Shakespeare

[MorpheusSandman]

(An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)

Yes it is. I'd like to know who came up with that mathematically provable false aphorism. That said, in Shakespeare's authorship case, there is a tremendous absence of evidence for anyone besides Shakespeare having written the plays. All of the counter-arguments are based on elitism, arguments from incredulity, and conspiratorial speculation and violates every tenant of evidence-based historical research.

[Lokasenna]

I'm privately convinced that snobbery is driving sentiment behind all the various anti-Strafordian conspiracy theories. There are a large number of people in private and public life who are simply not willing to accept that a truly great writer who has become the totemic icon of English literature (which is not, incidentally, an entirely good thing in and of itself...), and who achieved what he achieved, could have come from the middle-classes and not have benefitted from a university education.

Whilst we know that a few of his plays were co-authored, there is not a shred of reputable proof that Shakespeare was anything other than what we have taken him to be for hundreds of years.

[MorpheusSandman]

1. The average person today uses approximately 5 000 different words. In Shakespeare's day one would expect this average being not much higher than 3000. Yet, depending on whom one believes, Shakespeare used between 14 and 19 000 different words.

Why are we comparing the USAGE of words by an AVERAGE PERSON to the USAGE of words by a GENIUS AUTHOR? For a fair comparison one should compare Shakespeare's usage of words to similar authors in his day, and, as AuntShecky suggested, wordplay was a popular pastime in Shakespeare's day, so literate people would often write poems or plays as attempts to impress each other. We see something similar in the metaphysical poets and the other dramatists of the time. Shakespeare just happened to be the best at it, probably because of an innate ability to absorb the language he was exposed to both in life and in the literature of the time.

2. We have absolutely NO proof that Shakespeare ever received formal schooling, never mind attending university. What we do know is that his dad was semi-literate, his mom illiterate, his one sister never went to school, and most of the local town council were illiterate. A great many of the plays were mere translations of other plays from Italian, Greek and Latin. Hardly an endeavour for someone unschooled.

To quote Mark Twain against you, "I never let schooling interfere with my education." A great many of our best authors were auto-didacts, some prodigously learned. I never had any formal schooling myself after middle school, yet I doubt you'd find anyone around here who would say I'm unlearned. Level of schooling also has little to do with quality of creative writing. The language one learns to use in school often makes for bad novels, poetry, and especially drama because drama is built around how people talk, not how they write. Shakespeare's feeling for the various levels of speech amongst different people of different social classes was extraordinary, and it's hard to imagine someone either of no education or only upper class education being aware of both ends of the spectrum. Shakespeare would be more like a Prince Hal, except instead of a prince who hung around with the lower classes, he was a middle-classer who was exposed to the upper classes. As for the translations, I don't recall that Shakespeare ever translated anything himself, but rather borrowed from authors who had already translated the works.

3. A last will, in those days, was a very precise, a very exact document, with even a teaspoon listed, and a book was deemed more valuable than a firearm. Yet, in Shakespeare's last will not a single book is mentioned.

When I die I probably won't have any books either, because after reading them I usually sell them or return them to the library or loan them to others. There are more ways of reading than hoarding a personal library of dead trees.

[The Atheist]

Yes it is. I'd like to know who came up with that mathematically provable false aphorism.

Nope. You should probably read your own material before posting it incorrectly. From the link: "The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation."

False evidence is no evidence at all, but if you want to continue the discussion, I suggest a new thread.

[AuntShecky]

G.B. Harrison intimates that among the activities in which Shakespeare engaged between the ages of twenty and twenty-eight, one of them was teaching in a country school. He must have had, therefore, some inkling of knowledge in order to hold employment as such. (page 4 in the General Introduction to the Harrison edition.)

