The cultural construction of William Shakespeare that we find in his plays is so powerful that it contributed to making him a cultural phenomenon. One of the reasons why his cultural construction is successful and widely accepted by the spectators and the readers is that it contains the everydayness of life. In a bigger sense, it contains the everydayness of humanity itself. The timelessness of this aspect of life also gave its architect an existence of timelessness and thus the legacy of Shakespeare lives.
The idea of the word ‘everydayness’ has different meanings and uses. It is a noun which generally means: the quality of being every day and commonness. In other words, it means the ordinariness as a consequence of being frequent. It is the attitude towards the reality; it is the normal ways how we participate in this life’s journey. Our natural, habitual, customary and the obligatory routines of daily life which we lead on the basis of our socio-economic and moral status, our self-reflective assessments, ancestral wisdom and getable knowledge constructs our own everydayness. In his plays, Shakespeare has shown everydayness of the common or the ordinary people as well as the elite people. The importance of taking everydayness into count can be realized through the reflection of Bertrand Russell. He wrote,
“of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life”
(Matthews, 1980, p. 2).
Everydayness encompasses everyone’s actions regardless of their gender, class, and responsibility. Not only that, human psyche has its attributes of everydayness too. This may not contribute to reaching climax or resulting tragedy in great extent, but this surely works as the building blocks of life.
Everydayness brings out the identity of a person. It contributes to making the culture of a person or a community. A person and a certain community have their own everydayness. So, a fool’s everydayness won’t be similar to a king.
Shakespeare’s cultural construction has a place for all kinds of person. And, we know every person represents his or her culture mostly through their everydayness. And this aspect can be seen in most of his plays. In “The Tempest” we find the framework of different societies and classes. The royal and elite have their own culture. Same goes for the working class, the servant, and slaves. The mariner’s everydayness is about taking voyages to different ports, keeping the ship afloat, and stay away from family for a longer period of time, fighting with bad weather and storms, keeping calmness of the mind in danger, being punctual and well-disciplined. Caliban and Ariel are two different kinds of servants of Prospero. Though their origins are different, as they are servants of their everydayness has some similarities. Most of their time and action revolves around the orders of their master Prospero. The nurse to Juliet in the “Romeo and Juliet” is another great example. Her every day seems not her at all. Most part of her day passes around working with and for Juliet and her mother Lady Capulet. It seems that she is born to be a nurse, and nursing is giving her life a meaning. Shakespeare’s portrayal of these characters and their life is truly beyond master-class.
In his plays, Shakespeare represented different social classes of different time and places. His plays contain both upper class and lower class. A character’s class will validate his everydayness. If someone belongs to the lower class he or she won’t enjoy the wealth and power of someone who belongs to the upper class. The opportunities, the aims, the aspirations, and inspirations are different. The state of difference and conflict between the two classes was something common in all parts of the globe and still is. So it is a kind of everydayness of a society.
In some plays, Shakespeare doesn’t give many characters a name. Mostly these characters are commoners. They are known for their works and everydayness. For example: The Fool of “King Lear”; the messenger and the gravedigger of “Hamlet”; the master of the ship, the boatswain and the mariners of “The Tempest” and even an important character like the nurse to Juliet of “Romeo and Juliet” have not been introduced with any name. This is because they are commoners; they are real-life characters. The audience can predict what they do, how they live without knowing their names because they have the idea of these characters everydayness.
The kind of treatment these characters have from their superiors is a common part of their culture. The use of language is the most revealing of the manners of the nobilities: Hamlet declares the gravedigger clowns as “ass” and “rude knave” (Act 5, Sc. 1); though the boatswain is trying his best to save the ship and it’s people and received compliments from Gonzalo in “The Tempest” (Act 1, Sc. 1), the royal persons were not happy. That’s why the mariner is called a “brawling, blasphemous, uncharitable dog,” a “whoreson, insolent noise-maker,” and a “wide-chapped rascal”. This culture of domination of the lower class by the upper class is common in real life. That’s why anybody having these experiences or knowledge can easily connect with the plays.
Now, there is another side of this class-oriented social design. The ordinary people seem to have accepted the oppression against them by their superior domain. In the play, “Cymbeline” a trusty servant was ordered to be tortured without any identified cause, and the servant’s reply is: “Sir, my life is yours. I humbly set it at your will.” (Act 4, Sc. 3.) In “King Lear” the fool seems to be the most loyal and empathy towards the king, though he is a fool. He accompanies the king in the toughest of conditions. But, this is his job. He, through his work, company and philosophy make the king realize his mistakes. Another noteworthy example is the character Adam of “As You Like It”. He is an old servant. Like the fool of King Lear, he accompanies Orlando into exile.
“Master, go on, and I will follow thee
To the last gasp with truth and loyalty.” (Act 2, Sc. 3.)
Now, this loyalty is a part of their everydayness. And, this is how the everydayness of the ‘master-servant’, ‘upper-class and lower-class’ relationship continues.
It is very crucial to know about the everydayness within a character to get a better understanding of him or her. It can reveal the flaws or the beauties of a character or a community or even a culture. The rivalries between the Montague and the Capulet in “Romeo and Juliet” is so intense that they develop a culture of hatred. We find evil politics in plays like “Hamlet”, “Macbeth” and “The Tempest”. In the royal families killing and betrayal seems to be a tradition or an evil culture of capturing the throne. And, these are not something alien. These are common occurrences, and this commonness is also a kind of everydayness.
From the plays of Shakespeare we can get a good idea about the everydayness of life which is a universal idea. It gives us a sense of commonness and simplicity. Though the sketch of everydayness differs from culture to culture, from time to time, its importance remains the same. Through the successful cultural construction of his plays, William Shakespeare has given us opportunities to look at our collaboration with our everydayness. And, this connection is one of the reasons why his plays are still popular throughout the world.
Works cited
Crosby, Ernest. Shakespeare’s Attitude Toward The Working Classes. The Literary Network. Web. 7 May 2018.
http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/shakespeare-tolstoy/9/
Matthews, G. B. Philosophy and the young child. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.
HIRONMOY হিরন্ময় 
Leave a comment