Being Shakespeare

I went to see the one man show “Being Shakespeare” at Trafalgar Studios tonight. It was required for my Shakepeare course and is the last play I have to attend alone, which is a nice relief. I was honestly expecting to be rather bored. We have already discussed Shakespeare’s history in my class and the idea of listening to one man talk for two straight hours is a bit off-putting, but I went anyways and actually found it rather enjoyable.

Trafalgar Studios (from far away).

The performance itself (by actor Simon Callow of “Four Weddings and a Funeral” fame) was a great mix of Shakespeare’s life and quotes from his work. As he spoke about Shakespeare’s time working as an actor, he quoted from “As You Like It,” as he discussed Shakespeare’s illness in old age, he quoted “King Lear,” etc. It was a surprisingly entertaining telling of information that I was already familiar with, plus a few interesting facts I was unaware of. All in all, I really enjoyed the performance including the ice cream at intermission. :)

Despite its entertaining appeal, I don’t think the performance did much to sway my opinion on the Shakespearean authorship debate. For those of you who shun all things Shakespeare as dense and overwrought (don’t worry, I was one of you once), the authorship debate is a currently raging disagreement among scholars regarding who the great Shakespeare truly was. Many of us were raised with the tale of the glove maker’s son from Stratford-upon-Avon who rose from actor to writer to theatre owner as all good working class heroes do. However, upon greater study it has been suggested that perhaps William Shakespeare from Stratford was simply the common man whose name happened to sound like the pen name for one of England’s greatest playwrights. These scholars, known as Oxfordians (versus Stratfordians, believe that the true talent behind Shakespeare is a man named Edward de Vere, the 17^th Earl of Oxford. Given Shakespeare’s unparalleled grasp on human interactions, especially among the nobility, it is argued that he must have been a member of Queen Elizabeth’s inner circle to have such knowledge. It is also stated that the settings of many of Shakespeare’s works, in Denmark, Italy, etc. are far too accurate depictions for a middle class man from Stratford to have dreamed up. As an Earl, Edward de Vere would have travelled extensively and would have the first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the Queen’s court. Perhaps the most convincing argument for Oxfordianism is the presence of Shakespeare from Stratford’s signature on legal documents from the time of his life. These signatures suggest that Shakespeare was barely literate, a trait expected of the glove maker’s son in a small village. Edward de Vere, on the other hand, was educated in the Queen’s household and graduated from Cambridge. It is suggested that he wrote under the pen name “Shakespeare” because his coat of arms features a shaking spear and writing was not seen as a respectable profession during his lifetime.

Either way you stand on the debate, it is certainly thought provoking. While I think everyone can agree that Shakespeare’s words, rather than his identity, is his true contribution to literature, it is interesting nonetheless.

If you want to read more about the authorship debate, there are some great articles surrounding it if you search “Shakespeare Authorship Debate.”

cheers,
kate.