What do you think?
Rate this book
أشهر ٣٠ خرافة عن شكسبير
هل استُخدِمَتْ جمجمةٌ حقيقيةٌ في العروض الأولى لمسرحية «هاملت»؟ هل حقَّقَتْ مسرحياتُ شكسبير نجاحاتٍ مُدوِّيةً في العصر الإليزابيثي؟ ما حجم المعلومات التي نعرفها حقًّا عن حياةِ هذا المؤلِّف الشهير؟ ماذا عن علاقته السيئة بزوجته؟
ما أكثر الخرافات التي ذاعت عن شكسبير لأسبابٍ عدة، منها الدراسات الأكاديمية حول شخصيته التاريخية الكاريزمية العَصِيَّة على الفهم، وأيضًا لأن القضايا الخلافية التي تثيرها دراساتُ شكسبير — دون سواه من الرموز الأدبية — تتصدَّر عناوينَ الأخبار!
وهذا الكتابُ الرائعُ يستكشف ٣٠ خرافة شائعة حول هذا الكاتِب العظيم ويُفَنِّدها من منظورٍ جديدٍ، ويناقش الإشكاليات الكبرى التي تداعِب خيالَ العامة حول شكسبير ومسرحه ونصوصه، وذلك عبرَ سلسلةٍ من المقالات القصيرة التي تمسُّ أبرزَ اهتماماتِ الدراسات الأكاديمية.
فإذا كنتَ تظن أن شكسبير كان كاتبًا مسرحيًّا من ستراتفورد، أو أن مسرحية «ماكبث» مشئومة، فعليك أن تُعِيد النظر.
ما أكثر الخرافات التي ذاعت عن شكسبير لأسبابٍ عدة، منها الدراسات الأكاديمية حول شخصيته التاريخية الكاريزمية العَصِيَّة على الفهم، وأيضًا لأن القضايا الخلافية التي تثيرها دراساتُ شكسبير — دون سواه من الرموز الأدبية — تتصدَّر عناوينَ الأخبار!
وهذا الكتابُ الرائعُ يستكشف ٣٠ خرافة شائعة حول هذا الكاتِب العظيم ويُفَنِّدها من منظورٍ جديدٍ، ويناقش الإشكاليات الكبرى التي تداعِب خيالَ العامة حول شكسبير ومسرحه ونصوصه، وذلك عبرَ سلسلةٍ من المقالات القصيرة التي تمسُّ أبرزَ اهتماماتِ الدراسات الأكاديمية.
فإذا كنتَ تظن أن شكسبير كان كاتبًا مسرحيًّا من ستراتفورد، أو أن مسرحية «ماكبث» مشئومة، فعليك أن تُعِيد النظر.
290 pages, ebook
First published October 24, 2012
7 people are currently reading
178 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
March 29, 2020
كتاب جيد لكنه بحاجة إلى الاختصار، وعرض المعلومات بصورة أكثر تشويقا للقارئ العادي
September 5, 2021
إن مسألة أصالة التأليف هي تنافر أيديلوجي شاذ؛ فهي، من جهة، تضرب بجذورها في إعادة تمحيص أساسية لمغزى مسرحيات شكسبير الفلسفي. نوعًا ما، كان تطرفها السياسي المُدْرَك حديثًا هو الذي جعل من المنطقي أن يود مؤلفها إخفاء هويته. رَسَّخَت الكاتبة والباحثة الأمريكية ديليا بيكون هذا التقليد التفسيري في كتابها الغامض «إماطة اللثام عن فلسفة مسرحيات شكسبير» (١٨٥٧)، وهو الكتاب الذي استقطب ناثانيال هوثورن ورالف والدو إيمرسون إلى دعواها. أيدت بيكون ومن سار على دربها لاحقًا علاقة المسرحيات بالسياسة المعاصرة لها بطرق سبقت الكثير من الدراسات اللاحقة المعنية بمكانة المسرح في إنجلترا في أوائل العصر الحديث، باعتباره عدوانيًّا من الناحية الاجتماعية، ومثيرًا للفتن من الناحية السياسية (يلحظ لجيمس شابيرو، في دراسة مستفيضة حديثة لمسألة أصالة التأليف من وجهة نظر نقدية واجتماعية، أنه لو لم تكن هذه الأفكار مرتبطة بمسألة أصالة التأليف «لحظيت بيكون حاليًّا بالحفاوة باعتبارها باكورة المؤرخين الجدد، وأول من يفترض بأن المسرحيات استشرفت الاضطرابات السياسية التي شهدتها إنجلترا في منتصف القرن السابع عشر»)
