James S. ShapiroRezensionen

A beautiful read. In "1599", Shapiro tackles one year in the history of the citizens of London. It also happens to be the year William Shakespeare wrote "Henry V", "As You Like It", and "Julius Caesar", and began work on "Hamlet".

Despite the book's title, "1599" spreads its time equally between Elizabeth and her citizens, and the Bard himself. As Shapiro openly states, we know so little about what exactly led Shakespeare to write his plays, and about specific events in his life, that anything is by necessity conjecture - but he'd still rather stick to what is probable, not just possible. As such, he covers the complex political and social landscape brought about by Elizabeth and Essex, the Irish and the Spaniards, the changes in theatregoers and theatre laws, and other concerns that hit London and Stratford. He posits areas and concerns that may have affected Shakespeare as he wrote four such monumental works, while also seeking to explain the mindset of an Elizabethan during this shifting era.

What Shapiro has written is a book that first of all, educates about the living, breathing public mass of Londoners (people who, after all, were far more complex than any film stereotype); second, negates many of the needless conjectures determined to give every event in Shakespeare's plays some needlessly grandiose or tragic origin (all of which seek to undermine the fact that he was writing for a specific theatre and crowd, and working as a creative, not just working through some Freudian issues); and third, most importantly, sees Shakespeare as a human. We can never know what it was like to be such a genius during an era when history, linguistics, and politics rose up like never before. But we can ask questions about Shakespeare's personal stake in the theatre, about his reactions to other literary and political movements, about his reasons for taking age-old stories, myths, and plays, and reworking them into feats of ever-growing depth. A very enjoyable read, although I couldn't help wishing Shapiro could write a volume for every year of Shakespeare's professional life.

A hugely important book. The silliness over allegations that other people wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems continues into the 21st century, with no good reason. The great thing about Shapiro's book is that he analyses the history of such claims, as well as the stories of the two most common claimants - Francis Bacon and Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford - from an academic point-of-view, allowing us to see the reasons why these traditions arose, and the motivations behind those who were doing it. Shapiro manages to explain that there was plenty of cause for doubt, largely owing to lack of information, and misinformation, about Shakespeare's time.

Ultimately, the conclusion that Shapiro reaches is perfectly reasonable: the original supporters of Bacon and Oxford had their own reasons, and can at least be forgiven for inventive thinking. However, no new evidence has come to light in the last hundred years, and indeed evidence only points further to the futility of the argument, and the fact that Shakespeare is still the most likely candidate to have written his plays. (One of the most delightful ironies of the case, Shapiro points out, is that only a secret of truly shocking order - for instance, that Oxford was the lover and/or brother of Queen Elizabeth - could have caused a conspiracy so elaborate as to be almost impossible, yet such a secret would surely lead to someone doing otherwise with their life than writing luxuriously pointless comedies like "Much Ado About Nothing" and cheekily hiding obvious clues to their identity in the poems - while also having the foresight to anticipate that 20th century literary analysis would be able to pick up on them!)

Shapiro's book is the best of its kind in elaborating on the theories of Bacon and Oxford. However, there are better books on the case FOR Shakespeare, as this section is surprisingly short, which perhaps just evidences that Shapiro spent all of his research time on the claimants. Still, that's acceptable. Shapiro touches the basics of what we now know about Shakespeare, and pulls out a number of interesting facts (such as that the 'k' and 's' of a typesetter's kit could easily become entangled if pressed together, hence why a hyphen or 'e' was often included in "Shakespeare". It's not, as some nuts would have you believe, yet another hilariously unsubtle reference from Oxford that "Shake-speare" was a pseudonym.)

Oxfordians are probably very interesting people: they have rich imaginations, a refusal to subscribe to mainstream thought without questioning, and a love of good drama. Unfortunately, they also subscribe to a thought from over a hundred years ago that is thoroughly outdated. It's a thought that ignores the realities of playmaking, typesetting, copyright, and beliefs of the age, as well as imagining a kind of English writer's circle that could hold such a secret. (As a member of such a writing circle in another city, we ALL know each other: I doubt anyone in the theatre could fake their identity for three decades). Beyond this, their assumptions are based primarily on the idea that someone of less-than-aristocratic birth couldn't be a genius. As Shapiro notes, one of the old claims was that Shakespeare's aristocrats are so complex that they could only be written by an aristocrat. Even putting aside the simplistic retorts to that (do the murderers, teenage girls, and prostitutes of Shakespeare's plays come from another writer too?), one must wonder about the vast number of peasants and lower-born figures who are just as richly drawn.

