Two things that haven’t been mentioned:
Ester, as Shakespeare’s granddaughter: this one bothered me somewhat. I guess I had started thinking of Ester as a real person. Tagging the Shakespeare lineage on her seemed cinematic - a step away from “real.” Regardless, it took me by surprise.
It pleased me that Spinoza figured out that he was corresponding with Ester.
Did anybody expect (or care) that Ester’s Grandmother was Shakespeare’s Dark Lady? I didn’t really need that tidbit, but I suppose there’s a message in there somewhere about finding what you want only after you let go and stop searching.
Here are some other theories about the identity of the Dark Lady: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/william-shakespeare/9758184/Has-Shakespeares-dark-lady-finally-been-revealed.html
Ha @Mary13: Looks like we cross-posted re the Shakespeare bit and feel the same way about it. (Post #100)
^ Yes, we did! Both at exactly 9:20 pm. Great minds and all that. 
I agree with you about Spinoza. Aaron observes that in the final correspondence, where the two reach a tacit understanding, Ester’s “wild insistent loneliness had at last been sated.” I think the novel makes an even stronger point (because it’s the last sentence) that Ester has also finally found loving support in her personal life:
No children, but I don’t think she cared much about that. And as far as romantic love goes, at least she had her one love affair (like Helen).
I loved the relationship between Ester and What’s-His-Name. Each had exactly what s/he needed from the other, with no additional expectations. Each appreciated the other for what they were.
Agree with @ignatius and @Mary13 – the whole connection to Shakespeare thing seemed overly contrived to me.
Lol, @VeryHappy…Alvaro. Although “What’s-His-Name” is probably how his father thought of him, so you’re not far off!
@Mary13 : I kept wanting to say “Alfonzo” or Almanzo," but I knew those weren’t right!!
(Wasn’t Almanzo Laura’s husband in Little House on the Prairie?)
^ Yes. (How I loved those Little House books when I was young!)
I viewed the opening quote as referring to Ester – with some irony (if that’s the right word) because it turns out that she is apparently Shakespeare’s granddaughter.
The quote also brings to mind Aaron’s comments about giving Helen the byline on the first paper he writes about Ester – he is determined that the academic community will remember “the hand that writ it.”
I can’t think of any characters other than Ester (obviously) who choose to give anonymously – except in a sense, Rivka and the Patricias, as we have already discussed. Am I missing somebody?
I would be willing to have my most meaningful accomplishments remain anonymous, but I would hate it if they were attributed to others. Is that just me, or is it human nature? Ah well, no matter – the robots that rule the earth after the apocalypse won’t be finding any papers of mine under the stairs anyway.
I went back and forth on Dror and whether Helen did the right thing by running away. Well, that didn’t quite come out right. Of course I wish she’d handled it more maturely, and clearly she wasn’t ready for the commitment. But in the big picture, I don’t think it could have worked anyway. Dror’s intensity would have kind of engulfed her. His youthful fires were burning too hot.
Wouldn’t the Shakespeare lineage be significant in that Aaron’s original dissertation was going to be about Shakespeare and the Marrano Jews? He was on a dead end in that research and has nothing on which to base any sort of an argument which is how Darcy connected him with Helen. The discovery that Ester was Shakespeare’s granddaughter gave Aaron the link he needed for his original thesis, only now it’s evolved into something truly astounding.
Yes, and I think that Ester and John are that in reverse–her intensity would have engulfed him; he knew it and wasn’t ready for the commitment. It remains to be seen how Aaron and Marissa work out. Who is the more intense one there? Seems like it could be a relationship firestorm.
Aaron notes that he could write ten rich dissertations based on the newly found papers, and wonders briefly if he should even return to his original research, which would require “chasing after coincidences.”
But first things first…before going back to Shakespeare, he plans to “give Ester Velasquez her due.”
I really pretty much blew off Ester being related to Shakespeare. It didn’t really add much imho as there was already so much in the novel.
A minor character worth mentioning is Isaac, Ester’s brother. His story is tragic, and somewhat ironic. After the accidental fire, he tries to escape by stowing away on a boat, but is returned by the ship’s navigator, who says, “This one isn’t old enough yet to throw his troubled body into the sea” (p. 84). So off goes Isaac to London, where he finds somebody else do the job for him: He angers a group of men (deliberately, I assume) and they stab him and throw him into the river. Do you think Isaac’s presence—and his fate—were only there to move the plot along (propelling Ester into the role of scribe) or is there some deeper significance to his story?
I’m headed off to the wilds of a Wisconsin farmhouse for a couple of days. Lots of apples, no wifi. Might not be able to post for a bit. Have a great weekend, everybody!
I think Isaac’s story was there as a means to get Ester into the scribe role. Otherwise, why would she be scribing for the rabbi? He would have found someone from the Amsterdam community and brought him to London.
Didn’t he want Ester to write to Amsterdam for just that purpose at one point, and she didn’t send the letter?
Have a wonderful weekend, Mary!
I am late to responding here. We were out of town, so I didn’t have much time to put the thought that I like to do in discussing books that we read.
I loved the book. The amount of research that was done for this book was amazing. The book really helps me appreciate what women can do now, as opposed to that of Ester’s time. I actually would like to read it again, with all of this discussion in mind. This book will stay with me for quite a while.
My mind went there as soon as she first told of her grandmother’s liaison in England. I started doing the math. LOL. So, I was more like “yes! I was right”.
Back drinking coffee for the internet connection…
I did not catch that Aaron’s last name was Levy - surely intentional even if he isn’t actually related in any direct way. I also did not know what the “Ha” meant so thanks for looking that up - whoever did! And yes, poor Goodwin! He definitely needs to be co-author on something. It wasn’t his fault he didn’t have all the facts.
I thought the book was just fine without the hint that Ester might be Shakespeare’s granddaughter. While I didn’t really think the book needed it, I thought it added a little extra. It sort of helps explain her restlessness and urge to explore ideas. And I liked the idea it would give Aaron another project and a way back to his original dissertation. FWIW I don’t think she really rejected love, by not pursuing John. I think she felt that marriage and continuing to write were incompatible. (And back then a passel of babies might have been rather time consuming even with Rivka’s help.) It was just a matter of luck that she ended up in such an unusual marriage with such an understanding husband. If nothing else it’s gotten me reading Shakespeare sonnets. The edition that is up at the camp has no editorial comments so it was up to me to guess which ones they were!
I remember in The Dig there was a lot about the British rules of patrimony. But I can’t remember the details. Too lazy to go digging!
Thanks for the links Mary. I knew about beauty patches from Georgette Heyer. I always thought they were silly, but certainly no sillier than tattoos and piercings!