TYRANT, SHAKESPEARE ON POLITICS

by Stephen Greenblatt

Stephen Greenblatt is a proponent of New Criticism, a movement that views literature in its social and historical context.  In Tyrant, Shakespeare on Politics, Greenblatt expands on his pre-election 2016 New York Times article, “Shakespeare Explains the 2016 Election,” in which he uses the play “King Richard III” to ask a question of great current interest:  “How can a great country wind up being governed by a sociopath?”

In Tyrant, Greenblatt illuminates the dire consequences of madness in KING LEAR, of corruption of power in MACBETH, of paranoia in THE WINTER’S TALE, of misplaced idealism in JULIUS CAESAR, and of ruthless instability in CORIOLANUS.   But it is his analysis of Richard III that is the most detailed and convincing answer to the question of sociopathic governing.

He highlights limitless self-regard and several other elements of Richard III’s tyrannical character:  narcissism, demand of absolute loyalty, scorn for law and delight in breaking it, division of the world into winners and losers, bullying.

Further, he lists the enablers of Richard’s rise to power, including those who are afraid of his bullying, who think they can control him, who find comfort in taking orders, fall for the big lie, and are a “motley crowd” who hope to get something for themselves.

Greenblatt adopts what he calls Shakespeare’s “oblique angle” in developing his own political point of view.  Shakespeare never expressed a political opinion directly.  He made his points through action of the characters in his plays set centuries earlier.  While Greenblatt never attacks Donald Trump directly, in fact never even mentions his name, his intent is perfectly clear.

In his concluding chapter, “Coda,” Greenblatt calls on Shakespeare’s belief that tyrants ultimately fail.   He said they are ”…brought down by their own viciousness and by a popular spirit of humanity…in the political action of ordinary citizens.”

Whether or not you accept Greenblatt’s “oblique angle,” his analysis of Shakespeare’s plays as exercises in politics is well-written, provocative and timely.   

Dan Deykin