David Aaronovitch
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
Chichester. The weekend. Enter that lovely man Sir Derek Jacobi, the actor-manager and playwright Mark Rylance and the 300 signatories of the “declaration of reasonable doubt” into whether Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare. These doubters include professors of literature, a bulse of distinguished thespians and – pressed into posthumous service – past geniuses such as Mark Twain and Sigmund Freud.
In evidential terms, say these querying anti-Stratfordians, there are too many anomalies and unanswered questions. Such as (take a breath): “not one play, not one poem, not one letter in (his) own hand has ever been found”; he signed his name badly and in shaky writing; his will “contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase”. And lots more in the same vein.
All these things are true. But they contend with some awkward confirmations of the essential truth of William Shakespeare of Stratford having been an actor-playwright at theatres where his plays were produced, and being attributed with authorship of the plays we associate with him. No one in the 17th century doubted his authorship, and contemporaries regarded him as a great poet. And an elaborate hoax or fraud would have to have been perpetrated over two decades by someone seeking to disguise authorship of plays that were popular but not seditious.
Fundamentally, anti-Stratfordianism comes down to one proposition: Shakespeare was too low-class to have been a literary genius. By contrast Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, “received an education incomparable among his peers, exactly the kind one would expect of the writer who was destined to become Shakespeare”. Though, problematically, he was dead at the time of the first production of all of Shakespeare’s later plays.
What is this about? Some of it is just funning, as the Americans say. And some of it may be a desire to be seen. But a lot seems to spring from a desire – possibly unconscious – to pull the supreme poet down from his tower. This is the only way I can explain the unscrupulous use, by good people, of scepticism and doubt. Freud and Twain, as it happens, were also the sons of provincial merchants.
A day or so before the Chichester Doubt-In, the Government announced that it would not be holding an independent inquiry into the 7/7 bombings, despite the campaign mounted by a group comprising several survivors and some of those bereaved in 2005. This group is now to seek a judicial review of the Government’s decision.
There is a straightforward problem here. We know who did it. We know why they did it, because they told us. We know how they did it. We know, from court testimony, that some of the bombers were in contact with people who were under security surveillance, but were not considered to be a threat themselves. We know that this judgment was wrong. But it is a huge leap from this to the idea that an inquiry would, in the words of a representative, “help prevent innocent people from suffering the fate of all those who were caught up in the awful events of that day”.
Let me pose the obvious objection. Suppose that extra surveillance had been placed on a 7/7 bomber – surveillance that had to be taken off another target. And suppose that the second target had been successful in an attack. So there seems to be magical thinking going on here – if only (with hindsight) X had happened, then disaster would have been averted.
Had the call for an inquiry not come from “victims” then I don’t think it would have lasted five minutes. Six of those bereaved (52 died) and 18 survivors (out of several dozen) have put their names to the campaign, though others may well support it. But it could equally be that a majority of “victims” have made no such demand.
The Greater London Assembly passed a motion in May supporting the call for an inquiry “to ensure that public confidence is retained within the security services”. This seems a poor reason to me, and it emphasises that several agendas are being followed here. One of the most public campaigners has said that her problem “is with the government cover-up that happened after the bombings”. Another that an inquiry should “raise questions” about the Government’s foreign policy. David Davis, before the summer, argued for “an independent inquiry into the attacks of July 7 and 21, and their implications for our security strategy” for a whole series of strenuously yoked-together issues.
Presumably we’d now have to have another inquiry into the Glasgow and Haymarket bombs. Or do we inquire only into attacks that succeed? Motivations here seem to me to be varied. Some victims may well be seeking “closure”. Some, I am afraid, may be seeking the absolute opposite. Others are on the bandwagon. Yet we have no idea what the opportunity cost of an inquiry would be in terms of time better spent stopping the next Mohammad Sidique Khan.
So in Chichester we have people pursuing a harmless waste of time, in the courts what might turn out to be a harmful waste of time, and in Leicestershire, the Algarve, a thousand newsrooms and a million homes we have had tens of millions of us pursuing a couple of whose innocence or guilt we have no idea.
Some of the “anomalies” in the case effectively being made against the McCanns were well summarised yesterday by our man in Praia da Luz: Portuguese police are reported to find it suspicious that Kate McCann immediately believed that more than one person had taken her daughter; there is confusion about when members of the party arrived at the tapas restaurant; there is a conflict on how much was drunk that evening; why did Madeleine’s sister and brother sleep through the events? Other papers had even more stuff concerning sniffer dogs and blood traces, all of which were essentially being adduced to support the following insinuated proposition: that Mrs McCann, a mad anaesthetist, had got drunk, oversedated her daughter, accidentally killing her, and along with her husband had covered up the death and, despite being watched continuously, spirited the body away.
Of course, the McCanns have many supporters. But some of us scribblers are well aware that there is also a large and punitive section of the public that has never liked the McCanns. They don’t like their looks, their class, their eloquence. And now the air is full of “I thought they were too good to be true”.
It’s all rubbish. There are always anomalies that can be exploited, sometimes for unconscious reasons. But Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, you can never stop misjudgments being made when tackling terrorists, and no one (bar the abductor or killer and perhaps the police) has the slightest notion what happened to Madeleine McCann.
David Aaronovitch is a writer, broadcaster and commentator on international politics and the media. He writes for The Times Comment page on Tuesdays. He has previously written for The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent, winning numerous accolades, including Columnist of the Year 2003 and the 2001 Orwell prize for journalism. He has appeared on the satirical TV current affairs programme Have I Got News For You and made radio broadcasts on historical topics
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
In response to M. Fishman;
Ironically, 'Shakespeare's' original writings, in the bad quarto did not actually say 'To be, or not to be:that is the question'.
Before being copied out by a scribe many times, he actually wrote:
"To be, or not to be, I there's a point
To die, to sleepe, is that all? I all"
So nothing you take for granted as being written by Shakespeare definatly is.
I don't think it matters who wrote Shakespeare's works. What matters is that it proves humans creative potential.
Catherine Allen, Warwick , UK
The plays were not written by Shahespaeare but by another man with the same name.
Lionel Bartram, Rittman, USA/OHIO
Whether Shakespeare or A, N. Other wrote Hamlet, is of no consequence, but the first lines of the soliloquy "To be or not to be, that is the question, Whether t'is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them", says it all. Could the tragedy that the McCanns face be better portrayed than by the interpretation of these words written 400 years ago?
The McCanns believed the continuous publicity would help in the search for their daughter, they never believed that they would become the victims of "outrageous fortune", but they have, as indeed have the survivors of 7/7 and 21/7. and in their case they are innocent, but guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
M. Fishman, London,
Iâd like a public inquiry to examine carefully the conduct of the emergency services that day - and if there are lessons to be learnt.
The recorded experiences of many of the survivors are somewhat alarming and have never been further investigated with the relevant service involved called to account.
sean dunne, lincoln,
As a Portuguese the only thing I don't like in this story is the blind xenofobia shown aginst the Portuguese when the odds began to be against the couple. If this story goes on for a long time I say that with the political support this couple clearly has, we are going to see the Portugueses police in jail :)
Ines, Oporto, Portugal
Why did her sister and brother sleep through the event(s)? Why not? Wasn't a young girl murdered in a dormitory in Brittany whilst her school friends slept alongside her.Many are burgled with the burglers even removing things from the room in which they are sleeping and they are not disturbed.So why the astonishment?
L.Warren., Lincoln., England
And of course we must never forget how the Mekons, sorry neo-cons, planned and executed 9/11 and how they have managed to keep this brutal, vast, hugely risky and wholly unnecessary conspiracy secret to all apart from a few 'brave' campaigners.
Alan Goldwater, London,
Someone needs to draw a parallel with the Azaria Chamberlain case in Australia in the 1980's. Lindy Chamberlain was suspected of killing her baby, largely because she was unable to gain public sympathy through the media. She was convicted and jailed amid public hysteria, but was later proved to be innocent. The McCanns seem to be the victims of the same sort of dinner party gossip and vilification as Lindy Chamberlain. See the film "Evil Angels" or "A Cry in the Dark"
Rohan, New York, USA
It seems that to cast suspicion on the McCanns has become politicaly incorrect in the eyes of many "scribblers". The truth is that the press has become so biased for the McCanns that to say otherwise is tantamount to heresy. Surely the objective is the search for truth (however painful) and the safe return of Maddie.
Hamad lone, ex-pat brit, Middle East
"Sherlock Holmesâs rule was that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." From your own paper this very day.
Tim , Kingston,
I'm not sure which camp i fall into here. I don't have an opinion about the McCanns one way or another. But where do a start with the carpet bombing the media has engaged in as they try to out-do each other with one excessively sympathetic article after another.
Before the law, the McCanns may be innocent or guilty, we don't know. But i'd climb a mountain of the sympathetic dross masquerading as journalism just to read an article that demonises them in an effort to find some kind of media balance!
James, London,
I'm sorry - but you're quite wrong about Shakespeare. There are many very powerful reasons to doubt the Stratford man's authorship. If you're brave enough to have your deeply held prejudices shattered I suggest you read "Breaking the Shakespeare Codes" - it comes out on Saturday.
Enjoy!
Robert Nield, Hartford, Cheshire
I'm one of the large section of the public that has read an awful lot about the McCanns. Along with the Portuguese police and the media I don't have a clue whether they are innocent or guilty because most of what I have read appears to be opinion or gossip rather than fact. So I shall presume that they are innocent until there is proof to the contrary. Anybody like to join me?
Al, Weybridge,
I entirely agree. I am constantly blown away at how many people think they know enough about the McCanns to judge them, and the manner in which they are dealing with their indisputable grief at losing Madeleine... who are we to judge what is normal or likeable behaviour in this tragic situation (however it started)?
Rebecca, London, UK
Roland Smith
You don't appear to understand the term 'punitive'.
Chris, London,
I'm one of the large and punitive section of the public that has always liked the McCanns. They do indeed seem to be a very nice and pleasant couple and any one adept at reading character must consider them to be innocent.
Roland Smith, Amersham, UK
I'm one of the large and punitive section of the public that has never liked the McCanns. They do indeed seem to be a very odd and unpleasant couple and any one adept at reading character must consider them prime suspects.
ludovic muggleton, pattaya, thailand
The business about what Mrs McCann shouted when she found Madeleine gone is very strange - why has nobody pointed out to the Portugeuse that it's much more natural when under stresss to shout "They"ve taken her!" than "She"s been taken!", and that "they" tends to be the pronoun by default in familiar English? Saying "He's taken her!" or "She's taken her!" would seem more questionable to me, implying that Kate was referring to a particular person, and "Someone's taken her!" is much more cumbersome to say. "They" implies to me surprise, disarray and spontanaiety.
I remember in the case of the British nanny who was accused of killing her charge in America (Louise Woodward, I think): apparently she said of the baby, "I popped him on the bed," and this was for some time taken to mean that she had thrown him down violently, whereas she meant to say simply that she had put him on the bed. The nuances of a language are always tricky, but definitely worth investigating.
Helene, Strasbourg, France
All things are possible, and if there is a trial, we will see the evidence. What will be the worst aspect, is if they are guilty, they deserve to be punished more so for their abuse of the PR process. IF they are guilty. Who knows what happened, but they would not be the first parents to lie about killing a child.
Kevin Brown, Nice, Alpes Maritimes
"Anti-Shakespearianism" comes down to ignorance:
(i) "not one play, not one poem, not one letter in (his) own hand has ever been found". So? I have dozens of historical figures from the same period whose own works do not survive, but other evidence indicates material or ideas can be attributed to them.
(ii) "will contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase". Early-modern wills were typically written on the deathbed. Furthermore, they were usually written by someone else, typically following examples in precedent books. Shakespearean phrases would risk affecting the legal effectiveness of some of the will, so any prudent man would avoid such affectations. This argument fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of a will based on nineteenth century assumptions of the artist as a great man. Part of Shakespeare's genius was to work within existing forms and ideas, knowing what to alter or retain!
So perhaps a good conclusion for the article would be to ignore the ignorant...
JS, Cambridge,
A good point well made, David. Sometimes I think that over-exposure to complicated fictional plots blinds many to the reality that the simplest explanations are usually correct. You could, of course, have added the Dodi and Diana saga to this list as well.
Eric Murray, Auckland,
David Aaronovitch claims to have trouble explaining the 'unscrupulous use, by good people, of doubt and scepticism' concerning the authourship of the Shakespeare plays. The implication in the question is ridiculous. Where is the unscrupuloiusness? The art-history interests of some, including D Aaronovitch apparently, may extend only to the works of art themselves, excluding any discussion of their creators, but it seems obvious that to those who are interested in the creators as well as in their works, the 'anti-Stratfordian' question is of huge legitimate interest. I think Mr Aaronovitch is unscrupulously exploiting an unfortunately widespread lack of appreciation of this point.
James Spurr, South Molton, UK
Hear, hear. A good article, cleverly put.
Sarah, London,
the middle class think shakespeare didn't write his plays because he was working class, and the working class think the McCann's are guilty because they're middle class.
victims of 7/7 are idiotic to demand an enquiry into why they were blown up, because they would've been blown up anyway
thanks dave
john motor, LDN, England