# The Shakespeare Answer Wasn't Good Enough **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 16, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495 "2005-10-16T19:00:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/1 "2005-10-16T19:00:37Z")
Referencing the recent article [Why is William Shakespeare considered the greatest English language writer of all time?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/051014.html) While Shakespeare’s use of language is commendable, it is not solely for his use of language that causes English teachers to require of students that they read his works, nor is is solely his ability to embed deeper meaning in seemingly simple phrases that causes us to put him on top of the pantheon of writers. Unfortunately, the article fails to answer the question asked. Part of what causes particular authors to be studied has to do with the development of the language at a given time. In this regard, Shakespeare really stands out. Simply comparing what he wrote with what else was written at the time shows why he is taught: not even the talents of playwrights like Marlowe, or poets like Nashe are sufficient to overcome the amazing use of language attributed to Shakespeare. So, to some extent, he was an artist who pushed the boundaries of his art at the time; he wasn’t just producing a contemporary version of Thomas Kincade. Shakespeare also was able with his writing to convey deep meanings and rich contexts. His sonnets force one to think to understand them; compare the easily read, pleasant, but hardly deep Sonnet 64 from _Amoretti_ by Spenser to the much more deep Sonnet 130 of Shakespeare. His fertile mind was apparently constantly looking for analogies and metaphors to make his points; an example that made me chuckle was the famous beginning to Scene 2 of Act III in _King Lear_: _Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks!_ Which, of course, is intended to bring to mind the typical illustration of the “four winds” on a map of the time as faces in clouds, blowing at the land. Almost all of the writers that are extensively studied in literature have to some degree this ability, which, admittedly, does not make them easy reads. Perhaps the greatest single piece of English literature ever written (in my humble opinion), _A Modest Proposal_, by Jonathan Swift, is almost never seen gracing the end tables of most houses. Indeed, most who become acquainted with the work find it detestable; they, of course, have utterly failed to pierce the simplist layer of deceit. Small wonder they aren’t then clamouring for a leather-bound edition of _Gulliver’s Travels_ to put on the coffee table. Influence upon other, later writers is another measure of the greatness of an author. In this, Shakespeare excells beyond most any other English author. So many quotes from his works are at the tips of our tongues, worked into the speeches and writings of the past 400 years. If imitation is, indeed, a form of flattery, then Shakespeare must be considered quite flattered. Admittedly, having 400 years of time in which to be inspirational gives him an advantage over, say, Faulkner. But one cannot deny this aspect of his works. It is also quite silly to assert that the stories of his plays are not attributable to him, simply because he was reworking older story concepts. Do we see the story of Pyramus and Thisbe endlessly repeated in numerous versions? Was the fact that Shakespeare repackaged the story in Romeo and Juliet enough for us to say that the story of Romeo and Juliet isn’t Shakespeare’s? Do we have any belief that _West Side Story_ would have existed as anything like it was written if _Romeo and Juliet_ hadn’t been written? Frankly, as we are reminded during the current season of “reality” TV shows and endless remakes/sequels in the movie theaters, timeless tales and whatnot are not a dime a dozen. But perhaps the most important point to make in favor of the assertion that Shakespeare is the greatest English language author is that we continue to read, play, produce, quote, and find relevance in more of his works 400 years after they were written than any other single author the language has produced. Dickens? Bah, a mere wannabe. Tolkein? Hah! A one-hit wonder. Joyce? Hell, he didn’t even USE the English language comprehensibly (ok, I admit, I only bring him up to make a silly joke). Do we continue to view Shakespeare’s works solely because of some elite that forces them upon us? Hardly. _Henry V_ by Kenneth Branagh was moderately successful as a movie in the United States, where people hardly go to theaters solely at the insistence of some sort of critical elite. Various towns have highly successful Shakespeare festivals, high schools routinely produce Shakespeare plays at the choice of the participants, as much as at the insistence of the drama teacher. Would the average high school student simply pick up _Othello_ and start thumbing through the pages? No, of course not, but the typical high school student these days doesn’t even pick up most any book more complicated than a collection of jokes from _The Simpsons_, preferring almost anything visual. If that were the measure of greatness, then not even Tom Clancy would be getting any help. In the end, Shakespeare was great for numerous reasons, reasons we have difficulty applying to any other single author. To some extent, comparing Shakespeare with, say, Dickens is apples and oranges; the result of your question will depend upon your definition. Still in making a case for Shakespeare, one should do more than point out a couple measly examples of his wit in action and say, “See?” ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/2 "2005-10-16T19:25:58Z")
