C 5.2 Interview with Gregory Thompson Part 2

Loading...

From the course by University of London

Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare

58 ratings

University of London

Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare

58 ratings

This free course from the University of London explores critical thinking, and the interpretation of texts, through the Shakespeare authorship question. Using doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship as our playground, we will explore the key concept of authorship attribution, while developing skills in literary analysis, interpretation, and argument. Through forensic exploration of key texts, you will learn why Shakespeare’s authorship is questioned, and what evidence is cited on both sides of the debate. For those of you interested in exploring the works of Shakespeare from a new angle, or just wanting to hone your analytical thinking skills, this course offers an introduction to a fascinating area of interest. Those of you already interested in the Shakespeare authorship question will be encouraged to question your own assumptions in fruitful ways. Whether undertaken as a standalone course, or as preparation for the University of London BA in English, this course will be food for thought.

From the lesson

The Evidence from Stratford-upon-Avon

In the module, you will look more deeply at the connection between Stratford-upon-Avon and Shakespeare, beginning with Shakespeare-related testimony from people who had a provable personal connection to Stratford-upon-Avon and Shakespeare: William Camden, Michael Drayton, Shakespeare's son-in-law, Dr John Hall, and Shakespeare’s daughters. You’ll consider the question of his daughters’ literacy, and whether has any bearing on the authorship question. You’ll look at what are claimed to be local Warwickshire references in the plays, which have been used to support the traditional authorship attribution. And finally, you’ll consider the monument erected to Shakespeare in Stratford’s Holy Trinity Church, arguments that it was altered in the 18th century, and the three texts engraved on that monument and the connected grave.

C 5.1 Interview with Alexander Waugh - Part 28:40

C 5.2 Interview with Gregory Thompson Part 27:41

C 5.3 Interview with Gregory Thompson Part 37:34

C 5.4 Interview with Peter Dawkins Part 17:27

C 5.5 Interview with Peter Dawkins Part 25:19

C 5.6 Module Summary2:56

Meet the Instructors

Ros Barber
Dr
English and Comparative Literature

It's not really, for me,

about who is the right candidate.

It's what are the circumstances?

So where did the education come from?

Here's somebody who seems to have a knowledge of French and Italian theatre.

That he'd seen these plays and then recreated his own version of those plays.

Well how did that happen if you hadn't been to Paris, or hadn't spent time in Italy?

And it's that, the evolution of the creative artist,

that I think, is the key to the question.

And that doesn't seem to be in the life of this provincial man from Stratford -

or in the life of an actor.

Writing plays takes time. And it takes effort.

They don't just spring.

I mean, of course, all writers experience flow,

but all writers also experience absorbing and spending time with their creation

and struggling - the effort of creation.

As you know yourself.

And that doesn't seem to be taken into account

in the kind of myth of the grammar school boy.

I think part of that myth of where that grammar school boy

develops to, is the myth of the kind of manager-

actor-director-writer who is running everything.

I mean, this is the myth that we get about Shakspere in London.

People just assume that he's right there in the centre, in a theatre, easily accessible,

that everyone's connected to him,

and that isn't the case, is it?

No, I mean, and I think if you talk to writers,

one of the things they need is space for contemplation. And that isn't in that, the London myth.

The London myth?

Absolutely.

Then there's also, equally kind of misleading is the myth of the aristocrat.

You know, the number of times you hear people say,

"Oh, it must have been an aristocrat."

And you go, "Well, what does that mean?"

Because it's not about blood.

It's not about birth,

but it is about access to books,

it is about education, and it is about time.

That doesn't necessarily mean he was born to a particular set of parents,

but it does mean that he had access to a library.

And there's some evidence of knowledge of noble sports

and things that weren't available to common folk.

You know, I'm not a subscriber to the 'He had to be a nobleman' either,

as you know - not at all.

But you perhaps have to have access to those circles,

have friends who go hawking or, you know, whatever else.

