
Impossible things happen all the time, but they usually don’t last long enough to celebrate. You’d think that once a people protected by deep water on east and west had settled on way to manage their land, they would be able to fend off the waste and pillage of tyranny. But the centuries after the magna carta had finally brought tyrannical kinds to heel, England fell prey to tyrants more than one time. It’s offspring—the United Colonies of America—has learned about tyrants more quickly—didn’t even it make it 250 years. Citizens rise, forget and get distracted allowing the most remarkably unfit people to seize absolute control. How it possible for a whole country to fall into the hands of a tyrant?
A century and a half before the colonial experiment produced a fragile democracy that would wobble and totter for another 250 years, Shakespeare explored this question in a number of plays about tyrants. I didn’t fully grasp how much he could help us until I visited Stratford-upon-Avon a few weeks ago and discovered a book by Stephan Greenblatt, Tyrant: Shakespeare on Power. Greenblatt is an impeccable scholar who, like me, was distressed following the election of you-know-who. “Under what circumstances do such cherished institutions, seemingly deeply-rooted and impregnable, suddenly prove fragile?” The answer lay not just with the tyrant but those complicit. With uncomfortable precision Greenblatt identifies five types of complicities that would read like CNN, if it had not fallen into the control of one of the types.
The gullible are only one: “Such people find it almost impossible to resist the big bold lie, shamelessly reiterated. The young and inexperienced are a relatively easy mark. When the murdered Clarence’s son is told his uncle Richard’s grief is fraudulent, the child replies , ‘I cannot think it.’ (Richard III 2.2.31.33). “I cannot think it” serves as the motto for those who simply cannot get their minds around such perfidy.

But why does it work? “Why would anyone be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously conniving or indifferent to the truth? Why in some circumstances, does evidence of mendacity, crudeness or cruelty serve not as a fatal disadvantage but as an allure, attracting ardent followers? Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency.”
Good question much on my mind this July 4th.
Shakespeare was an entertainer more like than Stephen Colbert than a research scholar. He knew where the line was and did not get cancelled or, as was common in the time, tortured, drawn and quartered. Fortunately for him, he didn’t need to be current; history is littered with tyrants to write about. That is Greenblatt’s first point: tyrants always look unique, but they are just a type that slithers through political cracks now and then before quickly collapsing in humiliation and always alone.

MacBeth says, “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” (5.5.19-28) Greenblatt stresses, “It is important to understand that this devastating experience of utter meaninglessness….is not the existential condition of humankind. The play insists that it is the fate precisely of the tyrant.” Normal people are not condemned to this bleakness; we can—and most of us do–choose decency, love and community.
The Bard would not be surprised that the American experiment’s multilayered checks and balances could Such people find it almost impossible to resist the big bold lie, shamelessly reiterated.
“There are periods, sometimes extended periods, during which the cruelest motives of the basest people seem to be triumphant. But Shakespeare believed that tyrants and their minions would ultimately fail, brought down by their own viciousness and by a popular spirit of humanity that could be suppressed but never completely extinguished.
Any hope? “He imagined the best hope lay in the sheer unpredictability of collective life, its refusal to march in lockstep to a one person’s orders. The incalculable number of factors constantly in play make it impossible for an idealist or a tyrant…to remain in charge of the course of events.”

“The best chance for the recovery of collective decency lay, he thought in the political action of ordinary citizens. He never lost sight of the people who steadfastly reminded silent when exhorted to shout their support for the tyrant. “What is the city but the people.”
Happy 4th.
//////////////
Speaking of the banal evil complicity note that you can buy Greenblatt’s book almost anywhere, but on July 4th do so anywhere but Amazon.
It helps me when you subscribe for free.






