Yeah but, it’s _Cecil_, DS. He’s writing a quickie column for a newspaper. You expect Unc to deliver a closely-reasoned 1,000-word essay? (Nice essay, BTW.) It’s like you’re suggesting that he do _homework_ or somethin’, man. For _English class_. Get real, dude. He doesn’t get paid enough for that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/3 "2005-10-16T19:51:13Z")
> [@Duck Duck Goose](#): > > Yeah but, it’s _Cecil_, DS. He’s writing a quickie column for a newspaper. You expect Unc to deliver a closely-reasoned 1,000-word essay? (Nice essay, BTW.) > > It’s like you’re suggesting that he do _homework_ or somethin’, man. For _English class_. > > Get real, dude. He doesn’t get paid enough for that. > > 😃 “He” does get paid enough to make a few more points than “he” did, and in recent columns, “he” has. 😃 Thank you for the compliment. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/4 "2005-10-16T20:01:17Z")
**DSYoungEsq**. You _do_ realize that your ‘essay’ will force me to report you to Dex as a potential writer-of-Staff-Reports, don’t you? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/5 "2005-10-16T20:54:26Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > **DSYoungEsq**. You _do_ realize that your ‘essay’ will force me to report you to Dex as a potential writer-of-Staff-Reports, don’t you? 🙂 Do I get a rebate on my membership fee?? 😃 I do defy anyone putting me in a category as “expert” on anything… 😛 ---
**Author:** ![George\_Hynes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4bbf92/32.png) [@George\_Hynes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Hynes)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/6 "2005-10-23T03:17:18Z")
If I understand it correctly, the question asked is a nonsense in the sense that time has not yet come to a standstill, neither is it possible to fully take in the full extent of all English Writings through the ages. I understand that Shakespeare is considered by many to be the greatest English language writer of all time and I surely do not want to distress these people however, please note that the English spoken and written during Shakespeare’s time would be almost incomprehensible to us today and would almost qualify as a seperate language. Does this then broaden the scope to scripts and languages that have been translated into English? Could it mean that Mao’s little Red Book, of which there is an English language version, by virtue of so many people having read it becomes the greatest read book which has an English translation? I think not. Consideration must also be given to the Bible, which has been around for centuries longer than any Shakespeare manuscripts, and is taught in schools also. Could the English language version of the Bible, since it contains a lot of our laws and ways of life, be viewed as the greatest English Translated book in the world and would this in turn mean that God, as the authour of the Bible, is an Englishman? (I am British and must be allowed a little conceit) Seriousl though if the above does not apply then I do agree that Henry V and various others such as Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello make great books and cinema but sometimes I fear that the subtleties and subtexts that Shakepeare wove into his plays is lost on most of todays readers. For instance imagine in the aftermath of the terroist attrocities that were committed on 9/11 someone writes a play that starts with Osama Bin Laden being approached by the UN for help in finding proof that the American (U.S.A.) Administration is corrupt and brought about the very terroist attrocities that were committed. That reflects a little bit of how much audiences would have been shocked during the aftermath of the Witch Hunts in England to be confronted with Witches, reputedly chanting an actual spell. Dont forget that Shakespeare, if he had been playing any of the parts himself, would have had a right Brummie like accent like and it may have been preferable to have a.n.other doing the performing. I also believe that Marlowe, assuming he was not Shakespeare also, because of his early death would have had an excellent chance of competing alongside Shakespeare (reference Dr Faustus and Tamburlaine the Great) and could only have improved with age. Interesting, is it not that a week before his death, Marlowe, who according to some worked with Shakespeare, had a warrant issued by the Church’s Star Chamber for the poet’s arrest on charges of heresy, which carried the death penalty. Both men were spies and secret agents for Walsingham, his killer, Frizer, pleaded self-defence and immediately received a Royal pardon from Queen Elizabeth. Marlowe lived between 1564 -1593. William Shakespeare lived between 1564 - 1616, their writing styles were extremely similar especially their use of Blank Verse. Was he really killed? Did he perhaps write some of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare? It is up to you humble reader to make up your mind. George Hynes Cambridge ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/7 "2005-10-23T09:54:13Z")
