This was a very interesting read. Through several plays - from Richard III to Caesar and Coriolanus - author guides us through the political views Shakespeare had on his contemporaries (people and aristocracy) and way he saw parallels with his time and historical examples of murderous villains that found their way to the top in order to rule their lands.

Is it surprising that Shakespeare hid/presented all his views in form of plays? To be honest no. Plays were form of entertainment (not unlike today's dramas and thrillers) but much more honest to their public because average citizen knew much better what is going on around him (when compared to modern equivalents). Everybody definitely knew what the story was about and what was alluded at but everybody kept quiet (including the censors) unless concrete actions were taken. They were aware that people need breathing space and be able to comment and critique the rulers (remember jesters? Their role was sort of mement-mori, to remind rulers that they are not almighty. Can you imagine jesters to be able to show bad sides of current rule anywhere? They would be lynched the moment they would say something masses do not agree with).

I enjoyed the analysis, it was very detailed, especially parts on Richard III and Lear. And of course as it usually goes nowadays, author could not resist but bring on the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Made-From-2016.
Hahahahahahahahaha, truly funny. You see, there seems to be a complete misconception between what populist and tyrant is. If these terms were equal then every politician since 1960's could be marked as a tyrant because they are all populists. And why do I say 1960's? Because up to that point it was expected that politician = statesman. Unfortunately when you just take a look at series of politicians from last 30 years, you wont see statesmen but rather poor group of populists who just happened to be at the top - one who every so often launched missiles because of his adultery, you will see second one that started multiple wars because economy was off so he started 20-years-and-ongoing campaigns in far countries and darn the consequences (remember the reasons like small things never confirmed (WMDs....)), third one that was talking about ending wars of the previous one but just continued them, fourth that was vulgar and loud mouth (and for this people did not like him) and said what was on the mind of many and finally fifth that reverted on almost everything he said in his campaign year.

Was anyone of these people statesman? No, they are professional politicians (apart from 2016-person since he was media person, celebrity you might say, bombast and vulgar but again no better than others).

This is where author fails in my opinion when it comes to parallels to Shakespearean tyrants. Tyrants from Shakespeare's plays were strong but very flawed individuals - to be ultimate ruler of life and death it takes strong person to remain sane. And these are not strong persons in that [mental] sense. Take Lear for example, from very wise person he became a fool. Whatever we might think about Caesar he was pushed to the limits because he was too successful (and success especially in those days was a danger to Senat bureaucrats). Coriolanus story shows how just Senate is - not at all. Maybe this play is closest to our own society because it shows what populist political body is capable of.

In modern society we do not have to be scared of tyrant (single person ruling everyone) because it wont happen. We need to be scared of tyranny of bureaucrats, grey people in the background. Just look at all the petty officials that seized control over cities, counties and parts of country, none is ready to relive themselves of those powers, some say they need to stay in force for years to come. These are true tyrants that we need to be afraid of today. But unfortunately they are amorphous mass, you cannot point to no-one exactly, only persons we see are high-level politicians and these are in and out, they are not constant. People in the back are.

What author skips over is that ever present emotional factor in political arena. Richard III craves it, Jack Cade is perfect example of emotional manipulator who drives people to do horrendous things, Caesar is killed because emotional response of population towards him is seen as crime by Brutus and his group who see themselves "more catholic than Pope" because it is only them who know what is good for Rome. Coriolanus is automaton that enrages the masses due to his bluntness and insensitivity and this finally brings his doom.

As long as people cannot control their emotions and resist calls to be first-and-foremost activists and not rational persons schemers in the government will always use that.

Can one imagine Shakespeare working in modern times? I am sure he would adapt to new technologies but I also have a feeling that he would be cancelled, his books burned, called this and that if his work does not flow with the main stream. I wonder what would he think about people that have everything but are so ready to destroy others because of differences of ideas. What would he think of millions of Richard's or Corilanus' lurking in the shadows? I think he would be justly terrified. As we all should be.

Very good book. Highly recommended. ( )

“[Shakespeare] seems to have grasped that he thought more clearly about the issues that preoccupied his world when he confronted them not directly but from an oblique angle. His plays suggest that he could best acknowledge the truth- to possess it fully and not perish of it- through the artifice of fiction or through historical distance.”

The author examines characters from Shakespeare’s Richard III, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, Henry the VI, King Lear, Macbeth, and The Winter’s Tale. He is interested in how societies fall under the spell of a tyrant, and the manner in which Shakespeare’s writings influenced audiences of his time. At the same time, Greenblatt sheds light on the ways we can learn from the past, as reflected in works of art, to better understand today’s world.

This book works well for those who want to gain a deeper understanding of Shakespeare’s writings. Shakespeare had an amazing grasp of human motivations, particularly evident is his depiction of tyrants. His observations are still valid today. It inspired me to read more of Shakespeare’s tragedies.

The audio book is nicely read by Edoardo Ballerini. I am torn about the inclusion of the reading of the footnotes. I usually prefer to add them, but in this case, it is a little distracting to have frequent mentions in the format: Play, Act #, Scene #, Line #.
( )

Stephen Greenblatt provides an absorbing survey of Shakespeare's treatment of political issues. He looks at several of the plays in depth, providing enough context for people who have not already read that particular play. His analysis is an outstanding commentary on today's political turbulence. ( )

Depressed by the election of the tyrant Donald Trump, Greenblatt took out his frustrations by writing a book that, without mentioning Trump by name, finds his character (or lack of it) portrayed across Shakespeare's own tyrants, from the English history plays to Lear, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, and Macbeth. It makes for painful reading. In Shakespeare's plays, tyrants eventually get their comeuppance. It remains to be seen whether Trump will get his. Life, unfortunately, does not imitate art. ( )

Greenblatt notes in the acknowledgments that this book came about because of his anxiety surrounding recent elections. I think this is a fantastic way of exploring those concerns - and is remarkably similar to what Shakespeare himself was doing. Greenblatt explains that Shakespeare used his historical plays to criticize and draw parallels while subverting contemporary treason laws; in this book, Greenblatt uses Shakespeare to criticize and draw parallels without naming names. (Of course, everyone knows exactly whom he's talking about.) ( )