Pages

Thursday 21 October 2021

The errors in 1606: Shakespeare and the Year of Lear

I’m going to start by mentioning the errors pointed out by Himadri (Argumentative Old Git) and partially corrected by Faber & Faber: 

“Much though I enjoyed reading this book, there are a few points where I must register a protest. In a section comparing an older anonymous play about Lear with Shakespeare’s version, Shapiro says:

The anonymous author of Leir had been content to build to a somewhat wooden reconciliation scene between father and daughter, one that failed to pack much emotional punch. Shakespeare’ Lear would substitute for that not one but two powerful recognition scenes: the first between Lear and Cordelia, the second, soon after, where the two plots converge, between the mad Lear and the blind Gloucester. It’s debatable which of the two is the most heartbreaking scene in the play.

 – From Chapter 3

I agree fully with the last sentence above, but the scene between the mad Lear and the blind Gloucester comes before, not after, Lear’s recognition scene with Cordelia.

Later, in an otherwise fascinating passage describing how, in Macbeth, even good people are forced to equivocate, Shapiro, after describing the scene in which Macduff receives the news of the slaughter of his wife and children, continues:

In the long and unsettling scene that follows, yet another seemingly virtuous character, Malcolm, swears and lies to Macduff, telling him that his rapacious and violent nature renders him unfit to rule in Scotland…

From Chapter 10

Actually, Malcolm’s equivocation with Macduff precedes rather than follows the news of Macduff’s slaughtered family.

And from Chapter 13:

The wild drinking scenes aboard ship in Antony and Cleopatra in which Pompey has to be carried off dead drunk…

It is Lepidus, not Pompey, who is carried off dead drunk.”

Himadri was reading a hardback. 

In my paperback copy, the first passage is half-corrected:

“Shakespeare’ Lear would substitute for that not one but two powerful recognition scenes: the first between the mad Lear and the blind Gloucester, the second, soon after, where the plots converge, between Lear and Cordelia. It’s debatable which of the two is the most heartbreaking scene in the play.” (Ch.3) 

The order of scenes has been corrected, but there’s still one error: the two plots of King Lear are the Lear plot and the Gloucester plot, so the meeting of the two men is where the plots converge.

The second passage has been fixed: “follows” replaced with “precedes it”.

The third passage has also been fixed.

However, there seem to be more errors. For example, Shapiro writes: 

“Shakespeare didn’t wait long to locate King Lear within this ongoing debate. King James’s warning about “dividing your kingdoms” is closely echoed in the opening lines of King Lear in Gloucester’s remark about the “division of the kingdoms” (1.3–4). The contemporaneous feel of the beginning of Shakespeare’s play is reinforced in Kent’s first words—“I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall” (1.1–2). Jacobean playgoers knew that King James’s elder son, Henry, was the current Duke of Albany, and his younger one, Charles, the Duke of Cornwall (and, in fact, James did prefer Henry over his sickly younger brother). To speak of Albany was to speak of Scotland (James himself had previously been Duke of Albany, as had his father). It was, for Shakespeare, an uncharacteristically topical start—the opening gossipy exchange marking the play as distinctively Jacobean in its political concerns.” (Ch.2) 

Much as I hate mentioning an anti-Stratfordian, I have to credit Richard Malim for pointing out that Prince Henry (son of James I) was Duke of Rothesay and in 1603 created Duke of Cornwall. His younger brother Charles was Duke of Albany. I have checked it—Charles became Duke of Cornwall in 1612, when Henry died. 

More importantly, the Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Albany already exist in previous writings, such as Holinshed, about King Leir of Britain.

That’s quite embarrassing, I think. The error ruins the passage, and in a way, ruins the entire book for me, because now I’m not sure what else is incorrect that I can’t spot myself. It’s such a pity, 1606 is a compelling and fascinating book.

Please let me know about any other errors or inaccuracies in the book. 

8 comments:

  1. https://contestedyear1606.wordpress.com/
    You've probably seen this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm aware of it.
      It's baffling that the book has such glaring errors but when I google "James Shapiro, 1606, errors", the only things that come up are that website (and its book on Amazon) and my friend Himadri's blog post.
      Reviews of 1606 don't seem to notice the errors.

      Delete
  2. This makes me sad. I loved this book (though I enjoyed 1599 even more) and I like Shapiro. Now I don't know what I can trust from him. Too bad. Important to know, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't continue reading any more after I discovered these errors, and yet nobody talked about them except my friend Himadri, some anti-Stratfordians, and now me.

      Delete
  3. OK. I've read this blog & have mixed feelings. I feel like the author's overall purpose in this book does not require a mass of facts and would be interesting with or without all the fine details.

    On the other hand, facts is facts. And the book is undermined by sloppy editing or whatever caused all the errors.

    There is a disconnect between the error situation and all the glowing reviews from top notch periodicals. But reviewers don't read a book like this and then fact check it. And they are not Shakespeare scholars. The assumption is it's written by a Shakespeare scholar and so, must be accurate.


    I also find it disquieting that an Oxfordian group is spearheading this attack. That doesn't make it any less true that Shapiro has messed up, but I suspect that criticism in "Contested Year" goes well beyond established facts. Why is that book only available in Kindle format for $0.99?

    Bottom line - is it worth reading this book when you don't know if what you're reading is accurate.

    Are there similar problems in "1599". I just ordered it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think 1606 is not a book of literary criticism, but a book about Shakespeare's life and the time in which he lived, so facts are extremely important. When Shapiro made the mistake about titles that I pointed out in my blog post, he was using it to make a point about its meaning and significance, but his "fact" was wrong. I couldn't continue reading after that.
      On the internet, I don't seem to see anyone else, anyone serious point out the errors in the book. And that's a problem.
      I can't say anything about 1599 because I haven't read it, but my impression so far of James Shapiro is that he's quite a careless writer. There are also a few errors in his Contested Will, and I can't help wondering what else is wrong that I just can't know.
      I recommend Jonathan Bate's Soul of the Age though. I finished it recently.

      Delete
  4. Great comment thread! I so loved 1599–I hope it wasn’t as sloppily researched as 1606!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would guess that his other books are the same, as there were errors in Contested Will too.

      Delete

Be not afraid, gentle readers! Share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).