In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn describes the crisis that precedes a paradigm shit:
The awareness of
anomaly had lasted so long and penetrated so deep that one can appropriately describe
the fields affected by it as in a state of growing crisis. (Kuhn: 67)
A
scientific crisis can last centuries. Kuhn describes how Ptolemaic astronomy
remained current even as anomalies were discovered over time. The anomalies
became so pronounced that eventually that paradigm gave way to the Copernican
revolution. However, that paradigm shift took over a century to complete.
Copernicus’ model was first published in 1543 and it was 90 years later, in 1633,
that Galileo was sentenced by the Inquistion.
Shakespeare studies are
currently in such a state of crisis. The great anomaly is simply this: research
into the life of William Shakespeare provides little or no insights into the
motivations, contexts, or circumstances surrounding the writing of the plays
and poems attributed to him. Recognition of this anomaly is nothing new; it has been a major
challenge to Shakespeare scholarship over the last 200 years.
“Normal
Science” and a Strong, Productive Research Program
In what Kuhn calls
“normal science,” the current “paradigm” generates a research program which
gives scientists small, achievable puzzles to solve. The current paradigm of
Shakespeare scholarship is that the actor William Shakespeare wrote most of the
Shakespeare canon himself, sometimes collaborating with other playwrights.
This paradigm offers a
clear cut, intertwined research program. The details of Shakespeare’s life are
studied to provide insight into the plays and poems. At the same time, the
plays and poems are studied to provide new insights into Shakespeare’s life.
With a healthy paradigm, these strands should be constantly reinforcing each
other, suggesting further areas of productive research.
In some areas, this
research has been very productive.
Researchers have tracked down sources for many of the plays, and new sources
are still being discovered. That catalog of source works provides a very clear
picture of the material the author of the works must have had access to and been
able to read. It paints an authentic picture of the author’s intellectual life.
For
example, careful study of sources reveals that the author of Othello must have been able to read
Italian. Othello is derived, in part, from Cinthio's Gli
Hecatommithi. Whoever wrote Othello must have had access to this
book and been able to read it in Italian, since no English translation existed
at the time. Similarly, careful study of the plays and poems shows that whoever
wrote them must have been able to read Latin well enough to study Ovid in the
original.
There is no evidence
that William Shakespeare himself could do either of these things, so research
has focused instead on possible scenarios where he might have learned those skills and had access to those works. However,
these possible scenarios are never verified by further research; they simply
remain dead ends. This is an example of an “anomaly.”
In addition, research
into Shakespeare’s life and background provides no insight into the content of
the plays or poems. If the author is reflected in the work, we have little or no
evidence of that. "Shakespeare" under the current paradigm is simply what we
project onto him. The plays stand alone, independent of the man.
This is not how a
productive research program should look. In a productive paradigm, different
research strands within the overall paradigm should reinforce each other. One
area of research should provide direction for further productive research in
other areas. However, the current Shakespeare paradigm produces anomalies that
cannot be resolved within the paradigm. This has created the current crisis.
Small
Latine Lesse Greeke
and the Stratford Free School
Baldwin’s William Shakespeares Small Latine Lesse
Greeke, published in 1944, is a
case in point. This meticulously researched book provides detailed information
about Latin grammar school education in 16th century England. It offers
details about the Stratford Free School, its founding and funding, its instructors,
and Shakespeare’s contemporaries who did attend there.
In a productive,
healthy research program, meticulous research such as this should have provided
other researchers with clues for further research into Shakespeare’s life.
However, 75 years later, no progress has been made at all. No evidence has been
uncovered that Shakespeare even attended the Stratford Free School, and no
further evidence has been shown of his Latin attainment. The only evidence for his knowledge of Latin are the plays and poems themselves.
The same is true for
the obvious shift in tone in Shakespeare’s plays. The difference between Henry V, As You Like It, and Twelfth Night on the one hand, and Hamlet on the other, is remarkable, even though they were written two or three years
apart. Any theoretical framework that cannot account for that shift does not
have the necessary explanatory power to be a viable paradigm.
Most recent, serious
Shakespeare scholarship simply ignores William Shakespeare. Obligatory
references may be made to him or potential connections to his life suggested,
but the core research is completely separate from the supposed playwright. This,
perhaps most of all, is indicative of a paradigm in crisis.
Requirements
for a New Paradigm
Of course, it is not
enough to identify an anomalous situation. If a new theory cannot be proposed
that both accounts for current data and provides
a new and productive research program, there is no possibility of progress.
Shakespeare studies have been stuck in this limbo for over a century.
Recent advances in
technology have not improved the situation or enabled researchers to make
progress. The digitization of almost every English book published in Shakespeare’s
time, the digital distribution of facsimiles of Quartos, and searchable
databases of contemporaneous plays are all available now to anyone anywhere.
But this explosion in knowledge and access has just made the situation worse.
It increases understanding of the context of the plays and poems themselves
without helping us at all to connect them to William Shakespeare, the supposed
playwright.
To precipitate a
paradigm shift, however, the new theory must not only account for all current
empirical findings. It must provide a research program that generates new
avenues of inquiry that produce new insights and new findings. The new paradigm
must be productive in order to gather adherents. After all, researchers want to
spend time on fruitful avenues. They want to produce new scholarship that is
recognized by others as valuable.
Kuhn explains how the
process of adoption of a new paradigm is both constructive and destructive. The
new paradigm will maintain many aspects of the old one while offering a re-interpretation
of the discoveries made under the old paradigm. Much is thrown out while much
is re-interpreted and retained.
Very often, two
paradigms co-exist simultaneously until one wins out. Also, very often it is a
new generation of scientists who bring about the paradigm shift. The old
generation is never actually converted to the new paradigm. The younger
scientists find the new paradigm more conducive to productive research, so it
wins adherents and eventual becomes the standard paradigm.
Henry Neville
The crisis is
real, but without a credible alternative, no paradigm shift is possible.
Fortunately, research into the life of Sir Henry Neville of Billingbear (1562-1615) does provide the explanatory power and research potential to greatly expand the
field of Shakespeare studies. It not only accounts for current research, it
opens up completely new ways of interpreting the plays and poems.
This new research program will completely transform how we read and understand the
Shakespeare canon. Commentary such as “Shakespeare is remarkably alert to
woodland facts and terminology” (Barton, The Shakespearean Forest, 7) will be
replaced by detailed analyses of Neville’s personal and family history as
wardens of Windsor forest. The political motivations underlying the
plays will be compared with Neville’s parliamentary and diplomatic record, not
to mention his family history and personal interests.
We
are, quite frankly, living in the most exciting time ever for Shakespeare
scholarship. The paradigm shift will not come easily. Crises are rarely
resolved cleanly. But the resulting expansion of our understanding and
appreciation for the works themselves will make all of it worth it.