ولكن، في مقابل هذه القراءة المتطرفة والمُسَيَّسَة للمسرحيات، لمسألة أصالة التأليف قالب متحفظ اجتماعيًّا بشدة؛ فأنصارها يستحيل أن يؤمنوا بأن ابن صانع قفازات من مدينة سوقية ريفية لم يحصل على تعليم جامعي يمكنه، بأي حال من الأحوال، أن يؤلف الأعمال المنسوبة إليه. وليس من قبيل المصادفة أن المرشحين البدلاء لتأليف هذه الأعمال كلهم نبلاء؛ فرانسيس بيكون، والسير هنري نيفيل، وإيرل أكسفورد، وإيرل ديربي، بل وحتى الملكة إليزابيث مدعومة بتحلل رسومي متولد بالحاسوب، للكشف عن صورة للملكة العذراء متخفية في هيئة شكسبير في صدر مجموعة الأعمال الكاملة الأولى. والبديل الوحيد المنتمي إلى «عامة الناس» في القائمة هو كريستوفر مارلو، خريج جامعة كامبريدج. ولكن ما من داعٍ، اللهم إلا التعالي الاجتماعي، وراء الربط ما بين القدرات الأدبية وبين المكانة الاجتماعية أو النسب، ولا سيما في عالم المسرح، حيث كان المؤلف المسرحي «صَنائِعِيًّا» وهي كلمة جديدة تصف مهنة جديدة، اشْتُقَّتْ قياسًا على الحِرَفي الماهر، كصانع العجلات أو صانع السفن. إن المزاعم بأن إما أن كاتب المسرحيات لا بد أنه أحد رجال البلاط، أو أن مؤلفها الأرستقراطي لم يستطع أن يُدَنِّسَ ذاته باقتحام سوق الطباعة العامة هي مجرد توكيدات لا أدلة. في مواطن أخرى من هذا الكتاب سبق أن أوضحنا أن تعليم شكسبير كان موسَّعًا، وأنه لم يكن بحاجة إلى السفر إلى الخارج ليكتب مسرحياته. إن ما نعرفه عن شكسبير حقًّا — وما يشهد به معاصروه بالقدر الكافي — أنه كان بإمكانه تأليف مسرحيات خيالية وجذابة اشتملت على ملازمة الرؤية العالمية والكفاءة اللغوية لمختلف المتحدثين الذين ينتمون إلى طبقات اجتماعية مختلفة.
عن شكسبير وأصالة التأليف
ولكن، في مقابل هذه القراءة المتطرفة والمُسَيَّسَة للمسرحيات، لمسألة أصالة التأليف قالب متحفظ اجتماعيًّا بشدة؛ فأنصارها يستحيل أن يؤمنوا بأن ابن صانع قفازات من مدينة سوقية ريفية لم يحصل على تعليم جامعي يمكنه، بأي حال من الأحوال، أن يؤلف الأعمال المنسوبة إليه. وليس من قبيل المصادفة أن المرشحين البدلاء لتأليف هذه الأعمال كلهم نبلاء؛ فرانسيس بيكون، والسير هنري نيفيل، وإيرل أكسفورد، وإيرل ديربي، بل وحتى الملكة إليزابيث مدعومة بتحلل رسومي متولد بالحاسوب، للكشف عن صورة للملكة العذراء متخفية في هيئة شكسبير في صدر مجموعة الأعمال الكاملة الأولى. والبديل الوحيد المنتمي إلى «عامة الناس» في القائمة هو كريستوفر مارلو، خريج جامعة كامبريدج. ولكن ما من داعٍ، اللهم إلا التعالي الاجتماعي، وراء الربط ما بين القدرات الأدبية وبين المكانة الاجتماعية أو النسب، ولا سيما في عالم المسرح، حيث كان المؤلف المسرحي «صَنائِعِيًّا» وهي كلمة جديدة تصف مهنة جديدة، اشْتُقَّتْ قياسًا على الحِرَفي الماهر، كصانع العجلات أو صانع السفن. إن المزاعم بأن إما أن كاتب المسرحيات لا بد أنه أحد رجال البلاط، أو أن مؤلفها الأرستقراطي لم يستطع أن يُدَنِّسَ ذاته باقتحام سوق الطباعة العامة هي مجرد توكيدات لا أدلة. في مواطن أخرى من هذا الكتاب سبق أن أوضحنا أن تعليم شكسبير كان موسَّعًا، وأنه لم يكن بحاجة إلى السفر إلى الخارج ليكتب مسرحياته. إن ما نعرفه عن شكسبير حقًّا — وما يشهد به معاصروه بالقدر الكافي — أنه كان بإمكانه تأليف مسرحيات خيالية وجذابة اشتملت على ملازمة الرؤية العالمية والكفاءة اللغوية لمختلف المتحدثين الذين ينتمون إلى طبقات اجتماعية مختلفة.
عن شكسبير وأصالة التأليف
February 7, 2021
In a book that manages the atypical achievement of exercising intellectual caution and good sense throughout, while still providing an exceedingly interesting portrait of the man himself, Oxford intellectuals Laurie Maguire and Emma Smith examine 30 of the best-known rumours about Shakespeare and, overall, flatten them.
This book seeks to cross-examine several things we believe we know about Shakespeare, and we have called this body of knowledge “myths.”
Why “myths”?
The authors were drawn to this term for the Shakespeare content in each of the chapters because “myth” forefronts the act of storytelling; because it underscores the edifying work these stories do rather than their correctness; because it is not about a defined dot of origin but about accepted principles; because it is about the people who accept or invent or need these stories as much as it is about the stories themselves.
This book has been detailed into the following chapters:
Myth 1: Shakespeare was the most popular writer of his time
Myth 2: Shakespeare was not well educated
Myth 3: Shakespeare's plays should be performed in elizabethan dress
Myth 4: Shakespeare was not interested in having his plays printed
Myth 5: Shakespeare never traveled
Myth 6: Shakespeare's plays are politically incorrect
Myth 7: Shakespeare was a Catholic
Myth 8: Shakespeare's plays had no scenery
Myth 9: Shakespeare's tragedies are more serious than his comedies
Myth 10: Shakespeare hated his wife
Myth 11: Shakespeare wrote in the rhythms of everyday speech
Myth 12: Hamlet was named after Shakespeare's son
Myth 13: The coarse bits of Shakespeare are for the groundlings; the philosophy is for the upper classes
Myth 14: Shakespeare was a Stratford playwright
Myth 15: Shakespeare was a plagiarist
Myth 16: We don't know much about Shakespeare's life
Myth 17: Shakespeare wrote alone
Myth 18: Shakespeare's sonnets are autobiographical
Myth 19: If Shakespeare were writing now, he'd be writing for Hollywood
Myth 20: The Tempest was Shakespeare's farewell to the stage
Myth 21: Shakespeare had a huge vocabulary
Myth 22: Shakespeare's plays are timeless
Myth 23: Macbeth is jinxed in the theater
Myth 24: Shakespeare did not revise his plays
Myth 25: Boy actors played women's roles
Myth 26: Shakespeare's plays don't work as movies
Myth 27: Yorick's skull was real
Myth 28: Queen Elizabeth loved Shakespeare's plays
Myth 29: Shakespeare's characters are like real people
Myth 30: Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare
Myths proliferate about Shakespeare in some measure because of half-remembered or out-of-date scholarship from schooldays, because Shakespeare the man is such an intangible and captivating cultural property, and because intercessions in Shakespeare studies, predominantly biographical and theatrical ones, make headline news: witness the “authorship question” (Myth 30) or speculation about Shakespeare's beliefs or sexuality (Myths 7 and 18).
Put minimally, myths are told and retold about Shakespeare because no other writer matters as much to the world: nineteenth-century Germany had a flourishing academic Shakespeare criticism before England did; India had a Shakespeare Society before England; Shakespeare is regularly performed at amateur and professional levels, in translation, worldwide. Shakespeare is not just English (as Germany's “unser [our] Shakespeare” attests).
Thus myths about Shakespeare go some way toward telling us stories about ourselves.
We in point of fact know a good deal about Shakespeare’s life and movements, the authors reveal – far more than many other near contemporaries.
