• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

How did Shakespeare come to know so much?

The idea that Shakespeare was "well educated" goes back to the notion that the mere son of as glove maker who didn't have a University Education and was not an Aristocrat could not possibly have written the plays. Its complete nonsense. There is nothing in Shakespeare's plays or sonnets that indicates a stunninglty well educated man who could only have learned what he did from a very difficult / through University education. Afterall Shakespeare had Bohemia have a sea coast. Going with this balderdash is the notion that Shakespeare's plays reveal a knowledge of Court politics and life that only an Aristocrat could have had. That too is nonsense. As a member of two different troupes of Actors patronized by Aristocrats Shakespeare could easily have had access to all the gossip about Court life and intrigues imaginable. To say nothing of the fact that most members of the Court lived in London so that knowing about and gossiping about Court intrigues etc., was very easy and a hobby of many londoners.

I can recomend the book Contested Will.
 
Exactly. It wasn't so much that Shakespeare coined these words, but that he made a record of them. An extremely popular, long-lasting record.


I think there's a distinction, too, between the words he "invented" and the phrases he "invented". I'd be much more willing to believe he invented many popular every day expressions such as the ones dafydd listed. These reflect a genius of expression in capturing ideas and moods with a few simple words, but it's also the sort of thing writers do all the time and their meaning is clearly evident even to people who haven't heard the saying before (with a exception of those sayings that use words which are now unfamiliar to us).

In particular, many of the familiar sayings that Shakespeare coined actually had a literal meaning in their original context, for example when Iago says:

"But I will wear my heart upon my sleeve" he actually literally means having his actual heart hanging off his sleeve, such that carrion birds (in this instance a jackdaw) could eat it. He has extended a metaphor, in a way, but in that original context the interpretation is quite direct. The poetic understanding we have now came after.

Other phrases attributed to Shakespeare were undeniably just made popular by him, for example "a fool's paradise" which is first recorded in 1462.


This is altogether different to just inventing a word wholesale, given that the meaning of the world could only ever be determined from context.

Thus I think I'd be more likely to believe he'd invented certain sayings than certain words.
 
I'll second the recommendation for Contested Will, and add Shakespeare by Peter Ackroyd: the author discusses the level of education Will may have attained at a country grammar school - which was nothing like the thing of the same name today - and cites a number of common travel books and histories he may have used for cribbing, uh, reference.
 
Like his contemporaries, Shakespeare stole right and left. There were no copyright laws, and his friends wouldn't press the issue because they had stolen it, too.

There is profit in finding the precursors of his most pithy phrases, but several hundred years of attempts at their provenance* show the dude really did have a turn of a phrase.


* - Think of this as CENTURIES of Truther theories, yet they still fail.
 
I, personally, have never enjoyed Shakespeare so much for his stories, they are rather bland (perhaps because they've been repeated so many times, I do not known), but rather for his absolutely riveting language and word-play..
 
I, personally, have never enjoyed Shakespeare so much for his stories, they are rather bland (perhaps because they've been repeated so many times, I do not known), but rather for his absolutely riveting language and word-play..

A pound of flesh, but not a drop of blood.:)
 
The idea that Shakespeare was "well educated" goes back to the notion that the mere son of as glove maker who didn't have a University Education and was not an Aristocrat could not possibly have written the plays. Its complete nonsense. There is nothing in Shakespeare's plays or sonnets that indicates a stunninglty well educated man who could only have learned what he did from a very difficult / through University education. Afterall Shakespeare had Bohemia have a sea coast. Going with this balderdash is the notion that Shakespeare's plays reveal a knowledge of Court politics and life that only an Aristocrat could have had. That too is nonsense. As a member of two different troupes of Actors patronized by Aristocrats Shakespeare could easily have had access to all the gossip about Court life and intrigues imaginable. To say nothing of the fact that most members of the Court lived in London so that knowing about and gossiping about Court intrigues etc., was very easy and a hobby of many londoners.

I can recomend the book Contested Will.

Indeed, I think you've floccinaucinihilipilificated the whole idea.
 
Shakespeare, from what I have heard, is the most famous author of all, widely acclaimed as the best writer in history. He obviously went to a lot of trouble to produce his scores of plays and poems, but, my question is, presuming that these plays and poems have anything wise and valuable in them to say, how did Shakespeare acquire the wisdom needed to write them? If you tell me "he was a genius" am I to believe that he simply walked the Earth for a few decades, living the life of the common man, and through sheer brilliance of intellect induced his pearls of wisdom? Or was he exceptionally well-educated?

Curiously yours,

Cpl Ferro
People look at the pyramids and wonder how they were built. That is because they vastly underestimate the number of people involved. Similarly people seriously underestimate the number of monkeys Shakespeare used.
 
Some of Shakespeare's works were reinterpretations of much older stories. Romeo and Juliet is the best example.

There's a story, whose reliability I cannot say, that Shakespeare and a friend went to see a play about a man who marries a nag. The man wraps her in a rug for a week, and bets her mercilessly, feeding her only drops of water and honey. At the end of the play, he unwraps her and she is beautiful and docile. It was very popular and his friend seemed to enjoy the play. He asked Will what he thought and Will said he was horrified. The man said they story was quite popular and asked if Will could do better. will said he could.

So he wrote Taming of the Shrew.
 
There's a story, whose reliability I cannot say, that Shakespeare and a friend went to see a play about a man who marries a nag. The man wraps her in a rug for a week, and bets her mercilessly, feeding her only drops of water and honey. At the end of the play, he unwraps her and she is beautiful and docile. It was very popular and his friend seemed to enjoy the play. He asked Will what he thought and Will said he was horrified. The man said they story was quite popular and asked if Will could do better. will said he could.

So he wrote Taming of the Shrew.

There is a ballad called "A Shrewd and Curst Wife Lapped in Morel's Skin for her Good Behavior." That is probably what you're thinking about (the plot, anyway). There is another play called The Taming of A Shrew which was at one time considered the immediate source of Shakespeare's play (there's no horse, though); however, I believe the current scholarly consensus is that A Shrew is a muddled version of The Shrew. As for the ballad, it's not really close to Shakespeare's play--it's much more brutal. Jan Harold Brunvand (the urban legends guy) argues compellingly that Shakespeare's primary sources for the main plot of The Shrew was oral tradition. The source of the subplot--the wooing of Kate's sister--is George Gascoigne's play Supposes, a translation of Ariosto's I Suppositi.

All Shakespeare's plots were borrowed. Okay, there's no known source for the main plot of The Tempest, but otherwise, they're all borrowed. And all the other playwrights did the same thing. Sometimes they even updated older plays. Thomas Middleton seems to have edited and added to Macbeth, and Ben Jonson was hired to add scenes to Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy. And then there's the Ur-Hamlet.

Again, they all did it, and it wasn't considered plagiarism. They took bits and pieces from various sources and reworked them into something new. Take Two Noble Kinsmen, for example. Shakespeare co-wrote the play with John Fletcher. Its main source is Chaucer's Knight's Tale. Chaucer's source was Boccaccio's Teseida. Boccaccio's specific sources are unknown, but he unquestionably had sources. In the Shakespeare/Fletcher play, there is a non-Chaucerian subplot involving a jailer's daughter, who wanders around being mad for a bit. These scenes are very reminiscent of Ophelia's mad scenes in Lear. Guess who wrote them? Fletcher. Shakespeare was presumably not bothered by the...homage. Oh, Fletcher also wrote a sequel to The Shrew called The Woman's Prize or The Tamer Tamed. It was performed by and possibly written for Shakespeare's company, perhaps when he was still active in it.
 
Personally I think he's vastly over-rated (but then I think the Beatles are vastly over-rated as well!) and as for his observation of human nature - all his male characters are idiots and all his clever characters are female.*

I also think a load of nonsense is read into his stuff - there's a great sketch by Fry & Laurie that illustrates the sort of thing I mean, I think it's called 'Time'.

*Well in the plays I was forced to read anyway - though I was given to understand (by my English Lit teacher) it's common in his work.
 
All his male characters are idiots and all his clever characters are female.

This is about as wrong as it could possibly be.

Hamlet, Iago, Prince Hal/Henry V, Richard III, Prospero, Shylock, Edgar and Edmund in King Lear, Jacques in As You Like It, Brutus and Mark Antony in Julius Caesar, and many more, are all highly intelligent.
 
Usually, Shakespeare usually writes dullard men -- Falstaff, Rosenkrantz & Guildenstern, Caliban -- for comic relief. Most of the other people in his play -- men and women -- are quite witty. And part of the humor is the concept of "reversal". Imperceptive scholars, dullard nobleman, idiot priests, are funny because it inverts the stereotype. Dumb woman was the stereotype of Shakespeare's day (Queen Betsy being the exception of course).
 
I wonder how many of these phrases were in use before Shakespeare wrote them down. This is just a sample.

A fool's paradise
A sea change
....
Too much of a good thing
Towering passion
The world’s mine oyster

Plus, think of all the titles of modern works that use phrases from his oeuvre.

By the Pricking of my Thumb
Something Wicked this Way Comes
Pomp and Circumstance
Brave New World
Murder Most Foul
Band of Brothers
Dogs of War
The Winter of Our Discontent
To Be or Not To Be
North By Northwest

and a whole bunch of Star Trek episode titles
 
Last edited:
This is about as wrong as it could possibly be.

Hamlet, Iago, Prince Hal/Henry V, Richard III, Prospero, Shylock, Edgar and Edmund in King Lear, Jacques in As You Like It, Brutus and Mark Antony in Julius Caesar, and many more, are all highly intelligent.



Ya. Ask any stage actor. Most of them will tell you that some of the greatest and most challenging roles in their career are Shakespeare's characters. And not because learning the lines is hard. Shakespeare's celebrated complexity is not just a byproduct of being over analysed for half a millennium. It's actual there.
 
Plus, think of all the titles of modern works that use phrases from his oeuvre.

By the Pricking of my Thumb
Something Wicked this Way Comes
Pomp and Circumstance
Brave New World
Murder Most Foul
Band of Brothers
Dogs of War
The Winter of Our Discontent
To Be or Not To Be
North By Northwest

and a whole bunch of Star Trek episode titles


Don't forget

"The Darling Buds Of May"
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom