I particularly enjoyed his quietly efficient demolition of the 'Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare' theories, although it reminded me that Mark Rylance (one of my acting heroes and ex-artistic director of the Globe), based his Chichester Festival play on this very point last year. Although I keep hoping Rylance is being ironic I can’t find any evidence to suggest it – how depressing.
Coincidentally, I also read The Shakespeare Secret, a junky thriller of the Da Vinci Code school this week*. It used a fair number of the authorship theories and added some more of its own for good measure. Although the author had the decency to point out that the theories are speculative nonsense, you had to read the note at the back to find that out, so I’ll bet there are a few more people out there believing there can’t be smoke without fire.
I’m clearly lacking the believer’s gene. This may be because I have also been a civil servant and the experience quickly confirmed my view that any real conspiracy will come to light one way or another, usually through cock-up or someone just not able to resist sharing how clever they have been.
Or am I just missing something really important?
UPDATE: Mark Rylance obviously felt that I needed clarification on his views. Bacon? Bacon?
*I know, I know, and it was just as awful as it sounds. In my defence I didn’t have anything else in the house I hadn’t read, apart from GCSE revision guides on To Kill a Mocking Bird.
6 comments:
Well, since we now know that the Dark Lady of the Sonnets was Dr Martha Jones...
I always thought it was fairly irrelevant who wrote Shakespeare's plays. The fact is, they were written, and they're fantastic, and at this remove, when it's not a question of copyright or royalties, the author doesn't come into it.
I quite like the theory that other people wrote them and he tidied them up and made them actually good, though. That one's quite fun. :D
Tim: .. that Dr Who gave Shakespeare some of his best lines...and that Romeo and Juliet was originally called Ethel the Pirate's Daughter...
Semaphore: It seems fairly well supported by the evidence that Shakespeare leant heavily on his sources, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't even really care whether he did write them all himself or not, but I do get fed up with one flimsy piece of evidence (or sometimes just supposition) being used to support a conspiracy theory of whatever kind.
As you say, it is largely irrelevant as they are fantastic anyway.. although I have a sneaking suspicion I would feel differently if there did turn out to be some irrefutable evidence that he was just a front for someone else.
strangely, he looks like the Mona Lisa in that image.
Ooh, a new conspiracy theory - Shakespeare was really Mona Lisa.
I agree Tara, there's certainly something smug and secretive going on there.
From what I understand, this portrait also has slightly dodgy provenance, and might not be Shakespeare at all...
Pah. I'm with semaphore - who cares. Shakespeare rocks.
Post a Comment