Good to hear someone stating the truth “there is no proof of anything from the man from Stratford, everyone is just guessing”. But the Stratfordians would love for you to believe them.
Kastan's response to the first questioner's question (regarding why we have nothing written about the personal life of the Stratford "Shakspere" during his lifetime and in the years following his death) is entirely unsatisfactory and, in fact, disingenuous. Kastan's excuse for this glaring lack is that playwrights in the Early Modern period were akin to the screenwriters of today's movies-the implicaiton being that they were for all practical purposes anonymous. (Incidentally, equating Elizabethan playwrights with today's screenwriters is a classic example of the Historical Fallacy.) There are two problems with Kastan's explanation. *First,* "Shake-speare" (the literary figure) was not just a playwright. In fact, the earliest literary output of his that was published during the lifetime of the Stratford "Shakspere" were the two long poems, "Venus and Adonis" (1593) and "The Rape of Lucrece" (1594), and later, the Sonnets (1609). So, the literary "Shake-speare" was initially a poet, and would have been known as such by his contemporaries from these three published works, if not by anything else of a literary nature (such as the plays). If the Stratford "Shakspere" was the author of these literary works, he would have received at least some attention during his lifetime, and would have been mentioned in some document as a literary figure. *Second,* other poet-playwrights who were contemporaries of the Stratford "Shakspere", such as Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, and Thomas Middleton, have well-documented lives. The Scottish poet William Drummond wrote extensively in his diary about Ben Jonson when the latter spent Christmas with him in 1618 at Hawthornden Castle, and the two men kept up an ongoing correspondence thereafter. Similarly, there is a extant manuscript of a document by one of Elizabeth I's spies, Richard Baines, accusing Marlowe of endorsing atheism and homosexuality. These are just some of the many documented references to Elizabethan playwrights by their contemporaries. So, it is patently false that playwrights in Elizabethan and Jacobean England were behind-the-scenes figures, largely anonymous and unknown to the public, about whom nothing was written during their lifetimes. The plain fact is that the Stratford "Shakspere" was not a literary figure of any sort and was in fact of no public interest whatsoever, and that is the reason why so little is known about his personal life.
Then explain why Archibald Armstrong, John Weever, Leonard Digges, Thomas Screvins, John Ward, Richard Hunt, William Davenant, Ben Jonson, John Davies, Thomas Freeman, Nicholas Okes, Nathaniel Butter, John Stow, Edmund Howes, William Basse, James Mabbe, Hugh Holland, John Heminges and Henry Condell all identified the poet, actor, and gentleman William Shakespeare as being from Stratford-upon-Avon? Why did William Shakespeare have those early poems (he had already been mentioned as a playwright, by the way) printed by a guy who grew up around the corner from him in Stratford? Why did he include details about people, places, and events in and around Stratford in his plays? Why was a monument identifying him as a great poet installed over his grave within a couple of years of his death? You like to point to what's missing after 400 years, but you ignore all the evidence that exists. Why is that?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Everything that you have raised has been answered or refuted adequately by dozens of scholars in thousands of published and unpublished works. Here on RUclips there is a plethora of lectures, discussions, and presentations that provide a more than adequate response to your objections. See, in particular, the extensive work of Alexander Waugh on the subject of Shakespeare authorship. There can be no doubt (except in the minds of die-hard supporters of the Stratford man) that "Shakspere" was not the author of anything that is currently attributed to him.
@@MichaelMendis If that's true, then go ahead and refute any one of the things I've mentioned. How about this one: in about 1618, poet John Weever visited Stratford and copied down the inscription on Shakespeare's funerary monument. He titled this entry in his notebook "Willm Shakspeare the famous poet." This is the same John Weever who, two decades earlier, wrote an epigram to Shakespeare, calling him "honie-tong'd", so there can be no doubt that he knew who Shakespeare was. He said Shakespeare was the guy from Stratford. Go ahead and refute that, if you can.
@@mississaugataekwondo8946 in the 1556 engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar based on a terrible sketch by Robert Dugdale, the pen and paper are missing. That can easily be explained by the fact that the quill pen is an actual goose quill which can be removed, and the paper is lying flat, easily missed in a dark church. What ISN'T missing from any depiction of the monument is the pillow with the tassels found on many such monuments to learned men, the scholar's subfusc gown, and the inscription describing Shakespeare as a great poet. I can explain what's missing. Can you explain what's there?
Well. Shakespeare is dead. Right? So... what the flying frig did you expect? It's a talk about dead people. Obviously. A fascinating talk about dead people. If you want living people, why not listen to a talk about living people?
Skip to 8:30 -- that is when the lecture begins.
Good to hear someone stating the truth “there is no proof of anything from the man from Stratford, everyone is just guessing”. But the Stratfordians would love for you to believe them.
very well done. even handed and solid
Too bad we cant see the screen!
Why not?
Copyright issues.
