30 Great Myths about Shakespeare

223 Pages·2012·2.319 MB·English

by  Laurie Maguire, Emma Smith(auth.)

30
GREAT MYTHS
ABOUT
SHAKESPEARE
For Katherine Duncan-Jones
30
GREAT MYTHS
ABOUT
SHAKESPEARE
Laurie Maguire
Emma Smith
A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
Thiseditionfirstpublished2013©2013JohnWiley&SonsLtd
Wiley-BlackwellisanimprintofJohnWiley&Sons,formedbythemergerofWiley’s
globalScientific,TechnicalandMedicalbusinesswithBlackwellPublishing.
RegisteredOffice
JohnWiley&SonsLtd,TheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO19
8SQ,UK
EditorialOffices
350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148-5020,USA
9600GarsingtonRoad,Oxford,OX42DQ,UK
TheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UK
Fordetailsofourglobaleditorialoffices,forcustomerservices,andforinformationabout
howtoapplyforpermissiontoreusethecopyrightmaterialinthisbookpleaseseeour
websiteatwww.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
TherightofLaurieMaguireandEmmaSmithtobeidentifiedastheauthorsofthiswork
hasbeenassertedinaccordancewiththeUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrieval
system,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,
photocopying,recordingorotherwise,exceptaspermittedbytheUKCopyright,Designs
andPatentsAct1988,withoutthepriorpermissionofthepublisher.
Wileyalsopublishesitsbooksinavarietyofelectronicformats.Somecontentthatappears
inprintmaynotbeavailableinelectronicbooks.
Designationsusedbycompaniestodistinguishtheirproductsareoftenclaimedas
trademarks.Allbrandnamesandproductnamesusedinthisbookaretradenames,service
marks,trademarksorregisteredtrademarksoftheirrespectiveowners.Thepublisheris
notassociatedwithanyproductorvendormentionedinthisbook.Thispublicationis
designedtoprovideaccurateandauthoritativeinformationinregardtothesubjectmatter
covered.Itissoldontheunderstandingthatthepublisherisnotengagedinrendering
professionalservices.Ifprofessionaladviceorotherexpertassistanceisrequired,the
servicesofacompetentprofessionalshouldbesought.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Maguire,LaurieE.
30greatmythsaboutShakespeare/LaurieMaguireandEmmaSmith.
p.cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-0-470-65850-5(hardback:alk.paper)–ISBN978-0-470-65851-2(pbk.:alk.
paper)
1.Shakespeare,William,1564-1616–Criticismandinterpretation.I.Smith,Emma
(EmmaJosephine)II.Title.III.Title:ThirtygreatmythsaboutShakespeare.
PR2976.M362013
822.3(cid:2)3–dc23
2012026659
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
Setin10/12ptSabonbyLaserwordsPrivateLimited,Chennai,India
12013
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Myth1 Shakespearewasthemostpopularwriterofhistime 6
Myth2 Shakespearewasnotwelleducated 11
Myth3 Shakespeare’splaysshouldbeperformedin
Elizabethandress 18
Myth4 Shakespearewasnotinterestedinhavinghisplays
printed 26
Myth5 Shakespearenevertraveled 34
Myth6 Shakespeare’splaysarepoliticallyincorrect 40
Myth7 ShakespearewasaCatholic 47
Myth8 Shakespeare’splayshadnoscenery 54
Myth9 Shakespeare’stragediesaremoreseriousthanhis
comedies 60
Myth10 Shakespearehatedhiswife 66
Myth11 Shakespearewroteintherhythmsofeveryday
speech 72
Myth12 HamletwasnamedafterShakespeare’sson 80
Myth13 ThecoarsebitsofShakespeareareforthe
groundlings;thephilosophyisfortheupperclasses 86
Myth14 ShakespearewasaStratfordplaywright 94
Myth15 Shakespearewasaplagiarist 99
vi Contents
Myth16 Wedon’tknowmuchaboutShakespeare’slife 106
Myth17 Shakespearewrotealone 113
Myth18 Shakespeare’ssonnetsareautobiographical 119
Myth19 IfShakespearewerewritingnow,he’dbewritingfor
Hollywood 125
Myth20 TheTempest wasShakespeare’sfarewelltothestage 130
Myth21 Shakespearehadahugevocabulary 137
Myth22 Shakespeare’splaysaretimeless 143
Myth23 Macbethisjinxedinthetheater 150
Myth24 Shakespearedidnotrevisehisplays 156
Myth25 Boyactorsplayedwomen’sroles 163
Myth26 Shakespeare’splaysdon’tworkasmovies 169
Myth27 Yorick’sskullwasreal 175
Myth28 QueenElizabethlovedShakespeare’splays 183
Myth29 Shakespeare’scharactersarelikerealpeople 190
Myth30 Shakespearedidn’twriteShakespeare 196
Coda 202
FurtherReading 207
Index 211
ThismemorialmonumentinthegardenofthechurchofSt.MarytheVirgin,
Aldermanbury,London,isactuallyadoubletribute.Itcommemorates
Shakespeareandthetwoeditorswhocollectedhisplaysintheposthumous
memorialvolumeofComedies,Histories,&Tragedies(1623).
