![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shakespeare authorship post to NYT
Mar. 9th, 2009 12:27 pm#151 So... Body-image issues are wholly a recent artifact, and no one from Shakespeare's time could have insecurities? ("Does this ruff make me look bald?") Interesting.
I'm amused that this has already become a shouting match regarding the authorship question (as toxic to civil discourse on USENET as the question of where the best pizza is from -- look at the newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare where The Eternal Struggle wages every day).
One of the problems with ascribing the authorship of the plays to someone noble is precisely they issue they take, but in reverse: How would a noble get the experience to write something so true-to-life of the lower classes, *and* also be secret about it? What noble could describe Mistress Quickly's tavern so well, or the country bumpkins of Justice Shallow?
Part of it is, we're blinded by the idea of "London" -- a place large enough to disappear and be anonymous in today. But the London of Elizabeth's time had a population of about 100,000. That's about the size of Lubbock, Texas today. Do you really think it possible for such a deception to be carried out among the theater community of Lubbock?
For all of its historical inaccuracies, one of the things Tom Stoppard got absolutely right in his script for "Shakespeare In Love" is how much easier it is to disguise oneself *up*-class inconspicuously than it is to disguise oneself *down*-class.
As to the knowledge the people of Stratford had to Shakespeare's work... (something much clutched on to by Oxfordians, Baconians, etc.) I don't think people back home in Stratford had any idea what Will did in London. The great irony of those who seek alternate authors: *Every single argument for why a nobleman would want to hide his identity is also an argument for why a middle-class merchant would want to hide *his* identity.* I think there was so little trade and intercourse between London and Stratford that Will *could* present himself as a businessman at home. I think he left his library and plays behind him in London when he retired back to Stratford. He didn't leave them in his will because they were already gone.
It's all a question of Occam's Razor, really. For all that supporters of alternate authors think *they*'re looking for "simpler" answers, the truth is non-Stratfordian theories are even *more* unlikely, even *more* larded with "nine impossible things before breakfast" than Stratfordian ones.
------------
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/portrait-of-shakespeare-unveiled-399-years-late/
I'm amused that this has already become a shouting match regarding the authorship question (as toxic to civil discourse on USENET as the question of where the best pizza is from -- look at the newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare where The Eternal Struggle wages every day).
One of the problems with ascribing the authorship of the plays to someone noble is precisely they issue they take, but in reverse: How would a noble get the experience to write something so true-to-life of the lower classes, *and* also be secret about it? What noble could describe Mistress Quickly's tavern so well, or the country bumpkins of Justice Shallow?
Part of it is, we're blinded by the idea of "London" -- a place large enough to disappear and be anonymous in today. But the London of Elizabeth's time had a population of about 100,000. That's about the size of Lubbock, Texas today. Do you really think it possible for such a deception to be carried out among the theater community of Lubbock?
For all of its historical inaccuracies, one of the things Tom Stoppard got absolutely right in his script for "Shakespeare In Love" is how much easier it is to disguise oneself *up*-class inconspicuously than it is to disguise oneself *down*-class.
As to the knowledge the people of Stratford had to Shakespeare's work... (something much clutched on to by Oxfordians, Baconians, etc.) I don't think people back home in Stratford had any idea what Will did in London. The great irony of those who seek alternate authors: *Every single argument for why a nobleman would want to hide his identity is also an argument for why a middle-class merchant would want to hide *his* identity.* I think there was so little trade and intercourse between London and Stratford that Will *could* present himself as a businessman at home. I think he left his library and plays behind him in London when he retired back to Stratford. He didn't leave them in his will because they were already gone.
It's all a question of Occam's Razor, really. For all that supporters of alternate authors think *they*'re looking for "simpler" answers, the truth is non-Stratfordian theories are even *more* unlikely, even *more* larded with "nine impossible things before breakfast" than Stratfordian ones.
------------
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/portrait-of-shakespeare-unveiled-399-years-late/
