What do you think?
Rate this book
A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599
1599 was an epochal year for Shakespeare and England
Shakespeare wrote four of his most famous plays: Henry the Fifth, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and, most remarkably, Hamlet; Elizabethans sent off an army to crush an Irish rebellion, weathered an Armada threat from Spain, gambled on a fledgling East India Company, and waited to see who would succeed their aging and childless queen.
James Shapiro illuminates both Shakespeare’s staggering achievement and what Elizabethans experienced in the course of 1599, bringing together the news and the intrigue of the times with a wonderful evocation of how Shakespeare worked as an actor, businessman, and playwright. The result is an exceptionally immediate and gripping account of an inspiring moment in history.
333 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
537 people are currently reading
6,193 people want to read
About the author
James Shapiro
25books189followersA specialist in Shakespeare and the Early Modern period, James S. Shapiro is Larry Miller Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University, where he has taught since 1985. He has been awarded fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Guggenheim Foundation, the New York Public Library Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, and the American Academy in Berlin. In 2011, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He currently serves as a Shakespeare Scholar in Residence at the Public Theater in New York City.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 488 reviews
April 6, 2022
Truly an excellent, in-depth look at the year 1599 in Elizabethan England. We see the Bard working on Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It and Hamlet as the Globe Theater rises from the ground. The Queen’s lover Essex makes an ill-fated invasion of rebellious Ireland as the old modes of chivalry and codes of honor begin to crumble. Painted with an even hand between history and textual analysis, Shapiro does an outstanding job of getting behind the curtains and trying to reveal to us a Shakespeare firmly rooted in his own times of turmoil and censorship. A must read for fans of theatre and history.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
June 25, 2023
”Better be hanged at home than die like dogs in Ireland.� pg. 64
This book is about the year 1599 and how what was going on in 1599 affected Shakespeare and his plays.
I found the English history to be interesting. I loved hearing about what was going on in 1599. Shapiro covers the war in Ireland, everything the Queen was doing, and what the common person was reading and watching.
The less interesting aspect of the book for me was Shakespeare. How he was living, what he was doing, what he was writing. I didn't really care. Don't get me wrong, I like Shakespeare's work. I enjoy reading his plays. I think he's clever. Etc. But it doesn't really matter to me what influenced him to write what he did or why he made the word choices he did or etc. etc. I just don't have any interest in that.
The history was fascinating, though. The war in Ireland and what people thought of it.
The underlying threat to English identity produced by conquering and intermarrying is given rich expression in the anonymous New English tract A DISCOURSE OF IRELAND, written in 1599, which notes that "it is a thing observed in Ireland and grown into a proverb, that English [settlers] in the second generation become Irish but never English," adding that the cause is that "the evil overcometh and corrupteth the good." To preclude any more of this mix of "English with the Irish," the author urges that the English simply relocate, rather than annihilate, the Irish: "The removing of the Irish may happily alter their dispositions when they shall be planted in another soil." Ideally, they'll be shipped off to provide a servant class "throughout England" (though the author of this tract never considers the possibility that they would mate there with the English.) Spenser himself in his VIEW discusses how the English living in Ireland are "grown almost mere Irish" and asks rhetorically in lines that anticipate Macmorris's defensiveness about his national identity: "Is it possible that an Englishman brought up naturally in such a sweet civility as England affords can find such barbarous rudeness that he should forget his own nature and forgo his own nation? How may this be?" pg. 98
The revelations about the legal system:
Given the intimate working relationships between playwrights (and between playwrights and players), personality clashes were inevitable. It didn't help matters that many Elizabethan actors were skilled fencers. Just the previous September, Ben Jonson had quarreled with Gabriel Spencer, a rising star (and shareholder) in the Admiral's Men, and in the ensuing duel near the Curtain killed him. Jonson, who was briefly imprisoned, only escaped hanging by reading his “neck verse� - a legal loophole dating from medieval times whereby the literate were spared the gallows by reading from the Bible in Latin, a task easy enough for the classically trained Jonson. But he did not escape unscathed: Jonson was branded with a “T� for Tyburn, Elizabethan London's site of execution, on his thumb. The next time he committed a felony he would hang there. pg. 11
Elizabeth didn't have a standing army:
...”musters� was the far more corrupt practice whereby poor men were randomly hauled off to fight, sicken, and often die in foreign wars... able-bodied Elizabethan men between the ages of sixteen and sixty, all of whom were potential conscripts... The authorities had no scruples about using required church attendance as a means for rounding up recruits: John Stow reports that on Easter Sunday, 1596, after an order came for a thousand men, “the aldermen, their deputies, constables, and other officers, were fain to close up the church doors, till they had pressed so many men.� pg. 62
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's a bit on book-burning and book-banning:
Around mid-May, fifteen hundred copies of the new edition of Hayward's History were printed and ready for sale at Wolfe's bookshop in the Pope's Head Alley near the Royal Exchange. The Bishop of London, Richard Bancroft, responsible along with the Archbishop of Canterbury for censoring printed works, had had enough. After Whitsunday, on May 27, Bancroft ordered the second print run seized by the wardens of the Stationers and delivered to his house in Fulham, where he burned the lot of them. Though done quietly, everyone, including those clamoring for a copy of the sold-out book, soon learned what had happened. Wolfe could curse the loss of his investment, but he had no recourse. From now on, there would only be one book for sale about Henry IV in London's bookstalls, Shakespeare's.
Hayward's History turned out to be kindling for a much larger conflagration. A week later, on June 1, John Whitfift and Bancroft ordered that more than a dozen other titles be confiscated and burned. The list included, first and foremost, the works of satirists: Joseph Hall's Biting Satires and Virgidemiarum, John Marston's The Metamorphosis of Pigmalion's Image and The Scourge of Villany, Everard Giulpin's Skialatheia, Thomas Middleton's Micro-cynicon: Six Snarling Satires, Thomas Cutwode's Caltha Poetarum, and John Davies's Epigrams, which was bound with the Elegies of Christopher Marlowe, were all destroyed. Thomas Nashe's and Gabriel Harvey's works were singled out for special attention: "None of their books be ever printed hereafter." Even two antifeminist works that could be read as critical of the unmarried Elizabeth - The Book Against Women and The Fifteen Joys of Marriage - were tossed into the flames.
The Bishops' Ban made clear that the vogue for topical satire was officially over: "No satires or epigrams" were to "be printed hereafter." Hayward had also poisoned the well for those writing national history: "no English histories" are to "be printed except they be allowed by some of her Majesty's Privy Council." For the time being, then, only political and not ecclesiastical authorities could approve the publication of histories; an author of an even mildly critical history would have to be unusually bold to approach the councillors for permission to publish. Not even London's dramatists escaped the ban, which also decreed that "no plays [were to] be printed except they be allowed by such as have authority." Left unexplained was exactly why some works were called in and others spared. The ambiguity, perhaps deliberate, had a chilling effect. Looking over the seemingly arbitrary list of prescribed books, English men and women, some of whom were forced to abandon works in progress, must have been left wondering whether it was topical satire itself or rather the drift by some satirists toward the obscene or the explicitly political, that had provoked the bishops.
Shakespeare hadn't had any of his works banned, but even he was singed by the flames. Neither the popular Richard the Second nor the First Part of Henry the Fourth were published again during Elizabeth's lifetime. The Chamberlain's Men took extra precautions with his two other works on the hypersensitive Lancastrian reign: both The Second Part of Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth were sanitized and seen into print far more quickly than any other plays Shakespeare wrote before or after. Both plays had unfortunately painted an Archbishop of Canterbury in a particularly unfavorable light, especially The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, which when published eliminated such potentially offensive lines as "the Bishop/ Turns insurrection to religion" (I.I.200-I). With the opening of the Globe, this was not a time to take unnecessary risks. The publishing history of Shakespeare's plays at this time suggests that it was wiser for the Chamberlain's Men to publish lightly sanitized versions and pull offending plays from the repertory, rather than let linger the memory of what might otherwise be regarded as seditious history. pg. 136
The Queen was very touchy about being spoken against or written against. It was interesting.
Another interesting tidbit was the Jesuits trying to assassinate Elizabeth. They had some pretty kooky plans to do so, including but not limited to kidnapping people and brainwashing them into murdering Elizabeth. Fascinating.
TL;DR Couldn't care less about Shakespeare's personal life, I'm afraid. However, the history of England in 1599 was fascinating to me. Reminded me of by . Except focused on 1599. I like these little "mini-histories" or "slices of history" where you take a small time period and do a deep-dive into it. Much more satisfying than a book of history which covers a longer period but can only skim the surface of things.
If you don't care about history nor about Shakespeare this book is going to be worthless to you. You'd have to have interest in at least one of those topics.
NAMES IN THIS BOOK
This book is about the year 1599 and how what was going on in 1599 affected Shakespeare and his plays.
I found the English history to be interesting. I loved hearing about what was going on in 1599. Shapiro covers the war in Ireland, everything the Queen was doing, and what the common person was reading and watching.
The less interesting aspect of the book for me was Shakespeare. How he was living, what he was doing, what he was writing. I didn't really care. Don't get me wrong, I like Shakespeare's work. I enjoy reading his plays. I think he's clever. Etc. But it doesn't really matter to me what influenced him to write what he did or why he made the word choices he did or etc. etc. I just don't have any interest in that.
The history was fascinating, though. The war in Ireland and what people thought of it.
The underlying threat to English identity produced by conquering and intermarrying is given rich expression in the anonymous New English tract A DISCOURSE OF IRELAND, written in 1599, which notes that "it is a thing observed in Ireland and grown into a proverb, that English [settlers] in the second generation become Irish but never English," adding that the cause is that "the evil overcometh and corrupteth the good." To preclude any more of this mix of "English with the Irish," the author urges that the English simply relocate, rather than annihilate, the Irish: "The removing of the Irish may happily alter their dispositions when they shall be planted in another soil." Ideally, they'll be shipped off to provide a servant class "throughout England" (though the author of this tract never considers the possibility that they would mate there with the English.) Spenser himself in his VIEW discusses how the English living in Ireland are "grown almost mere Irish" and asks rhetorically in lines that anticipate Macmorris's defensiveness about his national identity: "Is it possible that an Englishman brought up naturally in such a sweet civility as England affords can find such barbarous rudeness that he should forget his own nature and forgo his own nation? How may this be?" pg. 98
The revelations about the legal system:
Given the intimate working relationships between playwrights (and between playwrights and players), personality clashes were inevitable. It didn't help matters that many Elizabethan actors were skilled fencers. Just the previous September, Ben Jonson had quarreled with Gabriel Spencer, a rising star (and shareholder) in the Admiral's Men, and in the ensuing duel near the Curtain killed him. Jonson, who was briefly imprisoned, only escaped hanging by reading his “neck verse� - a legal loophole dating from medieval times whereby the literate were spared the gallows by reading from the Bible in Latin, a task easy enough for the classically trained Jonson. But he did not escape unscathed: Jonson was branded with a “T� for Tyburn, Elizabethan London's site of execution, on his thumb. The next time he committed a felony he would hang there. pg. 11
Elizabeth didn't have a standing army:
...”musters� was the far more corrupt practice whereby poor men were randomly hauled off to fight, sicken, and often die in foreign wars... able-bodied Elizabethan men between the ages of sixteen and sixty, all of whom were potential conscripts... The authorities had no scruples about using required church attendance as a means for rounding up recruits: John Stow reports that on Easter Sunday, 1596, after an order came for a thousand men, “the aldermen, their deputies, constables, and other officers, were fain to close up the church doors, till they had pressed so many men.� pg. 62
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's a bit on book-burning and book-banning:
Around mid-May, fifteen hundred copies of the new edition of Hayward's History were printed and ready for sale at Wolfe's bookshop in the Pope's Head Alley near the Royal Exchange. The Bishop of London, Richard Bancroft, responsible along with the Archbishop of Canterbury for censoring printed works, had had enough. After Whitsunday, on May 27, Bancroft ordered the second print run seized by the wardens of the Stationers and delivered to his house in Fulham, where he burned the lot of them. Though done quietly, everyone, including those clamoring for a copy of the sold-out book, soon learned what had happened. Wolfe could curse the loss of his investment, but he had no recourse. From now on, there would only be one book for sale about Henry IV in London's bookstalls, Shakespeare's.
Hayward's History turned out to be kindling for a much larger conflagration. A week later, on June 1, John Whitfift and Bancroft ordered that more than a dozen other titles be confiscated and burned. The list included, first and foremost, the works of satirists: Joseph Hall's Biting Satires and Virgidemiarum, John Marston's The Metamorphosis of Pigmalion's Image and The Scourge of Villany, Everard Giulpin's Skialatheia, Thomas Middleton's Micro-cynicon: Six Snarling Satires, Thomas Cutwode's Caltha Poetarum, and John Davies's Epigrams, which was bound with the Elegies of Christopher Marlowe, were all destroyed. Thomas Nashe's and Gabriel Harvey's works were singled out for special attention: "None of their books be ever printed hereafter." Even two antifeminist works that could be read as critical of the unmarried Elizabeth - The Book Against Women and The Fifteen Joys of Marriage - were tossed into the flames.
The Bishops' Ban made clear that the vogue for topical satire was officially over: "No satires or epigrams" were to "be printed hereafter." Hayward had also poisoned the well for those writing national history: "no English histories" are to "be printed except they be allowed by some of her Majesty's Privy Council." For the time being, then, only political and not ecclesiastical authorities could approve the publication of histories; an author of an even mildly critical history would have to be unusually bold to approach the councillors for permission to publish. Not even London's dramatists escaped the ban, which also decreed that "no plays [were to] be printed except they be allowed by such as have authority." Left unexplained was exactly why some works were called in and others spared. The ambiguity, perhaps deliberate, had a chilling effect. Looking over the seemingly arbitrary list of prescribed books, English men and women, some of whom were forced to abandon works in progress, must have been left wondering whether it was topical satire itself or rather the drift by some satirists toward the obscene or the explicitly political, that had provoked the bishops.
Shakespeare hadn't had any of his works banned, but even he was singed by the flames. Neither the popular Richard the Second nor the First Part of Henry the Fourth were published again during Elizabeth's lifetime. The Chamberlain's Men took extra precautions with his two other works on the hypersensitive Lancastrian reign: both The Second Part of Henry the Fourth and Henry the Fifth were sanitized and seen into print far more quickly than any other plays Shakespeare wrote before or after. Both plays had unfortunately painted an Archbishop of Canterbury in a particularly unfavorable light, especially The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, which when published eliminated such potentially offensive lines as "the Bishop/ Turns insurrection to religion" (I.I.200-I). With the opening of the Globe, this was not a time to take unnecessary risks. The publishing history of Shakespeare's plays at this time suggests that it was wiser for the Chamberlain's Men to publish lightly sanitized versions and pull offending plays from the repertory, rather than let linger the memory of what might otherwise be regarded as seditious history. pg. 136
The Queen was very touchy about being spoken against or written against. It was interesting.
Another interesting tidbit was the Jesuits trying to assassinate Elizabeth. They had some pretty kooky plans to do so, including but not limited to kidnapping people and brainwashing them into murdering Elizabeth. Fascinating.
TL;DR Couldn't care less about Shakespeare's personal life, I'm afraid. However, the history of England in 1599 was fascinating to me. Reminded me of by . Except focused on 1599. I like these little "mini-histories" or "slices of history" where you take a small time period and do a deep-dive into it. Much more satisfying than a book of history which covers a longer period but can only skim the surface of things.
If you don't care about history nor about Shakespeare this book is going to be worthless to you. You'd have to have interest in at least one of those topics.
NAMES IN THIS BOOK
April 30, 2022
This book delves into hemispheres: the royal world and the plays of Shakespeare. Essex and his downfall are discussed. Nothing new there
What was interesting, and could be a help to those who may write a research paper, is the analysis of the plays. Synopses are given along with character profiles and plot evaluations. I wish I had had this book about 20 years ago!
2017 Lenten Buddy Reading Challenge book #14
What was interesting, and could be a help to those who may write a research paper, is the analysis of the plays. Synopses are given along with character profiles and plot evaluations. I wish I had had this book about 20 years ago!
2017 Lenten Buddy Reading Challenge book #14
August 4, 2020
Shakespeare didn’t conceive of his tragedy in Aristotelian terms—that is, as a tragedy of the fall of a flawed great man—but rather as a collision of deeply held and irreconcilable principles, embodied in characters who are destroyed when these principles collide.
Ten stars. The greatest book of literary criticism I have seen in years, possibly decades. dazzling erudition and an Impressionistic historiography combine for something special. I admit I wasn't expecting something this astute, this poetic. His ruminations on Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It and, of course, Hamlet are both rigorous and resounding. The global stage of unrest in Ireland and the fears of another Spanish Armada haunt these pages, as they did the Bard. Shapiro sanguinely notes that all roads, lead to Rome, especially in reference to the Ides of March.
My highest recommendation.
Ten stars. The greatest book of literary criticism I have seen in years, possibly decades. dazzling erudition and an Impressionistic historiography combine for something special. I admit I wasn't expecting something this astute, this poetic. His ruminations on Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It and, of course, Hamlet are both rigorous and resounding. The global stage of unrest in Ireland and the fears of another Spanish Armada haunt these pages, as they did the Bard. Shapiro sanguinely notes that all roads, lead to Rome, especially in reference to the Ides of March.
My highest recommendation.
April 27, 2023
This has just been awarded Baillie Gifford Winner of Winners in a special announcement to mark the 25th anniversary of the prestigious nonfiction prize.
A biography of the year in Shakespeare’s life in which Globe was established with Shakespeare as one of the partners and in which he completed “Henry V�, wrote “Julius Caesar� and “As You like It� and drafted “Hamlet�. Shapiro argues that these plays were a turning point in his career � as he moved away from popular and formulaic plays to a more demanding spectacle. To Shapiro a crucial symbol of this was Shakespeare’s break with the company’s clown Will Kemp who until then had often dominated the plays with his post play jigs and heavily influenced Shakespeare’s writing.
