Sonnet Book

We have a run of 750 sonnetbooks. Each book signed by William S

Read more...

Archives

Paradoxically…Shhhhhh…

Mention the name and a host of voices, living and dead, are conjured up. Their judgements are often contradictory and so the battle continues.

Undoubtedly a man bearing that name lived and breathed and created under the form and pressure of his times. We know this man wrote 2 popular narrative poems and a 154 Sonnets. We know he wrote and acted in 36 plus Plays written in the genres of Histories, Comedies and Tragedies. And as fashion changed in Tragi-comedies or Romances.

Rather we know 2 poems, 154 Sonnets and 18 Quartos of different Plays were printed and published during his lifetime. Seven years after his death a further 18 Plays were added to the list to make a total of 36, and published in the First Folio. These all were attributed without doubt to old egg-head.

Now on the day he died (his 52nd birthday) the writer logically ceases to exercise any more influence on his literary legacy. But conspiracists at this point weave a different story.

Those that believe their candidate was still living (Marlowe, Bacon, Mary Sidney) say that the syndicate moved to print the First Folio was influenced by their candidate. Those whose candidate was dead (Oxenforde) claim the same but have to work harder to convince posterity.

Shakespeare the schmuck from Stratford had 2 things going for him that would turn him into the demi-god we now realise in pop culture and higher education.

First his printed work sold well from the bookseller’s shelves. In fact he was the most published writer of Plays in his time! No-one comes close to his output in print. His fame started in 1593 and 1594 with the 2 poems, both bestsellers in his lifetime, changing size from Quarto as first print, to Octavo in subsequent re-printings. Then individual plays also appeared from 1594 until beyond his death, using his name on the Title-Page as an extra selling point from 1598. Publications of Quartos of his plays continued well past their collection into the one volume First Folio in 1623.

Second his Plays continued to meet the fashion of the times in the theatre. Okay he lost favour slightly as old-fashioned up until the closing of the theatres in 1642. But after the Restoration in 1660 his Plays were re-discovered and altered to suit the fashion, e.g. King Lear got a happy ending.

Thus Shakespeare gained his audience of readers and spectators. His language, as we know it through his pomes and plays, is the nexus of language, literature, and drama of a writer writing for a Reading Public and a Professional Troupe of Players in a unique period in theatrical and literary history.

Sh the schmuck couldn’t know his poems would rival Sir Philip Sidney or Spenser. He couldn’t know his Plays would outlast his contemporaries like Marlowe and Kyd from the old-school or Beaumont and Fletcher from the new-school.

He did know from the example of Richard Burbage that his characters made actor’s careers. He did know his plays contained enough philosophy and psychology that reflected his age and therefore any other age.

He may have had an inkling being the ink-fish he was, but he couldn’t have anticipated what he has become. How he felt about his works, and what he thought might happen to them, cannot be retraced. The paradox herein of course is promising immortality and eternity in the works and not preparing them for either after his death.

He cannot have known either that the theatres would be closed for England’s only stint at Republicanism under Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan hosts. After all Plautus and his cohorts had made it to his time through the mediums of theatre and education.

Maybe the theatrical and printing success achieved in his lifetime gave him assurance his works would live on. His prologues and epilogues prove he knew he had readers as well as spectators, idiots as well as the wiser sort watching his progress.

I think Shakespeare and his contemporaries would be shocked at his success since his death. Whilst he lived he at least got paid for his work. But his family line died out in 1649, so not a penny earned on his name since has paid this original debt.

The other aspect that ensured Shakespeare’s longevity is the education system. The Statue of Anne in 1709 laid the base for Copyright Law. Sh’s plays were re-printed ad nauseam in the 18thC. Familiarity breeds contempt.

The Germans in Europe adopted Shakespeare as their own and set up the first Sh. Appreciation Society. The Romantic poets of the 19thC German and English and the actor/managers of English Theatre deified him further.

But Garrick’s Jubilee in Stratford may be said to be the turning point in the immortalisation of the Bard. We all love a parade! That day in Stratters in 1769 was a disaster and a historical success.

