Well, the posts get later and later, but they are getting posted and that's the important thing. Today we look at the thorny issue of who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare. I don't wish to give away the ending, but it turns out that there is no issue at all.
Review: Shakespeare Beyond
Doubt
Did
William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon write the plays that are ascribed to
him? That, if you’ll pardon the expression, is the question which has encroached
upon mainstream debate in recent years.
There
was a time when authorship doubts were raised only by a lunatic fringe. They
weren’t raised at all until the middle of the nineteenth century. The twenty
first century has seen an petition entitled, ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’
published online and the release of Roland Emmerich’s 2011 movie, ‘Anonymous’ ,
which champions the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, as the true
author of Shakespeare’s plays. It has even seen one prominent Oxfordian (as
champions of Edward de Vere are known), noted Shakespearian actor, Derek
Jacobi, expressing his doubts about authorship on primetime British television.
For
these several reasons, the editors of the book currently under discussion, Paul
Edmondson and Stanley Wells, have gathered together contributions from leading
Shakespearean scholars in an attempt to try and settle the matter of authorship
once and for all.
A
title like ‘Shakespeare Beyond Doubt’ should leave the reader in no doubt as to
which side the essays in this volume are weighted towards. The book is split
into three sections. The first section examines the various claimants that have
been advanced as alternative authors to Shakespeare’s canon; Sir Francis Bacon,
Christopher Marlowe and Edward de Vere, as well as some of the more unusual
candidates, like Elizabeth I. The middle section looks at the various arguments
that have been put forward as to why Shakespeare couldn’t have written the
plays and provides extensive evidence to refute these claims. Finally, the book
looks at the history of the authorship debate itself, including individual critiques
of both the ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’ campaign and ‘Anonymous’ movie.
‘Shakespeare
Beyond Doubt’ isn’t just a clever title, for no one should be any doubt by the
end that the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon is the same William
Shakespeare that wrote Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and all of the other plays
that are ascribed to him. Indeed in reading this anthology, one comes more and
more to see his detractors, Anti-Stratfordians as they are dubbed, as akin to
creationists, crying aloud that we should ‘teach the controversy’.
Yet
the controversy is that there is no controversy. Evolution is definitely true,
as has been amply demonstrated by examination of the fossil record, radio
carbon dating and DNA sequencing. Honestly, if scientists had got things so
badly wrong at this point, you would expect aeroplanes to fall out of the sky a
lot more often than they do, which is almost never.
Similarly,
‘Shakespeare Beyond Doubt’ catalogues the various methods which have been used
to put the question of authorship beyond all reasonable doubt. There is ample
historical evidence to show that Shakespeare was acknowledged during his
lifetime as a great playwright and sufficiently mourned at his death in 1616
that elegies were written about him. The bust of Shakespeare at Holy Trinity
Church, Stratford-upon Avon was installed in 1623, the same year that the first
folio of his completed works was published, prefaced with a poem by his
contemporary, Ben Johnson, the authorship of whose plays has never been called
into question, despite Johnson been raised the son of a bricklayer. It should
also be noted that quarto editions of several of Shakespeare’s plays were
published during his lifetime.
Then
there is the textual evidence. Shakespeare did not always write alone and where
he collaborated with other writers like Thomas Middleton and John Fletcher
(tentatively, perhaps, even Marlowe), textual examination can tease out which
scenes were written by whom. Moreover, far from the usual rejection of a mere
actor not being capable of writing such plays, James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen
reveal an author intimately acquainted with the workings of the theatre,
structuring scenes in such a way as to allow his actors to play two or more
parts during a performance. This skill reaches its apotheosis in Henry VI Part
Three, where the action is constructed in such a way as to allow just twenty
one actors to take on sixty seven different characters.
Two
of the three main Anti-Stratfordian candidates, Marlowe and de Vere, were both
dead by the time that many of the later plays were written. Advocates of
Marlowe like to claim that he faked his own death, whilst the Oxfordians posit
that de Vere wrote the plays at a earlier date than is generally acknowledged.
Yet
Christopher Marlowe’s death is one of the most well documented events that
survives from Elizabethan England. His body was presented at the coroner’s
inquest, where it was examined by a sixteen man jury. The coroner’s report
still exists, confirming that Marlowe died after being stabbed through the eye
with a blade.
Oxfordians
are on even stickier ground. De Vere died in 1604, yet the plot of The Tempest,
one of Shakespeare’s last plays, is, as Alan H. Nelson explains, ‘clearly based
on reports of a shipwreck which occurred off the island of Bermuda in late
1609’. Worse for Oxfordians, there was a general shift in English drama away
from more antiquated words like ‘hath’ and ‘doth’ towards ‘has’ and ‘does’. Like
carbon dating a piece of bone, the switch to the new forms occur in the canon
of Shakespeare at exactly the time that they are traditionally held to have
been composed. The case for de Vere is thin to non-existent.
Perhaps
it’s simply that we expect too much of Shakespeare. Four centuries of
adoration have conditioned us to expect
the greatest writer who has ever lived and we translate this into thinking that
his works are the greatest writing that ever could be written. We are
wonderstruck not just by his words, but by the fame of those words, as when
witnessing the Mona Lisa at the Louvre and being unable to decide whether one
is impressed by the painting or by its fame. Who can hear Hamlet recite the
words, ‘To be or not to be’ and not have mentally completed the line even before
the actor has come out of his dramatic pause?
Like
the Bible, we hear the beauty of the King James Version and somehow believe
that the words are so perfect that they can have come only from God. The
sublime rhythm of the English translation detracts from the actual content,
which is riddled with absurdity, atrocity and flat contradiction. The same is
true, to a lesser extent, with Shakespeare. There is a tendency amongst true
aficionados to elevate every single word that Shakespeare wrote to the level of
revealed wisdom. Yet as George Orwell noted in his essay, ‘Lear, Tolstoy and
the Fool’, a lot of Shakespeare’s plays are padding. It’s not revealed wisdom,
it’s killing time, filling out the plot, giving the Elizabethan audience its
money’s worth. The Tempest is a brilliantly written play, but even a diehard
Shakespeare fan like me finds himself bored rigid when watching it performed,
even when I have been fortunate enough to see Patrick Stewart or the late Pete
Postlethwaite in the role of Prospero.
When
he’s at the top of his game, there isn’t another writer anywhere or any time
that can match Shakespeare. A lot of the time, however, he is, in the words of
the Player in ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead’, “Merely competent.” It’s
time to take Shakespeare down off of his pedestal, or at least place him on one
that isn’t quite so lofty. Then we might find a proper sense of perspective
towards his works.
In
fact, my favourite proof that Shakespeare was indeed the author of his own
works comes from Isaac Asimov. Asimov, amongst other things, wrote a two volume
guide to the complete works of Shakespeare, as well as two volumes on the
Bible. He also wrote the article, ‘Bill and I’, included in his 1972 collection
of science essays, ‘The Left Hand of the Electron’.
In,
‘Bill and I’, Asimov argues that rather than think of Shakespeare as being too
uneducated to have written the plays, it might be more useful to think of the
plays as being too ill informed to have been written by any of the other usual
suspects. He notes that during the Elizabethan era the prevailing view of the
structure of the universe was still that of Ptolemy. The Ptolemaic view was of
a geocentric universe, the Earth immobile at the centre, with the Sun, Moon and
the five know planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) each occupying
one of nine planetary spheres. These spheres moved independently of each other
against a fixed background of stars that were set on an eighth sphere (the
ninth being the ‘prime mover’, which set the universe in motion). This set up
was held to account for the relative motion of the planets against the backdrop
of stars during the course of the year.
Yet
Asimov notes that the writer of both ‘The Merchant of Venice’ and ‘A Midsummer
Night’s Dream’ seems to think that each and every star occupies its own
planetary sphere, rather than being all fixed, relative to each other. He
therefore concludes that a well educated man like Bacon or De Vere would not
have made such an obvious blunder, but a man with just enough grammar school
education like Shakespeare of Stratford could have done.
I’m
not sure that I entirely agree with the theory, but I find it a pleasing one,
because it once again demonstrates that the doubts surrounding the authorship
of Shakespeare’s plays come down not just to classist snobbery, but to the
desperate need by some to give credit where it is not appropriate. Shakespeare
was a genius, to be sure, but a flawed genius. What other kind of genius is
there?
The
incredulity that a lowly glover’s son could have written such works comes out
of the same kind of mentality that can’t fathom how the ancient Egyptians could
have constructed the pyramids, leading to the only obvious conclusion that they
must have been built by aliens. The fault lies, Dear Brutus, not in the
Egyptians or with William Shakespeare, but in the paucity of imagination of the
conspiracy theorist, which is all that the authorship debate ultimately boils
down to. It has no more validity than the notion that the moon landings were faked
or that 9/11 was an inside job. Or like a creationist vision of the universe, the
alternate premise is meant to explain away the impossibility of the accepted
version of events, but ends up being infinitely more messy and unsupportable
than the original.
It’s
a pity that ‘Shakespeare Beyond Doubt’ needed to be written and compiled at
all, but we live in interesting times. Given events of recent years, a book
like this was needed and its release in April of last year was timely. It’s a
fine addition to the already substantial number of works dedicated to
Shakespearean scholarship and I would advise anyone with a fascination with the Bard to give it a read. You will
find in its pages ample ammunition to use against those who cast doubt upon
Shakespeare the writer. Not that we need worry about it that much. ‘Anonymous’ was a flop
at the box office and no more than a couple of thousand people out of the
hundreds of thousands of Shakespeare’s experts and admirers have signed up to
the ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’.
Shakespeare
definitely wrote Shakespeare. It’s just nice to be able to show your working.
Get it done.
Now that you have swallowed whole the Stratfordian point of view, may I suggest you put the issue into proper perspective by also reading Shakespeare Beyond Doubt? edited by John Shahan.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Beyond-Exposing-Industry-Denial/dp/1625500335/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389158143&sr=1-1&keywords=Shakespeare+Beyond+Doubt%3F
I might also suggest that you read a book about the life of Edward de Vere and the case for his authorship such as Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare by Another Name" or Charlton Ogburn's "The Mysterious William Shakespeare." You may find that the case for Oxford's authorship is far stronger than the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust would have you believe.
Well I will certainly add them to my reading list, right below the several volumes on faeries and Atlantis I have to read, and the instruction manual for a 1973 Ford Cortina. Honestly, I don't have time to waste on patently absurd nonsense, a belief which this book has only served to reaffirm. But then given that my family claims to be distantly related to Shakespeare (certainly one great-grandmother on my mother's side had Shakespeare as a maiden name), I guess there's little hope for me.
Delete