Posted on 09/19/2005 8:47:48 PM PDT by Plutarch
What's in a name? He whom we call The Bard
By any other name would read as well.
Writing in The New York Times last month, William Niederkorn gave a friendly nod to four recent books of Shakespearean scholarship. None of the four is likely to settle an argument that has been raging for the past 300 years: Did William Shakespeare really write the plays and poems attributed to him? If he didn't write them, who did?
In case you have come late to this kerfuffle, the tempest rages about the sheer improbability of Will Shakspere's authorship. Considering the fame subsequently attached to his name, however you spell it, we know everything about Will's plays but amazingly little about his life. Except for a few bare bones of unrevealing fact, standard biographies provide little of interest about the man himself. Beyond the dates of his christening (1564) and his death (1616), much of the rest is speculation: "We may assume that" and "it is probable that."
Thus, in Merriam-Webster's brief biography, "Will almost certainly attended a local grammar school." There is a record of his arrest for poaching. In November 1582, Will married Anne Hathaway. Inconveniently, alas, their daughter Susanna was born six months later. In 1584 or thereabouts he moved from Stratford to London. There his natural wit served him well as an actor and theatrical apprentice. He began to write plays and swiftly won recognition for his astonishing gifts. He bought into the Lord Chamberlain's company. About 1610 he returned to Stratford as a moderately wealthy proprietor. He died. His death was remarkably unremarkable.
That's about the biographical size of it. Beyond the plays themselves, we actually know very little about their reputed author. Mark Twain was among many close observers to make a point of it: We can go to the standard biographies, he wrote, and learn about every celebrated Englishman but one, "by far the most illustrious of all, Shakespeare!" About the Bard, Twain complained, "you can find -- nothing . Nothing of even the slightest importance. Nothing worth the trouble of storing away in your memory. Nothing that even remotely indicates that he was ever anything more than a distinctly commonplace person."
Twain loved to stretch things, but he was not stretching by much. The evidence to prove Shakespeare's authorship is exceedingly slim. Trouble is, the evidence to prove another's authorship is almost equally unconvincing. Three or four likely candidates have been trotted out, but Marlowe died too young and Bacon lived too long. Lesser nominees have faded from the list. Only Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, remains in competition.
In 1984, in "The Mysterious William Shakespeare," Charlton Ogburn made a persuasive case for Oxford. If you are minded to tackle just one of a hundred books on the controversy, let me recommend this one. You can find it, I'm told, through the Internet. In his recent article, the Times' Niederkorn recommends "Shakespeare by Another Name," in which Mark Anderson also nominates Oxford as the "real" author of the canon. Niederkorn is not persuaded. Each side of the controversy -- the Stratfordians and the Oxfordians -- relies upon "stories, and not on hard evidence."
The trouble with fingering Oxford as the real author is that the noble earl died long before Shakespeare's most powerful plays were published -- and Oxford's teen-aged poems were almost as awful as my own teen-aged poems. And my own were lousy.
Let it go! After all, "the play's the thing." Isn't it? And who said that, anyhow?
Nothing can come from nothing.
The Stratford Shakespeare was a blank. There are only several examples of his signature after an exhaustive mining of the Elizabethian records. The writer of the plays had to have been trained in the law, as they are chock full of correct legal terms, concepts and situations. If Shakespeare had even been a lowly law clerk, his signature would be on many surviving documents. His signature barely exists.
Oh No ! Not This Sh*t Again.!!!
If it had to be anyone else, I'd choose the great musician John Dowland. He was well-travelled throughout Europe, including a long stint at Elsinore in the service of the Danish king, well-educated (a "doctor in both the universities"), moved in the same aristocratic circles as Shakespeare (they shared a patron), and many of his songs contain words and/or themes that curiously seem to fit right into certain of the Shakespeare plays. A Catholic, he could never get Queen Elizabeth to give him a royal appointment, and was often hard-up for money.
Did I say that Shakespeare did not perform research for his plays? And undoubtedly read widely. Also, being a lofty genius helped.
Again? I hadn't known that FR was ridden with a surfeit of Shakespeare authorship controversy threads. Maybe you would prefer another Intelligent Design thread?
