Читать книгу A Comedy of Errors - John Watt - Страница 3

The twenty-first century is certainly living up to, if not exceeding, one’s expectations. This technological revolution that is taking place is quite astonishing. The highlight for the private consumer is probably the digital content available along with the means of retrieval. How many of us do not have a computer, tablet or mobile phone that does not offer us instantaneous data retrieval of some kind through the Internet? This additional feature in our daily lives makes us more independent, while our reliance on third parties is dramatically reduced. This ‘on tap’ availability of knowledge allows us to obtain information and make our own judgements, thus reducing the need to listen in awe to what economists, politicians and other so-called experts have to say.

We can find, at the press of a button, an array of information, such as what the best mortgage is, what the best credit card terms are, how we can open a SIPP and look after our pension, find the best holiday, diagnose our own illness, etc. The list is endless. In fact, many of us, even before visiting a doctor, have already diagnosed our own illness by using any one of the many Internet providers offering medical advice. The trip to the doctor’s is now more of an exercise in obtaining a cure rather than finding out what’s wrong with us. The age of deference is fast diminishing.

This information is available at the touch of a button, twenty-four hours a day. You name it, ‘Google it’ or use ‘Wikipedia’ and you will find it. There’s no longer any need to pop down to the library or ask an ‘expert’, as we can all be experts now. While writing this book, I needed to find out the relative values of money back in the 1600s in relation to what it would be today; in less than a minute, I found a website that did the calculation for me and, in the blink of an eye, I had my answer. The answer wasn’t arrived at in an ‘abstract’ form, but in a precise mathematical formula and calculation. I am, therefore, more inclined to accept it as being correct. Someone might have a different formula which will give a different answer, but in essence it is ‘not plucked from the air’. Prior to the Internet age, we relied on specialist providers to supply the knowledge we required, and it would in most cases have had to be paid for in some form or another.

Many of the world’s economies appear to be in recession and in an extremely precarious state. Turn on the television, read a newspaper, your tablet or computer, and you will find dozens of so-called experts offering us a solution to the current problems. Not surprisingly, they all have differing solutions. If we take the eurozone as an example, we have these ‘experts’ pontificating on what is required for it to pull itself out of this self-inflicted mess. Well, you don’t need to be an expert to see that this eurozone fiasco will not survive in its current state; in fact, it may not even survive at all. Yet, politicians and economists continue to behave like ostriches, believing ‘All’s well that ends well’, with some even suggesting that it may be a good time for Britian to join this pathetic ‘alliance’. Who and what makes these people experts in the first place?

Similar issues apply to history, where there is often a lack of data available to historians, hindering their ability to achieve an exact account of the period, people or events they are documenting. The further back in time they go, the more scarce the information becomes. We rely on them to fill these gaps in the hope that they will do so without bias. Unfortunately, history has proven us wrong, as these gaps are often biased, aided and abetted by biographers.

I hope to convince you that the person attributed to writing the works of Shakespeare is incorrect. That the story as told to us is not only biased but, in many cases, wrong and misleading. This self-selection of historical facts by historians and biographers has resulted in the adoration of the wrong man.

Having gathered a wealth of information on the subject, spanning several hundred years, I thought it time to bring the issue out of its moribund state and produce a layman’s insight into what the problems are. This book is for ordinary folk like myself. When I say ‘ordinary’, I don’t mean it in a disparaging manner. I am not an expert on Shakespeare, and you don’t have to be to read this book. I have just looked at the facts from a ‘man in the street’ point of view, reviewed what so-called experts on both sides of the argument have said, and formed my own opinion and judgement, which I will try to set out in as clear and concise a way as possible.

It’s my intention to stick to the core issues relating to this authorship question. Read any book or article about the author of the works of Shakespeare and you will find the writer devoting multiple pages to points other than the subject in hand, allowing them to gloss over the glaring omissions in his life. When reviewing who the author was, it’s essential to stick with the known facts and not deviate into the unknown.

In writing this book, I have taken a ‘back to basics’ approach, to use a little jargon. I have tried to construct it without being overly technical; however, to prove some points, I have needed to delve into some of Shakespeare’s writings. My aim has constantly been clarity, to make the book readable without reverting to the finer details of the works of Shakespeare. There are many unanswered questions surrounding this authorship. This book, I hope, will take us a little step further to establishing that William Shakespeare of Stratford was an unlikely author.

The original title for this book was A Simple Case of Lies, Fraud and Deception. It has now become apparent during my research that A Comedy of Errors is more appropriate, with so-called ‘experts’ falling over themselves to fill the gaps in the life of a practically unknown man.

There is evidence of several books having been published in the 1600s under the name ‘Shakespeare’, the contents of which have been found to have been written by different authors, suggesting that the name ‘Shakespeare’ may, in fact, have been a ‘brand name’. It is my contention, therefore, that ‘Shakespeare’ may have been a group of writers rather than one single author.

When looking at the authorship question, we need to establish why the works were produced in the first place. Two possible reasons come to mind: the first is for profit, while the second is the advancement of literature, learning and knowledge, the latter being severely lacking in the United Kingdom during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. If it was for profit, then we need to ascertain how these profits would materialise and be collected. If the motive was for the advancement of learning and knowledge, then this surely would lead us to a different person or persons, as I don’t believe that the two reasons could be compatible.