What do you think?
Rate this book
هل مات شكسبير؟
لم يكن هناك سوى شاعر واحد هو شكسبير، لا يُمكِن أن يكون هناك اثنان، وبالتأكيد لا يُمكِن أن يكون هناك اثنان في الوقت نفسه، يتطلَّب الأمر أجيالًا لتقديم شكسبير آخر، وأجيالًا أخرى لمضاهاته، لم يجد نظيره قبل عصره، ولا خلاله، ولم يتم مساواته منذ ذلك الحين، وآفاق مضاهاته في عصرنا ليست مُشرِقة.
116 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1909
39 people are currently reading
339 people want to read
About the author
Mark Twain
8,872 books18.7k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, known by the pen name Mark Twain, was an American writer, humorist and essayist. He was praised as the "greatest humorist the United States has produced," with William Faulkner calling him "the father of American literature." His novels include The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884), with the latter often called the "Great American Novel." Twain also wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1889) and Pudd'nhead Wilson (1894), and co-wrote The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873) with Charles Dudley Warner.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, known by the pen name Mark Twain, was an American writer, humorist and essayist. He was praised as the "greatest humorist the United States has produced," with William Faulkner calling him "the father of American literature." His novels include The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876) and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884), with the latter often called the "Great American Novel." Twain also wrote A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1889) and Pudd'nhead Wilson (1894), and co-wrote The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873) with Charles Dudley Warner.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
Read
June 24, 2024Mark Twain's views on who wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems:
- it wasn't Shakespeare
- it could have been Francis Bacon,
BUT anyway, who cares when I am Mark Twain and have so much more intriguing things to say about myself (and I think he really meant this. He took himself rather seriously). :D
- it wasn't Shakespeare
- it could have been Francis Bacon,
BUT anyway, who cares when I am Mark Twain and have so much more intriguing things to say about myself (and I think he really meant this. He took himself rather seriously). :D
May 12, 2017
We have all heard of doubts and arguments that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the plays attributed to him, but it was only on reading this book that I realised that those doubts surfaced as far back as the 1850’s.
Here we have Mark Twain’s own theories which are well expounded in an eloquent yet easy to read style. Of course, being Mark Twain he has used his trademark humour to illustrate his points.
As an entertainment I found it extremely enjoyable but to the literary student who is trying to discover the truth of the matter it is of limited value because in the century since this book’s publication in 1909, there have been several hundred more books on the subject and further possible authors have been suggested including, in 1920, Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford who would appear to meet Twain’s criteria.
Although, Is Shakespeare Dead? is only 88 pages long, Alma Classics have provided good value for money with their usual Extra Material section which includes a biography and bibliography of the author. The volume also includes a short sketch entitled 1601: Conversation, as it was by the Social Fireside, in the time of the Tudors which is a spoof diary entry involving the Queen and leading celebrities of that time including the Bard.
Be warned; the subjects discussed in the conversation contain adult humour but I must confess to finding some of it hilarious.
Whilst there are now more definitive works on the subject, this book nonetheless entertained and educated me for a few hours so I am pleased to give it a four star rating.
Reviewed by Clive on www.whisperingstories.com
Here we have Mark Twain’s own theories which are well expounded in an eloquent yet easy to read style. Of course, being Mark Twain he has used his trademark humour to illustrate his points.
As an entertainment I found it extremely enjoyable but to the literary student who is trying to discover the truth of the matter it is of limited value because in the century since this book’s publication in 1909, there have been several hundred more books on the subject and further possible authors have been suggested including, in 1920, Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford who would appear to meet Twain’s criteria.
Although, Is Shakespeare Dead? is only 88 pages long, Alma Classics have provided good value for money with their usual Extra Material section which includes a biography and bibliography of the author. The volume also includes a short sketch entitled 1601: Conversation, as it was by the Social Fireside, in the time of the Tudors which is a spoof diary entry involving the Queen and leading celebrities of that time including the Bard.
Be warned; the subjects discussed in the conversation contain adult humour but I must confess to finding some of it hilarious.
Whilst there are now more definitive works on the subject, this book nonetheless entertained and educated me for a few hours so I am pleased to give it a four star rating.
Reviewed by Clive on www.whisperingstories.com
May 24, 2018
Ova knjiga razmišljanja na temu jednog od najvećih stvaralaca je dokaz da boljka „U sve se razumem“ nije produkt modernog življenja i interneta, već je postojala i pre početka dvadesetog veka. Ako ste se ikada pitali kako glumci i zabavljači najnižih kategorija samouvereno iznose svoje stavove o vakcinama sa šokantnom samouverenošću, samo zato što imaju veliki broj pratilaca na instagramu, pročitajte kako Mark Tven, dokazani znalac pisane reči bez zvaničnog obrazovanja iznosi svoje mišljenje da Šekspir nikada nije postojao, bez ikakvih dokaza, koristeći svoj neupitni književni šarm da poveže par rekla-kazala činjenica. Ova knjiga, bez skoro ikakve književne vrednosti ima sasvim neočekivanu težinu na drugoj strani – neosporni dokaz da naši heroji ne moraju uvek biti u pravu, te da treba biti pažljiv kada oni reše da izađu iz zone svoje profesije i počnu da se bave drugom…
March 3, 2021
It was very strange for me to pick this book up again after one and a half years and see how much my life had changed since I started it.
I bought this, my first Twain book, in Sydney while on exchange in Australia, feeling utterly free and wandering the sunny parks of one of the most beautiful cities I have ever set foot in, in search of its library. I remember how suddenly, on a bright and sunny day, the rain started pouring down around me and I blessed my waterproof backpack as I jumped from the refuge of one tree to the next. I remember how a kind Aussie lady asked me if I wanted to share her umbrella with her, and so we walked briefly through the rain as I pointed at pretty buildings and she told me what they were. I asked her where the library was and she told me she just so happened to be on her way there, and I remember entering it with her by my side and her pointing me toward a tunnel that would lead to the older section of the library, the original part. It was absolutely stunning. People praise Melbourne’s library, but Sydney’s New South Wales State Library was incredible. It’s not a wonder, then, that I hardly questioned what I read when I started this book, sitting beneath the beautiful rounded ceiling and among thousands of books, constantly distracted by clerks and students and the lines of little boxes with notes about written works lining the paths. I remember emerging from the library after an hour or so and the sun beaming down on me.
Now, finishing the book, a mild spring sun is similarly beaming down on me on the other side of the world. My NSW bookmark was still in the book; the price tag from the cheap dollar bookstore I got it from still on the cover. And because I came home right before the pandemic, I felt my heart return to Australia unexpectedly and nostalgically as I kept reading.
I say this both to recap the feeling for myself and to explain why my rating is the one it is. My ratings always reflect my emotions about a book, and this one might not be entirely fair both because of my adventures Down Under and because despite Twain’s popularity as a great writer, I was quite bothered by him at some points during this long essay.
First of all, the fact that at least 15 pages out of 87 are not even his own (he copied them directly from another writer, only to say “this has convinced me that Shakespeare must have been a lawyer”) seemed a bit abundant to me. I know these were different times, but couldn’t he just have quoted or paraphrased a bit?
I’ll admit I enjoy Mark Twain’s writing style for the most part. He knows how to work a sentence to work an audience. But some comments are not only redundant but also tedious: “We cannot say we know a thing when that thing has not been proved. Know is too strong a word to use when the evidence is not final and absolutely conclusive. We can infer, if we want to, like those slaves...” (referring to the Stratfordians) “No, I will not write that word, it is not kind, it is not courteous. The upholders of the Stratford-Shakespeare superstition call us the hardest names they can think of, and they keep doing it all the time; very well, if they like to descend to that level, let them do it, but I will not so indignify myself as to follow them.” This goes on for quite a while. In rhetoric, it’s called apophasis - what happens when someone says they won’t mention something but then mention it by saying that. He had me at first, I’ll give him that - I thought he was utterly serious. But given Twain’s reputation, I’ll assume his raging over the Stratfordians was all purposeful and sarcastic - and boy, does he keep that sarcasm up well - but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that it has nothing to do with any point he’s trying to make.
The thing is, right, we don’t read literature to get to the point quickly. So if this had been a novel, my problems would reduce to none. But this isn’t a novel, this is a critical reflection of the existence of one of the world’s most celebrated writers. Although I did enjoy reading his constant bashing of the Stratford-Shakespeare “thugs”, I could only do so when I’d ceased taking him seriously. His arguments have little merit — he may say one decent line and then blabber on about nothing, occasionally throwing in a line about how famous he is himself and how, because Shakespeare wasn’t well-known in his village throughout his lifetime, that meant he could not become famous later on.
One of Twain’s main arguments, for example, is that Bacon has proven to be a great writer while there’s only one certain written work by Shakespeare the Stratfordian, which just so happened to be quite shit. Twain extrapolates from that, saying that obviously there’s no proof that Shakespeare himself was a great writer. But what better proof is there than all his famed works?
A part of me hopes Twain is also bashing the other side of the debate with remarks to his own fame (and comparing his situation to Shakespeare’s) and sarcastic comments about humanity as the Reasoning Race. Maybe, in a few years, I’ll reread this and laugh at my own ignorance. But not yet.
