 |
Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? - James Shapiro
by hogsflesh
This has just come out in paperback, and costs about £5.50 on amazon.
One of the odder conspiracy theories is that Shakespeare didn't write the plays and poems attributed to him. The evidence in favour of various other candidates - Francis Bacon and the Earl of Oxford have been the most popular - is, at best, negligible, but ... that hasn't stopped plenty of otherwise intelligent people from believing it. As conspiracy theories go, it's fairly innocuous - it certainly doesn't have the potential to do harm that left-wing conspiracies about 911 or right-wing ones about climate change do. It's about on a par with a belief that Jack the Ripper was a conspiracy of various Royals and freemasons.
The current favoured candidate is the Earl of Oxford, who according to more extreme versions of the theory, fathered a child on Queen Elizabeth I; some versions of the theory go even weirder, and have the child go on to become the Queen's - his own mother's - lover. Needless to say, there's not a shred of evidence for any of this. But according to enthusiasts, it not only happened, but Oxford forged a series of plays which gave coded hints about these and other events in his life, and arranged to have them attributed to an actor named Shakespeare to protect his reputation. Why he might have thought this was a good idea is unclear.
James Shapiro is an acclaimed Shakespeare scholar whose recent book, 1599, was quite popular (a copy's been sat unread on my bookshelves for a while; I'll have to get round to reading it). He gives an overview of the development of the most popular alternative authorship theories, although he acknowledges that there are plenty of other candidates, and claims a comprehensive survey of all the different theories would be impossible. He tries his best to be fair-minded; although he's very much of the belief that the plays were written by Shakespeare, he doesn't sneer at those who think otherwise, although the temptation to do so must have been strong.
It all seems to have sprung from a sense of disappointment in the banality of the few facts we have about Shakespeare's life. A writer that great - who has become so central both to English culture and English-language literature - must have been fairly extraordinary, or so everyone would like to think. But he left no manuscripts or notebooks, and most of the hard facts we have concern his financial affairs. These, Shapiro argues, have always been misunderstood - he claims that an understanding of Jacobean legal conventions would put the lie to the idea that Shakespeare's will was ungenerous to his widow. Legal papers survive longer than personal ones, and no one started looking for Shakespeare-related materal until it was too late. All that was left were documents pursuing his debtors and detailing his malt hoarding. People developed an unfair view of Shakespeare as a miserly businessman which didn't tally with how they believed a great writer should behave.
Inevitably people started to look to the plays and sonnets for evidence of the 'real' Shakespeare (oddly enough, they only saw him in characters like Hamlet and Prospero, never in Richard III or Malvolio). And equally inevitably, some of them decided that the plays were just too darn sophisticated to be the work of a glover's son from the provinces. And so the theories were born.
An early attempt to forge letters to Shakespeare from Queen Elizabeth (along with all manner of other Shakespearean documents, including a 'lost' play, Vortigern) set a precedent for fraudulent claims about the Bard, and there was always a belief that Shakespeare's papers would still be found someday and sort everything out. The failure of these papers to materialise inevitably allows conspiracy theorists to state that they never existed because Shakespeare didn't write anything. And so the alternative theories began to come into being.
The book focuses on two main theories. A 19th Century theory that the true author of the plays was Francis Bacon, an Elizabethan philosopher and politician, was popular for a while. Mark Twain was an ardent believer in it, as was Helen Keller. It was pushed out by the Oxford theory, which was originally proposed by an Englishman with the inauspicious name of John Thomas Looney, and strongly supported by Sigmund Freud. It's still the most popular alternative identity theory. (Shapiro says that other theories are gaining ground on it, though; the internet gave the Oxford theory a new lease of life, but other theories are becoming popular. This is probably because people on the internet are more interested in proving each other wrong than in furthering the sum of human knowledge. I'll bet that the strongest advocates of alternative candidates have previously had vitriolic arguments with Oxfordians.)
The book is perhaps a little light on the substance of the arguments in favour of Bacon and Oxford, although that might be because there isn't much substance to the arguments. It does seem that a lot of the 'evidence' in both cases is nothing of the sort, and advocates of the Oxford theory fall back on tired old arguments about a conspiracy of mainstream Shakespearean scholars deliberately refusing to 'debate' the issue, when in fact there is no issue to debate. (This is depressingly similar to arguments wheeled out by climate change sceptics and Holocaust deniers. The Shakespeare theories are mostly harmless, but they're a symptom of a worrying malaise in modern Western culture that I suspect can't lead to anything good.)
Shapiro examines the people who have believed in these theories and offers explanations as to why they did so. In a way, he's doing to them what he criticises them for doing to Shakespeare's plays: concluding things about their lives and beliefs from what they wrote. But Shapiro's arguments are convincing. Looney came up with the Oxford theory around the time of the Great War, and was passionately anti-modern, harkening back to a feudal time when benevolent aristocrats governed the lives of their subjects and no one had to think too much. So deciding that Shakespeare's works were actually written by an aristocrat is perhaps understandable to someone like that (it's more odd that the theory has taken off so well in America, where you'd expect aristocrats to be unpopular).
One of the problems is that the counter-arguments aren't very sexy. 'An aristocrat secretly wrote plays while fathering a child on the Virgin Queen' is quite a good story. 'The plays were written by the guy whose name appears on the title page, who made a bit of money off them and retired to Stratford' is less so. But Shapiro does run through the reasons why Shakespeare was indeed the author of the plays attributed to him. Some of the information about Shakespeare's career that he reveals was new to me, but it's all user friendly. This kind of book probably wouldn't be the right place to go into close linguistic examination of the plays, and he keeps that sort of thing to a minimum. But he leaves no doubt that Shakespeare was the author history believes him to have been. He acknowledges that nothing is necessarily set in stone - we now know a few of the plays were co-written by other playwrights, which wasn't acknowledged a few decades ago - but it's impossible to see anything coming to light which will cast doubt on Shakespeare's authorship.
Shapiro lists Derek Jacobi among the sceptics. I recently saw Jacobi play King Lear. He was magnificent, of course. But the theories he apparently supports are incredibly reductive. I can slightly see the appeal of wanting Shakespeare to have been a more 'important' man than he was, but I can't see the appeal of wanting to reduce his work to the level of encoded court gossip. Watching Jacobi and Paul Jesson acting the great scene between the mad Lear and the blind Gloucester is a highlight of my play-going life. I'd far rather believe that it was written by one of the greatest imaginative writers ever to have lived, rather than being the dry result of an unlikely conspiracy (which, like most unlikely conspiracies, really falls down when you start to wonder what possible motive there could have been for it to have happened).
Shapiro's written an entertaining and, I think, fair-minded history of Shakespearean conspiracy theories. I don't see how anyone who reads it could possibly believe that any of the alternative candidates have any credibility at all, but no doubt those who do believe such things will write it off as either too credulous or part of the conspiracy. For people with their heads screwed on, though, this is worth reading.
Read the complete review |
 |
Death of a Salesman - Arthur Miller
by Jake Speed
Death of a Salesman is 1949 play written by Arthur Miller and probably one of the most famous American plays ever staged. The scene is a modest New York house belonging to an ordinary working-class family. Willy Loman is a 60-year-old salesman who returns home early from a business trip after driving his car off the road. Willy has shown ... worrying signs of losing concentration at the wheel lately and has also started to talk to himself and live more and more in his imagination and memories. He has always considered himself to be 'popular' and a great salesman but Willy's delusions are starting to drift away like a billowing cloud and, back at home, he starts to realise that his whole life has probably been a failure. He's been frantically chasing his own tail for all these years in pursuit of some vague American Dream - something which he's beginning to realise is merely an illusion for most people, including him. Willy has lived his whole with the belief that hard work and enthusiasm, making an impression, will some day pay off and passed this philosophy onto his son adult son Biff (who is back home for a while after working away on a ranch). Both father and son are now painfully coming to terms with the gap between the dreams they were sold and the actual reality of mundane ordinary alienating (and frequently indifferent) life.
The most salient theme in Death of a Salesman is of course the attack on the consumer dream and a materialistic dog eat dog society and capitalist system where everyone is supposed to work themselves half to death in some dreary job for years and years just so they can always have a bigger television or car than their neighbour and consider themselves a 'success'. Willy has always believed he is an important man and that a smart suit and hard work all these years will inevitably lead to some sort of reward. The poignant nature of the play comes from him realising that he's not what he thinks he is. His company wouldn't lose a wink of sleep if they had to fire him and they don't really care about all the miles and hours he's put in. Willy is just a tiny cog in the system and he's not exactly living the life of luxury after all that graft. He begins to realise he has masked his disappointments and struggles with delusions about being popular and a great sage on how to succeed in life. His restless son Biff has never settled in life or become content because he was indoctrinated with the philosophy his father preached and eventually realised it was hollow.
'Well, I spent six or seven years after high school trying to work myself up. Shipping clerk, salesman, business of one kind or another. And it's a measley manner of existence. To get on that subway on the hot mornings in the summer. To devote your whole life to keeping stock, or making phone calls, or selling or buying. To suffer fifty weeks of the year for the sake of a two-week vacation, when all you really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt off. And always have to get ahead of the next fella.' While the dark side of the American Dream and capitalism have been dissected many, many times since A Death of a Salesman was written, the enduring themes here still resonate. One of the other noticeable things about the play is the way that it often eschews naturalism and includes flashback scenes taken from Willy's imagination. These interludes give A Death of a Salesman a strong dreamlike quality. Another important theme in the play is adultery (something which Miller seemed to be obsessed by and take very seriously). Willy Loman is haunted by an incident in his past and there is no escape from this memory, even at home.