Why is it that the Oxfords never try to claim Ben Jonson or Kit Marlowe plays for DeVerre? Their history and upbringing were every bit as pedestrian as Will's. Besides, unless he had supernatural help from John Dee, DeVerre would have been very hard put to produce "The Tempest" from beneath the Auld Sod.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Besides, there is at least one play manuscript partially in Shakespeare's hand. How many play manuscripts survive in Oxford's hand?
The writer of the plays had to have been trained in the law, as they are chock full of correct legal terms, concepts and situations.
And only a trained lawyer could get this right? I'm not a lawyer, but I can certainly use some of the terminology correctly. I'm not a weaver, but I can describe how to spin and loom.
Oxfordians claim that de Vere, who died in 1604, had unpublished plays among his papers when he died, that were published and performed only after his death. No source for his plays was published after 1604, nor do any Shakespeare plays refer to events after 1604.
Personally, I have always found arguments of this type unconvincing. Is it possible? Sure. Anything is. But the meat of the argument is "how could a stupid, uncultured actor write this?" Sorry, I like evidence and (as this post admits) practically nothing is known about the man, therefore leaving the evidence a bit dry.
Macbeth is clearly a paean to James I, who took the throne only 9 months before the death of DeVerre. Among other things, the portrayal of witches as evil movers of fate is a catering to the fanaticism of James. Was Oxford channeled, to write a play probably first performed in 1606, complete with allusions to current events, two years after his death?
Likewise, the farewell scene at the end of Tempest makes clear reference to the theatre in which it is being performed and is a farewell for the playwright as much as for Prospero. Was this staging anticipated by the brilliant Oxford, to match a time a seven years after his demise? All the signs say Will both wrote and spoke the words.
And is easily answered by pointing out Shakespeare's equally uncultured actor/writer compatriots, who were producing works nearly as good and in a similar vein. Shakespeare blatantly ripped off plot lines from Marlowe. If Marlowe and Jonson could write their works, why not Shakespeare his?
Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote all those plays. LOL
I'm glad you said that. I remember arguments between instructors in my high school over the heritage of Shakespeare, or "Jacques-Pierre" as one malcontent phrased it.
Yes, she was french.
bttt
‘By the Prickings of My Thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes’ Iago as an archetypal devil and his role in Othello mirrors the ancient psychodrama of the pagan Egyptian gods. Iago’s line here in this soliloquy also suggests a parallel to the function of Set in the esoteric and pagan Egyptian cosmology. Iago: Divinity of Hell! Egyptian Book of the Dead
When devils will the blackest of sins put on,
They do suggest at first with heavenly shows,
As I do now.
Behold, I am Set, the creator of confusion, who creates both the tempest and the storm throughout the length and breadth of the heavens.
(Naville, p. 39)Iago serves this role as Set, the Destroyer, who kills his brother Osiris out of jealousy for his popularity. Plotting and weaving a tangled web of deceit, Iago creates confusion, a storm of intrigue that ensnares his victim, Othello. Much like the bejeweled chest of precious wood that Set used to trap Osiris at a feast under the guise of playing a game, Iago also delights in luring victims into a sparkling illusion that imprisons them so that he can manipulate others into serving his desires of destroying them. The entrapment of Othello in a prison of his own delusions of purity and nobility, the manipulation of Cassio under the cherished promise of regaining Othello’s favor, and the treasure of Desdemona used to tempt the ever stupid Rodrigo, all fit this model of esoteric cosmogony.
The idea of Iago as an archetype is not new. In Magic in the Web; Action and Language in Othello, Robert B. Heilman writes:
...we move into the symbolic dimension and use the word archetype to describe that compression of possibilities which is so inclusive that all other characters of the same order seem but partial representations of the original idea. Iago is this kind of character; he is infinitely more than the skillful manipulator of a stratagem... (Heilman, p. 12)
Not far from this, we can also see the intent to cast Iago as the Satan of the Judaic, Christian, and Muslim mythoi. A clue to this is where Iago says; "I am not what I am." (Othello I, I, 65) as opposed to the biblical phrase "I am that I am," representing the Judaic God (Exodus 3:14). More imagery and figurative language used in Iago’s dialogues with other characters, symbolic interactions with them, is also another way to see Shakespeare’s intentions concerning the character.
