How did Shakespeare come to know so much?

[bruto]

I'm not going to bother to tread old ground yet again, but I do recommend for those interested in this subject, the following site:

https://oxfraud.com/politicworm

Though it deals mainly with the Oxford nonsense, it has some applicability in general.

 

[Vixen]

View attachment 44085

from History.com

"Shakespeare’s parents were probably illiterate, and his children almost certainly were.
Nobody knows for sure, but it’s quite likely that John and Mary Shakespeare never learned to read or write, as was often the case for people of their standing during the Elizabethan era. Some have argued that John’s civic duties would have required basic literacy, but in any event he always signed his name with a mark.... His wife and their two children who lived to adulthood, Susanna and Judith, are thought to have been illiterate, though Susanna could scrawl her signature."

[cough]

Signing your name with a mark means nothing. My great grandfather and all of his fellow estate holders all had their own puumerkki (=wood mark) - a rune - which they used to mark their property and sign land deeds. They were all well-educated, could read and write and often could speak two languages.

Shakespeare would have attended grammar school, so-called because the boys would be taught Latin grammar - the lingua franca of the day for the ruling classes. He likely got a scholarship. So it matters not that his parents could not read or write but I understand that his father probably was educated. It wasn't until the invention of the Wittenberg press that things could be mass published and it would have been around 1522 Tynsdale translated the New Testament into English for the first time and that the masses got to read any book in English or Anglo Saxon, having up until then all been in Greek or Hebrew, or the Vulgate Latin version. So sure, likely Shakespeare's parents couldn't read Latin or Greek as only the very privileged few could (such as Tynesdale, who was burnt at the stake for his pains).

So: who in your opinion wrote Shakespeare's body of work and how come he or she 'knows so much' if it wasn't the man we know today as 'Shakespeare'?

 

[Gyronaut]

The only person who seemed to be able to write in the family was Shaxper's son-in-law, university-educated Dr. John Hall, who was married to Susanna.

He left papers that were published after his death about his career as a doctor in Warwickshire, and his patients' treatments, including his wife and daughter.

Hundreds of patients.

Not a mention of his famous father-in-law, Will....

 

[Vixen]

The only person who seemed to be able to write in the family was Shaxper's son-in-law, university-educated Dr. John Hall, who was married to Susanna.

He left papers that were published after his death about his career as a doctor in Warwickshire, and his patients' treatments, including his wife and daughter.

Hundreds of patients.

Not a mention of his famous father-in-law, Will....

Any mention in his will of his great body of work?

 

[Gyronaut]

Any mention in his will of his great body of work?

Not a sausage.

He mentioned a "second-best bed" instead.

 

[kookbreaker]

Nice theory, but unlikely. Every other author of the period has left a paper trail linking them to the works that appeared under their name. Including, in some cases, receipts/invoices, etc .for payment for their efforts. Plenty of obits and eulogies too.

Only "Shakespeare", of all his contemporaries, (some so obscure they are remembered today only inside University Eng. Lit. Departments) has left NOTHING linking him to being a writer. Absolutely nothing.

I calculated the odds of that happening by chance, as about 116,000 TO 1 against....

Then we have the inconvenient fact that Shaxper [the Stratford Man] did leave a paper trail, documenting his life [he was such a busy guy!] Money-lending, property deals, sueing people and being sued, trying to become a "gentleman". About 70 documents.

Just NOTHING WHATSOEVER linking him to writing....

He left not a book [very valuable items in 1616] or a manuscript in his will, made no provision for his children's education, etc.

Except you do have multiple documents from other people who seem to refer to Shakespeare being the author of several works.

If the best argument is a lack of documentation I'm not very impressed. This was not an era or an economic class that would retain such records. Given his family line died out 2 generations later this should not be surprising. Especially given that people of that era would not consider documents of much value unless they had legal importance.

 

[Gyronaut]

Except you do have multiple documents from other people who seem to refer to Shakespeare being the author of several works.

If the best argument is a lack of documentation I'm not very impressed. This was not an era or an economic class that would retain such records. Given his family line died out 2 generations later this should not be surprising. Especially given that people of that era would not consider documents of much value unless they had legal importance.

Of course they mention "Shakespeare", since that was the name many of the works were published under.