Along with the plays and sonnets, and plenty of material on his family in Stratford-upon-Avon, we also have documents showing Shakespeare involved in court cases and purchasing property, and we have his will. There are also some significant things Shakespeare didn’t do, which may help understand his personality. Consider the increasingly popular idea that he was a secret Catholic.
This offers the thrill of the hidden and the illicit – for example, secret codes in his poems. The way the authors unravel this scrupulous myth is intensely cogent.
Evidence for Shakespeare’s Catholicism is purportedly the religious landscape of Hamlet, in which the soul of Hamlet’s murdered father is obviously in hell. The religious references in the plays do ‘theatrical not religious work’, Maguire and Smith assert, and his own ‘religious beliefs become less a matter of individual biography and more a snapshot of present-day shifts, uncertainties and overlaps’.
Here’s another myth the book attacks. Far from being only basically educated, Shakespeare would have benefited from the rigorous education of the sixteenth-century grammar school, 6 am to 6 pm every day, with higher classes conducted in Latin.
He never went to university, true, but we can tell from the sources of his plays that he remained a ravenous reader all his life: medieval poetry, Italian fiction, history ancient and medieval, even existing continental philosophy, and he could read in French and Italian, too.
In contradiction of another myth, Shakespeare didn’t have a principally exaggerated vocabulary by Elizabethan standards. Shakespeare coined some new words, but so did everyone else: Thomas More gave us the word lunatic, Francis Bacon gave us thermometer and skeleton.
It is the utter volume and familiarity of what he wrote that explain why he is so often credited in the original Oxford English Dictionary as the originator of words – but as the OED has been revised, and as more 16th -century texts have been digitally searched, so the number of new words attributed to Shakespeare has ‘substantially decreased’.
The Shakespeare the authors give us is not an especially warm man. They point to an understandable absence of generous giving or concern for the less fortunate. In his will he left the poor of his birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon, a derisory sum of cash, no bursaries, no scholarships, no endowments.
Everything else stayed in the family.
Not all of the myths are fallacious: in calling these beliefs “myths” we are less interested in stigmatizing them as imprudent or unsubstantiated than we are concerned to understand how they become ossified and block, rather than enable, our interpretation of Shakespeare's works.
Even the idea that he is more than ever impenetrable, always key to any ‘Shakespeare was really someone else’ theory, is point-blank false.
And as the authors themselves declare: “The temptation for a book of this sort is to focus on Shakespeare's biography. Shakespeare biography is a fruitful field for myths, from the youthful deer-poaching episode (described by Nicholas Rowe at the beginning of the eighteenth century) to the technicalities of the marriage (attested by the record books) to the missing years (documented nowhere). Inevitably, we have included some of these examples but we have tried, wherever we can, to move the discussion on to the plays and poems themselves. Whereas most of our myths involve layers of interpretative accretion between us and the Elizabethan period, reading Shakespeare's works themselves can shortcut some of this narrative padding.”
This book seeks to cross-examine several things we believe we know about Shakespeare, and we have called this body of knowledge “myths.”
Why “myths”?
The authors were drawn to this term for the Shakespeare content in each of the chapters because “myth” forefronts the act of storytelling; because it underscores the edifying work these stories do rather than their correctness; because it is not about a defined dot of origin but about accepted principles; because it is about the people who accept or invent or need these stories as much as it is about the stories themselves.
This book has been detailed into the following chapters:
Myth 1: Shakespeare was the most popular writer of his time
Myth 2: Shakespeare was not well educated
Myth 3: Shakespeare's plays should be performed in elizabethan dress
Myth 4: Shakespeare was not interested in having his plays printed
Myth 5: Shakespeare never traveled
Myth 6: Shakespeare's plays are politically incorrect
Myth 7: Shakespeare was a Catholic
Myth 8: Shakespeare's plays had no scenery
Myth 9: Shakespeare's tragedies are more serious than his comedies
Myth 10: Shakespeare hated his wife
Myth 11: Shakespeare wrote in the rhythms of everyday speech
Myth 12: Hamlet was named after Shakespeare's son
Myth 13: The coarse bits of Shakespeare are for the groundlings; the philosophy is for the upper classes
Myth 14: Shakespeare was a Stratford playwright
Myth 15: Shakespeare was a plagiarist
Myth 16: We don't know much about Shakespeare's life
Myth 17: Shakespeare wrote alone
Myth 18: Shakespeare's sonnets are autobiographical
Myth 19: If Shakespeare were writing now, he'd be writing for Hollywood
Myth 20: The Tempest was Shakespeare's farewell to the stage
Myth 21: Shakespeare had a huge vocabulary
Myth 22: Shakespeare's plays are timeless
Myth 23: Macbeth is jinxed in the theater
Myth 24: Shakespeare did not revise his plays
Myth 25: Boy actors played women's roles
Myth 26: Shakespeare's plays don't work as movies
Myth 27: Yorick's skull was real
Myth 28: Queen Elizabeth loved Shakespeare's plays
Myth 29: Shakespeare's characters are like real people
Myth 30: Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare
Myths proliferate about Shakespeare in some measure because of half-remembered or out-of-date scholarship from schooldays, because Shakespeare the man is such an intangible and captivating cultural property, and because intercessions in Shakespeare studies, predominantly biographical and theatrical ones, make headline news: witness the “authorship question” (Myth 30) or speculation about Shakespeare's beliefs or sexuality (Myths 7 and 18).
Put minimally, myths are told and retold about Shakespeare because no other writer matters as much to the world: nineteenth-century Germany had a flourishing academic Shakespeare criticism before England did; India had a Shakespeare Society before England; Shakespeare is regularly performed at amateur and professional levels, in translation, worldwide. Shakespeare is not just English (as Germany's “unser [our] Shakespeare” attests).
Thus myths about Shakespeare go some way toward telling us stories about ourselves.
We in point of fact know a good deal about Shakespeare’s life and movements, the authors reveal – far more than many other near contemporaries.
Along with the plays and sonnets, and plenty of material on his family in Stratford-upon-Avon, we also have documents showing Shakespeare involved in court cases and purchasing property, and we have his will. There are also some significant things Shakespeare didn’t do, which may help understand his personality. Consider the increasingly popular idea that he was a secret Catholic.
This offers the thrill of the hidden and the illicit – for example, secret codes in his poems. The way the authors unravel this scrupulous myth is intensely cogent.
Evidence for Shakespeare’s Catholicism is purportedly the religious landscape of Hamlet, in which the soul of Hamlet’s murdered father is obviously in hell. The religious references in the plays do ‘theatrical not religious work’, Maguire and Smith assert, and his own ‘religious beliefs become less a matter of individual biography and more a snapshot of present-day shifts, uncertainties and overlaps’.
Here’s another myth the book attacks. Far from being only basically educated, Shakespeare would have benefited from the rigorous education of the sixteenth-century grammar school, 6 am to 6 pm every day, with higher classes conducted in Latin.
He never went to university, true, but we can tell from the sources of his plays that he remained a ravenous reader all his life: medieval poetry, Italian fiction, history ancient and medieval, even existing continental philosophy, and he could read in French and Italian, too.
In contradiction of another myth, Shakespeare didn’t have a principally exaggerated vocabulary by Elizabethan standards. Shakespeare coined some new words, but so did everyone else: Thomas More gave us the word lunatic, Francis Bacon gave us thermometer and skeleton.
It is the utter volume and familiarity of what he wrote that explain why he is so often credited in the original Oxford English Dictionary as the originator of words – but as the OED has been revised, and as more 16th -century texts have been digitally searched, so the number of new words attributed to Shakespeare has ‘substantially decreased’.
The Shakespeare the authors give us is not an especially warm man. They point to an understandable absence of generous giving or concern for the less fortunate. In his will he left the poor of his birthplace, Stratford-upon-Avon, a derisory sum of cash, no bursaries, no scholarships, no endowments.
Everything else stayed in the family.
Not all of the myths are fallacious: in calling these beliefs “myths” we are less interested in stigmatizing them as imprudent or unsubstantiated than we are concerned to understand how they become ossified and block, rather than enable, our interpretation of Shakespeare's works.
Even the idea that he is more than ever impenetrable, always key to any ‘Shakespeare was really someone else’ theory, is point-blank false.
And as the authors themselves declare: “The temptation for a book of this sort is to focus on Shakespeare's biography. Shakespeare biography is a fruitful field for myths, from the youthful deer-poaching episode (described by Nicholas Rowe at the beginning of the eighteenth century) to the technicalities of the marriage (attested by the record books) to the missing years (documented nowhere). Inevitably, we have included some of these examples but we have tried, wherever we can, to move the discussion on to the plays and poems themselves. Whereas most of our myths involve layers of interpretative accretion between us and the Elizabethan period, reading Shakespeare's works themselves can shortcut some of this narrative padding.”
