|
|
There was something I don’t believe they had quite
bargained for: I had been a devotee of plays and the experience of the
theater before my affair with Shakespeare began. From the tragic poets of
ancient Greece to the drama of Williams, Miller and Anouilh; from the
comedy of Aristophanes to Moliere, from the Restoration to Wilde, I loved
the way that the stage brought to life the diversity of the human
experience over the ages. I didn’t think then, nor do I now, that there
is Shakespeare – never mind the rest.
This then was the man who took a flight to Los Angeles
in August 1989. I didn’t get what I bargained for either. Happily. In
the two months I spent among the members of the Roundtable, I was never
made to feel in the least Satanic. Quite the contrary. Rather than
smart-alecky, rude and insulting fanatics, I found myself in the company
of warm and gracious people; our conversations were relaxed and cordial
without a hint of rancor. This set the tone of my experience of the
controversialists in the years since, with few exceptions. There are, as
there are bound to be in any group, some lacking in etiquette; a few who
are casebook examples of Churchill’s definition of the fanatic: “one
who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” They can be
especially vexing in the age of the Internet, making madding use of its
weapon of mass distraction, email. But for the rest, we at worst most
agreeably disagreed.
I knew to most it was “Oxford all that way down,”
and therefore I was not, I assured them, out to change minds – only
“to present the facts as I see them.” This has guided me through over
all these years and allowed me to enjoy the company of most on the turtle
side, and to have only the warmest memories of them. It has also kept me
from taking criticism of my writings and disagreements over issues
personally.
On the other hand, in making the case for Oxford,
cautions are thrown to the winds. In uncovering shortcomings and errors in
orthodox scholarship they perform a valuable service. They are often on
target in saying that the assumption of the author’s identity is a
source for error. But setting the record straight is not their goal. It
is, rather, finding flaws that may be used as a loom for reinterpreting,
even reinventing, a given source or a specific topic, in order to weave
another tale in the “greatest detective story there ever was.” There
are no qualifying words here, nor the careful distinction “between
demonstrable fact and tentative conjecture.” Not much is left to the
judgment of the reader, the juror in “The High Court of Public
Opinion” (as the 1987 moot was called). To the contrary, there is little
of the “full and sound documentation [that] will furnish the reader with
the means of testing both conjecture and stated fact.” Thus may the
demand for absolute proof from Shakespeareans disguise the fact that
Oxfordians do not offer factual evidence to the contrary; and thus may the
assumptions of Shakespeareans be transmuted to serve the certainties of
Oxfordians. For it should not go unmentioned that they also analyze data
based on their assumption of who the author is.
Reading such scholarship makes me think of what
an Oxfordian with a political bent wrote in a letter to me, “it
doesn’t matter how right you are if you still lose the debate.” Said
another in his preface to a scholarly paper, it is not his responsibility
to prove his scholarship right, but that of critics to prove it wrong.
More than once I have been told that errors of fact in one or another
Oxfordian argument do not “invalidate” its conclusion. It is, to put
it politely, remarkable that those who hold Shakespeare’s scholars to an
absolute standard, apply a somewhat less rigid standard to themselves.
For another thing, a curious reader may be forgiven for
wondering how bad Oxfordian scholarship can be. They are, after all,
willing to do something Shakespeareans are loath to do: put their
scholarship into the public arena.
This openness not only advances their cause but,
perhaps more importantly, also offers the public a chance to join in the
discussion of a figure that has a distinct, personal place in their lives,
while Shakespeareans shun them.
This divide is furthered by their willingness to
invite Shakespeareans to join in the dialogue. I here give the floor to
Ward Elliott, an Oxfordian convert to Shakespeare, who wrote to me in
regard to his erstwhile cohorts: “I think it is to their credit that
they invite contrarian views like [mine], and that they print contrarian
views like [his] ... I would be astonished to see the Baconians and
Marlovians do such a thing.” More astonishing still would be
seeing Shakespeareans offer a forum for discussing authorship issues, be
they Oxfordian, Baconian, Marlovian – or even Shakespearean.
This points to the most important reason for
addressing the controversy, one that academic scholars may find most
distasteful: putting their scholarship into the public intellectual
marketplace. In most subjects this may make little difference, in the case
of Shakespeare it does. Children, nowadays, may be introduced to him in
primary school and he will probably be in the curriculum through college.
But unless a student’s doctoral thesis is of a kind that allows
admission to Shakespeare studies in academe, the student-no-more has no
place in, no right to join in, the discussion of Shakespeare. In this
climate, the idea of coming (no less going) face to face with fierce
controversialists seems especially unappealing.
Of course this also excludes such as the people
I’ve encountered who don’t care much (if at all) about the
controversy, who are at least as interested in the plays as they are in
their author leave me with no doubt about either the depth of their
interest or of their desire to comprehend both. Many have told me their
questions are ones they have long wanted to ask or have waited to hear
addressed. I have encountered many more such people than those who are
interested or involved in the controversy. Their questions are often good
ones, a surprising number of which have led me to something useful –
even, on occasion, important.
The silence of Shakespeareans leaves a void that
Oxfordians are only too eager to fill. It is a major reason for their
success. For they welcome all and offer each a chance to discuss and
explore both the man and his works, to participate actively in the
discussion, rather than to be a student eternally – a passive, unengaged
receptacle of information that is neither adequate nor satisfying. Indeed,
Oxfordian meetings often offer opportunities to advance their education.
For instance, formal Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable meetings feature
talks by recognized scholars and experts in such topics as “Shakespeare
in Performance,” Holinshed’s Chronicles, and “Music in the
Age of Shakespeare.” Oh yes, and talks by orthodox Shakespeareans too.
All the lecturers survived.
As have I. As has Frank Wadsworth, the author of the
first book about the controversy by an orthodox scholar, The Poacher
from Stratford (1958). Thirty-five years later he wrote an article,
“The Poacher Re-Visited,” for The Shakespeare Newsletter. In it
he said:
It is important that we
recognize the iconoclasts, particularly those of us who are teachers. But
as Shakespeareans … we should not do it by visiting upon them the
disdain of the past but by letting them speak freely for themselves …
Our role should be not to suppress debate but to instruct students how to
consider the Oxfordians’ (and others’) arguments carefully and
thoughtfully. That exercise will make students not just more responsible
as far as Shakespeare is concerned, but also wiser, more critical, more
judicial, in dealing with the complex challenges they will face in the
difficult decades which lie ahead of them.
We demystify authorship
controversies, assassination conspiracies, theories of extra-terrestrial
shindigs, even painful social demands, by letting their proponents speak
out, not by censoring them. At least that’s what I thought when I wrote The
Poacher from Stratford. And still do.
Curiously, that’s pretty much what I thought when I
wrote Shakespeare, In Fact. And still do.
©
2004 Irvin Leigh Matus
●
Return
to ALL THINGS SHAKESPEARE ●
|