A bust of Shakespeare. Photo: By Birmingham Museums Trust on Unsplash.
On bard terms? John Lampen on Shaw and Shakespeare
‘He presents us with situations and asks us to decide what they are telling us.’
George Bernard Shaw once wrote: ‘There is no eminent writer… whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare.’ He wanted to tease and provoke, of course, as well as make a justified attack on what he called ‘bardolatry’. He believed plays should challenge and disquiet their audiences with unfamiliar ideas, and give a clear point of view on social questions. He found Shakespeare conservative and conventional.
Shakespeare’s characters may be conventional in that they often give voice to what most people have felt at times, but he has a unique power of using words to deepen the thought and extend the meaning. For example, it takes Juliet only three lines to create a whole vision of love: ‘My bounty is as boundless as the sea / My love as deep; the more I give to thee / The more I have, for both are infinite.’
In Antony and Cleopatra, when the politician Lepidus is sidelined, Antony and Octavian remain at the summit of power. A Roman officer observes, ‘Then, world, thou hast a pair of chaps [jaws], no more / And throw between them all the food thou hast / They’ll grind the one the other.’
The image of two world leaders as a pair of jaws is a striking one (which we might be tempted to apply to some figures today). Octavian and Antony should be satisfied, but despite owning ‘all the food’, the situation will end with them grinding against each other. All in twenty-five words!
Shaw, who knew his Shakespeare well, did recognise this gift: ‘The Shakespearean delineation of character owes all its magic to the turn of the line, which lets you into the secret of the utterer’s mood and temperament, not by its commonplace meaning, but by some subtle exaltation, or stultification, or slyness, or delicacy, or hesitancy, or whatnot in the sound of it.’ He also approved of the way that Shakespeare uses gaps in the storytelling; for example, how much does Gertrude know about her first husband’s death in Hamlet? In Measure for Measure, how does Isabella respond to the Duke’s offer to marry her? We are not told, so actors and directors must make their own choices, and fresh aspects of the stories are revealed.
But Shaw was wrong to claim that Shakespeare has nothing to say on important questions. The use and misuse of power run through his histories and tragedies. It’s just that Shakespeare, unlike Shaw, does not put forward a thesis. Instead he presents us with situations and asks us to decide what they are telling us – and audiences may well argue about it, as the responses to Coriolanus show.
The topic which most constantly preoccupies Shakespeare is forgiveness and reconciliation, one which I feel had little interest for Shaw. From The Two Gentleman of Verona to The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest, Shakespeare explores its power, possibility and meaning in some of the most moving scenes he ever wrote. But the harmony is never perfect; each time he depicts some flaw. We are made to acknowledge our own inadequacy and the unpredictability of life. Cordelia forgives Lear, but she is murdered nonetheless…
John is leading ‘Experiencing Shakespeare’ at Charney Manor from 25–29 August 2025. Details at www.charneymanor.com
