Death by Shakespeare: Snakebites, Stabbings and Broken Hearts by Kathryn Harkup
Certain critics persist in claiming that the historical William Shakespeare could not have been the author of Shakespeare's works, due to his common origins. Shakespeare was an actor and playwright born in the town of Stratford to a moderately affluent family, educated at the local grammar school, and he never attended Oxford or Cambridge. One of the areas that critics cite as evidence that Shakespeare's plays must have been written by someone else is that Shakespeare could not have had the extensive knowledge of medical science that is displayed in many of his plays. Author Kathryn Harkup sets out to prove that not only would Shakespeare have had this kind of knowledge, but that the Elizabethan audience that he was writing for would also have had intimate knowledge of disease and the many ways to die in the 16th century. Most of them would have been aware of poisons like mercury, antimony, and lead (lead poisoning was known even as many Elizabethans were slathering lead on their faces to achieve that stylish white complexion favored by Queen Elizabeth I). Although not every play includes a death, every Shakespeare play and quite a few of his poems make reference to at least one disease.
Death in today's world has been largely sanitized, but in the 16th century, a family member or close friend would have been nursed at home, with family members caring for them all the way up to preparing the body for burial. Professional medical care was limited at best, with doctors available only for the rich and aristocratic. The lower classes had to make do with a barber-surgeon or local woman healer. Even with a trained doctor, the patient's chances of survival were poor. The average Londoner in the 16th century would have seen public executions, plague victims, and horribly wounded soldiers returning from war. Shakespeare would have had the same experiences, and if he didn't have personal knowledge, Harkup points out that London was a cosmopolitan city and he certainly could have found someone to tell him about wounds sustained during a sword fight or when to suspect murder.
This turned out to be an interesting choice to read during the COVID-19 pandemic, since there were many parallels between the current preventative measures and the restrictions that were put in place during the 15th and 16th century plague outbreaks. During the plague, theaters were closed, festivals and public processions were cancelled, and even the king's coronation was held without an audience. With the theaters closed, Shakespeare turned to writing sonnets and narrative poems to earn money. Pamphlets published the latest plague news and proclaimed cures or preventatives for the plague (much like the Internet articles today claiming that all you need to do to avoid COVID-19 is fill-in-the-blank). One difference is that churches remained open. The author notes that after the plague outbreak of 1582-1583, it took two years for life to return to normal. Aargh.
Overall, this is an interesting and different look at Shakespeare and the 16th century that will appeal to anyone interested in Elizabethan history as reflected in Shakespeare's plays. Harkup's style is intended for the general reader than for a scholarly audience.
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for providing an eARC in return for a review.
No comments:
Post a Comment