How did Shakespeare come to know so much?

[gumboot]

Yes, Tudor England was a police state in some senses (especially as regards the monarchy and religion), but I don't know if we can read from the absence of certain personal conviction that he was a radical anti-monarchist or an atheist.

That's kind of my point. Writers then didn't reveal their personal views in their writing, particularly not writers who had the Monarch as a patron; they revealed whatever the authority thought was acceptable. Thus you can't make any determinations about Shakespeare's own world views from his work.

 

[llwyd]

Sure, but what is quite extraordinary is that this amazingly comprehensive body of work does not become bland as a concequence of this careful detachment. And for a writer in a dictatorial police state he surely chose some some rather scary subjects for this detached (and not detached at all) writing. There is so much that we see, and so little - he really is an enigma as a writer.

 

[Lucian]

Falstaff a dullard? My opinion differs.



The main plot of A Midsummer Night's Dream is original, although the Mechanicals raid Ovid's Metamorphoses for the play-within-a-play "Pyramus and Thisby."

True, although Shakespeare also drew on Chaucer's Knight's Tale, Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (tr. Thomas North), Apuleius' Golden Ass (tr. William Adlington), the romance Huon of Bordeaux and Reginald Scot's Discovery of Witchcraft.

Love's Labour's Lost is another one with no known source. Still, Shakespeare, like his contemporaries, drew on a wide variety of sources. It wouldn't have been considered plagiarism: it was standard practice, and what the authors ended up with was an original work. Sometimes, however, they did compose passages that are awfully close to the original. In Marlowe's works, for instance, there are passages which are fairly direct translations of classical works. Shakespeare, who was more likely to use an English translation if one were available, gets quite close to Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid in Prospero's "Ye elves of hills" speech:

"Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes, and groves..." (Tempest 5.1.33)

"Ye Ayres and windes: ye Elves of Hilles, of Brookes, of Woods alone,
Of standing lakes...." (Ovid, Metamorphoses, tr. Arthur Golding, Bk. 7; link

 

[Spektator]

True, although Shakespeare also drew on Chaucer's Knight's Tale, Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (tr. Thomas North), Apuleius' Golden Ass (tr. William Adlington), the romance Huon of Bordeaux and Reginald Scot's Discovery of Witchcraft.
(snip)

He may have used Chaucer's "Dream of Fair Women," come to that, and I suspect that Bottom's ass's head probably came from Ovid, too (Midas and his ass's ears). But though elements can be traced, as a whole the plot is original.

 

[Pacal]

Widespread enough for a film based on The Iliad to gross nearly $500 million worldwide 7 years ago.

I don't remember a Shakespeare film in the last 10 years that was anywhere near as successful, nor one with such a recognisable cast as this:
Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Diane Kruger,Owain Yeoman, Brian Cox, Sean Bean, Julie Christie, Peter O'Toole, Rose Byrne, Saffron Burrows.

Your referring to the crap fest known as Troy. That movie was sheer mindless pap. I'm not surprised that a Shakespeare play wasn't near as successful, many people are scared off by the language and by it being considered "high brow".

So Troy made a lot of money. So did 2012 and Godzilla The Movie. I could go on. Troy was a swords and sandals Hollywood piece of pure fluff.

My main problem was how the acting in the movie was generally so bad. My "favorite" scene was when Peter O'Toole, as Priam came to beg for the body of his son Hector from Achilles, played by Brad Pitt. The stunning contrast between Peter's real acting and Brad's just phoning it in is stunning.

 

[Pacal]

True, although Shakespeare also drew on Chaucer's Knight's Tale, Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans (tr. Thomas North), Apuleius' Golden Ass (tr. William Adlington), the romance Huon of Bordeaux and Reginald Scot's Discovery of Witchcraft.

Love's Labour's Lost is another one with no known source. Still, Shakespeare, like his contemporaries, drew on a wide variety of sources. It wouldn't have been considered plagiarism: it was standard practice, and what the authors ended up with was an original work. Sometimes, however, they did compose passages that are awfully close to the original. In Marlowe's works, for instance, there are passages which are fairly direct translations of classical works. Shakespeare, who was more likely to use an English translation if one were available, gets quite close to Arthur Golding's translation of Ovid in Prospero's "Ye elves of hills" speech:

"Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes, and groves..." (Tempest 5.1.33)

"Ye Ayres and windes: ye Elves of Hilles, of Brookes, of Woods alone,
Of standing lakes...." (Ovid, Metamorphoses, tr. Arthur Golding, Bk. 7; link

Now if we could just find part two, Love's Labour's Won.

 

[Lucian]

Now if we could just find part two, Love's Labour's Won.

It's at least possible that it isn't really a lost play. It could have been an alternate title or subtitle of an existing play, or Shakespeare could have reworked it and renamed it. However, since Love's Labour's Lost ends with the lovers not married and a waiting period established for the men to prove the truth of their love, it seems reasonable to assume that LLW would have been a sequel to LLL.

 

[TmoonII]

That's kind of my point. Writers then didn't reveal their personal views in their writing, particularly not writers who had the Monarch as a patron; they revealed whatever the authority thought was acceptable. Thus you can't make any determinations about Shakespeare's own world views from his work.

Interesting. I wonder if "the Monarch" inspired to write as well as controlling that which was written by others.

 

[gumboot]

Interesting. I wonder if "the Monarch" inspired to write as well as controlling that which was written by others.

I'm not sure what you mean, but why is "the Monarch" in quotes?

 

[TmoonII]

There were two Monarchs, Elizabeth and James. I used quotes incorrectly to indicate there wasn't simply one during Shakespear's life.

 

[Brown]

Bill Bryson's Shakespeare* gives a good account of his life: it goes over his education at grammar school which would have covered a good deal of Latin rhetoric and literature** though not so much maths, history or geography.

* - Harper Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-00-732523-8
** - possibly more so than a present-day degree in Classics.

Some of Bryson's work on Shakespeare is discussed in this thread.

I have not read all of the posts, and I expect I will be repeating a lot, but thoughts on the issue are as follows:

First, Shakespeare borrowed--some have said he plagiarized--a lot of material. Sometimes his source material had mistakes, and sometimes Shakespeare duly repeated them.

Second, Shakespeare's work improved over time. As he became more famous and more wealthy, he also apparently acquired more personal contacts and more resources.

Third, some authors have suggested that Shakespeare picked up on a lot of things he may have heard here and there. It has been argued that some of the most interesting displays of knowledge in Shakespeare's plays suggest that he overheard snippets but did not understand the full context.

Fourth, he got some stuff WRONG, not just because he repeated an error from his source, and not just because he changed something in the interest of dramatic license.

Fifth, some of the examples of Shakespeare's perceived brilliance likely originated in the mind of the perceiver.

And sixth, Shakespeare was evidently a pretty smart guy, who made an effort to learn a lot of things and to use what he learned in his plays.

 

[gumboot]

There were two Monarchs, Elizabeth and James. I used quotes incorrectly to indicate there wasn't simply one during Shakespear's life.

There is only ever one at any given time, though...

 

[epepke]

I have not read all of the posts, and I expect I will be repeating a lot, but thoughts on the issue are as follows:

All good stuff and relevant to the claims that he couldn't have known, factually, the things people say (not always accurately) that he knew without going through a classical rich person education.

I'm not sure that's what the OP was about. Shakespeare was damned good and effective, and it could have been about that. He borrowed, stole, and plagiarized stories, but he told them better than his sources.

Still, is that so unusual? The world is full of people who do great stuff with little formal training. Duke Ellington had very little knowledge of music theory, but he wrote great music.

 

[calebprime]

All good stuff and relevant to the claims that he couldn't have known, factually, the things people say (not always accurately) that he knew without going through a classical rich person education.

I'm not sure that's what the OP was about. Shakespeare was damned good and effective, and it could have been about that. He borrowed, stole, and plagiarized stories, but he told them better than his sources.

Still, is that so unusual? The world is full of people who do great stuff with little formal training. Duke Ellington had very little knowledge of music theory, but he wrote great music.

I don't have much to add to the debate.

We just saw an all-male performance of A Comedy of Errors last night. (A troupe called The Propellor Theater from the UK.) We really enjoyed it. They had many ways of showing things and underlining things with props and gags to make sure people got the message. The language itself was just on the edge of being understandable.

It made me resolve to read some Shakespeare, soon.

About Ellington -- I'm no expert on his education, but he did learn to read music and he studied harmony, plus he was surrounded by many great musicians. That's a kind of working music theory knowledge. Music theory as it's taught in school is mostly just a way to get people to have a standardized language, and a very rudimentary way of understanding harmony. Ellington didn't study counterpoint, but he wasn't going to be writing fugues, either. I'm saying that he was no primitive, even in terms of education. Contrast this with many pop musicians who really are uneducated and limited by that.

 

[epepke]

About Ellington -- I'm no expert on his education, but he did learn to read music and he studied harmony, plus he was surrounded by many great musicians. That's a kind of working music theory knowledge. Music theory as it's taught in school is mostly just a way to get people to have a standardized language, and a very rudimentary way of understanding harmony. Ellington didn't study counterpoint, but he wasn't going to be writing fugues, either. I'm saying that he was no primitive, even in terms of education. Contrast this with many pop musicians who really are uneducated and limited by that.

Maybe it's just because you haven't looked at Shakespeare much (as compared to having been inundated as I have) that you don't see the similarities. The criticisms of Shakespeare have always been because he did not go through the formal and rare University training of the time. From the time then, when he was considered an upstart, to now, when people make up the most fabulous arguments to the effect that someone else wrote all his plays, it's always been those with a stock in academia looking down on people outside it.

So it would be just like conservatory composers looking down at Ellington precisely because he was not an academic (which happened) only to find that his legacy was far more influential than theirs (which also happened).

 

[Lucian]

Maybe it's just because you haven't looked at Shakespeare much (as compared to having been inundated as I have) that you don't see the similarities. The criticisms of Shakespeare have always been because he did not go through the formal and rare University training of the time. From the time then, when he was considered an upstart, to now, when people make up the most fabulous arguments to the effect that someone else wrote all his plays, it's always been those with a stock in academia looking down on people outside it.

So it would be just like conservatory composers looking down at Ellington precisely because he was not an academic (which happened) only to find that his legacy was far more influential than theirs (which also happened).

One guy called Shakespeare an upstart crow. One guy, not academics in general. As far as I know, no one said boo about Ben Jonson's lack of a university education. As for people who "make up the most fabulous arguments to the effect that someone else wrote all his plays," those people are for the most part not academics. Academics who specialize in early Modern English literature generally acknowledge that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him (with some collaboration). They find the anti-Shakespeareans very silly.

 

[Fellow Traveler]

Are there Brits on this forum? If so I wonder what the scuttlebutt is around England as to the authorship of Shakespeare's works. I have read that Bacon was the author and /or Christopher Morley. There has been a TV program/story about this subject.

 

[NotJesus]

Are there Brits on this forum?

Yes. Quite a few.

If so I wonder what the scuttlebutt is around England as to the authorship of Shakespeare's works.

I don't think being in England gives one a privileged position regarding 400-year-old scuttlebutt.

I have read that Bacon was the author and /or Christopher Morley. There has been a TV program/story about this subject.

There are lots of crackpot theories.

 

[Janadele]

Much of the writings attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by Queen Elizabeth 1... such as:

Shall I compare thee to a Summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And Summer's lease hath all too short a date:

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And oft' is his gold complexion dimm'd;

And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd:

But thy eternal Summer shall not fade
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;

Nor shall Death brag thou wanderest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

Interesting. I wonder if "the Monarch" inspired to write as well as controlling that which was written by others.

 

[NotJesus]

Much of the writings attributed to Shakespeare were actually written by Queen Elizabeth 1.

No.