The Surprising Source of Shakespeare’s Inspiration | Harvard’s Stephen Greenblatt

[@monicacall7532]

Frankly, I don’t care who wrote Shakespeare’s works. What I DO care about is the fact is that one person had the enormous gift of being able to distill the essence of what it means to be human through the written and spoken word. Those wise, powerful words have changed lives and made people better just for encountering them. The fact that those words continue to inspire and entertain us 400+ years later is what matters to me.

[@peckerwood6078]

@@monicacall7532 if it does matter at all to you then you would be a little curious as to what engendered such genius! A quintessence of dust are all but that one was sprinkled with pixie dust! There’s a difference between a Rabbit hole and a Worm hole! One leads nowhere and the other to that Undiscovered country! Come over to This side of the Bourne and breath the crisp air of truth!

[@DonaldPotter_ReadingZone]

I read all Shakespear's plays in a cheap edition w/o glosses or comments for my 70th year, 7 years ago, I wanted to see if I could read it like a modern piece of literature. It was a great experience. I enjoyed all the plays except Titus Adronicus, which I suggest skipping. I was amazed that it was much easier than I had expected, but I grew up hearing and later reading the KJV. I memorized 1 Tim., 2 Tim., Titus, The Sermon on the Mount, 1 Thessalonians, most of Ephesians, and several Psalms. The step from the KJV syntax and vocabulary to Shakespeare must have been rather short.

[@poettttt]

The language in the King James Bible stands as a masterpiece of Elizabethan Prose. Meanwhile, Shakespeare achieved masterpiece in Elizabeth Poetry.

[@Melted-Butter-1]

Shakespeare might have written the dedication to the King in the intro of the KJV it is considered.

[@Melted-Butter-1]

Tutus Andronicus was an one of his first plays, not very good. Then just a few years later his skill improves and we get Romeo And Juliet, a classic.

[@joemammon6149]

Titus Andronicus makes more sense if it's viewed as a dark comedy, a parody of a revenge story where everything is over the top.

[@joshuagoodman6359]

Highest, most dense quality of the utmost intellectual material. Johnathan Bi you are a modern legend.

[@bi.johnathan]

🫡

[@peckerwood6078]

@@bi.johnathanshouldn’t read your own reviews, sad to see so many ninnies sucking up this tripe, Johnathan Bi you should live a little and review John Bales authorship of the Historical plays “King John” and his polemic on Sir John Oldcastle (Lord Cobham) and try to understand why he underwent a rewrite to emerge in the first folio as Sir John Falstaff! Living in a self serving academic echo chamber must get just a little tiresome after 3-400yrs! Who did Bale write his premier English Historical plays for? Ancestor of the wives of the dedication recipients! You can’t just listen to that smug claptrap without wanting to know at least this much more; can you?

[@Teddy_Toto]

Shakespeare’s genius has provided fodder for academics for centuries and will for centuries to come.

[@stephenloxton43]

Shakespeare went to a Grammar School and had a lot of theatre experience before he began to write. Anyone acting a Shakespeare play will soon appreciate it was written by an actor...

[@donovanmedieval]

I don't like to get personal, but your reasoning reminds me of James Tyrone in Long Day's Journey into Night. He insists that Shakespeare's poetry proves he was an Irish Catholic.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

​@@donovanmedieval The fact that Anglican and Catholic dogmas were not so far apart in Shakespeare's time as they are today might explain some of the seemingly Catholic ideas in Shakespeare's works. I'm at a loss to figure how he could have structured his plays to allow for doubling and costume changes if he didn't know those were necessary. Shakespeare had some challenging roles, to be sure, but none of them are the "How are we going to make this work" sort of challenges.

[@kreek22]

We know he was an actor, so it's a circular argument. Ibsen and Chekhov, the best dramatists of the last two centuries, were not actors--yet actors love their work and their work catalyzed new acting styles.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@kreek22Ibsen and Checkov didn't need to know that actors need to take breaks after extremely emotional scenes because they didn't write any. In any case, Ibsen worked in theaters for years before he became a successful playwright. Checkov didn't need to know how theater worked because he reinvented it. Neither were aristocrats, who typically have no clue how the work actually gets done.

[@JelMain]

Read Robert Armin's A Nest of Ninnies and Fool upon Foole (read as folly) to see how his characters were developed. The Alleyn Foundation has the documents of its foundation, to teach the lads in the Company the skills to learn their parts from the First Folio texts, which recorded the performed versions years after his death, so the one thing we can be certain of is that the Bard was NOT the primary source, but the grandfather. The impro songs were often recorded in the Stationers Hall copyright record of provenance, and much like the modern pantomime, often have little pertinence to the action, which simply takes a breather while the star performer does his latest hit. Meanwhile, in the Forst of Arden...

[@mohamadnabole]

Excited to peruse this!! Thanks Dr Johnathan

[@bi.johnathan]

not Dr. yet!

[@mohamadnabole]

@bi.johnathan alright

[@huguettebourgeois6366]

Great interview!!!! Thank you!

[@surrealistful]

Thank you Jonathan, I appreciate your kind insights. ❤

[@DrMukeshChauhan]

Insightful life of Shakespeare

[@trent797]

Fascinating interview, Johnathan and Stephen!

[@bi.johnathan]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@rdm3990]

You're a very distinguished gentleman. I love that about you.

[@paillette2010]

I agree about learning things by memorizing. I went to prep school in the late 70’s and can still remember the Tomorrow speech from Macbeth…and the first 26 lines of paradise lost. 😊😂

[@jamestulk4169]

Of man’s first disobedience and the fruits of that forbidden tree who’s mortal taste brought death into this world and all our woe, sing heavenly muse who on the secret tops of Orion or of Sinai didst inspire our first prophets… hmm. A few more lines needed!

[@LucindaBerry-r7i]

With loss of Eden till one greater man restore the blissful seat sing heavenly muse that from the secret top of Oreb or of Sinai didst first in the beginning teach the heavens and earth how to rise out of chaos. Or if Sion hill delight thee more or Siloa s brook that flows fast by the oracle of God I thence invoke thy aid to my adventurous song that with no middle flight intends to soar...things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme. t@jamestulk4169

[@LucindaBerry-r7i]

Of Oreb or of Sinai didst inspire That shepherd who first taught the chosen seed In the beginning how the heaven and earth Rose out of chaos or if Sion Hill .... nope I can't remember☹️

[@davidlee6720]

Shakespeare saw literature's limitations; that unlike music and painting it was not universal and needed translation into other languages, thereby losing some of its uniqueness in the process. He admired artist who had this universal gift.

[@johnradovich8809]

Good to see they’re still allowed to discuss him at Harvard.

[@howard5992]

I have heard that all they care about there is sports and muscle cars.

[@marcussassan]

Very interesting take on Shakespeare and his background.

[@Unmoved12345]

Superb discussion.

[@AmidalaEmma]

Thank you for this!!! I’m so sick of those stupid classist conspiracy theories! People would’ve doubted Einstein too (a mere clerk in a patent office) if they didn’t have definite proof of his genius.

[@stephenjablonsky1941]

We have no poem or play in Shakespeare's hand because the man could hardly sign his name. He and his whole family were illiterate.

[@richardmorgan8079]

Why "classist"? We are talking about plausibility, based on available evidence.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@richardmorgan8079 But only after pretending that there is no evidence.

[@simonwood5216]

@@stephenjablonsky1941 idiocy made public. shakespeare illiterate? - what utter juvenile mentally shallow garbage.

[@stephenjablonsky1941]

@@simonwood5216 What evidence do you have that he could write a complete sentence?

[@Siferlash]

very interesting stuff kudos

[@kaloarepo288]

His plays could have been written by an aristocrat like the earl of Oxford using the Shakespeare persona - it was not the "done thing" for an nobleman to be seen writing plays - it was beneath his dignity. A musical parallel roughly contemporary to Shakespeare but in southern Italy is of the mannerist composer Carlo Gesualdo, infamous for having arranged the assassination of his wife and her lover. He belonged to the highest level of the southern Italian aristocracy and if you go to his tomb in Venosa, Basilicata there is no mention that he was a composer -centuries ahead of his time because of his daring harmonies. He lies alongside his aristocratic ancestors and all his epitaph says is that he was the prince of Venosa.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

The Earl of Oxford was a voluntarily published poet (it was dreck) and was noted as a comedy writer by contemporaries. There was nothing undignified about noblemen writing poetry or plays.

[@kaloarepo288]

@@Jeffhowardmeade You know I've never heard the word "dreck" before! Had to look it up in a dictionary. Is it an americanism?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@kaloarepo288 I think it comes from Yiddish, which has an amazing number of ways to hurl insults.

[@peckerwood6078]

@@JeffhowardmeadeThin, and by that I mean shallow! There is not enough breath to breath life into the dead - Jesus

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

​@@peckerwood6078 Thank you for clarifying what you meant.

[@apokalupsishistoria]

12:29 BUT the Upstart Crow is not Shakespeare. It's actor-writer Edward Allyn, son-in-law of Philip Henslowe (lookup Henslowe Diary). The attack is about Allyn ad-libbing lines over their scripts. It may even be the case that partly because of this, LCM and Admiral's Men formed, splitting the companies of strange/pembroke/sussex et al. "Buckram gentlemen," and "painted faces," are actors not authors. "Bombast out blank verse," is a clear reference to Alleyn performing Tamburlaine AS WELL AS a clear reference to his own play which he wrote and in which he starred: TamerCan. Clearly, this is the play that pissed off "Marlowe". Also "shake-scene" is a reference to his large stature and loud voice. He literally shook the rafters while performing. It would not be a reference to Shakespeare as the name did not yet exist. Remember this is before V&A was printed. Also "Tiger's Heart" is from H6 which Greene/Marlowe/Kyd would have helped write. This isn't Greene/Chettle complaining about the author of H6--they are the authors. Also, here's the thing, Greene probably isn't even the correct name to put on Groatsworth. This is by Henry Chettle. ALSO a Henslowe playwright. The shake-scene reference wouldn't be much of a reference to Shakespeare, as the name did not yet exist (V&A follows Groatsworth Wit.) It is actually a reference to Allyn's booming voice. Allyn was very proud of his loud, charismatic presentation on stage and as such really boomed his lines, shaking the whole scene.

[@seanomaille8157]

"He waxes desperate with imagination...this the very coinage of your brain."

[@apokalupsishistoria]

@seanomaille8157 *They have a plentiful lack of wit."

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Still peddling that tired old tripe? I’m suffering from insomnia but I think one more read of that should cure it.

[@apokalupsishistoria]

@Jeffhowardmeade Insomnia? No, I'm afraid you have somnambulism. Hopefully others will see how shallow your response is, comparatively.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@apokalupsishistoria I've already torn that Greene-is-Shakescene hypothesis apart too many times. I see now you've tweaked it to claim Greene was upset at Alleyn's extemporizing. Yeah, I'm on my deathbed (or pretending I'm a guy on my deathbed if I'm Chettle in your fever-dream) and what am I going to warn fellow poets about? An actor is extemporizing on stage. OH, THE INFAMY!

[@garyb2392]

Not sure you answered your own question but still a wonderful interview

[@artandculture5262]

It’s like today where the MFA is supposed to imply which are artists, but life and Spirit make artists.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

It's really no different than classical times when wannabe artists became apprentices to master artists. Now we just have to study a bunch of other stuff and the good old seven year apprenticeship now lasts 20 years and leaves a pile of debt when it's finished.

[@life.esoteric]

" How to be a creative genius" is not a matter of how to, but a matter of ones soul being. If you don't have the ripeness of soul, you cannot be a creative genius.

[@tzintzun2000]

La homosexualidad de Shakespeare, le abrió los secretos del alma, en un mundo de gente enmascarada, ocultando sus más profundos deseos... Su genio se debe a ser un disidente completo para su época... Lo sabía Oscar Wilde y el mismo compilador del Primer Folio de sus obras... Marlowe, es su real máscara más cercana... Will i am Shake Spears? nos conduce a Eros, el cupido flechador de los Sonnets de amor homosexual...Es su Escudo de Armas...

[@ianwaldeck]

Creative genius consists of very many things. It is mostly composed of innate talent and uncommon emotional sensitivity, intelligence, hard work, suffering, good character and being fortunate. Good luck and common sense, coupled with business skills and good health also helps.

[@life.esoteric]

@@ianwaldeck External things don't count if you do not have the seed, is all about ones being, that is the seed.

[@real_ozzy]

I have to agree with this 100%

[@romans8024]

are you one? or just pointing to what would make sense to you?

[@stephennoonan8417]

Who’d have thought Alan Sugar was an expert on Shakespeare!

[@davidjames5517]

Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford. As everyone knows.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

.. was a pederast, a profligate, a coward, a murderer, and a mediocre poet on a good day. Oh, and he once got captured by pirates which is vaguely similar to Hamlet, who was saved by pirates.

[@richardmorgan8079]

Yep ❤

[@jamesstrain9283]

Correct.

[@simonwood5216]

nonsense on stilts.

[@TheGritherr]

Masterful

[@rareword]

I was amazed that Stephen Greenblatt refers to his meeting with Clinton and mentions that he knows some of McBeth's lines by heart, because I have often compared Bill Clinton and Hillary to MacBeth and Lady MacBeth. When I think of them, this phrase comes to mind: “I am in blood stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er.”

[@fabiengerard8142]

The Nixon and the Reagan couples sounded extremely significant as well in that regard. The WH Macbethian syndrome... Quite a few of all those couples, actually, at that level of power.

[@johncoffman1841]

Wonderful! You have a fantastic program of great writers. I would like to recommend an adjunct to the written word for you to explore. And that is a musical/lyrical experience. But not one you might expect. It is a Dutch band whose most creative period was between 1995 and 2007, when they had a 'force=of=nature' person, Enneke van Giersbergen, singing and writing with them their literary songs. The songs are not like other songs in English. They seemed to flout the idea of commerciality and went against the grain to create unique pieces. One such song is from the first LP they recorded with her. (She wrote they lyrics.) It is two pats, called In Motion 1 & In Motion 2. This song filled me with visions of that old pre-Raphialite painting of Ophelia. You can see them perform it by keyword searching The Gathering live 2007 and also live 2005. Any literary person will love exploring to words and music of this band. Not like any others you have heard, I guarantee..

[@doctorshawzy6477]

my old mother, left school at 15, could recite numerous poems until her death at 100

Genius is Genius!!! Like charisma.😂

[@TheConceptTheProcess]

Indeed

[@YO3A007]

Shakespeare !

[@rickhaydan3433]

Even today, it's legally ruled that you can't steal a plot, nor can you copyright a plot. Please note Romeo & Juliet versus West Side Story.

[@rhonataylor85]

A fantastic discussion- and what gorgeous armchairs!

[@peckerwood6078]

Oscar would be mortified to hear you say such. I mean your aesthetic sense is oldfactory impaired it would seem. You can't tell something stinks if you don't have the faculty of smell. And this definitely smells. Which in and of itself is not the problem so much as that it smells Bad!! To say that your taste is all in your mouth would be too kind for your apparent lack to sense of any kind. You do know that taste is 80% informed by scent? Right? And to finally dispatch you with the words of that paragon of aesthetics; "Either the wall paper goes or I do!!" (re your armchair upholstery fetish) Words to live by, but not so much - poor Wilde! He like you, had never heard of the marquess of Queensburys rules and as a result succumbed to them!! Bugger!!

[@i_am_elle_gee6917]

Shakespeare may not be the greatest playwright of all time but there is evidence that he did write some of those plays attributed to him in quill using secretary hand. But considering the body of works produced within 23 years, one need only to ask if it was humanly possible for just one person to have produced 39 plays and 158 sonnets, considering that there was no electricity in that era, and Shakespeare also had to produce and act in the theater. No evidence needed, just do your Maths.

[@the98thcent]

What? Heywood claimed to have had a hand in 200 plays. Ridiculous reasoning - try listening to the experts.

[@Twentythousandlps]

Go to a youtube upload of a ucla Shakespeare lecture from 1964 by noted historian A.L. Rowse. Not to be missed.

[@bastianconrad2550]

Stratfordianism for ever? - kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5PdqGSJd9SVmrMsi=1Tg0TPC9_yv-6uZo

[@Ljm488]

Does anyone know Shakespeare first play? It was bad. He practiced a lot. When people remember people from there best and not their beginnings, they known as a genius.

[@CharlesFitzpatrick-b1d]

Johnathan thanks for this exposition. A question: What do you mean by "cottage industry of conspiracies"? Do you mean a whole cottage industry of conspiracy THEORIES? Misuse of this word is almost - ALMOST - forgivable when it is done by the common blogger or vlogger, but you Johnathan are discussing one of the greats of English literature and should therefore use the words more correctly. A conspiracy is when two or more "conspire" to perpetrate a deed. That is not what you are saying is it? Are you not trying to say that PEOPLE THINK there are those who have conspired? So what you should have said is ' a whole cottage industry of conspiracy THEORIES' Please take this in the spirit it is offered. Your video is excellent overall.

[@coolhandphilip]

Shakespeare was really great at bowling, too, but no one remembers that. Moral: Don't try to be the best at more than one thing.

[@stephenjablonsky1941]

I wonder why it is that no one ever mentions his cookbook. It is filled with lots of wonderful Italian dishes even though the man never visited Italy.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@stephenjablonsky1941 You really need a new gag writer.

[@JamesVytas]

6:37 during Covid we weren’t allowed to gather in large groups. Unless it was a BLM protest. Protest to object to lockdowns was forbidden and prosecuted. Times haven’t changed I guess.

[@joeruf6526]

historicists will never understand Shakespeare

[@elliotlambert3817]

The secret was no crap TV

[@coolhandphilip]

I think he plagiarized Hamlet from another guy named Shakespeare.

[@cosimo7770]

Skip to 5:00 to avoid initial bla bla.

[@ZephaniahL]

Greenblatt’s prose is the breeziest, most purple, unbearably informal schlock this side of Stephen King.

[@peckerwood6078]

Touche!!

[@poettttt]

Well then, ZephaniahL- Someone needs to translate Greenblatt's schlocky prose into mellifluous Elizabethan-style Blank Verse!

[@peckerwood6078]

@@poettttt tenderly trippingly tenuous tendrils targeting tempestuous tantrum tossing troglodytes!! Would a Greenblatt by any other name seem as thick?

[@DonikaJorgo-l7e]

Your job it's good for young children or generations specialy here or American education which don't have idea who shekspire was ..or A.Duma Or Servantes Or V Hugo Or M.Twin . Just try to show better Dickens.. A role of Uria Hipp..there they learn easy..

[@allthingsfrench1391]

My God... spell check please

[@UAL320]

A university education, no….but a GRAMMAR SCHOOL education, YES. This is key. If you don’t know what a grammar school is then look it up.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

There was no such thing as defined English grammar at the time, so spoiler alert it was a Latin grammar school.

[@mattpelletier5368]

Shakespeare Is a fairytale but the spear shaker is a fact.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@mattpelletier5368 So you'll dismiss clear evidence but believe fairy tales? Good to know.

[@mattpelletier5368]

@@Jeffhowardmeade no I accept clear evidence that it was Bacon's operation...much more evidence for that. Shakespeare is a phantom and forms the foundation of the western idea of genius...a sacred cow. Bacon was a genius and a polymath...but don't take my word for it, learn some baconian ciphers and some steganography and do some digging. Check out "ghosts of Bacon" for more insight into the topic .

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@mattpelletier5368 I have checked out Bacon’s actual cipher, and it’s nothing at all like the goofball “ciphers” of Donnelly, Owen, and Gallup. Bacon, who was the literal Father of Empiricism, would be aghast at the nutterbutter things you lot are attributing to him.

[@tullochgorum6323]

Shakespeare conspiracists point to his relatively humble origins and lack of Oxbridge education as reasons to doubt his authorship. But this is pure snobbery. Shakespeare attended an excellent Grammar School, and his master Thomas Jenkins was highly educated. He will have received a solid foundation in Latin and a little Greek, along with exposure to classical literature and rhetoric. There was a Guild library in the town, and he would have enjoyed access to private libraries though his family and his father's business and political connections. There is speculation that he served as a tutor within an aristocratic family during his "lost years". And all this is before he even reached the literary mecca of London and enjoyed the support of cultured patrons like Southampton. For an ambitious young man with an enquiring mind, there was ample opportunity to achieve a rounded education.

[@MACTRUQUE]

Shakespeare was not written, it slipped through 8️⃣8️⃣8️⃣8️⃣8️⃣

[@coolhandphilip]

What do you mean?

[@ThePandemoniumChannel]

Traffic? all the major sites in London were built near the river thames, that way the houses of Parliament are there. This guy doesn't know what he's saying at all. My opinion is that Shakespeare wasn't a person, but a movement of writers that wanted to establish the English language as standard language, but not just spoken, also written. The dominant written text of the time was still Latin and remained so for a while. The body of English literature was weak and scattered. This is the main reason that scholars can't agree on a single person theory. The most prevailing argument is that the plays vary drastically in style and figure, clearly not written by one person, but several.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

If someone wanted to establish English as anything, they wouldn’t write Shakespeare. He used nouns as verbs and vice versa.

[@ThePandemoniumChannel]

@@Jeffhowardmeadewell, that’s not a convincing argument. Those rules in the English grammar are recent. One can even use king James’ bible as an example of the need to establish written English over the former Latin text. The arts were influential and an easy conveyance to establish the written text of English over Latin. The power that Latin had was immense and it carried on for a while, especially amongst scholars such as Newton.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@ThePandemoniumChannel Have you read any actual Shakespeare? His era was full of reformers looking to standardize and broaden the appeal of English. Richard Mulcaster (possibly lampooned as Holofernes in Love’s Labors Lost), Thomas Smith, John Hart, and Alexander Gil attempted to reform and simplify spelling. Shakespeare ignored them. No nouns and verbs in his era? On the contrary, nouns were all Capitalized in the way we only Capitalize proper nouns today. Hard to imagine that being possible if nobody knew what a noun was. Despite being a larger work, the 1611 Authorized (aka King James) Bible intentionally only contains about 14,000 unique words, many of which are names of people and places. Shakespeare’s works include about 19,000 unique words (which was about average for a poet of his era) and not nearly as many of them are names. Compared to the tidy, practical language that English boosters of the era were advocating, Shakespeare’s language is a chaotic mess. Let’s examine some of his contributions, shall we? “I would rather have one scratch my head in the sun when the alarum were struck than to idly sit to hear my nothings monstered.” - Coriolanus “He tires times betimes that spurs too fast betimes.” - Richard II And this favorite: “Thou hast undone our mother!” “Villain, I have DONE thy mother!” - Titus Andronicus That’s right, Shakespeare invented the “Yo Mama” joke. Just what a committee wanting to elevate the status of English is going to produce! And I’m just curious what you meant by “This is the main reason that scholars can’t agree on a single person theory.” You are aware that - actual - Shakespeare scholars almost universally agree that it was Shakespeare who wrote the works of Shakespeare, aren’t you?

[@ThePandemoniumChannel]

@@Jeffhowardmeade yes I have read much of his work, a positive consequence of having lived and educated in England. With all due respect, you’re taking the poetic licence that is available to a poet and making an argument. Poetic language is always chaotic, especially in English, being such an ambiguous language which is primarily composed of expressions rather than a logical grammar, and English has no logical grammar. In no other language can one say “I broke my arm” a simple example of how it relies upon expression than an accurate account of description, as far as I am aware of anyway. I read your reply several times and I fail to see what your point is. I am simply saying that given the various styles of every play and the language, there are inconsistencies with the manner, form and the richness of the language. If you read the essays of Francis Bacon, a contemporary of WS, you’ll note a consistent regularity of the language. If you listen to Bach you’ll note the same familiar consistency. However, this is not the case with our upstart. The signature regularity of familiar consistency is missing. It reminds me of how A. Dumas used to produce his work, where he had apprentices doing the actual writing. In any case you're somewhat proving my point. If you look at Coriolanus, which was written almost near the time of Macbeth, you will note a stark difference in language and the usage of it. Richard II was published in 1595 and Henry V around 1599. There are differences in the expressions and forms of language. It The examples you've used are not convincing to me. "Alas, that love so tender in his view, should be so tyrannous and rough in proof." These phrases were not written by the man who wrote Julius Cesar for example. Though one may argue that this shows his range, whereas I argue the opposite. This shows inconsistency in the character of the author seeping into his work. I do concede that there might be a possibility here, in that Shakespeare may have been the brand, but not entirely the product of one man. Let us also consider another possibility, that the poetic verses were not written by Shakespeare at all. We are, after all, talking about two different parts within every play. There are the dialogues and there are the monologues. Who is to say that these were written by the same person? The builder of a cathedral does not etch out the carvings and decorations of the building, does he? That part is done by an artisan. How long did it take in modern English literature before slangs were permissible to be published? Writers rarely wrote slang words and were rarely published. Abusive words were often censored and not published at all, take D.H. Lawrence for example. We can't attribute expressions to WS so readily and call him the inventor of 'Yo mama" or whatever. Gong to Paddington fair was slang in old English which meant going to see public hangings. Rose was often used in slang to describe urine, 'Going for a rose' etc, etc. The point being that often slangs are around long before any author uses them. This much I know: Only a closed mind is certain. I am sorry, but I am not convinced. Thanks, however, for the exchange. I enjoyed it.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@ThePandemoniumChannel I get that one who relies on his own sense of Shakespeare's poetry is never going to be convinced by the evidence of contemporary witnesses, but even his peers called Shakespeare uneducated. They also called him an actor, and a gentleman, and a resident of Stratford. Aside from him being the last persona a language reformer of the era would pretend to be, the lengths they would have had to go to in order to maintain the ruse would have been absurd. Building a funerary monument to a fictitious poet in a town two days' ride from London (which always depicted a poet so please don't start with the "wool merchant" malarkey) seems a bit much, don't you think?

[@sonnylira2846]

I’ve produced and acted in about 10 different Shakespeare plays in my life. I’ve consumed my fair share of content where academic institutions theorize, “explain”, and misinterpret his work. I watched the first 3 minutes of this video before realizing… “I really couldn’t care less about what Harvard has to say about the bard.” lol zzzz

[@ronaldmacpherson3345]

No purgatory now. They decided it wasn’t useful

[@kathleentrued9359]

You guys really need to read the historical fiction book HAMNET .

[@rhonataylor85]

Oh no - it’s really whimsical and silly. Anne H as a “witchy woman “ …please!

[@peckerwood6078]

Who reads Fiction? Historical Fiction? Kathleen your skirts are showing. Might as well read a Harlequin Romance for as much enrichment as it would provide. Women read 95% Fiction and Men read 95% Non-Fiction. (Even including SciFi, and porn. are those geeks even men) Is it any wonder that those who spend their days wondering what might have been are in a different world than those who ponder why, what did happen.

[@BenjaminJDunn]

A literary critic talking about Shakespeare’s business model?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

All great artists are also great businessmen, or else their heirs are.

[@jimimased1894]

@@Jeffhowardmeade wot nonsense

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

​@@jimimased1894 Name one who wasn't.

[@MikeNube]

"His achievememts are . . . unbelieveable . . ." I quibble with being explained to, by credentialed persons whose word choice is that inexplicably cliche and contrary to their thesis.

[@danielgregg2530]

There is no evidence whatsoever that this guy from Stratford-On-Avon ever wrote one single word about anything any single time in his entire life.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Except for all the contemporaries who said he did, his handwriting on three pages of a play script, a monument dedicated to him comparing him to Virgil, and his liberal use of people and places from his home town who appear in his plays. You forgot about those.

[@peckerwood6078]

@@Jeffhowardmeaderubbish! You don’t know what you don’t know until you don’t know it anymore! If you are not indeed the Luddite you seem to be, perhaps you might enjoy Robert Prechters latest treatment on the SOF KZbin channel in which he debunks this kind of twattle! It’s hard not to sound contemptuous of such sadly dull intellect when such bright thoughts are available for reflection. Greenblatt a papist! Who knew? The only thing Shakespeare put in purgatory was the pseudo intellects who prattle on like this! Sure! It’s easy to see how the Stratford man would write himself as a prince and his mother a Queen remarried while his father’s murderer before his body goes cold! Sure! Look up who wrote the English translation of Ovids metamorphosis, the greatest source for all the plays! Get out of this academic straitjacket!

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

​@@peckerwood6078 It figures that a crackpot would follow an even bigger crackpot like Pretchter. Back when Oxfordians Allen and Ward stole the Prince Tudor theory from the Baconians, JT Looney thought THAT was "...likely to bring the whole cause into ridicule." Imagine what he would think of Prechter, trying to claim everything of merit from the Jacobethan age as the secret work of Oxford. And this for a guy whose only attested poetry was utter crap. You jokers are untethered from sanity.

[@stephenjablonsky1941]

The Shakespeare myth persists to this day. He never wrote a word attributed to him. Shakespeare himself couldn't compose a limerick let alone a play. We don't even know what he looked like. Yet he is the figure head of this literary religion, revered by one and all.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

You got the one and all part right, at least. Then there are the Anti-Strats, who have a hard time getting a booth at ConspiracyCon.

[@patricksullivan4329]

This almost total hooey. Greenblatt is an insult to scholarship. There is no EVIDENCE that the guy who was born in Stratford On Avon in 1564 could even write his name legibly. No, I'm not making that up (you can see his six signatures for yourself online). It has been proven, using legitimate statistical probability (to over 99% certainty) that Mr. Shakspere, Shaxspeare, Shagspeare, Shackspeare (his name twice in his own will) of Stratford could have not been Shakespeare the writer. They were two different people. For one thing Shaxspere was born too late to have written Henry V by late 1533/early 1584. And that play specifically, in the Greek Chorus to Act V, mentions the successful military mission to Ireland by Thomas Butler, Earl of Ormond that captured and beheaded--Rebellion broached on a sword--the Irish rebel Gerald Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond. Desmond was in league with the King of Spain, as well as the Pope, and Elizabeth specifically sent her cousin, Butler/Ormond, to deal with him. That's what 'Shakespeare' was referring to in comparing the General of our most gracious Empress, who would be soon returning to London in triumph, just as Henry V did after his victory in France. Also, Sonnet #107, written in 1563 (it mentions Elizabeth's death), says the poet is dying. 'death to me subscribes'. That's along with several mentions of his advancing age in those sonnets. This video is almost 100% free of logic and evidenc.e

[@kjwolfgramm]

Want to explain the contemporary testimonies that the Stratfordian was the poet and playwright? Anti-Stratfordianism has been disproven. The overwhelming majority of Shakespearean scholars don’t subscribe to the theory.

[@patricksullivan4329]

@@kjwolfgramm "Want to explain the contemporary testimonies that the Stratfordian was the poet and playwright? " There are none. Please provide me a specific instance of someone testifying that 'Guilielmus filius Johannes Shakspere' who was baptized at Trinity Church in 1564, was referred to as a playwright and poet during his lifetime.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

​@@patricksullivan4329 I've already presented it to you a dozen times. Now you've moved the goalposts so far that the nearly two dozen people who identified the poet in ways that can only refer to the gentleman and actor from Stratford must include his Latin name and date of birth? Come on, Marty. These guys look bad enough without you pretending to be one of them and making up the stoopest things you can imagine.

[@jayare2620]

The source of Shakespeare's creativity was Edward de Vere.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Maybe when he was looking for inspiration in writing buffoons and cowards. Are there any pederast characters in Shakespeare’s works?

[@peckerwood6078]

@@Jeffhowardmeade Jeff you are indeed a Howard which rhymes with that other thing as truly as it is True. The paper thin veneer of respectability which tyrants like you and yours hide beneath is soon to for once and always be torn away to reveal the filth beneath. Tick tock! Ask not for whom the bell tolls!!

[@johnmaxwell1750]

This is completely wrong. Edward de Vere, an aristocrat, was the person who actually wrote the works now attributed to Shakespeare.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Evidence or you made it up.

[@cor-z8m]

Why didn’t he sign his name?

[@johnmaxwell1750]

@@cor-z8m - For an explanation, watch the video "Nothing is Truer than True."

[@rickhaydan3433]

​@Jeffhowardmeade Just Google Edward de Vere. Or, search him on KZbin. Then you will find presentations of the evidence.

[@paillette2010]

Nope. Study true scholarship, you will understand. It’s a cop out to imagine some self absorbed peer did all this.

[@alanfarr7845]

Sir Henry Neville was probably "Shakespeare" by another name.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Is there even a single bit of evidence for this? Besides goofy codes, I mean.

[@allthingsfrench1391]

This is the problem with these so called intelligent scholarly folks. They never consider the fact that Shakespeare was an awakened mystical writer. One thing this man gets right is that Shakespeare used his Imagination. What he doesn't know is that we are all Imagination. When we discover our True Nature... that God is our own wonderful human Imagination then nothing is impossible and you can yourself become whomever you want to be. He was aware of who he was. He drew on the Bible as well. All great writers do because that is exactly where the truth of man lies. It is not an historical book. Jesus never walked the earth.. Jesus is a state of Conciousnesd. The book is all about you. This is the mystery. And the mystery behind The Great Shakespeare. All the world's a stage wasn't just a line in a play, it was Truth embodied in a tale.

Another Jew explaining EVERYTHING.

[@robertalpy]

The secret to his creativity is that he was a front for someone more literate, less provincial, more connected to the royal court and not a sime merchants son. None of the documents in his house when he died show a man with more than basic literacy.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

How do you know what was in his house when he died?

[@robertalpy]

@Jeffhowardmeade It was inventories. He also was not as wealthy as he should have been. For someone who owned a share in a theater company, he barely left anything behind. Unusual. Where did all his money go?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@robertalpy There are no surviving inventories of Shakespeare’s goods. All we have is his will, which names a silver-gilt bowl, a sword, his clothes, and his famous second-best bed. There are also several monetary bequests, such as to the poor and for memorial rings for the surviving King’s Men. Everything else was left to his residuary legatee, which is lawyer-speak for “the person who gets everything else”. In Shakespeare’s case it was his eldest child, Susannah Hall. A will is not meant to itemize everything one owns, but only those things which are meant for other people. This probably explains why no theater poet of the era mentions any books or manuscripts in his will.

[@irtnyc]

​@@JeffhowardmeadeJeff Howard Meade this is a good point. While I am not one of those Stratford apologists who run the theme park for tourists, which I mention because while personally from reading your comment here I think you are on the wrong side of history and falling for a kind of Big Lie... the fact is, you are correct. Everything in his house that *wasn't* explicitly given to someone else, went to his daughter Susannah and her husband, Dr. Hall. (Who by the way treated his father in law for some time, and separately, was called in to treat the King. He must have been a good doctor. This was a very good marriage for Susannah!) The reason this matters is the Halls inherited everything that matters. Not the infamous bed, and a few other bequests. Everything else, including all the books and manuscripts and letters... if any. We know that in 1644 during the Civil War the house (New Place, ie where Shakespeare himself had lived and where Susannah and Dr Hall moved after William Shakespeare died) was thoroughly searched by another doctor, James Cook of Warwick. Who was publishing Dr Hall's medical case history... which given the way he writes and how he records his relationships and the celebrity or distinguishing achievements of his many patients... ought to include two things: #1 some mention of William Shakespeare being a successful or famous poet and playwright, or a smart guy who read and wrote a lot, and left behind all his lifelong collection of amazing books and manuscripts. It doesn't. That's 1644. Dr Cook's publishing of Dr Halls write-up of his patients has mentions other writers but not the fact his father in law is the author of the plays published as the First Folio *during* his lifetime. These medical case and summary biography records do cover the period 1611-1616 when William Shakespeare was alive, and then continue into the period when the First Folio was published and the plays were being performed posthumously -- because they're amazing. Interesting that the most literate and successful and wealthy and well-equipped of all Shakespeare's close relatives and contemporaries fails whatsoever to evidence he was a writer of any kind. Or even literate. Nevermind accomplished, famous, and a Mozart level celebrity famous during and after his life. Compare this to being say, just for the thought experiment, JK Rowling's son in law. Or Taylor Swift's in-law. Or whomever you think is the most famous talent and artist of their generation wherever you live. How would this go utterly unmentioned in a lifelong diary of personal relationships, and medical case histories, which does explicitly detail professional, academic, and publishing accomplishments of radically less successful or famous people than Dr Halls own father in law? #2 Dr Halls records do not explicitly mention his treatment of his father in law from the period of either a) 1607-1611 which predate the case history diary (that survived until reviewed edited and and published by Dr Cook), or b) 1611-1616 when the diary is active and we know Dr Hall was treating Shakespeare himself. Among his many patients. Respectfully, how do you explain that? As an inexpert lay person (no especial expertise and no agenda here either, just a reality based curiosity) it seems the only logical conclusion is Dr Hall didn't mention his father in law's medical treatment OR professional and literary accomplishments (as he did other patients) because they were not any: his father in law's life was apparently unusually boring, banal, and not noteworthy. As he was quite interested and reliable about mentioning his patients being notable or accomplished, when they were. Neither did Hall have any comment on the publishing of the First Folio ie after his father in laws death but during his own life and diary documentary history. Lastly, Cook's search of Hall's home in 1644 during the Civil War found nothing, zero books documents letters or manuscripts of any kind, relating in any way, to his father in law being the author of The Works. Respectfully, how do you explain that?

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@irtnyc I can explain it quite simply: nearly everything you wrote is made up. Specifically: The 1657 edition of Hall’s Select Observations on English Bodies of Eminent Persons includes Cooke’s recollection of buying Hall’s medical notebooks does not discuss him snooping out New Place, nor of mentioning things he saw there. He says Mrs. Hall offered him some books which were by one who “professed physicke”. He recognized Hall’s handwriting, which was familiar to him, though Mrs. Hall denied the books were her husband’s. He does not speculate as to why she did so, but he does say he waited to publish until all of Hall’s patients were deceased, which offers a clue. Next: You presume that Dr. Cook either knew or cared that Susannah Hall’s father was a poet. There’s nothing in his life to suggest this mattered to him, and there’s no reason why he would have mentioned it in the preface to a book about medical treatments. Said preface was even dropped from subsequent editions of the book. Shakespeare was not so well known 18 years after his death as you claim. His most famous creation, Venus and Adonis, was last printed in 1620. Quarto editions of his plays were few and far between, and his folios were expensive. He was occasionally mentioned in books by and about poets, but he was nothing like the “God of our idolatry” he later became. Cooke bought two of Hall’s medical record books from his widow. Only one survives. That one has over a thousand entries, of which Cooke selected only 155. There is no mention of Shakespeare in the surviving book, though he may have been mentioned in the lost volume. We will likely never know. I stand corrected on the dates of the entries. The earliest DATED entry is 1617, but a handful of entries where the ages were noted, cross referenced with other records, show that the surviving volume included entries as early as 1611. That doesn’t mean that Hall treated Shakespeare during that time (though one presumes he would have) or that his treatments of Shakespeare were either notable or successful (Hall only mentions his successes) enough to be included. This whole exercise highlights a trend among Anti-Strats: wonder why people who had their own lives to worry about didn’t mention Shakespeare, and try to avoid those who clearly and emphatically did. Do you deny that Dr. John Hall sat every Sunday under a monument comparing his father-in-law to Virgil, and was eventually buried under it? If he did that, don’t you find it odd that he never mentioned the fraud in what you seem to think is his exhaustive personal diary?

[@kenfeinsteinsnevilleresear1368]

Hamnet died in 1596. This is just ahistorical nonsense.

[@PhilHardgrave]

Thanks Ken. This "intellectual babbling without content" is pure poppycock, preposterous babypoop.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

What’s ahistorical about it? Can you name another Hamlet who lived in England in Shakespeare’s lifetime? Shakespeare knew three of them and personally named one.

[@dilly1863]

You cannot analyze Shake-Speare until one accepts that the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere was the real author of the Shakespeare plays. Your investigation is flawed if you look at the wrong person.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

And if you think it was that loser, your whole thinking process is damaged.

[@liedersanger1]

A bonkers theory with absolutely nothing to support it. It’s curious that it’s gotten as far as it has with people who should know better. I don’t think you are one of them.

[@rhonataylor85]

pa ha ha! Ridiculous.

[@johnsarkissian5519]

Yes, you’re right! And the sun revolves around the earth!

[@richardmorgan8079]

By far the most plausible. Put in the work, folks!

[@MundaSquire]

Greenblatt is no historian, so his whole premise is based on conjecture, not fact. All of this imagined and unverifiable narrative about the psyche of the man from Stratford is easily brought down by the Oxfordians and, yes, the growing evidence of them pointing to the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward De Vere. He was in the highest circle of the court, & traveled to France and Italy, thus unlike Shakspear from Stratford understood, understood the court. I suggest any person interested in a journey that will change your mind is going to Alexander Waugh's channel on KZbin, he the grandson of novelist Evenlyn Waugh and a worthy scholar in his own right. Then, no need for creative stories about an uneducated man from Stratford whose own daughters did not know how to read, nor the need to fabricate narrative where no historical record exists.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

What growing evidence? Conjectures piled atop hypotheses is not evidence. Shakespeare’s peers clearly identifying him as the actor and gentleman from Stratford is evidence.

[@MundaSquire]

@@Jeffhowardmeade Do you research and don't feel comfortable being a unreflecting team member. As I suggested, start with Alexander Waugh's many fine posts at KZbin and then proceed from there. Then proceed to other Oxfordians. You will find that the whole Straford man as being Shakespeare is based on spun narratives full of surmise and speculation.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@MundaSquire Waugh was a charlatan. Maybe you're just gullible, but any thinking person could see he was just making it up as he went. If you asked him to cite his sources for anything he claimed, he blocked you. His audience was a tiny group of overly credulous suckers who really want to believe that the "establishment" is lying to them. There is nothing you or anyone else can tell me about Shakespeare. I have read it all. I have seen the documents for myself, and it all fits together perfectly into a web of compelling evidence. There is nothing at all like that for Oxford or any other "Anti-Shakespeare". Not a single contemporary said it was not Shakespeare, not a single one said it was Oxford or anyone else. Yet at least twenty well-placed people identified the poet as the actor and gentleman from Stratford. Ever ask yourself why that was?

[@richardmorgan8079]

​@@MundaSquirethank you! Freedom from the Stratford industrial complex!

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@richardmorgan8079 Oh you poor, abused thing! How do you survive knowing that nearly everyone in the world thinks you are a crackpot?

[@wungabunga]

Look out the window, witness the birds, the hills, the sunset, listen to Beethoven, read Shakespeare and realise there is a God. Or read Dawkins and cry yourself to sleep.

[@jimmcdonald587]

Hahahahaha! What can you expect from a thing named wungybangy.

[@wungabunga]

@ Catch yourself on!

[@jimmcdonald587]

@@wungabunga ... hahahahha haha ... something called a wunklybunkly.

[@willrich3908]

not much here you couldn't learn from wikipedia tbh.

[@BluePhoenix476513]

Yeah, Shakespeare was such a genius he learned languages he wasn't trained in, countries he never traveled too, his children were illiterate, and his monument in Stratford had bags of grain switched out for a pen and quill. Shenanigans. These writings came from a group of writers with access to the aristocracy.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

You don’t know what languages he was trained in, got everything wrong about foreign countries, there’s no evidence that his daughters were illiterate and evidence that the older one could both read and write, and his monument never depicted a grain sack. Shakespeare was literally a groom extraordinary of the chamber to King James. Just how much access to the aristocracy do you think he needed to depict the nobility on stage?

[@John-u4o2d]

source of Shakespeare's inspiration ? The same as for many other great artists : young boys.

[@DrSamLopez]

Not to detract in the least from Shakespeare's contribution to world literature but, comparatively, it is clear the Anglosphere has overblown his literary prowess. Playwrights from the Spanish Golden Age could produce the entire Shakespearean output in a month! Such comparisons may certainly be odious and barren, but someone had to temper the overenthusiasm and ethnocentrism displayed by so many academics in the English speaking world. :0)

[@helennoakes3675]

Your comment is so interesting. As a Greek, I wonder whether European and American theater would exist if my ancient ancestors hadn't invented it. I'm glad that so many nations had embraced their invention as I truly enjoy reading and attending performances all over the world. The theatrical seems to be part of almost every culture. Each adapts its presentations to accommodate its social norms.

[@DrSamLopez]

@@helennoakes3675 I tend to agree with you. Difficult to find any manifestations of Western art, literature, theatre and letters than a Greek did not foreshadow in the Classic past. Giants build on the work of the giants that went before. Certain cultures resist cross pollination, however. The Greeks were more exporters of culture, than importers of it. At least, that is the received knowledge. Likewise, the English-speaking world tends to both resist outside influence and deny any outside debts. There is no doubt the Hispanosphere has embraced Shakespeare, and it is the richer for it, but the Anglosphere as a whole (generalizations are odious, as the saying goes) usually refuses to return the compliment, as far as Spanish letters are concerned. Keep well!

[@sphinxtheeminx]

What makes Shakespeare so great? That he was born Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Do some joined-up thinking.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

If he were Edward de Vere, that would just make him a profligate, a pederast, a coward, a murderer, and a mediocre poet. Being born the impecunious Earl would have doomed him to be remembered only as a butt of jokes.

[@richardmorgan8079]

Got it in one ❤!

[@kjwolfgramm]

He wasn’t. He was born William Shakespeare the son of John Shakespeare.

[@retribution999]

Strange you failed to mention the controversy over Shakespeare's true identity.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

Why introduce crackpots into the discussion?

[@kjwolfgramm]

There is no controversy. The anti-Stratford theory is not taken serious by Shakespeare scholars.

[@retribution999]

@kjwolfgramm just because a group of scholars don't take it seriously doesn't mean there is no controversy. It just means they have no interest or see no value in pursuing it. They like things just the way they are. Similarly I'm happy to believe in Father Christmas and have no time for those who say he doesn't descend my chimney with gifts each year.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@ Comparing those who believe in imaginary anti-Shakespeares to adults who believe in Santa is appropriate.

[@retribution999]

@Jeffhowardmeade Clearly you haven't read the evidence for the former which is overwhelming. However I totally understand the romantics being one myself.