[I]magine a Romeo who did not die with Juliet, but who went on living, dogged by scandal, a divisive figure still, a Romeo who loved again not always wisely, not always well, a Romeo who grow up, grow old, who pursued a fallible but as honest a life as he could manage and then, finally mortal, this ancient Romeo, like Lear, realises “I have taken too little care of this” and revisits and finally possesses the grief he may have evaded but that was also stolen from him.
Monthly Archives: November 2009
“Let’s say there was a burning building and you could rush in and you could save only one thing: either the last known copy of Shakespeare’s plays or some anonymous human being. What would you do?” asks Sheldon Flender of his fellow bohemians in “Bullets Over Broadway.” It’s a terrifying dilemma, although its terror assumes that people wouldn’t remember one of the most memorized writers there has ever been. A Shakespeare-less universe is unimaginable. On the most basic level, what would people say in those moments when we say “To Be or Not To Be”? What would people do when they want to crack a joke near a skull? What would “Brave New World” be called?
In fact, I suspect we’d soon get over it. True, there is a fairly startling drop in quality between the 100th best work of literature and the 101st (a distance equivalent to the drop from Thackeray’s “Vanity Fair” to his not-bad but not-great “Adventures of Philip“). But so much of the canon’s greatness comes from the time we spend studying it and admiring it. Not all of it, but definitely some of it. If Shakespeare were to disappear, we’d still have Milton. We wouldn’t have Brave New World, but we’d still have “Look Homeward, Angel” as a title. And we’d also still have Marlowe and Jonson, who would most likely be the greatest beneficiary of a vanished Shakespeare. Jonson’s plays take time to like, time that we now dedicate to the tail end of Shakespeare’s canon.
And I think that applies to periods of 100 years in one country as much as it does to all the time in the world. You can knock the top few works out — the essentials — and be left with new essentials — a rich and important corpus that rewards study and delivers beauty at roughly the same degree. Samuel Jonhson’s Lives of the Poets, to me, presents the best test case for my little theory. Its index is disturbing: there’s so much space he is dedicating to poets that barely anyone cares about any more. According to my theory, that’s because Johnson only had about 200 years of what you might call modern poetry to discuss — a mere five generations of poets. As more poets emerged to grab our attention, the others got pushed aside.
It could well be, of course, that those poets deserved to get lost. The rhyming pentameters of the eighteenth century gave poetic license to a lot of lazy, overblown rhetoric. But still, it’ll be good to see what gems Johnson has in store, as well as to dig out some Johnsonisms. (I will post any good Johnsonisms on twitter in the meantime.) This is British literature, 1600-1800 without Milton, Shakespeare, Marvell, Swift, Pope, Gay or Gray. Let’s see how it looks.
FIRST UP: CONGREVE!