5 ms·

We may never have a definitive answer, but it is very difficult to reconcile the humble circumstances of one William Shakspere (sic) of Avon, with the encyclope

We may never have a definitive answer, but it is very difficult to reconcile the humble circumstances of one William Shakspere (sic) of Avon, with the encyclopedic knowledge and vast experience required to write those plays.

goto11 4y ago
By "humble circumstances" I presume you refer to the fact that he wasn't born an aristocrat? This certainly bothered the 19-century upper class which is why they came up with the "oxfordian" theories, that Shakespeare of Avon was really a front for some proper aristocratic author. It also bothered them that Shakespeare was an actor, since actors at the time was considered lower status. So by separating the actor Shakespeare from a hypothetical aristocratic author, the prestige of the greatest author of the English language was saved. It was also rather embarrassing that Shakespeare was part owner of the Globe Theater and seemed to have been a savvy businessman, becoming wealthy through his career. This was embarrassing because a proper aristocrat and poet should of course be elevated above any concerns about earning money (as opposed to just naturally having them).
yetanotherloser 4y ago
What a snobby argument! Try Charles Nicholl's The Lodger for a pretty detailed study that leaves little room for doubt about the fellow from Stratford.
- ttctciyf 4y ago
  A "snobby" argument I think would be one that doesn't even bother attempting a counterargument but instead furnishes innuendo and dismissal based on an implicit claim of superior authority.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    You might as well be asking them to argue that the moon landing was real. The anti-Stratfordians have absolutely no evidence other than speculation and snobbery.
  - sritchie 4y ago
    Well, there is a lot of scholarship refuting the snobby argument, including the book referenced in the reply. "Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare" covers this too, with lots of analysis of back and forth competitive poetry and passages between Shakespeare and contemporary playwrights like Marlowe, who knew Shakespeare well. Seems odd to imagine that they would also be involved in a coverup.
    - yetanotherloser 4y ago
      Thanks for the recommendation, I think it's in my tsundoku somewhere. What I liked about The Lodger was that it doesn't go on about authorship at all, just painstakingly reconstructs a time, a place and a life and leaves a picture convincing enough that it really leaves some speculation looking rather daft.
  - rsynnott 4y ago
    This is such an old and discredited argument that it literally turns up in Ben Elton’s Shakespeare sitcom as something to be parodied; it’s probably not deserving of much of a counter argument. Like, it’s more or less a conspiracy theory at this stage.
    - tgv 4y ago
      The one where Elton scientifically proves that Shakespeare also wrote Marlowe's plays?
  - bazoom42 4y ago
    You need to provide an argument before anyone can provide a counterargument! What specific parts of Shakespeares work couldn’t plausibly have been authored by someone with his background and education?
- jimmySixDOF 4y ago
  Try the very short biography by Bill Bryson, the central point of which is how little historical evidence of anything to do with Shakespeare actually exists and the ludicrous ammount of speculation over the years by various hunch holders. I also like the 1987 moot court considering 17th Earl of Oxford arguments in front of then sitting Supreme Court Justices: William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens [1] [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?618-1/ https://www.c-span.org/video/?618-1/
bazoom42 4y ago
Shakespeare is believed to have had a grammar school education where he wold have learned latin, rethoric, and studied classics like Ovid and Plutarch. I’m not sure what “humble” implies, but his mother was from a wealthy family and his father was alderman and mayor. (Not that being rich makes you a better writer, but it explains how he could get this education.) And “vast encyclopedic knowledge” is overtating it somewhat. His plays are fiction and use a lot of artistic license, like placing the royal court of Denmark in Elsinore.
Veen 4y ago
He didn't go to university, but his background wasn't all that humble. His father was an alderman and successful glover and his mother came from a well-off land-owning family. It's usually thought he had a grammar school education based on the Latin classics.
rsynnott 4y ago
> encyclopaedic knowledge Eh. In practice, if in doubt, he made it up, particularly in respect to geography. If anything this is an argument against the “Shakespeare must actually have been aristocratic” thing, if anyone still took that seriously.
felix318 4y ago
They may eventually find that Shakespeare’s plays were not written by him, but by someone else with the same name.

