Journal 2 - Shakespeare The Evidence

 

12/1/2000

Shakespeare The Evidence by Ian Wilson

               Interesting story about Dauiden using a medium to solve the problem of authorship.

               Oxfordian claim is based/started because of the descendant and the date of man’s death.  It also doesn’t account for the collaborated plays.

               But bacon claim is just as weak.  Donnelly is not a very respected authority even in regards to his attender books.  Twains was insane to jump on that bandwagon.

               Interesting idea of Shakespeare coming from a Catholic family.  The way Wilson presents it, it does make sense.  Interesting comparing John and Arthur to Elizabeth and Mary.  Of course it is impossible to know if Shakespeare was Catholic.  It’s good that the author says it is impossible to know.

               I honesty don’t know how some women could think that Shakespeare was Queen Elizabeth.  Yes, Elizabeth had the talent.  And the portrait of Shakespeare with the beard and the earring is suppose to be Elizabeth?

               It is also nice to see that that the author raise to the defense of Anne Hathaway to degree.  People seem to drunk on her because (1) they see her as unworthy to marry Shakespeare (2) they don’t like the idea of an older woman marrying a younger man (3) they want Shakespeare to be homosexual only as opposed to bisexual or straight.

 

               Wilson has a point we will never know what the marriage was like.  But what was Shakespeare doing during the time of plagues when the theatres were closed?  He could have back to Stratford.  While Anne may have been illiterate, his two daughters do not seem to have been.

               Wilson himself seems to dislike Elizabeth I.  He seems upset at her for killing Essex and locking Southampton up.  He is right about the subversive text in Shakespeare, at least if you read it looking for it.  But Elizabeth I while being imperious seems to get a bad rep from him.  He [Wilson] seems far more partial to James I, even though James I was not really an effective king.  True no war s but that was caused by other things. Wilson also downplays Cecil’s importance.  Most historian seems to acknowledge Cecil being the source of a smooth transition of power. 

               As for Essex, well, you never see the Queen in her all together.  It just isn’t right!

               Dark Lady seems interesting, especially if you agree with Fitter’s view of Hamlet, the advantages of nobility.  Hamlet could be a reaction to the whole love.  Just as with Tony and Cleo could be subtle defense of James.  If you read Shakespeare a certain way, he seems to have had a thing against the nobility.  [Note: the defense of James in Tony and Cleo may occur with how sympathetic Anthony is drawn in terms of his devotion and love towards Cleo.  He is a man, this theory goes, a good man whose morality is compromised by love.  The key is too look at how the others in the play talk about him.  He is always described in good terms.  Considering James’ blind spots with his male favorites in court.  Tony and Cleo is also about how you cannot outshine your boss when you look at the discussions between some of the soldiers].

               But couldn’t you argue that Julius Caesar is like Essex. Supposedly leading the rebellion for the good of the kingdom but in reality for personal gain?  That that James I released Southampton is evidence of this type if coup.  Elizabeth would have been justified in killing him, just as she was justified in executing Essex, despite what Wilson may think.  It seems to indicate that both Southampton and Essex did plot treason.  So despite how much Wilson hates  Elizabeth, she was justified in her actions, especially if you were paying attention to what Wilson says.  Wilson seems to dislike her because of what she did to promising young men who he seems to think deserved a second chance.

               What did Anne Hathaway look like?  Could she have been the Dark Lady?  It would satisfy those you dislike her.

               With the exception of Judith, the Shakespeare does appear to have been close.  Judith’s problems, one could argue, could have arisen as a responsible to the death of her twin. [Note – Judith had a very complicated relationship with a man who knocked her up while he was seeing someone else.  Pappy Shakespeare was not happy and did not trust this man who would be his son-in-law].

               Would the parish records include miscarriages?  Could it be possible that Anne had miscarriages?  That the birth of the twins caused something to go wrong?  This instead of the lack of relations between spouses?

               Wilson does offer a food explanation of how Shakespeare could have knowledge of court life.  Would like to know more about Ferdinando

               As for Shakespeare being Catholic, Wilson does have some very good points.  But then again, couldn’t’ the family had been divided?  The grandfather converting the grand

daughter?

               Scary to think the English are thinking of taking Shakespeare off of the curriculum

               WTG Folyes!  England has ben plundered just as she has plundered other nations.  Can just imagines the chaos that would ensue if all museums had to return items to their birth countries?  But what is the solution to the concerns?  They are legitimate.