But no-one identifies him as Shaxper, the man from Stratford, until 1623, seven years after his death. And there are problems with the way that is done too (some think it jesting, deliberately cryptic, or tongue-in-cheek. A whole topic in itself !)

I have answered the question of records previously.
Of "Shakespeare", none, lone among his contemporary writers.
Of Shaxper, plenty, none hinting he was a writer [so much for the "dying out" theory, etc.]

 

[kookbreaker]

Of course they mention "Shakespeare", since that was the name many of the works were published under.

But no-one identifies him as Shaxper, the man from Stratford, until 1623, seven years after his death. And there are problems with the way that is done too (some think it jesting, deliberately cryptic, or tongue-in-cheek. A whole topic in itself !)

I have answered the question of records previously.
Of "Shakespeare", none, lone among his contemporary writers.
Of Shaxper, plenty, none hinting he was a writer [so much for the "dying out" theory, etc.]

There are non-playwright, but theatrical connections that are documented. Such as his name as a tenant of the Globe Theater. At the absolute bare minimum he was an actor in the King's & Lord Chamberlain's Men as there are multiple mentions.

Once you have someone established as a member of a theater company its not exactly a stretch to their work as a playwright. Especially given that one cannot write plays for a specific theater company of the era without knowing what they are capable. Its not a thing you can do by proxy.

If you are trying to suggest there were two different Shakespeares you are going to need more than misspellings of the name that were extremely common for the era.

 

[Gyronaut]

There are non-playwright, but theatrical connections that are documented. Such as his name as a tenant of the Globe Theater. At the absolute bare minimum he was an actor in the King's & Lord Chamberlain's Men as there are multiple mentions.

No-one denies Shaxper was an actor, among other things, well-documented. [sorry if that wasn't clear]


And as for what I have to come up with....

In 2009, "Satoshi Nakamoto" invented Bitcoin. His name is on the White Paper, after all...

Five years later, journalists tracked down Satoshi Nakamoto to California.

Very few people today believe Satoshi Nakamoto is "Satoshi Nakamoto".

Why not?

There is no evidence he was. [apart from a name]

And a ton of evidence he wasn't.


Likewise "Shakespeare"...

 

[kookbreaker]

No-one denies Shaxper was an actor, among other things, well-documented. [sorry if that wasn't clear]


And as for what I have to come up with....

In 2009, "Satoshi Nakamoto" invented Bitcoin. His name is on the White Paper, after all...

Five years later, journalists tracked down Satoshi Nakamoto to California.

Very few people today believe Satoshi Nakamoto is "Satoshi Nakamoto".

Why not?

There is no evidence he was. [apart from a name]

And a ton of evidence he wasn't.


Likewise "Shakespeare"...

Not really. You're comparing a modern name issue with a different age. A similar thing happened regarding 9/11 and to this day some of the 911 deniers think the hijackers were still alive, when in fact it was just other men with the same names. Not surprising.

But if you are denying the man wrote the plays, then you have to establish who actually did. It had to have been someone within the company or someone extremely familiar with them, because again, without knowing the features and abilities of the company you do not know what they can do on stage. You cannot mail that in from his Lordship's house. Shakespeare's plays also evolved as the company did, such as the comic role changing 'type' when one actor left the company and was replaced.

 

[Gyronaut]

Not really. You're comparing a modern name issue with a different age. A similar thing happened regarding 9/11 and to this day some of the 911 deniers think the hijackers were still alive, when in fact it was just other men with the same names. Not surprising.

But if you are denying the man wrote the plays, then you have to establish who actually did. It had to have been someone within the company or someone extremely familiar with them, because again, without knowing the features and abilities of the company you do not know what they can do on stage. You cannot mail that in from his Lordship's house. Shakespeare's plays also evolved as the company did, such as the comic role changing 'type' when one actor left the company and was replaced.

I think you're tending to prove my point ! Don't fixate on names. They prove nothing.

Shaxper/Shakespeare
Nakamoto/Nakamoto
Atta/Atta

Focus on evidence, the most reliable yardstick.

Where is the evidence Shaxper was Shakespeare?

Nothing, until seven years after Shaxper's death, and then only a cryptic assertion in poetry, accompanied by a bizarre engraving, in the expensive First Folio.

