THE COMMON TOUCH AND ITS EFFECT ON SHAKESPEAREAN LEADERSHIP

Abstract

Stephen Greenblatt in his book Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare, comments on William Shakespeare's almost constant observance of the common person's impacts on and views of the world: "He understood, and he wanted the audience to understand, that the theater had to have both, both the visionary flight and the solid, ordinary earthiness." Greenblatt concludes, "That earthiness was a constituent part of his creative imagination. He never forgot the provincial, everyday world from which he came or the ordinary face behind the mask of Anon" (53). Even in his leaders, Shakespeare seemed to feel a need to show their common weaknesses, their universal indecisions. and their general moral conflicts. Often these weaknesses emerge in scenes depicting leaders interacting with or reacting to the public or some representative from the common world. There are times that the everyman brushes with greatness, such as the gravedigger's banter with Hamlet or Bottom's acclaimed performance before Duke Theseus, but, in a society so aware of class, the leaders could be seen as amoral, if not vicious, and certainly separated from the everyday society. The leaders in Shakespearean drama almost always exhibit a full range of human behaviors, and in doing so, open a bridge for the ruled classes to examine the inner workings of the minds of those who decided their fates. In an Elizabethan society so cognizant of societal status, Shakespeare connected the leaders and the public in his drama to varying ends. Shakespeare illuminates leaders as people whose capabilities as leaders are gauged by their relationships with those they mean to lead. The impact that the commoners have on leaders when they come in contact with them can be seen more and more clearly if one follows the writing of certain history plays and tragedies, namely: Richard II, 1Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, Henry V, Hamlet and Corialanus. Through these comparisons, I will attempt to highlight not only the ways in which Shakespeare hoped to portray leadership, but also illustrate the relationships that the leaders have with the multitudes and what impact these relationships have on how leaders may make decisions.