How did Shakespeare come to know so much?

[Gyronaut]

Ever hear of Qanon?

I have, but I thought it was [cough] an exclusively American thing...

Not really up on it, tbh.

 

[Lucian]

Lol. I think some Stratfordians have gone as far as to concede these lines are in fact by Shakespeare, offering convoluted reasons why that might be so!

But there is much, much more info, such as dozens of words and phrases, confidently ascribed by the OED as first being coined by Shakespeare, are also found in Stanley's letters.
The English of the Works is a form of English then found predominantly in the North of England [Stanley's home patch], with nothing from the Warwickshire dialect.

Regarding the highlighted: no. The OED doesn't ascribe any words as being "coined" by Shakespeare, as far as I know. It's true that there are many words that still have Shakespeare listed first in the quotation section. That doesn't mean the editors are claiming that Shakespeare coined the word or first used it in writing. Words generally appear in the spoken language before the written language, and the OED's early contributors were looking in Shakespeare's published works (and the published works of many others, of course), not in people's letters. Although the OED has improved--they have begun incorporating information from the Middle English Dictionary and the Dictionary of Old English, for instance--the quotation lists are not definitive.

 

[theprestige]

I've provided plenty of evidence, although I freely admit it's not conclusive.

You should freely admit it's all circumstantial.

Are we talking about Nakamoto or Shakespeare, btw?

You tell me.

Does a conspiracy of silence need a paper trail?

Do conspiracies of silence exist?

You tell us. You're the one who's claiming to have found a conspiracy whose most notable characteristic is the lack of evidence for its existence.

 

[Gyronaut]

Regarding the highlighted: no. The OED doesn't ascribe any words as being "coined" by Shakespeare, as far as I know. It's true that there are many words that still have Shakespeare listed first in the quotation section. That doesn't mean the editors are claiming that Shakespeare coined the word or first used it in writing. Words generally appear in the spoken language before the written language, and the OED's early contributors were looking in Shakespeare's published works (and the published works of many others, of course), not in people's letters. Although the OED has improved--they have begun incorporating information from the Middle English Dictionary and the Dictionary of Old English, for instance--the quotation lists are not definitive.

OK, I was using sloppy language or conflating the general claim, repeated in many places, that Shakespeare "coined" hundreds of words and phrases, with what the OED means when it points to Shakespeare as a source.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[sackett]

Since when did Shakespeare know so much? About what? He used other people's tales, like many a playwright, and he knew enough to follow the Tudor-Stuart line in his history plays.

But if you look for ideas in Shakey, you'll come up with damn little, and nothing original. That's one reason why the French are no more than lukewarm about him.

He also collaborated with other writers when necessary, again like a sensible man.

And finally: To this day and hour, some of his acting scripts still contain bits by Colley Cibber. And why not, if audiences like 'em?

The play's not the thing! It's the box office!

 

[bruto]

I always treat yelps of "Conspiracy Theory" as code for:-

"I'm annoyed that someone might just be better informed than I am..."

That's a bad habit.

 

[Gyronaut]

You should freely admit it's all circumstantial.
.

Gladly.

"circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence", Archbold

 

[bruto]

Regarding the highlighted: no. The OED doesn't ascribe any words as being "coined" by Shakespeare, as far as I know. It's true that there are many words that still have Shakespeare listed first in the quotation section. That doesn't mean the editors are claiming that Shakespeare coined the word or first used it in writing. Words generally appear in the spoken language before the written language, and the OED's early contributors were looking in Shakespeare's published works (and the published works of many others, of course), not in people's letters. Although the OED has improved--they have begun incorporating information from the Middle English Dictionary and the Dictionary of Old English, for instance--the quotation lists are not definitive.

I believe the intention of the OED citations is to find the earliest published example of a word (or of a specific contextual meaning of it) that can be considered to have established it as a part of the common language. Aside from the flaws in the process, it is not meant as an indication of who invented a word, or when it was first uttered.

 

[theprestige]

Gladly.

"circumstantial evidence is very often the best evidence", Archbold

Ah yes, the universally acclaimed expert on evidence... Archbold. The only Archbold I know of is the one with the time machine backhand, from Rock'n'Rolla.

What truths has your Archbold discovered, with his adorable faith in circumstantial evidence?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, but Conrad came from a family of intellectuals and activists, 300 years after Shakespeare. So maybe not the best illustration of your point.

Cervantes, who was an exact contemporary of "Shakespeare", has a far, far, far-better documented life of thrilling adventure, and it does not surprise that he took up writing.

[I've just noticed that Cervantes' life has many parallels with the early, adventurous life of William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Stratfordians are sometimes reduced to theorising that Shaxper must have somehow "tagged along" with Stanley on his adventures ! ]

You call me with Cerevantes and I'll raise you with Leonardo da Vinci^WP

. . . born out of wedlock to a notary, Piero da Vinci, and a peasant woman . . . . Although he had no formal academic training, many historians and scholars regard Leonardo as the prime exemplar of the "Renaissance Man" or "Universal Genius", an individual of "unquenchable curiosity" and "feverishly inventive imagination." According to art historian Helen Gardner, the scope and depth of his interests were without precedent in recorded history, and "his mind and personality seem to us superhuman, while the man himself mysterious and remote." Scholars interpret his view of the world as being based in logic, though the empirical methods he used were unorthodox for his time.