Not that I'm implying that all teachers are great geniuses --especially those in our day and age--but in Elizabethan times, even a little learning could go a long way. Ben Jonson's famous line "a little Latin and less Greek" tells us that Shakespeare had been no scholar on an ivy-covered university campus, but certainly Shakespeare's wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics --history, mythology, human psychology-- abounds throughout his plays. Much of his wit and wisdom could not have been acquired solely through academia but rather by living a life rich in experience and observation. Just as I always tell you, Kids: "Keep your eyes and ears open."

[Paulclem]

Also, Stratford is not a million miles fom Coventry, which was well known for its Mystery Plays.

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

It's easy to speculate that Shakespeare could have received inspiration from these plays. (And been in the two pubs left from the 16th century)

The Old Windmill Inn

http://www.old-windmill-inn.co.uk/

and The Golden Cross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Cross,_Coventry

I've just read on the link that Philip Larkin used to drink in this pub too.

[Ecurb]

In Elizabethan times, intellectual property rights were poorly defined and authors often wrote each others' works. Francis Bacon once offered to write Samuel Pepys diaries, but was turned down for the job because he could not pronounce “Pepys”. Christopher Marlowe claimed to have written Raleigh’s “History of the World”, and requested to be beheaded in Raleigh’s place. “Why should Raleigh get credit for touching his executioner’s axe and saying, ’It is a sharp cure, but a sure one for all ills’,” Marlowe opined. “I say stuff that good every day, at the breakfast table. Just ask my wife.”

Bacon was obsessed with the notion that his name would live on after his death, and violently objected to Canadian Bacon, which he considered to be nothing more than ham. “Literary elegance demands that Canadian Bacon be called ‘ham’,” Bacon argued in one pamphlet, which may have actually been written by Samuel Johnson. “In addition, the shorter word benefits the environment – think of the trees that could be saved if every diner in Canada changed it's menus.”

Alexander Pope wrote the original “King Lear”, which was a musical comedy instead of a tragedy. Instead of dividing their father’s kingdom, the daughters ran away from home to perform comical songs while dressed as chipmunks. Shakespeare’s version came later, and may have been divinely inspired, like “Paradise Lost”. Divine inspiration may explain Shakespeare’s massive vocabulary, and one anonymous Fundamentalist Pastor stated, “An omniscient God could score 700 or higher on the Verbal section of the SATs. Easily.”

[qimissung]

G.B. Harrison intimates that among the activities in which Shakespeare engaged between the ages of twenty and twenty-eight, one of them was teaching in a country school. He must have had, therefore, some inkling of knowledge in order to hold employment as such. (page 4 in the General Introduction to the Harrison edition.)

Not that I'm implying that all teachers are great geniuses --especially those in our day and age--but in Elizabethan times, even a little learning could go a long way. Ben Jonson's famous line "a little Latin and less Greek" tells us that Shakespeare had been no scholar on an ivy-covered university campus, but certainly Shakespeare's wealth of knowledge on a variety of topics --history, mythology, human psychology-- abounds throughout his plays. Much of his wit and wisdom could not have been acquired solely through academia but rather by living a life rich in experience and observation. Just as I always tell you, Kids: "Keep your eyes and ears open."

Gee, thanks, Auntie. *sarcasm* No worries. I think I'm a genius anyway.

[Lykren]

In Elizabethan times, intellectual property rights were poorly defined and authors often wrote each others' works. Francis Bacon once offered to write Samuel Pepys diaries, but was turned down for the job because he could not pronounce “Pepys”. Christopher Marlowe claimed to have written Raleigh’s “History of the World”, and requested to be beheaded in Raleigh’s place. “Why should Raleigh get credit for touching his executioner’s axe and saying, ’It is a sharp cure, but a sure one for all ills’,” Marlowe opined. “I say stuff that good every day, at the breakfast table. Just ask my wife.”

Bacon was obsessed with the notion that his name would live on after his death, and violently objected to Canadian Bacon, which he considered to be nothing more than ham. “Literary elegance demands that Canadian Bacon be called ‘ham’,” Bacon argued in one pamphlet, which may have actually been written by Samuel Johnson. “In addition, the shorter word benefits the environment – think of the trees that could be saved if every diner in Canada changed it's menus.”

Alexander Pope wrote the original “King Lear”, which was a musical comedy instead of a tragedy. Instead of dividing their father’s kingdom, the daughters ran away from home to perform comical songs while dressed as chipmunks. Shakespeare’s version came later, and may have been divinely inspired, like “Paradise Lost”. Divine inspiration may explain Shakespeare’s massive vocabulary, and one anonymous Fundamentalist Pastor stated, “An omniscient God could score 700 or higher on the Verbal section of the SATs. Easily.”

[OrphanPip]

Shakespeare's background is unremarkable for a playwright or actor of the period. Many of them came from middle-class backgrounds with grammar school educations. Jonson was the son of a bricklayer, Shakespeare of a carpenter, D'Avenant of an innkeeper, Middleton another bricklayer, Marlowe's father was a cobbler (though Marlowe did study at Cambridge on a scholarship), Dekker possibly the son of a Dutch merchant, and Kyd's father was a scrivener. I can't think of any notable playwrights of the Elizabethan-Caroline period who came from the aristocracy.

Also, it is worth noting that the value of a university education was often suspect when it came to the aristocracy, degrees were conferred at the discretion of faculty who often gave them out in hopes of patronage or just because they weren't in any position to deny someone of that rank.

[The Atheist]

Or how about Geoffrey Chaucer?

Sure, he started as a page, but look at how many books he ended up writing!

[AuntShecky]

Bacon was obsessed with the notion that his name would live on after his death, and violently objected to Canadian Bacon, which he considered to be nothing more than ham. “Literary elegance demands that Canadian Bacon be called ‘ham’,” Bacon argued in one pamphlet, which may have actually been written by Samuel Johnson. “In addition, the shorter word benefits the environment – think of the trees that could be saved if every diner in Canada changed it's menus.”

This is pretty funny, but both Bacon and Samuel Johnson would have used the correct form of the possessive pronoun-- "its." (NO APOSTROPHE!)

Gee, thanks, Auntie. *sarcasm* No worries. I think I'm a genius anyway.

Whoops! Sorry, Ms Q! I should've said "Present company excepted."

[Ecurb]

This is pretty funny, but both Bacon and Samuel Johnson would have used the correct form of the possessive pronoun-- "its." (NO APOSTROPHE!)

."

That was intentional -- meant to lampoon Marlowe's and Bacon's attempts to slip minor errors into Shakespeare's plays in order to portray him as an unschooled bumpkin. Here's a note Marlowe wrote to Bacon (he always called Bacon "Frank Hamm" in a childish attempt to tease him):

Dear Frank:

Posterity may laude Shakespeare's genius. However, if we play our cartes right, they will also think him an ill-educated bumpkin. Today I wrote "forsoothe" when it should have been "forsooth". I am continuing my tactics of misusing apostrophes and overusing semicolons.

Yours Jealously,

Christopher

Shakespeare was not ignorant of Bacon's and Marlowe's tactics. Here's a note he wrote to one of his lovers whose full name has been lost in the mists of time:

Dearest Gwynneth,

I find that I have writers' block (or is it writer's block?) and am in need of the "divine inspiration" only you can provide. Can we meet tonight? Marlowe continues to annoy me with his petty ghostwriting tactics. When will he grow up? I have employed my Aunt S. as a proofreader, but, despite her diligence, she can't catch all of the "errors". Let's face it: Christopher Marlowe is a pain in the Coriolanus.

Yours Always;

W'm Sh'k'sp'r'

[AuntShecky]

ecurb, your post (#28) above is funny enough for late night tv. PS -- Does Gwynneth make W'm Sh'ksp'r' follow her far-from-delectable macrobiotic diet?

[qimissung]

This is pretty funny, but both Bacon and Samuel Johnson would have used the correct form of the possessive pronoun-- "its." (NO APOSTROPHE!)




Whoops! Sorry, Ms Q! I should've said "Present company excepted."

lol. S'alright, Auntie. We cool.