Shapiro also sets Shakespeare’s year in a historical context � not least Essex’s ill fated expedition to Ireland, his subsequent and equally ill fated flirtations with some form of military coup, the ever present sense of a Spanish military threat with an accompanied Catholic uprising and (resulting from these) the growing censorship on writing which led to the playhouse becoming the only source of political comment and satire (although even that had to be carefully done).
The historical context of the plays and the many topical comments in them is very interesting � although the reader would enjoy the book more with an exiting familiarity with the plays (in particular the section on Hamlet becomes too detailed and hard to follow without knowing the play � this is probably the only area where the book lapses into the usual non-fiction trap of too much detail for a casual reader).
The book may have been more interesting (although more challenging to write) as a novel (like “Thing of Darkness�) as it lapses too often into “Shakespeare may well have�, “It is likely that …�, “We can imagine that …� and so on as well as often imagining Shakespeare’s thoughts (although at all times making it clear what is fact and what is speculation � all of which makes the book a clumsy read at times).
A biography of the year in Shakespeare’s life in which Globe was established with Shakespeare as one of the partners and in which he completed “Henry V�, wrote “Julius Caesar� and “As You like It� and drafted “Hamlet�. Shapiro argues that these plays were a turning point in his career � as he moved away from popular and formulaic plays to a more demanding spectacle. To Shapiro a crucial symbol of this was Shakespeare’s break with the company’s clown Will Kemp who until then had often dominated the plays with his post play jigs and heavily influenced Shakespeare’s writing.
Shapiro also sets Shakespeare’s year in a historical context � not least Essex’s ill fated expedition to Ireland, his subsequent and equally ill fated flirtations with some form of military coup, the ever present sense of a Spanish military threat with an accompanied Catholic uprising and (resulting from these) the growing censorship on writing which led to the playhouse becoming the only source of political comment and satire (although even that had to be carefully done).
The historical context of the plays and the many topical comments in them is very interesting � although the reader would enjoy the book more with an exiting familiarity with the plays (in particular the section on Hamlet becomes too detailed and hard to follow without knowing the play � this is probably the only area where the book lapses into the usual non-fiction trap of too much detail for a casual reader).
The book may have been more interesting (although more challenging to write) as a novel (like “Thing of Darkness�) as it lapses too often into “Shakespeare may well have�, “It is likely that …�, “We can imagine that …� and so on as well as often imagining Shakespeare’s thoughts (although at all times making it clear what is fact and what is speculation � all of which makes the book a clumsy read at times).
September 27, 2022
This book examines the year 1599, which was an extremely productive year for Shakespeare as his plays Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and Hamlet were produced. The author looks at the historical and literary events that were happening in this year and shows how these events are reflected in these plays. I found it fascinating as it opened up new ways of thinking about these plays for me. This book is worth reading for fans of any of these four works.
November 26, 2017
I first discovered James Shapiro by accident when stumbling across a documentary called "Shakespeare, The King's Man". This show demonstrated how contemporary events found expression in his writing, especially in the early years of King James' reign. I was totally inspired by his train of thought, which prompted me to purchase this volume; it covers a year near the end of Elizabeth's reign, driven by totally different influences. As a result, my understanding of Shakespeare has undergone a massive shift.
In this book, we get much more than just a year in Shakespeare's life. We get a better understanding of how his style changed as he matured; we see how he abandons traditional Elizabethan theatre which relied strongly on the clown (or what we think of as comedian), who often improvised and even joked with the audience at the end of scenes. However, "No less gnawing a problem for Shakespeare was the clown's afterpiece, the jig. It may be hard for us to conceive of the conclusion of Romeo and Juliet—with the image of the dead lovers fresh in our minds—immediately followed by a bawdy song and dance, but Elizabethan audiences demanded it." The company's star, Will Kemp was wildly popular with audiences, but his ego combined with Shakespeare's determination to make it a "playwright's and not an actor's theater" precipitated a rupture that sent London's favorite star packing. Shakespeare weaned his audience away from the expected jigs by replacing the worn-out tradition with something altogether new: a more "naturalistic drama" and characters filled with depth that would challenge his audience to think.
I love the specifics in this book, and it will require more than one reading to absorb everything. What I did take away showed me just how much I still have to learn about Shakespeare. For instance, I knew he used Holinshed as a source for Macbeth and other histories; what I didn't know was that he lifted every play from something else (although his sonnets were all original). "There are many ways of being original. Inventing a plot from scratch is only one of them and never held much appeal for Shakespeare." Whether it was old favorites or complete histories, Shakespeare had no problem taking an existing story and revising it with his especial brand of genius. Even Hamlet was lifted "from a now lost revenge tragedy of the 1580s, also called Hamlet, which by the end of that decade was already feeling shopworn." Apparently everybody did it.
Shakespeare wrote four plays in 1599: Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet (which wasn't finished until the following year). We learn how the angst of the time was reflected in his work. For instance, in a year rife with assassination attempts against the queen, Shakespeare had Brutus agonizing about his own role in Julius Caesar. The play manages to tread a thin line between making a statement and getting himself into trouble: "Even as Shakespeare offers compelling arguments for tyrannicide in the opening acts of the play, he shows in the closing ones the savage bloodletting and political breakdown that...were sure to follow." Often and again Shapiro showed us how Shakespeare cleverly deflects potential pitfalls, even though his contemporaries often weren't so lucky: "Of all the major playwrights of the 1590s, he alone had managed to avoid a major confrontation with those in power."
Shapiro spends an inordinate amount of time talking about Essex's ill-fated Irish campaign and the pall it spread over the country. I thought he gave a little too much emphasis to these events, as though he forgot he was writing about Shakespeare in his enthusiasm to tell the Essex story. Nonetheless, I was shocked at the number of men who were conscripted into service: "Government figures at the time indicate that 2,800 were forced to serve in 1594 and 1,806 in 1595...The number drafted in the first six months of 1599 alone was 7,300...Local authorities didn't hesitate during Elizabeth's reign to raid fairs, ale houses, inns, and other popular meeting places. The authorities could count on a good haul at the playhouses, too." In 1602, "All the playhouses were beset in one day and very many pressed from thence, so that in all there are pressed 4000." As Shapiro suggests, this would especially have resonated with the audience in "The Second Part of Henry the Fourth" when this issue was dealt with.
I've only scratched the surface here, and as you will see, Shapiro covers a lot of ground...too much, I dare say, for one volume. At times he can be hard to follow and he is not an easy read. But the wealth of information is invaluable, and I'm glad I found the book.
In this book, we get much more than just a year in Shakespeare's life. We get a better understanding of how his style changed as he matured; we see how he abandons traditional Elizabethan theatre which relied strongly on the clown (or what we think of as comedian), who often improvised and even joked with the audience at the end of scenes. However, "No less gnawing a problem for Shakespeare was the clown's afterpiece, the jig. It may be hard for us to conceive of the conclusion of Romeo and Juliet—with the image of the dead lovers fresh in our minds—immediately followed by a bawdy song and dance, but Elizabethan audiences demanded it." The company's star, Will Kemp was wildly popular with audiences, but his ego combined with Shakespeare's determination to make it a "playwright's and not an actor's theater" precipitated a rupture that sent London's favorite star packing. Shakespeare weaned his audience away from the expected jigs by replacing the worn-out tradition with something altogether new: a more "naturalistic drama" and characters filled with depth that would challenge his audience to think.
I love the specifics in this book, and it will require more than one reading to absorb everything. What I did take away showed me just how much I still have to learn about Shakespeare. For instance, I knew he used Holinshed as a source for Macbeth and other histories; what I didn't know was that he lifted every play from something else (although his sonnets were all original). "There are many ways of being original. Inventing a plot from scratch is only one of them and never held much appeal for Shakespeare." Whether it was old favorites or complete histories, Shakespeare had no problem taking an existing story and revising it with his especial brand of genius. Even Hamlet was lifted "from a now lost revenge tragedy of the 1580s, also called Hamlet, which by the end of that decade was already feeling shopworn." Apparently everybody did it.
Shakespeare wrote four plays in 1599: Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet (which wasn't finished until the following year). We learn how the angst of the time was reflected in his work. For instance, in a year rife with assassination attempts against the queen, Shakespeare had Brutus agonizing about his own role in Julius Caesar. The play manages to tread a thin line between making a statement and getting himself into trouble: "Even as Shakespeare offers compelling arguments for tyrannicide in the opening acts of the play, he shows in the closing ones the savage bloodletting and political breakdown that...were sure to follow." Often and again Shapiro showed us how Shakespeare cleverly deflects potential pitfalls, even though his contemporaries often weren't so lucky: "Of all the major playwrights of the 1590s, he alone had managed to avoid a major confrontation with those in power."