Bell curve.

 

[Belgian thought]

Shackspere,
Shakspere, and
Shakspear

The old No True Shakespeare Fallacy

 

[Myriad]

Well, you could start with the one I posted up-thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13379373&postcount=243

It's on the tomb of Stanley's son, from 1632, inside Chelsea Old Church in London. Stanley himself died in 1642.

Scholars have discovered distinct word and phrase similarities, and overall 'feel' to something in "Shakespeare"'s works. [I'll try and dig it out].

There's another one in Shropshire, England on a Stanley tomb from the 1630s. [original spellings]

Ask who lyes heare, bvt do not wheep
He is not dead; He dooth bvt sleep
This stony register, is for his bones
His Fame is more perpetvall then theise stones
And his owne goodnes wt him self being gon
Shall lyve when earthlie monament is non
Not monventall stone preserves ovr Fame
Nor sky aspyring piramids ovr name,
The memory of him for whom this stands
Shall ovtlyve marbl, and defacers hands
When all to tymes consvmption shall be geaven
Standly for whom this stands shall stand in heaven

It would be interesting to compare these epitaphs to poems generally accepted as written by Shakespeare that are also written in couplets.

Do you know any? Shakespeare used individual couplets as portions of more complex verse forms (e.g. the final two lines of sonnets) and in plays. The only example I can think of with more than one couplet in succession is the famous epitaph, whose authorship is uncertain.

 

[bruto]

It would be interesting to compare these epitaphs to poems generally accepted as written by Shakespeare that are also written in couplets.

Do you know any? Shakespeare used individual couplets as portions of more complex verse forms (e.g. the final two lines of sonnets) and in plays. The only example I can think of with more than one couplet in succession is the famous epitaph, whose authorship is uncertain.

It does seem just a wee bit odd, shall we say, that a person purporting to be one of the greatest exponents of the Elizabethan sonnet ever seems not to have had another sonnet in him.

 

[catsmate]

Husband of Lady Strange and father to a number of strange children.

Ah, the Stanleys, traitorous bunch.

 

[SteveAitch]

This all reminds me so much of a CT, read on NewsMax, oh so many years ago.
It was that the Illiad wasn’t written by Homer, but by somebody else, who had the same name.
Gyronaut? That wasn’t you, by the way?

Sorry for the late response, but...

Hmmm, I may have mentioned that on the old board. It was something I heard, put forward by a professor of something or other (it was a long time ago!) on a Radio 4 (serious BBC station) programme many years ago.

Mind you, on the same station, I heard an American (New-Yorker) prof of history (I think; again, a long time ago) claim that pizza was actually a Jewish invention. Dunno how valid that idea is...

 

[Steve]

Sorry for the late response, but...

Hmmm, I may have mentioned that on the old board. It was something I heard, put forward by a professor of something or other (it was a long time ago!) on a Radio 4 (serious BBC station) programme many years ago.

Mind you, on the same station, I heard an American (New-Yorker) prof of history (I think; again, a long time ago) claim that pizza was actually a Jewish invention. Dunno how valid that idea is...

Maybe matzo?

 

[SteveAitch]

Maybe matzo?

As I said, it was a long time ago, but he definitely claimed pizza; based, iirc, on the existence of unleavened bread.

 

[turingtest]

Here-

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.

-and here-

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

-we have Gyronaut arguing that the lack of evidence, a paper trail, that he expects to see for the existence of the Shakespeare who is supposed to have written the plays, is somehow damning for that case; then here-

A conspiracy of silence requires no paper trail.

Who was/is Nakamoto?

No-one's saying, except cranks claiming it was them.

-and here-

I've provided plenty of evidence, although I freely admit it's not conclusive.

Are we talking about Nakamoto or Shakespeare, btw?

Does a conspiracy of silence need a paper trail?

Do conspiracies of silence exist?

that the lack of evidence, or paper trail, for his conspiracy that someone else asks to see doesn't damn his case. Sorry, but it does seem a little CTist in nature to argue, from expedient expectation and then self-serving necessity, for lack of evidence as some "circumstantial" standard that works for him either way- that there is, in the one case, a silence that requires a conspiracy to explain it, and, in the other, a conspiracy that requires silence to support it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As I said, it was a long time ago, but he definitely claimed pizza; based, iirc, on the existence of unleavened bread.

Not following this tangent so ignore this if not relevant, but pizza is a leavened bread (although I see that being wrong may be the point here).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Not following this tangent so ignore this if not relevant, but pizza is a leavened bread (although I see that being wrong may be the point here).

Zokay. The legend is that Pasta was a Chinese invention. And you should thank Marco Polo.

After a bit o' Googling, I see that may not be true. Along with the "fact" that pizza is also Chinese or maybe Greek.

Lost in the dim History of Time.