Stephen Greenblatt is a professor at Harvard and the general editor of
“The Norton Shakespeare.” He has an article in the NYT opening "Why, the Bible brooded, was the kingdom of Judah governed by a
succession of disastrous kings? How could the greatest empire in the
world, ancient Roman historians asked themselves, have fallen into the
hands of a Caligula?" And how can we explain similar modern outrages? Shakespeare, he says, has the answer. Yikes! Where is this going? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? No, the good professor is writing about Donald Trump; he is comparing the Shakespeare history play, "Richard III," to the Trump election. One assumes he has had better days.
Apparently we are to take 15th Century England with a hereditary monarchy as a close parallel to our own times. His argument is that "Lady Anne, Lord Hastings, the Earl of Buckingham and so forth ....[t]aken together, they itemize a nation of enablers." The good professor argues that the people of England recognized the evil of Richard but for a number of egocentric and psychological reasons, overlooked his awful behavior and allowed him to advance and take power in spite of the fact he was clearly incapable and undeserving of the job.
First he is too easy on Buckingham--who was not an enabler, he was an accomplice--and too hard on Lady Anne, whose behavior has always been criticized as inexplicable and a fault in the play. (Lady Anne in history was actually devoted to Richard.)
More, part of the horror in the play is how capable Richard is, in the play and in history. He is effective in the play because he is remorseless, driven and unscrupulous. He is not rejected by the audience because he is inept, he is rejected because he is evil.
One point, is, I think, legitimate. "...perhaps strangest of all, there are those who take vicarious pleasure in the release of pent-up aggression, in the black humor of it all, in the open speaking of the unspeakable. “Your eyes drop millstones when fools’ eyes fall tears,” Richard says to the murderers whom he has hired to kill his brother. “I like you, lads.” It is not necessary to look around to find people who embody this category of collaborators. They are we, the audience, charmed again and again by the villain’s jaunty outrageousness, by his indifference to the ordinary norms of human decency, by the lies that seem to be effective even though no one believes them, by the seductive power of sheer ugliness. Something in us enjoys every minute of his horrible ascent to power."
Maybe not "charmed," but at least fascinated. And maybe just a little bit of schadenfreude.
Apparently we are to take 15th Century England with a hereditary monarchy as a close parallel to our own times. His argument is that "Lady Anne, Lord Hastings, the Earl of Buckingham and so forth ....[t]aken together, they itemize a nation of enablers." The good professor argues that the people of England recognized the evil of Richard but for a number of egocentric and psychological reasons, overlooked his awful behavior and allowed him to advance and take power in spite of the fact he was clearly incapable and undeserving of the job.
First he is too easy on Buckingham--who was not an enabler, he was an accomplice--and too hard on Lady Anne, whose behavior has always been criticized as inexplicable and a fault in the play. (Lady Anne in history was actually devoted to Richard.)
More, part of the horror in the play is how capable Richard is, in the play and in history. He is effective in the play because he is remorseless, driven and unscrupulous. He is not rejected by the audience because he is inept, he is rejected because he is evil.
One point, is, I think, legitimate. "...perhaps strangest of all, there are those who take vicarious pleasure in the release of pent-up aggression, in the black humor of it all, in the open speaking of the unspeakable. “Your eyes drop millstones when fools’ eyes fall tears,” Richard says to the murderers whom he has hired to kill his brother. “I like you, lads.” It is not necessary to look around to find people who embody this category of collaborators. They are we, the audience, charmed again and again by the villain’s jaunty outrageousness, by his indifference to the ordinary norms of human decency, by the lies that seem to be effective even though no one believes them, by the seductive power of sheer ugliness. Something in us enjoys every minute of his horrible ascent to power."
Maybe not "charmed," but at least fascinated. And maybe just a little bit of schadenfreude.
No comments:
Post a Comment