It's a shame that an incredibly fringe theory (one that was almost obliterated until the rise of the internet, as Shapiro notes) has crept into the popular imagination of late. It does disservice to a long-dead great, makes inaccurate and ridiculous assumptions about Elizabethan life, and promotes the idea that we should all just "stay in our place". Rubbish. Read this book!

In 1599 Shakespeare was instrumental in building The Globe theater, and wrote several of his better-known plays: Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet. This was also a year of war, unrest, and uncertainty in England. This book sets Shakespear’s work against that backdrop, describing in detail the political situation in England and the cultural impact of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, which would soon be at an end. Shakespeare’s plays helped the audience understand present day events by telling the stories of long-dead figures; sometimes he also got away with criticism and satire.

The book is equal parts history and biography, a combination that worked for me. It was also interesting to read about those whose work influenced Shakespeare, although I admit I was easily lost when the author took deeper dives into Shakespeare’s writings and those of his contemporaries. But that’s probably just me.½

Although a rare departure from the American side taking a British playwriter who had a profound influence on many American thinkers, political, theatrical, & literary. This LOA edition refers to 71 authors who wrote referring to the Bard. A wide range of thought since 1776 to the present.

Among the many astounding things herein are, that it is possible to know so much about what Shakespeare was doing in 1599, the amount of Elizabethan history and then-current events reflected in the plays of 1599 that were never even hinted at when I was taught them, the many literary influences acting on Shakespeare and his ingenious response to them, and that the versions of "Hamlet" that I have read or seen performed may have been cobbled together from misremembered variant forms.
I found this book when Sophie Roell listed the best nonfiction of the past quarter century at the great website, fivebooks.com/.

A word you often hear used in reviews of academic works like “A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare” is accessibility. And that makes sense since these books dealing with subjects and issues that probably interest a very small demographic of the reading public need an audience for survival. This book is one of the least accessible books on Shakespeare I’ve ever read, and I’ve read many. I am a retired high school English teacher who taught Shakespeare for 40 years. I taught “Julius Caesar” and “Romeo and Juliet” for most of those years, and even I had a hard time making it through this book. In fact, at the epilogue, I quit. What those interested in Shakespeare need to know and accept is we know little to nothing about the man. In fact, in the excellent video “Shakespeare in the Classroom” (produced by the cast of the Academy Award winning film “Shakespeare in Love”), a list of five items is given as the only information we have on the bard: his baptismal date, his death date, the birth of his children, and a mention of Shakespeare in a real estate transaction. That’s it. So everything else that authors write about is speculation. That’s why in this book, you read phrases like, “Shakespeare might have…..” or “Shakespeare could have…..” Much of this book is given to the plays themselves and their impact on society at the time. Additionally, there is much given to the threat of war with Ireland, and Queen Elizabeth’s strained relationship with Essex, far removed from research on Shakespeare or his plays. I really struggled with this book, so I imagine readers who haven’t spent much time with Shakespeare since high school will most likely bail on it early on. True scholars of the bard are most likely the only audience for “A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare.”

There is no question this will be one of my top reads of 2021, and I can enthusiastically recommend it to anyone with an interest in both Shakespeare and American history. Actually, those who are interested only in Shakespeare or only in American history would probably each also find plenty to appreciate here.

In this book James Shapiro, a highly regarded Shakespeare scholar, explores the role of the bard's plays at eight points in American history as either a reflection of the then-current culture, or an influencer of that culture. His approach generally involves highlighting a dichotomy in how the plays, and in some cases the actors, are viewed from opposing social or political perspectives.

Shapiro's research is meticulous, whether he is analyzing documents from J. Q. Adams' college years, the 19th century actor Charlotte Cushman playing Romeo, or anecdotes involving Harvey Weinstein. Although I was familiar with the background against which he sets most of his discussions, I was completely unaware of the Astor Place riots in New York which resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties as a result of military action up to that point in the U.S. And it was triggered by competing productions of Macbeth!

Sadly, his concluding chapter, which covers the right-wing reaction to the NYC Public Theater's 2016 production of Julius Caesar, left me completely unnerved. Shapiro's analysis deftly highlights the inability to control fake news in the age of social media, and ends with the observation that it is not impossible that American culture of this century could mirror the English in the 17th century, when a vibrant artistic/theatrical scene was supplanted a few decades later by the beheading of a king and the ascendancy of the puritanical Oliver Cromwell. It would be nice to think it couldn't happen here - but based on this year's politics, I'm not so sure.

Noted Shakespearean writer Shapiro focuses on eight historical events between 1833 and 2017 that have connections to Shakespeares plays as a way to discuss attitudes around elitism, race, immigration, sexuality, media manipulation, and more.

It’s an interesting read from a historical perspective, as well as illuminating how the Bard’s work is often adopted and interpreted by parties on both sides of an argument. But it’s also a sobering read as the obvious conclusion is that we haven’t really learned anything about how to function as a society over the last few centuries.

Interesting,only heard the abridged radio version, which was good but mostly the modern eras, from the two other excellent reviews already written by others who have read the actual book it's clear that it's more balanced in full.

A very readable discussion of the relationships between Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Jonson, and how the playwrights influenced and responded to each other. The writing is accessible and not dense, though it does take some effort to keep straight the Jonson Folio and the Shakespeare First Folio when he addresses them only by date after the first mention. The final chapter and the epilogue discuss ways in which Jonson shaped Shakespeare's reputation and how later scholars responded to the bard by creating a persona for him that was not only not consistent, but wasn't even truly Shakespeare. The persona Jonson shaped for himself in opposition to that of Shakespeare also determined the way scholars responded to the Jonson portfolio. Interesting and enlightening, though the small type makes it difficult at times.½

Close readings of specific productions/films, including Shakespeare in Love and the Trump-evoking Julius Caesar that triggered right-wing outrage in recent years.

Entertaining and educational! I thought I knew a lot about Shakespeare already but this book taught me so much more. I really enjoyed learning some of the history of Elizabethan England.

For most of its length this is a depressing book; it illustrates how foolish even geniuses (Henry James, Mark Twain) can be. But the last third of it blows all the phantoms away by documenting how universally Shakespeare's preeminence was recognized in his own time.

My own reason for rejecting the idea that somebody else wrote Shakespeare's works is the same as for rejecting conspiracy theories in general: People are not good at keeping secrets. (Especially actors!) If Lord X was writing the plays, everyone in the theater would have known. Could you have resisted the temptation to tell somebody? Remember King Midas's barber.

Shapiro, James. Shakespeare in a Divided America. Penguin Press, 2020.
It is unusual for a work of stage history to make the New York Times top ten must read list, but one can see why Shakespeare in a Divided America made the list this year. Shapiro frames this cultural history of Shakespearean productions in America with a discussion of a right-wing protest of a recent production of Julius Caesar in which a Donald Trump lookalike played Caesar. He pairs that with a deadly 1849 riot at the opening of the Astor Opera House in Manhattan in which nativist working men broke up a production of Macbeth by a famous English actor. Throughout our history, Shapiro argues, Americans have used and abused the plays of Shakespeare to highlight all our cultural flashpoints: immigration, slavery and racism, political assassination, and gender roles. Here are some tidbits that I enjoyed. In the 19th century, Romeo was often played by women because macho leading men could not handle the lyricism in the part. Abigail Adams and John Quincey Adams were shocked by Desdemona’s sexual attraction to Othello. In The Tempest, Caliban was often used to reinforce racial stereotypes. John Wilkes Booth saw himself as a modern Brutus assassinating a tyrant Lincoln and could not understand why even Southern papers saw him as a villain rather than a self-sacrificing hero. The Taming of the Shrew had a revival after World War II, when there was pressure on working women to return to their duties as homemakers. Early drafts of Shakespeare in Love show the problems that the screenwriters and producers had with gender performance. Could Shakespeare kiss a cross-dressing Viola? Shapiro concludes that although we are seeing more culturally diverse performances these days, plays like Julius Caesar can still become embroiled in our politics. Recommended for anyone with even a passing interest in Shakespeare or in cultural criticism.

James Shapiro is one of the leading Shakespearean academics, and has a wonderful knack of presenting detailed studies of the plays and poems with great clarity and accessibility. In his previous books, 1599: A year in the life of Shakespeare and 1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear, he excelled at portraying the historical and political context against which the plays were written.

His latest book has moved into a slightly different field, recounting history of public engagement with Shakespeare in America. I had not previously appreciated the extent of American support for Shakespeare. If I had stopped to think of the issue at all, I suppose I might have expected a certain prejudice against such an icon of Britishness (or at least Englishness), as a manifestation of the ferocious pride in American independence from a former colonial power. It is clear from Shapiro’s book, however, that there is, and always has been, an abiding passion for the works of The Bard, that seems far stronger than any corresponding emotion among the public at large on this side of the Atlantic.

Of course, Shakespeare was writing at a time when European, and especially British, exploration of North America was becoming established as a norm. Indeed, some of Shakespeare’s weaker puns over seem to work if delivered in a transatlantic accent – early English-speaking residents of America would have been contemporaries of Shakespeare, and might have shared his own range of vowels (although that does, of course , beg the question of whether or not Shakespeare spoke in what we might now think of as a ‘Brummie’ accent.

I was fortunate enough to be immersed in Shakespeare’s works from a very young age, but know that for many of my contemporaries, a liking for his work is often despite, rather than as a consequence, of studying his plays at school. From a relatively early age, my mother made me learn a different sonnet or soliloquy each week, and if I could recite it faultlessly on Sunday morning, I was given a pound – back in the mid-1970s, when I was about twelve or thirteen, the spending power of that reward was considerable, so I turned to the task with great eagerness. As a consequence, I can still reel off considerable screeds of Shakespeare at the drop of a hat.

Such familiarity with his work seems to have been the norm with many American Presidents (although quite clearly not with the current incumbent), and Abraham Lincoln in particular. President John Quincy Adams also drew deeply upon his knowledge of Shakespeare’s plays, less felicitously than Lincoln would later do, not least in his vilification of Desdemona. Even just a month ago, I would probably have commented about how unbelievable President Adams’s dismissal of Desdemona for consorting with Othello seems today. Unfortunately, recent events have shown that institutional racism are very far from consigned to a dead past, and remain as insidious and divisive as ever. Shapiro analyses President Adams’s comments, and how they further inflamed a raging dispute across academia and beyond. Of course, this was against a context of a nation already divided over attitudes to slavery, that would lead to Civil War.

Shakespeare continued to have an unforeseen, and nowadays almost unimaginable, impact upon American history. In the third chapter of the book, Shapiro recounts how a violent riot erupted in New York in 1849, leaving more than twenty people dead. This arose from a feud between two Shakespearean actors: Briton William Macready and American counterpart Edwin Forrest. The rivalry between them had been seething for several years before boiling over with such serious sectarian consequences.

President Lincoln had a profound love of Shakespeare, whose works he could (and all too frequently did) recite at inordinate length. Acontemporary with an equal immersion in Shakespeare was his assassin, the actor John Wilkes Booth, who came from an acting family.

More recently, Shakespeare productions across America have provoked discussion of same sex relationships, adultery and what it is to belong. Shakespeare remains immensely popular in America, with as many as 250 or even 300 Shakespeare festivals held each year across the USA; more than the rest of the world put together.

This is that rare delight: a book as informative as it is entertaining, and a welcome addition to the canon of Shakespearean study.

Quite good.

If you're a Shakespeare fan I would HIGHLY recommend this book. It is an entertaining and extremely informative book about a year in the life of the finest writer in the English language. The year Mr. Shapiro analyzes is 1599 in which Shakespeare wrote four plays, including HAMLET. It was a volatile year in England with rebellions and political intrigue going on, and Shakespeare drew on all of that to write his plays. Mr. Shapiro does a wonderful job of showing the linkage between what was happening around Shakespeare and the stories and characters that ended up in his plays. The amount of detail is excellent, and Mr. Shapiro has a knack for making you feel like you're living through those events yourself. This is an especially good read for aspiring writers, as it dispels the myth that writing came easy to Shakespeare, and shows how much WORK went into plays.

I've read several books on the Bard, but this is my favorite so far, and I would highly recommend you read it.

The common problem when writing about Shakespeare is that biographical information is hard to come by, and it’s dangerous to read his plays and assume that he’s putting all of himself in there. James Shapiro gets around this challenge by writing about a pivotal year in Shakespeare’s—and England’s—life. In 1599, the succession to the throne of England was still uncertain, there were rebellions in Ireland and threats of armadas from Spain, and the East India Company was just getting started. Shakespeare, meanwhile, used events such as this to inform his writing four of his major plays: Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and Hamlet.

Shapiro explains not only the historical background of the plays but also the theatre-going environment, showing the reader what Elizabethan audiences would get out of certain plot choices or casting decisions or even certain lines. And he demonstrates just how challenging the plays were for the audiences, particularly As You Like It and Hamlet, which did new things with the pastoral romantic comedy and the revenge play, respectively.

I found this book most interesting when it talked more about the actual plays and the theatre, rather than straight history, as interesting and appropriate as it was. This is probably the first time I’ve been remotely tempted to read As You Like It, because I tend to favour Shakespeare’s tragedies and histories, and it’s all because of this book. I also found it interesting to read about the different editions of Hamlet and how modern editions (at least at the time this book was published, in 2005) conflate two printings of Hamlet in what ends up being far less coherent than Shakespeare intended. I’ll have to check my own copy of Hamlet to see what the editors did with that one.

