As happens recurrently, there is a resurgence of the argument that the bloke from Stratford upon Avon could not have written the plays attributed to William Shakespeare.
This will never cease; because details of WS's life are so sparse, because authorship in those days involved a great deal of copying and adapting, irregularities of spelling and nomenclature; and also because some of the (lesser) Shakespeare-attributed works are probably by others or done in collaborations (as has emerged in mainstream scholarship, over the years - for instance the Passionate Pilgrim poems).
Nonetheless, all the people that I have read who make this argument against Shakespeare, have been arguing from what I regard as false premises, as I have explained before.
Firstly; Shakespeare is so much better than the second best writer in English Literature (whoever that might be, which has always been disputed) that there cannot be any argument of a kind which suggests that Shakespeare of Stratford was incapable of writing something - but somebody else was.
If we genuinely recognize the quality of Shakespeare, then nobody was capable of writing it - in the sense that there has never been anybody else in the same league.
So no alternative identification as author is any more plausible than Shakespeare of Stratford.
Secondly; the quality of the works attributed to Shakespeare mean that the author was a first-rank genius; and it is not valid to apply the probabilities that apply to normal people, to the work of a major genius.
The example I used was Isaac Newton, another first-rank genius - but one whose life is well documented.
It is striking that Newton's actual achievement is impossible on the basis of what is known of his life.
The fact that Newton's achievement was not predictable on the basis of his biography, yet he did it anyway; is evidence that when dealing with major genius, normal predictions and probabilities are meaningless.
There is - as I said initially - a mystery about Shakespeare as the author of the best attributed dramatic works.
Yet I find the usual narrative of a Grammar School boy from Stratford; from a rebellious, recusant Catholic family on his mother's side, and the rest of it - to be rich, coherent and satisfying.
After all the caveats regards particular works or parts of works; to me, Shakespeare of Stratford rings-true.
2 comments:
Reading the other posts linked made me wonder, what do you think about Tolkien's place in the literary canon?
@NLR- I think the literary canon broke down about 100 years ago (the post-WW I "modernist" era) so it isn't really possible to discuss placing meaningfully. Indeed, the same happened with classical music and fine art. A civilizational phenomenon in other words.
Post a Comment