In
an occasional series I intend to look at conspiracy theories with a
distinctly Tongue-in-cheek attitude. This is largely because I do
feel many conspiracy theories are extremely far fetched.
In
examining these things I use two golden rules to establish, in
my view, the likely truth of the matter.
Occam's
Razor
This
states, at it's simplest, that given the available evidence, the
simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Sherlock
Holmes rule
This
one is well known to any fan of the Conan Doyle classics. It states
that, when you have eliminated the impossible whatever is left, no
matter how improbable must be the truth.
Between
the two you can sort the facts and see if it affects your belief in
the conspiracy theory.
So
on to the Bard.......
William
Shakespeare was born in on 23rd April 1564. And straight away we hit
the first possible porky (Porky Pie=Lie). He was baptised on the 26th
which does not mean he was born three days before. This came
about because births were normally registered within three days. It
is now almost universally accepted as his birthdate because he
did die on 23rd April 1616 and everyone loves a coincidence. I
personally hope he was born on that date because it is St George's
day (Patron saint of England.), it has been mooted as an extra
national holiday and I was also born on this date. Until now only the
Queen gets a bank holiday on her Birthday so I am all in favour of
the idea.
At
the age of 18, Shakespeare married the 26-year-old Anne Hathaway, in
rather a hurry. Six months later they had a daughter Susanna. It
strikes me that he had been a bit of a naughty Shakespeare.
Twins Hamnet and Judith followed. He had a basic education which
would have included classics, Still would it equip him to write all
those play and sonnets?
Shakespeare
produced most of his known work between 1589 and 1613. One has to
wonder why he suddenly left Stratford to write? Was he seated in his
house one day, having had an argument with the wife? Were the kids
shouting and screaming? Did he just stand up and say "Sodde thys
for a game of soldyers, I'm off to London to wryte summe plays?"
The truth is no one knows. That a playwright and partner in a theatre
by the name of Shakespeare existed is beyond doubt. Evidence for
the Stratford Shakespeare writing anything beyond normal business
letters and documents does not exist.
The
Theories
Theory
number 1. Shakespeare of London was NOT Shakespeare of Stratford.
Occam's razor says it is unlikely given the evidence.
The
main objection to Shakespeare as author of the plays attributed to
him is that he was not noble or well educated as most playwrights
were. Therefore the plays must have been written by someone else
using his name as a pseudonym. This begs a question. Why would he
allow this to happen? Was he hungry for fame and saw it as a way of
getting it with little effort? Was he paid to act as the face of an
anonymous writer. Was the name Shakespeare plucked out of the real
authors imagination and became entangled with a nobody from
Warwickshire?
In
this theory the main contenders as the actual author were
Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere , 17th
Earl of Oxford. There was even a theory that the plays were a group
effort to which Shakespeare gave his name. Strangely this is quite a
believable theory. Many authors use a pseudonym for work they are not
sure will add to their reputation. Again using Occam this is
unlikely to supplant the official history. It would be a lot of
trouble to achieve very little.
Theory Number 3 Shakespeare's sexuality.
Nothing
to do with the plays in this one but it is claimed that the Sonnets
were coded love poems to a young man, i.e. Shakespeare was gay. As
this would be purely speculation and does not affect anyone except
him, his wife and potentially the young man concerned I will not
venture an opinion.
Theory
number 4 Shakespeare's religion.
Basically
says that He was a Catholic in a time when it was illegal. The
strongest evidence might be a Catholic statement of faith signed by
his father, John Shakespeare, found in 1757 in the rafters of his
former house in Henley Street. The document is now lost, however, and
scholars differ as to its authenticity. He may well have been
Catholic but he certainly conformed to the legal religion publicly.
The
only theories which intrigue me are 1 and 2. The first has personal
echoes. I am not well educated but I enjoy writing, I like to think I
could make an income from it but have trouble with believable plots.
Is it beyond the realms of possibility that I would move away to
an area in which writers flourish in order to follow the dream.
Therefore I believe that, trapped in a marriage forced on him by
unwanted pregnancy and in a rural backwater, he did just that.
The
second is related to this. I think he joined a group of players and
playwrights who helped him with his plays for which he had a talent
already. Maybe they were a group effort to which he happily gave his
name. Or maybe he was just a fantastic author and knew he would never
amount to much at home.
Evidence
exists that he retired to Stratford-upon-Avon which would tend to
disprove theory 1 and Occam tells me that number 2 is unlikely. If
you were a successful playwright and the plays were as successful as
his were, would you write under a pseudonym, specially if the name
you used was a country bumpkin.
Conclusions
So
in conclusion Occam tells me that 1 and 2 are unlikely. 3 I really
don't care about. Sexuality has nothing to do with talent and is a
matter for the individual. As a non believer number 4 is irrelevant
to me but if he was Catholic he hid it well.
Sherlock
Holmes tells me nothing as nothing mentioned here is impossible,
though some things are improbable.
So
I believe the official version but with the caveat that a group of
playwrights may have been involved.
Oh
and if you have trouble understanding Shakespeare, don't worry. Some
of his stuff makes good sense but sometimes I have no idea what he is
going on about.
No comments:
Post a Comment