My English professor, at university, an intellectual in every way, and recognized as one, used to repeatedly say: “Shakespeare is for all times.” I never gave too much thought to his words then, as I always assumed this was a bias he had in favor of a writer due to his overindulgence with the bard. He had specialized in Shakespearian literature and hence was overly impressed by him, or so I thought.
Yet later in life I have often debated the veracity of my professor’s contention and consciously assessed Shakespeare’s relevance to any era different than when he was writing and I have always been highly impressed by the applicability of the playwright’s work to different times, including the modern Age. I admit I have not studied Shakespeare as intensely as perhaps I did a playwright such as John Fletcher—a playwright perhaps more popular during his lifetime than even Shakespeare—but I can recognize why the claim that Shakespeare is for all times a very valid proposition.
The Jacobean playwright, John Fletcher (1579–1625) in his lifetime had a huge impact on Literature and the minds of his contemporaries and the general public of his time. It could be argued he was more famous than was Shakespeare in the early Restoration Period. But posterity has not awarded him the position it has given to Shakespeare. There is a reason for that and it simply is Shakespeare’s transcendence brought about by an innate quality in his work, which corroborates the opinion expressed by my erstwhile English professor and mentor.
Rather than outline the relevance of the different and strongly interwoven themes in Shakespeare’s work and their applicability to different ages and times, here I will point out the applicability of Shakespeare’s theme in Richard 111– while it can be detected in his other works—as being in proximity with the reasoning put forth by Obama in his recent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.
Obama in an allusion to the barbaric deeds of the ISIS spoke for some soul searching before concluding ISIS atrocities as a unique historical event. He pointed out how misguided interpreters of Christian faith were as guilty in having committed atrocities in the past in the name of religion. He referred to the Spanish inquisition, the crusades and the ugly period where Jim Crowe was applied to brutally suppress the blacks and their human rights in America, justifying everything in the name of religion. Behind this rhetoric was Obama’s hope that Americans will discard and transcend evil, be contrite of their past, and turn a new leaf of fairness and religious tolerance to become those who have a right to criticize evil without being hypocritical and thus be the rightful heirs to the “crown”.
Referring to atrocities going on in other countries because of religious intolerance he said: “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
What Obama was saying in essence was that Christianity, the Western world and America, too, is not exempt from its sullied past. He was unconsciously reiterating the theme in Shakespearian plays where the person who is entitled to judge others be one that is not tainted by evil.
While we can find one line or perhaps even one paragraph of a similar notion expressed by Obama, in different plays and writings of various writers we find a whole thematic crescendo leading us to this type of emotion in Richard 111.
The play begins with Richard priming himself to a string of crimes he is prepared to commit to illegitimately be the crowned king. The rascal connives, he does not hesitate to get anyone killed who would stand between him and ultimate power. After murdering his own brother who would have been the rightful successor to the throne, he either gets murdered or manipulates with the sole purpose of wearing the “crown”. But his Machiavellian methods to power eventually fail when the Earl of Richmond is the victor over him and Richard staggers to cry like a mad man, “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!”
Throughout the play we recognize how everyone who have a stained past are not the right candidates to wear the “crown”. They do not have the right because they are tainted by their past evil deeds. Only the upright Richmond is entitled to wear the “crown” because of his history of innocence and righteousness.
This is same as saying that with the history of the Christian religion’s past it has no right to judge others. The only time we can judge others and consider others evil and have the right to wear the “crown” is when we elevate ourselves to the point where we forsake evil and establish our innocence. Only then can we be like Earl of Richmond who deserved the “crown”.
It all starts with recognizing our past mistakes, being remorseful about it and endeavoring to be good enough to criticize evil without being phony. Then only can Americans speak with a sense of moral righteousness. Then only the bard would allow the no longer ugly Americans to be arbitrators of moral justice without being double faced.