This book contains a small set of colour plates in the middle and black-and-white sketches throughout the text, and a bibliographical essay that may be helpful to readers wanting to know more about a specific chapter or topic. I’d recommend this for people who like to read about the theatre or a different slant on English history.

I adore this book. It's a deep dive into a particular year in Tudor history -- the year in which Shakespeare wrote As You Like It and Hamlet. But it isn't just a book about Shakespeare; there's a lot of political and cultural history here, too. Well-written and fascinating, hard to put down. I'm really looking forward to checking out the follow-up, The Year of Lear.

A must-read if you are at all interested in the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly if you, like Shapiro--and like me--believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays). Covers some of the same ground as Shakespeare's Lives, but in a more readable and engaging fashion. The final section is an extremely compelling (to me) argument for Shakespeare-as-author.

A Good Year for Shakespeare but an Awful One for England: “1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear” by James Shapiro Published 2015.
 
 
 
“Faith, here’s an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales against either scale, who committed treason enough for God’s sake, yet could not equivocate to heaven.”
 
In Macbeth, “1606: William Shakespeare and the Year of Lear” by James Shapiro
 
 
In the last 2 years I've been thinking a lot about Shakespeare. One of the things that always bothers me is this: "If all of Shakespeare's works and words somehow disappeared from the Earth today (due to a Bard-targeting virus or something), it would be as if his works still existed."
 
I'll try not to be snarky, but please read this in your nicest teacher's voice.
 
The answer to the conundrum is yes. He'd still exist because his words exist in everything we have. By contrast, if Nicholas Sparks were to disappear tomorrow, along with all his books and the movies directly made from his books, future generations would never know he existed. His influence on humanity, culture, and history has been, let's say, minimal.
 
If you're into Shakespeare and his influence on what it means to be human, read on.

A must-read if you are at all interested in the Shakespeare authorship question (particularly if you, like Shapiro--and like me--believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays). Covers some of the same ground as Shakespeare's Lives, but in a more readable and engaging fashion. The final section is an extremely compelling (to me) argument for Shakespeare-as-author.

A rewarding book, putting King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra into the context of James I's agenda for the Union of his kingdoms (not to be realized until Queen Anne's day, and in a completely different context) and the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

It has been a commonplace for years that Macbeth is an extended act of attention towards James, both in his interest in the supernatural and as a Aeneid-style reference to an imperial future for Banquo's heirs (implying James == Augustus, which is pretty much how James liked to see himself, following in the footsteps of Elizabeth I as Astraea). Shapiro delves into this in detail, and into the ways in which the change in court environment (and patronage for Shakespeare's company) following James' accession on the death of Elizabeth shaped the plays Shakespeare was composing.

The discussion of Lear is enlightening, especially with regard to how the changes following the exposure of the Gunpowder Plot affected the two texts we have of Lear (Quarto and Folio), and the placing of Antony and Cleopatra into the context of how the monarchs' reflections in the plays affected what was acceptable (Elizabeth - Cleopatra and James - Octavius) at various times.

Like his earlier book on 1599, this is "old" historicism at its best -- allowing the environment of the time to cast light on the works produced. It effects no revolution in our understanding of Shakespeare, but deepens our understanding of critical details in the works.

An amazing book that draws together threads of Shakespeare's plays, his life, and what was happening in England during 1606. A remarkable year indeed. The in-depth analysis of King Lear, Macbeth, and Antony & Cleopatra is superb. Highlighting topical aspects of the plays not obvious to today's readers/audience was very interesting, I especially learned much about equivocation. The chapters are organized well both roughly chronological and with clear themes. I'm lucky enough to enjoy Shakespeare plays on a regular basis and now I can't wait to see that much more the next time I can take in those from the Year of Lear!

This is a fascinating way to look at Shakespeare. Shapiro looks at what was going on around Shakespeare as he was working on this three works. From the political world to the obsession with witches. I, personally, have never thought about the why of Shakespeare's writing outside of himself. But of course he would have been not only aware of what was going on, he would use it for his craft. Shakespeare did not write in a vacuum and Shapiro really brings that home. The writing is excellent and the notes are easy to follow for research is desired. It has changed the way that I see Shakespeare's plays and now I want to know more about what was going on when he was writing his other works as well.

I give this book a Five out of Five stars. I get nothing for my review and I borrowed this book from my local library.