Shapiro spends an inordinate amount of time talking about Essex's ill-fated Irish campaign and the pall it spread over the country. I thought he gave a little too much emphasis to these events, as though he forgot he was writing about Shakespeare in his enthusiasm to tell the Essex story. Nonetheless, I was shocked at the number of men who were conscripted into service: "Government figures at the time indicate that 2,800 were forced to serve in 1594 and 1,806 in 1595...The number drafted in the first six months of 1599 alone was 7,300...Local authorities didn't hesitate during Elizabeth's reign to raid fairs, ale houses, inns, and other popular meeting places. The authorities could count on a good haul at the playhouses, too." In 1602, "All the playhouses were beset in one day and very many pressed from thence, so that in all there are pressed 4000." As Shapiro suggests, this would especially have resonated with the audience in "The Second Part of Henry the Fourth" when this issue was dealt with.
I've only scratched the surface here, and as you will see, Shapiro covers a lot of ground...too much, I dare say, for one volume. At times he can be hard to follow and he is not an easy read. But the wealth of information is invaluable, and I'm glad I found the book.
March 14, 2025
“Shakespeare didn’t conceive of his tragedy in Aristotelian terms—that is, as a tragedy of the fall of a flawed great man—but rather as a collision of deeply held and irreconcilable principles, embodied in characters who are destroyed when these principles collide.�
This is a close look at one year in Shakespeare’s life. That year is 1599. It was the year the Globe theatre was built. Shakespeare completed Henry V, wrote Julius Caesar and As You Like It and wrote the first draft of Hamlet. There was a threat of another Armada from Spain. A significant army sent to Ireland to subdue a rebellion, which ended up being a disaster and led to the downfall of one of Elizabeth’s favourites, Essex. The censors were busy and Elizabeth was aging and becoming a little unpredictable. At this point Britain didn’t have an Empire and wasn’t involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade. It was the year the East India Company was founded with many prominent people investing. Apparently, Shakespeare wasn’t among them; he preferred to invest at home, in malt. Obviously, Shakespeare liked his beer!!
Shapiro analyses each of the plays, setting it in the context of what was happening and how current events related to what he was writing. It is literary criticism and is pretty good. Shakespeare wasn’t writing in a vacuum and although there are Shakespeare scholars who do not believe in setting Shakespeare in his context, but Shapiro shows how important this context was in understanding the plays Shakespeare was writing. It’s a fascinating read and well worth checking out.
This is a close look at one year in Shakespeare’s life. That year is 1599. It was the year the Globe theatre was built. Shakespeare completed Henry V, wrote Julius Caesar and As You Like It and wrote the first draft of Hamlet. There was a threat of another Armada from Spain. A significant army sent to Ireland to subdue a rebellion, which ended up being a disaster and led to the downfall of one of Elizabeth’s favourites, Essex. The censors were busy and Elizabeth was aging and becoming a little unpredictable. At this point Britain didn’t have an Empire and wasn’t involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade. It was the year the East India Company was founded with many prominent people investing. Apparently, Shakespeare wasn’t among them; he preferred to invest at home, in malt. Obviously, Shakespeare liked his beer!!
Shapiro analyses each of the plays, setting it in the context of what was happening and how current events related to what he was writing. It is literary criticism and is pretty good. Shakespeare wasn’t writing in a vacuum and although there are Shakespeare scholars who do not believe in setting Shakespeare in his context, but Shapiro shows how important this context was in understanding the plays Shakespeare was writing. It’s a fascinating read and well worth checking out.
Read
June 13, 20171599 was the year that the famous Globe theatre was built and the year that Shakespeare created Hamlet - probably the first character in the history of the theatre to wrestle so intelligently and so eloquently with his own demons. These circumstances must have played a role in James Shapiro's decision to focus on 1599 when he set out to write his "intimate history of Shakespeare", as the blurb on the back of the book puts it.
But very little documentary evidence exists relating to Shakespeare's life, apart from his plays and sonnets, and therefore Shapiro felt obliged to draw heavily on the historical events of that year to flesh out his intimate history. The history would be very interesting and informative if Shapiro didn't intersperse it constantly with a huge amount of conjecture as to what Shakespeare might or might not have been thinking or doing at any given moment, indulging in empty theorizing that adds nothing to the readers' pleasure. He develops certain minor themes extensively, eg a possible trip on horseback from London to Shakespeare’s home in Stratford, only to draw weak and almost pointless conclusions: "There's simply no way of knowing how he felt unsaddling at New Place on this or other visits." or on page 203, “The answer to this would tell us a great deal about what kind of person Shakespeare was; but we don’t have a clue what he did.�
When Shapiro points out that the historian John Hayward, a contemporary of Shakespeare’s, understood “how invented speech made the past come alive�, the reader wonders if Shapiro himself could not have learned from that and fictionalized this “intimate history�. Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall comes to mind as a fine example of invented speech allowing the past to come alive. Such a device might have helped the pace of Shapiro's book as well; the first two hundred pages drag quite a bit. Then on page 211, Shapiro mentions Hamlet and the reader sits up. However, Shapiro immediately deflates her expectations: “But this is getting ahead of our story.� The reader thinks: Please, please let us get ahead of the story!
But very little documentary evidence exists relating to Shakespeare's life, apart from his plays and sonnets, and therefore Shapiro felt obliged to draw heavily on the historical events of that year to flesh out his intimate history. The history would be very interesting and informative if Shapiro didn't intersperse it constantly with a huge amount of conjecture as to what Shakespeare might or might not have been thinking or doing at any given moment, indulging in empty theorizing that adds nothing to the readers' pleasure. He develops certain minor themes extensively, eg a possible trip on horseback from London to Shakespeare’s home in Stratford, only to draw weak and almost pointless conclusions: "There's simply no way of knowing how he felt unsaddling at New Place on this or other visits." or on page 203, “The answer to this would tell us a great deal about what kind of person Shakespeare was; but we don’t have a clue what he did.�
When Shapiro points out that the historian John Hayward, a contemporary of Shakespeare’s, understood “how invented speech made the past come alive�, the reader wonders if Shapiro himself could not have learned from that and fictionalized this “intimate history�. Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall comes to mind as a fine example of invented speech allowing the past to come alive. Such a device might have helped the pace of Shapiro's book as well; the first two hundred pages drag quite a bit. Then on page 211, Shapiro mentions Hamlet and the reader sits up. However, Shapiro immediately deflates her expectations: “But this is getting ahead of our story.� The reader thinks: Please, please let us get ahead of the story!
August 20, 2024
An engaging, deeply researched look at the works Shakespeare produced in a single year—Julius Caesar, As You Like It, Hamlet—placing him firmly in a specific time and place and examining the works in detail to demonstrate how they very much reflect the events of that tumultuous time and demonstrate Shakespeare’s continuing development as a sui generis artistic genius. History truly came alive, on so many levels. We see the roiling politics of the time, with an aging, childless queen and the succession at stake, court intrigue and plots and subplots aplenty (Essex lost his head), and Catholic-Protestant tensions still very much in play at home and abroad, with a rumoured second Spanish Armada much feared and greatly prepared for. And we see Shakespeare as a rising man, one of the partners in the risky venture of building a new theatre, The Globe. So much fascinating detail about how the theatre of the day worked, about people’s daily lives, how it all got worked into the language and shape of the plays. Very highly recommended.
June 9, 2016
If you're looking for a standard biography of Shakespeare then this definitely isn't it: Shapiro eschews the usual methods of writing a life and instead concentrates on a single year in Shakespeare's life.
He examines what was happening politically and culturally and how those events both manifest in the plays Shakespeare was writing that year, and also how they might have affected his future work. As he admits himself, this is mostly speculation and cannot ever be confirmed, but it's an imaginative and original approach which works excellently.
Shapiro examines the four plays written in 1599 (Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet) and relates them to both Shakespeare's (assumed) thinking and external events. He re-reads the plays themselves in light of this and makes some excellent points. But this isn't a 'lit crit' book: it also delves into religion, Shakespeare's possible relationship with his wife and family back in Stratford, the Elizabethan theatrical world, and Elizabethan politics.
The one major gap for me was an exploration of the sonnets written around this time. That small caveat aside, this is an excellent, well-written, and entertaining book, as rewarding, I would guess, for the non-specialist as the specialist.
He examines what was happening politically and culturally and how those events both manifest in the plays Shakespeare was writing that year, and also how they might have affected his future work. As he admits himself, this is mostly speculation and cannot ever be confirmed, but it's an imaginative and original approach which works excellently.
Shapiro examines the four plays written in 1599 (Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet) and relates them to both Shakespeare's (assumed) thinking and external events. He re-reads the plays themselves in light of this and makes some excellent points. But this isn't a 'lit crit' book: it also delves into religion, Shakespeare's possible relationship with his wife and family back in Stratford, the Elizabethan theatrical world, and Elizabethan politics.
The one major gap for me was an exploration of the sonnets written around this time. That small caveat aside, this is an excellent, well-written, and entertaining book, as rewarding, I would guess, for the non-specialist as the specialist.
