The Duke of York

 

Oh, thou, city of York! Wind freezes your walls. Under a grey sky, green fields around. How many deaths have your stones witnessed? How much blood have your land wet? Tell me about your people, about the peasants and craftsmen, about lovers and beggars, about marriages and burials, about children and old women telling sad stories to the priests.

Tell me about your dukes, the lords and their manors. Let me see them calling to war. Let me listen to young voices marching south; let me hear the screams; let me touch the tears of the wounded, smell the fragrance of the death.

Oh, thou, city of York! Open your cathedral's doors, music plays and horses neigh. A new duke has arrived and humble people cheer him on. The duke is a king's son. One day he will call to war and many will die for a crown, for a title, for a throne.

Lo anterior surgió como un comentario a la siguiente observación en Facebook de Jamie Mayerfeld:

Spain is not overreacting to the nationalist rebellion in Catalonia (a response to Noah Feldman's article "Spain Overreacts to a Little Catalan Rebellion")

My friend Jamie Mayerfeld, has told me about Noah Feldman's article "Spain Overreacts to a Little Catalan Rebellion," published on Bloomberg. I think that the article contains some errors of appreciation, especially in regard to the consequences of what the columnist calls a "small" rebellion. Maybe not so small, since it caused the reaction of dozens of countries and of the European Union.

However, I will not deal with this question here, because what interests me now is to analyse the reasons that may lead some foreign commentators to perceive in a biased way what is happening in Catalonia. According with this intention, I will not follow the article point by point, but only use it as an example of many other commentators, especially from abroad. These commentators show what I consider an inexplicable sympathy to those ones who caused the crisis of the year 2017 in Catalonia.

I believe that a key element to understand what happened in Catalonia in the months of September and October 2017 (in the fall of 2017, if you allow me to be in some way imprecise, since the events began in the summer, specifically in September 6) is to assume that the "rebellion" -to employ the same term used by Noah Feldman- was carried out by the public power, not by citizens who faced such public power. I think that this fact is often overlooked. One considers the images of the people at the streets and it is instinctively internalized that the conflict arises between demonstrators (Catalan nationalists) and the police (Spanish government). This is not true. The main actor of the conflict was the Catalan Government, the peak of a public power with a budget of 32,000 million euros per year and which manages in Catalonia education, health, prisons, universities, police (17,000 armed agents) and much of the transport, among other competences (protection of minors, consumer protection, culture ...). That is to say, the "rebellion" was not against the power, but from the power, a rebellion that implied that this public power declared itself freed from the limits established in the Constitution and in the laws. A power who decided to act outside the legal limits.

As I have just said, I think that this perspective should be taken into account. It is not the same thing that a citizen or a group of citizens protest before the public power, that this public power decides to exercise the monopoly of the use of force outside the framework of the law. This is precisely what happened in Catalonia: the Catalan Parliament repealed the Spanish Constitution in Catalonia, the regional government disobeyed the Spanish Constitutional Court and finally the regional government and Parliament declared independence.

What this did mean for the Catalans who did not share the nationalist programme? I can speak in my own name: I am a citizen of Catalonia, subjected to the public power of the Generalitat and I am against the secession and against nationalism. And, in addition, I have showed openly my opposition to the secession and to the Catalan nationalism. In what situation did I find myself once the public power that rules the policemen who watch the streets I walk, the schools where my children study, the hospitals where I go to when I get sick, the University where I work and the prisons in which I would end if I am arrested, decides to act outside the law, against the Constitution and deprive me of the guarantees that I have up to now (recourse to the Spanish Ombudsman, the Spanish Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights)? This is exactly what millions of Catalans felt in those weeks of September and October 2017.

I say millions and I am not exaggerating, since in Catalonia the nationalist parties obtain less votes than the parties that do not defend the secessionist project. The Catalan electoral system, which favours the areas in which the nationalist vote is concentrated, transforms a minority of votes in a majority of seats in the regional Parliament, but this should not make us forget that Catalan non-nationalists are more that the nationalists. And we also must be aware that despite the fact that the public media, the schools and the administrations use almost exclusively Catalan, more than half of the Catalans have Spanish as their mother language. Another nationalist imposition.

But let's go back to that pathological situation in which the public power decides to act outside the law. In the first year in the Law Faculty we explain that one of the differences between the Ancien Régime and modern States is that in the Ancien Régime public power acts without external limits, while in modern States authorities must subject their action to the legal limits. This submission of the public power to the law is a guarantee for citizens. For decades I had known this as part of the Theory of Law and of the Constitutional Law. In the year 2017 I knew what do you feel when you are subjected to a power that acts outside the law. And it is not nice.

That is why it was essential to recover the rule of law in Catalonia. And Noah Feldman underlines this idea in his article. Specifically, when he states that he understands the reasons for the Spanish Government to resort to the exceptional mechanisms that enable the Constitution to enforce the law in an Autonomous Community through the direct attribution of the control of the region to the government of Spain. As I have already said, the recovery of the rule of law in Catalonia was essential not only for reasons linked to the functioning of the constitutional institutions, but also to enforce the rights of all Catalan citizens, who did not deserve to be subjected to a public power acting outside the Constitution and of the law and against the decisions of the courts. A situation, obviously, inadmissible in any democracy.

My discrepancy with Feldman is about the adoption of penal measures in relation to the leaders of the "rebellion". It seems that he thinks that it would be better to turn the page without introducing proceedings before the criminal courts. I disagree

First we need to consider the seriousness of what happened. I have already advanced some ideas about that:

- The regional parliament repealed the Constitution.

- The regional government disobeyed the Constitutional Court.

- The regional government called an illegal referendum.

- Barricades and other obstacles were erected in order to difficult the movements of the police.

- The illegal occupation of schools and other public buildings was organized to hold the referendum.

- Resistance to the police was organized to prevent the policemen from complying with court orders.

- The policemen that had orders to close the premises where the referendum was being held were attacked.

- Policemen out of service were persecuted and harassed.

- In the schools the children of the policemen were publicly pointed out.

- In the schools, protests against police action were organized involving minors (in some cases young children).

- Databases were developed for the census of the referendum vulnerating the regulation about personal data protection.

- And independence was declared ... twice.

Do we really defend that this does not deserve criminal reproach? I think it is not serious to maintain this position. Some or all of these behaviours can be considered as criminal offences according with the Spanish Criminal Code and, therefore, they must be investigated. A different question is which specific criminal offences should be considered. Here there is room for the debate, a debate in which Noah Feldman is kindly invited to participate, but taking in consideration that this debate should be based on the rules of the Spanish Criminal Law. A discussion of this kind in a democratic state can only be made on the basis of the law.

And this is not a formalism. There is another confusion here that must be denounced. Sometimes it is maintained that the Spanish government should do this or that in relation to the situation of the accused due to the events of the autumn of 2017, without realizing that in Spain there is a separation of powers. Those who judge are the courts, not the government, and the accusation is responsibility of the prosecutor, not of the government. And really both the judges and the prosecutor are independent and act in accordance with what is established by the law, not according to political considerations. When, according with the law, a criminal offence has been committed, it is not an option to leave the criminal alone. There is an obligation to prosecute those crimes. It is not possible to refrain from accusing or condemning. What the government can do, once the accused has been judged and condemned -if at the end there is a condemn- , is to apply measures of grace such as pardon. But in the phase in which we are now, the government can do nothing more than respect what judges and prosecutors are doing.

Now, let's forget for a moment what I have just explained and let’s pretend that it is possible to retire the charges against those who are responsible for the events of September and October 2017 in Catalonia. What message does this convey?

To answer this question, we have to realize that Catalan society is deeply divided. People from abroad sometimes think that all Catalans are nationalists, that all Catalans want independence, that all Catalans are against the trials of imprisoned politicians and that all Catalans reject the Spanish police. That is not true. As I have indicated, at least half of the Catalans reject secession and a very significant number reject the nationalist policies that make us feel second class citizens in our own country. In short, Catalan society is a society without consensus.

And in a society without consensus, respect for the law is the only thing that guarantees coexistence. If the nationalists are allowed to skip the law without consequences, which options we, the non-nationalist, have? Only two: submission to the nationalists or also to skip the law. Do we want to create this situation, this terrible dilemma? Well, the irresponsible proposal to look the other way before the criminal offences of the nationalists would drive us to that dilemma.

Certainly, we must seek reconciliation, and for that reconciliation there is only one way: dialogue between Catalans, dialogue between nationalists and non-nationalists. But this is a path that nationalists reject. I will explain an anecdote: a year ago or so I met in a television program with Irene Rigau, a nationalist leader who had been regional Minister of Education when Artur Mas was president of the regional government. We discussed the presence of Spanish language in schools and I said that I could agree with her at one point. The moderator then pointed out to Rigau that I could agree with her and she said that she could never agree with me. For nationalists, non-nationalist Catalans simply do not exist, we are "out of the framework", and all they want is to establish a dialogue with the Spanish government that leaves the non-nationalist Catalans out of the scene. This way drives to a no solution because ignores half of the population of Catalonia. It would be good for the Spanish government to condition any dialogue with the nationalists on the previous dialogue in Catalonia and on the respect for the law. This is the way to recover coexistence. And this way is not the way of leaving the criminal offences of nationalists without punishment or of negotiating only with nationalists. The way is to recover the rule of law and to establish channels of communication among all Catalans.

These perspectives are not in Noah Feldman's article. I can understand that he neglects these nuances, because it is difficult to appreciate them from another country, but I think that they should be taken into account when you speak -and even more when you write- about the situation in Catalonia.

I thank Jamie Mayerfeld for the questions he has made and his suggestion to convert the dialogue we have had about this topic into a post.

To Guy Verhofstadt

I have read with great interest your statement of 5 November regarding the situation in Catalonia. I agree with the first paragraph of that statement, but I have some doubts about the other three paragraphs. I would like to express these doubts.

First of all, you ask about the proportionality of the imprisonment of some Catalan nationalist leaders last week. I am not sure if you are questioning the Spanish regulation about interim measures in criminal matters (arts. 502-519 of the “Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal” –Criminal Procedure Act-) or the application of these rules in the “Catalan case”. Do you think that the Spanish regulation does not comply with international standards? I think that this issue must be clearly answered.

Maybe you are not implying that, but just that this regulation was not properly applied in this specific case, and here I have another doubt: Do you have any legal arguments about this supposedly wrong application of the Spanish regulation on provisional imprisonment or are you suggesting that the judge should have made a “political” application of the law in this case? I think that this question also needs to be answered.

In Spain, as in all the countries in the European Union, only the law bound judges and it is not fair to pretend that they should adopt political decisions. Even more, trying to impose a judge a political decision is against the rule of law and basic democratic principles. So, in my opinion if you do not have legal arguments in relation to a judge decision your opinion should end at the point where you should show respect to the courts.

Following with your statement, you show some concern about the fact that some candidates for the regional elections of 21 December could be in prison. I think that there is some misunderstanding about that.

At this moment there are no candidates nominated for this regional election. Political parties and coalitions will decide their candidates in the coming weeks. In Spain, to be in prison does not prevent a person from being a candidate. I think that it is a good measure and according to our Constitution is not possible another solution because only a final decision of the courts can deprive one citizen of his or her right to be elected. So, provisional imprisonment is not a limit to run for an election.

But, of course, to take part in the election does not change the judge decision about the provisional imprisonment. I think that we can agree on that if being a candidate could change a judge decision about the criminal proceeding that will mean an inadmissible interference of politics with justice. Are you suggesting that there should be a rule that establishes that candidates should be released from prison?

By the way, in your statement you express your hope that the Supreme Court (I assume that the Spanish Supreme Court) could undo some of the provisional measures. I have two points about that. First: the Supreme Court is not going –in principle- to decide about those provisional measures. The “Audiencia Nacional” will review the decision. Second: Do you have any legal arguments in relation to that or –again- are you demanding a political decision from the courts?

Finally. As you probably know regional elections will take place in Catalonia on December 21st and will be of great importance. Nationalists are trying to delegitimise those elections and your statement helps them. If the candidates to the elections are in prison or not is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the elections, but, if you are worried about the electoral process in Catalonia you should pay attention to other issues, for example, the lack of neutrality of many municipalities and of the regional public media services.

Childhood (Infancia)

To see
who's going
to see it, is almost
seeing
what's going to be
when -night and dark sea-
no more you'll be.
Your trace lost,
your forgotten name,
somebody who sees
and won't know
that her face was sought
by a dead soul
when he still was
flesh and joy.

El recuerdo a las madres es, inevitablemente, también, el recuerdo de la infancia

El bebé soy yo, en 1968, supongo. Con mi madre y un amigo de la familia, Ernesto

Cecilia y Laura hace unos diez años, cerca de la casa de Blanca, en el Ampurdán

En castellano el texto del inicio sería más o menos así:

Infancia

Ver

a quien va

a verlo

es casi

ver

lo que será

cuando -noche y mar oscuro-

tú ya no seas.

Tu huella perdida,

tu nombre olvidado,

alguien que mira

y no sabrá

que su rostro fue contemplado

por un alma muerta

cuando aún era

carne y alegría.

Virginia Woolf and Eugenia Rico: Time, Literature, Love, Death

Why do writers write? What moves them to tell us stories, to put words together to express or evoke emotions? The reasons for each author are unique, different, or, conversely, if we pay enough attention we will find a single and primitive impulse common to all who are called "writers"?

Could it be that we were not aware of it, but perhaps through this question is possible to understand one of the most inexplicable behaviors we, the readers, have: to compare writers with another writers. It is increasingly common that publishers and libraries intoduce an author connecting him or her with another writer. "The Agatha Christie of the Nordic countries", "the German Faulkner", "a postmodern Oscar Wilde" or, as has actually happened a few months ago (these are invented epithets), "the Virginia Woolf of the facebook era" or the new Virginia Woolf, as the New York Times blog in Spanish called Eugenia Rico.

I have always been annoyed by these forced relationships between writers, but I must recognize that as a reader I also incur in this fault. Lately, for example, I don't keep comparing "Life and Fate" by Vasily Grossman (one of the best novels I have read) with Tolstoy's "War and Peace". Although we rationally condemn that, we insist in doing these kind of comparisons, and even classifications (the ten best books I have read, the greatest writer of the twentieth century, the best romantic poet, etc..). One of the favorites hobbies of our species is collecting (when you pay attention to young children -or even chimpanzees or other great apes- it is easy to notice that). And this hobby leads us to the habit of classifying and ranking. Put the blame on the genes, there is nothing we can do.

In regard to the literature this diversion is deeply unfair. Each author is unique and has its own voice. I think that if I were a writer I would dislike to be compared to other author. It does not matter if the comparison is with an unknown writer or with an absolute genius as Dante, Shakespeare or Cervantes. Each artist must have its own place under the sun or in the limbo of the damned. Certainly some places are big and others small, but everyone is entitled to have his or her own site.

However, despite the injustice, there are deep reasons for continuing making this set of comparisons. Maybe the most important of them is that through the answer of this questions we can peek, if only to sneak, one of those great mysteries of literature, the reasons for writing. When we compare authors, stories and styles we are dealing, often unknowingly, with this issue. This is the reason why so often we intend to find the keys to an author in her or his biography, his or her life circumstances, in the events of the author's life. It seems that lately has been vilified this way of making literary criticism and prevails the opinion that the critic must be disconnected from the authors' personal circumstances. I'm not sure what is the purpose of that, but intuitively it seems wrong for me. Certainly the personal story is literary irrelevant by itself, but it is relevant when it is possible to connect that story with the reasons that have compelled the author to write. In this case the story is not just an anecdote, but a key that can be valuable for understanding this nuclear question: why they write? Taking this into account it can make sense to compare one author's biography with another author's biography. When similar experiences lead to literary works that somehow can be related we are in the way of finding out why writers write.

In the case of Virginia Woolf and Eugenia Rico there is an element in the biography of both women that immediately seems relevant to anyone who tries to connect these two authors. When they were teenagers both suffered the loss of a very close relative. Virginia Woolf lost her mother and sister when Virginia was thirteen and fifteen years old respectively, Eugenia's brother died when she was sixteen or seventeen years old. The footprint of that loss in Eugenia Rico's oeuvre is explicit in which for me is her best book, "La Muerte Blanca" ("The White Death"). In this book it is difficult to separate what is true story of what is invented, but in any case it is not so important to define precisely the borders between true facts and imagined stories because everything in the novel is deeply real, real in the literary sense of the term. There is no deception in the book, no artificial recreation, but on the contrary, a speech that sounds like relief and grabs the reader from first page to last.

In regards to Eugenia, therefore, the first -and quick- response to the question of why she writes is easy to answer after a short consultation of her biography. The death of her brother had to be told, the profound change that occurs when a person suffers a similar loss must be explained. Years of inexpressible pain finally found its way out through this story. Eugenia wrote because she wanted to tell, which means (and we will turn over it again a little later) that she wanted it to be read, that she wished that her grief was shared in some way. No one writes to enclose the sheet in a locked drawer or better yet, to burn what was written without giving opportunity to anyone to know. There are cases of writers who gave to fire his work or ordered to be given it to fire, but these are special cases which are related to particular circumstances and can not be taken as a rule precisely because the rule is that the writer wants to be read, which is a particular manifestation of the desire to be heard; universal desire so well summarized in Orlando by Virginia Woolf when she explained that human beings "will yet endure ridicule and misunderstanding rather than keep any experience to themselves".

"La Muerte Blanca" is therefore the clearer impression of an early loss in the work of Eugenia Rico, but not the only one, of course. Others footprints are more subtle, but for this very reason, perhaps more significant. Death is not worth just for itself but, above all, because death tints life. We can not imagine life without death (or perhaps we can, but that will come later) and this makes that the experience of the death changes the perception we have of life. In "La Muerte Blanca" the treatment of death is explicit, but in Eugenia's other works death can be seen through the way in which death transforms the perception of life. This happens in "La Edad Secreta" ("The Secret Age")', where the reference in the title is just to the years left to live. The story shows how a near-death experience transforms life. A woman in their forties seeks to hasten the conscious of her life when she realizes that life is a good that is exhausted and may end at any time. Thus the story becomes a paradigm of how death changes life and that is relevant, because seldom we realize that the eternal change, the flood of time that is essential for our understanding of the world is just a consequence coming from the brutal shock of death against life. Without death there would be no time as we know it and the whole perception of the world would be different.

It is in this perception where Virginia Woolf and Eugenia Rico find a common place. To my knowledge in Virginia's work there is nothing that resembles Eugenia's "La Muerte Blanca". Maybe if Virginia had been written at one time or another a book like that, would not have suffered what she suffered in life and had not died so prematurely as she died. Perhaps, but the truth is that this work -which had been the medical equivalent to an incision that allows flowing the blood that has been accumulated within the tissues and bones after a blow- does not exist. Despite that, death is not absent in Virginia Woolf's work, but it is not present in an explicit way, but just as a soft paint which changes the colors of life. The stream of time through our lives is a key element in many novels by Virginia Woolf. "Waves" shows us a picture of tremendous strength despite its topical nature. These waves which reach the beach from the sea undisturbed by the changes that occur from dawn to dusk are perhaps more important even than the extraordinary soliloquies that make up this masterpiece. The pass of time is also present in other works of Virginia Woolf. The way in which the story of one single day can light an entire life -and that happens in "Mrs. Dalloway"and in "The Years"- could be just a metaphor of that particular experience in relation to time, an experience that is very close to those who know that eternity is not a long time but the lack of time.

The exception to this particular way of conceiving time is a novel that, perhaps, is the most beautiful work of Virginia Woolf, "Orlando". The leit-motiv of the book is time. Time passes but the main character does not grow old and, of course he/she does not die. It is true that Orlando suffers a non minor change, because in one point he, a man at the beginning of the story, becomes a woman, but this change precisely is a way to express a whole experience of the world and life. In other works of Virginia Woolf time defeats life, but in "Orlando" is life which prevails over time. That has an explanation; as has once been said, "Orlando" is the longest love letter ever written. Through this book Virginia told the world what the affaire she had had with Vita Sackville-West had meant to her. And the result is extraordinary. Do not think it's coincidence that when love (and what a love!) enraptures her, an explosion of beauty as I have never seen light us, an explosion of love and beauty that it is only comparable to the much colder and rational that Dante's "Commedia" is; but, of course, the love of Dante was painstakingly built by himself, while in the case of Virginia Woolf she had really enjoyed the passion of her lover, and that's not a trivial difference either in life or in literature.