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seti ("ha-Set-hn" as spoken in the Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "Adversary" of Judaic theology. Malakhim Raoth. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim, according to primary dictionary definition in most college editions.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
Interestingly, "Setebos" was the Patagonian god or devil, alluded to by Shakespeare through Caliban in the Tempest:
Caliban:
His art is of such power
It would control my dam’s god, Setebos,
And make a vassal of him.
This is a curious reference by Shakespeare that is indicative for a pattern of etymology outside of established acceptance.
Iago:
The Moor is of a free and open nature,
That thinks men honest that but seem to be so,
And will as tenderly be led by th’nose
As asses are.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic in Othello. The father of Othello was an Egyptian. The term "asses" in this soliloquy is a literary allusion to this often-bloody conflict between these forces.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass - - an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set) to defame each other.
How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity commonly known to Gentiles as Satan, was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word and that Satan (the "Adversary") figures prominently in the book of Job.
Othello’s instruction to Desdemona about the Egyptian handkerchief is also telling. Ponder the actions of Iago in the play and Othello’s words to Desdemona: " ‘Tis true: there’s magic in the web of it." (Othello III, IV, 65)
What does all this have to do with Shakespeare and Othello? Consider the period of time in which William Shakespeare lived, his oft criticized and "unconventional" use of spelling, punctuation and terminology in a time where there was an effort to standardize the English language. King James I acceded to the throne. He published the detailed treatise Daemonology, because of his concern about witchcraft in Britain (this did have an effect on the presentation of Macbeth and other plays).
There is the matter of the King James Bible to consider. There was pressure from the Church and open condemnation concerning secular drama. (English theatres were actually shut down for 18 years before 1663 when a Puritan government came to power in 1645.) Latin was used in the churches, composed the language found in Bibles, hymnals and was frequently used by the nobility in matters of state affairs. Often history has been colored by the occlusion of religious concerns; translations were subject to interpretation not always in the interest of accuracy. King James I, of England, was targeted for assassination and it is generally believed to be a result of opposition to the Bible translation into the English common language.
Camille Paglia, professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, artfully depicts the dynamics at work in her book Sexual Personae; Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson:
Spenser, Shakespeare, and Freud are the three greatest sexual psychologists in literature, continuing a tradition begun by Euripides and Ovid. Freud has no rivals among his successors because they think he wrote science, when in fact he wrote art. Spenser, the Apollonian pictorailist, and Shakespeare the Dionysian alchemist, compete for artistic control of the English Renaissance. Shakespeare unlooses his metamorphic flood of words and personae to escape Spenser’s rigorous binding... (Paglia, p. 228)
Unless the whole of the professor’s book is taken in as a scholarly commentary on pagan beauty and it’s relation to sex, culture, politics and art or literature, there is some confusion for most readers concerning the analogies being made here...
Spenser’s radiant Apollonian armouring becomes Milton’s louring metallic daemonism, militant and misogynistic. Satan’s legions gleam with hard Spenserian light. Milton sinks when he sings of the foggy formlessness of good. His God is poetically impotent. But his noisy, thrashing Spenserian serpents and monsters; his lush Spenserian embowered Paradise; his evil, envious Spenserian voyeurism: these are immortal. Milton tries to defeat Spenser by wordiness, Judaic word-fetishism, tangling the Apollonian eye in the labyrinth of etymology. Shakespeare succeeded here by joining words to pagan sexual personae... (Paglia, p. 228-229)
This "Judaic word-fetishism" from the above is most illustrative. Like the complexities of the Elizabethan court protocols (relaxed under King James I), the use of language, definitions, etymologies, and the recording of history has also suffered a suppression by those with an interest to keep some things hidden. This is why I will assert that despite authoritative and scholarly denials, William Shakespeare had privy to occult knowledge not commonly available to others in his time, as well as a powerful English King’s ear and patronage.
Iago as the Setian, or Satan, does not separate him from being human, but does indicate Iago as both devil and human (Antichrist), the embodiment of ‘original evil.’ (Heilman, p. 41)
Iago represents an inherent, autonomous evil, not a developing one as in the character of Macbeth. Desdemona unknowingly contributes to Othello’s willingness to eat the poison pome, tricked by the perspicacious serpent that is Iago. The Garden of Eden represented by Desdemona’s purity is plowed asunder with the sins of sanctimonious delusions, Othello murders her and takes upon himself the power to render his God’s divine judgement. Satan conquers the human spirit with Othello’s seppuku.
The Iago evil is redefined for us: his method is planned confusion, The metamorphosis of opposites, the use of "shows" that keep things from being seen in their "true colors." (Heilman, p. 65)
This idea of ‘planned confusion’ from Heilman shows the analogy I made earlier with the Egyptian Book of the Dead and these same lines of the soliloquy. The bejeweled chest of Set’s game to trap Osiris, the weaving of a web, an illusion, the storm of intrigue and the tempest prior to Othello’s arrival in Cyprus. The purity of Desdemona is also a subject Iago continues to assail...
Iago:
So will I turn her virtue to pitch
. (Othello II, III, 350)These images of color are a tool used to portray the darkness, iniquity or evil all throughout Othello as are other references employed to contrast against the divinity and virtue of the Judaic mythoi. Just as the ideas of the heavens being blackened by the gathering storm, the bright daytime sky is always darkened by foul weather. Much of the play projects the imagery as occurring during the night. There is a metaphorical divergence at work as a dramatic device illuminating a contemplative audience to the spiritual battle between the sacred and the profane, of Providence’s divine light and the primordial darkness of Chaos.
When dominated by the Spectre, the self becomes a hermaphroditic Selfhood, whom Blake calls Satan or Death...
...Incestuous self-insemination: the grappling duo is a new Khepera, the masturbatory Egyptian cosmos-maker. Actors and audience are a sexual octopus of many legs and eyes.
The contest between male Spectre and female Emanation is archaic ritual combat. I find homosexual overtones in the betrayal of the self into a queasy spectral world ruled by dark, deceiving male figures. Note the elegance with which Blake’s Spectre theory fits Shakespeare’s Othello. A conspiratorial Spectre, Iago, is homoerotically obsessed with splitting Othello, through jealous fears, from his Emanation, Desdemona. (Jealousy and fear are the Spectres’ regular weapons.) Othello, cleaving to his Spectre instead of casting him off, destroys himself. He ends by not killing his Spectre but his Emanation. (Paglia, p. 287-289)
Iago represents homoeroticism in Othello from the beginning. Not just in his obsessive hatred for Othello but in a seeming contempt for heterosexual relations as evidenced by his reference of Cassio being "A fellow almost damned in a fair wife." (Othello I, I, 21) There is the opening act, the masturbatory fever pitch and sexual imagery of Iago’s speech.
Iago also seems to have this sexual impotence about him, an inborn hostility for women and disgust for heterosexuality as a result. Iago also feels rendered impotent that he was passed over for position by Othello in favor of Cassio, as well as by his own rage. This rage could also be construed as a sadomasochistic component to Iago’s character.
In addition, the description to Othello by Iago about Cassio’s nocturnal speech conjures up a homoerotic imagery. It is also interesting to contemplate the prohibition of women being on the stage during that period, where men in drag portrayed female characters.
It should also be noted in reference to the pagan Egyptian mythos, Set had a battle with Horus, son of Osiris, where he was emasculated. Set managed to tear out one of the god’s eyes. Iago also sets out to mutilate Othello’s spirit, much the same as Set dismembering Osiris. Iago as Set, declaring war, plucks away at Cassio, Othello’s ‘favorite son,’ who’s vision is partially taken away by drink. Cassio does rise to take Othello’s place as governor of Cyprus. Horus accedes to the throne of the heavens. Wounded, the Setian is bound and tortured in the Abyss... Mishlakhat malakhei-roim.
Was it Psalm 43 where you can count 43 words from the beginning to find the word “shake” and 43 from the end to find “spear” ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.