"Let every eye negotiate for itself
And trust no agent; for beauty is a witch
Against whose charms faith melteth in blood."
- William Shakespeare
And trust no agent; for beauty is a witch
Against whose charms faith melteth in blood."
- William Shakespeare
I’m way too ordinary to critique William Shakespeare. As I have never been a student of literature, I have never had an opportunity to read some of his master pieces (which I regret quite often than not). The only work of Shakespeare which I fully appreciate (read as understood) is a poem called “A Lover’s Complaint” This is a short narrative poem which talks about a young woman at the riverside weeping, destroying the love tokens such as letters, rings etc. It wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to guess about her breakup. What astonishes readers is the last part. As she describes how she fell for his fake charm earlier, she also reveals that she would fall for him once again. Well, love can prompt you make counterintuitive choices.
Anyway, my point of focus is not the above poem. It’s about a few people challenging the authorship of this poem. The basis on which few felt that it wasn’t Shakespeare’s original work is the words that are used in the poem are not the ones found in Shakespearean. I was a little shattered to know an allegation made against one of the greatest playwright in English language. Call it ironical, the poem seen as contentious for its authorship, turns out to be my favorite one. This prompted me to look up for substance in this matter. As I spent long hours on the Internet, I came across a term, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. This theory developed by scholars gives rise to belief that all the work which we attribute to Shakespeare was original work of Edward de Vere. However the coincidences that have been cited by these pundits cannot be used as core evidence. In such matters it’s a matter of belief. Yes, skepticism spares none, especially the greats.
Still a majority of scholars don’t pay much heed to the Oxfordian theory. In this case, I opine same as the scholars. Back in India, almost every year there is some sort of controversy picks up the heat on Gandhi’s life-style, ideas, sexuality, to name a few. Again there is a majority that rejects the controversy while the minority supports it. Probably, greater you are, the more you need to stand test of skepticism. What convinces me to reject the Oxfordian theory is the question, how the hell did Shakespeare manage to deceive so many people, across the globe. And, if plagiarism was the way, why haven’t other plagiarist gone on to become half as popular as the great William Shakespeare?
PS: If you liked this post, watch out for this forthcoming movie called Anonymous
5 comments:
Terrific choice of topic. The highlight to me was the quote that you have used. I conveys quite a few things subtly. Keep it up!
Thx for your comments. Yes, did my homework while picking the quote :) Always glad to read flattering comments!
Vijay - You owe it to yourself to examine the evidence. I think in this case, the weight of the evidence is strongly in favor of Oxford. Keep in mind, since there are no manuscripts, no letters, no correspondence, no mention of his death, the evidence is all circumstantial.
For Oxford, the strongest evidence is for his biographical connection to the plays and sonnets, his being held in high regard as a poet and playright (though none of his plays survive) and his support of and promotion of the theater.
Naturally, scholars who have an investment in maintaining the status quo, who owe their careers to the orthodox point of view will not be an adherent of Oxford.
Concluding that a man who had little or no education, whose children were illiterate, who never left any writing other than six unreadable signatures with his name spelled differently in each one, who never traveled outside of London, who spent much time and effort engaging in petty lawsuits, who could not read books in French, Italian, or Spanish yet used untranslated material as his source material, who never left any books in his will, who left no letters, no correspondence, who did not elicit a single eulogy at his death was the greatest writer in the English language defies logic and common sense.
Its a nice blog. Shakespeare was great but does that mean that skepticism should not exist even for a great??
Dear Mr Schumann,thanks for your comments. I must confess that my time spent on Internet, reading on that specific issue, seems too less.
Going by what you have written and the evidence that you have provided, you did force me as well as a couple of my friends to re-think.
What I realized is, it's the work, not the person is timeless.
@Uday: I agree, even great should pass the test of time, but if we start doubting everyone, it will be like "unless proven innocent, everyone is guilty"
Post a Comment