June 1, 2019
Shakespeare is probably one of the most myth-enshrouded men in theatre. Who doesn't know his name, his plays, his stories? But what hides behind the persona remains a mystery for most part. And yet, literary critics like James Shapiro do their best to bring some light into the dark.
1599 was an important year for both England as well as the playwright. It was not only the year Shakespeare wrote four of his plays (Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar and Hamlet), but also when the Globe theatre got built. The late 16th century was also tumultuous for England as a country: military effort against Irish rebels were preoccupying Queen Elizabeth and the Spanish were rumored to plot against the Crown.
This book tries to illuminate Shakespeare's life by recreating the world around him. Unfortunately the reason we don't know much about Shakespeare as a person is because sources to confirm any claims or beliefs just do not exist. Shapiro didn't unearth anything revolutionary, but instead works with what we know to give us an insight into what he was likely to have been like.
It's an entertaining mix of history and literary criticism. Shapiro explains what was happening in Elizabethan England at that time and puts Shakespeare's effort into that context. I feel like I would have gotten more out of it if I had had a stronger foundation of historical knowledge to build upon, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend this as a starting point for either Shakespeare or English History. You are being thrown into the action, as the narrative focusses on one particular year and it's quite a lot to take in if you don't quite know where to put things in your head!
All in all, this is the most we will probably get to find out about Shakespeare. It's an admirable effort and a scholarly one, too, yet it remains frustrating to a degree as it made me come to terms with how Shakespeare will always remain a mystery and reconstructing his world is the closest we'll ever get to the most significant playwright that might have ever lived.
1599 was an important year for both England as well as the playwright. It was not only the year Shakespeare wrote four of his plays (Henry V, As You Like It, Julius Caesar and Hamlet), but also when the Globe theatre got built. The late 16th century was also tumultuous for England as a country: military effort against Irish rebels were preoccupying Queen Elizabeth and the Spanish were rumored to plot against the Crown.
This book tries to illuminate Shakespeare's life by recreating the world around him. Unfortunately the reason we don't know much about Shakespeare as a person is because sources to confirm any claims or beliefs just do not exist. Shapiro didn't unearth anything revolutionary, but instead works with what we know to give us an insight into what he was likely to have been like.
It's an entertaining mix of history and literary criticism. Shapiro explains what was happening in Elizabethan England at that time and puts Shakespeare's effort into that context. I feel like I would have gotten more out of it if I had had a stronger foundation of historical knowledge to build upon, so I wouldn't necessarily recommend this as a starting point for either Shakespeare or English History. You are being thrown into the action, as the narrative focusses on one particular year and it's quite a lot to take in if you don't quite know where to put things in your head!
All in all, this is the most we will probably get to find out about Shakespeare. It's an admirable effort and a scholarly one, too, yet it remains frustrating to a degree as it made me come to terms with how Shakespeare will always remain a mystery and reconstructing his world is the closest we'll ever get to the most significant playwright that might have ever lived.
September 23, 2012
I read James Shapiro's 1599 three hundred and six years after its subject, the year it came out. It is the best written book on Shakespeare I have read in decades, and since Shakespeare is only known because he wrote so well, Shapiro's is the the most Shakespearean book on Shakespeare. From the first page account of the deconstruction (no, not the French mind-game, but a carpentry event) of The Theater
at night to prepare for the construction of the Globe miles south and across the river, this book reads like gripping narrative in parts.
When I saw James Shapiro at the Shakespeare Association of America, he told me he had spent three years revising it. So here is an ideal model for scholars, one unlikely to be followed under the pressures for publication. Research and write for years, then revise for three more.
at night to prepare for the construction of the Globe miles south and across the river, this book reads like gripping narrative in parts.
When I saw James Shapiro at the Shakespeare Association of America, he told me he had spent three years revising it. So here is an ideal model for scholars, one unlikely to be followed under the pressures for publication. Research and write for years, then revise for three more.
February 8, 2016
Description: Shakespeare wrote four of his most famous plays: Henry the Fifth, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and, most remarkably, Hamlet; Elizabethans sent off an army to crush an Irish rebellion, weathered an Armada threat from Spain, gambled on a fledgling East India Company, and waited to see who would succeed their aging and childless queen.
James Shapiro illuminates both Shakespeare’s staggering achievement and what Elizabethans experienced in the course of 1599, bringing together the news and the intrigue of the times with a wonderful evocation of how Shakespeare worked as an actor, businessman, and playwright. The result is an exceptionally immediate and gripping account of an inspiring moment in history.
Opening: The weather in London in December 1598 had been frigid, so cold that ten days before New Year's the Thames was nearly frozen over at London Bridge.
It was weird reading this, where the Irish 'problem' loomed large at the Elizabethan Court, and it being the 100 year anniversary of the Easter Uprising. What bastards the English were - truly, and I was amazed at Edmund Spenser: feel that I should go back and wipe that 5* off. Yet hey, that would be as stupid as taking - uncomfortable or not, these things did happen and we should not squirm in the light of past atrocities but make a better world by examining past mistakes.
WHOA - in a **ping** moment of self enlightenment I come across how being PC can help wipe guilt off a subject. That really musn't happen - let those bad decisions from the past stay and act as a warning.
The main themes in this book:
- bye-bye Will Kemp
- Essex and Ireland
- the Spanish question
- Globe building
Thanks Susanna & Judy
4* A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599
4* The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606
James Shapiro illuminates both Shakespeare’s staggering achievement and what Elizabethans experienced in the course of 1599, bringing together the news and the intrigue of the times with a wonderful evocation of how Shakespeare worked as an actor, businessman, and playwright. The result is an exceptionally immediate and gripping account of an inspiring moment in history.
Opening: The weather in London in December 1598 had been frigid, so cold that ten days before New Year's the Thames was nearly frozen over at London Bridge.
It was weird reading this, where the Irish 'problem' loomed large at the Elizabethan Court, and it being the 100 year anniversary of the Easter Uprising. What bastards the English were - truly, and I was amazed at Edmund Spenser: feel that I should go back and wipe that 5* off. Yet hey, that would be as stupid as taking - uncomfortable or not, these things did happen and we should not squirm in the light of past atrocities but make a better world by examining past mistakes.WHOA - in a **ping** moment of self enlightenment I come across how being PC can help wipe guilt off a subject. That really musn't happen - let those bad decisions from the past stay and act as a warning.
The main themes in this book:
- bye-bye Will Kemp
- Essex and Ireland
- the Spanish question
- Globe building
Thanks Susanna & Judy4* A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599
4* The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606
May 1, 2023
Every now and then you read a book that is so achingly good, that excels so exceptionally at what it's trying to do, that genuinely shocks and surprises the reader on almost every page. This is one of those books.
I cannot believe how much I enjoyed this book. Not only is the history of what was happening in Elizabethan England in 1599 fascinating, but the way Shapiro links the political, the social conversations and conventions to the work Shakespeare was producing at the time is nearly flawless. His textual analysis is compelling and convincing. I found this book nearly impossible to put down; a true page-turner in every sense of the word, and well-deserving of the Baillie Gifford 25th Anniversary Winner of Winners award.
I cannot believe how much I enjoyed this book. Not only is the history of what was happening in Elizabethan England in 1599 fascinating, but the way Shapiro links the political, the social conversations and conventions to the work Shakespeare was producing at the time is nearly flawless. His textual analysis is compelling and convincing. I found this book nearly impossible to put down; a true page-turner in every sense of the word, and well-deserving of the Baillie Gifford 25th Anniversary Winner of Winners award.
July 26, 2020
I don't know that I could say exactly why, but I absolutely loved this book. It was such an interesting read and I just drank it all in.
I felt it was well done, although perhaps not exceptionally so, but I had one major issue with it. I felt there were several points where Shapiro draws conclusions about what Shakespeare must have felt about a certain issue based on something that a character says in one of his plays. This is extremely fallacious, in my opinion, and really bothered me. The one I remember the most is where Shapiro uses the one scene in Shakespeare's plays that talks about writing to conclude that Shakespeare's method of writing/re-writing must have been similar. Possible, but NOT necessarily the case. However, as it only happened a few times, it didn't bother me to the point where I would have rolled my eyes and stopped reading.
I think one of my favorite things that Shapiro brings out is information about some other contemporary writers of Shakespeare and how they might have influenced him, been influenced by him, and what they might have thought about him. Very few other writers from the period are still read today and many of the ones mentioned I had never even heard of, so it was interesting to learn about them.
I don't know that this book would be a great one to suggest to someone that isn't already interested in Shakespeare, but I really, really enjoyed it!
I felt it was well done, although perhaps not exceptionally so, but I had one major issue with it. I felt there were several points where Shapiro draws conclusions about what Shakespeare must have felt about a certain issue based on something that a character says in one of his plays. This is extremely fallacious, in my opinion, and really bothered me. The one I remember the most is where Shapiro uses the one scene in Shakespeare's plays that talks about writing to conclude that Shakespeare's method of writing/re-writing must have been similar. Possible, but NOT necessarily the case. However, as it only happened a few times, it didn't bother me to the point where I would have rolled my eyes and stopped reading.
I think one of my favorite things that Shapiro brings out is information about some other contemporary writers of Shakespeare and how they might have influenced him, been influenced by him, and what they might have thought about him. Very few other writers from the period are still read today and many of the ones mentioned I had never even heard of, so it was interesting to learn about them.
I don't know that this book would be a great one to suggest to someone that isn't already interested in Shakespeare, but I really, really enjoyed it!
September 28, 2024
“No,� I tell my students, “Shakespeare did not write in Old English. Beowulf was written in Old English. Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Shakespeare’s language was firmly in the Modern English linguistic period.”� I then confess the obvious, that the language has indeed changed in the four centuries since Shakespeare wrote, but, as Shapiro’s book clearly demonstrates, much else in society has not. Such demonstrations, while not Shapiro’s goal, are, to me, among the strong points of his book, so let’s take a peek at those first, shall we?
Looking at the year 1599 in Elizabethan England, we are struck by more than a few parallels with contemporary world affairs. We see a national leader intent on invading another country, Ireland in the earlier case. We observe ill-starred Essex leading an invading army which utterly fails to subdue the Irish. We look on in astonishment as the English quake in fear of a reported Spanish invasion and as they block the streets of London with chains and illuminate the night time with burning lamps to thwart enemy infiltration under cover of darkness. Potentially, of course, that may have been somewhat more pragmatic than creating a new government department and a rainbow-hued series of “threat levels.� One can only recall the French axiom “Plus ça change, plus c’est la mȇme chose,� or “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”� Little in human nature, it seems, has changed in the past four hundred years.
Shapiro’s book also helps pierce the mask of literary demigod behind which Shakespeare has been hidden by generations of admiring teachers and bewildered students. We see a man who produced plays through hard labor and laborious revision. We come to appreciate that Shakespeare was a businessman with an eye toward profitability, even when such was perhaps not completely legal or ethical. In this, he was certainly a man of his time, for the proto-capitalist British West Indies Company also got its start during this period. With another eye toward profit, he and his fellow investors literally made off with the timbers from another theater to build the Globe that has become synonymous with his plays, although of course many other plays were enacted there as well. And speaking of enactments, Shapiro reminds us that Shakespeare was an actor as well as an investor and a playwright, and suggests some of the parts that the author very likely reserved for himself.
Reading Shapiro, one comes to appreciate the political realities of late 16th century England as well. In an era when writing that was perceived to be critical of the monarchy or to justify assassination or usurpation was banned and when books were burned, one simply did not publish Julius Caesar in Elizabeth’s realm. Writing that portrayed the rise of republicanism at the expense of monarchical rule simply did not appear without retribution. Such insights as these make Shapiro’s book a rewarding experience for those seeking to understand the social, economic, political, and intellectual milieu which formed both Shakespeare and his dramatic creations.
The book, however, is not an unmitigated success. I found my interest in Shapiro’s text waxing and waning, being the strongest when he delves into historical events such as the invasion of Ireland, Essex’s failed leadership of the military and his devolution from trusted general to seditious and condemned prisoner, the panic among both government and citizenry over the reported Spanish invasion with its “Invisible Armada,� and other facts, such as the common practice of plagiarism among authors of the day, including Shakespeare himself, the “inconvenient� fact that copyrights were owned by publishers, not by authors, and the annoyance that Shakespeare surely felt when he discovered some of his sonnets, which he circulated only privately among a few friends, featured in a book along with others of various quality but all attributed to him! My interest does tend to wane when Shapiro departs from his historical writing to immerse us with his qualitative descriptions of the plays whose compositions he ascribes to 1599: Henry the Fifth, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and Hamlet; his vocabulary and syntax become somewhat dense and obfuscated when he lapses into literary analysis; moreover, that aspect of the book does not appear to be delivering what the title has promised.
My other disappointment lies in the “bibliographical essay� that consumes forty-one pages of the book. Entries are arranged by chapter and discussion topic within each chapter and are hidden within a structure of sentences and paragraphs. A simple alphabetical bibliography would have been far more usable and beneficial for the reader interested in Shapiro’s sources and related works.
As far as a recommendation is concerned, I would truly regret seeing this book become assigned reading for high school or university students whose interest in Shakespearean drama and in 16th century England in general is tenuous at best. While informative for them, the writing is not sufficiently captivating to ensnare their attention and appreciation, and is likely to be considered another bit of drudgery foisted upon them by an educational system out of touch with reality. Moreover, for the well-read Shakespearean scholar and Elizabethan historian, I doubt that the book contains any revelations that have not been encountered in other sources. However, for the general reader and for the student who enjoys filling in all of the massive gaps in understanding that persist despite high school diplomas and university degrees, Shapiro’s book does give a most helpful, interesting, and usually readable overview of the society that formed Shakespeare and that determined the style and tenor of his long-lived literary creations. If one is at all curious about the “life and times� of William Shakespeare, then the book is certainly worth its purchase price and, more importantly, it is worth the time and effort expended in reading it.
Looking at the year 1599 in Elizabethan England, we are struck by more than a few parallels with contemporary world affairs. We see a national leader intent on invading another country, Ireland in the earlier case. We observe ill-starred Essex leading an invading army which utterly fails to subdue the Irish. We look on in astonishment as the English quake in fear of a reported Spanish invasion and as they block the streets of London with chains and illuminate the night time with burning lamps to thwart enemy infiltration under cover of darkness. Potentially, of course, that may have been somewhat more pragmatic than creating a new government department and a rainbow-hued series of “threat levels.� One can only recall the French axiom “Plus ça change, plus c’est la mȇme chose,� or “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”� Little in human nature, it seems, has changed in the past four hundred years.
Shapiro’s book also helps pierce the mask of literary demigod behind which Shakespeare has been hidden by generations of admiring teachers and bewildered students. We see a man who produced plays through hard labor and laborious revision. We come to appreciate that Shakespeare was a businessman with an eye toward profitability, even when such was perhaps not completely legal or ethical. In this, he was certainly a man of his time, for the proto-capitalist British West Indies Company also got its start during this period. With another eye toward profit, he and his fellow investors literally made off with the timbers from another theater to build the Globe that has become synonymous with his plays, although of course many other plays were enacted there as well. And speaking of enactments, Shapiro reminds us that Shakespeare was an actor as well as an investor and a playwright, and suggests some of the parts that the author very likely reserved for himself.
Reading Shapiro, one comes to appreciate the political realities of late 16th century England as well. In an era when writing that was perceived to be critical of the monarchy or to justify assassination or usurpation was banned and when books were burned, one simply did not publish Julius Caesar in Elizabeth’s realm. Writing that portrayed the rise of republicanism at the expense of monarchical rule simply did not appear without retribution. Such insights as these make Shapiro’s book a rewarding experience for those seeking to understand the social, economic, political, and intellectual milieu which formed both Shakespeare and his dramatic creations.
The book, however, is not an unmitigated success. I found my interest in Shapiro’s text waxing and waning, being the strongest when he delves into historical events such as the invasion of Ireland, Essex’s failed leadership of the military and his devolution from trusted general to seditious and condemned prisoner, the panic among both government and citizenry over the reported Spanish invasion with its “Invisible Armada,� and other facts, such as the common practice of plagiarism among authors of the day, including Shakespeare himself, the “inconvenient� fact that copyrights were owned by publishers, not by authors, and the annoyance that Shakespeare surely felt when he discovered some of his sonnets, which he circulated only privately among a few friends, featured in a book along with others of various quality but all attributed to him! My interest does tend to wane when Shapiro departs from his historical writing to immerse us with his qualitative descriptions of the plays whose compositions he ascribes to 1599: Henry the Fifth, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and Hamlet; his vocabulary and syntax become somewhat dense and obfuscated when he lapses into literary analysis; moreover, that aspect of the book does not appear to be delivering what the title has promised.
My other disappointment lies in the “bibliographical essay� that consumes forty-one pages of the book. Entries are arranged by chapter and discussion topic within each chapter and are hidden within a structure of sentences and paragraphs. A simple alphabetical bibliography would have been far more usable and beneficial for the reader interested in Shapiro’s sources and related works.
As far as a recommendation is concerned, I would truly regret seeing this book become assigned reading for high school or university students whose interest in Shakespearean drama and in 16th century England in general is tenuous at best. While informative for them, the writing is not sufficiently captivating to ensnare their attention and appreciation, and is likely to be considered another bit of drudgery foisted upon them by an educational system out of touch with reality. Moreover, for the well-read Shakespearean scholar and Elizabethan historian, I doubt that the book contains any revelations that have not been encountered in other sources. However, for the general reader and for the student who enjoys filling in all of the massive gaps in understanding that persist despite high school diplomas and university degrees, Shapiro’s book does give a most helpful, interesting, and usually readable overview of the society that formed Shakespeare and that determined the style and tenor of his long-lived literary creations. If one is at all curious about the “life and times� of William Shakespeare, then the book is certainly worth its purchase price and, more importantly, it is worth the time and effort expended in reading it.