Virginia Woolf did not write, as we have said, a book equivalent to "La Muerte Blanca"; and Eugenia Rico has written nothing equivalent to "Orlando". Eugenia's book which deals more with love is, precisely, "La Muerte Blanca," but the love there is the brotherly love, not the sexual and passionate love that brights in "Orlando". It is true that also in "Los Amantes Tristes" ("The Sad Lovers") and in "La Edad Secreta" we can read about lovers, affairs, sexual relations and maybe about something close to love, but real love (or if you excuse me the vulgarity, "LOVE" in capital letters) is not present. Eugenia (as a writer) has not yet discovered, therefore, this special fest which is able to reduce time to ashes and death to immaterial smoke. In Eugenia's work we can find just the dissection of transcendent experiences that develop as flashes, like flames that turn on and off in seconds but whose memory or explanation may takes hundreds of pages. This is true in the whole "La Edad Secreta' and in many moments of "La Muerte Blanca" (unforgettable here the narration of the moment when the main character is informed of her brother's death). In his latest novel, "Aunque seamos malditas" (Although we are damned) the option is another one. Here the pass of the time is represented by two parallel stories separated by several centuries and developed on the same places. In this novel the story works as a metaphor for fear, and therefore hate, to those who seem weaker, different, to those who, however, hide occult knowledge and skills. A universal history of oppression, which is incomprehensible (and thus unwritable) as a whole is represented by the simple union of two related stories (one, two, many; as small children count).

Probably all I have written till now is just frivolous speculation without substance. However, I like this "divertissement". I obtain a great satisfaction from pretending to guess that both Virginia Woolf and Eugenia Rico tell us about the pass of time because they are well aware (or, maybe, not in a conscious way) that death becomes an essential and irremediable element for our conception of life and time; ant that gives me a deep pleasure, as I have just said,  because this kind of thoughts are connected to the question I have begun with: why writers write? Anyway, we do not know yet why we, the readers, are interested in knowing why writers write. Why should we worry about the reasons of those who write? Should not be enough to read what we offer without considering the reasons that prompted them to write it? It seems that the answer should be "not", because, as we have already seen, the readers like to know about authors' life. We are deligthed with the details of the existance of those who give us their pages. The answer to this question (why we are interested in writers' reasons?) could be interesting because it connects us with a deeper question: why do we read?

The impression I have is that the question on writers' reasons is intimately connected to the question of readers' reasons. At the end, literature is not a solitary exercise, but requires the interaction between author and reader, as Perec masterfully expressed in "Life: A User's Manual". We have already  considered here that authors usually need readers (or they, authors, like to have readers). The writer does not write just for himself, but she or he pretends to communicate with others. He or she desires to provoke thoughts, emotions, concerns... that should be, ideally, answered by the reader. But why should the reader consider what the author proposes? The answer is also intuitively clear: because when the writer speaks of himself (don't be disappointed!, all writers talk about themselves) is also speaking  about the reader. If the reader does not identify him or herself with what he reads will leave the story, poem or novel. If we keep reading is because consciously or unconsciously discover that the author, an author which has never directly spoken to the reader, or maybe dead centuries ago, or maybe completely unknown, is speaking of ourselves, the readers, and our experiences and feelings; often feelings or experiences of which the reader was not even aware before the reading. In fact the more full of own experiences is the work more interesting for the reader it will seem; that is why good literature must always contain the right amount of mystery, of difficulty. Enough to incite the reader to make an intellectual exercise that will make him or her look a little beyond what their normal horizon is, but not enough to discourage the reader overcome by a gibberish that is absolutely inextricable. Wallace Stevens put it well when he said  that poetry must resist the intelligence "almost successfully." Literature is great when the reader finds a work that requires just that effort rewarded with the satisfaction of discovering feelings or moods that are proper and did not know before reading the novel, the poem, the story or the essay. Literature at the end is an intimate communication between the author and reader that allows both to explore lands beyond the common experience, very often literature departs from this common experience, the reality known, to reach the unknown reality, the most authentic.

Taking this into account we can consider from a new point of view sentences like "we are facing a very personal work." Usually this kind of statements are referred seemingly to the writer, but perhaps the critic or reviewer is referring to himself, and he or she is trying to express that the work in question is connected to his or her inner self in an unexpected and fruitful way. For me this is where the magic of literature lies, and it is also the proof that we all, individuals of a species characterized by an exaggerated symbolic capacity, are connected by common feelings and, finally, there are some people, artists, who are able to highlight it. If we analyze the reasons why they write and we read, we discover that we are a brotherhood deeper than we sometimes think. The major issues addressed by the science, philosophy or theology are transformed by writers in personal experience. I am delighted that Virginia and Eugenia have been able to talk about those great issues: death, time, love, in such a way that talking about themselves they are also talking about all of us.

Did Richard Bancroft write William Shakespeare's works?

This summer I saw the theatrical release poster of "Anonymous", a movie that presents Edward de Vere as the true author of William Shakespeare's plays. I do not believe that de Vere is the "real" Shakespeare, but that poster of the film made me think again about this old mystery: who wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems?

As is widely known, since the 19th century, some scholars have argued that it is not easy to admit that a person like Shakespeare (low origin, few studies, small Latin and less Greek) had enough skills and culture to create one of the most magnificent (or, perhaps, the most splendid) individual contribution to Western literature ever. Doctors must discuss this issue. I have only read a part of William Shakespeare's works (maybe ten or twelve plays, no more) and I know nothing of literary criticism, so many of the arguments in the debate are far beyond my own knowledge.

However, it is true that I wonder how a person without a good education, as Shakespeare was, had assimilated the knowledge of the history of England, of Greek and Latin classics and of political science that is shown in Shakespeare's plays. If I were compelled to bet on this issue, my bet would be that later or earlier the true author of Hamlet and all the other wonderful works attributed to he actor from Stratford-upon-Avon will be discovered.

But, how to deal with this search, closer to Sherlock Holmes than to brainy professors of literature? The first clue is that Shakespeare stopped writing abruptly, or almost abruptly. A quick consultation to Wikipedia confirms that the last work that Shakespeare wrote alone was "The Tempest", which dates from 1611 (five years before Shakespeare's death). If this were a thriller, the conclusion would be that the real author behind Shakespeare, his ghostwriter, would have died in 1611 or 1610. The second clue is that the ghost author was, probably, a known person. If the "real" Shakespeare were a person without a public presence, why should he or she hide his or her name behind an actor's name?

Taking into account these two clues, the next step in our search is to see who died in England in 1610 and 1611. If we consult wikipedia again it is easy to obtain a "short list" of possible "Shakespeares". And in this list there is a name that could be interesting: Richard Bancroft.

Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury died in 1610. He had a good education, including a stay in Cambridge. Born in 1544, he obtained a Doctorate in 1585. The same year, he was appointed treasurer of St. Paul's cathedral in London. In 1589, when Shakespeare's plays began to be represented Bancroft was in London, in a prestigious position that made impossible for him to work openly as a playwright. If Richard Bancroft had artistic inclinations, he had to find somebody who could lend him a name to be put on the first page of each of his works. It was absolutely impossible to be at the same time treasurer of St. Paul's cathedral (and Bishop of London since 1597 and Archbishop of Canterbury since 1604) and writer of plays and poems.

Of course, what I have just written proves nothing, but there are some significant coincidences between Bancroft and Shakespeare. First, we have already seen that Bancroft's death and the end of Shakespeare as playwright were almost simultaneous. Second, in 1600 Richard Bancroft was sent to Emdem (North Germany) as a member of an embassy aimed to solve certain problems between England... and the Kingdom of Denmark! Hamlet, prince of Denmark -Shakespeare's play- was written between 1599 and 1600. Is that just a coincidence?

Finally, it has been questioned whether Shakespeare was involved in the King James Bible. The King James Bible is the English translation of the Bible by the Church of England. This translation was ordered by King James I in 1604 and was completed in 1611. Although William Shakespeare was not a member of the team of translators, it has been argued that the style of the Bible is close in some points to Shakespeare's works. It seems that there is no direct evidence of Shakespeare implication in the translation of the Bible, but oddly, the "chief overseer" of the translation was... Richard Bancroft! Is that -again- just a coincidence?

Maybe nobody has argued, till now, that Bancroft is Shakespeare's ghostwriter, but al least, somebody has thought that Shakespeare was Bancroft's ghostwriter. I would like to think that that great author (Bancroft), unable to make public his work under his own name, gave free rein to his hidden talent in the translation of the Bible. Maybe he was not worried by the fact that somebody could discover his secret. Maybe at that point he hoped that somebody would understand that the same hand that had translated into English the Psalms and the Book of Judith had written Macbeth and Julius Caesar. Maybe he wished that in the future will shine the name of the true author of that wonderful plays and poems, the true name of the greatest talent of the literature in English. Maybe...