Shakespeare Uncovered

That's a very current perspective. I understand, but I don't think it accounts for the time and circumstances of when the work was produced.

A person of limited education or training today creating a work of art is easier to assume, that's why you think the other argument is elitist.
However, that person today has easy access to previous works of art from which to draw. More importantly, a person today can produce something that was derivative of simple pop culture - TV, movies, etc. - and have it proclaimed art.

Shakespeare's plays exist within the longer history of Western literature. They make reference to and allude to Western literary traditions. That alone makes the question of authorship real, because it is so unlikely that a person of limited education could draw on that tradition to such an extent. Such a person couldn't go to the municipal library and check out a paperback copy of Sophocles from Penguin Classics, let alone look up Sophocles on the Internet.

It strains credibility. Facing that realistically is not being elitist.

On the opposite side, there should be some evidence other than lack of probability.

 

I don't see it as a current perspective - status was way more binding to them than us.
Marlowe was born to a shoemaker. Who questions his body of work?
The question of Shakespearean authorship is fun and fanciful.
That does not mean it bears any serious scrutiny.
Like whether the lunar landing was real or not.

 

Marlowe also received a scholarship to King's School and a scholarship to Corpus Christi, receiving a master's degree. That's one of the reasons his body of work isn't questioned.
He had the education necessary to produce work that demonstrates an expertise in the Western canon of literature.

I freely admit there is a lack of evidence to indicate other authorship of Shakespeare's work. I am saying that the question itself is not elitist.

It's not an issue of talent. It's an issue of demonstrated expertise within a field for which he had no formal education. The probability is exceptionally low.

A person can have exceptional talent in any endeavor - writing, math, music, athletics. But how does one have exceptional talent in a field of learned knowledge. You cannot intuit a knowledge of history through force intellect, nor can you intuit a knowledge of previous written works simply because you are a talented writer.

 

Are you referring to the portion about Shakespeare not being afforded the same level of artistic regard in his own time that he is now? If so, I think it's an apt point.

Again, though, I'm not arguing that Shakespeare didn't write the place attributed to him. I don't think there's evidence to make that claim; however, it's not elitist to question that a man of limited education could create the works he did. It's a common-sense question, and it's based on education rather than class. The two are closely entwined during his time but stil inextricable. As you mention, Marlowe a prime example because he's from the same class. The difference is, despite his class, Marlowe spent six years at Corpus Christi.

 

A segment of the PBS show visits once of the schools Shakespeare attended as a youngster and they were conjugating Latin at what appeared to be age 12 or so, and it was suggested this was the vets sort of lesson young William would have gone through back in the day.

Their notion of a "limited education" and what might pass for that today in Detroit or Arkansas are two vastly different things.

 

Buck-
We know less of Shakespeare's education than Marlowe's.
But his career we know as well as any Elizabethan playwright.
Comparatively, Chaucer's career is extraordinarily well-documented.
That Shakespeare of Stratford wrote great plays is not a matter of faith to me.
But I can admit a few discrepancies are bothersome - such as no surviving record of his funeral or burial.