Hoax millennium. H.1 / 3

What are we all about politics, yes about politics? Sometimes it is useful to take a break from it, especially on the eve of the brightest and most carefree holidays of the year. Isn't it better, as an exception, to change the record and to do something no less interesting, for example, a literary-historical detective story that has been stirring minds for more than one century?

Do you know what a “literary project” is? This is when one person writes on the order of another, and this other one assigns authorship to himself. The phenomenon of “literary blacks” (in English “ghost writers” - ghost writers) is well known all over the world. Alexander Dumas-father, for example, held a whole stable of literary assistants, who made blanks on his instructions, and then the master passed on raw materials with his magic pen, and the material began to sparkle and sparkle.

But, probably, nowhere literary projects practice has not reached such a scope as in the Soviet Union. Almost all the gigantic virgin lands of national literature was raised by a mighty host of brisk Moscow writers who, on behalf of the national talents, pursued crafts with an on-line method, designed to visually demonstrate how the culture of small nations flourished under the sun of Soviet power.

And the ignorant reading masses only had to marvel at the fecundity and political literacy of some Jambul: they will not have time to blow out a new blast furnace in Cherepovets, as he has a whole poem ready to glorify the feat of the valiant metallurgists; another victory in the battle for the harvest was won - the quick akyn is right there again.

Pseudo-authors could only indulge in endless seats in all sorts of presidiums, and inordinate use of intoxicating beverages. But those who wrote under their name, had bread and butter, and even with caviar. Sometimes they did not even bother to search for real "writers", but simply invented them - for example, Suleiman Stalsky was woven from the air. Admittedly, famously invented, one name is worth something - almost Stalin! (I recommend Felix Rosiner's wonderful novel “Somebody Finkelmayer” to those interested in this topic.)

But, of course, the peak of such frauds was the career of Mikhail Sholokhov, who, apparently, has not written a single line in his entire life. It is impossible not to admire the bold idea of ​​the competent authorities, from an illiterate alcoholic who fashioned a world-famous writer and even obtained the Nobel Prize for literature for his homunculus. And yet, without detracting from the greatness of the feat of the brave KGB men, we have to admit that it pales in comparison with a much more grandiose hoax, which can rightly be called a literary project of the millennium. His name is William Shakespeare.

Probably not in the history of culture of a larger figure. Shakespeare is unanimously glorified as the greatest poet and playwright, almost the only genius in modern history, who can be put on a par with the giants of antiquity. For more than four hundred years now, as his plays go around the world, in all the languages ​​of the world, lovers memorize his sonnets. And in English-speaking culture, Shakespeare generally occupies a unique place as one of the main creators of modern English, who created several thousand neologisms and new phraseological turns, and moreover introduced many biblical utterances and aphorisms into the language circulation.

A whole industry sprang up around Shakespeare, thousands of books and scholarly works were written about it, a whole army of literary critics was engaged in the research of its creative heritage, a considerable library can be made from its biographies. Meanwhile, almost nothing is known about him. And those crumbs that have come down to us inspire very serious doubts about the fact that a modest provincial burgher named William Shaksper was the brilliant 38 author of great dramatic works and 154 sonnets, which, according to eminent American literary critic Howard Blum, do not only form the basis “Canon of western culture,” but in fact they themselves are this canon.

It is for certain that historic William Shakesper was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in April 1554 in a large family of shopkeeper and alderman John Shaksper. In November, 1582, young William, who was barely eighteen, married (apparently under duress) Anne Hathaway, pregnant with him, eight years his senior. She bore him three children, of whom two daughters survived the father.

In 1592, William Shuksper moved to London, where he became an actor, and later a shareholder in a popular theater troupe. In 1604, he returned home and, almost until his death, lived in his native Stratford, almost without a vagabond, successfully working in commerce and usury. During these 12 years, he traveled to London only once - but not in literary matters, but as a witness at the trial.

He died on April 23 of the year 1616 and was buried in the local cemetery. On its tombstone, a tasteless verse epitaph is carved in the spirit of sentimental postcards, which, in the days of my youth, were sold in all “Soyuzpechat” kiosks. I remember now: rye with cornflowers and the inscription “May our friendship with you so quietly flourish, like a golden blue cornflower in rye”. Frankly speaking, poetry is not a Shakespearean one.

Information about the life of the “Avon Swan” is based only on a handful of documentary evidence - a concise record in the parish book about the baptism of the newborn William Shaksper, similar records about the baptism of his three brothers and two sisters, his own marriage and the birth of his 26 in May 1583 of Suzanna’s daughter, February 2, 1585, the twins Hamnet and Judith, as well as several court papers and sales contracts. And nothing more.

That's the whole documentary basis of the biography of William Shaksper. Numerous details that have his biographies, issued to the top by prolific Shakespearers, are simply invented, taken from the ceiling, sucked from the finger. Not from a good life, the authors of all these pood volumes fill their works with all sorts of dodge-like turns like “probably”, “it’s easy to guess ...”, “you can imagine ...”, “most likely”, “should be”, etc. Composers have to strain all their imagination and to excel, because there are no facts at their disposal.

The most significant of the surviving documents is the will of William Shaksper made a month before his death. But instead of shedding light on the secret of his personality, the testament only raises new questions. To begin with, this three-page document was not written by the testator himself, but by his solicitor. This is a dry, legally quite literate document, set out by ordinary cloth clerk. It gives William Shakespear's orders regarding his property.

The main heirs are both daughters. The wife, with whom Shaksper clearly did not get along, was refused only a “second-quality bed”. Among those whom the testator noted, there are three actors from his old troupe, but not a single writer is mentioned, although in that era, eloquent appeals were made to colleagues in the workshop. Again, in violation of the custom, there are no expressions of gratitude to high-ranking patrons and benefactors who are repeatedly mentioned in the works of Shakespeare - primarily the Earl of Southampton, Lord Rutland and Lady Pembroke.

The document provides a detailed inventory of the property to be distributed among the heirs. But among the beds and other furniture, household items and kitchen utensils, you will in vain search for musical instruments or books. At that time, books were of great value, and often they were even chained to a desk, so as not to tempt friends and relatives. Therefore it is impossible to imagine that the author of the testament of forgetfulness did not mention them in his last order.

The reason for their absence is much more prosaic - Shaksper did not have a single book. Yes, and where they come from? His parents and children did not know literacy, he himself, apparently, was also not a major literacy. His apologists say that he, he says, borrowed books from acquaintances. Who knows, maybe so. But if a wealthy businessman Shaksper was a bookworm, he could well afford to buy books, but this did not occur to him.

It is not even known whether he knew how to read. A school existed at that time in Stratford, for the son of a respected alderman her door was open. Therefore, it is logical to assume that Shaksper visited her. But even the most ardent Stratfordians (supporters of the traditional theory of the identity of William Shakesper and William Shakespeare) do not deny that his education was limited to this.

Nor are the manuscripts mentioned in the will, although the 18 plays of Shakespeare (including, for example, Julius Caesar, The Taming of the Shrew, and Anthony and Cleopatra) were just waiting for publication at the time of his death. It is hard to imagine that an eminent writer did not take care of his spiritual heritage. But you will not turn away from the facts: in the will there is not a word about manuscripts. The only man-made traces left by the Stratford Former are his signatures under the documents. However, they do not shed light on the riddle of their owner, on the contrary - they only further thicken the darkness around this mysterious person.

One glance at these gnarled, scribbledly scrawled with an inept hand does not suffice to conclude that they could not belong to a man whose literary heritage reaches almost a million words. The signature of "Shakespeare" hesitantly spelled out a hand that was clearly not accustomed to writing. Moreover, all of his signatures are different from each other - a sure sign of the lack of skill penmanship, which always produces a characteristic handwriting. It is also worth noting that Mr. Shuksper signed either as “Shaksper” or “Shaks”, but none of his six well-known signatures correspond to the spelling name under which the printed works of William Shakespeare were published.

It is striking that Shakspere’s death in London was completely unnoticed - not a line of public condolences or expressions of grief, not a single mention of the death of a man, who is attributed to authorship of poetic and dramatic works that were very popular among his contemporaries. This is especially surprising, given that the lavish glorifications of colleagues who had died in the Bose were accepted in literary circles of that time.

The Library of Congress holds the 1622 bestseller of the year called “True Gentleman”. On the pages of 95-96 we find in it a list of the greatest poets of the Elizabethan era, the most eminent word masters and subtle thinkers of the “Golden Age, who can hardly be expected in the next centuries,” writes the author of “True Gentleman” Henry Peach.

The finger slides through the list. Bah, all familiar faces that any connoisseur of the Shakespearean era will recognize. And only one name is not on the list - the name of William Shakespeare. Probably a simple misstep, which was subsequently eliminated? But no, and in the second edition, published in 1627, Shakespeare is not mentioned. It is neither in the third edition (1634), nor in the fourth (1661), when it was already firmly established in the canon of English-language literature.

Omitting Shakespeare from the list of leading writers of the Elizabethan era is tantamount to excluding Pushkin from the history of Russian literature. Publisher Oversight? But Henry Peach was jealous of his duties and could not show such negligence. Maybe he adhered to progressive convictions and threw Shakespeare from the ship of modernity, anticipating the Russian cubist futurists of the early 20th century? No, as far as we know, there was no revolutionary sentiment behind Peach.

Then, maybe, he simply did not know who is who in the domestic literature? And it is excluded. For decades, Henry Peach rotated in circles, in modern terms, the London creative intelligentsia, was friends with many writers and was aware of everything that happened in the world of art. He even put his name on the sketches of costumes for the production of Shakespeare's “Titus Andronicus” as a sign of his closeness to the author. Why did he not include William Shakespeare in his list? Is it because he knew who the true author of the works published under this name?

Finally, one more incomprehensible fact: after Shakespeare there was no archive left. Not a single draft, not a single draft, not a page of reference material - absolutely nothing. True, the Stratfordians have a universal argument for everything, with which they slaughter the skeptical adversaries: Shakespeare is a genius who was able to do that which is inaccessible to mere mortals. He was so great that he kept all his archive in his head and created it right clean. Is this not proof of the immense scale of his incomparable talent?

What can I say? ... So Sholokhov also did not have a single archive line, and for the same reason, his fans say: he simply didn’t need it. Is it not enough that there was no writer in history who would not leave behind him a pile of drafts, notes and reference materials? But our Sholokhov did very well without them. Because a genius, is it really not clear ?! Not like everybody there Pushkin, thick and Dostoevsky, who could not take a step without a piece of paper.

But the most important thing is not even in this. Creativity is almost always more or less autobiographical: authors usually write about what is close and familiar to them. Books certainly somehow reflect the identity of their authors, serve as a mirror of their souls. And here's the catch: the modest, colorless Mr. Shakesper from Stratford, “an inconspicuous, unassuming average man,” according to Harold Blum's character, is in no way compatible with the image of the celestial, the brilliant master of the pen, the genius poet and playwright William Shakespeare.

No one would ever doubt that Pushkin or Tolstoyan works were written by Pushkin and Tolstoy. But the authorship of Sholokhov from the first day raised serious doubts - so much did the image of the writer, whose powerful breath is felt on every page of “The Quiet Don”, not fit with the wretched scale of a person’s personality, named by the author of the novel.

Similarly, the meager facts and rumors about Shakespeare's contemporaries Christopher Marlowe, Edmund Spencer or Ben Johnson completely harmonize with their works. “We know almost as little about the life of Dante as about the life of Shakespeare,” wrote Pablo Milano. “But the correspondence between Dante’s personality and his works is so obvious that no other evidence of his authorship is required.” But the circumstances of life and the caliber of the personality of William Shaksper are completely incomparable with the works bearing his name. Not without reason, Emerson complained that he could not manage to “bring Shakespeare's life into line with his work”.

The Stratford Mr. Shuksper never traveled outside of England, had practically no education, did not know languages, was not interested in books and music, was mainly engaged in commerce. At the same time, the author of Shakespeare's works had to know perfectly the ancient and modern literature and history, French and Italian, not to mention Latin, to have a deep understanding of gardening, law, music, heraldry, he had to know the court life thoroughly, be in border and be a subtle connoisseur and connoisseur of aristocratic sports - tennis, bowling and falconry.

Take, for example, Italy, which Shakespeare has chosen as the site for more than a dozen of his plays. It is known that in his entire life Mr. Shakesper never traveled abroad, and he didn’t travel much across England, having limited himself to only two trips between London and Stratford. Where does his deepest, in the smallest detail knowledge of Italy come from?

A hypothesis was invented: they say Shakespeare liked to visit port taverns and listen carefully to the conversations of sailors who had driven all the seas and oceans. And all that he managed to hear fit into the vast storerooms of his incomparable memory.

Easy to imagine this scene. “I must tell you, my dear Mr. Smith,” one sea wolf says in a stranded tongue to another, “that the story of Genoa unfolds under the sign of the deadly feud of the two most prominent family clans of this city.” And his interlocutor, hiccupping and swaying, remarks in reply: “Have mercy, dear Mr. Jones, - but did you know that in 1575, the traditional enmity between Siena and Lombardy became so acute that it led to a brief war between them?”

Well, of course, about anything else, if not about Italian politics, can drunk sailors talk in the port tavern, who have just come ashore after returning from a long voyage? But Shakespeare lurking at the next table - no, he doesn’t write down, because, as we already know, he is not a big whale to write, but he catches it on the fly and remembers every word. Perhaps everything is in fact exactly the case, although it is extremely doubtful.

It is much easier and more logical to assume that the author of Romeo and Juliet and the Venetian Merchant himself traveled around Italy and wrote on the basis of personal experience. And his knowledge of Italy is simply amazing. Even three classic “Italian mistakes” of Shakespeare in fact only confirmed how deeply he knew this country.

Shakespeare has long been reproached for the following blunders: in the play “Two Veronians”, the heroes travel between Verona and Milan by water, although neither one nor the other city has access to the sea; in “The Taming of the Shrew” it is mentioned that Bergamo is the sailing capital of Italy, and in the “Winter Fairy Tale” Italian painter Giulio Romano is named sculptor.

However, it turned out that it was not Shakespeare who was mistaken, but his critics. In his book “Shakespeare and Italy”, published in 1949, the Italian explorer Ernesto Grillo gave many examples of how thoroughly the great Englishman knew Italy and its culture. In particular, he confirmed that during the times of Shakespeare, many cities of Northern Italy were connected by canals, and from Verona it was easiest to get to Milan by water, and in the Renaissance, Bergamo was famous for being the center of sewing sails.

As for Giulio Romano, he was not only an artist, but also a sculptor and architect. Giorgio Vasari wrote about this in his illustrious book, The Lives of the Most Famous Painters, Sculptors and Architects, which was published in Italy in the 60 of the XVI century, but became known in England only many decades later. Therefore, a person who has not been to Italy could hardly have known about Romano’s many-sided talent, and indeed about his existence. After studying the creative heritage of Shakespeare, Ernesto Grillo came to the firm conviction that English genius undoubtedly spent a lot of time in Italy.

Many literary sources used in “The Merchant of Venice”, “Othello” and “Much Ado About Nothing” existed only in originals at that time, and in the English school, which, as we know, education of the Stratford’s was limited, Italian was not taught. Meanwhile, in the plays of Shakespeare scattered evidence that their author not only knew Italian, but also well versed in his dialects.

In “The Merchant of Venice”, Shakespeare demonstrates a deep knowledge of the subtleties of Venetian law and the topography of Venice. For example, the character of the play Lancelot Gobbo is named for the statue of the kneeling hunchback Gobbo di Rialto, which officially proclaimed new laws of the republic. And how, for example, did Shakespeare learn about the very specific Italian marriage procedure, described in detail in “The Taming of the Shrew”? Again, perhaps, stubborn sailors sniffed and reported?

In a word, there is no doubt that in the creative heritage of the “Great Bard” there is not a trace from William Shaksper. But if not him, then who then was William Shakespeare?

Author - Victor VOLSKY

Source