Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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]

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).

[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.

[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...

[Sally]

That's fine Sally, if you simply assert it often enough then doubtless it must be true.

Fiddlesticks Henry. It's my view; with which you are quite at liberty to disagree. If I'd wanted to deal in 'truth' I'd have become a philospher.

Now there are those who apparently believe that repetition is equal to corroboration; but I'm not one of them.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm with you Maria!

Dave

[mariab]

How on earth could one man be so diverse?

It's called being a genious, Errata. By the by, tremendous diversity exists already when comparing JUST his comedies. Compare Troilus and Cressida to As you like it. Compare the comedies of his youth to The tempest. Study his works a bit, and you'll see the commun denominators in structure, plot devices, way he presents the characters, the way he ends a play, figures of speech, metaphores in both his comedies and tragedies. This is all by the same author.

Comic sensibility cannot be faked. So clearly Shakespeare had it. Can a comic writer come up with the St. Crispin's Day speech? {...}I would posit that Shakespeare wrote his own comedies. {...} I think someone else wrote his great tragedies, and handed them off for him to "bard" up.

Right on. And 2 different people wrote Chekhov's plays, Mozart's/Rossini's comic vs. tragic vs. historical operas, 2 different authors collaborated on Dickens novels.

Why couldn't one man have been adept at comedy, and tragedy, and also have been a whizz at the soap opera of the day, the 'history' play?
Most of Shakespeare's ideas were nicked - oh, ok, then, 'derived' - in part or pretty much whole from tales that already existed. Well, that makes sense, doesn't it - I mean, who's going to be able to churn out works of dramatic wonder from scratch at that kind of pace?
As for the comedy - a lot of that was really just the one joke; that marvel of contemporary humour, the 'supposes' - y'know, where everyone dresses up as everyone else and it all gets horribly confused but miraculously turns out alright in the end. It was ever so popular, I believe.
So he already had the device. It seems to me that what Shakespeare was best at in dramatic terms was assimilating what was already there and giving it that old Shakespeare magic.

Precisely, Sally. Not unlike how Mozart and Rossini worked in assimilating tradition into deeper and more complex works than their contemporaries. Rossini in particular used collaborators for the insignificant parts and carefully adapted self borrowings from other works. It's a method many painters have also used for efficiency, particularly the ones who run a studio with apprentices.

He did have one excellent advantage in turning his hand to this and that too - he was an actor - he had seen every type of play which he turned his hand to performed, and had probably performed in many himself. Shakespeare wasn't impossible, or even improbable, he was just very, very good at what he did.

Very well said. And precisely about the actor part. Just like Molière – who, him, has a niche and has simply written the same play about a dozen times, though incredibly well.

You couldn't just write a play and pass it off as Shakespeare. It had to be in iambic pentameter, often rhyming, his style was unique.

It's not his speech that was unique, it's the structure of his plays and the complexity/depth of his characters that are characteristically Shakespearean. Have you read any Marlowe? He's what you would have called emotional. It's not the form, but the content that differentiates any contemporary playwrighter from Shakes. Not Iambic pentameter, which came naturally to Elizabethans, the way Aléxandrins came naturally to the French from the 17th century to the 1830s.

[Errata]

He did have one excellent advantage in turning his hand to this and that too - he was an actor - he had seen every type of play which he turned his hand to performed, and had probably performed in many himself. Shakespeare wasn't impossible, or even improbable, he was just very, very good at what he did.

It isn't about the plot, which were often "nicked" as you say. It's the monologues. Or in some cases dialogues. The turns of phrase. His works are very emotive. Much Ado makes you laugh at loud. Henry V makes you swell with pride, Othello makes you cry. I'm a pretty good playwright when I have a mind to be, and I can do comedies, mostly absurdities. Tom Stoppard is one of the greatest contemporary playwrights, and he does paradox. That's what he does. Neil Simon does sentiment. Christopher Durang does comedy. They have niches. And these guys are brilliant. What reason would I have to believe that Shakespeare was five times better than the greatest theatrical minds of our generation? Especially at the pace he worked. He had to have had help. Some guy to write a rousing speech for him, or a brooding monologue. Had he simply aped what had come before, he would have been blasted for it. He had the originality of three men. I think he literally had to talents of at least two.