December 8, 2019
كتاب جيد عن بعض المغالطات الشائعة عن شكسبير لكنه ملئ بالتفاصيل بصورة تبعث على السأم في بعض المقالات
July 20, 2017
Maguire and Smith's book refers to myths in the sense of series of beliefs rather than things which are untrue. They explore 30 areas of interest around Shakespeare including he was not well-educated, he hated his wife, we don't know much about his life and the, evergreen, did he write the works attributed to him and explore each one in a contained short essay. It's very readable as well as learned and would be good for those who know a little about Shakespeare, a lot about Shakespeare or sit somewhere in the middle.
October 28, 2019
#أشهر_30_خرافة_عن_شكسبير
#لوري_ماجواير
#إيما_سميث
عدد الصفحات : 290
الكتاب السادس والثمانون لعام 2019
يتكون الكتاب من ثلاثين مقالةً مدروسة بعناية عن حياة شكسبير مفندةً أو مؤكدة أشهر الأقاويل عنه، من خلال البحوث التاريخية في حركة الأدب والمسرح تلك الحقبة. ولم تكن تلك الخرافات خارجة عن الطبيعة كما يتجلى لفكر القارئ حينما يسمع مصطلح خرافة، لكن هناك الكثير من التأويلات الشخصية لحياة شكسبير التي ناقضت الواقع سواءً كان لمصلحته أو ضدها. كخرافة عدم ملائمة مؤلفاته سياسيًّا أو السرقات الأدبية والتناص أو الكتابة منفردًا أو مقولة أنه الكاثوليكي، وأكثر تعمقًّا نحو طبيعة نهجه المسرحي كمسألة مطابقته لأصول المسرح الإليزابيثي من حيث الملابس وانعدام المناظر، وكتابته للتراجيديا أكثر من الكوميديا، وقد كان هذا المقال عن تلك المقارنة مميزًا من حيث ذكرهما لدراساتٍ عدة تم تحليل التأثيرات المتشكلة لدى قرّاء والمطلعين على أدب شكسبير المكتوب والمجسد بنهجٍ نفسيٍّ أعمق فكانت تلك المقالة أجمل مقالة بالنسبة لي. واتسعت تلك المقالات لتغطي على عدة أقاويل اتصلت أيضًّا بحياته الخاصة، من زواجه وصيته وأبناءه، فجاء هذا الكتاب شارحًا حياته وموضحًا أبرز معالمها بالتفصيل، ولم يكن ثقيلًا كما يُساء ظنًّا بكتب المقالات بل كانت سلاسته ممتعة جعلتني أقرأه بجلسة واحدة.
#إيمان_بني_صخر
#لوري_ماجواير
#إيما_سميث
عدد الصفحات : 290
الكتاب السادس والثمانون لعام 2019
يتكون الكتاب من ثلاثين مقالةً مدروسة بعناية عن حياة شكسبير مفندةً أو مؤكدة أشهر الأقاويل عنه، من خلال البحوث التاريخية في حركة الأدب والمسرح تلك الحقبة. ولم تكن تلك الخرافات خارجة عن الطبيعة كما يتجلى لفكر القارئ حينما يسمع مصطلح خرافة، لكن هناك الكثير من التأويلات الشخصية لحياة شكسبير التي ناقضت الواقع سواءً كان لمصلحته أو ضدها. كخرافة عدم ملائمة مؤلفاته سياسيًّا أو السرقات الأدبية والتناص أو الكتابة منفردًا أو مقولة أنه الكاثوليكي، وأكثر تعمقًّا نحو طبيعة نهجه المسرحي كمسألة مطابقته لأصول المسرح الإليزابيثي من حيث الملابس وانعدام المناظر، وكتابته للتراجيديا أكثر من الكوميديا، وقد كان هذا المقال عن تلك المقارنة مميزًا من حيث ذكرهما لدراساتٍ عدة تم تحليل التأثيرات المتشكلة لدى قرّاء والمطلعين على أدب شكسبير المكتوب والمجسد بنهجٍ نفسيٍّ أعمق فكانت تلك المقالة أجمل مقالة بالنسبة لي. واتسعت تلك المقالات لتغطي على عدة أقاويل اتصلت أيضًّا بحياته الخاصة، من زواجه وصيته وأبناءه، فجاء هذا الكتاب شارحًا حياته وموضحًا أبرز معالمها بالتفصيل، ولم يكن ثقيلًا كما يُساء ظنًّا بكتب المقالات بل كانت سلاسته ممتعة جعلتني أقرأه بجلسة واحدة.
#إيمان_بني_صخر
February 28, 2021
Un saggio dedicato ai grandi miti su Shakespeare diviso in 30 capitoli.
In ogni capitolo le autrici affrontano uno dei grandi miti che circondano la figura di William Shakespeare, dal fatto che fosse lo scrittore più famoso del suo tempo, alla leggenda che dice che non rileggeva i suoi testi, dal fatto che le sue opere non avessero scenario, al tipo di pubblico per il quale scriveva.
Il risultato è un testo denso di riferimenti e informazioni, interessante e decisamente arricchente anche se perde un pò di ritmo e di intensità in alcuni passaggi.
In ogni capitolo le autrici affrontano uno dei grandi miti che circondano la figura di William Shakespeare, dal fatto che fosse lo scrittore più famoso del suo tempo, alla leggenda che dice che non rileggeva i suoi testi, dal fatto che le sue opere non avessero scenario, al tipo di pubblico per il quale scriveva.
Il risultato è un testo denso di riferimenti e informazioni, interessante e decisamente arricchente anche se perde un pò di ritmo e di intensità in alcuni passaggi.
January 5, 2019
The essays in this book average 4-5 pages, and each addresses a single question. In general, these essays are of great interest, and all exhibit a tremendous knowledge of Shakespeare and his context. A few of these essays address questions that seem very irrelevant (e.g., "Yorick's skull was real"), but most of them are excellent. The final chapter addresses the Shakespeare authorship issue, and the authors clearly feel the same weariness about the issue that I do.
November 8, 2024
What is so lovely about this book is that most of these ideas are things you have heard about Shakespeare and kind of accepted. What the angelic Smith and Maguire then do is expose these beliefs to the current knowledge we now have: many of them are guesses, some are simply wrong.
As with anything by either Emma Smith or Laurie Maguire, it keeps directing you back to the text with a new reading.
As with anything by either Emma Smith or Laurie Maguire, it keeps directing you back to the text with a new reading.
December 24, 2019
لولا بعض التطويل والغوص في تفاصيل كثيرة غير هامة لاستحق الخمس نجوم
June 17, 2021
كتاب ممل
February 25, 2016
Maguire and Smith do a good job of complicating many "Myths" around Shakespeare--although it is important to note that many of the "myths" aren't factual statements, but more general sentiments about the author. While Maguire and Smith do some outright debunking, most of what is done is just "complicating" the "myth" because it was based on out-dated scholarship, Victorian or early 20th century theoretical concerns, or just cliches. In the end, while Maguire and Smith are perfectly readable while being very scholarly from entry-to-entry, the book still feels uneven. The essay on Shakespeare's authorship won't change most opinions nor does it have space to do so: that task requires a book-length treatment. Other topics, such as the relationship of "Shakespeare" to film, either need to be books or they need to be shortened, but the essay is just long enough to be tedious without being exhaustive. Furthermore, on Shakespeare's class concerns or his Catholicity, Maguire and Smith do not earn their outright dismissal with enough evidence to completely undo what are, to many including me, fairly sound arguments. Despite those concerns, these is an interesting book and an enjoyable read filled with facts and "complications."
June 15, 2016
This is such a fun book. It is marketed to a non-scholarly readership, yet the scholarship is there if pedagogically light. It clears up a lot of obvious nonsense such as who wrote Shakespeare's works and the claim that Shakespeare was a plagiarist, corrects claims that are unfortunately evergreen such as the Tempest being Shakespeare's farewell to the stage and the plays being timeless, and navigates some things that may not be myths, such as the sonnets being autobiographical and that Shakespeare did not travel.
The difficulty this book is that unless you read it carefully you may receive a false impression. Take for example that "myth" that his plays had no scenery. Well, if you go by what we mean by scenery today, that is more or less true. The slight indications of place used in early modern theaters are not the same, yet they existed. Just read the title of that one, and you may come away believing that Shakespeare's plays had scenery in the same way that modern plays have it. It is best to read this book for the answers are not always yes or no.
