and the harder to select. The 20th century section really needs to be written, or at least largely contributed to, by a Shakespeare specialist, by somebody in the industry, IMO: only they are likely to have the bird's eye view needed for good selection. There are people like that on wikipedia, too—I don't know why they've so far been too lazy to help out here! ;-)
Thanks very much for thinking about the article, allie, you've certainly given me food for thought. Many things in there need further work to make them clearer, obviously. -- Bishonen | Talk 01:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is a hugely impressive article, and I'm reluctant to add my tuppenyworth to it for fear that I'll disrupt the flow of it, but I have a couple of comments, and maybe I'll try to add some stuff at the weekend (just a warning!) Firstly, I think the distinctiveness of the Romantic Shakespeare is played down too much. Yes, of course, the contrast of Jonson's 'learned sock' and Shakespeare, 'fancy's child', warbling his native woodnotes is longstanding, but the the difference is, surely, that Romanticism transformed that notion of what 'nature' means - no longer simply unfettered and untutored, but rather something 'far more deeply interfused' than rules could ever achieve. This notion that there is an organic unity to S's work could, perhaps, be explored more. I think the tendency of some Victorian writers - e.g. Ruskin and Delia Bacon - to treat S as though his works are a kind of secular Bible could also be mentioned.
My main problem, though, is the British emphasis of the article. There's nothing on Shakespeare in the writings of the Schlegels, or Hugo's essay on the grotesque for example. There's nothing on the famously intense relationship that many Russian writers have had to the Shakespeare canon. There's a brief, dismissive, reference to Voltaire -- who was the primary source of Shakespeare in translation during the 18th century, not just in France but across Europe -- but that's about it.
Obviously there's a danger that the article might become unwieldy if we add too much, but at the moment there's no explanation for the fact that it is only about Shakespeare's reputation in Britain. Paul B 13.22 15 March 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps these should be a 'dissenting voices' section, otherwise this seems rather tacked-on and irrelevant,
Seems to me that bit would seem tacked on and irrelevant whatever the section, actually. Surely there must be some more articulate, analytic, and illuminating dissent to quote. Returning to the present incompleteness of the article, I hope any further passing Shakespeareans and other specialists will take the time to read my pleas for assistance with this incompleteness all over this Talk page, rather than expect explanations of shortfalls in the article itself, as that is not where such explanations appropriately go ("Avoid highlighting the incomplete state of an article", or words to that effect, is Wikipedia policy.) Please pitch in rather than point to the outrages by omission that I have committed. -- Bischånen| Tåk 16:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I recently purchased a book on Auden's lectures concerning all of Shakespeare's plays, and I know his obsession with the Bard (leading, of course, to his lengthy poetic treatment of The Tempest) was a lifelong one. Is he a prominent enough critic to warrant mention? If so, should I be looking for a good quotation? And would it be better to bring in more of Auden's praise of Shakespeare, or his criticisms? In my limited awareness, Auden seems willing to do both. Any thoughts or guidance would be most welcome. :-) Jwrosenzweig 17:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I doubt a dispute over dates is a good reason to remove all reference to Sarah Siddons. Leading men of the eighteenth century get named in this article. Right now the piece says nothing at all about the emergence of women in the profession, which is certainly a major change in theatrical custom. Was there any renowned and influential actress who predates Sarah Siddons? Durova 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the quotation by "Terry Hawkes" from the caption of the lead image. There is no Terry Hawkes article and no other reason to believe that it is encyclyopedic that Terry Hawkes said Shakespeare was "up for grabs". Mike Dillon 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've added a cite and external link. I hope that's alright. Adam Cuerden talk 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A link to Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool somewhere in the article might not be amiss. Haukur ( talk) 12:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"In his own time, William Shakespeare (1564 – 1616) was seen as merely one among many talented playwrights and poets, but ever since the late 20th century he has been considered the supreme playwright,"
you say 20th century, but shakespeare's fame took off in the early 19th century (as is stated later in the article). a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.244.50 ( talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Per the discussions at Talk:Leonhard Euler and WikiProject Mathematics, I am removing the discussion of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment from the body of the article, for the same basic reasons mentioned in the above discussions. Murray's work is primary research about a topic that Murray is is not a recognized expert. aprock ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose the addition of a 21st century section. In the last twenty years the body of Shakespeare criticism have been seriously concerned with the effects of its own existence: this article, by nature, is part of that metacritical body and would benefit from such a reflection. I propose consideration of the following: Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World, Majorie Garber's Profiling Shakespeare and Shakespeare and Modern Culture. Thoughts? Cfsibley ( talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William Shakespeare's influence which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure of the best way to improve the following sentence with citation: "After the Licensing Act of 1737, a quarter of plays performed were by Shakespeare,[citation needed] and on at least two occasions rival London playhouses staged the very same Shakespeare play at the same time (Romeo and Juliet in 1755 and King Lear the next year) and still commanded audiences." The statistic about one in four plays performed on the London stage being Shakespeare plays refers to the 1740-1741 season (source is Michael Dobson's The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769 p. 161. And as Dobson points out that statistic was not repeated during Garrick's time on stage (so through until his retirement in 1776). It is also significant to note that Shakespeare scholars Michael Dobson, Gary Taylor, and Emmett Avery attribute the one in four ratio of Shakespeare plays performed during the 1740-1741 season to the efforts of the Shakespeare Ladies Club, this information should be reflected in this section of the Shakespeare's reputation article. Ladytheatrehistorian ( talk) 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I clicked through the link for the Thomas Rymer material on _Othello_, and the destination all but took over my desktop, what with spawning browser windows all over the place, etc etc etc. I feel fortunate I was running Linux at the time, because I suspect more noxious things might happen to, say, a Windows machine. If anyone can uncover a replacement link for this one it'd be a Good Thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesonyrra ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't found another link with the text, so I expand the text of the link for clarification Alexcalamaro ( talk) 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I was pretty disappointed not to see Tolstoy's criticisms of Shakespeare, summarized in https://bigthink.com/high-culture/tolstoy-shakespeare/ Earlier in this section Bukowski is mentioned. Also https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/complete-guide-to-hating-shakespeare/ This entire article seems to have been started as some thesis of how 18th century scholars really admired Shakespeare, contrary to later writings by 19th century Romantics that he wasn't. Which is fine, but the rest of the article seems to be propaganda, as "communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented" Why are there literally no references to legitimate complaints about Shakespeare. Even specifically how the end of "Hamlet" just stinks, as T.S. Elliot wrote? It's like a predecessor to Game of Thrones, lol 75.71.166.197 ( talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention in this article of the 1911 Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet directed by Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig. It's considered one of the most important and influential stagings not just of a Shakespeare play in Russia but of any play anywhere, and it had an enormous impact on both theatre in Russia and on modern productions and interpretations of Shakespeare. However there currently is no section in the article which would allow mentions of Shakespeare in 20th century Russia before the 1917 revolution, since the article is divided into "19th century" and "20th century" sections, and in the 20th century section the segment on Russia begins with the Soviet Union. I'm not sure if the 1911 MAT production should be included in the section on 19th century Russia as an example of Shakespeare's influence in the 1800s extending to the immediate early years of the next century, or in the Soviet Union section where it's mentioned as the immediately pre-revolutionary background context for later Soviet adaptations. But in any case I think it should be mentioned somewhere. -- VolatileChemical ( talk) 22:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)