| Posted: 01 May 2025 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 8
|
post reply
|
|
My reference on the subject is a french book: Shakespeare, by Henri Suhamy, 1996, Le Livre de poche, ISBN: 2-253-90523-2 I have the second edition, from 2006 9th part of the second chapter "The man, the actor, the author"(my translation, as for all that follows in this summary) is titled "9.The anti-stratfordian heresy" pages 41 to 47.
It presents the anti-stratfordians as appearing in the XIXth century and affirming that the works attributed to an illiterate peasant named William Shakspere or Shaxper, were writen by someone who needed to hide his real identity and that the peasant of the Warwickshire was only a figurhead, sort of a reverse ghost writer.
He treats rapidly the Bernard Shaw joke and the question of the homonym, then, after a few words about the premises at the end of the XVIIIth century (humble countryman without university studies vs such a bright work) he proceeds to the examen of the various candidates.
Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam (1561-1626): genius+erudit but an hypothesis discredited today because of the absurdity of some theories (clandestine son of Elisabeth and the earl of Leicester, plays writen to defend his right to the throne...)
William Stanley (1561-1642), earl of Derby, more or less a speciality of the french anti-stratfordians like Abel Lefranc and Georges Lambin. Same objections as the other hypotheses: no proof, no likelyhood. And how to keep the secret? Particularly if Shakespeare was such a boor? Why would the real author choose someone for his incompetence? Edward de Vere (1550-1604), earl of Oxford, today's candidate of most of the active anti-stratfordians, particularly in America.
Against the oxfordian hypothesis: his death in 1604 since some of the plays were represented for the first time after this date. Why did his familly and friends let the Stratford crook draw from an hypothetical stock of chefs-d'oeuvre? basically the tactic of the oxfordians is an argmentative spyral, with hypothesis justified by other hypothesis.
For the oxfordian hypothesis: his stepfather was William Cecil, Lord Burghley, minister of Elisabeth and probable model for Polonius in Hamlet. A letter to his son looks like the recommendations of Polonius to Laertes. How could Shakespeare know this document? But this could also be the source for Stanley who was the husband of Elisabeth de Vere, grand-daughter of William Cecil.
Henry Suhamy summaries the position of the anti-stratfordians as "A great lord shouldn't write for the theater, ergo the plays of Shakespeare were writen by a great lord." Other pseudo-syllogism: if we don't find any testimony proving that Oxford wrote the plays in question, it's because those documents were destroyed. If they were destroyed, it is because they existed. Conclusion: Oxford is the author.
He adds that the current state of teaching in the world and particularly in the US prevents to realise that there was a time when a twelve years old schoolboy knew mythology and used to read Ovid.
Henry Suhamy sees Shakespeare as a man of a very vast culture, but the culture of an autodidact. Universal rather than university culture. The result is a sort of diffuse encyclopedism.
His conclusion is that for the anti-stratfordians art is a phenomena from life and the author a man of action and experience amateur of theater, when for the stratfordians Shakespeare is a man of theater spectator of the world who knows the difference between art and life.
After Henry Suhamy, my quick summary.
So basically, i was alluding to the social condition of the author as the main motivation for the XIXth century anti-stratfordianism.
This, i wrote quickly, with the book in one hand and my other hand on the laptop keyboard. There may be stupid faults.
Edited by Stéphane Garrelie on 01 May 2025 at 10:37pm
|
