Shakespeare?

[freeztar]

Many have questioned the writing style of Shakespeare and some have suggested that many authors were at work.

 

The book entitled, "The Shakespeare Conspiracy", raises some interesting questions on the authorship and private life of William Shakespeare.

 

Where does the truth lie?

Did William Shakespeare write his own works or were they the result of the efforts of many men?

[Buffy]

Did William Shakespeare write his own works or were they the result of the efforts of many men?

I think the analysis of the works have indicated its pretty obviously the work of a single person, but one who had to have had an incredible education and a full life as a member of the landed gentry.

 

I've always been in the Earl of Oxford camp myself...

 

And thou, the author of their obloquy, shalt have thy trespass cited up in rhymes, and sung by children in succeeding times, :)

Buffy

[maikeru]

Many have questioned the writing style of Shakespeare and some have suggested that many authors were at work.

 

The book entitled, "The Shakespeare Conspiracy", raises some interesting questions on the authorship and private life of William Shakespeare.

 

Where does the truth lie?

Did William Shakespeare write his own works or were they the result of the efforts of many men?

 

Sometimes I wonder if the inconsistencies in Shakespeare's style weren't the result of aging and maturity, a lack of time due to busy schedules, bad days, or Shakespeare being lazy (like quoting almost verbatim from some of his historical sources like Holinshed's Chronicles for his plays or from other contemporary playwrights like Marlowe). A few days ago at a bookstore, I was reading a book that tried to dig into the known history of Shakespeare to illuminate what we do know and what we do not know about this most remarkable playwright. Shame I didn't buy or get to finish the book. I am also a major Shakespeare fan. :)

 

This seems to be the book I was looking at, but I can't remember for sure:

 

Amazon.com: Shakespeare: The Biography: Peter Ackroyd: Books http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeare-Biography-Peter-Ackroyd/dp/B000V5WMG4/ref=pd_sim_b_njs_5

 

The author's name looks very familiar. Kinda late and suffering from jet lag, so my memory's shot.

 

There are several historical documents that bear the mark or presence of Shakespeare. IIRC, there are baptismal records, a death mask, illustrations of him, and several legal documents, including his last will and testament, bearing his signatures, although apparently he was pretty "free" with the spelling of his last name. (Maybe that's not surprising, because in Elizabethan England, English words did not have standardized spellings until the advent later on of several widespread and commonly used English dictionaries, as I understand it.) To me, these testify well enough to the historical presence of a William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Most people in those times came into the world and left it without a trace so far as we know. It's a great blessing we have found some evidence of him. But to answer your questions more directly, these documents and bits of evidence do not necessarily prove that this same Shakespeare wrote all or any of the plays attributed to said Shakespeare.

 

Here's my opinion, based on years of reading and enjoying Shakespeare's plays and having taken a few classes on his works: I believe there is enough stylistic evidence to show that one man wrote most of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and I believe there is good reason to believe that Shakespeare is Shakespeare. Inconsistencies or irregularities in Shakespeare's style are to be expected for some of the factors or reasons I mentioned in my first paragraph. For example, his son Hamnet died not long before the probable writing of Hamlet, and it is worth keeping something like that in mind, that perhaps his heart and mind were dark and heavy during those times. Such a dire event and loss could not help but to influence his writing. Other influences on Shakespeare would be what resources he had at his disposal for inspiration and research. One well-known resource Shakespeare turned to again and again is Holinshed's Chronicles:

 

Raphael Holinshed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Lear, Macbeth, and other history plays owe a great deal to this work. However, this work is itself based on quotes, copies, and paraphrases of other sources and other authors, as Wiki puts it:

 

The contributors were industrious compilers. They took the primary sources and linked them together into consistent and chronological narratives. They quoted from documents, copied printed histories and paraphrased others. They rarely excluded something, as they thought that the more source authorities they had, the better it was. This was not seen as plagiarism at the time; it was seen as good methodology and, moreover, the work was well documented. Prefatory bibliographies were included and there were marginal notations indicating the source documents. Harrison, for instance, relied heavily on Leland for much of his descriptive detail, whereas Holinshed used John Bale and Geoffrey of Monmouth for the chronology of the narrative.

