01-27-2026, 05:03 PM
In physics, we don’t study the Principia. Sure, people know of it and study Newtonian mechanics, but not what Newton wrote. In cinema, Orson Welles is studied only by students of cinema and then promptly forgotten. Artists don’t labour over how Leonardo mixed his oils. All those are historical curiosities. Batsmen don’t try to emulate the three W’s. They’re just better these days.
But in literature, we actually read Shakespeare and Milton. Why do we read Shakespeare? His plots are contrived, and theatrical dialogue is the opposite of real life. If we are to read him for the poetry of his plays, as some have argued, then what are we to make of:
It pleased the King his master very late
To strike at me, upon his misconstruction;
When he, compact, and flattering his displeasure,
Tripped me behind; being down, insulted, railed,
And put upon him such a deal of man
That worthied him, got praises of the King
For him attempting who was self-subdued;
And in the fleshment of this ⟨dread⟩ exploit,
Drew on me here again.
It is torturous, long winded yackery. No doubt, being a stage man, this dialogue would’ve done well for the players of his day, but how are we to read it?
How do we read the ancients? Typically, as alien writers from a different planet.
Antigone is more interesting when read sitting in a theatre in Halikarnos than in the library.
How should we read Shakespeare today, then? I personally read Shakespeare for the poetry, and skip over the boring bits. But that brings to mind another question - how many Shakespeares have we not read?
You can listen to salieri and realise that Mozart wasn’t some unique hot house genius who created the only Melodies of their kind. He was a genius, but many of his Melodies were similar to other tunes of the day. Have we heard all of them? No, not even the ones that survive. Perhaps Shakespeare had many peers whose works were simply not collected and published neatly in a folio. I don’t mean Marlowe and Kyd, I mean writers who just weren’t preserved.
But in literature, we actually read Shakespeare and Milton. Why do we read Shakespeare? His plots are contrived, and theatrical dialogue is the opposite of real life. If we are to read him for the poetry of his plays, as some have argued, then what are we to make of:
It pleased the King his master very late
To strike at me, upon his misconstruction;
When he, compact, and flattering his displeasure,
Tripped me behind; being down, insulted, railed,
And put upon him such a deal of man
That worthied him, got praises of the King
For him attempting who was self-subdued;
And in the fleshment of this ⟨dread⟩ exploit,
Drew on me here again.
It is torturous, long winded yackery. No doubt, being a stage man, this dialogue would’ve done well for the players of his day, but how are we to read it?
How do we read the ancients? Typically, as alien writers from a different planet.
Antigone is more interesting when read sitting in a theatre in Halikarnos than in the library.
How should we read Shakespeare today, then? I personally read Shakespeare for the poetry, and skip over the boring bits. But that brings to mind another question - how many Shakespeares have we not read?
You can listen to salieri and realise that Mozart wasn’t some unique hot house genius who created the only Melodies of their kind. He was a genius, but many of his Melodies were similar to other tunes of the day. Have we heard all of them? No, not even the ones that survive. Perhaps Shakespeare had many peers whose works were simply not collected and published neatly in a folio. I don’t mean Marlowe and Kyd, I mean writers who just weren’t preserved.