If you wish to be a literary
genius, it helps to come of humble parentage. It is also an advantage to be
working in a new artistic form in an age of imperial expansion, during the
reign of a long-lived female monarch. That, at least, is the pattern set by
Shakespeare and Dickens – and their genius is beyond dispute or compare.
So what difference does having a
long-reigning monarch make? Well, for one thing an extended reign implies
stability. People will make art as long as there are people, but the kind of
art they choose to make will depend on the circumstances of their time.
Elizabeth I’s reign followed centuries of turbulence and the years after the
dissolution of the monasteries had seen terrible religious hostilities.
Her sovereignty must have seemed
comparatively tranquil, despite plots, rebellions, foreign wars and threats of
invasion. After centuries of warfare against the French, Victoria’s rule also
saw a long period of relative peace with only one major conflict (Crimean War,
1853-56) which to everyone’s surprise was not against France but Russia.
The comparative stability of
Tudor England allowed theatre to become one of the principal forms of public
entertainment, along with sword fights, bear baiting and public executions.
Happy days. Relatively full employment, rising wages and freedom from wars,
famine and disease all helped Shakespeare develop his art and swell his
earnings – though when 30,000 people died of the plague in London in the early
1600s, The Globe was temporarily closed with all other theatres.
Shakespeare was fortunate in the
timing of his birth; before the foundation of the first modern playhouse, The
Theatre, in 1576, actors had toured the country performing in courtyards. Had
he been born earlier, there would have been no theatres in which to enact his
plays. Had he been born a few years later, there would have been no theatres at
all. When the Puritans seized power only a few years after his death, they were
banned - along with Christmas and anything else vaguely enjoyable.
If Shakespeare’s art was favoured
by socio-economic conditions, Dickens was equally advantaged. Rising levels of
literacy meant greater numbers of people could read novels, growth of the
middle class meant more people had leisure to read, while private lending
libraries (and from 1850 onwards, the spread of public libraries) reduced the
cost of books to the reading public. Even railway travel contributed to the
rise of the novel – long journeys required distraction and the first WH Smith
stores were sited at stations selling books to passengers. Railways featured
frequently in his stories, and while mighty locomotives helped distribute his
work round Britain, steamships carried it around the world. Almost all his
novels were published in monthly instalments and huge crowds waited on the quay
in New York to learn what had happened to Little Nell (she died, as they really
should have guessed she would).
The times Shakespeare and
Dickens lived helped shape their art; in a largely illiterate society, the
theatre was an ideal form of mass entertainment while in a more individualistic
age of wide literacy, the novel became pre-eminent. Yet if the worlds the authors
shared were characterized by their stability, they were also, paradoxically,
periods of intense social upheaval - for although they might have been stable,
they were not static. By the time of Shakespeare’s birth, feudal society was
well in decline. Early capitalist enterprise had begun and social boundaries
were breaking down, precisely giving chances to ambitious men of talent from
the provinces like him.
The same was true of Dickens’ era.
Huge populations moved from the countryside into constantly growing cities like
Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow, all with their terrible poverty,
sweated labour and slums. Vast fortunes were made and lost, dynasties created
and smashed. Such times can be as full of distress and confusion as they are
exhilarating. At times of rapid change we need art more than ever. And Dickens
and Shakespeare both made the most of this.
On top of everything else, the
reigns of Elizabeth I and Victoria were characterized by imperial expansion.
Elizabeth’s rule saw the beginnings of the empire in India with patents granted
to the East India Co, the first circumnavigation of the globe by Drake, early
colonization of the Americas and, more darkly, the start of the slave trade.
Victoria’s reign saw further massive expansion of industry, trade and imperial
possessions and by the end of her long life Britain’s empire was the largest
the world has seen.
Although the expansion in these periods
is touched on by both writers, notably Shakespeare in The Tempest, it is not imperialism as such that seems significant.
Rather, it is as if the energy and confidence that drove the exploration and expansion
were also driving the huge energies of Shakespeare, Dickens and their fellow
writers. And these were numerous. Shakespeare’s contemporaries counted Marlowe,
Kyd, Dekker, Middleton, Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher while Dickens’ saw
Thackeray, Elizabeth Gaskell, George Eliot, the Bronte sisters, Wilkie Collins,
Trollope and many others. In other words, conditions that allowed Shakespeare
and Dickens to thrive supported numerous friends and rivals – competition between
them further fuelling their energies.
It could be that some of that
energy was also driven by the excitement that always comes when working in a new
artistic form (note all the ‘isms’ that sprung up after Picasso kick-started
modern art in the early 1900s – cubism, fauvism, futurism, vorticism, expressionism,
constructivism…). The Tudors didn’t invent theatre, yet up to the 1570s in
England there had been little beyond morality and mystery plays. After the
creation of the first purpose built playhouses in London, things began to
change and the theatrical explosion that followed Marlowe’s early work was
extraordinary. He bashed the door down. Others followed him through it,
Shakespeare leading the charge.
The same is true for Dickens and
his contemporaries. The English novel dates back to the publication of Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe in 1719 and later
authors such as Jonathan Swift and Henry Fielding established a wide
readership. Dickens took from them all. Like Defoe, he was a journalist and had
an acute eye for detail; with Swift he shared an intense political engagement
and like Fielding he delighted in the picaresque and playful. He helped forge
the novel in its ‘heroic age’, becoming in the process one of the most
celebrated public figures of his day.
We are in times of rapid change
now. We also have a long reigning female monarch. So where is our contemporary
Shakespeare or Dickens? What seems to be lacking is the confidence of their
eras. Elizabeth II’s reign has seen the dismantling of empire and continued
erosion of Britain’s role as a world power. As a nation we lack belief in our
institutions and are fearful of the future.
Yet during her sovereignty,
there was a brief bubbling of optimism. That was in the 1960s, a happy interlude
of amazing innovation and creativity which threw up the Beatles, the Rolling Stones,
the Who, Cream, Pink Floyd and many more. We may not have had Shakespeare or
Dickens, but at least we had Lennon and McCartney, Jagger and Richards. They
fit the template – children from lower
down the social hierarchy but with access to education (three were at grammar
school. Richards had to be different and went to a tech, but there became a boy
soprano and sang for the queen at Westminster Abbey). They were also working in
a new artistic medium, rock and roll.
Their genius was in combination, not individualistic, specialising in the three minute pop song rather than the five
Act play or four volume novel. Does their work count as literary genius? Who
cares? Let’s just be grateful for Rubber
Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper’s and Abbey
Road, Let it Bleed, Beggar’s Banquet, Sticky Fingers and the rest. Vivat
Regina.
No comments:
Post a Comment