Photo:Col.PeterJ.DurrantMBE.
INTRODUCTION
This book attempts to interrogate the things we think we know about
Shakespeare, and we have called this body of knowledge ‘‘myths.’’ Why
‘‘myths’’? We were drawn to this term for the Shakespeare content in
eachofourchaptersbecause‘‘myth’’foregroundstheactofstorytelling;
because it underlines the cultural work these stories do rather than their
accuracy; because it is not about a specific point of origin but about
accepted beliefs; because it is about the people who accept or invent or
need these stories as much as it is about the stories themselves. Not all
of our myths are untrue: in calling these beliefs ‘‘myths’’ we are less
interestedinstigmatizingthemasfoolishorunsubstantiatedthanweare
concernedtounderstandhowtheybecomeossifiedandblock,ratherthan
enable,ourinterpretationofShakespeare’sworks.
Karen Armstrong’s A Short History of Myth (2005) offers some pithy
observations. Myths are dynamic: they change over time, they adapt
themselves to cultural and historical developments, they have accretions
anddeletions,theyironout–oraccumulate–contradictions.Mythsare
not historically accurate: they do not work by being factual; they are
interested in what an event meant, not in what actually happened; they
are designed to be effective, not true. Myths provide explanations for
somethingwemightnototherwisebeabletomakesenseof;theygiveus
comfort.Mythsservedifferentpurposesatdifferenttimes,beingfactored
intoaculture’snationalorreligiousorpoliticalhistory.And,sheargues,
humans are myth-seeking creatures.1 That is to say, we are creatures
drawntostories.Myth,fromtheGreekmuthos,meanssomethingthatis
told, a speech, a narrative, a fiction, a plot. From here it comes to mean
asetofbeliefs(personalorcollective).
30GreatMythsAboutShakespeare,FirstEdition.LaurieMaguireandEmmaSmith.
©2013JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.Published2013byJohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
2 Introduction
MythsaboundaboutShakespeareinpartbecauseofhalf-remembered
orout-of-datescholarshipfromschooldays,becauseShakespearetheman
is such an elusive and charismatic cultural property, and because inter-
ventions in Shakespeare studies, particularly biographical and theatrical
ones,makeheadlinenews:witnessthe‘‘authorshipquestion’’(Myth30)
orspeculationaboutShakespeare’sbeliefsorsexuality(Myths7and18).
Put simply, myths are told and retold about Shakespeare because no
other writer matters as much to the world: nineteenth-century Germany
had a flourishing academic Shakespeare criticism before England did;
IndiahadaShakespeareSocietybeforeEngland;Shakespeareisregularly
performedatamateurandprofessionallevels,intranslation,worldwide.
ShakespeareisnotjustEnglish(asGermany’s‘‘unser[our]Shakespeare’’
attests). Thus myths about Shakespeare go some way toward telling us
storiesaboutourselves.
As Armstrong details, myths can be fictional and erroneous–and
many, but not all, of these Shakespeare myths are–but more often
they turn out, in important and revealing ways, to follow two related
definitionsoftheword‘‘myth’’fromtheOxfordEnglishDictionary.The
firstis
Atraditionalstory,typicallyinvolvingsupernaturalbeingsorforces,which
embodiesandprovidesanexplanation,aetiology,orjustificationforsome-
thing such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a
naturalphenomenon.