> [@George Hynes](#): > > If I understand it correctly, the question asked is a nonsense in the sense that time has not yet come to a standstill, neither is it possible to fully take in the full extent of all English Writings through the ages. > > I understand that Shakespeare is considered by many to be the greatest English language writer of all time and I surely do not want to distress these people however, please note that the English spoken and written during Shakespeare’s time would be almost incomprehensible to us today and would almost qualify as a seperate language. Does this then broaden the scope to scripts and languages that have been translated into English? Could it mean that Mao’s little Red Book, of which there is an English language version, by virtue of so many people having read it becomes the greatest read book which has an English translation? I think not. > > Consideration must also be given to the Bible, which has been around for centuries longer than any Shakespeare manuscripts, and is taught in schools also. Could the English language version of the Bible, since it contains a lot of our laws and ways of life, be viewed as the greatest English Translated book in the world and would this in turn mean that God, as the authour of the Bible, is an Englishman? (I am British and must be allowed a little conceit) > > Seriousl though if the above does not apply then I do agree that Henry V and various others such as Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello make great books and cinema but sometimes I fear that the subtleties and subtexts that Shakepeare wove into his plays is lost on most of todays readers. For instance imagine in the aftermath of the terroist attrocities that were committed on 9/11 someone writes a play that starts with Osama Bin Laden being approached by the UN for help in finding proof that the American (U.S.A.) Administration is corrupt and brought about the very terroist attrocities that were committed. That reflects a little bit of how much audiences would have been shocked during the aftermath of the Witch Hunts in England to be confronted with Witches, reputedly chanting an actual spell. > > Dont forget that Shakespeare, if he had been playing any of the parts himself, would have had a right Brummie like accent like and it may have been preferable to have a.n.other doing the performing. I also believe that Marlowe, assuming he was not Shakespeare also, because of his early death would have had an excellent chance of competing alongside Shakespeare (reference Dr Faustus and Tamburlaine the Great) and could only have improved with age. Interesting, is it not that a week before his death, Marlowe, who according to some worked with Shakespeare, had a warrant issued by the Church’s Star Chamber for the poet’s arrest on charges of heresy, which carried the death penalty. Both men were spies and secret agents for Walsingham, his killer, Frizer, pleaded self-defence and immediately received a Royal pardon from Queen Elizabeth. Marlowe lived between 1564 -1593. William Shakespeare lived between 1564 - 1616, their writing styles were extremely similar especially their use of Blank Verse. Was he really killed? Did he perhaps write some of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare? > > It is up to you humble reader to make up your mind. > > George Hynes > > Cambridge Yeah, Kit Marlowe also wrote the Fairy Queen, Paradise Lost, Principia Mathematica, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Oliver Twist, Ulysses and the pilot episode of Lost. (His work as a spy brought him into contact with the eccentric inventor of an elixir for immortality.) The English written in Shakespeare’s day is unintelligible to us? That must account for the fact that all his works have to be translated into Modern English before they can be published. It’s a completely different language, after all. In short, Shakespeare’s works were, astonishingly, written by Shakespeare. (I know because a guy called William of Occam told me.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/8 "2005-10-23T17:48:45Z")
