Not long ago, a member of a popular Facebook group queried his fellows as
to the extent of Shakespeare’s scientific knowledge. It is an interesting question and well worth
investigation.
For all of the obvious examples, such as Hamlet’s mention of the supernova that
held the attention of all the world, in 1572, and the description of St. Elmo’s
Fire in The Tempest, however, the answer lies much more quietly woven
into the text of the poems and plays as a whole.
Scholars have already created a literature of The Bard’s empirical knowledge
of nature. George Brandes, begins his
commentary on the subject, in his William Shakespeare A Critical Study,
by recognizing that the knowledge in the works goes beyond mere country-boy knowledge:
Shakespeare's knowledge of nature is not
simply such as can be acquired by any one who passes his childhood and youth in
the open air and in the country. But even of this sort of knowledge he has an
astonishing store.[1]
The tendency to discover Stratford-upon-Avon as a locus for the plants,
animals, and such, in the plays, has been proven to be unfounded again and
again, but the temptation to announce such “new discoveries” has proven irresistible. The knowledge is real, the localization imaginary.
The great 19th century flood of Shakespeare scholarship could
only notice so obvious a fact as that the plays contain vast amounts of knowledge
some of which the playwright got from works in other languages than English.
Shakespeare seems, in certain instances, to be
not only abreast of the natural science of his time, but in advance of it.
People have had recourse to the Baconian theory in order to explain the surprising
fact that although Harvey, who is commonly represented as the discoverer of the
circulation of the blood, did not announce his discovery until 1619, and
published his book upon it so late as 1628, yet Shakespeare, who, as we know,
died in 1616, in many passages of his plays alludes to the blood as circulating
through the body.
It was only one of the many facts that seemed to argue against the work
being written by a marginally educated (if that) yokel from a small provincial town.
Before the supporters of Bacon as author of the plays began to devolve into
endless, ever more insupportable ciphers, it was becoming ever more popular to assert
that only a man of elite education could have brought such knowledge to the
work. Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam,
seemed the man to fit the bill.
But the ciphers were ever more necessary because Bacon’s biography just
didn’t match up without them. Yes, the
plays powerfully suggest a highly educated author, of wide experience, but,
upon closer inspection, they don’t suggest Bacon.
Still, Shakespeare’s ease with astronomy, blood-flow and a great deal else
remains:
Thus, for example, in Julius Caesar (ii. i), Brutus
says to Portia—
You are my true and honourable wife ;
As dear to me as are the ruddy drops
That visit my sad heart.
Again, in Coriolanus (i. i) Menenius makes the
belly say of its food—
I send it through the rivers of your blood,
Even to the court, the heart, to the seat o' the brain ;
And, through the cranks and offices of man,
The strongest nerves, and small inferior
veins,
From me receive that natural competency
Whereby they live
But apart from the fact that the highly gifted
and unhappy Servetus, whom Calvin burned, had, between 1530 and 1540, made the
discovery and lectured upon it, all men of culture in England knew very well
before Harvey's time that the blood flowed, even that it circulated, and, more
particularly, that it was driven from the heart to the different limbs and
organs; only, it was generally conceived
that the blood passed from the heart through the veins, and not, as is actually
the case, through the arteries. And there is nothing in the seventy-odd places
in Shakespeare where the circulation of the blood is mentioned to show that he
possessed this ultimate insight, although his general understanding of these questions
bears witness to his high culture.[2]
[1] Brandes, George. William Shakespeare A Critical Study
(1898), I. 110.
[2] Brandes, I. 112.
No comments:
Post a Comment