WhileShakespeareisnotquitea‘‘supernatural’’being,manyofthemyths
wediscussexplainorjustifywidelyheld,oftenunexamined,beliefsabout
art, authorship, and cultural value. The second relevant definition of
myth is ‘‘a popular conception of a person or thing which exaggerates
or idealizes the truth.’’ Many of our myths are just that: popular, often
reiteratedideaswhichmayhaveabasisinfact,butwhichover-emphasize
the available evidence or speculate to fill in gaps in the documentary
record.OftenthehonestanswertoourquestionsaboutShakespearehas
to be that we are unsure: in place of that uncertainty, myths provide
comforting and positive ‘‘truths’’ about the subject. In this book we try
to peel our collective fingers from this comfort blanket, even though
sometimes the unsettling outcome is that we know less than we thought
wedid.
Thisbookarosefromourinterestinarelatedbookinadifferentfield:
Fifty Great Myths of Popular Psychology (2009). The book includes
such familiar propositions as: opposites attract; we use only 10 percent
of our brain power; playing Mozart to babies boosts their intelligence;
it’s better to express anger than to hold it in. These are myths that have
Introduction 3
becometraditionaltruths;infact,theyhaveattainedproverbialstatus,as
theepigrammaticchapterheadingsshow.Thebook’ssubtitle,Shattering
Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior, indicates its pur-
pose: it is a demythologizing book. The authors explain: ‘‘In this book,
we’llhelpyoutodistinguishfactfromfictioninpopularpsychology,and
provideyouwithasetofmyth-bustingskillsforevaluatingpsychological
claims scientifically.’’2 What, we wondered, were the equivalent myths
thatpopulatepopularunderstandingofShakespeare?
Abookexploringthisquestionalreadyexists:StanleyWells’IsitTrue
What They Say about Shakespeare?3 Wells’ encyclopedic Shakespeare
knowledge is here put to the service of eighty-nine myths about Shake-
speare’s life and authorship. He considers whether Shakespeare ‘‘had a
shotgun wedding,’’ ‘‘was gay,’’ ‘‘died of syphilis,’’ ‘‘wrote a play called
Cardenio,’’ ‘‘portrayed himself as Prospero,’’ or ‘‘uses an exceptionally
largevocabulary.’’LikeFiftyGreatMythsofPopularPsychology,Wells’
isamyth-bustingbook.Wellsinterrogatesthecategorieswithinvigorat-
ingbriskness,andendseachchapterwithaverdict:‘‘unlikely,’’‘‘maybe,’’
‘‘I remain sceptical.’’ Although we investigate many of the same cate-
gories as Wells, it is not because we disagree with his conclusions but
because we are interested in different things. When we consider the
question of whether ‘‘Shakespeare was the most popular writer of his
day,’’forinstance,weareinterestedinthedauntingquestionofhowone
would even begin to evaluate such a proposition, where one might go
for evidence to support or refute it, in fact, what constitutes ‘‘evidence’’
(print runs? reprints? references to Shakespeare? audience attendance?);
wearenotinterestedinreachingaYesorNoconclusion.
Thenumberofessaysinthisbook–thirtytotheeighty-nineofWells’
bookorthefiftyofthePsychologybook–illustratesourdifferentfocus.
ManyofWells’mythsaresummarizedinoneparagraphor,memorably,
even one sentence. We have given ourselves 2,000–2,500 words for
each of our myths. It is no coincidence that this is the length of the
standard undergraduate essay (or newspaper article). As academics we
are accustomed to writing in chapter-chunks of 8,000-12,000 words.
Hereweareinterestedinseeingjusthowmuchonecandointheshorter
essay format, how much information a 2,000-word essay can develop,
howmanyturnsofanargumentitcanmake;inshort,howitcanpursue
evidencewithoutgettingtooboggeddownindetail.Wehavelearnedalot
fromthisexercise;anditisourhopethatstudentsmaylearnfromreading
ourexamplesoftheformatinwhichtheyconductalltheirarguments.
Thisisnottosaythatwehavewrittenthisasacompositiontextbook.
We hope, equally, that the general Shakespeare reader and lover will
find much of interest in the material we cover, and will find a path
from well-known and often-repeated ideas into plays, approaches, and