Should we expect some independent evidence? Almost certainly. [116,000 TO 1, statistically, based on contemporary writers' surviving records]

Why are there literally none linking Shaxper to "Shakespeare" in Shaxper's lifetime, when we nevertheless know lots about Shaxper through surviving records?

Answer: Most likely Shaxper wasn't "Shakespeare", no more than "Atta" was Atta or Nakamoto is "Nakamoto".

Who did write "Shakespeare", if not Shaxper, is harder to prove.

By definition, if the author positively sought anonymity...


"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was written by "B. Traven"

Of course, it is no use looking in the phone book for a B. Traven and trying to link that person to the famous book. B. Traven was a pseudonym, the true author still hotly debated.

Traven - whoever he was - said something interesting and profound however.

"The creative person should have no other biography than his works...."

 

[catsmate]

I was under the impression that the persons assembling the first folio were known by name. I was also under the impression that at least some of the plays were in existence in Quarto editions. They managed to get Shakespeare's contemporary Ben Jonson to contribute a poem in preface, and this, among other things, makes the required conspiracy larger and more complex, involving not only a number of Shakespeare's contemporaries, but retroactively requiring that works published under his name and during his lifetime were fakes.

True Believers are rarely bothered by mere facts.

 

[theprestige]

Help me understand. Someone invests serious money, and I instead of attribiying the work to its actual author, they call out some rando with a similar name?

 

[kookbreaker]

I think you're tending to prove my point ! Don't fixate on names. They prove nothing.

Shaxper/Shakespeare
Nakamoto/Nakamoto
Atta/Atta

Focus on evidence, the most reliable yardstick.

Where is the evidence Shaxper was Shakespeare?

Nothing, until seven years after Shaxper's death, and then only a cryptic assertion in poetry, accompanied by a bizarre engraving, in the expensive First Folio.

Should we expect some independent evidence? Almost certainly. [116,000 TO 1, statistically, based on contemporary writers' surviving records]

Why are there literally none linking Shaxper to "Shakespeare" in Shaxper's lifetime, when we nevertheless know lots about Shaxper through surviving records?

Answer: Most likely Shaxper wasn't "Shakespeare", no more than "Atta" was Atta or Nakamoto is "Nakamoto".

Who did write "Shakespeare", if not Shaxper, is harder to prove.

By definition, if the author positively sought anonymity...


"The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" was written by "B. Traven"

Of course, it is no use looking in the phone book for a B. Traven and trying to link that person to the famous book. B. Traven was a pseudonym, the true author still hotly debated.

Traven - whoever he was - said something interesting and profound however.

"The creative person should have no other biography than his works...."

What evidence is there that he wasn't?

A mispelling of the name? Common as all getout in that era. I don't see any evidence of his contemporaries, especially those in still in the playwright business making any notation than we are crediting the wrong man. They would know.

For the record, there are a few records that refer to Shakespeare as "Shakespeare of Stratford upon-Avon". The purchase of the Blackfriar's Gatehouse specifically refers to him in that manner and is tied up with one of the King's Men as a trustee. Shakespeare of Stratford's also mentions three fellow King's Men actors in his will.

Unless I am seriously missing your point, they seem likely to be the same men.

 

[Gyronaut]

What evidence is there that he wasn't?

A mispelling of the name? Common as all getout in that era. I don't see any evidence of his contemporaries, especially those in still in the playwright business making any notation than we are crediting the wrong man. They would know.

For the record, there are a few records that refer to Shakespeare as "Shakespeare of Stratford upon-Avon". The purchase of the Blackfriar's Gatehouse specifically refers to him in that manner and is tied up with one of the King's Men as a trustee. Shakespeare of Stratford's also mentions three fellow King's Men actors in his will.

Unless I am seriously missing your point, they seem likely to be the same men.

As I said, Shaxper of Stratford-upon-Avon was an actor, among other things. Very well-documented.

However, there is no evidence in his lifetime [ hence, no evidence, only post-mortem assertion, seven years later] that this man actually wrote the plays, most of which were published under the name "Shakespeare." [and a few with no named author, and a few, now discarded, wrongly-attributed to "Shakespeare"]

Now, you can short-cut and say "It's obvious!", etc. because I've rattled your cage or whatever, but that really doesn't alter the facts....

Nakamoto/Nakamoto
Atta/Atta
Traven/??

Shaxper/Shakespeare

There is no evidence. Only assertion and conjecture

 

[kookbreaker]

As I said, Shaxper of Stratford-upon-Avon was an actor, among other things. Very well-documented.

OK.

However, there is no evidence in his lifetime [ hence, no evidence, only post-mortem assertion, seven years later] that this man actually wrote the plays, most of which were published under the name "Shakespeare." [and a few with no named author, and a few, now discarded, wrongly-attributed to "Shakespeare"]

Again, whoever wrote the plays was familiar with the acting company. If it wasn't Shakespeare, then it was someone very familiar with the company Shakespeare was an actor for.

So someone in the company wrote the plays and let Shakespeare put his name on them? Why?

You are mostly basing this on name misspellings, a delay in publishing, and a lack of a paper trail.

Now, you can short-cut and say "It's obvious!", etc. because I've rattled your cage or whatever, but that really doesn't alter the facts....

OK, you think a lot of yourself, and you need to stop that right now. Guys like you are a dime a dozen and this message board is littered with them. You are not rattling anything

But I will simply counter that you are basing this entirely on very little. You have a handful of of issues where evidence is thin and are playing 'God of the Gaps', but you have a distinct lack of a person who would have actually written the plays.

Its not very impressive.

 

[Gyronaut]

Help me understand. Someone invests serious money, and I instead of attribiying the work to its actual author, they call out some rando with a similar name?

No. Broadly...

The true author, wishing to remain anonymous, enjoys a career as the playwright "Shakespeare", named as an "in-joke" after a similarly-sounding roughneck actor in the troup.

Said rough-neck actor doesn't care / is paid-off / too scared to complain, then dies without anyone really thinking he really is the playwright. No-one has ever claimed the rough-neck really is "Shakespeare", least of all the rough-neck himself. Some have actually hinted that he isn't. It's a joke, obviously....

Seven years later, wealthy true author thinks these things should be preserved for posterity, no expense spared. So... let's weigh every word again, and correct and amend as necessary, then publish the First Folio at great expense. And immortalise that rough-neck again as "the author", with tongue firmly-in-cheek, because the true author knows he must/wishes to remain anonymous...

 

[theprestige]

No. Broadly...

The true author, wishing to remain anonymous, enjoys a career as the playwright "Shakespeare", named as an "in-joke" after a similarly-sounding roughneck actor in the troup.

Said rough-neck actor doesn't care / is paid-off / too scared to complain, then dies without anyone really thinking he really is the playwright. No-one has ever claimed the rough-neck really is "Shakespeare", least of all the rough-neck himself. Some have actually hinted that he isn't. It's a joke, obviously....

Seven years later, wealthy true author thinks these things should be preserved for posterity, no expense spared. So... let's weigh every word again, and correct and amend as necessary, then publish the First Folio at great expense. And immortalise that rough-neck again as "the author", with tongue firmly-in-cheek, because the true author knows he must/wishes to remain anonymous...

So it's a straight-up conspiracy theory.

"The world must know what I wrote! But they must never know that I wrote it!" said no auteur ever.

 

[bruto]

Has anyone noticed that the name on the last will and testament is "William Shakespeare?" If, as Gyronaut contends, there was not Shakespeare in Stratford, what was he doing writing a will, and whose stuff was he leaving?

e.t.a. It seems more now like Shackspeare, but even transcriptions of the will differ on how they spell it. In any case, its not Shaxper. It appears Shakespeare signed his name in many different spellings, and we can never be entirely sure which was correct. But if the spelling on one document is used as evidence that another document comes from a different person, then there are a whole army of Shakespeares out there, since he seems rarely to have used the same spelling twice.

 

[Gyronaut]

So it's a straight-up conspiracy theory.

"The world must know what I wrote! But they must never know that I wrote it!" said no auteur ever.

B. Traven ?

Nakamoto ?

They are not "conspiracy theories", but transparent facts.


Some fellow-writers, during his lifetime, alluded to "Shakespeare" as "Batullus" or "Terence"

Batullus and Terence were Roman poets, believed to be mere "front-men" for aristocratic authors who wished to remain anonymous...