Science Forums 2

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Many have questioned the writing style of Shakespeare and some have suggested that many authors were at work.

The book entitled, "The Shakespeare Conspiracy", raises some interesting questions on the authorship and private life of William Shakespeare.

Where does the truth lie?
Did William Shakespeare write his own works or were they the result of the efforts of many men?

Sometimes I wonder if the inconsistencies in Shakespeare's style weren't the result of aging and maturity, a lack of time due to busy schedules, bad days, or Shakespeare being lazy (like quoting almost verbatim from some of his historical sources like Holinshed's Chronicles for his plays or from other contemporary playwrights like Marlowe). A few days ago at a bookstore, I was reading a book that tried to dig into the known history of Shakespeare to illuminate what we do know and what we do not know about this most remarkable playwright. Shame I didn't buy or get to finish the book. I am also a major Shakespeare fan.

This seems to be the book I was looking at, but I can't remember for sure:

Amazon.com: Shakespeare: The Biography: Peter...
Amazon.com: Shakespeare: The Biography: Peter...

The author's name looks very familiar. Kinda late and suffering from jet lag, so my memory's shot.

There are several historical documents that bear the mark or presence of Shakespeare. IIRC, there are baptismal records, a death mask, illustrations of him, and several legal documents, including his last will and testament, bearing his signatures, although apparently he was pretty "free" with the spelling of his last name. (Maybe that's not surprising, because in Elizabethan England, English words did not have standardized spellings until the advent later on of several widespread and commonly used English dictionaries, as I understand it.) To me, these testify well enough to the historical presence of a William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon. Most people in those times came into the world and left it without a trace so far as we know. It's a great blessing we have found some evidence of him. But to answer your questions more directly, these documents and bits of evidence do not necessarily prove that this same Shakespeare wrote all or any of the plays attributed to said Shakespeare.

Here's my opinion, based on years of reading and enjoying Shakespeare's plays and having taken a few classes on his works: I believe there is enough stylistic evidence to show that one man wrote most of the works attributed to Shakespeare, and I believe there is good reason to believe that Shakespeare is Shakespeare. Inconsistencies or irregularities in Shakespeare's style are to be expected for some of the factors or reasons I mentioned in my first paragraph. For example, his son Hamnet died not long before the probable writing of Hamlet, and it is worth keeping something like that in mind, that perhaps his heart and mind were dark and heavy during those times. Such a dire event and loss could not help but to influence his writing. Other influences on Shakespeare would be what resources he had at his disposal for inspiration and research. One well-known resource Shakespeare turned to again and again is Holinshed's Chronicles:

Raphael Holinshed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lear, Macbeth, and other history plays owe a great deal to this work. However, this work is itself based on quotes, copies, and paraphrases of other sources and other authors, as Wiki puts it:

The contributors were industrious compilers. They took the primary sources and linked them together into consistent and chronological narratives. They quoted from documents, copied printed histories and paraphrased others. They rarely excluded something, as they thought that the more source authorities they had, the better it was. This was not seen as plagiarism at the time; it was seen as good methodology and, moreover, the work was well documented. Prefatory bibliographies were included and there were marginal notations indicating the source documents. Harrison, for instance, relied heavily on Leland for much of his descriptive detail, whereas Holinshed used John Bale and Geoffrey of Monmouth for the chronology of the narrative.

If Shakespeare was so reliant on a resource like Holinshed's Chronicles, I think it's not beyond reason that the writing style and influences of authors and sources would be transmitted, reworded, or rewritten a bit by Shakespeare to suit his plays. The mention of Geoffrey of Monmouth is also significant, because he wrote a famous work entitled Historia Regum Brittaniae (The History of the Kings of Britain):

Historia Regum Britanniae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm familiar with this because I've been researching and reading a lot into Arthurian mythology and origins lately. Finished Le Morte D'Arthur over my vacation. Historia Regum Brittaniae is important because much English folklore, myth, and history was based on it, and Shakespeare probably was familiar with it, directly or indirectly. He was schooled in some Latin, that much is known, and may have been able to read it.

From personal experience, I know that I tend to write, speak, and sound like my favorite writers and speakers whose styles and words gradually become my own. It's often said, "We are what we eat." For intellectual food, it might then be said, "We are what we read." Shakespeare would make much and many resources his own. It does not take much learning to be well read. And sometimes picking a few good books can give much better learning and reading than reading several poor books. A matter of quality over quantity.

On a somewhat related note, I have had similar discussions with other people concerning Joseph Smith, how a supposedly "uneducated farm boy" could write a rather complicated and imaginative work (The Book of Mormon). Those I've discussed with often assume it's because of divine cause/intervention. But I do not believe this is a logical assumption or conclusion. Because people assume or say that someone was uneducated does not automatically make him or her illiterate, unintelligent, unimaginative, or unproductive. This seems degrading to the person in question.

Turning back to the topic, Shakespeare was a genius, but not a genius without flaws. For example, if we examine Hamlet, we find that Shakespeare seems to have a strange grasp of time and events in the play, because Hamlet at one point seems to be a student, perhaps a man in his late teens or early twenties, who then transforms into an older man, perhaps in his thirties. Do the events take place over a few months or is it several years...a decade or more? How old is Hamlet really? Is he young or is he old? It's a problem of chronology. However, I think the genius of Hamlet lies in its honest and complex depiction of human nature. It captures so well the contradictions, subtleties, and beauties of character. Shakespeare shows us what it means to be human. He shows us what is human. He shows us who we are, as we are.

If the genius of Shakespeare lies in his masterful ability to touch something special in us through his storytelling--to delight, to amaze, to wonder, to anger, and to sadden--then style is another part of the work to tell the story. And I think Shakespeare was as interested in telling good stories as striking a witty phrase. Above all, Shakespeare was a great storyteller with great style.