Shakespeare’s Son Died at 11. A Novel Asks How It Shaped His Art | Hacker News Reader

Shakespeare’s Son Died at 11. A Novel Asks How It Shaped His Art

nytimes.com

22 pointsbenbreen16 comments

Interesting. Coincidentally, a recent episode of EconTalk [0] taught me that the plague had a big impact on Shakespeare and his work.

[0] https://www.econtalk.org/ben-cohen-on-the-hot-hand/

Thanks! For those who'd rather read than listen, there's a transcript lower right.

Newton also made many of his breakthroughs after retreating to the countryside to avoid a plague in London as well:

https://www.biography.com/news/isaac-newton-quarantine-plagu...

Odd that this review doesn’t mention that Hamnet’s early death and its impact on the Bard are dissected in the “Scylla and Charybdis” episode of Joyce’s Ulysses, as well as echoing against the cornerstone of the protagonist, Bloom.

Neil Gaiman's The Sandman has three episodes dedicated to Shakespeare (and one features his son Hamnet). This is a good analysis of how isolation and genius in art relates, in the context of Shakespeare in The Sandman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhA0GVi_N4E

and in 1991, Gaiman won to date the only World Fantasy Award given to a graphic novel for exploring the same question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman:_Dream_Country#%22...

Edit: My original comment

> how could anything be known about Shakespeare's son given the Bard's identity is an open question?

resulted in downvotes and being compared to a flat-earther, plus one helpful answer to my question which remedied my ignorance. I'd love to freeze or delete my comment but all I can do is edit it. Thanks in advance for ignoring it and moving on.

The shape of the earth is an open question too. Sorry. I have no idea what or who shakespeare was or how that identity has or hasn’t been confirmed. Still, just sayin’.

His identity is not an open question. We know exactly where and when William Shakespeare of Stratford was born and baptized (in those days they recorded baptism dates, not births). We know who his parents were, who his wives and kids were, the names of his 8 siblings, and the business ventures of his family...to name a few things.

We also know when he got started in the London theater scene, and how his career and skill developed (we've found early poetry of his which was not very good, for example). We even know that he became very wealthy and famous (he was famous even during his life) due to the success of his plays, and acquired quite a bit of real estate before he died.

There are also large, structural similarities across the plays and poems that suggest a single authorship; that 'not very good' poetry has interests and stylistic tics in common with the later, more universally revered work. It's also relatively recently (1800s on) that the plays gained that the reputation that they did. The argument that William Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays is one that is extremely recent, historically-speaking, and it relies on snobbish negatives ('A son of a glove maker who had an excellent education grounded in the classics and spent his life in the theater couldn't have written the plays') rather than any affirmative evidence against. We also have text of contemporaries that are generally trustworthy sources describing his work (and offering criticisms). It's not the exciting answer, but it probably was William Shakespeare that wrote the works in question.

The man has living relatives. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Shakespeare

That William Shakespeare existed is not an open question, but whether he actually wrote the works commonly attributed to him is still debated in some circles. Personally, I find the argument to the contrary quite compelling. Briefly: he owned no books; he was not contemporaneously referred to as a playwright or poet; he had no opportunity to acquire the rich knowledge of the kinds of things that go on in royal courts that is reflected in the plays. Also, many of the plays evince a remarkably feminist sensibility for the times. It seems entirely possible that he was just an actor and producer, and the works commonly attributed to him were the anonymously published work of a woman, either Emilia Bassano or another woman of her acquaintance.

Ref: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/who-is-...

I get that it's fun to conjecture about things, but no serious scholars debate his authorship. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to get past all the evidence that he wrote his own plays.

> he owned no books

No, we don't know that he didn't own any books. How would you even prove that? We just don't have a list of which books that owned. We also don't have lists of books owned by the vast majority of people who lived in Elizabethan England. I find this a particularly weird argument for someone who lived over 400 years ago.

> he was not contemporaneously referred to as a playwright or poet

There are literally 18 published plays during his lifetime, numerous editions of which list Shakespeare as author right on the title page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_q...

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_q...

In 1592, "Greenes, groats-worth of witte" refers to him famously as an "Upstart Crow" and makes fun of the fact that a mere actor thinks he can write. What better evidence is there than that?

In 1598, Frances Meres wrote a book about English poets called "Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury" that talks about both Shakespeare's poetry and plays. It says "Shakespeare among ye English is the most excellent in both kinds for the stage" and then goes on to literally list his comedic and dramatic plays by name. I'm not sure how anyone can claim he was not referred to as a playwright or poet in his lifetime: https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/early%2...

Numerous other contemporary mentions of him in documents are collected and available online: https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/playwright...

What is definitely true is that plays during this time period were often collaborations between multiple writers. Different authors might add in lines or scenes. Two authors might co-write a play (The Two Noble Kinsmen) or numerous author might 'punch up' a work. Shakespeare primarily wrote his plays, but other people definitely contributed bits here and there, just like he contributed bits to other plays that don't have his name as author (like "The Booke of Thomas More").

My summary of the argument from memory was too brief and perhaps not entirely accurate. I encourage you to read the linked article.

I recall an article from the Scientific American back in the 70s where they did a word frequency analysis and determined that Francis Bacon was not Shakespeare.

I had a professor who let us believe it was an open question. But later I learned that's a super fringe belief.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com