> [@George Hynes](#): > > If I understand it correctly, the question asked is a nonsense in the sense that time has not yet come to a standstill, neither is it possible to fully take in the full extent of all English Writings through the ages. An amusing, albeit rather silly quibble. > [@George Hynes](#): > > I understand that Shakespeare is considered by many to be the greatest English language writer of all time and I surely do not want to distress these people however, please note that the English spoken and written during Shakespeare’s time would be almost incomprehensible to us today and would almost qualify as a seperate language. Self-evident rubbish. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Does this then broaden the scope to scripts and languages that have been translated into English? Could it mean that Mao’s little Red Book, of which there is an English language version, by virtue of so many people having read it becomes the greatest read book which has an English translation? I think not. > > Consideration must also be given to the Bible, which has been around for centuries longer than any Shakespeare manuscripts, and is taught in schools also. Could the English language version of the Bible, since it contains a lot of our laws and ways of life, be viewed as the greatest English Translated book in the world and would this in turn mean that God, as the authour of the Bible, is an Englishman? (I am British and must be allowed a little conceit) _Which_ “English Bible”, pray? Don’t tell me you are a follower of the newspaper that castigated Dorothy L. Sayers for following the Greek Gospels in preference to “the Sacred English Original”. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Seriousl though if the above does not apply then I do agree that Henry V and various others such as Macbeth, Hamlet, and Othello make great books and cinema but sometimes I fear that the subtleties and subtexts that Shakepeare wove into his plays is lost on most of todays readers. For instance imagine in the aftermath of the terroist attrocities that were committed on 9/11 someone writes a play that starts with Osama Bin Laden being approached by the UN for help in finding proof that the American (U.S.A.) Administration is corrupt and brought about the very terroist attrocities that were committed. That reflects a little bit of how much audiences would have been shocked during the aftermath of the Witch Hunts in England to be confronted with Witches, reputedly chanting an actual spell. …which is a very nice explanation of why “Babylon 5” is the best American TV show, but has little to do with Shakespeare’s greatness. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Dont forget that Shakespeare, if he had been playing any of the parts himself, would have had a right Brummie like accent like and it may have been preferable to have a.n.other doing the performing. We have all kinds of testimony that Shakespeare was one of the chief actors in the King’s Men. > [@George Hynes](#): > > I also believe that Marlowe, assuming he was not Shakespeare also, He wasn’t. > [@George Hynes](#): > > …because of his early death would have had an excellent chance of competing alongside Shakespeare (reference Dr Faustus and Tamburlaine the Great) and could only have improved with age. Marlowe was a better poet than Shakespeare was when Marlowe died, but Shakespeare was already a better playwright. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Interesting, is it not that a week before his death, Marlowe, who according to some worked with Shakespeare, had a warrant issued by the Church’s Star Chamber for the poet’s arrest on charges of heresy, which carried the death penalty. Both men were spies and secret agents for Walsingham, his killer, Frizer, pleaded self-defence and immediately received a Royal pardon from Queen Elizabeth. Marlowe lived between 1564 -1593. William Shakespeare lived between 1564 - 1616, their writing styles were extremely similar especially their use of Blank Verse. Not particularly, unless you mean that they both used blank verse, which is about as informative as saying that Black Sabbath and the Carpenters both use V[sup]7[/sup] chords. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Was he really killed? Yes. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Did he perhaps write some of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare? No. ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/9 "2005-10-23T19:15:24Z")
Dammit, I know all the anti-Stratfordian arguments are senseless fluff, but at the same time I’m drawn to the Marlovian theory. There’s just something _so cool_ about a spy who fakes his own death so he can go underground on the Continent and _write plays_. ---