Kastan's response to the first questioner's question (regarding why we have nothing written about the personal life of the Stratford "Shakspere" during his lifetime and in the years following his death) is entirely unsatisfactory and, in fact, disingenuous. Kastan's excuse for this glaring lack is that playwrights in the Early Modern period were akin to the screenwriters of today's movies-the implicaiton being that they were for all practical purposes anonymous. (Incidentally, equating Elizabethan playwrights with today's screenwriters is a classic example of the Historical Fallacy.) There are two problems with Kastan's explanation. *First,* "Shake-speare" (the literary figure) was not just a playwright. In fact, the earliest literary output of his that was published during the lifetime of the Stratford "Shakspere" were the two long poems, "Venus and Adonis" (1593) and "The Rape of Lucrece" (1594), and later, the Sonnets (1609). So, the literary "Shake-speare" was initially a poet, and would have been known as such by his contemporaries from these three published works, if not by anything else of a literary nature (such as the plays). If the Stratford "Shakspere" was the author of these literary works, he would have received at least some attention during his lifetime, and would have been mentioned in some document as a literary figure. *Second,* other poet-playwrights who were contemporaries of the Stratford "Shakspere", such as Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Dekker, and Thomas Middleton, have well-documented lives. The Scottish poet William Drummond wrote extensively in his diary about Ben Jonson when the latter spent Christmas with him in 1618 at Hawthornden Castle, and the two men kept up an ongoing correspondence thereafter. Similarly, there is a extant manuscript of a document by one of Elizabeth I's spies, Richard Baines, accusing Marlowe of endorsing atheism and homosexuality. These are just some of the many documented references to Elizabethan playwrights by their contemporaries. So, it is patently false that playwrights in Elizabethan and Jacobean England were behind-the-scenes figures, largely anonymous and unknown to the public, about whom nothing was written during their lifetimes. The plain fact is that the Stratford "Shakspere" was not a literary figure of any sort and was in fact of no public interest whatsoever, and that is the reason why so little is known about his personal life.
Then explain why Archibald Armstrong, John Weever, Leonard Digges, Thomas Screvins, John Ward, Richard Hunt, William Davenant, Ben Jonson, John Davies, Thomas Freeman, Nicholas Okes, Nathaniel Butter, John Stow, Edmund Howes, William Basse, James Mabbe, Hugh Holland, John Heminges and Henry Condell all identified the poet, actor, and gentleman William Shakespeare as being from Stratford-upon-Avon?
Why did William Shakespeare have those early poems (he had already been mentioned as a playwright, by the way) printed by a guy who grew up around the corner from him in Stratford?
Why did he include details about people, places, and events in and around Stratford in his plays?
Why was a monument identifying him as a great poet installed over his grave within a couple of years of his death?
You like to point to what's missing after 400 years, but you ignore all the evidence that exists.
Why is that?
@@Jeffhowardmeade Everything that you have raised has been answered or refuted adequately by dozens of scholars in thousands of published and unpublished works. Here on RUclips there is a plethora of lectures, discussions, and presentations that provide a more than adequate response to your objections. See, in particular, the extensive work of Alexander Waugh on the subject of Shakespeare authorship. There can be no doubt (except in the minds of die-hard supporters of the Stratford man) that "Shakspere" was not the author of anything that is currently attributed to him.
@@MichaelMendis If that's true, then go ahead and refute any one of the things I've mentioned.
How about this one: in about 1618, poet John Weever visited Stratford and copied down the inscription on Shakespeare's funerary monument. He titled this entry in his notebook "Willm Shakspeare the famous poet." This is the same John Weever who, two decades earlier, wrote an epigram to Shakespeare, calling him "honie-tong'd", so there can be no doubt that he knew who Shakespeare was. He said Shakespeare was the guy from Stratford.
Go ahead and refute that, if you can.
@@Jeffhowardmeade Unfortunately the monument shows him without a pen and the other phony props that were added years later.
@@mississaugataekwondo8946 in the 1556 engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar based on a terrible sketch by Robert Dugdale, the pen and paper are missing. That can easily be explained by the fact that the quill pen is an actual goose quill which can be removed, and the paper is lying flat, easily missed in a dark church. What ISN'T missing from any depiction of the monument is the pillow with the tassels found on many such monuments to learned men, the scholar's subfusc gown, and the inscription describing Shakespeare as a great poet.
I can explain what's missing. Can you explain what's there?
If Woody Allen were a Shakespeare academic…
Mr Kasten is a joy to listen too. Only the boring self-opinionated would comment otherwise.
I'm early in, but what is that constant tapping or banging? Soon this will be an absentee with thumbs down.
Calls himself a literary scholar and needs applause .. says nothing new
His jokes are discourteous
I agree. That porn "joke" right off the bat immediately put me off.
Are academicians only gravediggers? It seems so.
Well. Shakespeare is dead. Right? So... what the flying frig did you expect? It's a talk about dead people. Obviously. A fascinating talk about dead people. If you want living people, why not listen to a talk about living people?