 

If Shakespeare was so reliant on a resource like Holinshed's Chronicles, I think it's not beyond reason that the writing style and influences of authors and sources would be transmitted, reworded, or rewritten a bit by Shakespeare to suit his plays. The mention of Geoffrey of Monmouth is also significant, because he wrote a famous work entitled Historia Regum Brittaniae (The History of the Kings of Britain):

 

Historia Regum Britanniae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I'm familiar with this because I've been researching and reading a lot into Arthurian mythology and origins lately. Finished Le Morte D'Arthur over my vacation. Historia Regum Brittaniae is important because much English folklore, myth, and history was based on it, and Shakespeare probably was familiar with it, directly or indirectly. He was schooled in some Latin, that much is known, and may have been able to read it.

 

From personal experience, I know that I tend to write, speak, and sound like my favorite writers and speakers whose styles and words gradually become my own. It's often said, "We are what we eat." For intellectual food, it might then be said, "We are what we read." Shakespeare would make much and many resources his own. It does not take much learning to be well read. And sometimes picking a few good books can give much better learning and reading than reading several poor books. A matter of quality over quantity.

 

On a somewhat related note, I have had similar discussions with other people concerning Joseph Smith, how a supposedly "uneducated farm boy" could write a rather complicated and imaginative work (The Book of Mormon). Those I've discussed with often assume it's because of divine cause/intervention. But I do not believe this is a logical assumption or conclusion. Because people assume or say that someone was uneducated does not automatically make him or her illiterate, unintelligent, unimaginative, or unproductive. This seems degrading to the person in question.

 

Turning back to the topic, Shakespeare was a genius, but not a genius without flaws. For example, if we examine Hamlet, we find that Shakespeare seems to have a strange grasp of time and events in the play, because Hamlet at one point seems to be a student, perhaps a man in his late teens or early twenties, who then transforms into an older man, perhaps in his thirties. Do the events take place over a few months or is it several years...a decade or more? How old is Hamlet really? Is he young or is he old? It's a problem of chronology. However, I think the genius of Hamlet lies in its honest and complex depiction of human nature. It captures so well the contradictions, subtleties, and beauties of character. Shakespeare shows us what it means to be human. He shows us what is human. He shows us who we are, as we are.

 

If the genius of Shakespeare lies in his masterful ability to touch something special in us through his storytelling--to delight, to amaze, to wonder, to anger, and to sadden--then style is another part of the work to tell the story. And I think Shakespeare was as interested in telling good stories as striking a witty phrase. Above all, Shakespeare was a great storyteller with great style.

[Buffy]

Fabulous post!

 

I think its important to note that the arguments against Shakespeare have more to do with the *ability* to gather the requisite knowledge rather than aspersions to any inherent mental inferiority of being a "farm boy." Stratford-Upon-Avon in the late 16th century was a *LONG* way from London, even if its only about an hour drive today. There was no equivalent of Google, and most libraries were basically closed to those outside the upper classes: it is hard for us today to even conceive of what expensive luxuries books were until well into the 18th century.

 

Moreover, while certainly some of his work was "lifted" from earlier works, much was not, and his comfort in discussing things that were clearly outside the experience of anyone but the upper classes is incongruous.

 

That is to say, given there's no really solid proof one way or another, its so much more likely that he was not Shakespeare of Stratford, but if he was, he was not only an intellectual giant--and would be considered so no matter what his background--but he had an unparalleled force of will to overcome the most astounding odds in gaining *access* to the knowledge needed to write what he wrote.

 

If anything, I've mostly been put off by the fact that there are suspiciously few historical records for Shakespeare-of-Avon anywhere to be found, only placing him possibly as an actor, and thus making him a likely target for a high-placed courtier in need of a "beard."

 

I come to a different conclusion, simply because I'm applying Occam's Razor, not because the evidence is necessarily more convincing for one or another.