I mean, you don't necessarily have to know those things to know some of the words,

to know the terminology, and you can read it in books.

So I think I agree with you that there is this equal myth of the aristocrat.

It's not that someone who went to

a provincial grammar school couldn't become a great writer.

You have Ben Jonson didn't go to university and wrote very learned plays,

you know, and he was the step-son of a bricklayer.

Absolutely.

So it's not to rule any of that out,

it isn't, you know, it's not snobbery.

There are other things at play.

However, this is a writer with a particular sets of obsessions, and whether they

are to do with being a good or a bad father, or having a good or a bad marriage,

and what makes love into a thing that will last.

And it is an obsession with succession. And it is an obsession with wise counsellors.

And, I mean, without saying it,

he's saying the divine right of kings is the worst thing that can happen.

You know, that absolute power is,

you know, play after play after play is saying that.

This isn't a writer for hire -

you know, the myth of the writer for hire -

it's just, this doesn't seem like a body of work.

This is a man who's writing from his own volition.

Yes, you do get people now saying that Shakespeare

wrote for money and things like that, and you think this is not...

I think that's a confusion.

Shakspere of Stratford clearly has money, and has made a lot of money,

not necessarily through plays,

you know, clearly through business acumen.

But then to say that as a result of that

we look at this body of work and we say, "Well, he just wrote for money,

he was just writing the latest crowd-pleasing thing,"

and I think that's one of the problems that comes out of the traditional...

Well there aren't other writers

who are suddenly buying large provincial houses based on their royalties.

No, most writers struggle with income - then and now.

And there's this huge body of the mature work that's looking at revenge and forgiveness.

This is a personal obsession,

you know, this is somebody who's choosing

subjects in order to feed what he wants to say on the stage.

It doesn't fit the kind of,

"Oh, I'm just, you know, an entertainment hack."

And there is a great obsession with things like double identity,

mistaken identity comes up again and again, you know, sort of the concept,

I know there are classical models for the concept

of twins and things in the plays.

But it's interesting that he is, you know, obviously is completely obsessed

with that as he comes back to it as a device so many times.

So that does, obviously that -

for those of us who doubt the traditional authorship - that will fuel the fire.

But none of that, of course, is proof, it's only just the lens in which we're reading the works.

Absolutely, but what's interesting about the theatre from the perspective of the theatre,

what ends up on stage, that's the reality.

You know, the kind of inner life of the play, that's the evidence.

It's not to do with some imagined Shakespearean love,

you know, however delightful and however interesting those kinds of speculations are -

there's a reality in the plays that is about a learned,

educated person struggling with deep issues.

And you need time to be able to do that.

So this is somebody who had time, and who was a practised writer.

You know, who - there will be, surely, other writing behind.

I don't know any writer who just writes plays and nothing else.

And also you don't know any writer who comes straight

out of the gate with a masterpiece.

Even if - you know, the early works of Shakespeare aren't as good as the late works -

but nevertheless, it was extraordinary, the quality of blank verse.

So this is someone who already has some writing experience behind them.

It's often the case that a first book or something isn't actually the first book,

it's the fourth book that someone's written because they have some writing.

So yes, it's often forgotten when people are putting candidates forward that

you need to have someone who actually is a writer.

Can write - because they are, you know, acknowledged

as the greatest works in English still to this day.

I mean, in every Sunday newspaper,

the question for the artist is always,

"And who are your influences?

Who are the people you learnt from?"

Or, you know, there'll be on the back page of The Sunday Magazine will be, you know, "My greatest teacher."

But yet our greatest artist seemed to have no influences and no teachers.

If we believe the grammar school myth.

And you go, "Well, actually, you know, here's somebody

who is drawing on this tradition of - and creating

a new kind of theatre - but based on things that were happening in European theatre."

So, you know, where, how did that happen?

Explore our Catalog

Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.

Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education, partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play