Garrick and his first english dictionary writing friend and teacher, Samuel Johnson brought Shakespeare back to the masses from whence it came. Garrick, the 18thC’s ‘natural’ actor re-defined Shakespeare, the ‘natural’ writer, for his time, rescuing theatrical performance from the bombast it had become.

Shakespeare influence on the education system in the 19thC when the British Empire’s expansion force-fed South-Africans, Indians, Australians, Kiwis, Canadians and Americans, their dose of the Stratford Burgher. Most wishing in all likelihood he would just burgher off back to Stratford! (For a rather startling defence of British-American Colonialism try this 57 page pdf.)

By the time we hit the 20thC Sh was culturally embedded, as inseparable from the English language (co-creator some might say) as breath from life. Then 2 World Wars, Radio, Television, Film and Video and DVD recording happened.

Eastern Europe under International Communism embraced Shakespeare to comment on the corruptness of Courts, Regimes and Dictators. The Russians had long before the Revolution taken Shakespeare into their salons and theatres. But after that revolution until its end in 1991 prompted by the Revolutions of 1989, Shakespeare was slight solace for a soul that had to remain hidden. A secret language but an innocent one if the authorities asked. Rather like the State control of Elizabeth when he wrote the plays.

Japanese cinema of the 20thC produced some amazing renditions of King Lear and Macbeth with Ran and The Throne of Blood. The cinema was giving Shakespeare a new life. Japanese Theatre has an unbroken theatrical tradition from the same period as when Shakespeare was practising on the Southbank. Japanese scholarship doesn’t seem to include many conspiracists.

Leave that to the Koreans. (That’s a joke. I know their martial arts and they are NOT to be messed with). Korea has a strong Shakespeare interest and an unheard of history in our northern hemisphere, as long and unbroken as ours if not by a thousand years more.

Theory killed the Author, which term Shakespeare would never have used as we use it. The concept being in its infancy then. By the end of the 20thC various disciplines within theory were unreading his works, uncovering his alterity or lack of it, chastising and exposing this phantom author as mere phantasm and the worst form o the will o the wisp.

The lunatic fringe has hit the mainstream, and in some Universities you can study Shakespeare as not Shakespeare and attain a degree. (adopt a Chopper Read accent: and he couldn’t even spell his name)!

You can spread doubt but you can only uncover the truth, so what’s the harm really. I’m not so attached to dear Will, I wouldn’t drop him like Milli-Vanilli if it turned out to be someone else.

Suddenly with the advent of this new media Sh is downloadable on my I-phone. We’re not yet at the stage where full plays commissioned by the rich of their favourite theatre groups or actors can be made to order, but it’s within reach.

Sh is now a massive industry, and a cultural icon, and a frikkin genius. We have to learn about him, one thinks. and when one tries, encyclopaedias need to be digested and know-it-alls need to be deflated. s’easier to rap his asperity.

Cue laughter from the ‘real’ WS…

Folk or Fiction…

…Sunday I went to see Will’s Will by the Amsterdam Chamber Theatre. My thoughts were to review it but then the fact-fiction of it all got in the way. And once again I’ll review that with the necessary pinch o salt added.

Yep when you look at Sh of Stratford’s life as recorded and the Sh the writer’s work as written it looks strangely void of connection. Unless you look at the practice of the time with a series of Occam’s Razor suppositions.

Sh of Stratford’s biography raises many unanswerable questions.

Such as:

Where was Richard Burbage at Sh’s death? His family through his father James is conjectured to have relatives in Stratford. James had met John Shakespeare as leader of the Earl of Leicester’s Men when John Sh was Chief Alderman. Fathers and sons Will and Richard were fathers in turn. Family ties run deepest they say.

Where are the references to Sh’s brother Gilbert the haberdasher? Hardly ever mentioned in biographies orthodox or conspiracist. Even so his other brother Richard, the one, one orthodox biographer suggested as schtuppin Anne Hathaway/Shakespeare when Will was in London.

Sh’s grave lies next to his wife’s, his daughters’, his son-in-law’s as monument to their civic prominence, remembrance of Sh’s fame and achievement in Stratford. But how to tie this in with a life in Theatre and Writing in London? Sh must have lead a double-life, or not been he?