**Author:** ![Foaming\_Cleanser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Foaming\_Cleanser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foaming_Cleanser)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/10 "2005-10-23T20:20:25Z")
According to Clare Asquith’s Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare, he was a Catholic dissident, and she compares Shakespeare to anti-Communist rebels of the Soviet era. The Canadian magazine Maclean’s has [this](http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050801_110172_110172) August book review about it, and the article touches on Asquith’s description of a police state under Elizabeth I. If Asquith’s argument holds water, it’s unlikely anyone using Shakespeare as a pen name would have been a solid backer of protestantism, which could shorten the list of possible authors for those who doubt that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. One of the examples given: > [@](#): > > A simple example is a passage that many observers have long believed to contain a typographical error, the line of poetry in Sonnet 23 that goes: “More than that love which more hath more expressed.” On the surface, it does not make sense – until Asquith realized it was a pun. "It should read, ‘More than that love which More hath more expressed,’ " she says – a reference to Sir Thomas More, the chancellor and Catholic saint beheaded by Henry VIII for refusing to take the oath of supremacy recognizing the monarch and not the pope as head of the Church in England. > [@](#): > > “Even if only half of Clare Asquith’s argument turns out to be correct,” Cambridge historian and biographer John Guy has written, “she’s written the most visceral, challenging, and compelling book on Shakespeare’s place in history we’ve had for over twenty years.” And if it all turns out to be correct, she will have single-handedly turned the mighty citadel of Shakespearean scholarship on its head. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/11 "2005-10-24T14:24:34Z")
> [@Tracy Lord](#): > > Dammit, I know all the anti-Stratfordian arguments are senseless fluff, but at the same time I’m drawn to the Marlovian theory. There’s just something _so cool_ about a spy who fakes his own death so he can go underground on the Continent and _write plays_. “It would be so cool” cuts no ice with historians. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/12 "2005-10-24T14:42:14Z")
> [@Foaming Cleanser](#): > > According to Clare Asquith’s Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare, he was a Catholic dissident, and she compares Shakespeare to anti-Communist rebels of the Soviet era. > > The Canadian magazine Maclean’s has [this](http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050801_110172_110172) August book review about it, and the article touches on Asquith’s description of a police state under Elizabeth I. It’s early days, yet, but most scholars don’t seem to think much of her book. Note that it is _not_ a new suggestion that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic. But there is as much evidence that he wasn’t as that he was, in both the biographical data and the works. > [@Foaming Cleanser](#): > > If Asquith’s argument holds water, it’s unlikely anyone using Shakespeare as a pen name would have been a solid backer of protestantism, which could shorten the list of possible authors for those who doubt that Shakespeare was Shakespeare. Who are all outright nutcases, anyway. > [@Foaming Cleanser](#): > > One of the examples given: > > > [@](#): > > > > A simple example is a passage that many observers have long believed to contain a typographical error, the line of poetry in Sonnet 23 that goes: “More than that love which more hath more expressed.” Actually, it’s “tongue”, not “love”. > [@Foaming Cleanser](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > On the surface, it does not make sense Errr…, actually, yes it does. > [@Foaming Cleanser](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > – until Asquith realized it was a pun. "It should read, ‘More than that love which More hath more expressed,’ " she says – a reference to Sir Thomas More, the chancellor and Catholic saint beheaded by Henry VIII for refusing to take the oath of supremacy recognizing the monarch and not the pope as head of the Church in England. …which has only the slight problem of having absobloodylutely nothing to do with the rest of the poem. > [@Foaming Cleanser](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > “Even if only half of Clare Asquith’s argument turns out to be correct,” Cambridge historian and biographer John Guy has written, “she’s written the most visceral, challenging, and compelling book on Shakespeare’s place in history we’ve had for over twenty years.” And if it all turns out to be correct, she will have single-handedly turned the mighty citadel of Shakespearean scholarship on its head. Though Guy is not without credentials, [this page _from his own personal website_](http://www.johnguy.co.uk/biography.php) does not particularly inspire one with hope for his objectivity. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/13 "2005-10-24T14:54:24Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > “It would be so cool” cuts no ice with historians. Sure, but it cuts a lot of “ice” with writers of alternate history fiction, such as Harry Turtledove. And alternate history is just as true. And by true, I mean false. They’re all lies. But they’re entertaining lies. And in the end, isn’t that the real truth? The answer is: No. ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/14 "2005-10-24T15:27:33Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Joyce? Hell, he didn’t even USE the English language comprehensibly (ok, I admit, I only bring him up to make a silly joke). Eh? What joke? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Tracy\_Lord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@Tracy\_Lord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tracy_Lord)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/15 "2005-10-24T15:37:09Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > “It would be so cool” cuts no ice with historians. Well, duh, nor literary scholars neither. Which doesn’t stop one (and by “one” I mean “me”) from reading Marlovian books/articles and reacting with “oh, you poor deluded souls…but damn, that would be AWESOME!” ---
**Author:** ![George\_Hynes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4bbf92/32.png) [@George\_Hynes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Hynes)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/16 "2005-10-25T02:44:11Z")
O.K. I admit it it was a fairly shabby first stab and it was something like 4.00 a.m. here in sunny old Blighty. By the way just on vocabulary alone Shakespeare does not have any comparison, as far as I know. The average vocabulary of Joe Public (UK) is approx 2,000 words. One or two of these words being used rather a lot. I guess this means the average vocabulary of Joe Public (USA) is between 5 and 1,500. The total vocabulary used by Shakespeare was over 26,000 words. Surely enough to fill a small dictionary in itself. In answer to some of the queries my rather silly earlier contribution raised. John W Kennedy 1. ``` I refer to the NIV bible (Nearly Inaccurate Version). ``` 2. What is Babylon 5? aldiboronti 3. ``` Is this the same elixir of mortality that was last reported being guarded by a group of married men in order to keep their wive's hands off it so they can live out their natural lifespan? ``` 4. ``` Seriously the English language, except in USA is constantly evolving and changing. In recent years there has been the advent of Estuary English. I personally know some people who still speak in Cockney Rhyming Slang. I am also fairly sure that although most Scots read and write English they most certainly do not speak the English language. Add to this the Queens English which is taught in most of the far flung corners of the world including USA and I hope you would agree that on any given day, when hearing various locals speaking in modern day Britain, you may be pardoned for thinking you were in another country. ``` e.g., a common greeting between two men meeting on the street in Belfast, other than “are you a Taig or a Prod?” may be “what about ye?” whereas in the Midlands, where Shakespeare originated it would more likely be “All right me ducks?” Not to mention Scotland where the weeans and the bairns are greeting ye ken? Oddly enough, it is more likely to be the USA that a lot of the English language used by Shakespeare, which has fallen out of use in the UK, may still be heard and better understood, since the English language has changed a lot slower there than here. E.g., an old English description for Autumn was “leaf fall” and an old English description for mountainous, or fast flowing river was “creek”. There are thousands more such examples. See how many you guys can come up with. George Hynes P.S. In the celebrated hymn, Jerusalem, which is beloved in England, Jesus really was an Englishman. (Tongue in cheek) I’m off to bed now, catch you later. George Hynes P.P.S. Bet you didn’t know that bed was one of the thousands of words that Shakespeare invented? George Hynes ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/17 "2005-10-25T04:23:06Z")
> [@George Hynes](#): > > By the way just on vocabulary alone Shakespeare does not have any comparison, as far as I know. The average vocabulary of Joe Public (UK) is approx 2,000 words. One or two of these words being used rather a lot. I guess this means the average vocabulary of Joe Public (USA) is between 5 and 1,500. Actually, that’s just the number of vacabulary words used to communicate, and I would guess it’s just a little low. But the average adult, whether in the UK or the US, probably has a vocabulary of words that they recognize of 10-15,000 words. > [@George Hynes](#): > > the total vocabulary used by Shakespeare was over 26,000 words. Surely enough to fill a small dictionary in itself. But Shakespeare probably got by on a spoken day-to-day vocabulary of the same 2-5,000 words of todays modern adult. > [@George Hynes](#): > > ``` > Seriously the English language, except in USA is constantly evolving and changing. > > ``` Why is it stagnant in the US? I’d love to see a cite to back up your contention. > [@George Hynes](#): > > Bet you didn’t know that bed was one of the thousands of words that Shakespeare invented? Which meaning of “bed?” you only have about 100 to choose from. If you mean the bed we all sleep on today, that appears in the 900’s. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/18 "2005-10-25T08:22:17Z")
