Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah-Jane Crowson
Your post had me running to Heywood's, 'Fair Maid of the West' - as I think context here is so important. Shakespeare arrived at a very precise time and place. And he was surely, sure-footedly, political. And an entertainer, and a great writer. But sometimes I think that we don't read enough of Johnson, and Heywood, and the writers around Shakespeare but instead leap on an easy acceptance of what the past and present deify as mastery. |
Honestly, if there's but one thing that anyone takes away from this thread, I hope it's what you just said so concisely. Shakespeare's greatness is beyond question, but he certainly didn't eclipse his peers. He just generally shone a
bit brighter, and benefited from duration. Saying as much is not sacrilege, but simply highlights that the 1580s-1610s was a very special time in English literature -- one for which the overused term
zeitgeist certainly applies. One could made a compelling speculative argument that had Shakespeare not existed, there are several candidates for playwrights who would have held a similar place in literary history. That does not detract from the fact that Shakespeare
is the person in that place, and deservedly so. I just agree that more of his peers deserve to be read and taught, because there's some truly exceptional drama and poetry from that condensed period.