 

He learn'd but surety-like to write for me, Under that bond that him as fast doth bind, :thumbs_up

Buffy

[Buffy]

Thread moved because this is a genuine and legitimate historical debate, and hardly a "Strange Claim"....

 

And in his brain, which is as dry as the remainder biscuit after a voyage, he hath strange places cramm'd with observation, the which he vents in mangled forms. O that I were a fool! I am ambitious for a motley coat, :thumbs_up

Buffy

[CraigD]

The book entitled, "The Shakespeare Conspiracy", raises some interesting questions on the authorship and private life of William Shakespeare.

The authorship of the works of Shakespeare, have, I gather from every class and discussion I’ve had on the subject, been a subject of contention for as long as they existed.

 

Some of this is due to the nature of writing and acting plays: playwrights now and in the Shakespeare’s day (1600-1700s) often based their scripts on folk stories and popular fiction, but in Shakespeare’s day, negotiating copyrights and royalties were arguably less common than today, and outright literary theft more; scripts were known to “evolve” during rehearsals, with lines being added, cut, and altered with actors and bystanders ad-libs; in being published in print, editors are faced with selecting from multiple working scripts, so arguably are themselves part of the writing process. Also, several of Shakespeare’s plays were acknowledged to be collaborations with other playwrights.

 

Some of the contention is along the line of Buffy’s

I think its important to note that the arguments against Shakespeare have more to do with the *ability* to gather the requisite knowledge rather than aspersions to any inherent mental inferiority of being a "farm boy." Stratford-Upon-Avon in the late 16th century was a *LONG* way from London, even if its only about an hour drive today. There was no equivalent of Google, and most libraries were basically closed to those outside the upper classes: it is hard for us today to even conceive of what expensive luxuries books were until well into the 18th century.

however, I think this contention incorrectly characterizes William Shakespeare’s family background and Stratford-Upon-Avon’s late 17th century cultural and educational resources. Will wasn’t a “farm boy” – he was a “wealthy merchant boy”. SUA wasn’t London, but had an expensive and prestigious “grammar school”, King Edward VI School Stratford-upon-Avon, which most scholars believe Will attended, so he would have at least been able to read and write English and Latin, and have read a government-dictated curriculum of Latin classics – Latin version of the stories of Homer, the philosophy of Socrates, the histories of Cicero, etc. The main difference in the education of a merchant-class boy like Will and an aristocrat boy like Edward Earl of Oxford would, as best I can tell, have been that Oxford would have had more martial arts training – sword fighting, etc. – and have had firsthand experience in royal courts. Neither background, IMHO, would more or less allow predispose its possessor to developing the skills of a playwright and poet.

 

As far as Graham Phillips’s “Elizabethan James Bond” idea, I must withhold judgment until I’ve seen his specific claims and evidence. Based just of Phillips’s bibliography, I’m skeptical of his credibility: One of his previous most popular co-authored books is 1983’s “The Green Stone: a True Story of Paranormal Adventure”, a “non-fiction” account of the “green stone” 1980-1990s UK social phenomena. Perhaps I’ll wait for the movie. :)

[mynah]

I'm currently reading Shakespeare by Bill Bryson.

 

While much is unknown about his life, there does not seem to be much doubt that he wrote his own plays. It is also known that he collaborated on some other plays.

 

Shakespeare was undoubtedly a well-read man, but (as was stated above) it was not unusual at the time to lift plots from other works, and he did so - and he was sometimes guilty of anachronisms, as when he had a clock ticking away during the reign of Caesar.

[Tormod]

I majored in English Literature at the university and remember that this discussion came up a couple of times, but always as a laughable matter. AFAIK nobody really took it seriously. I have read most of Shakespeare's works and it never occurred to me that this was written by multiple writers.

 

The subject matter of Shakespeare's plays and poetry is very basic, human stuff: love, anger, misery, vengeance etc. I don't find it any more difficult to believe that one person wrote his plays, than to believe that Leonardo da Vinci actually painted all his paintings and invented all his inventions...