> [@George Hynes](#): > > Bet you didn’t know that bed was one of the thousands of words that Shakespeare invented? Of all the senses of the noun _bed_ in the OED only one gives Shakespeare as the earliest cite. **Bed** , 14 A layer of small animals, especially reptiles, congregrated thickly in some particular spot. Cf. _nest_ in a similar sense. 1608 Pericles IV, ii, 155 Thunder shall not so awake the beds of eels. Note also that you (or your source) are making the common error of supposing that because an author has the earliest cite for a particular word then he or she must have originated it. That is not a safe assumption. As a poster at the [SHAKSPER bulletin board](http://www.shaksper.net/archives/1995/0740.html) writes: “One should not assume that _any_ Shakespeare citation in the OED was a coinage. If it were possible to construct such a list, we would probably find that Shakespeare coined many words–but the list could be surprisingly small, comprised chiefly of compound-formations. Spenser, Marston, Florio, and others are sometimes cited or ridiculed by their contemporaries as the coiners of fire-new words; I do not recall any instance in which Shakespeare was ridiculed on the same grounds.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/19 "2005-10-25T14:42:18Z")
> [@George Hynes](#): > > What is Babylon 5? US television series of the 1990’s, set in a 23rd-century artificial city built in deep space at the confluence of five interstellar empires. Remarkable in several respects:[ul] [li]In spite of being a science-fiction production made in Hollywood, every year was produced under budget.[/li][li]It was the first large-scale use of Computer Generated Imagery in television.[/li][li]The plot for the entire five years that the series ran was worked out in advance. Actions had consequences, and some developments were foreshadowed years in advance.[/li][li]Over ninety of the 110 episodes were written by one man.[/li][li]One of the principle subplots was a full-blown formal tragedy.[/li][/ul]In short, it was Art with a capital _A_ in a way that no other US television series has been. Not that any of that explains what I meant, but explaining exactly what I meant would involve some fairly massive spoilers. The show is available on DVD in the US and the UK, and is well worth the investment of money and time. See [The Lurker’s Guide to Babylon 5](http://www.midwinter.com/lurk) for further information. > [@George Hynes](#): > > In the celebrated hymn, Jerusalem, which is beloved in England, Jesus really was an Englishman. Not precisely. The substance of the Glastonbury Myth is that Joseph of Arimathea was a tin trader, and Jesus spent some of the “missing years” in Britain (not “England”, which wouldn’t exist for half a millennium yet) as his apprentice. – John W. Kennedy “Babylon 5 was the last of the Babylon stations. There would never be another. It changed the future … and it changed us. It taught us that we have to create the future … or others will do it for us. It showed us that we have care for one another, because if we don’t, who will? And that true strength sometimes comes from the most unlikely places. Mostly, though, I think it gave us hope … that there can always be new beginnings … even for people like us.” ---
**Author:** ![George\_Hynes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4bbf92/32.png) [@George\_Hynes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Hynes)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495/20 "2005-10-25T19:53:18Z")
Samclem, You are a Diamond Geezer who is so sharp you probably cut yourself when you are shaving. You probably move move in slightly more elevated company than myself. I still reckon that the average vocabulary of most people these days is approx 2,000 words. You are probably right when you claim that most people would at least recognize a further 5 - 10,000 words but would they know what they meant? On the subject of the evolving English language. I did not by any means intend to suggest that the language is not also evolving in the USA. What I meant was that it is probably evolving faster in the UK because we tend to be have more integration with people from other ethnicities, not to mention the indigenous populations of the Scots, Irish, Welsh and English who have been travelling on an ever divergent path for a lot longer than any particular people group in USA. I did mean the bed the bed that one sleeps in and admit that I may have got that one wrong. > [@samclem](#): > > Actually, that’s just the number of vacabulary words used to communicate, and I would guess it’s just a little low. But the average adult, whether in the UK or the US, probably has a vocabulary of words that they recognize of 10-15,000 words. > > But Shakespeare probably got by on a spoken day-to-day vocabulary of the same 2-5,000 words of todays modern adult. > > Why is it stagnant in the US? I’d love to see a cite to back up your contention. > > Which meaning of “bed?” you only have about 100 to choose from. If you mean the bed we all sleep on today, that appears in the 900’s. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shakespeare-answer-wasnt-good-enough/326495.md?page=2)