This is not the jolliest read ever but still very absorbing (112 pages in my paperback copy so you can read this in a few hours) and quite a haunting play. I liked the very domestic setting which felt authentic and you really believed in Willy Loman and his wife as characters. It's slightly odd that his sons (Biff & Happy) are supposed to be in their thirties with jobs but are at home in bunk beds or something but their characters are a key part of the story. Miller's directions are a vital part of the play too and offer more character details for us. Miller says of Happy, 'He, like his brother, is lost, but in a different way, for he has never allowed himself to turn his face toward defeat.' I'm sure many people were forced to do this at school but I find when you read books later on out of your own free will you tend to enjoy them more. Having to study something sometimes drags the wonder out of a book or play.
This is still a powerful and poignant play about self-deception and the capitalist rat race. It might be a little downbeat for some people but I generally liked the hum-drum forties/fifties jazzy slightly ethereal atmosphere and felt a lot of sympathy for some of the characters. It's quite moving the way that Willy Loman thinks he's a great character who can open doors with his name but in reality can't. He must finally come to terms with this with the family all together again in the same house. My only slight problem with this play is that I always remember watching a version with Warren Mitchell in the central role on television so when I read it I keep imagining Willy Loman to look like Alf Garnett! This is certainly a classic though and still very readable and pertinent today.
Read the complete review |
|
|
A Doll's House - Henrik Ibsen
by irachx
I remember reading this play in college and had to do a piece of coursework based on this play as part of my English Literature course. Whilst having to study the play, I did not really enjoy this play. Whilst I do love to read and pick out points and themes and tiny aspects to analyse, I just found that this play seemed one dimensional. ... (My first impression was that this play was basically about a immature women's inferior role in a life where women are seen merely as housewives) however I was recently clearing out my room and I found this play, (admittedly not in a very good state quality wise, but still readable) and decided to just give it a good read, simply for leisure, and rather strangely (I say strange because I had always despised this play) I began to gradually like it. I began to read from a range of perspectives and found that this play was not one dimensional at all, but rather a controversial play that dealt with a range of themes and meanings.
Before I mention a few of the new layers I unpicked, I think it is a good idea to talk about the plot.
The plot:
The play mainly deals with the repression of women and the tension within a particular family at Christmas Time. Nora (the main character - the 'doll') has borrowed money without her husband (Torvald) knowing. However, a man (Krogstadt) who wants to main his job position with Torvald's help begins to threaten Nora by claiming he would tell Torvald about the loan. Throughout the play, a letter has been written with details about the loan and that will intentionally be sent to Torvald if Krogstadt does not get a higher role within his occupation. Nora becomes nervous and afraid, which is reflected through symbolic activities (such as wild dancing). When Torvald eventually discovers that Nora borrowed money, Torvald becomes angry, insulting her. The resolution of the play ends with Nora leaving home, to find a new life.
---
Now, I think it is a good idea to talk about some of the themes and resolutions, however I feel that by wrting about this, it could be potential spoilers for anybody who wants to read the play without having much of an idea of what to expect, so if you don't want to read about the themes and would rather discover them for yourself, then I wouldn't recommend reading below this point. However, I would to summarise, recommend that you give this play a read. It is a play that was well ahead of its time, hence it being so controversial, yet I think it leaves food for thought, and does have an element of truth in it as to how women were treated at the time the play was written. If you are looking for a quick yet intense dramatic read, then I definitely recommend this. The play can be bought for very cheap on sites such as Amazon, or in book stores such as Waterstones.
---
Themes:
The main theme is in my opinion the treatment of women. The play only has one setting, which is in the living room of the 'dolls house'. This gives a real sense of chlaustrophobia and I think reflects how women were not really given many opportunities other than to tend the house and care for children. In addition, we are invited into another women's life (Mrs Linde) in the play who has obviously not got very far without a man. So I think a major theme is how women are dependent upon a husband or lover. This theme is brought out especially when Torvald discovers the money loan, of which the audience can see how women were not expected to control finances, or deceive a man because this could make a man look inferior. However by the end of the play, the tables turn and we see how Nora has become much more mature and ready to be dependant, which suggests women do not have to fit to the stereotype that they are under.
Another theme is society expectations. Characters such as Torvald live in a way that would be deemed acceptable. He is not prepared to go against the status quo. He wants to be seen as having a respectable job, a respectable image with friends and co-workers, and as having a healthy marriage. Similarly, Krogstadt is eager to keep his job to remain respectable. However, controversially, Nora prepares to sacrifice her home and marriage to discover her identity which would enrage society as it goes against the typical morals and duties.
Other themes include money (How it is controlled and spent), corruption and religion.
---
After reading the play and discovering new themes and ideas, I enjoyed it because it gave a reflection of what life was like in the Victorian times, and really made me think about how society has changed/envolved and also how society is similar today. It also for me, was a cliff hanger. I can't help but wonder how Nora would manage after she left. Could she end up returning home due to being dependant on a man, or will she actually break the barriers and do well for herself on her own?. It was a very intriguing read and I am thankful I gave it another chance, after having such a bad impression of the play after studying it tediously. This is one of those plays I think is very popular, and deserves to be read.
Read the complete review |