March 30, 2018
Some of this book I really loved and some... was a bit of a slog.
It's not the author's fault, Shapiro does warn you right from the start that a lot of the book is about the social and political climate Shakespeare was living in during 1599, and that patience would be required to see how Will and what he was up to fits into it all, but my god, I wish he hadn't preceded it with an amazing story about Shakespeare, Richard Burbage and their pals doing a real Ocean's 11 on a dodgy landlord and putting the wheels in motion for the building of the Globe. Real 5 star stuff.
I love royal history, so the stuff around Elizabeth I was fine, but there is also a ton about the wars in Ireland and my god, was that not my bag. Every time I got to a new section on military strategy and whatnot my eyes would glaze over and it would put me off picking the book up again.
Shapiro is a very honest writer, which I really like. In addition to the warning above, he's also pretty upfront about the fact we can never really know Shakespeare because he didn't really leave much behind other than his work. And yet when the book does talk about him it's still fascinating, and I did come away feeling like I learned a lot more about him. I'd say things really pick up towards the end (of both the book and the year 1599) when Shakespeare writes Hamlet. The process, the disconnect between writing and performance, the breakdown of its significance in Shakespeare's career and theatrical history as a whole - Shapiro comes some epic stuff. I can already see that next time I read Hamlet I'll be seeing it through totally different eyes and so in that respect I think this book is excellent. It was just a bit arduous to get through (look how long it took me...although I did move house during that time).
It's not the author's fault, Shapiro does warn you right from the start that a lot of the book is about the social and political climate Shakespeare was living in during 1599, and that patience would be required to see how Will and what he was up to fits into it all, but my god, I wish he hadn't preceded it with an amazing story about Shakespeare, Richard Burbage and their pals doing a real Ocean's 11 on a dodgy landlord and putting the wheels in motion for the building of the Globe. Real 5 star stuff.
I love royal history, so the stuff around Elizabeth I was fine, but there is also a ton about the wars in Ireland and my god, was that not my bag. Every time I got to a new section on military strategy and whatnot my eyes would glaze over and it would put me off picking the book up again.
Shapiro is a very honest writer, which I really like. In addition to the warning above, he's also pretty upfront about the fact we can never really know Shakespeare because he didn't really leave much behind other than his work. And yet when the book does talk about him it's still fascinating, and I did come away feeling like I learned a lot more about him. I'd say things really pick up towards the end (of both the book and the year 1599) when Shakespeare writes Hamlet. The process, the disconnect between writing and performance, the breakdown of its significance in Shakespeare's career and theatrical history as a whole - Shapiro comes some epic stuff. I can already see that next time I read Hamlet I'll be seeing it through totally different eyes and so in that respect I think this book is excellent. It was just a bit arduous to get through (look how long it took me...although I did move house during that time).
April 12, 2013
I can't praise this book highly enough: an inspired idea, meticulously researched, executed with consummate skill and insight.
Professor James Shapiro takes as his subject the year in which Shakespeare completed Henry V, wrote Julius Caesar and As You Like It and drafted Hamlet. He relates the content of the plays to the playwright's life, to what was happening in the London playhouses, to the court of Queen Elizabeth, to current affairs such as the English invasion of Ireland and the fear of another Spanish armada, to political tensions and to censorship and the dangers of saying what you think.
He provides compelling evidence for Shakespeare's unique and soaring talent; as the playwright moves beyond the formulaic comedies of his contemporaries with As You Like It, a play where the only real obstacle in the way of the lovers is the need for Rosalind to teach Orlando how to love her for real; as he creates the ultimate complex and conflicted protagonist Hamlet; as he tackles the risky theme (especially risky in Elizabethan England)of assassination in Julius Caesar, not allowing the audience to make an easy judgement on whether or not it can ever be justified.
Little concrete is known about Shakespeare's life, but the author's speculations on the ways in which life and contemporary events inform his art are always entertaining and plausible. From the vivid opening pages, where Shakespeare's company of actors steal timber at the dead of night to build The Globe following a legal dispute, the narrative is lively and engaging to the last page.
Professor James Shapiro takes as his subject the year in which Shakespeare completed Henry V, wrote Julius Caesar and As You Like It and drafted Hamlet. He relates the content of the plays to the playwright's life, to what was happening in the London playhouses, to the court of Queen Elizabeth, to current affairs such as the English invasion of Ireland and the fear of another Spanish armada, to political tensions and to censorship and the dangers of saying what you think.
He provides compelling evidence for Shakespeare's unique and soaring talent; as the playwright moves beyond the formulaic comedies of his contemporaries with As You Like It, a play where the only real obstacle in the way of the lovers is the need for Rosalind to teach Orlando how to love her for real; as he creates the ultimate complex and conflicted protagonist Hamlet; as he tackles the risky theme (especially risky in Elizabethan England)of assassination in Julius Caesar, not allowing the audience to make an easy judgement on whether or not it can ever be justified.
Little concrete is known about Shakespeare's life, but the author's speculations on the ways in which life and contemporary events inform his art are always entertaining and plausible. From the vivid opening pages, where Shakespeare's company of actors steal timber at the dead of night to build The Globe following a legal dispute, the narrative is lively and engaging to the last page.
June 2, 2010
don't read much non fiction, but this one caught my eye in the library (after a recommendation from F R Jameson). As some of you know I take a keen interest in local writers (eg I've recently read Anthony Cartwright's 'Heartland' set in Dudley, Mez Packer's 'Among Thieves' set in Coventry and Raphael Selbourne's 'Beauty' set in Wolverhampton). Well here is a local lad who did quite well for himself - Shakespeare. I live less than twenty miles from Stratford and am often hanging about the same haunts as young and old William - in the pub where he supposedly got so drunk he fell asleep under a tree outside; the river he walked along we do too (my wife and I) and reckon it can't have changed that much, apart from the pylons and stuff; the church where his parents got married etc etc. So I'm looking forward to reading this year-in-the-life.
...was great, Shapiro really convinces in his theory that Shakespeare was deeply influenced by what was happening around him, and how this is often overlooked because his writing 'transcends time'. The literary analysis held me spellbound: he looks closely at how Shakespeare revised his manuscripts and it's utterly fascinating to see this... greatness in action. I will give an example or two and more about the historical context later I hope (v. busy at the moment, editing my book - I've always wanted to say that!)...
I did get fiction withdrawal though and had to sneak in a couple of short stories over the period of reading this.
...was great, Shapiro really convinces in his theory that Shakespeare was deeply influenced by what was happening around him, and how this is often overlooked because his writing 'transcends time'. The literary analysis held me spellbound: he looks closely at how Shakespeare revised his manuscripts and it's utterly fascinating to see this... greatness in action. I will give an example or two and more about the historical context later I hope (v. busy at the moment, editing my book - I've always wanted to say that!)...
I did get fiction withdrawal though and had to sneak in a couple of short stories over the period of reading this.
March 24, 2017
Numerous biographies of Shakespeare exist, most of which follow the usual pattern of 1564-1616 connect-the-dots narrative speculations that map the landscape of Shakespeare studies. They are worthwhile, and most are insightful regardless of whether the reader agrees with the conclusions drawn. Most of what we know will rely upon the parcels of data we have as well as the interior evidence of the plays and poems themselves.
What James Shapiro masterfully achieves is to look in depth at a key moment of Shakespeare's life - the unusually eventful 1599 - and draw conclusions between the socio-political history of courtly relations and chart their influence on Shakespeare's writing in this more-or-less calendar year. Four plays were written and/or performed in this year - Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and the first draft of Hamlet - and Shapiro deftly ties the interior evidence of references to real life events in the plays to the historical events that inspired them. England was engrossed in the fear of a new Spanish Armada, the Irish rebellion, the Essex intrigues, and the anxiety of Elizabeth's succession, and they all appear in Shakespeare's plays. By looking at the small details that usually are passed over in a larger focus, Shapiro illuminates what it meant to Shakespeare to be a jobbing actor, writer, and shareholder. Brilliant stuff for the experienced Shakespearean.
What James Shapiro masterfully achieves is to look in depth at a key moment of Shakespeare's life - the unusually eventful 1599 - and draw conclusions between the socio-political history of courtly relations and chart their influence on Shakespeare's writing in this more-or-less calendar year. Four plays were written and/or performed in this year - Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It, and the first draft of Hamlet - and Shapiro deftly ties the interior evidence of references to real life events in the plays to the historical events that inspired them. England was engrossed in the fear of a new Spanish Armada, the Irish rebellion, the Essex intrigues, and the anxiety of Elizabeth's succession, and they all appear in Shakespeare's plays. By looking at the small details that usually are passed over in a larger focus, Shapiro illuminates what it meant to Shakespeare to be a jobbing actor, writer, and shareholder. Brilliant stuff for the experienced Shakespearean.