To summarise his book: Twain does not believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare - he believes Shakespeare was Francis Bacon. This is because Shakespeare allegedly did not have the upbringing to write the Plays and Poems; because to write Shakespeare’s works, you had to have the mind and training of a lawyer; because there is little documentation of Shakespeare’s life and heaps on Bacon; and because Twain seems to have had the hots for Bacon and could not stop bumbling on about his greatness. None of these points, you’ll notice, prove anything.
It’s an entertaining read, but if you’d like to read a proper set of arguments on Shakespeare’s life I’d recommend picking up a good contemporary Bryson book.
I bought this, my first Twain book, in Sydney while on exchange in Australia, feeling utterly free and wandering the sunny parks of one of the most beautiful cities I have ever set foot in, in search of its library. I remember how suddenly, on a bright and sunny day, the rain started pouring down around me and I blessed my waterproof backpack as I jumped from the refuge of one tree to the next. I remember how a kind Aussie lady asked me if I wanted to share her umbrella with her, and so we walked briefly through the rain as I pointed at pretty buildings and she told me what they were. I asked her where the library was and she told me she just so happened to be on her way there, and I remember entering it with her by my side and her pointing me toward a tunnel that would lead to the older section of the library, the original part. It was absolutely stunning. People praise Melbourne’s library, but Sydney’s New South Wales State Library was incredible. It’s not a wonder, then, that I hardly questioned what I read when I started this book, sitting beneath the beautiful rounded ceiling and among thousands of books, constantly distracted by clerks and students and the lines of little boxes with notes about written works lining the paths. I remember emerging from the library after an hour or so and the sun beaming down on me.
Now, finishing the book, a mild spring sun is similarly beaming down on me on the other side of the world. My NSW bookmark was still in the book; the price tag from the cheap dollar bookstore I got it from still on the cover. And because I came home right before the pandemic, I felt my heart return to Australia unexpectedly and nostalgically as I kept reading.
I say this both to recap the feeling for myself and to explain why my rating is the one it is. My ratings always reflect my emotions about a book, and this one might not be entirely fair both because of my adventures Down Under and because despite Twain’s popularity as a great writer, I was quite bothered by him at some points during this long essay.
First of all, the fact that at least 15 pages out of 87 are not even his own (he copied them directly from another writer, only to say “this has convinced me that Shakespeare must have been a lawyer”) seemed a bit abundant to me. I know these were different times, but couldn’t he just have quoted or paraphrased a bit?
I’ll admit I enjoy Mark Twain’s writing style for the most part. He knows how to work a sentence to work an audience. But some comments are not only redundant but also tedious: “We cannot say we know a thing when that thing has not been proved. Know is too strong a word to use when the evidence is not final and absolutely conclusive. We can infer, if we want to, like those slaves...” (referring to the Stratfordians) “No, I will not write that word, it is not kind, it is not courteous. The upholders of the Stratford-Shakespeare superstition call us the hardest names they can think of, and they keep doing it all the time; very well, if they like to descend to that level, let them do it, but I will not so indignify myself as to follow them.” This goes on for quite a while. In rhetoric, it’s called apophasis - what happens when someone says they won’t mention something but then mention it by saying that. He had me at first, I’ll give him that - I thought he was utterly serious. But given Twain’s reputation, I’ll assume his raging over the Stratfordians was all purposeful and sarcastic - and boy, does he keep that sarcasm up well - but that still doesn’t take away from the fact that it has nothing to do with any point he’s trying to make.
The thing is, right, we don’t read literature to get to the point quickly. So if this had been a novel, my problems would reduce to none. But this isn’t a novel, this is a critical reflection of the existence of one of the world’s most celebrated writers. Although I did enjoy reading his constant bashing of the Stratford-Shakespeare “thugs”, I could only do so when I’d ceased taking him seriously. His arguments have little merit — he may say one decent line and then blabber on about nothing, occasionally throwing in a line about how famous he is himself and how, because Shakespeare wasn’t well-known in his village throughout his lifetime, that meant he could not become famous later on.
One of Twain’s main arguments, for example, is that Bacon has proven to be a great writer while there’s only one certain written work by Shakespeare the Stratfordian, which just so happened to be quite shit. Twain extrapolates from that, saying that obviously there’s no proof that Shakespeare himself was a great writer. But what better proof is there than all his famed works?
A part of me hopes Twain is also bashing the other side of the debate with remarks to his own fame (and comparing his situation to Shakespeare’s) and sarcastic comments about humanity as the Reasoning Race. Maybe, in a few years, I’ll reread this and laugh at my own ignorance. But not yet.
To summarise his book: Twain does not believe Shakespeare was Shakespeare - he believes Shakespeare was Francis Bacon. This is because Shakespeare allegedly did not have the upbringing to write the Plays and Poems; because to write Shakespeare’s works, you had to have the mind and training of a lawyer; because there is little documentation of Shakespeare’s life and heaps on Bacon; and because Twain seems to have had the hots for Bacon and could not stop bumbling on about his greatness. None of these points, you’ll notice, prove anything.
It’s an entertaining read, but if you’d like to read a proper set of arguments on Shakespeare’s life I’d recommend picking up a good contemporary Bryson book.
January 2, 2015
Mark Twain takes up the the age old debate: whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. With his typical humor and frank nature, Twain presents the evidence forth. But in the treatment of the study, I find myself unable to focus on the important (Shakespeare) since Twain starts to present a lot of things about his own upbringing. When he starts comparing himself to Shakespeare, any trace of scholarly expectations I had were gone, but I kept reading since his arguments are so lovely to hear at times and these arguments are quite common sense (albeit ineffective). They make you question Shakespeare and inspire a healthy skepticism.
April 5, 2017
"I only believed Bacon wrote Shakespeare, whereas I knew Shakespeare didn’t." This is Twain's essential premise. We may not be able to prove conclusively who wrote the works that bear Shakespeare's name (though Francis Bacon gets Twain's vote), but given the facts, any thinking, "reasoning" (a word too often misappropriated by the Stratfordians, according to Twain) person can rule out William Shakespeare completely. If you want to enter the fray on the authorship controversy, this may not be the most authoritative place to start, but it'll probably be the most fun.
September 14, 2017
For such a little book, Twain's rambling, sometimes funny but largely redundant trolling of the "thugs", "troglodytes", "bandoleers and buccaneers" who believe Stratford's William Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare's plays, does go on a bit.
He rests his argument (if you can really call it that) on five main points:
1) Shakespeare's upbringing was too humble.
2) Shakespeare couldn't possibly have understood the law (and other trades) well enough to reference or portray them with any authenticity.
3) Mark Twain was very famous in his hometown.
4) There's very little documented evidence of Shakespeare's life.
5) Francis Bacon is the greatest man that ever lived.
1) Insultingly simple-minded (especially for a genius like Twain)
2) Fascinatingly ahistorical and ignores the idea that Shakespeare was perfectly capable of reading things, talking to people or even, that judging the authenticity of what he wrote in the sixteenth century (about the sixteenth century) in the early twentieth is patently silly.
3) Completely irrelevant.
4) Proves nothing either way.
5) That may we be so. Doesn't mean he could write plays.
But, to take Twain's flimsy arguments too seriously is to miss the point. He's quite clearly trolling both sides of the Bacon vs. Shakespeare argument - note his dripping-with-sarcasm claim of human beings being a "reasoning race" - he just lays into the "Stratfordolaters" far more blatantly.
It's just a shame that the bits where he does that are nowhere near as interesting as the book's little asides and meandering reminiscences about his younger days. Oh well, at least there's plenty of that in his longer, better-remembered and far more enjoyable works.
He rests his argument (if you can really call it that) on five main points:
1) Shakespeare's upbringing was too humble.
2) Shakespeare couldn't possibly have understood the law (and other trades) well enough to reference or portray them with any authenticity.
3) Mark Twain was very famous in his hometown.
4) There's very little documented evidence of Shakespeare's life.
5) Francis Bacon is the greatest man that ever lived.
1) Insultingly simple-minded (especially for a genius like Twain)
2) Fascinatingly ahistorical and ignores the idea that Shakespeare was perfectly capable of reading things, talking to people or even, that judging the authenticity of what he wrote in the sixteenth century (about the sixteenth century) in the early twentieth is patently silly.
3) Completely irrelevant.
4) Proves nothing either way.
5) That may we be so. Doesn't mean he could write plays.
But, to take Twain's flimsy arguments too seriously is to miss the point. He's quite clearly trolling both sides of the Bacon vs. Shakespeare argument - note his dripping-with-sarcasm claim of human beings being a "reasoning race" - he just lays into the "Stratfordolaters" far more blatantly.
It's just a shame that the bits where he does that are nowhere near as interesting as the book's little asides and meandering reminiscences about his younger days. Oh well, at least there's plenty of that in his longer, better-remembered and far more enjoyable works.
May 27, 2024
This humorist is killing me 🤣
August 24, 2018
I'll give this book a 2.5 stars rating.
I have been given the most wonderful "experiential" gift for my birthday this year. Since I had not yet managed to visit Stratford-Upon-Avon in my 20-odd years living in this country, and having mentioned numerous times that I wanted to go, my husband took me there for a couple of days in a delightful 15th Century inn, and including a play by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
This book caught my attention there, at the theatre's gift shop where I spent a small fortune (very thin that it is, and on sale for 2 quid). It is a rather short, but very vociferous rant in which Mark Twain tries to convince the reader that William Shakespeare, the Stratford lad, did not actually write the magnificent plays and poems attributed to, well, William Shakespeare, the Stratford lad. He makes an argument for Francis Bacon as the author, and the main pillar in his reasoning is that Shakespeare's plays show such a degree of legal sophistication that it would not be credible at all from someone without a lengthy and solid legal education, which Shakespeare obviously did not have, hence his backing of Bacon as a plausible candidate for the job.
Since himself may write exclusively from his own imagination, he obviously disregards the task of doing research before writing, and while offering an intriguing argument, his presentation of it is shoddy and devoid of Twain's typical flair and caustic humour (he even calls the Stratford proponents of Shakespeare as the author of Shakespeare's plays "thugs" and many other colourful and harshly vitriolic insults).
This preoccupation with the potential authorship of Shakespeare's opus has been one of the most riveting literary whodunits for decades, and even Sigmund Freud joined the speculation at some point. Like in any whodunit worth its salt, means, motive and opportunity have to be found to fit together in any one suspect. So Bacon has the means (and this is the main pillar in Twain's reasoning), and he certainly also has the opportunity, as both authors are contemporaries, but Mark Twain completely neglects offering a plausible motive in Bacon for potentially writing the plays and then allowing Shakespeare to reap the all the fame. He briefly mentions that writing plays was not "respectable" enough for someone of Bacon's social standing in his historical time, but he absolutely has failed to convince me.
Since I have also bought James Shapiro's book Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? which I hope to read soon, I am not yet finished with this most intriguing question, but so far I know that Shapiro is a foremost Shakespeare scholar who presents lots of historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of Shakespeare's plays, so I guess I am safe in his hands.
My latest reading project has been prompted by another wonderful discovery at the theatre gift shop, a perfect edition of Shakespeare's plays called No Fear Shakespeare which presents the original text in the left page, with an annotated modern English translation in the right page. This is precisely what I always needed but never before had found. I may even manage to read Shakespeare in English at last!
I have been given the most wonderful "experiential" gift for my birthday this year. Since I had not yet managed to visit Stratford-Upon-Avon in my 20-odd years living in this country, and having mentioned numerous times that I wanted to go, my husband took me there for a couple of days in a delightful 15th Century inn, and including a play by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
This book caught my attention there, at the theatre's gift shop where I spent a small fortune (very thin that it is, and on sale for 2 quid). It is a rather short, but very vociferous rant in which Mark Twain tries to convince the reader that William Shakespeare, the Stratford lad, did not actually write the magnificent plays and poems attributed to, well, William Shakespeare, the Stratford lad. He makes an argument for Francis Bacon as the author, and the main pillar in his reasoning is that Shakespeare's plays show such a degree of legal sophistication that it would not be credible at all from someone without a lengthy and solid legal education, which Shakespeare obviously did not have, hence his backing of Bacon as a plausible candidate for the job.
Since himself may write exclusively from his own imagination, he obviously disregards the task of doing research before writing, and while offering an intriguing argument, his presentation of it is shoddy and devoid of Twain's typical flair and caustic humour (he even calls the Stratford proponents of Shakespeare as the author of Shakespeare's plays "thugs" and many other colourful and harshly vitriolic insults).
This preoccupation with the potential authorship of Shakespeare's opus has been one of the most riveting literary whodunits for decades, and even Sigmund Freud joined the speculation at some point. Like in any whodunit worth its salt, means, motive and opportunity have to be found to fit together in any one suspect. So Bacon has the means (and this is the main pillar in Twain's reasoning), and he certainly also has the opportunity, as both authors are contemporaries, but Mark Twain completely neglects offering a plausible motive in Bacon for potentially writing the plays and then allowing Shakespeare to reap the all the fame. He briefly mentions that writing plays was not "respectable" enough for someone of Bacon's social standing in his historical time, but he absolutely has failed to convince me.
Since I have also bought James Shapiro's book Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? which I hope to read soon, I am not yet finished with this most intriguing question, but so far I know that Shapiro is a foremost Shakespeare scholar who presents lots of historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship of Shakespeare's plays, so I guess I am safe in his hands.
My latest reading project has been prompted by another wonderful discovery at the theatre gift shop, a perfect edition of Shakespeare's plays called No Fear Shakespeare which presents the original text in the left page, with an annotated modern English translation in the right page. This is precisely what I always needed but never before had found. I may even manage to read Shakespeare in English at last!
April 14, 2017
Clever and witty
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Is Shakespeare Dead? From my autobiography. (Kindle Edition)
This is a clever and witty essay compiling evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare did not write the works of the great Shakespeare. Twain also recounts suppositions and inferences which make Sir Francis Bacon the likely author. This argument continues today. The last time I paid any attention to it, I believe the Baconians had been routed. Or maybe it was the other way around. Neither eventuality alters the fact that the works of Shakespeare are a strong competitor for the title of the world's greatest literature. If I could have only two books one would be the Bible and the other The Complete Works of Shakespeare. As an aside, in this essay Twain reveals his disbelief in both Satan and perdition.
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Is Shakespeare Dead? From my autobiography. (Kindle Edition)
This is a clever and witty essay compiling evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare did not write the works of the great Shakespeare. Twain also recounts suppositions and inferences which make Sir Francis Bacon the likely author. This argument continues today. The last time I paid any attention to it, I believe the Baconians had been routed. Or maybe it was the other way around. Neither eventuality alters the fact that the works of Shakespeare are a strong competitor for the title of the world's greatest literature. If I could have only two books one would be the Bible and the other The Complete Works of Shakespeare. As an aside, in this essay Twain reveals his disbelief in both Satan and perdition.
November 13, 2011
I loved recording this book, and was flattered to read Kevin McDonnell's review in The Mark Twain Forum; here's an excerpt: "(Henzel) maintains a mild but steady Twain presence, with a soft drawl, appropriate pauses and phrasings, and pleasant modulations. He moves the text along in a convincing first-person voice without resorting to the exaggerated cornpone twang that might distract his listeners from Twain's message."
January 3, 2021
"Is Shakespeare Dead?" orjinal adıyla, Amerikan edebiyatının usta isimlerinden olan Mark Twain'in alegorik diliyle kaleme alınan eser. İsmi bile oldukça şüpheli bir ima taşıyor.
Shakespeare, herkesin bildiği gibi İngiliz edebiyatının hatta dünya edebiyatının bile üstatlarindan biri. Gerek yazdığı trajedi oyunları, komedileri, tarihi oyunları gerekse de birbirinden eşsiz soneleri ve şiirleri ile. Ancak dili bu kadar etkin kullanınca olsa gerek çağımıza gelene kadar, hatta Shakespeare'in yaşadığı dönemde bile, sürekli insanları şüpheye sürükleyen bir isim.
Francis Bacon ise Shakespeare ile aynı dönemde yaşamış, dönemin önemli düşünür ve hukukçu. Aynı zamanda İngiliz dilinde deneme yazan ilk kişi.
Ve anlaşılan Shakespeare'in eserlerini bu usta hukukçunun yazdığı düşünülüyor.
Bundan dolayı da Mark Twain, Shakespeare ile ilgili bir takım biyografisel bilgi sunuyor bize, biraz da Bacon ile ilgili. Biraz deneme tadında olan bu eser de böylelikle ortaya çıkıyor.
▪️◾▪️◾▪️◾▪️◾▪️◾
Açıkçası ben Francis Bacon'ı ilk defa duydum. Genelde hep Christopher Marlowe ile Shakespeare'in karşılaştırıldığını, hatta Marlowe'un erken yaşta öldü taklidi yapıp, Shakespeare adıyla hayatını sürdürdüğü iddialarını biliyordum ama Bacon benim için ilkti. Mina Urgan(İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi) bile çok az bir şekilde bahsetmiş eserinde Bacon'dan.
Ben Twain'i çok sevsem bile bu eseri beğenmedim. Sebebi de şu; açıkçası evet Shakespeare kim bilemiyor olabiliriz ama Bacon ile benzetilme sebebinin tek açıklaması, Shakespeare'in hukuk eğitimi almamış olması ve eserlerinde hukuki terimleri ustaca kullanması, Bacon'in da hukukçu olması gibi bir şey. Saçma buluyorum. Twain Bacon'cı ya da Shakespeare'ci değil, kendisi de hangi tarafın ağır bastığından emin değil, hatta onun tabiriyle o Brontozorcu, yani ikisinin de yazdığından emin değil, ama Shakespeare'in yazmadığından kesin emin.
Twain'in düşüncelerini okumak, o alaycı diline her seferinde tanık olmak açısından muhteşem bir eser, ama düşünceler hep aynı çerçevede dönünce biraz yavan kalıyor, bir de konu Shakespeare iken.
Merak edenlere okumalarını tavsiye ederim, en azından bir şekilde konuya hakimiyet açısından 🤗
3/5
Shakespeare, herkesin bildiği gibi İngiliz edebiyatının hatta dünya edebiyatının bile üstatlarindan biri. Gerek yazdığı trajedi oyunları, komedileri, tarihi oyunları gerekse de birbirinden eşsiz soneleri ve şiirleri ile. Ancak dili bu kadar etkin kullanınca olsa gerek çağımıza gelene kadar, hatta Shakespeare'in yaşadığı dönemde bile, sürekli insanları şüpheye sürükleyen bir isim.
Francis Bacon ise Shakespeare ile aynı dönemde yaşamış, dönemin önemli düşünür ve hukukçu. Aynı zamanda İngiliz dilinde deneme yazan ilk kişi.
Ve anlaşılan Shakespeare'in eserlerini bu usta hukukçunun yazdığı düşünülüyor.
Bundan dolayı da Mark Twain, Shakespeare ile ilgili bir takım biyografisel bilgi sunuyor bize, biraz da Bacon ile ilgili. Biraz deneme tadında olan bu eser de böylelikle ortaya çıkıyor.
▪️◾▪️◾▪️◾▪️◾▪️◾
Açıkçası ben Francis Bacon'ı ilk defa duydum. Genelde hep Christopher Marlowe ile Shakespeare'in karşılaştırıldığını, hatta Marlowe'un erken yaşta öldü taklidi yapıp, Shakespeare adıyla hayatını sürdürdüğü iddialarını biliyordum ama Bacon benim için ilkti. Mina Urgan(İngiliz Edebiyatı Tarihi) bile çok az bir şekilde bahsetmiş eserinde Bacon'dan.
Ben Twain'i çok sevsem bile bu eseri beğenmedim. Sebebi de şu; açıkçası evet Shakespeare kim bilemiyor olabiliriz ama Bacon ile benzetilme sebebinin tek açıklaması, Shakespeare'in hukuk eğitimi almamış olması ve eserlerinde hukuki terimleri ustaca kullanması, Bacon'in da hukukçu olması gibi bir şey. Saçma buluyorum. Twain Bacon'cı ya da Shakespeare'ci değil, kendisi de hangi tarafın ağır bastığından emin değil, hatta onun tabiriyle o Brontozorcu, yani ikisinin de yazdığından emin değil, ama Shakespeare'in yazmadığından kesin emin.
Twain'in düşüncelerini okumak, o alaycı diline her seferinde tanık olmak açısından muhteşem bir eser, ama düşünceler hep aynı çerçevede dönünce biraz yavan kalıyor, bir de konu Shakespeare iken.
Merak edenlere okumalarını tavsiye ederim, en azından bir şekilde konuya hakimiyet açısından 🤗
3/5
January 31, 2017
This little book is hilarious, but it's not about Shakespeare. Oh sure, on the surface it's an investigation into who authored the Plays and Poems, but if you only read it on the surface then you'll find it a puzzling and frustrating book. In the very first chapter, Twain explains that he had no good reason to care about the controversy to begin with. But the riverboat pilot he was apprenticed to loved to recite Shakespeare and draw our young Twain into debating the authorship question.
This passage seems to be one of the keys of the whole book:
This is a book about how we form our beliefs and how we attempt to share them: Not very well on either count. All throughout the book he makes it clear that both sides of the controversy built their arguments on conjecture. Yet he appears to take the discussion quite seriously at other points. I can see why some readers get frustrated. By the opening of chapter 11 he comes clean:
Now Twain is taking up the real subjects of the book: Prejudice, intolerance, being entrenched in an opinion that is based on nothing, and those subtle ways our speech can denigrate the people foolish enough to belong to a group other than ours. You can almost see him winking at us as lampoons the pearl-clutching call for civility just before slandering his opponents as "thugs":
This is one of many spots where Twain had me laughing out loud. He also got me every time he quoted Shakespeare's epitaph, a running joke about how those barren and trivial words are the only ones that can be reliably attributed to Stratford Shakespeare.
Seeing this nugget from chapter 12 as a "quote of the day" yesterday is what prompted me to read the book:
When he wrote that, Twain had an even better line languishing in his unfinished novel The Mysterious Stranger:
Little about argumentation has changed in the 100 years since Mark Twain wrote this book. We still form opinions based on sketchy information (now we call it fake news) and we still talk to each other like enemies, even when the dispute is a trivial one. We go to any lengths to excuse the bad behavior of people in our tribe and easily convince ourselves that we need not worry about the humanity of the "thugs" in other tribes. Would Twain have been surprised to know that the passage of a century would change so little? Of course not, he predicted it would take at least three centuries (the book was published in 1909):
He wrote that paragraph with his tongue firmly in-cheek, just as he wrote most of this book. He knew full well that millions still believed in witches and Satan in 1909, just as millions continue to do today. Will we ever get better at discerning truth from fiction? Maybe. Probably not. But surely all reasonable people can agree that Shakespeare's epitaph is garbage:
You can read the full text of Mark Twain's Is Shakespeare Dead? here: http://www.online-literature.com/twai...
This passage seems to be one of the keys of the whole book:
Study, practice, experience in handling my end of the matter presently enabled me to take my new position almost seriously; a little bit later, utterly seriously; a little later still, lovingly, gratefully, devotedly; finally: fiercely, rabidly, uncompromisingly. After that, I was welded to my faith, I was theoretically ready to die for it, and I looked down with compassion not unmixed with scorn, upon everybody else's faith that didn't tally with mine. That faith, imposed upon me by self-interest in that ancient day, remains my faith to-day, and in it I find comfort, solace, peace, and never-failing joy. You see how curiously theological it is.
This is a book about how we form our beliefs and how we attempt to share them: Not very well on either count. All throughout the book he makes it clear that both sides of the controversy built their arguments on conjecture. Yet he appears to take the discussion quite seriously at other points. I can see why some readers get frustrated. By the opening of chapter 11 he comes clean:
Am I trying to convince anybody that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare's Works? Ah, now, what do you take me for? ... No-no, I am aware that when even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself.... We get them all at second-hand, we reason none of them out for ourselves. It is the way we are made.
Now Twain is taking up the real subjects of the book: Prejudice, intolerance, being entrenched in an opinion that is based on nothing, and those subtle ways our speech can denigrate the people foolish enough to belong to a group other than ours. You can almost see him winking at us as lampoons the pearl-clutching call for civility just before slandering his opponents as "thugs":
The upholders of the Stratford–Shakespeare superstition call US the hardest names they can think of, and they keep doing it all the time; very well, if they like to descend to that level, let them do it, but I will not so undignify myself as to follow them. I cannot call them harsh names; the most I can do is to indicate them by terms reflecting my disapproval; and this without malice, without venom. To resume. What I was about to say was, those thugs have built their entire superstition upon INFERENCES...
This is one of many spots where Twain had me laughing out loud. He also got me every time he quoted Shakespeare's epitaph, a running joke about how those barren and trivial words are the only ones that can be reliably attributed to Stratford Shakespeare.
Seeing this nugget from chapter 12 as a "quote of the day" yesterday is what prompted me to read the book:
I cannot call to mind a single instance where I have ever been irreverent, except toward the things which were sacred to other people.
When he wrote that, Twain had an even better line languishing in his unfinished novel The Mysterious Stranger:
Irreverence is another person's disrespect to your god; there isn't any word that tells what your disrespect to his god is.
Little about argumentation has changed in the 100 years since Mark Twain wrote this book. We still form opinions based on sketchy information (now we call it fake news) and we still talk to each other like enemies, even when the dispute is a trivial one. We go to any lengths to excuse the bad behavior of people in our tribe and easily convince ourselves that we need not worry about the humanity of the "thugs" in other tribes. Would Twain have been surprised to know that the passage of a century would change so little? Of course not, he predicted it would take at least three centuries (the book was published in 1909):
I haven't any idea that Shakespeare will have to vacate his pedestal this side of the year 2209. Disbelief in him cannot come swiftly, disbelief in a healthy and deeply-loved tar baby has never been known to disintegrate swiftly, it is a very slow process. It took several thousand years to convince our fine race--including every splendid intellect in it--that there is no such thing as a witch; it has taken several thousand years to convince that same fine race--including every splendid intellect in it--that there is no such person as Satan; it has taken several centuries to remove perdition from the Protestant Church's program of postmortem entertainments; it has taken a weary long time to persuade American Presbyterians to give up infant damnation and try to bear it the best they can; and it looks as if their Scotch brethren will still be burning babies in the everlasting fires when Shakespeare comes down from his perch.
He wrote that paragraph with his tongue firmly in-cheek, just as he wrote most of this book. He knew full well that millions still believed in witches and Satan in 1909, just as millions continue to do today. Will we ever get better at discerning truth from fiction? Maybe. Probably not. But surely all reasonable people can agree that Shakespeare's epitaph is garbage:
Good friend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust encloased heare:
Blest be ye man yt spares thes stones
And curst be he yt moves my bones.
You can read the full text of Mark Twain's Is Shakespeare Dead? here: http://www.online-literature.com/twai...
October 3, 2021
Short Note: Mark Twain’s mind appears as a Gatling gun; the salvo of which blasts his barbed lexicon ripping through our persevering orbs and straight into our sixth sense faculty. The Bacon-Shakespearean dissension became a celebrated raging debacle, yet his suasory ink beguiles the intellect of his literary progeny to decipher its underlying tone and meticulous narration.
August 18, 2010
Very entertaining discussion of the Shakespeare authorship question from an "Baconist" point of view.
He makes some good points.
1. The Plays and the Poetry are too good for someone of the Stratford-upon-Avon origins attributed to William Shakespeare. And too good for the fellow who scratched out "Good Friend for Iesus sake ... moves my bones" for his tomb.
