![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Writing plays is all very well and good if you're a typical Elizabethan writer with talent and drive. They get you kudos with the masses. But it's not for the truly erudite, upper class readers. It's not the sort of thing to get you books printed or young rich Lords giving you patronage. No, for that, you need poetry. And since the theaters were closed for all of 1593 due to another plague scare, that's exactly what Shakespeare did.
(FYI, I'm talking here about his epic narrative poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape Of Lucrece. I'll get into the Sonnets in another post.)
It's notable that these two are thought to be the only things printed that Shakespeare actually approved of. Most of the early Quartos of his plays were done without his permission, and the Folio, of course, was after his death. These poems, though, were his legacy.
Venus and Adonis is very much the lighter and sweeter of the two plays. Sweet meaning sugary and mellifluous, the way it was used back in Shakespeare's day. It does, after all, end with Adonis' death, so cannot really be considered fluffy happy poetry. It does have a couple of changes from the commonly known ancient myth, however; notably, Venus never actually gets any. This is perhaps because Shakespeare portrays Adonis as very young (it's explicitly mentioned a few times that he's barely hit puberty), but more likely due to his Venus.
Shakespeare's portrayal of Venus is the reason to read the poem. Talk about being all things to all people. It's a very erotic poem (for the time, it was almost softcore porn), and Venus is utterly determined to get her end away, never even noticing that, unlike the adult Adonis of Ovid's myth, this is a kid. We notice, though; Adonis' immaturity is seen throughout, which only makes Venus' desperation more sad and comical. She almost becomes sympathetic after his death, but no, her sheer over-the-top melodrama combined with flightiness drag her down.
By contrast (oh boy, what contrast!), we have The Rape of Lucrece. It is, in my opinion, the better of the two narrative poems, and far more serious. No one would dare call Lucrece's rape erotic. Which may have been part of the point, as Elizabethan writers had a tendency to be fairly misogynist about this sort of thing. Shakespeare wasn't far ahead of his time, but he was a little bit ahead of it (see: Merchant of Venice, where Shylock is still anti-semitic but written far more sympathetically than contemporaries).
Lucrece is a noble heroine, hideously wronged. Once she is raped, it's pretty much made clear that there is nothing else for her, and her very public suicide is still pretty shocking today. As is the reaction it provokes, with the banishment not only of the man who raped her, but of his entire family - who were, notably, the rulers of Rome. Rome goes from Kings to Consuls after this. Again, notice how Shakespeare works political concerns into almost everything he does, although this is probably not quite as 'gosh, is a monarchy really a good idea?' as Julius Caesar will be 5 years later.
Also notably, when a Jacobean playwright dramatized Shakespeare's Lucrece, a lot of the subtleties were lost (a constant problem with Shakespeare adaptations). Particularly, Lucrece's husband was made to feel as if the situation were his fault, for making a bet on his wife's virtue, and then for basically letting the rapist into his home unwittingly. Shakespeare left the fault of the husband to the reader; the play added several diatribes against him. (Shakespeare later used a very similar situation in his play Cymbeline.)
The two poems are not very well known in modern times; Shakespeare is now known as a playwright first and foremost, and when you think of his poetry, you tend to think of the very quotable sonnets. Feminists are beginning to take notice of Lucrece, though (and to a lesser extent Venus), and I doubt they will ever simply be forgotten.
(FYI, I'm talking here about his epic narrative poems Venus and Adonis and The Rape Of Lucrece. I'll get into the Sonnets in another post.)
It's notable that these two are thought to be the only things printed that Shakespeare actually approved of. Most of the early Quartos of his plays were done without his permission, and the Folio, of course, was after his death. These poems, though, were his legacy.
Venus and Adonis is very much the lighter and sweeter of the two plays. Sweet meaning sugary and mellifluous, the way it was used back in Shakespeare's day. It does, after all, end with Adonis' death, so cannot really be considered fluffy happy poetry. It does have a couple of changes from the commonly known ancient myth, however; notably, Venus never actually gets any. This is perhaps because Shakespeare portrays Adonis as very young (it's explicitly mentioned a few times that he's barely hit puberty), but more likely due to his Venus.
Shakespeare's portrayal of Venus is the reason to read the poem. Talk about being all things to all people. It's a very erotic poem (for the time, it was almost softcore porn), and Venus is utterly determined to get her end away, never even noticing that, unlike the adult Adonis of Ovid's myth, this is a kid. We notice, though; Adonis' immaturity is seen throughout, which only makes Venus' desperation more sad and comical. She almost becomes sympathetic after his death, but no, her sheer over-the-top melodrama combined with flightiness drag her down.
By contrast (oh boy, what contrast!), we have The Rape of Lucrece. It is, in my opinion, the better of the two narrative poems, and far more serious. No one would dare call Lucrece's rape erotic. Which may have been part of the point, as Elizabethan writers had a tendency to be fairly misogynist about this sort of thing. Shakespeare wasn't far ahead of his time, but he was a little bit ahead of it (see: Merchant of Venice, where Shylock is still anti-semitic but written far more sympathetically than contemporaries).
Lucrece is a noble heroine, hideously wronged. Once she is raped, it's pretty much made clear that there is nothing else for her, and her very public suicide is still pretty shocking today. As is the reaction it provokes, with the banishment not only of the man who raped her, but of his entire family - who were, notably, the rulers of Rome. Rome goes from Kings to Consuls after this. Again, notice how Shakespeare works political concerns into almost everything he does, although this is probably not quite as 'gosh, is a monarchy really a good idea?' as Julius Caesar will be 5 years later.
Also notably, when a Jacobean playwright dramatized Shakespeare's Lucrece, a lot of the subtleties were lost (a constant problem with Shakespeare adaptations). Particularly, Lucrece's husband was made to feel as if the situation were his fault, for making a bet on his wife's virtue, and then for basically letting the rapist into his home unwittingly. Shakespeare left the fault of the husband to the reader; the play added several diatribes against him. (Shakespeare later used a very similar situation in his play Cymbeline.)
The two poems are not very well known in modern times; Shakespeare is now known as a playwright first and foremost, and when you think of his poetry, you tend to think of the very quotable sonnets. Feminists are beginning to take notice of Lucrece, though (and to a lesser extent Venus), and I doubt they will ever simply be forgotten.
Tags: