An attack on shakespeare?Follow

Or an attack on class?



http://www.cbc.ca/arts/theatre/story/2007/09/09/shakespeare-authorship.html

Quick someone get me a quote by Bill involving arrogance and assumption being the basis of trying to start an academic debate.

The main reason they doubt it, according to the news, is that he was not an elite scholar. He was of the lower class economically, therefore could not possibly have written the things attributed to him.
If this isn't the most insulting crap. Brilliance isn't limited to the wealthy and well educated.
Another reason they use is that the things he wrote were so varied. God forbid a writer should have a multifaceted mind. Especially a peasant.
We all know that da Vinci and Michaelangelo also were only human therefore couldn't have done all the varied things attributed to them. Edison certainly could not have thought up all those inventions he is credited with. No one man or woman for that matter is capable of such things.
I have no real opinion on whether or not any of these people were as brilliant as we have thought, although I am inclined to believe they were, but to refute them on the basis of social background, education and limited human thinking is not just insulting these men but all mankind.
Man is not limited by these restraints. sheesh.

I suppose my only question would be, if he were lower-class then how did he learn to write? Am I mistaken in thinking that education was largely reserved for the Church and for the upper class?

Well, so is the pro-Shakespeare's evidence. That's part of the problem, if there truly can be said to be a problem.

I don't much care who wrote Henry V. I'm just glad someone did.

People with the need to write will find a way. Especially the great ones. They don't need a formal teacher to teach them to write. They will find a way. Of course lots won't but someone with shakespeares talent would have I have no doubt.
There were always the local priests who did know how to write to teach so there were those who were capable of teaching, writing. What overworked local priest wouldn't have liked a willing scribe to help him out, in trade for being taught to write.
If nothing else he could have gone into the priesthood.
As far as Shakespeare, himself goes, the anti shakespeareans do say he had written business records so he did know how to write. Now you have me wondering how he came about that knowledge. :D

I guess the question (and I don't have a clue as to the answer) is how difficult would it be for a motivated person in that era to read classical works, etc if they were in Shakespeare's economical and social class.

Today I'd say it would be close to easy but this is an era of cheap paperbacks and public libraries. Is it safe to assume that these texts would have been available to William?

I bow to your greater knowledge of his education. lol.
Elitism is still good and healthy isn't it. retorical question. no need to answer.
It is my belief that education into the proper ways to do things almost always results in good burger king clerks or school teachers.
Is it posible shakespeare quit school because he wanted to write not read others writings?
Even during shakespeares time it was not impossible to have access to history and literature. Despite the comments on shakespeares lack of education it is clear he did have a better than basic education and was not all that poor. Poor people did not have business dealings. They just worked.
Considering this I just can't see where the problem is except in the eye of the naysayers.



lol gosh samira that is a hilarious idea. I can see it all now. hmm but he should have found a more 'cultured' shil so there would have never been any doubts.


Edited, Sep 10th 2007 12:38pm by susaninthegarden

I always wondered if Ben Jonson looked down on heaven and saw who was more well-known, if he'd be horrified, "Are you kidding? Shakespeare is a household name? And I'm not." It'd be like if Zombie Roosevelt suddenly was resurrected and realized that there was a cult of Ronald Reagan..."Reagan, seriously, the actor?!?!"

I mean, McFly...

Joking aside, that linked article simplifies and generalises.

Shakespeare may not have been part of the 5% or so priveliged classes, but he wasn't in the 70%-ish poor class. He was lower middle class - educated, literate, but only to a certain degree. Enough to work in a 'clean' job, but almost certainly without access to all of the classics or some of the obscure Apocriphae and historical works. Those were the exclusive domain of wealthy universities.

He was probably a creative and talented writer, but so many aspects of the 'Shakespeare Plays' and poems don't quite gel.

E.g. Some of the ****-erotic sonnets match Kit Marlowe's style and penchant for young boys, whereas Billy Shakeshaft was happily married (Of course, he could have been in the closet, but would he then have published such poems?)

I love Shakespeare's works, and accept that he had a hand in them, but to a greater or lesser degree, I see signs of plagiarism. That doesn't mean I'm Anti-Shakespeare. I just have an open mind.

When all's said and done, it doesn't matter to me who wrote them, as much as the quality of the language. Hell, when a play like Hamlet has a text that even makes Mel Gibson look like an impressive actor (loved his version), it must be pretty special.

While my knowledge of Shakespeare's time is extremely limited, I do believe there were plays and other performances of history that were performed by traveling actors.

If you are a resourceful child (as many children are), you can easily find your way into a playhouse to watch the various shows. If I remember correctly, many of the plays were about real people ore real events. While they may have been altered so as not to anger the lord or lady they were about, they can still show a great deal of the past. Listening to the audience members talking quietly after a show might help clear the fog on what was altered, or what was real. Access to information is recorded as being exclusive to the upper class, but it wouldnt suprise me if a lot of people knew how to read and write, but just hid that knowledge so they wouldnt get killed.



As far as I am concerned, Shakespeare is real and he wrote that which we say he wrote. I don't know why it matters if it was a made up name that multiple people used. The works are great. If they were written by others under a false name, then I think we should respect their wishes of anonymity, and leave it alone.

You really are a stupid, ignorant fUcking idiot aren't you

Now shush. Grown-ups talking.

That's twice we've agreed in as many years.

One (or both) of us is mellowing

If you're going to split hairs, it's 47 if you include derision of gbaji's verbage.

Oh Shit. I've just included gbaji's name in a thread about Shakespeare

Grownups? Where?