Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?

[Sally]

And furthermore..

Maria - I agree with everything you say.

Errata - an emotional response is not universal. A person responding to Shakespeare emotionally doesn't render his writing objectively 'emotional'. If Shakespeare engenders a number of emotional responses in you; it doesn't follow that this indicates a number of different authors for the works.

Anyway, I'm all Shakespeared out - enough of him already. Exit stage left pursued by a bear...

[jason_c]

I have to agree with the Stratfordians.

Shakespeare's output was not that much greater than other Elizabethan writers. Thomas Middleton body of work seems far greater than Shakespeare's. Shakespeare's average of two plays per year, with a storyline already written, wasnt overly prodigious.

What we know of artistic creativity nowadays suggests that when your hot your hot. Shakespeare's hottest period being around 1599 with Henry V, A Midsummer Nights Dream, Julius Caesar and Hamlet. Little wonder he wrote a couple of relative stinkers after that.

[mariab]

Shakespeare's output was not that much greater than other Elizabethan writers. Thomas Middleton body of work seems far greater than Shakespeare's. Shakespeare's average of two plays per year, with a storyline already written, wasnt overly prodigious.

Absolutely. Rossini in his early years produced half a dozen operas per year, several of them masterpieces. For Shakes it's not the body of work that stands out, it's the quality and depth.

the range and density of his classical allusions, his allusions to the work of his contemporaries, his detailed engagement with scientific and philosophical thought both old and new, his absolutely natural understanding of and familiarity with the maneuverings of an Elizabethan court and of power politics

Spend some time in the theater, and it's easy to get a quick education. In many cases self-taught is much better than attending college. This is an observation one can make even today.
Also, what Robert said about Keats. As for “his detailed engagement with scientific and philosophical thought both old and new", Shakespeare got things mixed up on many occasions. Lynn already mentioned one on this thread (about Agamemnon reading Aristotle, lol).

[Henry Flower]

I'm playing devil's advocate; let me repeat, I believe there was one hand behind the works of Shakespeare (save for the acknowledged collaborations, naturally), and that hand was William Shaksper of Stratford.

Spend some time in the theater, and it's easy to get a quick education

True perhaps; nevertheless, the sheer size of his vocabulary, the fluidity with which he used it, the novel coinages and freedom to shape grammar to his purposes, the range of his classical allusions, and a thousand other things - all outstrip by far anything displayed by any other dramatist or man of the theater of his time. Shakespeare's vocabulary was so extensive in comparison to other playwrights that he was able to employ once and once only as many words as constitute the entire vocabulary of the King James New Testament. So many elements point to this author having had something far more than 'a quick education'. Marlowe displays signs of a 'quick education', Shakespeare is on a different level altogether.

As for “his detailed engagement with scientific and philosophical thought both old and new", Shakespeare got things mixed up on many occasions. Lynn already mentioned one on this thread (about Agamemnon reading Aristotle, lol)

Lol, no; Shakespeare got things mixed up on very few occasions. Anachronisms such as that you cite wouldn't have seemed an error to him, any more than would the mostly Elizabethan clothes his Romans would've worn on stage, or the striking of a clock (1400 years too soon) in Julius Caesar. Anachronisms bother us far more than they bothered any Elizabethan dramatist - Shakespeare wasn't making documentaries. And in any case, are you suggesting that a handful of errors outweigh literally thousands of evidences of remarkable education? That's not logical.

Will Shakespeare was educated, and very well educated. I don't say that because he was great, or because he was a genius - I believe one can of course be great and be a genius with no education whatsoever - I say it because the text provides so much evidence of education. Stratford Grammar school provides part of the answer. I think the answer will probably be found in his 'lost years'. It's worth remembering that although there is no evidence he had a university career, there is the better part of a decade during which his biography is entirely blank: we don't know what he was doing. (I'm quite sure, however, that he wasn't 'minding the horses of theatre patrons' in preparation for creating the greatest works of dramatic poetry since ancient Rome and Greece.) I don't know that the 'William Shakeshaft' linked to the Hoghton family in Lancashire was our man, but I suspect the solution to the dilemma might well look very similar to that scenario, with the grammar school-educated son of Stratford recusants disappearing under the radar, as many secret Catholics did, and completing a remarkable education on the estates of influential Catholic nobles in the north.

[mariab]

I suspect the solution to the dilemma might well look very similar to that scenario, with the grammar school-educated son of Stratford recusants disappearing under the radar, as many secret Catholics did, and completing a remarkable education on the estates of influential Catholic nobles in the north.

Interesting idea. There's also the suggestion that during "the lost years" he might have worked for Alexander Hoghton, a prominent Catholic landowner who left money in his will to a certain William Shakeshafte, referencing, among else, theatrical costumes. But who knows?

[Jonathan H]

Essentially Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, with some cut and paste here and there by others.

The notion that he was a front for an aristocrat is great fun -- though not for Shakespeare's ghost -- but entirely ahistorical.

In his own time Shakespeare was not considered a 'genius', let alone the greatest writer of all time of any era and of any country.

For one thing plays were not considered works of art, unless they were classical. They were a form of popular craft, and Shakespeare was considered very proficient and reliably profitable.

Art was poetry, and therefore it is unlikely that Shakespeare, probably well-educated at a Stratford grammar school, considered his plays for the ages so to speak -- unlike his Sonnets.

They were primarily for the mob, outside the town limits next to the brothels.

The shift towards Shakespeare as the greatest literary genius ever happened for three reasons.

1. Shakespeare was a great writer; specifically a great observer of people who wrote three-dimensional characters dramatising universal themes.

2. Popular and public theatre slowly began its ascent towards being considered 'art' too as soceity became relatively more middle-class.

3. David Garrick, and his revelatory realistic acting style helped popularize Shakespeare as the greatest; greater than his more illustrious contemporaries.

Shakespeare's transformation into 'the Bard' is impossible without the acclaimed and influential actor-manager Garrick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Garrick

Once Shakespeare was 'canonized' then some (Twain, Freud, et al.) sceptically dismissed Will and his modest background (an actor, a sharp businessman) and life (no overseas travel we know of, no state funeral)) and thus refused to accept what had never been previously challenged, in terms of his identity and his authorship -- that he was the author of his own plays.

It's a kind of reverse snobbery against the glove-maker's son; eg. the greatest literary superstar must have gone to college and been a nobleman, and so on.

[Cogidubnus]

Jonathan

Your knack of summarising my subconscious internal wanderings is both uncanny and worrying (but please do not cease!)...

As a mere grammar school boy myself from distinctly poor working class roots, I enthusiastically adopted Will as an idol at a very early age...unusual in the 60s...he alternately baffled and entertained me...

In my mind his gifts were those of fluency and conviction...he creates a mood, picks up an audience in that mood, and conveys them smoothly where he pleases...what a gift!

Yes Garrick provided him with his springboard, but the sheer genius was all his own...

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

HUGE Shakes fan myself since age 9. :-) (My teacher called my parents cuz I was trying to re-create Richard III's behaviour at school. Minus the murders.)

[Cogidubnus]

Minus the murders

(OK I'll bite Maria) Which of course he couldn't have commited, but which Shakespeare couldn't honestly report, because of the dynasty for whom he was writing (ie the winners write the history books and the planta genista had long withered)....

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

Don't disagree, Dave.

[Errata]

I think one of the great things about Shakespeare's plays is how relate-able they are. He wrote several plays involving a bunch of people doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, or even people who do everything right and still end up wrong. In his true masterpieces, his characters have reasons for what they do. Good ones. Julius Caesar is a prime example. Othello is another one. Even Macbeth. You know why Othello does what he does. And it would seem reasonable given the information that he has. You know why Shylock does what he does, and even that is understandable. Brutus too, is an honorable man. It just doesn't work out. These are not concepts held in high regard by 17th century nobility. This is a common man. It's important to Shakespeare that you know why people do what they do. It is important that their actions be justified. Accountability was a foreign concept to nobility of the day. Only a man whose success or failure in life depends on intent would write things that way. To me it's the best argument against some anonymous noble author.

[Henry Flower]

Accountability was a foreign concept to nobility of the day. Only a man whose success or failure in life depends on intent would write things that way.

Errata I can't agree. Aside from Merry Wives, his plays are full of kings and earls, and nobles, who either agonize over their decisions on a purely moral level, or who know that their actions and decisions will necessarily have consequence not only for themselves, and their families, but possibly for entire nations also. Shakespeare's characters on so many occasions agonize over the extreme and unnatural weight that attends their decisions and their intents. The extremes of success and failure that wait upon their decisions are a level of accountability way above that of the normal man or woman, not below it. And in times as fractious and as politically tense as Shakespeare's were, that reflects the true political situation. It's simply not credible or factual to come out with a generalisation such as 'accountability was a foreign concept to nobility of the day'.

I don't argue that a nobleman therefore wrote the plays, not at all, but I simply don't think your argument is as logical as it is cute

[jason_c]

(OK I'll bite Maria) Which of course he couldn't have commited, but which Shakespeare couldn't honestly report, because of the dynasty for whom he was writing (ie the winners write the history books and the planta genista had long withered)....

All the best

Dave

The modern whitewash of Richard III continues. Richard without doubt is suspect no.1 for the murders. He had the means and motive to commit them. The Princes mother certainly believed him guilty.

Thomas More's account is as accurate as we are likely to get.

[Henry Flower]

Jason, Dave, I'm on the fence. My head says Richard had them killed. What else could he do? I can't think of any evidence that exonerates him or credibly suggests any other solution. My heart, on the other hand....

My heart remembers what an ardent Yorkist my dear mother is, remembers the feeling of tremendous sadness while walking Bosworth Field with her, hearing about the last English king brave enough to fight and die in battle himself. Mrs Flower and I once traveled to Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire to have a drink at The Crown - which was featured in one of our favourite films 'Withnail & I' (the infamous 'Penrith tea-rooms' is just across the square, though now it is a chemist, sadly), and we noted on one Stony Stratford house a plaque stating that the premises had previously been the Rose and Crown Inn, where in 1483 the young Edward V stayed the night before being taken to London and the Tower.

This went seriously off-topic, sorry. We're supposed to be discussing whether Prince Albert Edward Victor was the anonymous nobleman playwright responsible for Sickert's suicide in the Tower or something..

[jason_c]

Jason, Dave, I'm on the fence. My head says Richard had them killed. What else could he do? I can't think of any evidence that exonerates him or credibly suggests any other solution. My heart, on the other hand....

My heart remembers what an ardent Yorkist my dear mother is, remembers the feeling of tremendous sadness while walking Bosworth Field with her, hearing about the last English king brave enough to fight and die in battle himself. Mrs Flower and I once traveled to Stony Stratford in Buckinghamshire to have a drink at The Crown - which was featured in one of our favourite films 'Withnail & I' (the infamous 'Penrith tea-rooms' is just across the square, though now it is a chemist, sadly), and we noted on one Stony Stratford house a plaque stating that the premises had previously been the Rose and Crown Inn, where in 1483 the young Edward V stayed the night before being taken to London and the Tower.

Interesting, thanks.

As a Scotsman it's hard for me to understand the strong feelings surrounding this subject 500 years later. Is there still a geographic element to these feelings? Do modern Yorkist's generally have roots in Yorkshire? The modern Yorkshire v Lancashire rivalry I know about. Is this rivalry linked to the events of the War of the Roses all those years ago?