[Henry Flower]

They ultimately do, I'm afraid. I've read the books Henry, and I stick by my view - although I'll concede that many subscribe to these theories simply because they are 'anti-establishment; it is nonetheless true that they are engendered by an unwillingnes, or inability, to accept that an 'ordinary' man could have achieved in Shakespearian fashion.

That's fine Sally, if you simply assert it often enough then doubtless it must be true.

[Sally]

Nah,,

I don't buy that Errata, sorry.

Why couldn't one man have been adept at comedy, and tragedy, and also have been a whizz at the soap opera of the day, the 'history' play? Eh?

Most of Shakespeare's ideas were nicked - oh, ok, then, 'derived' - in part or pretty much whole from tales that already existed. Well, that makes sense, doesn't it - I mean, who's going to be able to churn out works of dramatic wonder from scratch at that kind of pace?

So he already had the basic plot - as in Hamlet, e.g.

As for the comedy - a lot of that was really just the one joke; that marvel of contemporary humour, the 'supposes' - y'know, where everyone dresses up as everyone else and it all gets horribly confused but miraculously turns out alright in the end. It was ever so popular, I believe.

So he already had the device.

It seems to me that what Shakespeare was best at in dramatic terms was assimilating what was already there and giving it that old Shakespeare magic.

He did have one excellent advantage in turning his hand to this and that too - he was an actor - he had seen every type of play which he turned his hand to performed, and had probably performed in many himself. Shakespeare wasn't impossible, or even improbable, he was just very, very good at what he did.

[Errata]

I've been performing Shakespeare since an age appropriate Juliet (super creepy by the way), and the question of authorship has always seemed moot to me. Sure you want the right guy to get credit, but nothing in any of the plays can rule out one kind of man, or guarantee another. But he was primarily a playwright. And this is where it gets tricky. The man behind Much Ado About Nothing is NOT the same man behind Henry V, though both were written by the same hand. The extraordinary thing about Shakespeare is not his use of language, his imagery, his creativity, etc. It is his mastery of both comedy and drama, and no playwright before or since has ever masterfully handled both. The use of language, imagery, etc. in both Much Ado About Nothing is the same. As individual as a signature. But the themes, emphasis and characterizations are radically different. Shakespeare does not have a comfort zone. He doesn't have universal themes. Your average writer has a niche. Morality plays, plays about class difference, religion, the nature of humanity, whatever. Shakespeare doesn't. He takes on every theme with similar ease, though not necessarily similar success *cough* Titus Andronicus *cough*

How on earth could one man be so diverse? How does a guy go from "ooh pretty fairy farce" to "characterization of the monster: wicked uncle"? Ask any writer, and they will tell you that comedy is harder. You really either have it or you don't. Comic sensibility cannot be faked. So clearly Shakespeare had it. Can a comic writer come up with the St. Crispin's Day speech? Maybe, but he couldn't also come up with the shattering of Lady Macbeth's mind, the horror of the unfolding events of Othello, or even the simple tragedy of a good man forced to do terrible things in Julius Caesar. Conversely, no mind that can encompass these tragedies can then put Dogberry in what is already a damned funny play.

I would posit that Shakespeare wrote his own comedies. They are naturally funny. Not forced funny like a Jerry Lewis movie. I think someone else wrote his great tragedies, and handed them off for him to "bard" up. Today in school we learn to "translate" Shakespeare. But back then, you still had to translate it to an extent, because while the language was modern, the format was unusual. You couldn't just write a play and pass it off as Shakespeare. It had to be in iambic pentameter, often rhyming, his style was unique. If someone wrote Hamlet the way it would have been spoken by real people, it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Give it to Shakespeare to rewrite in his style, and it would be huge. It would explain his facility with every genre, which is not something that in truth, anybody has. Even if Shakespeare was really Marlowe (which I don't think he is) he couldn't have written all of Shakespeare's plays. Marlowe would have had to outsource the comedies.

By the way, worst part of Anonymous (which I walked out of)? De Vere growing Tudor roses in a pot. As though they were an actual flower. What you get a big movie script you don't even check Wikipedia anymore?

[Supe]

Sally,

I quite agree with you.

Don.