2. There is too much missing biography and too little time in London to acquire the author's many accomplishments while also scraping out a living in the theater.
3. William Shakespeare of Stratford seems to have a hard time writing his own name.
4. The Stratford Shakespeare seems to have died unnoticed, unmourned, and unremembered in a town in which he spent a quarter of his life and was a relatively wealthy man and active businessman. Twain points out that he himself is better accounted for in Hannibal, Missouri at the time he is writing than Shakespeare was in his home town during his entire lifetime.
5. It is odd that there are no specimens of writing in his own hand apart from four signatures. For such a literate and culturally active man to have not left behind some letters or manuscripts seems very remarkable.
6. In particular, he goes into Shakespeare's apparently deep knowledge of the law and its proceedings. Some "Statfordolaters" assert he must have worked in a law firm or spent a great deal of time watching at court in London in the early days. But as a law clerk he would have been called upon to sign as a witness on many occasions and there is no such evidence in London or Stratford. (He does suggest that there is something to the idea Stratford Will apprenticed as a butcher, namely the play Titus Andronicus).
I wonder if there has been any conclusive proof that all the works, plays, poems, sonnets, the works are all written by the same person. My favorite alternative is the Oxfordian theory. It is noted that the dating of the plays shows signs of being arranged to suit the Stratfordolaters (as is the case with most of Will's "biography"), and a curious drop off shortly after Vere dies. (And he may have had a few in the works or even complete, able to be polished up and used afterward as well.)
Great fun, and Occam's razor cuts both ways. Seems to be the biggest mystery of this kind in civilization second only to the question of what Jesus was up to before he was thirty.
He makes some good points.
1. The Plays and the Poetry are too good for someone of the Stratford-upon-Avon origins attributed to William Shakespeare. And too good for the fellow who scratched out "Good Friend for Iesus sake ... moves my bones" for his tomb.
2. There is too much missing biography and too little time in London to acquire the author's many accomplishments while also scraping out a living in the theater.
3. William Shakespeare of Stratford seems to have a hard time writing his own name.
4. The Stratford Shakespeare seems to have died unnoticed, unmourned, and unremembered in a town in which he spent a quarter of his life and was a relatively wealthy man and active businessman. Twain points out that he himself is better accounted for in Hannibal, Missouri at the time he is writing than Shakespeare was in his home town during his entire lifetime.
5. It is odd that there are no specimens of writing in his own hand apart from four signatures. For such a literate and culturally active man to have not left behind some letters or manuscripts seems very remarkable.
6. In particular, he goes into Shakespeare's apparently deep knowledge of the law and its proceedings. Some "Statfordolaters" assert he must have worked in a law firm or spent a great deal of time watching at court in London in the early days. But as a law clerk he would have been called upon to sign as a witness on many occasions and there is no such evidence in London or Stratford. (He does suggest that there is something to the idea Stratford Will apprenticed as a butcher, namely the play Titus Andronicus).
I wonder if there has been any conclusive proof that all the works, plays, poems, sonnets, the works are all written by the same person. My favorite alternative is the Oxfordian theory. It is noted that the dating of the plays shows signs of being arranged to suit the Stratfordolaters (as is the case with most of Will's "biography"), and a curious drop off shortly after Vere dies. (And he may have had a few in the works or even complete, able to be polished up and used afterward as well.)
Great fun, and Occam's razor cuts both ways. Seems to be the biggest mystery of this kind in civilization second only to the question of what Jesus was up to before he was thirty.
October 7, 2013
I was intrigued by this book originally when reading some criticism and praise of it. As a satire, the book sounded like an interesting attack on just about all of the Shakespeare arguments as well as our tendency as a culture to try to overanalyze things. Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, the book didn't quite come off like that to me.
Is Shakespeare Dead didn't just come off as a misinformed argument in favor of Baconian authorship, but it also came off as just... a rushed and jumbled essay that never found its footing. By the time Mark Twain began to employ his comedic touch the exhaustive arguments and analyses had already soured me to the piece itself. It was just confusing and strange from beginning to end. I feel like I missed something somewhere along the line, but if I did, then a great many readers did over the years as well.
I'm open to arguments, though I am a Stratford supporter overall. This just wasn't even an argument as much as it was a flailing Mark Twain who couldn't make up his mind as to what narrative voice would best support the piece going forward.
Is Shakespeare Dead didn't just come off as a misinformed argument in favor of Baconian authorship, but it also came off as just... a rushed and jumbled essay that never found its footing. By the time Mark Twain began to employ his comedic touch the exhaustive arguments and analyses had already soured me to the piece itself. It was just confusing and strange from beginning to end. I feel like I missed something somewhere along the line, but if I did, then a great many readers did over the years as well.
I'm open to arguments, though I am a Stratford supporter overall. This just wasn't even an argument as much as it was a flailing Mark Twain who couldn't make up his mind as to what narrative voice would best support the piece going forward.
April 14, 2017
Clever and witty
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Is Shakespeare Dead? From my autobiography. (Kindle Edition)
This is a clever and witty essay compiling evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare did not write the works of the great Shakespeare. Twain also recounts suppositions and inferences which make Sir Francis Bacon the likely author. This argument continues today. The last time I paid any attention to it, I believe the Baconians had been routed. Or maybe it was the other way around. Neither eventuality alters the fact that the works of Shakespeare are a strong competitor for the title of the world's greatest literature. If I could have only two books one would be the Bible and the other The Complete Works of Shakespeare. As an aside, in this essay Twain reveals his disbelief in both Satan and perdition.
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Is Shakespeare Dead? From my autobiography. (Kindle Edition)
This is a clever and witty essay compiling evidence that the Stratford Shakespeare did not write the works of the great Shakespeare. Twain also recounts suppositions and inferences which make Sir Francis Bacon the likely author. This argument continues today. The last time I paid any attention to it, I believe the Baconians had been routed. Or maybe it was the other way around. Neither eventuality alters the fact that the works of Shakespeare are a strong competitor for the title of the world's greatest literature. If I could have only two books one would be the Bible and the other The Complete Works of Shakespeare. As an aside, in this essay Twain reveals his disbelief in both Satan and perdition.
June 2, 2012
This book is not at all what I expected from famed satirist Mark Twain.
I was expecting something fairly witty and light, and the book did start out like that but then it quickly descended into this long rant about how there wasn't any evidence William of Stratford was the Shakespeare who wrote the famed Plays and Poems. Mr. Twain seems to think that we just blindly accept the Stratford chap out of blind tradition and superstition. But I say to him that Will Shakespeare penned Shakespeare, I know because his name is on them. I also know that Mark Twain didn't write all his books. Sam Clemens did.
I was expecting something fairly witty and light, and the book did start out like that but then it quickly descended into this long rant about how there wasn't any evidence William of Stratford was the Shakespeare who wrote the famed Plays and Poems. Mr. Twain seems to think that we just blindly accept the Stratford chap out of blind tradition and superstition. But I say to him that Will Shakespeare penned Shakespeare, I know because his name is on them. I also know that Mark Twain didn't write all his books. Sam Clemens did.
June 21, 2025
❞ أليس غريبًا، عندما تفكر في الأمر، أنك تستطيع أن تعد قائمة بجميع مشاهير الإنجليز والأيرلنديين والأسكتلنديين في العصر الحديث -حتى تعود إلى عصر «تيودور الأول»- قائمة تضم خمسمائة اسم، أليس كذلك؟ ويمكنك الرجوع إلى كتب التاريخ والسير الذاتية والموسوعات ومعرفة تفاصيل حياة كل واحد منهم.
كل واحد منهم باستثناء واحد فقط، هو أكثرهم شهرة، والأكثر تألقًا بينهم جميعًا، وهو شكسبير!
قبل جيلَيْن، كان كل من «آنجون جو» و«جيمي فين» و«الجنرال جاينز» أشرارًا بارزين وغالبًا ما يتمادون في سوء تصرفهم في «هانيبال»، يتذكرهم كثير من ذوي الشعر الرمادي هناك حتى يومنا هذا ويمكنهم أن يحدثوك عنهم، ألم يكن من الغريب أن يترك اثنان من «سكّيري البلدة» ومحتال، في قرية نائية، شهرة أكبر بمئة مرة، وأكثر وضوحًا في كثير من المسائل والحقائق المُحدَّدة من شهرة شكسبير التي تركها وراءه في القرية التي عاش فيها نصف عمره؟ ❝
❞ نحن دائمًا نستمد مفاهيمنا حول مختلف الأشياء من الآخرين، وليس من داخلنا، بداية من أكثر الأشياء أهمية، وحتى الأشياء التافهة، دائمًا ما نكوّن وجهة نظرنا من خلال ما يقوله أو يحدده الآخرون، سواء ما يُعتقد أنه محظور أم مباح، أم أهمية السلام، وأمجاد الحرب والجدوى منها، وقوانين الشرف، وقواعد الأخلاق، والموافقة على المبارزة ورفضها، وحتى معتقداتنا بشأن طبيعة القطط، وأفكارنا حول ما إذا كان قتل الحيوانات البرية العاجزة وصيدها أمرًا دنيئًا أو بطوليًا، وتفضيلاتنا في مسألة الأحزاب الدينية والسياسية، وقبولنا أو رفضنا لشكسبير و«آرثر أورتون» والسيدة «إدي» كل هذه الأشياء دائمًا ما تتكون بداخلنا كنتيجة لما يقوله الآخرين، ونحن لا نستنبط أيًا منها بأنفسنا، هكذا يتم تشكيلنا هكذا نُصنع جميعًا، ولا نستطيع أن نفعل شيئًا حيال ذلك، لا يمكننا تغييره وكلما وجدنا أنفسنا أمام صنم، تعلمنا ضرورة الإيمان به وحبه وعبادته، وعدم التشكيك به، لن يكون هناك دليل، مهما كان واضحًا وقويًا، يمكن أن يقنعنا بالتخلي عن ولائنا، أو إعادة النظر في قناعتنا سواء في الأخلاق أم السلوك أم المعتقدات، فنحن نتلوَّن بلون بيئتنا وأفكار مجتمعنا، وهو لون يمكن ضمان زواله، كلما تم تزويدنا بشيء لزج، مثل دمية مصنوعة من القطران في حين أن بداخلها كثيرًا من المجوهرات. وقد قيل لنا إنه مِن العار وعدم الاحترام أن نكتشف ما بداخل هذه الدمية، حتى لا نقترب من هذه المجوهرات، وعلينا أن نبعد أيدينا المدنسة عنها، نستسلم، لا على مضض، بل برغبة، لأننا نخشى سرًا أنه عند الفحص، سنجد أن المجوهرات من النوع الذي يتم تصنيعه في «نورث آدمز»، «ماساتشوستس».
لا أظن أبدًا أن شهرة شكسبير ستتراجع قبل عام 2209، لأن الناس لا يمكن أن يتخلوا عن إيمانهم به بسرعة، فالناس أيضًا لم يكتشفوا حقيقة هذه الدمية المصنوعة من القطران بسرعة، إنها عملية بطيئة للغاية.
لقد استغرق الأمر آلاف السنين لإقناع جنسنا الرائع -بما في ذلك كل عقل مستنير فيه- أنه لا يوجد شيء اسمه سحر.
واستغرق الأمر عدة آلاف من السنين لإقناع الجنس الرائع نفسه -بما في ذلك كل عقل ذكي ولامع فيه- أنه لا يوجد كائن يُدعى الشيطان. لقد استغرق الأمر عدة قرون لإزالة مفهوم العذاب الأبدي من هذا الإيمان، الذي يعتقد أنه سيحدث بعد الوفاة تحديدًا، والذي آمن به اتباع الكنيسة البروتستانتية، لقد استغرق الأمر وقتًا طويلًا لإقناع الشيوخ الأمريكيين بالتخلي عن الإيمان بخلود الأطفال غير المعمدين في الجحيم الأبدي، ومحاولة تقبله بصورة أفضل، ويبدو أن إخوتهم الأسكتلنديين سيظلون يحرقون الأطفال في الجحيم الأبدي عندما ينزل شكسبير من عرشه نحن الجنس الذي يجب أن يؤمن بالمنطق، لا نستطيع أن نثبت تلك الحقيقة بالأمثلة المذكورة أعلاه، ولا نستطيع أن نثبتها من خلال «الشهادات» التي جمعها سكان «ستراتفورد» من الخِرَق وبراميل نِشارة الخشب، ولكن هناك كثيرًا من الأشياء الأخرى التي يمكننا إثبات وجهة نظرنا من خلالها، ويمكنني إحصاءها.
فنحن الجنس العقلاني، عندما نجد تلك الآثار التي تشبه آثار السناجب التي كانت تتجول هناك على رمال قرية «ستراتفورد»، نعلم من خلال قدراتنا العقلية أن «هرقل» كان موجودًا هناك. أشعر أن هذا الصنم سيظل باقيًا لمدة ثلاثة قرون أخرى، هذا التمثال النصفي هناك في كنيسة «ستراتفورد»، التمثال النصفي الثمين، التمثال النصفي الذي لا يقدر بثمن، التمثال النصفي الصامد بوَداعة، التمثال النصفي الثابت، التمثال النصفي الخالي من المشاعر، المنحوت على وجهه شارب أنيق، ذو الوجه المنحوت بدقة، الذي لا يبدو على ملامحه أي اهتمام، ذلك الوجه الذي ينظر بلا عاطفة إلى الزوار، الذين ينظرون له بخشوع ورَهْبة، لمدة مائة وخمسين عامًا، وسيظل ينظر بازدراء إلى هؤلاء الزوار لثلاثمائة عام آخرين، بالنظرة نفسها العميقة والهادئة والثابتة، التي لا تتغير. ❝
عن احترام المقدسات:
❞ لا يمكننا الحصول على هذا الاحترام تجاه كل فكرة أو اعتقاد، لأن هناك الكثير والكثير من الأفكار والمعتقدات بالفعل، إذا واصلت توسيع الامتياز ونشره وتضخيمه، فسيتم الاعتراف في الوقت الحاضر، بأن كل شيء وفكرة مقدسة عند كل إنسان هي فكرة لا بد وأن تحترم، وسيَتَعيَّن على بقية الجنس البشري أن يحترموا ويتقبلوا تلك الأفكار الخاصة بكل شخص، أن يفعلوا ذلك بتواضع، وإما سيعانوا من ويلات ذلك.
يمكن أن يحدث ذلك بالتأكيد، وعندما يحدث، فسيتم اعتبار كلمة «عدم احترام المقدسات» أكثر الكلمات التي لا معنى لها، والأكثر حماقة، وغرورًا، ووقاحة، وسذاجة، ستبدو ككلمة دكتاتورية وسُلْطَوِية تفرض نفسه�� دون أي مبرر في القاموس اللغوي، وسيقول الناس:
«لمن هذه الكلمة، وما الآلهة التي أعبدها.. وما الأشياء المقدسة بالنسبة لي إذن؟ من له الحق في الإملاء على ضميري، ومن أين جاء بهذا الحق؟».
ولا يمكننا أن نسمح لتلك الكارثة أن تحل علينا، يجب أن ننقذ الكلمة من هذا الدمار، هناك طريقة واحدة للقيام بذلك؛ وهي وقف انتشار هذا الامتياز، وحصره بشكل صارم في حدوده الحالية، أي احترام جميع الطوائف المسيحية، وجميع الطوائف الهندوسية، واحترام أفكاري بالتأكيد، وبعد ذلك لا نحتاج إلى المزيد.
من المؤكد أنه سيكون أفضل بكثير للجميع إذا سُحب امتياز احترام الأشخاص الذين لا يحترمون غيرهم، وأن ينضموا في هذا الصف الطويل الذي يبدو وكأنه بلا نهاية، والذي تقف فيه جميع الطوائف والمعتقدات والأفكار، عدا أنا. عندها لن يكون هناك المزيد من المشاحنات، ولا المزيد من تبادل الصفات البذيئة، ولا المزيد من حرقة القلب.
عندها لن يكون هناك شيء مقدس في هذا الجدل الدائر بين «بيكون وشكسبير»، وسيكون الشيء المقدس هو الشيء الذي أعتبره أنا مقدسًا، وهذا سوف يبسط الأمر برمته، وسوف تتوقف المشكلات. ❝
كل واحد منهم باستثناء واحد فقط، هو أكثرهم شهرة، والأكثر تألقًا بينهم جميعًا، وهو شكسبير!
قبل جيلَيْن، كان كل من «آنجون جو» و«جيمي فين» و«الجنرال جاينز» أشرارًا بارزين وغالبًا ما يتمادون في سوء تصرفهم في «هانيبال»، يتذكرهم كثير من ذوي الشعر الرمادي هناك حتى يومنا هذا ويمكنهم أن يحدثوك عنهم، ألم يكن من الغريب أن يترك اثنان من «سكّيري البلدة» ومحتال، في قرية نائية، شهرة أكبر بمئة مرة، وأكثر وضوحًا في كثير من المسائل والحقائق المُحدَّدة من شهرة شكسبير التي تركها وراءه في القرية التي عاش فيها نصف عمره؟ ❝
❞ نحن دائمًا نستمد مفاهيمنا حول مختلف الأشياء من الآخرين، وليس من داخلنا، بداية من أكثر الأشياء أهمية، وحتى الأشياء التافهة، دائمًا ما نكوّن وجهة نظرنا من خلال ما يقوله أو يحدده الآخرون، سواء ما يُعتقد أنه محظور أم مباح، أم أهمية السلام، وأمجاد الحرب والجدوى منها، وقوانين الشرف، وقواعد الأخلاق، والموافقة على المبارزة ورفضها، وحتى معتقداتنا بشأن طبيعة القطط، وأفكارنا حول ما إذا كان قتل الحيوانات البرية العاجزة وصيدها أمرًا دنيئًا أو بطوليًا، وتفضيلاتنا في مسألة الأحزاب الدينية والسياسية، وقبولنا أو رفضنا لشكسبير و«آرثر أورتون» والسيدة «إدي» كل هذه الأشياء دائمًا ما تتكون بداخلنا كنتيجة لما يقوله الآخرين، ونحن لا نستنبط أيًا منها بأنفسنا، هكذا يتم تشكيلنا هكذا نُصنع جميعًا، ولا نستطيع أن نفعل شيئًا حيال ذلك، لا يمكننا تغييره وكلما وجدنا أنفسنا أمام صنم، تعلمنا ضرورة الإيمان به وحبه وعبادته، وعدم التشكيك به، لن يكون هناك دليل، مهما كان واضحًا وقويًا، يمكن أن يقنعنا بالتخلي عن ولائنا، أو إعادة النظر في قناعتنا سواء في الأخلاق أم السلوك أم المعتقدات، فنحن نتلوَّن بلون بيئتنا وأفكار مجتمعنا، وهو لون يمكن ضمان زواله، كلما تم تزويدنا بشيء لزج، مثل دمية مصنوعة من القطران في حين أن بداخلها كثيرًا من المجوهرات. وقد قيل لنا إنه مِن العار وعدم الاحترام أن نكتشف ما بداخل هذه الدمية، حتى لا نقترب من هذه المجوهرات، وعلينا أن نبعد أيدينا المدنسة عنها، نستسلم، لا على مضض، بل برغبة، لأننا نخشى سرًا أنه عند الفحص، سنجد أن المجوهرات من النوع الذي يتم تصنيعه في «نورث آدمز»، «ماساتشوستس».
لا أظن أبدًا أن شهرة شكسبير ستتراجع قبل عام 2209، لأن الناس لا يمكن أن يتخلوا عن إيمانهم به بسرعة، فالناس أيضًا لم يكتشفوا حقيقة هذه الدمية المصنوعة من القطران بسرعة، إنها عملية بطيئة للغاية.
لقد استغرق الأمر آلاف السنين لإقناع جنسنا الرائع -بما في ذلك كل عقل مستنير فيه- أنه لا يوجد شيء اسمه سحر.
واستغرق الأمر عدة آلاف من السنين لإقناع الجنس الرائع نفسه -بما في ذلك كل عقل ذكي ولامع فيه- أنه لا يوجد كائن يُدعى الشيطان. لقد استغرق الأمر عدة قرون لإزالة مفهوم العذاب الأبدي من هذا الإيمان، الذي يعتقد أنه سيحدث بعد الوفاة تحديدًا، والذي آمن به اتباع الكنيسة البروتستانتية، لقد استغرق الأمر وقتًا طويلًا لإقناع الشيوخ الأمريكيين بالتخلي عن الإيمان بخلود الأطفال غير المعمدين في الجحيم الأبدي، ومحاولة تقبله بصورة أفضل، ويبدو أن إخوتهم الأسكتلنديين سيظلون يحرقون الأطفال في الجحيم الأبدي عندما ينزل شكسبير من عرشه نحن الجنس الذي يجب أن يؤمن بالمنطق، لا نستطيع أن نثبت تلك الحقيقة بالأمثلة المذكورة أعلاه، ولا نستطيع أن نثبتها من خلال «الشهادات» التي جمعها سكان «ستراتفورد» من الخِرَق وبراميل نِشارة الخشب، ولكن هناك كثيرًا من الأشياء الأخرى التي يمكننا إثبات وجهة نظرنا من خلالها، ويمكنني إحصاءها.
فنحن الجنس العقلاني، عندما نجد تلك الآثار التي تشبه آثار السناجب التي كانت تتجول هناك على رمال قرية «ستراتفورد»، نعلم من خلال قدراتنا العقلية أن «هرقل» كان موجودًا هناك. أشعر أن هذا الصنم سيظل باقيًا لمدة ثلاثة قرون أخرى، هذا التمثال النصفي هناك في كنيسة «ستراتفورد»، التمثال النصفي الثمين، التمثال النصفي الذي لا يقدر بثمن، التمثال النصفي الصامد بوَداعة، التمثال النصفي الثابت، التمثال النصفي الخالي من المشاعر، المنحوت على وجهه شارب أنيق، ذو الوجه المنحوت بدقة، الذي لا يبدو على ملامحه أي اهتمام، ذلك الوجه الذي ينظر بلا عاطفة إلى الزوار، الذين ينظرون له بخشوع ورَهْبة، لمدة مائة وخمسين عامًا، وسيظل ينظر بازدراء إلى هؤلاء الزوار لثلاثمائة عام آخرين، بالنظرة نفسها العميقة والهادئة والثابتة، التي لا تتغير. ❝
عن احترام المقدسات:
❞ لا يمكننا الحصول على هذا الاحترام تجاه كل فكرة أو اعتقاد، لأن هناك الكثير والكثير من الأفكار والمعتقدات بالفعل، إذا واصلت توسيع الامتياز ونشره وتضخيمه، فسيتم الاعتراف في الوقت الحاضر، بأن كل شيء وفكرة مقدسة عند كل إنسان هي فكرة لا بد وأن تحترم، وسيَتَعيَّن على بقية الجنس البشري أن يحترموا ويتقبلوا تلك الأفكار الخاصة بكل شخص، أن يفعلوا ذلك بتواضع، وإما سيعانوا من ويلات ذلك.
يمكن أن يحدث ذلك بالتأكيد، وعندما يحدث، فسيتم اعتبار كلمة «عدم احترام المقدسات» أكثر الكلمات التي لا معنى لها، والأكثر حماقة، وغرورًا، ووقاحة، وسذاجة، ستبدو ككلمة دكتاتورية وسُلْطَوِية تفرض نفسه�� دون أي مبرر في القاموس اللغوي، وسيقول الناس:
«لمن هذه الكلمة، وما الآلهة التي أعبدها.. وما الأشياء المقدسة بالنسبة لي إذن؟ من له الحق في الإملاء على ضميري، ومن أين جاء بهذا الحق؟».
ولا يمكننا أن نسمح لتلك الكارثة أن تحل علينا، يجب أن ننقذ الكلمة من هذا الدمار، هناك طريقة واحدة للقيام بذلك؛ وهي وقف انتشار هذا الامتياز، وحصره بشكل صارم في حدوده الحالية، أي احترام جميع الطوائف المسيحية، وجميع الطوائف الهندوسية، واحترام أفكاري بالتأكيد، وبعد ذلك لا نحتاج إلى المزيد.
من المؤكد أنه سيكون أفضل بكثير للجميع إذا سُحب امتياز احترام الأشخاص الذين لا يحترمون غيرهم، وأن ينضموا في هذا الصف الطويل الذي يبدو وكأنه بلا نهاية، والذي تقف فيه جميع الطوائف والمعتقدات والأفكار، عدا أنا. عندها لن يكون هناك المزيد من المشاحنات، ولا المزيد من تبادل الصفات البذيئة، ولا المزيد من حرقة القلب.
عندها لن يكون هناك شيء مقدس في هذا الجدل الدائر بين «بيكون وشكسبير»، وسيكون الشيء المقدس هو الشيء الذي أعتبره أنا مقدسًا، وهذا سوف يبسط الأمر برمته، وسوف تتوقف المشكلات. ❝
June 30, 2016
Mark Twain offers his thoughts on whether Shakespeare was really the author of his plays. This starts out really good. I particularly liked the part where he talks about the necessity of experience in order to write about a topic well. Also, the part where he talks about his time on the Mississippi River with a captain who loved Shakespeare is interesting. At about the halfway point, this piece starts to ramble, though.
August 22, 2019
Well, Twain has all but convinced me into the anti-Stratfordian camp.
It's a rather insignificant piece of writing (I'm sure Twain would agree) that would likely only be of interest to folks either genuinely interested in the Shakespearean authorship question or big fans of Twain. But it's a short read, and as entertaining as you'd expect, so I'd say it's worth a detour if you have the time and curiosity.
It's a rather insignificant piece of writing (I'm sure Twain would agree) that would likely only be of interest to folks either genuinely interested in the Shakespearean authorship question or big fans of Twain. But it's a short read, and as entertaining as you'd expect, so I'd say it's worth a detour if you have the time and curiosity.
September 22, 2011
Really enjoyed this book. Twain is supremely sarcastic and well-informed on the subject of the true authorship of Shakespeare's works. Very fun read.
March 30, 2012
Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare. I think he's right, and he doesn't fail to entertain. A more scholarly treatment on the subject is Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography by Diana Price.
May 25, 2012
Con su guasa y saber hacer Twain expone sus dudas sobre la autoría de las obras de Shakespeare.
October 7, 2017
wonderful
June 12, 2018
Interesting take on whether or not Shakespeare wrote the plays, or someone else. Twain thinks it was someone else.
November 11, 2021
I don't recall where I discovered this very short musing on the authorship of Shakespeare, but since age 17 I've been a believer that de Vere (or a group of men) were the true authors of the works attributed to Shakespeare. That's not to say I don't enjoy the myth of the actor-turned-genius, and certainly getting a glimpse into the life of one man in Stratford was a delight (though the best part was learning about his mother, Mary Arden, and touring her living history farm). But it's not an argument at the top of my mind most days.
So reading this was both amusing (Twain eviscerates Stratfordians- that is, those who believe William Shakespeare the actor was the author of the plays we attribute to him) and educational. His argument against Startfordians centers around three things:
That we only have a few actual verified facts about Shakespeare, and everything else is assumption (that scholars have decided along the way must be true, because they're possible).
That Shakespeare had zero notoriety in Stratford- nobody commented on his death or brought up any memories of him, which they would've if he were the celebrity we believed him to be. Apparently, nobody commented on Shakespeare of Stratford until over 60 years after his death, and that was a memory of a conversation with someone who might've known him.
That Shakespeare's knowledge of Tudor law was evident in his language as well as legal plot points in the plays at a level far above someone having casually picked it up from the conversations of others. This is the argument that's most well laid out, quoting scholars and presenting counterpoints.
Where this was a little more wandering and less persuasive was around the assumption that if they were not written by Shakespeare, they must've been written by Sir Francis Bacon. Twain himself says he isn't convinced they were written by Bacon, but he presents no alternative consideration and goes on at length about Bacon's qualifications. So the end feels a little more meandering and less well laid out.
Regardless, you can tell that Twain has given the matter consideration, and his usual wry wit, and although this piece wasn't originally considered for publication, it's more or less in an approachable essay format.
So reading this was both amusing (Twain eviscerates Stratfordians- that is, those who believe William Shakespeare the actor was the author of the plays we attribute to him) and educational. His argument against Startfordians centers around three things:
That we only have a few actual verified facts about Shakespeare, and everything else is assumption (that scholars have decided along the way must be true, because they're possible).
That Shakespeare had zero notoriety in Stratford- nobody commented on his death or brought up any memories of him, which they would've if he were the celebrity we believed him to be. Apparently, nobody commented on Shakespeare of Stratford until over 60 years after his death, and that was a memory of a conversation with someone who might've known him.
That Shakespeare's knowledge of Tudor law was evident in his language as well as legal plot points in the plays at a level far above someone having casually picked it up from the conversations of others. This is the argument that's most well laid out, quoting scholars and presenting counterpoints.
Where this was a little more wandering and less persuasive was around the assumption that if they were not written by Shakespeare, they must've been written by Sir Francis Bacon. Twain himself says he isn't convinced they were written by Bacon, but he presents no alternative consideration and goes on at length about Bacon's qualifications. So the end feels a little more meandering and less well laid out.
Regardless, you can tell that Twain has given the matter consideration, and his usual wry wit, and although this piece wasn't originally considered for publication, it's more or less in an approachable essay format.
May 21, 2022
"¿Pretendo convencer a alguien de que Shakespeare no escribió las Obras de Shakespeare? Pero bueno, ¿por quién me han tomado?"
Un texto de 1909 que en realidad surge como digresión a su propia autobiografía, en ni siquiera 100 páginas, gracias a Mark Twain trasciende el mero "irse por las ramas en un texto perpendicular al proyectado" para ser no pocas cosas a la vez. Las dos principales, modernísimo (es increíble la facilidad con la que introduce subtextos y metatextos, ya que, irónicamente, las biografías de Shakespeare y Francis Bacon son casi una excusa para hacer una segunda biografía suya paralela al texto que origina este ¿ensayo? solo que considerando hitos autobiográficos los que le sirven para conjeturar cómo sería la popularidad de Shakespeare de haber sido no un seudónimo y sí una persona concreta e identificable por sus vecinos y contemporáneos) y divertido a más no poder: el trazo biográfico del Shakespeare persona real (en realidad un rentista muy amigo del litigio civil como parte acreedora) es algo mayúsculo, y con el uso peyorativo de lo único que consta escrito de esta persona (una amenaza postmortem en su lápida para amedrentar a posibles saqueadores de tumbas) construye un running gag que, además de servirle al objeto de lo que postula, en su súltima aparición me he reído en alto. Y eso llevaba años sin pasarme con un libro. Bueno, ni con nada.
Va tan sobrado en lo de los subtextos (una materia en la que es el mejor de calle; no hay que olvidarse jamás de Un Yanqui En La Corte Del Rey Arturo y su inmortal "no juzgues con tus códigos del presente las cosas del pasado, que al final vas a ser tú peor que ellos") que, casualidades de la vida, le queda un tratado sobre el pensamiento sesgado al que tendemos, los sesgos de confirmación y las construcciones no factuales de los relatos más moderna que la propia modernidad en la que vivimos, puesto que zanja el asunto sin mirar por encima del hombro a nadie: sencillamente se incluye en dichas conductas como ser humano que es y permite inferir que da por hecho que así seguirá siendo siempre, que va en nuestra naturaleza. Y el tiempo, por ahora, le sigue dando la razón.
¡Y hasta tiene un mini Misterio de Habitación Cerrada con gatos! No sé, creo que Mark Twain era el mejor.
Un texto de 1909 que en realidad surge como digresión a su propia autobiografía, en ni siquiera 100 páginas, gracias a Mark Twain trasciende el mero "irse por las ramas en un texto perpendicular al proyectado" para ser no pocas cosas a la vez. Las dos principales, modernísimo (es increíble la facilidad con la que introduce subtextos y metatextos, ya que, irónicamente, las biografías de Shakespeare y Francis Bacon son casi una excusa para hacer una segunda biografía suya paralela al texto que origina este ¿ensayo? solo que considerando hitos autobiográficos los que le sirven para conjeturar cómo sería la popularidad de Shakespeare de haber sido no un seudónimo y sí una persona concreta e identificable por sus vecinos y contemporáneos) y divertido a más no poder: el trazo biográfico del Shakespeare persona real (en realidad un rentista muy amigo del litigio civil como parte acreedora) es algo mayúsculo, y con el uso peyorativo de lo único que consta escrito de esta persona (una amenaza postmortem en su lápida para amedrentar a posibles saqueadores de tumbas) construye un running gag que, además de servirle al objeto de lo que postula, en su súltima aparición me he reído en alto. Y eso llevaba años sin pasarme con un libro. Bueno, ni con nada.
Va tan sobrado en lo de los subtextos (una materia en la que es el mejor de calle; no hay que olvidarse jamás de Un Yanqui En La Corte Del Rey Arturo y su inmortal "no juzgues con tus códigos del presente las cosas del pasado, que al final vas a ser tú peor que ellos") que, casualidades de la vida, le queda un tratado sobre el pensamiento sesgado al que tendemos, los sesgos de confirmación y las construcciones no factuales de los relatos más moderna que la propia modernidad en la que vivimos, puesto que zanja el asunto sin mirar por encima del hombro a nadie: sencillamente se incluye en dichas conductas como ser humano que es y permite inferir que da por hecho que así seguirá siendo siempre, que va en nuestra naturaleza. Y el tiempo, por ahora, le sigue dando la razón.
¡Y hasta tiene un mini Misterio de Habitación Cerrada con gatos! No sé, creo que Mark Twain era el mejor.
January 28, 2021
"Is Shakespeare Dead?" is a book best read in context. It was written by Mark Twain in the heyday of the Baconian theories, and in that it perhaps tells us more about Twain and his age than it does about Shakespeare.
Before I even consider the actual content, I must say that it is a delight to read. Twain is witty, the prose is well-composed and the argument flows well. It is short, but in that length Mark Twain justifies his position as a celebrated author through carefully chosen phrases and motifs. It is entertaining to read, and it would be even if the content was not interesting.
And the content is interesting. The Baconian theory that Shakespeare didn't write his plays is explored in a very focused way, through the assertion that Shakespeare did not have the skills and professional training to have written his plays the way he did. Does Twain succeed in his argumentation? Not entirely, no. There are still doubts to be raised, questions to be asked, and more recent works have refuted some of his assertions quite significantly. So, if you're looking to better understand the Shakespeare-Bacon question, perhaps you would be served through more modern essays and books.
At the same time, the book reflects Twain so well. He picks and draws incidents and ideas, explores them vigorously, and it makes you feel positively thrilled. It shows us how someone of his age might have been thinking, it includes bits and pieces from other eminent individuals of his time and, overall, is a good way to examine the history of the debate rather than the debate itself.
If you're interested in the niche history of the Shakespeare-Bacon debate, or if you're looking for an engaging, slightly humorous essay, or even if you're looking to fill an evening understanding Twain better, this book is for you. It is definitely not for everyone. It is very specific in what it does, and very specific people will enjoy it. Yet, that is true for a multitude of works of literature and art, and thus is not the finest complaint.
Before I even consider the actual content, I must say that it is a delight to read. Twain is witty, the prose is well-composed and the argument flows well. It is short, but in that length Mark Twain justifies his position as a celebrated author through carefully chosen phrases and motifs. It is entertaining to read, and it would be even if the content was not interesting.
And the content is interesting. The Baconian theory that Shakespeare didn't write his plays is explored in a very focused way, through the assertion that Shakespeare did not have the skills and professional training to have written his plays the way he did. Does Twain succeed in his argumentation? Not entirely, no. There are still doubts to be raised, questions to be asked, and more recent works have refuted some of his assertions quite significantly. So, if you're looking to better understand the Shakespeare-Bacon question, perhaps you would be served through more modern essays and books.
At the same time, the book reflects Twain so well. He picks and draws incidents and ideas, explores them vigorously, and it makes you feel positively thrilled. It shows us how someone of his age might have been thinking, it includes bits and pieces from other eminent individuals of his time and, overall, is a good way to examine the history of the debate rather than the debate itself.
If you're interested in the niche history of the Shakespeare-Bacon debate, or if you're looking for an engaging, slightly humorous essay, or even if you're looking to fill an evening understanding Twain better, this book is for you. It is definitely not for everyone. It is very specific in what it does, and very specific people will enjoy it. Yet, that is true for a multitude of works of literature and art, and thus is not the finest complaint.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews