Читать книгу A Comedy of Errors - John Watt - Страница 4

Shakespeare has probably been written about more than any other literary subject, while the contents of his plays themselves seem to hold no bounds. Performed throughout the world in just about every language, there is hardly a person on the planet who has not heard of him.

For the past thirty years I have taken an interest in who wrote the works of Shakespeare. Historians and biographers would have us believe that it was a man from Stratford-upon-Avon called William Shakespeare. On the face of it, this would appear logical. However, nothing in life is ever that simple. Apart from the experts who say he wrote the plays and sonnets, we have another bunch of experts saying he didn’t. So, who are we to believe and why is there a problem?

The problem arises primarily because we have no evidence linking him directly to the works of Shakespeare. What’s been told to us by his biographers and historians has been largely made up; in fact, the extent of this misinformation is beyond belief. His life’s history, as told to the world, is littered with conjuncture, suppositions and untruths and, unfortunately, this misinformation continues unabated. I’m not suggesting these ‘untruths’ are deliberate lies by those peddling them; rather, they are just not factual, with little effort having been made to determine the accuracy of some of their statements. These so-called ‘facts’ are often inserted to circumvent glaring omissions in the life of the person they are trying to portray. The life of William Shakespeare is rather like that of a snowball: the longer the story is rolled out, the larger it becomes.

I should start with some clarity regarding his name. There was no William Shakespeare born in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. His name was, in fact, spelt in a variety of ways, such as Shaxper, Shagsper, Shaksper, and Shakspere, all of which were pronounced ‘Shack’. Neither he, his father or other members of the family, ever had their name spelt Shakespeare. To avoid confusion, when referring to him I will use ‘Shakspere’ and, when referring to the works, I will use the name ‘Shakespeare’. The name ‘Shakespeare’ which appeared on the printed editions of the plays, and which we are all familiar with, was also known to have been hyphenated to ‘Shake-speare’.

No-one knows the reason for this variation in the spelling of this name. Ask someone from Stratford and they will say the registrar simply couldn’t spell. Yet, one would think that the entry and exit of a person from this world would warrant a little more care with the spelling of their name. Can you really spell a person’s name wrongly fifty-two years after the first mistake, especially as we are being told that, at the time of his death, he had become a very famous playwright, having produced ‘The Works of Shakespeare’? And yet, the name on the death certificate clearly states ‘Shakspere’. I am sure that any famous people, when they die, would want to know that their names were spelt correctly.

A possible answer, and the more likely reason, is that the two names ‘Shakspere’ and ‘Shakespeare’ were never associated with one another in Stratford, or anywhere else for that matter. At every stage in this man’s life, excuses have to be made to overcome the many anomalies which arise, with important points being ‘washed over’ as irrelevant. You either have your name spelt correctly and consistently or not ‑ there can be no exceptions.

Stating the problem in its simplest form, it’s not what we know about this man from Stratford which causes us problems, it’s what we don’t know. Biographers would have us believe that all the boxes have been ticked as far as the authorship is concerned and that it’s foolish to pretend otherwise, and that people who pursue an alternative author quest are simply wasting their time. When we have to deal with something, as is the case here, with ‘facts’ that are deeply flawed ‑ if, indeed, they are ‘facts’ at all ‑ our instinct is at least to be inquisitive, especially regarding important subjects such as this. Mysteries will always be a challenge to the human race and our instincts will always drive us to seek a solution.

Those of us trying to resolve this mystery are tempted to suggest that some kind of conspiracy took place. Well, there may have been a conspiracy, but it shouldn’t hinder us from trying to clear up the many gaps in this man’s life, one being how he acquired the knowledge to write such fine literature. We will review some of these requirements later.

This scepticism regarding the authorship is not new. We can go as far back as 1769 when a James Boswell suggested that the name Shakespeare was being used as a ‘mask’ to conceal alternative authors. The second known ‘champion’ of the truth was the Rev J Wilmot, rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, a little village a few miles north of Stratford and who, in 1785, suggested that Shakspere was an ‘unattractive impostor’. Another early doubter included an American lawyer named Colonel Joseph Hart, who produced a publication in 1848 called ‘The Romance of Yachting’ in which he questioned Shakspere’s ability to have written such literature. Hart never proposed an alternative; instead, he just read, looked at the facts and came to the conclusion that, from the evidence available to him, it was impossible for this man from Stratford to have been responsible

The more recent of these critics was a Sir George Greenwood who, in his publication ‘The Shakespeare Problem Re-Stated’, castigated any thought that the man from Stratford was the author and was scathing towards those who were producing the misinformation concerning him. Similar to Mr Boswell and Hart, Greenwood never put forward a candidate of his own; rather, his efforts concentrated on the myths and untruths put forward by his supporters, who are generally known as Stratfordians. These discrepancies highlighted by Greenwood in his publication have yet to be answered satisfactorily.

Several thousands of books, articles and leaflets have been published challenging this authorship, some naming an alternative author, others, like myself, not proposing anyone. My objective is to challenge and expose the myths that have been laid out to us as facts. Having reviewed hundreds of these publications, extracted and checked for accuracy the relevant information available (many of which were, indeed, inaccurate), including visiting the appropriate sites in the UK, I have condensed them into this little book, with a view to taking a much more modern and logical approach to solving this dilemma.

The efforts put in by these early independent researchers have been substantial and detailed and, except where linked to a society of some description, their findings have had little or no exposure. An attempt was made in 1922 when ‘The Shakespeare Fellowship’ was founded, its purpose being to pool together the findings of these independent researchers and achieve more traction to their cause. Its mission statement read ‘To unite in one brotherhood all lovers of Shakespeare who are dissatisfied with the prevailing author’. A similar society has reappeared as an Internet-based discussion group based in the US.

The Internet age has come to the rescue of independent authors, as we no longer need to send our material to hundreds of publishing houses only to have our stories rejected. It’s now possible to ‘self-publish’ our material, allowing us to bring our work and views to a wider audience, or publish it in ebook form to an audience which was unimaginable a few years ago.

These early researchers have all but disappeared. The majority of their findings were produced between 1850 and 1950 and, unless some spectacular new piece of information turns up, they have uncovered just about everything that is available. All we need to do now is to piece this information together and use it to challenge the credentials of William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon.

In compiling this book, I was spoilt for choice with regards to the information available to me. It’s astounding what people have uncovered. I was also conscious of the need for clarity and not to stray far from the core argument

The contention is, can it be proven, without doubt, that a largely untutored man from the rural countryside of Stratford-upon-Avon could have acquired sufficient knowledge to have written the works of Shakespeare? The ‘facts’ that are presented to us by the Shakesperian establishment are, in many instances, not facts at all. This questioning of the authorship has stood the test of time. Can we, therefore, assume that the old adage ‘there is no smoke without fire’ applies here? When we begin to look a little deeper into this man’s life, not only can we not find any evidence that he wrote the works, but we can find no evidence whatsoever of how he could have obtained the vast array of technical knowledge required. And, it’s the ‘technical requirements’ that are at the heart of this problem. What’s been fed to us by his biographers in particular is tantamount to rubbish.

I can accept that the accumulation of years aligning the authorship to this man from Stratford-upon-Avon makes it difficult for people to believe that we have the wrong man, as the hype that has, and still is, being fed to us is of the highest calibre. We must, however, refrain from regarding this as some kind of ‘sacred cow’ that cannot be investigated, and neither should we reject a new conclusion simply because it may differ from an old one.

I recently read an article regarding the difficulties we humans have in changing from any entrenched views we may hold. It suggested that ‘the human mind is so constituted that it is unwilling to forsake old and faulty beliefs in favour of new and true ones and that there is an emotional reaction of ignorance to truth’. Perhaps the case against the man from Stratford has not been put across as well as it could have been. Hopefully, this publication will rectify this. I would, therefore, ask the reader to be as open-minded as possible, as I believe there is more than sufficient doubt that this man from Stratford could not have been the author of the plays, and that we have attributed these works to the wrong person.

Amidst all this controversy and spurious ‘facts’ that are presented to us, one fact remains resolute and unchallenged and that is that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon never once laid claimed to being an author of any kind. Neither did his wife, children, or son-in-law, who was an educated man and a doctor. I would hazard a guess that not many people will have been aware of this fact and that, in itself, must surely raise serious concerns about the authorship. Why not claim ownership of something that was so great it changed the course of English literature and culture? In addition to this strange situation, there isn’t a scrap of contemporary evidence from anyone during his lifetime associating him as a writer of any description.

Not claiming authorship must lead us to conclude that, if he were the author, it was not done for profit, otherwise he would have ‘claimed title’ to much of the Works of Shakespeare and at least made provision for these rights to be transferred to his family when he died. As we shall see, William Shakspere was a very money-orientated person, suing people left right and centre for monies owed to him; it would, then, appear strange that he would give up the monetary rights to these plays, which took decades to complete.

It has to be acknowledged that William Shakspere became a very wealthy man, though how he managed to obtain this wealth remains a mystery. Therefore, it’s not his success as a business man that is in question here, but rather his potential literary skills. He came from what is described as a ‘humble’ background ‑ ‘humble’ meaning, in this instance, ‘poor’ ‑ and neither, as we will see later, was he was meek or mild-mannered. He went to London and amassed a great deal of wealth in a relatively short space of time.

Supporters of alternative authors tend to spend too much of their time denigrating him for the way he seems to have behaved by suing debtors for monies owed. Yet, all successful ‘self-made men’ tend to take a sometimes ruthless approach in their quest for success, and William Shakspere was no exception, nor should he have been. In fact, he is to be applauded for his entrepreneurial ability when you consider the difficulties ordinary people faced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

I will outline some of his monetary activities later in this book and convert some of these purchases into today’s value. As you will see, they were indeed substantial. The question is, how did he accumulate this wealth? Was it from being a playwright, or being a business man of some description? It certainly wasn’t from acting, as performers were paid a pittance in those days. This book is, therefore, not an assassination of William Shakspere the man, as he may have been a very fine person, but rather a criticism of the people who peddle myths about him for commercial gain.

Questioning the authorship is a contentious subject with Stratfordians, as they resort to defiant utterances while calling into question our sanity. They admit they have a financial interest in maintaining the current author, but this results in very little constructive debate taking place. They and similar supporters have developed some standard rebuttal phrases, stating that we are picking on the playwright because of his ‘humble’ upbringing and that we are ‘obsessed conspirators’, all of which is becoming rather tedious.