Wouldn’t It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn’t Shakespeare? No, no it wouldn't.

[jimmy olsen]

An entertaining academic rant I thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/wouldnt-it-be-cool-if-shakespeare-wasnt-shakespeare.html?_r=1

Wouldn't It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn't Shakespeare?

Tom Gauld
By STEPHEN MARCHE
Published: October 21, 2011

"Was Shakespeare a fraud?" That's the question the promotional machinery for Roland Emmerich's new film, "Anonymous," wants to usher out of the tiny enclosure of fringe academic conferences into the wider pastures of a Hollywood audience. Shakespeare is finally getting the Oliver Stone/"Da Vinci Code" treatment, with a lurid conspiratorial melodrama involving incest in royal bedchambers, a vapidly simplistic version of court intrigue, nifty costumes and historically inaccurate nonsense. First they came for the Kennedy scholars, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Kennedy scholar. Then they came for Opus Dei, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Catholic scholar. Now they have come for me.

Professors of Shakespeare — and I was one once upon a time — are blissfully unaware of the impending disaster that this film means for their professional lives. Thanks to "Anonymous," undergraduates will be confidently asserting that Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare for the next 10 years at least, and profs will have to waste countless hours explaining the obvious. "Anonymous" subscribes to the Oxfordian theory of authorship, the contention that Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford, wrote Shakespeare's plays. Among Shakespeare scholars, the idea has roughly the same currency as the faked moon landing does among astronauts.

The good news is that "Anonymous" makes an extraordinarily poor case for the Oxfordian theory. I could nitpick the film all day. (In fact, I did on the day I saw it.) Mistakes are plentiful and glaring. In an early scene, Shakespeare's contemporary Christopher Marlowe watches a new play, "Henry V," which supposedly happens on the same day that Lord Essex departs for Ireland. But Marlowe died in 1593, while Essex left for Ireland in 1599. When Marlowe is killed, Ben Jonson confronts Shakespeare with the crime, saying that he "slit [his] throat," but Christopher Marlowe was actually stabbed above the eye, according to the coroner's report. Simple chronological or factual fudges, you might say — sure, but there's more. The theatrical censor responds with shock to the idea that in Shakespeare's version of "Richard III," the king is portrayed as a hunchback. But Shakespeare did not invent that idea. In the influential "History of Richard III," by Thomas More, written around 1516, Richard is "little of stature, ill featured of limbs, crook backed, his left shoulder much higher than his right." And so on. In the film, Shakespeare's fellow playwrights are all amazed that "Romeo and Juliet" is in iambic pentameter, but by the time "Romeo and Juliet" came out, drama in iambic pentameter was the standard; the first extant English play in iambic pentameter was "Gorboduc," by Norton and Sackville, in 1561.

The craziest idea in "Anonymous," however, is that Edward de Vere wrote a version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" 40 years before its performance at court, putting the composition of the play somewhere around 1560. (That's what the film implies, anyway: we see a scene from "A Midsummer Night's Dream" performed at court, and then the title "40 Years Earlier," and then a kid who turns out to be the earl reciting Puck's final speech.) The idea that a kid wrote "A Midsummer Night's Dream" isn't even the crazy part. To put the issue in a contemporary framework, it's one thing to say that somebody other than Jay-Z wrote "The Blueprint"; it's another to say that this clandestine Jay-Z wrote "The Blueprint" in 1961. You can't write a hip-hop masterpiece before hip-hop has been invented. And you can't write "A Midsummer Night's Dream" until English secular comedy has come into existence.

Next Page »

Even with the best intentions, most historical dramas sacrifice history for drama, switching around events and creating composite characters. Real life lacks narrative tension; that's why people go to the movies. Shakespeare himself never hesitated to alter the details in his own history plays if he thought the change would improve a scene. (Although I might add that the Oscar-winning "Shakespeare in Love" managed to be pretty good with only a handful of tiny anachronisms.)

"Let me offer you a different story, a darker story," the prologue of "Anonymous" announces, and like an Oliver Stone movie, it is fiction that wants to confuse itself with fact. It's the best of both worlds for Emmerich: he gets to question hundreds of years of legitimate scholarship without any need to be consistent with basic chronology, because, after all, it's just a movie.

And if you take "Anonymous" as just a movie, it may not even be that bad. I couldn't possibly judge, because I was apoplectically stuttering about the inconsistencies, but several legitimately solid reviewers have already approved of the film. The movie is certainly overflowing with those superactorly British actors who tend to make you feel that you should be enjoying their performances even when you're not. And I fear that the attraction of the Oxfordian theory, to people who don't know any better, may be profound. Counternarratives have an inevitable appeal: wouldn't it be cool if there were yetis? If the United States Army were keeping extraterrestrial remains in the Nevada desert? If aliens with powers beyond our imagination built the pyramids? If Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare but actually this, like, lord who had to keep his identity secret?

You don't have to be a truther or a birther to enjoy a conspiracy theory. We all, at one point or another, indulge fantasies that make the world seem more dangerous, more glamorous and, simultaneously, much more simple than it actually is. But then most of us grow up. Or put down the bong. Or read a book by somebody who is familiar with both proper historical methodology and the facts. The errors in "Anonymous," I should point out, do not require great expertise to identify. Any undergraduate who has taken a course in Early Modern Drama, and paid attention, should be able to spot at least 10. (That might make a good exam, come to think of it.)

In the movies, a few mistakes don't matter, but the liberties with facts in "Anonymous" become serious when they enter our conception of real history. In scholarship, chronology does matter. And the fatal weakness of the Oxfordian theory is chronological, a weakness that "Anonymous" never addresses: the brute fact that Edward de Vere died in 1604, while Shakespeare continued to write, several times with partners, until 1613. "Macbeth" and "The Tempest" were inspired by events posthumous to the Earl of Oxford: the gunpowder plot in 1605 and George Somers's misadventure to Bermuda in 1609. How can anyone be inspired by events that happened after his death?

So, enough. It is impossible that Edward de Vere wrote Shakespeare. Notice that I am not saying improbable; it is impossible. Better scholars than I will ever be have articulated the scale of the idiocy. Jonathan Bate in a single chapter of "The Genius of Shakespeare" annihilated the Oxfordian thesis. If you want to read the definitive treatment, there is James Shapiro's more recent "Contested Will," although that book is nearly as absurd as its subject, because using a brain like Shapiro's on the authorship question is like bringing an F-22 to an alley knife fight, and he kind of knows it. He ties his argument into the larger question of art and its relationship to the artist's life, but even so the whole business is evidently a waste of his vast talent.

Besides, no argument could ever possibly sway the Oxfordian crowd. They are the prophets of truthiness. "It couldn't have been Shakespeare," they say. "How could a semiliterate country boy have composed works of such power?" Their snobbery is the surest sign of their ignorance. Many of the greatest English writers emerged from the middle or lower classes. Dickens worked in a shoe-polish factory as a child. Keats was attacked for belonging to the "cockney school." Snobbery mingles with paranoia, particularly about the supposedly nefarious intrigues of Shakespeare professors to keep the identity secret. Let me assure everybody that Shakespeare professors are absolutely incapable of operating a conspiracy of any size whatsoever. They can't agree on who gets which parking spot. That's what they spend most of their time intriguing about.

The original Oxfordian, the aptly named J. Thomas Looney, who proposed the theory in 1920, believed that Shakespeare's true identity remained a secret because, he said, "it has been left mainly in the hands of literary men." In his rejection of expertise, at least, Looney was far ahead of his time. This same antielitism is haunting every large intellectual question today. We hear politicians opine on their theories about climate change and evolution as a way of displaying how little they know. When Rick Perry compared climate-change skeptics like himself to Galileo in a Republican debate, I dearly wished that the next question had been "Can you explain Galileo's theory of falling bodies?" Of all the candidates with their various rejections of the scientific establishment, how many could name the fundamental laws of thermodynamics that students learn in high school? Healthy skepticism about elites has devolved into an absence of basic literacy.

The Shakespeare controversy, which emerged in the 19th century (at that time, theorists proposed that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare), was one of the origins of the willful ignorance and insidious false balance that is now rotting away our capacity to have meaningful discussions. The wider public, which has no reason to be familiar with questions of either Renaissance chronology or climate science, assumes that if there are arguments, there must be reasons for those arguments. Along with a right-wing antielitism, an unthinking left-wing open-mindedness and relativism have also given lunatic ideas soil to grow in. Our politeness has actually led us to believe that everybody deserves a say.

The problem is that not everybody does deserve a say. Just because an opinion exists does not mean that the opinion is worthy of respect. Some people deserve to be marginalized and excluded. There are many questions in this world over which rational people can have sensible confrontations: whether lower taxes stimulate or stagnate growth; whether abortion is immoral; whether the '60s were an achievement or a disaster; whether the universe is motivated by a force for benevolence; whether the Fonz jumping on water skis over a shark was cool or lame. Whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is not one of these questions.

Unfortunately, the nonquestion of Shakespeare's identity is now being asked on billboards all over the world. It will raise debate where none should be. It will sow confusion where there is none. Somebody here is a fraud, but it isn't Shakespeare.

[The Brain]

Executive summary?

[Razgovory]

Didn't Brazen subscribed to this theory?  I find the idea that Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him silly.  The theories seem to be predicated on the idea that a commoner like Bill couldn't have written those plays, but his contemporaries like Jonson, Marlowe and Fletcher weren't high born, and they wrote similar plays, and none of them considered Shakespeare a fraud (or at least they didn't write it down).

[Eddie Teach]

Ask grumbler, he's the one that knew the guy.

[grumbler]

This article is fairly old, but still relevant.

I think that the movie Anonymous sounds fairly dreadful, but I am not so convinced as Stephen Marche that it will have any impact on the way people view Shakespeare and his work.  Even if someone is convinced by the movie that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's work, they will have forgotten the name of who they believe did in two days, and will have forgotten that they ever doubted that Shakespeare was Shakespeare by the end of the week.

Why?  Because "Shakespeare" is a word, not a name, to 99% of the people in our society.  The name describes a condition, rather than naming a person, for most people (including me, most of the time).

So, I think that Stephen Marche's concern is an interesting one, and well-written, but over something that is an issue mostly to academics.

[Brazen]

Didn't Brazen subscribed to this theory?

Uh no.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is Roland Emmerich we are talking about here.  The man who brought us 2012.  The Day After Tomorrow. The Patriot.

Marche should be applauding.  There is no better way to completely and utterly destroy the credibility of an idea than to have an Emmerich film about it.

The real question to pose is what the hell is wrong with Derek Jacobi?

[Malthus]

The real question to pose is what the hell is wrong with Derek Jacobi?

Perhaps doing the voice work for In the Night Garden broke his brain.

[Martinus]

I heard that Shakespeare was really his brother.

[grumbler]

We do know that Homer didn't write the the Iliad and the Odyssey.






















Turns out it was another guy with the same name.

[merithyn]

I heard that Shakespeare was really his brother.

I heard that it was Shakespeare's wife's brother's neice who wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream, but she was a working prostitute so she couldn't publish herself, so she gave it to her pimp's mother's cousin who gave it to Will for a shilling.

Well, that's what I heard, anyway...

[Eddie Teach]

We do know that Homer didn't write the the Iliad and the Odyssey.

He couldn't afford the papyrus so just memorized it and recited it enough times other people had it stuck in their heads too.

[The Minsky Moment]

the one positive side effect of the Oxfordian conspiracy theory is that it really highlights the quality of English grammar school education in the late Tudor era.

[Martinus]

We do know that Homer didn't write the the Iliad and the Odyssey.






















Turns out it was another guy with the same name.

Sounds reasonable. The other Homer was a jerk.

[Razgovory]

We do know that Homer didn't write the the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Well, duh.  The first guy was a blind.