What do you think Shakespeare's personality was like?

What do you think Shakespeare's personality was like?

I know there's very few (if any) accounts of Shakespeare's personal life, and this is often used to discourage discussion on the topic, labeling anything someone could say as educated speculation at best.

But doesn't the lack of letters and other windows into Shakespeare's personal life tell us something in itself?

Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, a town about 100 miles away from London. That's where he was educated, where he met his wife.

We can assume that Shakespeare had little assistance in beginning his career as a playwright (his father was a glovemaker). So he made this 100 mile journey in 1580s England, largely on his own. We also know that his wife didn't come with him. She stayed back in Statford, raising his kids.

From this, at the very least, we can say that Shakespeare was insanely ambitious, willing to be completely separate from his family for much of the year. He put his art above all.

In order not only to function but to succeed in such a set of circumstances, we can assume that Shakespeare was rather comfortable with being alone, self-driven, and confident in his own decisions (imagine what a small town in 1500s England would of thought of a young guy running off to London to be a playwright).

Shakespeare was almost certainly introverted, yet capable of being bold and assertive (those plays got on stage somehow). He would've had to have been fiercely independent, building his own reputation in the London Theater Scene, willing to isolate himself from everyone in Stratford (which is very possibly everyone he knew).

The reason that none of his letters survive is because he probably didn't write very many: personal relationships took a backseat to writing; he likely had very few close friends, being so obsessed with his work. Furthermore, His capacity for empathy requires a deep understanding of others, and it's not too far of a reach to say that he distanced himself from other people because he knew what they were capable of (think Iago, Regan, and Goneril).

Shakespeare was a loner genius who knew exactly what he was capable of. He was the ultimate "Fuck you, watch me" artist.

He was probably a fag.

He also didn't like doggos.

There's not one positive reference to them in his whole body of work.

He also was painted like Satan incarnate.

he had his ears pierced in the 1500s, that alone tells us what a badass he must've been. I know there's speculation that he was multiple people, but are there any theories that he had a team working for him kind of like a modern day writer's room? This seems like a possibility.

I know you're joking, but his sonnets, especially those written to "The Dark Lady", kinda paint him as a hound dog.

His sonnets to "The Fair Youth", on the other hand, have been debated as to whether or not the narrator's feelings towards The Fair Youth are platonic or something more. If anything he was bisexual.

But let's be honest. Dude was around male actors dressed in drag all the time. If he liked him some uncircumcised, unwashed, 17th century English cock, he was in the right place.

He probably didn't though.

This is possible, more for his later plays, but I find it unlikely.

Maybe they used his name as a staple more than anything else.

Though I don't know how much of a staple he would've been. The first folio didn't come out until 9 years after his death. The newspapers of the time don't paint him as a major sort of celebrity when he was alive.

I imagine such a person as him would have a pretty big ego, hard to work with. Again, he certainly knew how good he was.

Hamlet and King Lear were largely altered after his death though. King Lear wasn't originally a tragedy.

He was an INFP so he was probably an emo like Kurt Cobain

What would classify as emo in 1590?

>mfw not even the bubonic plague pays attention to me

>Being your slave, what should I do but tend
>Upon the hours and times of your desire?
>I have no precious time at all to spend,
>Nor services to do, till you require.

Total genius (of course) but if that was written for a man that's caked in lust

Willful, completely together, shrewd in business (perhaps a little selfish), close with his thoughts but not immune to small outbursts of vanity. What Baudelaire called a flaneur pretty much, but with an exploring nature.
Like Sir Thomas Browne (whose b-day was yesterday fwiw) died on his b-day, within 24 hours of Cervantes, who died the day before, 'cruelest month,' 1616.

Does whatever we know about Shakespeare's wife tell us anything about him?

You've too little there to substantiate anything. For example, you've a recent theory is that his father wasn't poor at all, but was in fact a very wealthy glove maker. It could explain another theory of SH being a law student in Londo. Again, all pointless theories. We really do know too little about him, so anything goes.

Well he wasn't a fag that's for sure. He's pretty much an exception in portraying his boy actors as purely woman. Marlowe and the rest take it much further.

A few sonnets out of 154 doesn't really imply that Shakespeare was outright gay, or even bisexual.

I'm sure some level of homo eroticism is present in even the straightest men.

You can say you're 100% straight all you want, but if I gave you a chance to bro-jerk with Fight Club Brad Pitt, you're going to take it.

It's impossible to substantiate anything. But we can still assume aspects of his character from the required personality traits of his known actions.

Moving from Stratford to London with the intention of making a living from play-writing must've took a level of confidence that bordered on the narcissistic.

And yes, Shakespeare's father was wealthy. But he wasn't so wealthy that his son had access to any education other than the free charter school in Stratford. Ben Jonson, on the other hand, came from a position of wealth that would've allowed him to study at Cambridge (though he didn't; his father wanted him to be a bricklayer).

Shakespeare's father was wealthy relative to the other ~300 households in Stratford, and small towns like that in 1500s Britain were pretty damn poor.

He wasn't poor, but he also wasn't so wealthy as to give his son the resources to accomplish what Shakespeare accomplished.

Jonson is himself a source, not only in the just assessment of his dedicatory poem, but in some of his prose remains.

a source of what?

There's no surviving letters between the two. That coupled with him being in London most of the time points towards a pretty strained relationship. "The Dark Lady" sonnets also imply that he was unfaithful.

But not to my knowledge. She was the daughter of a farmer, and inherited 6 pounds from him on her wedding day.

Her trail is as cold as Shakespeare's, if not colder.

>he still believes shakespeare existed
user, I...

Ben Jonson on Shakespeare:
‘I remember, the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out line. My answer hath been, would he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who choose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory (on this side idolatry) as much as any; he was (indeed) honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions; wherein he flowed with that facility that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped: Sufflimandus erat, as Augustus said of Haterius.[1] His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things could not escape laughter: as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him, “Caesar, thou dost me wrong,” he replied “Caesar did never wrong, but with just cause,” and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned’
The pervading deduction is that he was light hearted and larger than life.

>every straight guy is secretly gay

Is this the ultimate gay fantasy or what

>him being in London most of the time

It's worth noting that this was pretty common for the time, the man working in the big city while the family stays at home.

Interesting.

Though this is a eulogy, and his poem about Shakespeare was written for the First Folio.

I imagine it's hard to include anything negative in a eulogy or a poem prefacing the First Folio.

Jonson was pretty envious of Shakespeare, from what I've read. You think this Jonson's true opinion?

it's worth noting that you're a cuck

it's a little telling that no one saved any of his letters? Reasonable people conclude the obvious, that he was not a real person

Those of us who aren't sexually repressed know that sexual arousal is an automatic response from the body, and can have a number of different stimuli.

Watching Brad Pitt stroke his cock beside you, making intense eye contact, ejaculating simultaneously, catching your breath, watching his milky load glistening as it dribbles down his chest beneath the golden light of the sunset, and sharing a little chuckle as you towel each other off is a purely aesthetic experience. There's nothing gay about it. The human body is a beautiful thing, especially Brad Pitt's, and there's no reason to attach arbitrary, defining labels to the single act of two consenting adults enjoying each other's bodies, especially if that adult is Brad Pitt, grunting and muttering in that classic American voice, his legs spread, the soles of his feet flat on one another, hips open, his legs hairy and his pubics fuzzy, inviting you over to finish the job, tugging his member with your right hand as you fumble yours around with your left (you're not ambidextrous), feeling him seize up, his shaft pulsating, some flowing warmly onto your hand, sending you over the edge as the stroking starts wet and just a little drips onto his leg, at which point he turns his head up at you, smiles, and says, "Goddamn son, you've gone and cum all over the place". Angelina Jolie giggles behind you. She's been pleasuring herself this whole time with an innocent, sturdy pink dildo, self lubricated. But she's not anywhere near finished; she's hard to please. That's why Brad called you over tonight. They have a little plan in mind. You don't know what it is yet, but there's vaseline and candles on the edge of the patio. Of course you're afraid; you've never let anyone in there before. You're afraid, but ready. This is what you've been training for. Angelina beckons you over, leans back a little. Your tongue runs in circles over her little bean. Brad takes a knee behind you, lifts your hips gently into position (his hands are gentle but firm), and lets vaseline flow down around your blood diamond. It's cold. You hear sloppy sounds as he lubricates himself. His tips circles your axis, preparing to dock. Then it's in. The rhythm is enthusiastic but soft, and you know what's winning best picture this year.

Purely aesthetic. Sexual repression really is confining.

Yes. Of all the classical writers throughout history, the most renowned English writer of all time is not only the one whose identity was fabricated, but that facade has also held up for 300 years of academic scrutiny.

Ladies and gentlemen, new pasta has been cooked up and is ready to serve

that's gay

you're gay

t. Gay

Fuck you

I believe that he was initially envious yes, Jonson was a didact and didn’t approve of Shakespeares divergence of tradition. But I imagine, as we can only and must, that their rivalry and contact over the years developed into respect and friendship with it culminating on the eve of Shakespeares death, where Jonson and Drayton went to drink for what would be the last time.

Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Are You This Gay Hahahaha Nigga Just Fuck Pussy Like Nigga Stick It In Haha

you're one of the erotic/porn writer guys in those threads ain't cha

not only are you wrong, you're also an asshole

>Moving from Stratford to London with the intention of making a living from play-writing must've took a level of confidence that bordered on the narcissistic.

No. For starters, we don't know if that was the intention behind the move. Greenblatt persuasively speculates otherwise.

What's so persuasive about it?

Fuck you

>The pervading deduction is that he was light hearted and larger than life.

I don't know about "light hearted," but evidently he could work and play well with others. And I'm not so sure that the impression he would have given "larger than life." Now a Greene (probably or possibly the basis for Falstaff) would have been a larger than life figure based on the evidence. Whereas Shakes seems more the witty, self-controlled, composed type.

It's the most persuasive tying together and making sense of the known facts of S's life that I've read, and I've read a number of books and articles that have advanced such theories. If however you read it and didn't find it persuasive, obviously nothing I say here will change your mind.

information about his 'personality'

I haven't read it. Maybe you could give your own take on it and discuss it on here.

Either way I'll probably read it.

>Lear wasn't tragedy

Elaborate.

Nevermind. Nahum Tate rewrote King Lear to have a happy ending, not the other way around. I was mistaken.

I've read a lot of people who try to make sense of the odd bits of evidence that connect S to Catholicism. I've read Catholics that try very hard to make him a Catholic, but the evidence doesn't quite fit that. And I've read seculars who paint him as a skeptic, or having but scant Catholic influence, which doesn't really fit the evidence either.

Greenblatt comes up with a theory that seems - from my position as an interested but decidedly non-expert observer - to fit *all* the evidence. It's a rather complex theory with several moving parts, but I find it really quite plausible.

The chapter where he sets out most of this ends with S crossing London Bridge for the first time.

It is a beautifully written chapter, imho (as is the whole book), and that ending moment on the bridge has a very satisfying little twist or payoff that neatly ties in to G's theory.

Now, another controverted issue is the business of S's father. Again, I find Greenblatt's take on this persuasive. But his case is built on details and inferences from the details, so one could dispute it, I suppose. But it seems to me G makes a very strong case on this front, and indeed on all the "big," controversial issues or mysteries of S's life (eg, what did he mean by leaving his wife his "second-best bed"?).

I found the whole book beautifully written. (I read it when I was stuck in an airport for ~24 hours.) G does a wonderful job capturing the spirit of the English countryside S grew up in, and in his speculations about theatrical moments from S's youth that probably left a strong impression on him.

I highly recommend it - Will in the World.

goddammit i might be gay

Probably, but a lot of writers of the time were mostly the same, except for maybe the loner part. I'd be wary of romanticizing him -- like that portrait, by the way, which is probably less accurate than Dreshout's engraving and Shakespeare's monument. It's hard to tell anything about his personality from his work.

Lol

>King Lear wasn't originally a tragedy.
Wait, what? Is that true? It's pretty hard to imagine it not as a tragedy.

maybe because their barking disturbed his writing and most often the dogs he interacted with were misbehaved, numerous, wildy peasent dogs

Nahum Tate has also been pretty universally ridiculed for destroying King Lear in his shitty version, which I think was written more than 100 years after Shakespeare's death.

How can all you alt-right bigots not know everything "shakespeare" wrote was actually by a black woman.

This shit never fails to make me laugh.

You said we dont know if his intention behind the move was to become successful playwright, what does the theory that seems pervasive suggest was his intention? Is it theorized how much he wrote before the move? With his amount of talent and work ethic it must be presumed he wanted his writing to be successful either way, so maybe his intention for the move was for job a or b but he was going to be writing still either way and trying to get it recognized?

She should have fried Shakespeare's ass with a lightning.

I have absolutely no doubt that Shakespeare was by far the wittiest human being ever to have lived. It would have been a dream to have sat in on the conversations he down the pub with Ben Jonson and others. Oscar Wilde has nothing on him.