Shakespeare and Myths About Genius

[GreatGazoo]

30. I approach the Shakespeare biography as a historian

Shapiro and other traditionalists write the biography as literature. For example, Shapiro wrote an entire book just on the year 1606 -- "The Year of Lear: Shakespeare in 1606". This is something a historian would not do because there are absolutely no records of what Shakespeare was doing in 1606. There are over 60 documents -- birth records, death records, fines, the grain hoarding, the Mountjoy deposition, etc. -- but none of those shine any light on 1606. Filling in blanks where evidence is absent is the fodder of conspiracy theory and it is unscholarly.

Shapiro, like most literary experts, is strong on the works (literary criticism) but he does not stick to facts when writing about the life of the author. He is working outward from the works to what he assumes about how and when they were written. I came back to the Shakespeare biography while researching Henry Hudson (~1565 to ~ 1611). More water in the northern hemisphere is named for Hudson than for any other person yet we have almost no documentation of his life outside of the 1607, 1608, 1609 and 1610 voyages. When historians write about Hudson they make very clear what is documented versus what is contextual. They footnote and quote source materials, mostly Juet's log. Shapiro, on the other hand, boldly asserts what "must have" happened yet his assertions stray far from the 60+ primary source documents. Shapiro has a lot of fun filling in blanks but I have to stick to the historical record.

Hudson and Shakespeare are contemporaries. Both work in London at a time when the population was around 100,000. Both have ties to the printing business which is VERY small and very tightly controlled. There are less than 23 master printers operating less than 60 presses so it is fairly easy for historians to track those involved. I was initially excited by the idea that I could tie Hudson and Shakespeare via the gestation of 'The Tempest' or via patrons. I found a lot of material on Dr John Dee (1527 to ~1609), whom some had proposed was an inspiration for the character of Prospero. Dee is part of the inner circle of Queen Elizabeth and Dee publishes, among many things, the first English textbook on euclidean geometry, a skill which is key to navigation. Dee was an advocate of looking for the northwest passage or a path straight over the pole.

I was easily able to track Dee, Hudson, Dudley Digges, Haklyut (a printer of maps and travel literature), John Smith and Walter Raleigh through their dealings in London but I could not, using primary source materials, track Shakespeare beyond the Mountjoy deposition and the Gatehouse purchase. Neither of which ties to patrons, publishing or exploration.

Went the other way, eg FROM Shakespeare to any of the others. Looked at Philip Henslowe's (1550- 1616) diary which gives us primary source documentation for performances of Henry VI, Titus Andronicus and a play titled "The Taming of A Shrew" (not "the Shrew&quot . Henslowe tells us who wrote plays, how much they were paid, how well the plays did with audiences. He pays Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, Henry Chettle, George Chapman, Thomas Dekker, John Webster, Anthony Munday, Henry Porter, John Day, John Marston and Michael Drayton. Who's missing?

It has been frustrating and I understand now why historians side step the Shakespeare biographies -- sorting fact from assertions in them is very time consuming and fruitless. Shapiro seems attracted to 1606 because it give him free reign. He treats the lack of facts a "feature, not a bug".