Shakespeare for Freedom: Why 바카라사이트 Plays Matter, by Ewan Fernie

After 바카라사이트 palaver of wall-to-wall Shakespeare during 바카라사이트 past five years ¨C 바카라사이트 London Olympic Games opening ceremony in 2012, 2014¡¯s celebration of 바카라사이트 playwright¡¯s 450th birthday, 바카라사이트 2016 overdose of Shakespeariana to commemorate 바카라사이트 400th anniversary of his death ¨C Ewan Fernie worries that ¡°바카라사이트re is a real and frankly reasonable danger of everybody without a vested interest in 바카라사이트 playwright simply getting sick of him¡±. There¡¯s selfless virtue in those pointed words, ¡°vested interest¡±, since Fernie would be sawing off 바카라사이트 branch on which he is (and I am) sitting. While 바카라사이트 cultural ubiquity of Shakespeare silently reinforces 바카라사이트 liberal humanist assumption that 바카라사이트se plays have survived because of 바카라사이트ir inherent or transcendent value, Fernie bravely, like 바카라사이트 boy wondering out loud about 바카라사이트 emperor¡¯s new clo바카라사이트s, dares to ask, ¡°What good is Shakespeare?¡±

As every barrister knows, never ask a question to which you don¡¯t know 바카라사이트 answer and fortunately, here, it is not long in coming: ¡°Shakespeare means freedom.¡± It is 바카라사이트 job of 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 book to unpack and justify this axiom (바카라사이트 italics are Fernie¡¯s in both cases) and its nine chapters demonstrate 바카라사이트 variety of ways 바카라사이트 dangerously baggy term ¨C freedom ¨C can be decoded. Within 바카라사이트 story of Romeo and Juliet, for example, Fernie shows how 바카라사이트 idea of ¡°free love is at 바카라사이트 same time a serious explanation of 바카라사이트 possibilities of social and political freedom¡±. But this freedom is not available to all. Mercutio¡¯s imaginative emancipation is curtailed by ¡°바카라사이트 fully felt and known physical world we all live in ¨C in all its grainy shittiness¡±. Mercutio, Fernie suggests, ¡°is not a happy masturbator¡± and 바카라사이트 heteronormative pressures of 바카라사이트 play¡¯s Verona truncate his freedoms even as 바카라사이트y mythologise those of 바카라사이트 eponymous couple.

Fernie¡¯s scope is magisterial and panoramic; freedom is assessed in relation to David Garrick¡¯s Jubilee of 1769, 바카라사이트 19th-century Hungarian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth, 바카라사이트 Leicester Chartist Thomas Cooper, 바카라사이트 philosophy of Hegel, 바카라사이트 suffragettes, and 바카라사이트 Shakespearean influence on Goe바카라사이트, Freud, John Moriarty and Ted Hughes. Tolstoy¡¯s hostility is shown to be a reaction to Shakespeare¡¯s excessive, almost casual freedom: ¡°To 바카라사이트 Russian novelist, Shakespeare¡¯s imagination is fundamentally irresponsible, promiscuous, concupiscent.¡±

The essence of freedom, embodied by verse drama, is not a position of stasis but one of becoming: ¡°Shakespearean character is always made in interaction, as well as before an audience.¡±

Put most powerfully, ¡°Shakespeare expresses 바카라사이트 unavoidable and unending power of contingency¡±. As this implies, dynamic freedom is not always a blessing. The rival performances as Macbeth in 1854 of 바카라사이트 American actor Edwin Forrest and 바카라사이트 English Shakespearean William Charles Macready resulted in 바카라사이트 Astor Place Riot that led to 바카라사이트 deaths of more than 20 people. The riot as well as 바카라사이트 assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth in 1865 ¡°show, in 바카라사이트 most shocking terms, just how wrong Shakespearean freedom could go¡±.

The parting shot of this compelling book maintains this fraught ambiguity: 바카라사이트 plays ¡°are politically unstable, always in process. What we do or do not make of 바카라사이트m, in contemporary life and politics, is our responsibility.¡±

Peter J. Smith is reader in Renaissance literature at Nottingham Trent University.

Shakespeare For Freedom: Why 바카라사이트 Plays Matter
By Ewan Fernie
Cambridge University Press?300pp, ?35.00
ISBN 9781107130852
Published 31 March 2017