The difficulty this book is that unless you read it carefully you may receive a false impression. Take for example that "myth" that his plays had no scenery. Well, if you go by what we mean by scenery today, that is more or less true. The slight indications of place used in early modern theaters are not the same, yet they existed. Just read the title of that one, and you may come away believing that Shakespeare's plays had scenery in the same way that modern plays have it. It is best to read this book for the answers are not always yes or no.
March 5, 2018
لا يخفي على أحد يعرفني جيدا أن شكسبير هو الأديب الغربي المفضل بالنسبة لي وان مسرحياته مثل روميو وجولييت وماكبث وعطيل وريتشارد الثاني وريتشارد الثالث من مفضلاتي ناهيك عن ان هاملت هي مسرحتي المفضلة على الإطلاق واعتبرها أحد أعظم الابداعات التي جاد بها العقل البشري.
لذا وبما انني قد انتهيت من قراءة الغالبية العظمي من اعماله فبدأت الانتقال لمرحلة جديدة وهي القراءة عن شكسبير نفسه.
فكتابنا هذا عن أشهر 30 خرافة عن شكسبير ويتناولها بالتدقيق والفحص والبحث وعرض الرؤي المختلفة لإثبات صحة أو خطأ هذه الخرافة.
أفضل ما في هذا التناول انه قام ليس فقط بتغطية خرافات مثل انه لا يوجد شخص حقيقي يدعي بهذا الاسم وانه اسم مستعار لشاعر آخر لكنه قام بتغطية مختلف جوانب حياة شكسبير ما بين الرؤية والبناء الادبي مرورا بالتوجه السياسي والديني وانتهاء بمدي وملاءمتها للتناول على طرق العرض الفنية المختلفة ومدي صلاحية كتاباته في الصمود امام الزمن.
كتاب رائع ومجهود كبير يستحق التحية والتقدير يستحق الاربعة نجوم بدون تفكير.
لذا وبما انني قد انتهيت من قراءة الغالبية العظمي من اعماله فبدأت الانتقال لمرحلة جديدة وهي القراءة عن شكسبير نفسه.
فكتابنا هذا عن أشهر 30 خرافة عن شكسبير ويتناولها بالتدقيق والفحص والبحث وعرض الرؤي المختلفة لإثبات صحة أو خطأ هذه الخرافة.
أفضل ما في هذا التناول انه قام ليس فقط بتغطية خرافات مثل انه لا يوجد شخص حقيقي يدعي بهذا الاسم وانه اسم مستعار لشاعر آخر لكنه قام بتغطية مختلف جوانب حياة شكسبير ما بين الرؤية والبناء الادبي مرورا بالتوجه السياسي والديني وانتهاء بمدي وملاءمتها للتناول على طرق العرض الفنية المختلفة ومدي صلاحية كتاباته في الصمود امام الزمن.
كتاب رائع ومجهود كبير يستحق التحية والتقدير يستحق الاربعة نجوم بدون تفكير.
March 13, 2013
Like any serious books about Shakespeare, this book doesn't forward lavish or spectacular theories about Shakespeare- it just uses the facts we have in a serious way. Did Shakespeare hate his wife? Was he a Catholic? Was Yorick's skull real? The 30 myths explored range from serious to silly ones, and each one is discussed seriously.z Most of the time the author has no definitive "true" or "false" response to these myths but he does have a lot of data ´which reshape our view of the playwright and his time. Very good work.
January 20, 2014
Maguire and Smith present an interesting cross-section of Shakespearean history and scholarship. The overall tone is reader-friendly and accessible. The individual essays make it an easy read, although some of the topics are curious. And, like most books concerning Shakespeare's authorship, it won't likely convince anyone to switch their allegiance from their favorite alternate author candidate. Still a decent read for any Shakespeare enthusiast.
March 28, 2013
Emma Smith, the wonderful Shakespearean co wrote this fascinating book by Laurie Maguire. It's full of illuminating ideas and examples of how Shakespeare created his effects. Clear, accessible and yet scholarly
January 29, 2016
La mia recensione qui: http://whenwetalkaboutbooks.blogspot....
November 13, 2018
كتاب لطيف يصحح الكثير من المغالطات عن شكسبير
January 30, 2020
كتاب ملئ بتفاصيل كثيرة غير هامة
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews