Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Was Shakespeare a woman? | The Chris Hedges Report" video.

What I'm having trouble with is why people say Shakespeare was poorly educated. My understanding was that he attended a Latin school, where by the 8th grade, if pupils were caught speaking English on the premises, they were thrashed. Then he was an actor, which further trained his memory. Have people lost the sense of the immense value of an education like that? I know that even today, people in France (who I grant you speak a Romance language) tell me that if they study Latin while young, they can pick up Spanish or Italian by living in Spain or Italy for the summer. These are not linguistically talented people, just regular good students. Moreover, I don't think a recluse could have written the plays, like some of the people posting appear to believe. That an actor-director did strikes me as far more plausible.
7
@NewOrleansSeptember There was no evidence presented here, either, just speculation, accurate accounts of certain unscholarly vested interests whom we may ignore, and deft burden shifting. Who do you think has the burden of proof on the question? Her speaking style (not anything she said) made you think that those who believe Shakespeare was the author of the plays (within the meaning of the word at the time) have to prove it. Nope. She needs to show he wasn't.
5
 @Augfordpdoggie How did Martha Argerich become a polyglot without formal schooling, when she was staying up late a lot and playing piano all the time?
3
 @brianbutler3318 She politicized the issue and deftly shifted the burden of proof.
3
No she's not. She is clever at burden shifting. You missed that she presented no real evidence in this interview, apart from the indisputable fact that there are serious vested interests in not reopening the issue and reexamining the evidence. That does not change the fact that she has the burden of proof here, not those who believe Shakespeare was the playwright of those plays, within the meaning of that term at his time. (Modern notions of authorship were not current then.) These other candidates for being "the real Shakespeare" were all more powerful than he was, and England was always a class-ridden society. Why didn't they insist on placing their names on this work? Even if the theatre was considered risque, and we know it was, you would still expect the real writer(s) to whisper about it to someone, especially after a triumph.
3
@MundaSquire These other candidates for being "the real Shakespeare" were all more powerful than he was, and England was always a class-ridden society. Why didn't they insist on placing their names on this work? Even if the theatre was considered quite risque, as we know it was, you would still expect the real writer(s) to whisper about it to someone, especially after a triumph. Also, didn't Queen Elizabeth I commission one of the plays? To whom was this commission addressed?
2
Thank you. The theatre is a collective art form.
2
@MundaSquire I know about that. I don't dispute that it's possible. As for this author's interview, all I heard was clever burden shifting. She presented no real evidence in this interview, apart from the indisputable fact that there are serious vested interests in not reopening the issue and reexamining the evidence. But that is merely a political point (who's on whose side, and so forth). That does not change the fact that she has the burden of proof here, not those who believe Shakespeare was the playwright of those plays, within the meaning of that term at his time. Modern notions of authorship, copyright, and plagiarism were not current back then. I heard little above the level of gossip here, and as far as her personal "quest for the truth" is concerned, let's say she is no Janet Malcolm.
1
What I'm having trouble with is why people say Shakespeare was poorly educated. My understanding was that he attended a Latin school, where by the 8th grade, if pupils were caught speaking English on the premises, they were thrashed. Then he was an actor, which further trained his memory. Have people lost the sense of the immense value of an education like that? I know that even today, people in France (who I grant you speak a Romance language) tell me that if they study Latin while young, they can pick up Spanish or Italian by living in Spain or Italy for the summer. These are not linguistically talented people, just regular good students. Moreover, I don't think a recluse could have written the plays, like some of the people posting appear to believe. That an actor-director did strikes me as far more plausible.
1
@alkhemiegypt I've read that it's known that he did, not that it's presumed. I don't know how that could be confirmed or disproved, so I don't know why to believe your sources rather than mine. I wonder exactly what you were taught, frankly, if Latin didn't change you. Many prominent writers to this day began with a serious study of classical languages and literatures -- Latin in particular. Toni Morrison minored in it.
1
@SekhmetHeka Where is this quotation from?
1
@niemann3942 I have no way of independently evaluating those assertions. Scholars from Oxford and Cambridge assert that he went to a Latin school. What evidence they rely on is something I've never independently examined. You could provide your sources, for example. I have never said that it is categorically impossible that Shakespeare is not the true author of the plays. I agree it IS possible he didn't write the plays. I have said that those who deny that he is their author need to bear the burden of proving it. I still say that. This interview didn't come close to doing it; all she said was that Powerful Interests are opposed to reexamining the evidence. Okay. That's not impossible, either. Then what?
1
@niemann3942 Okay. I never read it, obviously.
1
Now THIS makes sense. He was not merely a playwright, but an actor, director, and producer. Could one man have done all that? Theatre is a collective art.
1
Also, as director, he was likely the final editor of the script before it was performed and during its run. Think about how screenwriting is done.
1
@gortnicktu3177 I'm not of any school. I accept that it's possible that Shakespeare did not write the plays (or at least all of the plays) attributed to him, or at the very least did not write them alone. Perfectly possible. I have not read this author's book, and have only heard her in this one interview, which amounts to clever at burden shifting. She presented no real evidence in this interview, apart from the indisputable fact that there are serious vested interests set against reopening the issue and reexamining the evidence we have. That does not change the fact that she has the burden of proof here, not those who believe Shakespeare was the playwright of those plays, within the meaning of that term in his time. (Modern notions of authorship were not current then.) These other candidates for being "the real Shakespeare" were all more powerful than he was, and England was always a class-ridden society. Why didn't they insist on placing their names on this work? Even if the theatre was considered risque, and we know it was, you would still expect the real writer(s) to whisper about it to someone, especially after a triumph. If it were to turn out that one of them was the author or principal author, I'd find that interesting. If authorship was in some sense collective, just as theatre is a collective art, that would be even more interesting. (Personally, I doubt that it wasn't collective. But that's just an opinion, and my opinion is not evidence of its truth. Laugh out loud.)
1
@gortnicktu3177 You know something else? The lionization of Shakespeare is relatively recent. No one in his day took him to be a genius. I sure hope my primary reply, above, is visible.
1
@gortnicktu3177 You think you know what his last days were like, and what he said? Reminds me of people who insist Socrates and Plato had s3xual relations.
1
@gortnicktu3177 What were the laws for bequeath of intellectual property back then? Did anyone else's will bequeath those plays, or any others?
1
@Nullifidian Thought as much. :) So it is not a case of "the dog didn't bark." ;)
1
These other candidates for being "the real Shakespeare" were all more powerful than he was, and England was always a class-ridden society. Why didn't they insist on placing their names on this work? Even if the theatre was slightly risque, you would still have the real writer(s) whisper to someone, especially after a triumph. See? I can think critically. 😉
1
But Shakespeare did do vastly more than write the plays: he was an actor, director, and producer. Authorship had a different meaning before modern copyright laws and plagiarism conventions. The plays, or at least most of them, were probably a collective effort to one extent or another, and Shakespeare, as director, made the final cut.
1
@greatopinionator6146 THANK YOU for this. (In case you have the stats on Victor Hugo, please share!)
1