The Legend of Shakespeare
Notes of a Lecture given by Dr. Rudolf Steiner
Berlin, May 6, 1902
�
|
NOTE: Friends who heard that notes of a lecture
on Shakespeare given by Dr. Steiner in 1902 at the Workmen's School In Berlin
existed, expressed the wish to read these notes. They were taken down by Johanna
M�cke, who did not know shorthand, so that they do not claim to be complete. Their
7 pages of typescript may correspond to about 25 typescript pages of the
original text of the lecture. But important points emerge even from these
incomplete notes. Marie
Steiner A whole
legend has arisen on Shakespeare and whole libraries have been written on
each one of his works. Men of learning have given many interpretations of his
plays, and a number of writers considered that an uneducated actor could not
have produced all the thoughts which they discovered in Shakespeare's works,
and they established the hypothesis that not William Shakespeare, the actor
of the Globe Theatre, could have written the plays which bear his name, but
some other highly learned man, for example Lord Bacon of Verulam, who in view
of the low estimation of literary activity at that time, borrowed the actor's
name. These suppositions are based on the fact that no manuscripts by
Shakespeare have ever been found; they are also based upon a notebook
discovered in a London library with single passages in it which are supposed
to correspond with certain passages in Shakespeare's plays. But Shakespeare's own works bear witness that he is their author. His
plays reveal that they were written by a man who had a thorough knowledge of
the theatre and the deepest understanding for theatrical effects. That Shakespeare himself did not publish his plays was simply in
keeping with the general custom at his time. Not one of his plays was printed
during his lifetime. They were anxiously kept away from the printing press,
the people were to come to the theatre and see the plays there, not read them
at home. Prints which arose at that time were thefts, based on stenographic
notes taken during a performance (shorthand had just begun to exist), so that
their text did not correspond to the original version, but was full of errors
and mutilations. These partial omissions and mistakes led certain investigators to the
statement that Shakespeare's plays are not works of art of any special value
and that originally they must have existed in quite a different form. One of
these investigators is Eugen Reichel, who thinks to recognise in the author
of Shakespeare's plays a man with a definite world-conception. But such
statements are contradicted by the fact that the plays, in the form in which
they now exist, are able to exercise an extraordinary Influence. We see this
great effect in plays that have undoubtedly been mutilated, for example in
�MACBETH�. The hold of Shakespeare's plays on his audience was proved by a
performance of �HENRY V� at the Inauguration of the Lessing Theatre. It did
not fail to produce a powerful impression in spite of a very bad translation
and poor acting. Shakespeare's dramas are above all character-dramas. The great
interest which they arouse does not so much lie in the action,
as in the wonderful exposition and development of the single characters. The
poet conjures up before us a human character and unfolds its thoughts and
feelings. This development in art which culminated in Shakespeare is determined
by the preceding phase of cultural development; The Renaissance period. Shakespeare's
character-dramas could only arise as a result of the higher estimation of the
individual during the Renaissance. During the early Middle Ages we find, even
in Dante and in spite of his marked personality, the expression of
Christian ideals of that time. The Christian type of his days, not the
individual personal essence of the human being, appeared in the foreground. This
was the general conception. The Christian principles of that time did not
concern themselves with the single personality, with the individual. But
little by little a new world-conception aroused the interest in the
Individual human being. The fact that Shakespeare's fame spread so quickly proves that he
found an audience keenly interested in the theatre, that is to say, with a
certain understanding for the representation of the personality as offered by
Shakespeare. Shakespeare's chief aim was to set forth individual characters,
he was far from presenting to his audience an ethical or moral idea. For
example, the idea of a tragic guilt, as found in Schiller's dramas, who thought
that he had to encumber his hero with it in order to justify the catastrophe,
does not exist in Shakespeare's plays. He simply allows the events to take
their course consistently, uninfluenced by the idea of guilt and atonement. It
would be difficult to trace a concept of guilt in this meaning in any of his
dramas. Shakespeare also did not intend to present ideas of any kind, he did
