Did Shakespeare go blind?
Why did Shakespeare leave London in the final few years before his death and stop writing? The question has invited some intriguing theories over the years, but I have recently discovered a new idea by playwright, Rick Thomas.
In his new play, For All Time, he suggests that Shakespeare’s eyesight drastically deteriorated towards the end of his life. Due to the busy working day of Elizabethan and Jacobean theatricals, Shakespeare would have been forced to write by candlelight in the evening – which ultimately left Shakespeare struggling to see and unable to write.
The blindness theory is certainly an interesting one, but I just can’t see any historical evidence for it. Stanley Wells, chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, said that Shakespeare could see well enough to sign his elaborate signature within two months of dying.
Although Rick Thomas says that his play is not meant to be a historical account, the blindness theory is certainly food for thought. The truth is, we’ll probably never know.
Do you think this theory has value? Why do you think Shakespeare left London? I’d love to hear your views.
Comments
His elaborate signature? If his – that is – the Stratford boy’s signatures (there are six extant) show anything it is that he had no facility with a pen. None of the signatures is alike and in at least one case, someone else (presumabely a solicitor’s clerk) has helped the poor guy to finish signing. The signatures are a great embarrassment to Stratfordian orthodoxy. Why this centuries-old urge to foist Shakespeare’s works on this illiterate person, Wm.Shakspere or Shaxbere?
Firstly, regarding the “blind” theory, I guess, as you have said, there is no evidence. So, I don’t believe in it, he could have left for another million reasons.
Secondly, I’d really like to comment on the last comment. Shakespeare signed his name differently simply because in the Elizabeathan age there was no strict spelling for any given name or word, so, he could really sign it the way he liked. And you can’t possibly take a signature made before 3 days of someone’s death as a sign of anything. He could have been so sick to actually hold a pen and write correctly. Best guess, that at that time he was suffering from a fever (acording to Dr. Hall, anyway). And the signature is in no way an embarrasment, as you put it, for the Stratfordian orthodoxy, it’s one of the valuble remains of the Bard!
As any ophthalmologist worth even less than his salt will tell you, writing or reading by candlelight (or even moonlight) will not (repeat, will not) damage eyesight.
When I read this, I shouted out the same thing about the signature, would a playwright whose obsessed with words really feel the need to spell his name differently? I think you ll find that the characters in his play keep the same name throughout. Although I d love to see his ‘elaborate signature’, proof that he undoubtedly existed, lol
This “blindness” theory is another example of building a wild guess into a theory because the known facts about Shaxper’s life are so few. Evidence has been suppressed to keep us from finding out more (for example, the records of the Stratford Grammar School have been destroyed). During the Renaissance, playwrights and poets (and especially satirists) often used pseudonyms to disguise their true identity. Perhaps the true author was dead after 1604, and Shaxper was avoiding the theater while dabbling in real estate.