Conjecture is rife about a bag of corn ‘stead of a pillow on his bust; replaced the Orksfordians claim. But then the lapidary comparison of Will to certain Roman wise-acres makes no sense. And surely the one is simultaneous with the other?

One man does not define the time. And so with Shakespeare. His fame was limited, whether he willed it or no. He could have willed to tell all, and leave his manuscripts catalogued and ready for posterity. But orthodox or conspiracist, he didn’t. What other Jacobethan scribbler did?

I’m not talking of conscious publications of whole oeuvres, revised and recopied such as Ben Jonson’s Folio, or that of Beaumont and Fletcher, nor our Will’s Folio collected by his friends and fellows. But did they do so to Will driven by compassionate or ulterior motives?

Sh of Stratford had the time available to write the plays he wrote. Conservatively he’s a 2 play a year man. A collaborator at his earliest and latest stages of his career as Playwright and Player. Examples abound in his time of those that were both. He was also a Poet. Or not?

Sh the Conspiracist Nobleman had duties to fulfill and honour. Their time was not their own. Naturally they would have had free time in which they could indulge their hobbies and passions.

Sh of Stratford stood and went where he pleased, save when he was under contract to play at Court or Public Theatre. Noblemen and women were the elite of poetry up until the 1580’s when writers for the Public Theatre invaded their territory with a Tamburlaine thrust. The upstart dirty shepherd presumed as lyrical as muse-fed intellectuals. The battle carried on for the next 3 decades.

Sh of Stratford, we all agree, was not an intellectual. Neither was the Sh of the plays and poems. An intellect sure. Bacon was an intellectual. Marlowe too. I think Ben wanted to be. Oxenforde in the conspiracists’ view was a genius, and intellectual was part of that package. But that’s not true.

Mozart was a genius and apparently a little shit too. Oxenforde the same, but we can excuse his faults for he did draw the time across the board. His influence extended to writing his tutors’ masterpieces for them. Precocious little sot.

Of course Sh of Stratford sat shrouded in ignorance, pleased that the profits of pretending to write plays for a wishing-to-remain-anonymous nobleman or woman. This allowed him to play big burgher back in Stratford.

Easier to set Fulke Greville on Sh’s throne as he and presumably his library were close by our Will. Though a conversation with the right person can reveal a thousand-fold more than hours poring over sources and books.

Sh of Stratford was a man of words, whether orthodox or conspiracist. He told the truth or he lied. Either equivocation needs scanning for what is left unsaid. Telling the truth means he wrote the works, lying means he did not. Seeing as no-one can predict the future, he cannot have known his career path before it happened. This goes for anything he did or did not create.

Sh of Straford is tied to Stratford and London, the printing and theatre businesses, the poetry and patrons and court circuit, a historical theatrical move move from the outdoor to indoor presentations of works he did or did not write.

Also collaboration with 3 generations of playwrights over fashion-shifting genres of playwriting, the death of a female monarch, ignored by Sh whether orthodox or conspiracist, the introduction of a new (possibly gay) male monarch, both of whom held his acting company in high esteem.

Sh of Stratford’s fame in London in the highest and lowest circles of society was stellar it seems. Yet no-one mentioned him except for the handful of testimonies of those who saw his plays. Describing the stories they’d seen, not their author’s identity. Such was the fashion of the time.

Sh of Straford outside these rarefied and public circles was a man among thousands. A time of paranoid collective individuality and shifting social strata was divided by duelling religious sentiments in England and on the Continent.

Throughout Sh’s time the Tudor hegemony and balance of power held sway as State and Religion were merged into one under Henry 8th and his short-lived heir Edward, then torn apart under Mary and definitively settled through Elizabeth’s long reign.

The queen was OLD when Sh hit his stride. Thus hyperbolic praise must have seemed the more false, though politic nonetheless. The Court was a grand-guignol soap-opera of vying nobles and penniless second and third sons. Impossible not to have been noticed by those serving on them.

Sh of Stratford had all his time to study and comment on his time in the form of whatever genre of play was popular. His biography puts him in the right place at the right time. He is the only person who fits the meagre record we have.

The explosion of knowledge going on around him must have been invigorating for any self-made man. Shift the focus from him onto his age. In every field changes were happening.

Sh of Straford needed his fellow players, playwrights, printers, booksellers, patrons. They assisted, aided and abetted him in creating his art. Sh of Conspiracy needed to have all of the above in his pocket. And few of the candidates for conspiracy had such deep pockets.

Sh of Straford filled his purse, whilst they emptied theirs. Sometime a paradox but now made truth when we remember his legacy: his words.

Therefore as a reader go forth and read him again and again as his friends and fellows suggested.

Is this legal?

So this is acted by and the printer/booksellers

Title-Page of Richard the Second showing clearly who it was acted by and printer and bookseller. The seal belongs to the Printer. Notice the writer is not mentioned.

Gutted…

…missing the 4th British Shakespeare Association Conference.

Will will be busy working on ‘Any other Business’ a scripted conference by Nicoline van Harskamp to be performed Sunday 20 September, 2009.

Here’s the programme of the BSA to see what we missed.

But gutted nonetheless!

Wax lyrical…

….about The Berliner Ensemble!

The Robert Wilson directed show is basically 25 Sonnets with music by Rufus Wainwright. View his version of Sonnet 20 here. Remember regular readers, all feminine lines!

Here’s a review online from Der Spiegel International in English.

And for you lucky SOB’s that can tune into the ARTE TV channel here’s when it repeats itself. Set your recorder. Here’s the link blurb:

For anyone with access to arte TV:
Wilson’s Sonnets (Berliner Ensemble) will be broadcast on 7 September at 22:45.

(That’s today folks and i caught the last 45 mins only. Fortunately)
There will be repeats
on 13.09.2009 at 10:05 and
on 17.09.2009 at 03:00.

For more information. (Info ist Auf Deutsch. In German).

Thank you to Annett for pointing this out.

And thank you
Eve-Marie for posting it.

I wonder if the Berliner Ensemble are Oxfordians?
How about Robert Wilson?
Or Rufus Wainwright?

What they did with the Sonnets surpasses all biographical kotz;
their take on them, their performances of them, for me –
Bravissimo!
Grosartig geniaal!

I wonder what Terence Hawkes would make of it?
Now I would guess Professor Hawkes is defintiely a Dontcareian (Zumkotzian)? where biography is concerned.

Oh yeah, Keanu is an Oxfordian. Duuuude!

Tom Veal on the other hand is a layman Stratfordian as is YLS, and his arguments against the blue bore et al can be perused with some delight on his Stromata blog.

Theoriously…

…Everyday i add a little more to the relevance of this site for the post-modern student of Shakespeare. The Theory links have been expanded with Youtube videos on the major theories.

For example did you know Freud loved cocaine? And he was a conspiracist? Or that Karl Marx loved Shakespeare? And was probably a Stratfordian.

I think it strange to filter Shakespeare primarily through THEORY but as our Will put it so succinctly in his character’s narreme to Horatio:

Ham I.v.165-168
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I know nothing!!!

Photo of Will 400 years on…

shreddedshakes

A weather-challenged poster hanging on an alley door, on the way from the New Globe Theatre towards the Rose Theatre’s remains.

Martin Wiggins…

Martin Wiggins is a professor at the Shakespeare Institute. Invariably whilst I was a student there, he was dressed in black with a shock of silver hair. His intelligence and learning are humbling. His love of his subject matter cloaks his being. A good professor in other words.

Every student he has ever had, has personal stories of their encounters with him. Many are best told over a pint. His lesson on the death of Edward 2nd is a treat and every class that gets it, will never forget it. Never!

Martin Wiggins is probably the most vociferous anti-conspiracist I have ever met. As well as being a Marlowe scholar, he is well-versed in the Elizabethan underworld, and by now has probably read every extant play manuscript of the Jacobethan period. His publications can be perused here.

Every thursday evening at the Institute a small group lead by Martin and John Jowett would gather to read a contemporary of Shakespeare. Throw in some wine after Act 3 and everyone’s latent actor appears for the final Acts. Afterwards retire to the Windmill pub and discuss. For a Renaissance nerd, no better fare anywhere!

Books.google allows you to dip into books and I found this whilst surfing the other day. Shakespeare and the drama of his time you can read its introduction called ‘The Permeable Bard’, which is well worth reading. As an anti-conspiracist, this kind of scholarship is exciting.

It outlines the practice of Jacobethan playwrights and how much they depended on one another. Shakespeare was not an isolated phenomenon. He did not write in an ivory tower tuning into the prism of bright genius. He is steeped instead in the ink of many writers and the thoughts of everyman, through Ancient history to his own time.

Another book I found and now want to read is The English Renaissance stage : geometry, poetics, and the practical spatial arts 1580-1630 by Henry S. Turner. The whole spatial symbolism is an aspect of Elizabethan society we tend to miss.

The eosterica of the time was far more closely aligned with the new-appearing inquiries of Science. Practical science, such as architecture and engineering, is adorned with forgotten reasons for designing in a specific way.

I spent monday afternoon in the Univ. of Amsterdam’s special book collection looking for W.W. Greg’s work on printers of the 16th/17thC. What a scholar! He furthers the scholarship of people before him and expects the future will hold another scholar to succeed him. Looking to his sources provides a tradition of scholarship that quickly leads you away from Shakespeare and into the period as a whole.

Actually I really needed A W Pollard, found his bibliography of Quartos and Folios, put it in a queue and wait for an e-mail. Then to fall to photographing facsimiles of Sh’s Quarto Title-Pages printed between 1594 and 1616. And that result should then be visible above in the banner in a day or two, three.

Now I learned a superficial lot about early modern printing today. Most importantly about Thomas Vautrollier, the Huguenot master printer working out of Blackfriars. His only english apprentice was Richard Field. When he died in 1587 his apprentice married his widow.

Many biographers amend this to possibly his daughter, Jacklin. Today I read a transcript of Vautrollier’s Will. And there is no mention of a daughter, only 4 sons. His wife Jaklin is mentioned, ergo Richard Field married Vautrollier’s widow. Unless the Will is another Collier forgery!

Vautrollier was allowed into the Stationer’s Company as an alien because of the quality of his work. He was also allowed to have 6 apprentices either French or Flemish. Besides his Press near Ludgate in Blackfriars, Vautrollier was a bookseller in Edinburgh from the late 1570’s. He had many well-connected customers for his wares.

He finally established his own press in ‘auld reekie’ in 1584, which he dismantled and brought back to London the year before his death in 1587. His son inherited it. The Scots don’t like to admit it, but he is credited with teaching them the ‘art’ of printing.

I’ll take better notes next time i visit. Uncovered, also new to me, some information about early presses in Norwich, apparently a place to flee religious persecution for mainland Europeans in the 1570’s. Also the Bristol book trade was mentioned and the Scottish and Irish printers too.

Don’t forget book-lovers, the Frankfurt Book Fair was happening every year Shakespeare was alive!

Oh yeah, I added a quiz on the Sonnets under the Quiz on the first lines of the plays in the top bar, above. Obviously!

Apologies to a conspiracist…

….I brusquely replied to an Oxfordian the other day, and i’m sorry for it. Not because I know the man, but because it diminishes a man to insult before introducing himself to his opponent.

Unless he wishes to make an enemy of that man. And I do not. So i shall use this blog to explain why I am not a conspiracist. (Are they racist)?

I would advise looking at the Orthodox evidence in toto, before embarking on the voyage of singularity conspiracy offers.

I am forced to call myself an Orthodox scholar, when I merely love Shakespeare’s language.

Who can convince you to do that? And once convinced why would i subject myself to the pronouncements of orthodox scholars to accept this schmuck from Stratford’s biography.

I made up my own mind on this subject. There is nothing to prove he didn’t write the plays. And for him be the actor and boring family burgher from Stratford. The meagre evidence we have supports it and as boring as that may be, it is what it is.

I say look to his friends. He had good friends. And to say, he was not he, is a slur on them and a commentary on their complicit or pretended friendship. Why then would they continue friendship with someone they knew was a liar and cheat?

He was friends with the most popular actor in Elizabethan times, Richard Burbage.

He was friends with Ben Jonson, who was the first Elizabethan Playwright to publish a Folio of his works. It was printed in 1616, the year of Shakespeare’s death.

He was friends with Michael Drayton, who was also a Warwickshire man and fellow poet. Drayton’s career was as a poet for Patronage. His Sonnet series, like Shakespeare’s, took him over 20 years to finish.

He was friends with John Heminges and Henry Condell. who at the end of their careers took the trouble to collect their colleague’s plays before they were lost to time. The result is the remarkable First Folio, a book for William’s memory.

Orthodox viewpoint

A writer writing for profit in private and public arenas. He didn’t collect his writings, and saw only his poems into print as Quartos.

The Theatre Company owned the final written Play and copied from it as necessary. The writer was paid for his labour and that was it. If he kept copies of his foul papers or a fair one there are none extant.

None. Ask the Oxfordians, Marlovians et al to produce anything like a Shakespeare play in their candidates hand and they can’t. You’d think such a treasure would have been kept under lock and key? And preserved in manuscript to prove to future generations that this was he?

Plays were kept locked in a chest in the Playhouses and when these thatch-roofed, wooden structures burned, the plays were lost. As happened to the Fortune in 1619.

His Q1609 Sonnets promise immortality through his verse, yet the writer never took any steps to ensure those works lasted longer than his death. We don’t know his views on writing for posterity.

Don’t forget every other contemporary author writing for the same ends was operating under the same set of rules, external to his or her writing. (Yes, there are some female candidates for Shakespeare)!

Basically no playwrights expected their work to last. But to boast of it doing so is a tradition that stretches back hundreds of years in the time he is writing. These authors of antiquity were the reason they were writing.

And printing of authors was the gutterpress and internet of the day. A new technology being exploited by the practitioners of that technology. The writers were a necessary evil and shared little in the profits, if any were to be made.

I am ready to admit in an instant I am wrong on the biographical aspect of Shakespeare, if convincing evidence is provided.

Until then I will continue to delve into all aspects of Early Modern History always thinking how DID he do it? If I have to create circumstances and relationships, I (or anyone) have no way to prove or disprove, then I have entered the world of fiction.

But it’s not just them. When an orthodox scholar fills in the Orthodox biography with his own conjectures of what Shakespeare felt or smelt, it is likewise pure fantasy.

I’ve been told shakespeare was addicted to tobacco, hemp, cocaine, nutmeg. I say present me the knowledge you have and I’ll decide if it’s a certainty or not.

Compare his with Samuel Johnson’s life a century later. That of an unknown ‘genius’ intellectual off to seek his fortune in London. Samuel just barely kept his head above water.

And this dictionary maker Johnson was a Stratfordian. Witness his ‘Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth’ about the timing of Macbeth’s creation coinciding with King James’ interest in Demonology and ascension to the throne in 1604. The year Oxford died.

Shakespeare’s career made him a Gentleman and land owner, as well occupying the biggest house in Stratford. Bought and paid for with moneys earned in the theatre business.

The world of printing in London was heavily watched by the government. There was an anarchic press, but mortal consequence if you were caught. Still they printed a lot.

There was also a Scottish arm of the Early Modern printing industry not governed by Elizabeth. Richard Field worked for and finally took over his master Thomas Vautrollier’s Press. Vautrollier owned 2 presses in Edinburgh.

I think this a valuable avenue to explore for Shakespeare’s access to the source books he did use. And I don’t believe as some editors do that we know everything about Shakespeare’s biography.

Deepening our knowledge of his times and who was connected to whom is a fascinating subject. Asking me to accept one person or a group of others who duped history for the vaguest of reasons is not.

Now to his counterfeit presentment.

Conspiracy viewpoint

A hidden genius writing Shakespeare, then hiding the fact in his writing through anagrams and crytograms for people to discover after his death to see how brilliant and misunderstood he was.

The old ‘You thought I was only this, but I am actually this and you never knew’ ploy. For me, this way madness lies!

Most, if not any conspiracy theorists are highly intelligent, educated and powerful people. However they raise far more questions than the many questions involved in just accepting that it was Shakespeare who wrote the plays and we have them. So, basta! Klaar!

Merely casting doubt on the Stratfordian Shakespeare nullifies him in favour of ANY other candidate.

And there are far too many of them, as in nehitd (not enough hours in the day), to do them all justice in evaluating their merits or defaults.

There are over a hundred different candidates and they fall into two categories: The groupists and the single candidates. The most well-known on the internet anno 2009 are Oxford. Marlowe and Bacon. With Henry Neville trailing by miles. Will the dark horse make it to the post?

However my orthodox candidate needs no introduction.

He is there in the thick of it:
Public Theatre, Printing, Court Theatre, smack dab in the middle of the web that encompasses his field of work.

‘Any writing or acting or selling of said work can be had here. I have time on my hands, my family is back in Stratford on Avon, no kids. I can afford candles. I don’t need to be an Earl to know how an Earl might feel, nor a hangman. There are documents and tales enough to serve as mere sources’.

What is a source?

A source is a tangible piece of evidence that can then be interpreted. I cannot verify an abstract source no matter how trustworthy or intelligent you are in all other things.

But the conspiracists like Shakespeare himself can change it for the times; and add to it, or subtract from it, as they wish, and call it evidence.

If I start making stuff up in a criminal or civil court i would be held in contempt. Yet many chief justices are convinced it was someone other than Shakespeare. Then again a whole bigger bunch of chief justices do not. Does the one outweigh the other?

Several prominent actors believe it wasn’t Shakespeare. And a whole bigger bunch of actors believe it is Shakespeare of Stratford or don’t ‘gaf‘ ! (first word of acronym (amended from anagram finally) is ‘give’). ..

The main problem for conspiracy theorists is that their candidates often demand special circumstances by the fact that he died too soon or late. Or they had an established career of their own, PLUS being the world’s most clebrated author on the QT.

Even though Shakespeare’s fame is a combination of a printing war in the 1700’s, support by leading superstar actors of the 18thC stages, and a cultural hegemony of an Empire building school curriculum throughout the 19thC. And a backlash against traditional readings of his work by theorists of the late 20thC.

All the above are skipped over by conspiracists who expect you to know and accept the prescient lives of dominant worthies who had predicted just such a fame would happen.

It is partly an accident of history that Shakespeare is as famous as he is. Nobody in his time could ever have predicted the impact he would have on the world’s literature.

Despite the acknowledgement that he did collaborate on his early works and his later works before retirement. He had a craft to learn and pass on.

Surely one man alone could accomplish much easier, this task of writing plays and poetry?

Such a man would need time to reflect and meditate and study as well as write.

If he had a job with a theatre company that produced his plays it would be better.

If he knew a printer that might, as a favour, publish his first attempt at commercial narrative poetry, that would help too.

If he knew and associated in the Mermaid Tavern on a friday with other wits of his time, it might provide him somewhere to unwind after being alone with his words.

Let’s never forget that he was one of hundreds of scribblers for the theatre and the press. Only he got all the breaks. He followed his own career path, not knowing what it held in store.

If a conspiracy demands the plays be dated earlier than accepted by Historians ie not only Shakespeareans. Then special circumstances have to be allowed for that to happen.

And to continue so on down to where the imagined and historical merge in support of the only the obvious conclusion that their candidate is the candidate.

Then dear readers i feel like i am being coerced. My freedom of choice is being limited, even though my field of knowledge is being widened by their research.

And yet this same argument pours from the mouths of the conspiracists who feel stifled by an unfulfilling biography. We are after all looking for the same thing.

What remains is that there is nothing in the conspiracists’ theories that changes a modern reader’s enjoyment of Shakespeare’s Plays and poems. Accepting a theory as true and appreciating the plays more because of it is as subjective as you can get. If it works for you, good.

I suppose if i just go agnostic on the biography and avoid the chatrooms where these things are discussed and stick to reading the plays I’ll be alright…
.

don’t speak…

…that moment in conversation and interaction when a lot is being said, though nothing is being said. Pause and silence. There, where being and empathy begins and the acting is done.

The razor’s edge that cuts through the play as known narrative to the play as it re-creates itself again. The players their text memorised, prepared and ready, seemingly freshly minting words anew, for you sweet love. if so inclined.

The sonnets and the Folio are like a da vinci code substitute. So much blood and no holy grail.

i’d love to see Shakespeare, a vampire. This prompted by holiday reading, The Historian. Elizabeth Kostova, the scholarly Dan Brown posited in her research a lost vampire play by Shakespeare. She’s a Yale alumnus so maybe they’re hiding something at the Elizabethan Club there?!

The book was entertainingish after page 340 odd and a tad less obvious than Dan’s attempt at ‘symbology’, which tosh i scorned and predicted from chapter to chapter, as I sped-read it in 3 hours. This book at 600 odd pages took longer.

I tend to plough through books, sucking its marrow leaving it as a vampire leaves his/her victim. There are several threads in this book, tied together with 3 generations experiencing the love of their lives whilst dealing with the undead! Harlequin romance meets book loving Vampire, the original historical and uncategorical Vlad ‘the impaler’ Chepesh!

The mildest most Ophelia-ish of the love stories is the motherless daughter brought up by diplomatic historian papa. The tales set in 1930’s, 1950’s and 1970’s neatly tie up in a bow when mama, Hermione-like is re-introduced into her daughter’s life, when Dracula himself appears.

To give an example of how little i cared about the characters in this book. I had picked it up in Walker, Minnesota and read about 100 pages by the time we got to Grand Rapids, Minn. That evening after dinner and child to bed i started in again and read continuously from about 9- 12pm.

At the midnight hour a large black bat flew into the living room from the kitchen and flapped around like a bat in a B movie. I called S. who sleepily acknowledged a bat in the house and went back to bed.

Now it should have been a scare, considering my reading matter and intense entering into the story for another 250 pages. Boo hoo it wasn’t. But if you like long reads that take you travelling all over eastern europe and Oxford and US east coast academia it’s the book for you.

However it seems no esoteric historically based novel can do without Shakespeare to give it added legitimacy. If you remember, Dan puts Shakespeare in the spurious list of Heads of the Freemasons. For my taste Dr Who had the best offering herein with the alien witches and Love’s Labours Won.

Or how about making Aaron, his chief and most evil of Sh’s characters, a black vampire and his bitten crew of Tamora and her Goth sons about to show Rome what it means to rule. From Dusk til Dawn meets Webster’s speed and knowledge of the Revenge tragedy genre version of Titus Andronicus.

Tarantino or Rodriguez directing, kickass make-up and costumes department with fx sfx dolby dibbly dobbly, cast of your favourite international A listers: from our dear beloved mumbling Brits, to the cream of the screaming yanks and the cheekiest Kiwis from Australia. Then raid the European acting larder for the foreigners and extras.

Every actor will want to be a part of it. Throw ’em all through a phonetic course approximating EME usage and let Babble-on loose.

Imagine a truly international representation of Shakespeare’s London career from the mid-1580’s to the early and late 90’s. Blossoming into the symphonic early and late 1600’s to 1609. Closing with the retirement and death of the artist in 1616.

Then the sequel, another movie about the narrative ‘tween times. Stop me! I’M FOR WHOLE QUIRES OF SONNETS.

The edge or area between spoken and unspoken: that inside ear thrumming with the heart’s counsel, debating with the mind how best to express what must be said.

Or from inside to outside, shifting into listening, feeling and acting mode; whether poised for more thought and speech, or attentive to the gross and subtle influences of scene and other actors involved.

To read Shakespeare is to be intensely alone and yet in a space densely populated with the imagination’s touch. Stillness and noise within one another, quietened by the suppression of the vocal into the expression of the silence.

The critic and the theorist joining the cacaphony surrounding the core: the attributed Poems, Plays, Histories, Comedies, and Tragedies. This world of theatre shoe-horned into books so gulls can caw and peck at its bibliophallic remnants.

Any student needs a working knowledge of the Early Modern Period, its tides and currents, from Tavern, Theatre, and Printing, to Court, Government, and Executions. If he wants to understand Shakespeare.

But to know Shakespeare is as simple as memorising several lines. Once that is done, if it were done quickly, is to own Shakespeare. Absorbed and appropriated to your own.

I need but think to be with something Shakespeare wrote. Pick a number between 1-154. Go on try it if it we ever meet. I will fulfill thy will’s desire.

Shakespeare was about suggestion, of a mood or thought or feeling. Piling meaning on top of meaning, often ad absurdum for logic to encompass. So all that’s left is the unspoken unwritten message for us to discover again and again.

Or get cynical and larf. coz you gotta larf incha?