 

As to whether someone were subcontracted, that wouldn't strike me as too unbelievable. It's quite common with painters and sculptors, for example, to use students or partners to create works of art in their name. But they (mostly) have an active role in the creation of the artwork.

[maikeru]

Fabulous post!

 

I think its important to note that the arguments against Shakespeare have more to do with the *ability* to gather the requisite knowledge rather than aspersions to any inherent mental inferiority of being a "farm boy." Stratford-Upon-Avon in the late 16th century was a *LONG* way from London, even if its only about an hour drive today. There was no equivalent of Google, and most libraries were basically closed to those outside the upper classes: it is hard for us today to even conceive of what expensive luxuries books were until well into the 18th century.

 

As CraigD mentioned, Shakespeare had a good education by all reckoning in Stratford-upon-Avon, and was probably exposed to many classics, current works, and other works in both his native English and learned Latin. The ability to read and write in Latin (and/or Greek) opens up an entire new world (and the same could be said for classical/traditional Chinese, Arabic, etc.). The reason why I brought up Joseph Smith ("uneducated farm boy" comment) is that sometimes people get wrong ideas or misconceptions about a person's background or education, i.e., someone like Abraham Lincoln, and thus set limitations on the person in question without looking at the historical record, writings, or real evidence. Despite his humble origins, Honest Abe was a master of the pen, and the Gettysburg Address is a fine example of his style.

 

Moreover, while certainly some of his work was "lifted" from earlier works, much was not, and his comfort in discussing things that were clearly outside the experience of anyone but the upper classes is incongruous.

 

As a "wealthy merchant boy" and later actor/player and patronized playwright, he would have had access to the upper classes and royalty. Because of his excellence and popularity, both Queen Elizabeth and King James I patronized him and his players. If he was nothing more than a "farm boy," I would have to agree that his knowledge would seem improper...but that doesn't seem to be the case. There are many instances of people from humble backgrounds rising to the top of society, and fitting in quite well. I would also argue that he had an "eye for detail" as most writers do, and would have probably learned and adapted fast to new situations.

 

That is to say, given there's no really solid proof one way or another, its so much more likely that he was not Shakespeare of Stratford, but if he was, he was not only an intellectual giant--and would be considered so no matter what his background--but he had an unparalleled force of will to overcome the most astounding odds in gaining *access* to the knowledge needed to write what he wrote.

 

I really don't have much more to add to what Craig mentioned about Shakespeare's schooling and exposure to classical as well as probably native works. I think that would have put numerous sources and resources at his disposal and into his head.

 

I am not sure, but it's also possible that Shakespeare may have drawn on other sources of folklore and storytelling present in the countryside and cities such as mystery, miracle, and folk plays, such as were common in the Middle Ages until about his time. The play A Midsummer Night's Dream demonstrates a great familiarity with English folklore and stories as well as some classical stories (Theseus and Hippolyta). Mystery and miracle plays, for the most part, died in England after the separation of churches (Anglican from Roman Catholic), but may have lingered on and been performed in the countryside or to a willing crowd. In the cities, however, professional plays and players displaced them. Also we have manuscripts for popular mystery and miracle play cycles of the time. Maybe Shakespeare would've read these or seen them in London?

 

If anything, I've mostly been put off by the fact that there are suspiciously few historical records for Shakespeare-of-Avon anywhere to be found, only placing him possibly as an actor, and thus making him a likely target for a high-placed courtier in need of a "beard."

 

I come to a different conclusion, simply because I'm applying Occam's Razor, not because the evidence is necessarily more convincing for one or another.

 

He learn'd but surety-like to write for me, Under that bond that him as fast doth bind, :shrug:

Buffy

 

Player (actor), playwright, and businessman seem to encompass some aspects of him. From what I remember, he owned shares in and took profit from the player company (who would've been his coworkers and maybe friends) and Globe Theatre. Anyway, there's little we know, much more that we do not know, so we must make do with much, if not too much, conjecture. :eek_big: