Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Shakespeare's Fame - Professor Sir Jonathan Bate FBA CBE
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2018
- Ever since classical antiquity, poets and playwrights have written about famous heroes and anti-heroes, lovers and politicians. But they have also yearned for posthumous fame themselves. How do they achieve it?
This final lecture will show how Shakespeare helped to immortalize the famous figures of ancient Greece and Rome, and how he in turn became famous after his death as the classics were to Shakespeare, so Shakespeare became a classic. He is our classic.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: www.gresham.ac...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/...
I love how he throws the trail for the fact-finders and goes on to bring home the point of what makes a classic. Those points are of far more consequence than debunking authorship. Unfortunately, we love a witch hunt more than we regard the craft of writing. That much more respect to writings that survive centuries of hunts. 🙏🏽🙏🏽
Fantastic lecture. I thoroughly enjoyed this informative , witty and stimulating talk.
So nice to see a scholar argue his point of view, without disabling comments. So obvious, yet, contested by historians. If only they would read the works of his contemporaries. It becomes so obvious.
Shakespeare's authorship is hardly "contested by historians"; it's contested by amateurs with no particular expertise in the fields of early modern theatre, early modern printing, or any other subject their arguments touch on. Most of them can't even understand early modern English that well and thus find "clues" in their inability to properly read a plainly written sentence. Most historians are dubious about throwing out the entirety of the documentary record as a starting point and filling the void thus created with speculation and normative arguments about what 'should' have happened and allegedly didn't.
Lol. Obviously Shakespeare was a woman, otherwise how on earth could she have written such fully-realized female characters?
Well couched and well delivered. Thanks for posting, Gresham!
ROMEO AND JULIET (RECOMPOSED)
by Jason Rudge
THE PROLOGUE
The CHORUS enters.
Our scene is set in an enticing city
Where two rival households swap stinging scars,
Uglifying the air two teens make pretty
When true love blows their hearts across the stars,…
Which rouse a prickly sun imparting heat
To twisting blades that twist the plot on stage
For the benefit of worms seeking meat
From fools who rashly court despair and rage.
Youth can make fools of all the greatest lovers,
But sometimes outside forces play a part
And in this tale a foolish youth discovers
His love can’t keep old hatreds from his heart-
Nor halt hearts taking trips to heaven’s gate,
Which fast becomes the lovers’ tragic fate.
The CHORUS exits.
.
If Bate loved Shakespeare as much as he loves the sound of his own voice he would take the trouble to
find the man behind the myth.
If you loved evidence as much as you love associating with other crackpots, you would realize there is no myth.
And wind up like Joseph Skipsey (as immortalized by Henry James)?
Brilliant. Fact over Fiction. A great insight into the genius of Shakespeare, of Stratford.
😂
Brillant
Sorry Mr. Bate, but Iago does not destroy Othello's reputation but insinuates adultery in Othello's MIND. The fallout is more of a domestic tragedy than a civic one. Thanks for the lecture!
I thought the same thing. Most Shakespeare scholars believe that Lagos motive’s remain somewhat suspect. Having watch many versions I can say that each time the play is presented Lagos actions are given a different emphasis.
Pretty sure when Othello "put out the light", it ruined his rep.
Perhaps Bate will take the bait and argue his case in a court of law as to the identity of the author of the works.
Where is Shakespeare’s literary paper trail? Let’s weigh the evidence.
I believe they run a computer program based on the words contained in the plays, they overwhelmingly vindicated the Bard!
He had no reason to do that. Even though he would trounce anyone on evidence (which is what courts respect, not bizarro codes and innuendo), Anti-Strats just want the publicity. Why give it to them?
I'm not sure you'd like what the Federal Rules of Evidence have to say regarding ancient documents. If a document is (1) more than 20 years old, (2) is regular on its face with no signs of obvious alterations; and (3) found in a place of natural custody, or in a place where it would be expected to be found, then that document is deemed prima facie authenticated and therefore admissible.
So the First Folio, with its testimony from John Heminges and Henry Condell that the author Shakespeare was their "Friend, & Fellow [i.e., fellow actor]", the commendatory poems praising Shakespeare as an author, including at least two from people who knew him well (Shakespeare had acted in at least two of Ben Jonson's plays and named Leonard Digges' stepfather as one of the two overseers of his will), the reference to Shakespeare's Stratford monument in Digges' poem and the contents of the monument in Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, all the title pages of the quartos that name Shakespeare as an author, the Stationers' Register entries that give Shakespeare as an author, the Master of the Revels' accounts that list performances of Shakespeare's plays, sometimes with Shakespeare's name included, the testimony of him as a playwright and poet by Francis Meres in _Palladis Tamia_ , the epistle to _The White Devil_ by John Webster that praises Shakespeare along with half a dozen other playwrights, etc., etc., etc. would all be admitted as already facially authenticated evidence.
If you actually had a "case in a court of law" where the Federal Rules of Evidence were controlling, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Luckily for you, being the subject of specious and ignorant doubt about your authorship is not a crime or tort, therefore this question is unlikely to be tried in any real court of law. It has been tried in multiple moot courts, however, and Shakespeare has always prevailed.
23:33 He stands next to the 1609 title page of the sonnets which tell us, but apparently not Bate, that the author has died -- "ever-living". Goes right on talking about a man who never wrote anything, never said he wrote anything and was not dead in 1609. Edmund Shakspere never says his brother was the author nor do his daughters, his wife, his neighbors, or his will. Everything about the sonnets and their publication tell us that they are highly personal, scandalous, and were therefore not published until years after the death of the author.
When nothing about him fits you have the wrong guy.
When you profit from insisting a house built in 1864 is "the birthplace" of someone born in 1564 then you, unlike Joseph Skipsey, are a grifter.
Not withstanding an otherwise excellent lecture, unless you are referring to someone else, earlier in your dynamic talk professor you say that after his death in 1616,Shakespeare was buried in Westminster abbey along with others like Chaucer. Then later you contradict this and clarify that he was buried in his own parish church in Stratford upon Avon, a well known historical fact! If that’s not what you meant, this video certainly gives that impression and can confuse viewers.
Listen carefully again. You missed something
No , please have another listen
1:46 he says that was all about Beaumont, a writer who did not use a pseudonym.
That Shakspere never said he was a writer, never spelled his name 'Shakespeare' and left no evidence of being able to write is a very odd way of achieving "fame". But apparently that is all part of "genius." Being born in 1564 in a house built in 1857 is "magic."
oy vey
If you really are a 'professor', how can you not know of the facts? Too many faults in this speach to comment. But, the most important; William Shakspear of Stratford is not buried in Westminster Abbey. So, he was obviously not a famous author! Then you go babbling along about things in the plays and cross references not proving anything. Just making people more confused. I don't think you even believe in what you say yourself. Total rubbish! Avoiding to comment on any facts.
Why would he need to be buried in the Abbey to be a famous author?
(Typo) Mr. Newcombe...
Mr Newcombe, right at the beginning of this video, the professor talks about Shakespeare, his plays and death in 1616 and his subsequent burial in Westminster Abbey, which we all know, is incorrect. If he is referring to someone else, that is certainly not clear in this video.
@@AMITARAJ2001 Yes, there was a William Shakspar that died in 1616 in Stratford upon Avon. This event went by totally unnoticed, and the funeral was not attended by anyone important, nor from London nor the Crown.
Yes, his bones were moved, but no further than into the charnel at the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford. His skull was stolen, and his tomb in the church is empty!
However the bones of Edward de'Vere were moved into Westminster Abbey, and it is him that is buried beneath the Shakespeare monument. Will be very easy to prove with a DNA test of one of his teeth.
There was a monument in the Holy Trinity Church in Stratford of a wool merchant for more than 50 years. Also a very different tomb stone with another imprint.
Far beyond the time when the monument in Westminster Abbey was erected!
Jan Olsen of course!!! you and I are in agreement on this point. Of course we all know Shakespeare was buried in Stratford upon Avon. The Westminster burial had to be someone else!