not wish to set forth jealousy in Othello or ambition in Macbeth, but simply
the definite characters of Othello, Macbeth, or Hamlet. Just because he did
not burden his characters with theories, he was able to create such great
ones. He was thoroughly acquainted with the stage, and this practical
knowledge enabled him to develop his action in such a way as to thrill an
audience. In the whole literature of the world there are no plays which are
so completely conceived from the standpoint of the actor. This is a clear
proof that Shakespeare, the actor, has the merit of having written
these plays. (See in this connection Rudolf Steiner's lectures given at
Stratford on Avon.) Shakespeare was born at Stratford in 1564; his father was in fairly
good circumstances, so that his son was able to attend the grammar school of
his native town. There are many legends about Shakespeare's youth. Some say
that he was a poacher and led an adventurous life. These facts have been
adduced against his authorship, yet these very experiences could only enrich
his dramatic creation. Even the fact that in spite of his good education he
was not encumbered with book-learning, gave him the possibility to face
things more freely and in a far more unprejudiced way. The poet's adventurous
nature explains to some extent some of the greatest qualities in his plays:
the bold flight of his fantasy, his sudden changes in the action, his passion
and daring, all bear witness to a life full of movement and colour. In 1585, when Shakespeare's financial conditions were no longer in a
flourishing state, he went to London. There he began his theatrical career in
the lowest ranks, by holding the horses of the visitors while they were
enjoying the performance. He then became supervisor of a number of such boys
who had to hold the horses' reins, and was at last admitted to the stage. In
1592, he recited his first more important part. His fame soon began to spread � both as an actor and as a dramatist �
and his conditions improved, so that in 1597 he was already able to buy a
house at Stratford. As part-owner of the Globe Theatre, he became a wealthy
man. Shakespeare's plays �LOVE'S LABOUR LOST,� �AS YOU LIKE IT� and some of
the Kings' plays do not differ so greatly from the plays of his
contemporaries, of Marlowe and others, their expressive power, their purity
and naturalness were moreover impaired by a certain artificial note which was
the fashion in those days. The great character-plays which were to establish
his fame for all times followed little by little; �HAMLET�, �MACBETH�, �KING
LEAR�, �JULIUS CAESAR�, after his first great play �OTHELLO�. Some of Shakespeare's biographers and commentators wish to deduce from
certain of his plays troubled experiences which embittered him. But in
Shakespeare's case this is difficult to establish, because his identity
withdraws behind his characters. They do not voice his thoughts, but
they all think and act in accordance with their own disposition and
character. It is consequently useless to ask what Shakespeare's own standpoint
may have been on certain difficult questions. For it is not Shakespeare, but Hamlet
who broods over the problem of �to be, or not to be;� it [is] Hamlet who
recoils from his father's ghost, just as it is Macbeth who recoils from the
witches. Whether Shakespeare believed in ghosts and witches, whether he was a
churchgoer or a freethinker, is not the essential point at all, he simply
faced the problem: how should a ghost or a witch appear on the scene so as to
produce a strong effect upon the audience. The fact that this effect is
undiminished today, proves that Shakespeare was able to solve this problem. We should not forget that the modern stage is not favourable to the
effect which Shakespeare's plays can produce. The importance which is now
attributed to decorations, costumes, etc., the frequent changes of scenery,
diminish the effect which is to be produced by the characters in the plays �
for this remains the chief thing. In Shakespeare's time, when a change of
scenery was simply indicated by a notice-board, when a table and a chair
sufficed for the equipment of a royal palace, the effect produced by the characters
must have been even greater than today. Whereas in a modern play so much depends on scenery, decorations, etc.
(a modern writer generally gives a detailed description of the stage
decorations, etc., so that the effect of his plays may be handicapped by bad
staging), Shakespeare's plays leave a strong impression, even when performed
in the poorest way. The influence exercised by Shakespeare's art will gain in power, when
we shall have learned to lay more stress on their essential character. They
will act through the power which lies in the description of the single
characters. It is this which constitutes their living essence, which has
never been surpassed throughout the centuries. Thanks to www.rsarchive.org, where many lectures and books by Rudolf Steiner in English may be found.  |