November 26, 2017
This is what I wanted in a biography about Shakespeare. It looked into the events of his time and discussed how those events contributed to his work. It also talked about why his writing appealed to both the rustic and the aristocracy of his time. It also discussed how he grew and progressed as a writer. As we know, Shakespeare was great at stealing stories from others and reworking them into a better story. The book also discusses this and why his versions are such improvements on the originals.
This is a biography, so in my opinion that translates into a little slow. It was a bit slow at parts, but it held my attention and was not crude like the other biography, Will in the World. Whereas that book focused on every vice in Elizabethan England or Shakespeare's life and gave extensive detail, this book might admit that Shakespeare was probably having an affair, but it didn't go into immense detail about why that is believed. It just admitted it and went on.
This book focuses on the year 1599 because it was a prolific year for Shakespeare, the Globe Theater was built this year, and it was also a year of great turmoil in Elizabethan England. It does give some history prior to 1599 when needed and it does extend into the future as well to finish out Shakespeare's life.
All in all, I loved this read as a glimpse into Shakespeare's creative genius.
This is a biography, so in my opinion that translates into a little slow. It was a bit slow at parts, but it held my attention and was not crude like the other biography, Will in the World. Whereas that book focused on every vice in Elizabethan England or Shakespeare's life and gave extensive detail, this book might admit that Shakespeare was probably having an affair, but it didn't go into immense detail about why that is believed. It just admitted it and went on.
This book focuses on the year 1599 because it was a prolific year for Shakespeare, the Globe Theater was built this year, and it was also a year of great turmoil in Elizabethan England. It does give some history prior to 1599 when needed and it does extend into the future as well to finish out Shakespeare's life.
All in all, I loved this read as a glimpse into Shakespeare's creative genius.
November 12, 2020
This is an interesting look at a single year in the life of William Shakespeare and the political and social events which were happening at the time. In 1599 Shakespeare was thirty five and, that year, would write four plays - Henry V, Julius Caesar, As You Like It and Hamlet. Not a bad year's work you would think, but Shapiro is full of insight about the plays and the events which inspired, or shaped them.
During this year, there would be an Irish rebellion, the threat of invasion from Spain and the fledgling East India Company, as well as events of Court. The country had one eye on an ageing monarch and the obvious concerns about who would take power when she died without a names successor, while another scanned the horizon, searching for an armada which they feared would come into sight. Alongside these events, Shakespeare was involved in literally dismantling a playhouse and resurrecting it as the Globe. An enjoyable and in depth look at a pivotal year in Shakespeare's life and of his wish to change theatre.
During this year, there would be an Irish rebellion, the threat of invasion from Spain and the fledgling East India Company, as well as events of Court. The country had one eye on an ageing monarch and the obvious concerns about who would take power when she died without a names successor, while another scanned the horizon, searching for an armada which they feared would come into sight. Alongside these events, Shakespeare was involved in literally dismantling a playhouse and resurrecting it as the Globe. An enjoyable and in depth look at a pivotal year in Shakespeare's life and of his wish to change theatre.
December 24, 2022
A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599 by James Shapiro is a must read if you're looking for an intriguing Shakespeare biography as well as a deep dive into one year of his life. It's a fascinating read and I'm so glad I decided to listen to the audiobook production. The author does a good job narrating the story, and it even includes a few excerpts from the plays the Shakespeare wrote in 1599. The author does a fantastic job analyzing real world events and how they influenced the author and his immortal stories. I appreciated the level of detail that went into putting all of this together. What a year! I'll have to check out Shapiro's The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606 in the future as well.
July 2, 2012
A pretty good look at how the events in one year - both nationally and personally - might have impacted Shakespeare's writing. Unlike some authors I can think of, Shapiro keeps the guesswork to almost non-existent and is always very clear when he is guessing.
I would've liked a look at connection between Hamlet and Scotland, though I must admit.
Nice combination of history, biography, and criticism.
I would've liked a look at connection between Hamlet and Scotland, though I must admit.
Nice combination of history, biography, and criticism.
May 28, 2021
In 1599 the author states that Shakespeare who wrote four plays, a particularly productive and inventive year for Shakespeare. The book discusses the plays, Henry the Fifth, Julius Caesar, As You Like it and Hamlet, the building of the Globe and Elizabethan politics. A little detailed in parts but plenty happened to make it an interesting read.
May 22, 2017
I found the title slightly misleading. When I hear or read "A Year In The Life..." I usually expect it to focus fairly tightly on the subject that comes next. This book had a good bit about Shakespeare, but it spent a lot of time on events happening that year, some with the most tenuous connections the great playwright.
1599 was a very eventful year. Shakespeare's company built the Globe Theater, and even that was something of an adventure involving "creatively acquired" lumber. Shakespeare himself wrote four of his best plays that year: Henry V, Julius Ceasar, As You Like It, and Hamlet. He also made one of his rare journeys from London back to Stratford.
There was a lot else going on, as well. There was a rebellion in Ireland that had a lot of people nervous. A knight named Essex was sent to stop it, and managed to get himself in a lot of trouble through both bad judgment and ego. Elizabeth was on the throne, and she had a lot to worry about and was dangerous to cross. Essex found that out a few later when she had him beheaded. There was a panic about a second Spanish Armada moving to attack England, which had the population hysterical, and proved eventually to be totally false. Add in a few notable storms, many going hungry or landless, and censors examining everything written, and you can see a lot of Shakespeare's challenges.
The author is clearly a fan of the Bard ,and it shows through in various ways. The book can be a bit dry in places. Recommended for devotees of Shakespeare and his work, or people interested in English history.
1599 was a very eventful year. Shakespeare's company built the Globe Theater, and even that was something of an adventure involving "creatively acquired" lumber. Shakespeare himself wrote four of his best plays that year: Henry V, Julius Ceasar, As You Like It, and Hamlet. He also made one of his rare journeys from London back to Stratford.
There was a lot else going on, as well. There was a rebellion in Ireland that had a lot of people nervous. A knight named Essex was sent to stop it, and managed to get himself in a lot of trouble through both bad judgment and ego. Elizabeth was on the throne, and she had a lot to worry about and was dangerous to cross. Essex found that out a few later when she had him beheaded. There was a panic about a second Spanish Armada moving to attack England, which had the population hysterical, and proved eventually to be totally false. Add in a few notable storms, many going hungry or landless, and censors examining everything written, and you can see a lot of Shakespeare's challenges.
The author is clearly a fan of the Bard ,and it shows through in various ways. The book can be a bit dry in places. Recommended for devotees of Shakespeare and his work, or people interested in English history.
November 14, 2020
William Shakespeare was brought to Tudor London, the English capital city of playhouses and theatregoing public. He has gained success from his works and invested in a permanent theatre company himself. His later works on the stage feature a series of dramas and tragedies exploring the great questions of the day such as religious conflict and assassination. By the end of the year in 1599, Shakespeare had become a recognised brand. He was widely admired as the finest dramatist of the day.
July 3, 2024
A challenging read but, had I had access to this book in my secondary school years, I may have appreciated Shakespeare, English history, and life a whole lot better. An apparently "dry" subject well explained!
January 24, 2021
I’m not a Shakespeare aficionado but I was drawn to this book because of its focus on Elizabethan England in 1599 and the interaction of that particular year’s social and political events with Shakespeare’s writing and performances. Shapiro takes this approach in lieu of a traditional biography in part because he believes we just know too little about Shakespeare as a person.
Shapiro makes the case that 1599 was a turning point year for England and for Shakespeare. England was dealing with an uprising in Ireland as well as threats from the Spanish Armada. With an aging monarch, the Tudor era was coming to an end and there was much uncertainty about the future. In post-Reformation England, familiar religious icons and holidays were replaced with secular celebrations and the theater increasingly became a common cultural touchstone for Elizabethans. The age of Chivalry was fading and, with the birth of the fledgling East India Company, the adventurous knight was being usurped by the adventurous merchant.
This was the year that the Globe Theater opened with Shakespeare as one of its owners. Shakespeare’s creative genius is on display as he writes plays that in some important ways move away from the traditional fare of the day and that both reflect what was happening in society and at the same time demand much more from his audience. Shapiro does brilliant in depth social/political analyses of As You Like It and Hamlet.
Entertaining and informative.
Shapiro makes the case that 1599 was a turning point year for England and for Shakespeare. England was dealing with an uprising in Ireland as well as threats from the Spanish Armada. With an aging monarch, the Tudor era was coming to an end and there was much uncertainty about the future. In post-Reformation England, familiar religious icons and holidays were replaced with secular celebrations and the theater increasingly became a common cultural touchstone for Elizabethans. The age of Chivalry was fading and, with the birth of the fledgling East India Company, the adventurous knight was being usurped by the adventurous merchant.
This was the year that the Globe Theater opened with Shakespeare as one of its owners. Shakespeare’s creative genius is on display as he writes plays that in some important ways move away from the traditional fare of the day and that both reflect what was happening in society and at the same time demand much more from his audience. Shapiro does brilliant in depth social/political analyses of As You Like It and Hamlet.
Entertaining and informative.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 488 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.