goto11 4y ago

By "humble circumstances" I presume you refer to the fact that he wasn't born an aristocrat? This certainly bothered the 19-century upper class which is why they came up with the "oxfordian" theories, that Shakespeare of Avon was really a front for some proper aristocratic author. It also bothered them that Shakespeare was an actor, since actors at the time was considered lower status. So by separating the actor Shakespeare from a hypothetical aristocratic author, the prestige of the greatest author of the English language was saved. It was also rather embarrassing that Shakespeare was part owner of the Globe Theater and seemed to have been a savvy businessman, becoming wealthy through his career. This was embarrassing because a proper aristocrat and poet should of course be elevated above any concerns about earning money (as opposed to just naturally having them).

yetanotherloser 4y ago

What a snobby argument! Try Charles Nicholl's The Lodger for a pretty detailed study that leaves little room for doubt about the fellow from Stratford.

ttctciyf 4y ago
A "snobby" argument I think would be one that doesn't even bother attempting a counterargument but instead furnishes innuendo and dismissal based on an implicit claim of superior authority.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  You might as well be asking them to argue that the moon landing was real. The anti-Stratfordians have absolutely no evidence other than speculation and snobbery.
- sritchie 4y ago
  Well, there is a lot of scholarship refuting the snobby argument, including the book referenced in the reply. "Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare" covers this too, with lots of analysis of back and forth competitive poetry and passages between Shakespeare and contemporary playwrights like Marlowe, who knew Shakespeare well. Seems odd to imagine that they would also be involved in a coverup.
  - yetanotherloser 4y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation, I think it's in my tsundoku somewhere. What I liked about The Lodger was that it doesn't go on about authorship at all, just painstakingly reconstructs a time, a place and a life and leaves a picture convincing enough that it really leaves some speculation looking rather daft.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  This is such an old and discredited argument that it literally turns up in Ben Elton’s Shakespeare sitcom as something to be parodied; it’s probably not deserving of much of a counter argument. Like, it’s more or less a conspiracy theory at this stage.
  - tgv 4y ago
    The one where Elton scientifically proves that Shakespeare also wrote Marlowe's plays?
- bazoom42 4y ago
  You need to provide an argument before anyone can provide a counterargument! What specific parts of Shakespeares work couldn’t plausibly have been authored by someone with his background and education?
jimmySixDOF 4y ago
Try the very short biography by Bill Bryson, the central point of which is how little historical evidence of anything to do with Shakespeare actually exists and the ludicrous ammount of speculation over the years by various hunch holders. I also like the 1987 moot court considering 17th Earl of Oxford arguments in front of then sitting Supreme Court Justices: William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens [1] [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?618-1/ https://www.c-span.org/video/?618-1/

bazoom42 4y ago

Shakespeare is believed to have had a grammar school education where he wold have learned latin, rethoric, and studied classics like Ovid and Plutarch. I’m not sure what “humble” implies, but his mother was from a wealthy family and his father was alderman and mayor. (Not that being rich makes you a better writer, but it explains how he could get this education.) And “vast encyclopedic knowledge” is overtating it somewhat. His plays are fiction and use a lot of artistic license, like placing the royal court of Denmark in Elsinore.

Veen 4y ago

He didn't go to university, but his background wasn't all that humble. His father was an alderman and successful glover and his mother came from a well-off land-owning family. It's usually thought he had a grammar school education based on the Latin classics.

rsynnott 4y ago

> encyclopaedic knowledge Eh. In practice, if in doubt, he made it up, particularly in respect to geography. If anything this is an argument against the “Shakespeare must actually have been aristocratic” thing, if anyone still took that seriously.

felix318 4y ago

They may eventually find that Shakespeare’s plays were not written by him, but by someone else with the same name.