| |
STRATFORD-UPON-CHARLES
Teaching Creationism At Harvard
|
|
| |
If wading through Stephen Greenblatt’s Will In The
World is confusing, so is slogging through the swamp of
tangled reviews it has spawned. These run the gamut
from charmed delight to violent (and apt) analysis by
today’s better-informed scholars. Even the routine critics
have found that all is not well in River (the Avon) City.
This is because of the new language developed by
adherents to the Stratford Myth – the one that says
someone born, married, and buried under the name of
William Shakspere wrote a number of very good plays
and some exceptional sonnets. The roster lumps
pitchmen like Michael Wood (In Search of Shakespeare;
BBC Worldwide, Ltd.) with Harvard professors like
Stephen Greenblatt (Will in the World; WW Norton &
Company). This eager argot is needed to deal with the
fact that the Stratford Myth is “toast”. Scholars and hacks
have flailed away at the tattered scrim surrounding this
fairy tale for over eighty years. Now comes a recent
book; Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography (Diana
Price; Greenwood Press), that finds there is no basis for
the few facts known (or have ever been known) about
this elusive grain merchant from Warwickshire.
Price offers no alternative Bard; just puts the issue back
on the table – demanding honest, diligent attention from
(at least) the literate amongst us. Of course this is no
surprise; the identity of our poet has been questioned by a
growing list of actors (Gielgud, York, Jacobi, Rylance,
Howard, Welles), writers (Twain, Dickens, Whitman,
James,), lawyers (Justices Stevens, Powell, Blackmun),
and psychiatrists (Freud), plus three generations of
scholars who have compiled a coherent scenario that
demonstrates who wrote what, when, and why – and why
an alternate Warwickshire stand-in has been allowed to
take all the credit. The scholarship supporting Edward
deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, has reached critical
mass. The priests of Stratford-on-Avon have for some
time now been circling the wagons.
This paper is not intended to argue his noble case. The
whole monte can be found in the websites at the end of
this article. But it will be helpful to show what has
happened to both language and logic in the media age;
and further, to evaluate its impact on both academia
and the crystalline world of publishing. Of the thousands
of books written on “Shakespeare” over the past four
hundred years his biographical database has been
variously treated. It has always been known that there are
very few facts about him, his education, and anything
that could qualify him as a author of what many say is
the finest body of work in the English language.
In the beginning, as writers discovered but a blurred
image of him, biographical observations were usually
framed as facts. Over the years we find different versions
of the Bard presented with greater care. Some have
honestly acknowledged the dearth of verifiable data by
using qualified but enthusiastic language. Others just
ploughed ahead, turning factoids into truth. Their
common source was the heady fodder of the plays and
poems themselves. Since 1920, when a viable alternative
to Stratford’s William Shakspere was identified, the
language has begun to become more cautious – indeed
speculative: “.... it is believed that....” or
“.... he may have been....”.
This phenomenon varies wildly with the integrity of the
writer. Most of the faithful tend to ignore the candidacy
of Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, or dismiss it
with scholarly vituperation. All of this became in turn a
feeding ground for dedicated “anti-Stratfordians”, who
have brought the debate to a head in an English yard of
new books, and an electronic infinity of web sites.
Fast forward to Harvard’s Stephen Greenblatt. He has
heard about Oxford; about the distinguished skeptics; and
about J. Thomas Looney, whose Shakespeare Identified
serves as a starting point for enlargement on the subject;
and about the many books that followed to reinforce what
some are calling a “new paradigm”. There is a good
chance that Greenblatt has read Edward deVere’s Geneva
Bible in which Professor Roger Stritmatter finds many,
many passages used in the plays and sonnets identified
by its original owner’s own hand. I say original, because
this very Bible was later owned by Henry Clay Folger,
the man who founded the Folger Shakespeare Library in
Washington DC. Folger believed that deVere was Shake-
speare.
Greenblatt knows all about this because that's his job.
Even if, after everything, he does not believe it, the
language he uses in his book shows a deep respect for its
power and (we believe) probability. He shows great skill
in adapting the new argot to his purposes, whatever they
may be. There are four general forms this proto-language
takes: circularities, mustabeens, Oxblocs, and fantasies. |
|
|
The first and most pernicious of these are blatant
offerings of circular reasoning. This concept is not
unknown in biographical (and scientific) literature. For a
book on Shakespeare-of-Stratford-on-Avon they are
necessary because of the absence of reliable evidence;
details that might connect this person to “his” plays. For
instance, telling us something about the boy William by
using information in the plays might seem fascinating,
but does not “prove” anything. True scholarship would
prevent a writer, knowing there is a question of author-
ship, employ this device to prove a thesis. Included
(below) is an Archive of these circularities,
some 160
strong. For instance on page 24 he has: “In one of his
early plays.... long lists of Latin synonyms.” Or page
46: “Shakespeare continued to be.... left traces in his
work....” But note the line count, showing the extent of
the text seduced by this literary perversion: 2282 lines or
about 24% of the book tied in to circularities alone. |
|
|
Next come what are now called mustabeens.
