Comments on: Sight-Seeing Shakespeare http://www.bardblog.com/sight-seeing-shakespeare/ Quips, Quibbles, Queries, and Quarks from a Quirky Bardolator Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:07:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Michael http://www.bardblog.com/sight-seeing-shakespeare/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Michael Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:11:53 +0000 http://www.bardblog.com/sight-seeing-shakespeare/#comment-168 I'm a bit of an authorship controversy fan, and one interesting myth that really ought to get punctured in the idea that Shakespeare is very poorly documented. Actually, we have some 70 personal documents extant that corroborate his activities: records of tax defaulting, graindealing, moneylending, tithe-purchasing, property transactions, theatrical shareholding, etc. What is weird about them is that none of them are literary - there's nothing from his life that documents his profession as a writer - the attribution rests on posthumous evidence. If there were, the authorship controversy would have to go away. What's even weirder is that we have literary evidence from the lives of all the other major writers of his day - even from the ones who don't have half the documentation. So we have to do a lot of "supposing" - hey, he could have gone to Italy, why not? He "could have" done a lot of things. But the strange absence of a paper trail is the beginning of the weirdness. The authorship controversy is not just a geek's obsession anymore (well, to be honest, it is still that for some, and always will be) - it's got Ph.Ds working on it, and university symposia checking it out, etc. For further info, here's a non-profit to explore: www.shakespearefellowship.org Like the blog - have fun! Michael I’m a bit of an authorship controversy fan, and one interesting myth that really ought to get punctured in the idea that Shakespeare is very poorly documented. Actually, we have some 70 personal documents extant that corroborate his activities: records of tax defaulting, graindealing, moneylending, tithe-purchasing, property transactions, theatrical shareholding, etc. What is weird about them is that none of them are literary – there’s nothing from his life that documents his profession as a writer – the attribution rests on posthumous evidence. If there were, the authorship controversy would have to go away. What’s even weirder is that we have literary evidence from the lives of all the other major writers of his day – even from the ones who don’t have half the documentation. So we have to do a lot of “supposing” – hey, he could have gone to Italy, why not?

He “could have” done a lot of things. But the strange absence of a paper trail is the beginning of the weirdness. The authorship controversy is not just a geek’s obsession anymore (well, to be honest, it is still that for some, and always will be) – it’s got Ph.Ds working on it, and university symposia checking it out, etc. For further info, here’s a non-profit to explore: http://www.shakespearefellowship.org

Like the blog – have fun!

Michael

]]>