|
Contested Will
By James Shapiro
Faber and Faber £20
367 pages
Dateline: 30th May, 2010
It sounds like a trick question for a five-year-old but the basis for
James Shapiro's latest book is the question "Who wrote the plays
of William Shakespeare?". Had the answer been obvious, this could
be the first two word book in existence. In fact, the nay-sayers in
this particular debate are an eclectic bunch, including, inter alia,
Malcolm X, Sigmund Freud, Charlie Chaplin and Helen Keller.
James Shapiro, who teaches at New York's Columbia University, believes
that there is enough doubt or at least debate, to justify penning a
long work considering the various claims, none of which was put forward
until 160 or more years after the playwright's (or not as the case may
be) death.
His first section puts the subject into context, bringing together
the little evidence that exists about Shakespeare's life and considering
early biographers. In doing so, rather than repeating the efforts of
so many in analysing the life and work of the man to see if he might
also be the writer, Professor Shapiro investigates the social conditions
and individuals who brought about a different way of looking at literature.
He then goes on to explain how so many hoaxes and forgeries were generated,
in an effort to provide some measure of certainty about a mysterious
man from Stratford without any higher education or history, who became
the greatest writer not only of his generation but, in many eyes, of
any.
This academic is not a man to come to unwarranted conclusions. His
strength is in providing enough information to allow readers to decide
for themselves. However, having debunked many weak theories in the first
part of Contested Will, his most significant point is that in
the period when Shakespeare did or didn't write, collaboration was popular.
Therefore, there is a distinct possibility that many of the plays attributed
to Shakespeare are only partially his, while he almost certainly contributed
to others, by now either long forgotten or believed to be by other playwrights.
The two main contenders to the throne (and there are many less significant
players, several of whom, like Marlowe, died long before Shakespeare)
are given equal space for consideration. Once again, Professor Shapiro's
primary contribution is in reviewing the history of the claim, rather
than its validity, although he inevitably comes to his own conclusions.
The justifications for Francis Bacon seem like the subject matter of
a bad novel. The two major reasons why the aesthete might have written
the plays both seem laughable. First, since he was a wealthy intellectual
well known at court, Bacon was better placed to write literature than
an uneducated actor from Stratford.
Secondly, his proponents and, in particular, his American namesake
from the mid-19th century, Delia Bacon who ended her life in an asylum,
were certain that he had embedded various codes and acrostics in the
plays and sonnets. Regrettably neither she, nor many other people who
tried, could find anything to support what appears to be fantasy.
In the 20th century, Edward DeVere, the Earl of Oxford, emerged as
very much the favourite wannabe Shakespeare, hardly hampered at all
by his own death several years before the later plays were written.
Once again, his classy upbringing and some overlaps with events in the
plays were the only justification for the idea that he might have written
the bardic canon.
This book might best be summed up by an extract from a letter written
to Sigmund Freud, a somewhat surprising supporter of Oxford, after reading
'Shakespeare' Identified by the unfortunately named John Looney.
Its writer, Ernest Jones responded to Freud's enthusiasm by writing,
" So many books consist in the first half of excited promises to
reveal and prove something, and in the second half of triumph at what
they think they have proved." His unwritten conclusion of case
not even close to proven seems to fit every proposed alternative to
William Shakespeare as the author of the canon.
There is a risk that James Shapiro might be biased, having spent quarter
of a century engrossed in the study of a man who may have written nothing.
Even so, the evidence that he provides about Shakespeare, when combined
with a lack of anything reasonable to support the claims for others,
seems absolutely convincing.
In particular, the Professor takes great delight in attacking those
who are unable to distinguish between modern sensibilities and those
of Shakespeare's time. As he points out, most of the fallacious arguments
that are put forward result from a belief that no creator of fiction
can do anything other than write autobiographically. He ably demonstrates
that 400 years ago, fiction writers wrote fiction, not thinly disguised
versions of their own lives.
The fact that there is no reason to believe in any alternative to the
accepted face does seem to beg the question as to why Contested Will
is necessary? The answer is that this well researched and written book
allows us to take a fresh look at the life and work of William Shakespeare
from a new angle and that is always valuable.
Philip Fisher
Articles from 2010
Articles from 2009
Articles from 2008
Articles from 2007
Articles from 2006
Articles from 2005
Articles from 2004
Articles from 2003
Articles from 2002
Articles from 2001
Articles from 2000
Articles from 1999
Articles from 1998
Articles from 1997
|