Under-
standing them takes no special literary knowledge. Even
Shakespeare’s most delicious malaproppists could have
told the difference. Here we have terms like “....it is
probable (or possible)”.... “doubtless”.... “would
seem”.... “highly likely”.... ad nauseam. This section of
our Archive has reined in at least 650 of them, or nearly
Two per page of the main text. (line count: 830) |
| |
The fact that there are this many testifies to a tendency of
authors like Greenblatt and Wood to extend qualified
exposition to other, less controversial aspects of their
subject. This paves their work with an even provision of
dis-certainty, extending some credibility to biographical
constructions about which they know (or at least suspect)
there is substantial doubt. |
|
|
The Oxblocs
are less easy to define, or to find; again my
term and un-qualified indictment. They are intended to
counter any impressions a reader might have drawn from
readings (or cocktail gossip) that might challenge the
hoary hegemony of the Stratford lad. They require some
know-ledge of what one might want to avoid (or head off
at the pass). These might include important points that
current scholarship on alternates such as Marlowe,
Bacon, or deVere might have been made. To be effective,
the device must be subtle, a working part of the author’s
subliminal argument. But as literary behavior, they are
more incriminating than all the weasel-wording and anti-
logistics put together. Our docket contains forty-four. |
|
|
Finally, the fantasies.
These are built on the mustabeens
and circularities, leading the reader down the traditional
paths endowing the Stratford Myth with majestic and
endearing improbability. For instance on page 24 we
have “So it was that Will’s father and mother wanted
their son to have a proper classical education.” or on
page 234: “Presumably, if the first seventeen.... among
his private friends, etc.....“. It is easy to see why these
fantasies are endemic for Greenblatt; the book opens
with the sensational sentence “LET US IMAGINE that
Shakespeare found himself from boyhood fascinated
by language.” Others are called out in the Archive - at
least 35 of them. |
| |
Why do we care, you may well ask? In the case of the
BBC the television series In Search of Shakespeare,
based on Michael Wood’s farce of the same name (just
Shakespere in the US), there is an easy answer. The book
and television program were paid for by the Shakespeare
Birthplace Trust. This hoary organization is at the center
of millions of pounds of Stratford real estate, licenses,
publications, souvenirs, and professorships. With its
Shakespeare theme park about to implode, the Trust has
no alternative but to fight Lord Oxford to the end. Watch
out then for Edward deVere, a jock who fought and never
lost in Queen Elizabeth’s tournaments.
The case for (against?) Greenblatt is not all that simple.
American universities have clamped down; only a few
allow a thesis to be written on Oxford as Shake-speare.
Meanwhile the debate has begun to reverberate in
schools across the country, and the press has begun to
take the authorship issue seriously. At Harvard, William
of Warwickshire is well dug in. Its faculty has kept (until
now) a low profile, except for a clueless book that has
cryogenically deconstructed the Sonnets. Item: even the
Harvard Coop Bookstore does not carry titles devoted to
the alternate authorships, because (says the manager) “It
has not been proved!” I am sure they have copies of Mein
Kampf and the Communist Manifesto suitable for higher
educational purposes.
Both here and abroad there is still a lot of pride and ego
wrapped up in a massive investment in books, treatises,
films, and lectures by American and English universities.
Time may well decide whether ignoring the alternative(s)
is an honorable posture for academe. Today I am sure
that a majority of Harvard alumni are happy to continue
wallowing in Greenblatt’s fantasies; but others of us who
learned to read (and think?) on the banks of the Charles
are deeply embarrassed. We would be hard-pressed to
defend an institution so needy as to suckle on Stratford’s
millions, or the manna of publishers who need to keep
their lists moving.
This not just about plays and poetry: Oxford lived, loved,
and wrote plays and poems at the center of a dynamic
reign of an incredible monarch. The foibles and intrigues,
heroes and villains, and delicious scandals are all there in
his work. As an historical phenomenon, the authorship
issue offers new insights into the government, religion,
and economics, of the (brave) New World. There is much
to be rediscovered in all of these fields. Harvard, of all places
should not be involved in the dumbing-down of our cultural
heritage. And for the Science Department at Harvard to
catch up with its English Lit Department, it would have to
begin teaching Creationism.
Joseph Lippincott Eldredge AB ’45 MAR ‘49
www.humilitypress.org
www.shakespearefellowship.org
|
|
