Shakespeare’s
Hidden authorship
Returning
to Chaney’s Shakespeare’s Literary Authorship, he writes convincingly
that Shakespeare deliberately hid his authorship as part of a long term
literary strategy. I’ll just support this with many quotes from his book:
Pg.
3 “Especially when juxtaposed with ‘demi-puppets’, ‘printless foot’ [from The
Tempest] comes to stand for an unusual phenomenon neglected in modern
Shakespeare scholarship: an invisible poetic authorship produced within
the London commercial theatre”.
Pg.
9 Quoting another scholar: “Printed playbooks became respectable reading
matter earlier than we have hitherto supposed …” leading Chaney to argue
that Shakespeare should be seen as a ‘literary dramatist’ … “composing scripts both
for performance and for publication.”
Pg.
11 “…unlike nearly every major author from Virgil to Spenser, Shakespeare
rarely presents himself.”
Pg.
11 Quoting Greenblatt “He contrived … to hide himself from view …
Shakespeare’s signature characteristic [was] his astonishing capacity to
be everywhere and nowhere …”
Pg. 12 “According to this model, Shakespeare’s
genius lies in hiding his authorship in order to foreground his
characters, to privilege his actors, and to submit himself genially to the
authorial anonymity of the theatrical medium.” And “He remains, in fact, the
most anonymous of our great writers…”
[Note: This is his personal hypothesis of why
Shakespeare ‘hid his authorship’. From what I’ve read he is nearly completely
ignorant of any anti-Stratfordian arguments or evidence, so he’s only thinking
based on what he is currently able to imagine.]
Pg.
13 Here Shakespeare is described as a ‘ghost’ and quotes Marjorie Garber
“Shakespeare as an author is the person who, were he more completely known,
would not be the Shakespeare we know.” [Note:
I understand what she means, but can she see a more radical interpretation to
her statement?]
Pg.
15 Chaney refers to “Shakespeare’s self-concealing counter-authorship”
and quotes Bloom “We all want to find him in the sonnets, but he is too
cunning for us.”
Pg. 22 “We might say that the blank at the heart of
Shakespearean authorship is a self-erasure that opposes the very
presence of Spenserian self-writing.”
[This is another conjecture on Shakespeare’s motive
for his self-erasure.]
Pg. 22 quoting R. Wilson “… this author’s vanishing
act was a deliberate function of his work: that Shakespeare wrote
his plays with the conscious intention of secreting himself.
Pg. 23 “He theorized self-concealment as a
political strategy of national leadership.”
Pg. 30 “Shakespeare self-consciously conceals his
authorship”
Pg. 63 “Shakespeare’s authorship is strange because
it deftly conceals the author.” … “Rather than present himself as an
author with a literary career in search of fame Shakespeare disappears into
the dramaturgy of his works.”
Ironically,
while Chaney repeatedly demonstrates and refers to Shakespeare’s deliberate
concealment of his authorship status, and at the expense of fame (at
least in his lifetime) he still cannot conceive that Shakespeare may not be the
actor/businessman from Stratford. It appears he is so immersed in his research,
great as it is, that he cannot see outside of the very limiting blinders he’s
had on all his life. He doesn’t show any but the most simplistic stereotypical
awareness of the authorship skeptic’s evidence and arguments, and none of that
from anyone on the doubter’s side of the divide.
I
haven’t seen Chaney address the question of why Shakespeare would go to such
lengths to hide himself and then not consider how his name, being so
prevalent on most of his works, might undermine his self-concealment strategy.
[Though I’m only half way through his book so he still might later say
something about this anomaly. Perhaps he’d
suggest that it’s only his biography and motives that he wanted to hide,
but not his name.]
The
last popular myth that’s fading is the story of Will Shakespeare writing plays
commercially for fame and fortune.
We’re
seeing now from Prof. Cheney and others that Shakespeare was actually doing
just the opposite of seeking fame by being ‘Counter’ to expectations for what a
laureate or commercial writer would be, especially one that was so
concerned about moving up in the world.
“…one of Shakespeare’s major professional goals is to
challenge and perhaps supplant the major print-poet of his day.”
Pg. 102 “Shakespeare’s conversation about poetry
does not occur in a historical vacuum but responds to a larger conversation
about poetry coming out of classical Greece and Rome, migrating to the middle
ages, and entering renaissance Europe and England.“ This doesn’t seem
to me to fit the idea that he read just to “collect facts and plot ideas”
for his commercial labor.
Pg. 118 “Shakespeare is a theatrical man who wrote
enduring poems that he himself saw published (or saw published through the
agency of others); who engaged vigorously the Western poetic tradition”.
Pg. 125 “The Shakespearean dramatic canon can be
said to be about the book of scholarship.” Chaney contrasts this with
the prevailing story of Shakespeare being a “poet of nature”. Though he wrote
for the theater, Shakespeare had a “career-long commitment to creating
memorable theatre out of poetry and books.” That is, Shakespeare was extremely
bookish and scholarly and not like a common script writer hacking out a scene
with other writer and actor friends at a tavern.
It’s starting to look like there are a group of
mainstream Shakespeare scholars that, without realizing it, are about to find
themselves standing in doubter territory, if they would ever look at the
territory itself.
The Shakespeare scholarly and enthusiast community
might be wise to consider if this very bookish, self-concealing author might
enjoy jesting more than they have given him credit for; that they are not close
to being in his element, and that he might indeed create an ‘improbable
fiction’ to entice the world, especially those with a kind of Puritanism in
them, into being infected with his device. I think the heart of his mystery is
still a ways away from being plucked out! Sport Royal!
No comments:
Post a Comment