Science Forums 2

[maikeru]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Fabulous post!

I think its important to note that the arguments against Shakespeare have more to do with the *ability* to gather the requisite knowledge rather than aspersions to any inherent mental inferiority of being a "farm boy." Stratford-Upon-Avon in the late 16th century was a *LONG* way from London, even if its only about an hour drive today. There was no equivalent of Google, and most libraries were basically closed to those outside the upper classes: it is hard for us today to even conceive of what expensive luxuries books were until well into the 18th century.

As CraigD mentioned, Shakespeare had a good education by all reckoning in Stratford-upon-Avon, and was probably exposed to many classics, current works, and other works in both his native English and learned Latin. The ability to read and write in Latin (and/or Greek) opens up an entire new world (and the same could be said for classical/traditional Chinese, Arabic, etc.). The reason why I brought up Joseph Smith ("uneducated farm boy" comment) is that sometimes people get wrong ideas or misconceptions about a person's background or education, i.e., someone like Abraham Lincoln, and thus set limitations on the person in question without looking at the historical record, writings, or real evidence. Despite his humble origins, Honest Abe was a master of the pen, and the Gettysburg Address is a fine example of his style.

Moreover, while certainly some of his work was "lifted" from earlier works, much was not, and his comfort in discussing things that were clearly outside the experience of anyone but the upper classes is incongruous.

As a "wealthy merchant boy" and later actor/player and patronized playwright, he would have had access to the upper classes and royalty. Because of his excellence and popularity, both Queen Elizabeth and King James I patronized him and his players. If he was nothing more than a "farm boy," I would have to agree that his knowledge would seem improper...but that doesn't seem to be the case. There are many instances of people from humble backgrounds rising to the top of society, and fitting in quite well. I would also argue that he had an "eye for detail" as most writers do, and would have probably learned and adapted fast to new situations.

That is to say, given there's no really solid proof one way or another, its so much more likely that he was not Shakespeare of Stratford, but if he was, he was not only an intellectual giant--and would be considered so no matter what his background--but he had an unparalleled force of will to overcome the most astounding odds in gaining *access* to the knowledge needed to write what he wrote.

I really don't have much more to add to what Craig mentioned about Shakespeare's schooling and exposure to classical as well as probably native works. I think that would have put numerous sources and resources at his disposal and into his head.

I am not sure, but it's also possible that Shakespeare may have drawn on other sources of folklore and storytelling present in the countryside and cities such as mystery, miracle, and folk plays, such as were common in the Middle Ages until about his time. The play A Midsummer Night's Dream demonstrates a great familiarity with English folklore and stories as well as some classical stories (Theseus and Hippolyta). Mystery and miracle plays, for the most part, died in England after the separation of churches (Anglican from Roman Catholic), but may have lingered on and been performed in the countryside or to a willing crowd. In the cities, however, professional plays and players displaced them. Also we have manuscripts for popular mystery and miracle play cycles of the time. Maybe Shakespeare would've read these or seen them in London?

If anything, I've mostly been put off by the fact that there are suspiciously few historical records for Shakespeare-of-Avon anywhere to be found, only placing him possibly as an actor, and thus making him a likely target for a high-placed courtier in need of a "beard."

I come to a different conclusion, simply because I'm applying Occam's Razor, not because the evidence is necessarily more convincing for one or another.

He learn'd but surety-like to write for me, Under that bond that him as fast doth bind,
Buffy

Player (actor), playwright, and businessman seem to encompass some aspects of him. From what I remember, he owned shares in and took profit from the player company (who would've been his coworkers and maybe friends) and Globe Theatre. Anyway, there's little we know, much more that we do not know, so we must make do with much, if not too much, conjecture.