What if Shakespeare had never existed?

[shaxper]

What if there had never been a Shakespeare, or if no records of his plays had survived?  Would Marlowe, Jonson, and Middleton be better known today, or would Renaissance drama become more obscure, thus further obscuring the other Renaissance dramatists?

[Ganymede]

I think that if there had been no Shakespeare the Renaissance might have been outshined by the writers of the Jacobean and Restoration periods-- writers like Donne and Milton might be more revered.  Of course, if their stuff was in any way influenced by Shakespeare, they might not have been as great anyway.  Who knows?  

You could make an argument that other Renaissance writers may have been less known because having such a strong author to compete with may have caused them to take their writings to a higher level.  

[shaxper]

I think so much of Marlowe and Jonson's notoriety today is intertwined with Shakespeare's.  We discuss Marlowe because he was an influence for Shakespeare.  Jonson knew him, left records about him, and was a chief rival.  I'd like to think we'd know Marlowe better without Shakespeare, but perhaps Renaissance drama wouldn't be as respected.  Perhaps drama, in general, never would have risen to the level of respect that it did without Shakespeare.  People might have continued to view it as base and common.

[Juliet]

That is a scary thought....

We'd probably be stuck reading Dr. Faustus over and over again. Not to criticize Dr. Faustus, but it would be tiresome...

That's a good point, though. Marlowe and Johnson would not be regarded as THE English writer, like Shakespeare is. Who would get the credit? Dickens?

Or is part of Shakespeare's fame that he lived when he did? I'm not contesting his right to his place, but perhaps the English writer a writer from their Golden era, the Elizabethan age, and so Shakespeare was ~it~.

Then again, Shakespeare did suffer rather being chopped up in the 1700s and cleaned up priggishly in the Victorian age, so it truly is a marvel. Makes you wonder how he did it; it's really quite a feat when you pause to think about it...

So, who would be ~the~ English writer if it wasn't Shakespeare?

[shaxper]

Probably Milton. Even much of Chaucer's recognition comes from the fact that Shakespeare used him as a source and inspiration. I agree that Shakespeare's greatness was definately tied into his time and place. The Renaissance was a time of comparitive intellectual and expressive freedom, which allowed Shakespeare to communicate some fascinating perspectives on human nature, and required him to skillfully bury other less acceptable perspectives beneath the surface. Just imagine if Shakespeare had been born during the Reformation though. His talents would have been entirely wasted!

[Harry]

I don't think Chaucer's fame rests on Shakespeare's use of him as a source, that may be true for Holinshed, but not Chaucer. As I recall, only two plays of Shakespeare use Chaucer as a direct source, Troilus and Cressida and Two Noble Kinsmen--not the most popular of Shakespeare's plays. Only Two Noble Kinsmen comes from The Canterbury Tales, and TNK isn't really in the Shakespeare "canon." Chaucer's reputation today lies mainly on his Canturbury Tales and, from that work, the Prologue, the Miller's Tale, the Wife of Bath's Tale, the Nun's Priest's Tale, and the Knight's Tale. The Knight's Tale is TNK, but the others aren't found in Shakespeare.

Needless to say, the recent Knight's Tale movie owes nothing to any story by Chaucer, despite Chaucer being a character in the movie.

[shaxper]

I didn't mean it quite as directly as that. I meant more that Shakespeare's borrowing from Chaucer might have prompted critics from centuries ago to go back and explore his works, which they then popularized in their own right. Thinking about it more though, I'm changing my mind and realizing that much of Chaucer's fame comes from the fact that The Canturbury Tales are one of the earliest known works of literature in the English language and that (like Shakespeare) Chaucer may very well have coined much of the language, structure, and themes we use in literature today.

[The_Turtle]

Chaucer was the first one to start writing in English after the Norman Conquest. I wager that even if his work hadn't been quite as good as it is, he would be remembered. I have always marveled at how accessible The Canterbury Tales are. The language takes a bit of getting used to, but then you can read it effortlessly and with joy.
If there had never been a Shakespeare... (The horrors you can imagine, Shaxper.) Somehow I think Dante and Petrarca would have stood out more. Consider what impact this could have had on history. Ah, you can't. I can't.
For what it's worth: Who is the greatest American writer? Who is the number one French author? Is there any language in the world that has a writer as great as Shakespeare?

[Juliet]

I'd wager the best French author would be Victor Hugo (Les Miserables, etc.) although Edmund Rossand (?) the author of Cyrano de Bergerac should, in my mind, be in the standing. (Reading that play, which is wonderful in English, makes me very sad I don't speak and read French)

Cervantes is probably the best, or at least most well known, Spanish author. Mexican/Latin American would be different, but I'm not really certain who it'd be.

As for American writers...a good question. I'd vote for Mark Twain, simply because his works have such a cheeky American flavor. Was he the best? I don't know. Perhaps a question to pursue in depth...

[The_Turtle]

Victor Hugo? Hmm, I daresay I prefer Flaubert and Céline. And even Marcel Proust. But that's probably just based on a lack of familiarity with Hugo. I only read 'The Hunchback', but must say I quite liked the musical 'Les Miserables,' which, I admit is not much to go by. Cervantes; well, to be honest he is the only Spanish author I ever read so I'd have to agree with you. Nevertheless 'Don Quixote' did not impress me as much as I'd expected it to. However in terms of impact on world literature, I think you are right on both counts. Even Mark Twain is a good pick. I offer Faulkner as a candidate. And Fitzgerald.

[shaxper]

Let's not forget Poe. I'd also cast my vote for Hugo, since The Hunchback is probably my favorite book of all time.

By the way, Chaucer did have contemporaries who wrote around the same time as him (possibly even before) and I believe I've heard that some were in English too (though I'm not positive). Chaucer was among the first, but not necessarily the absolute first. However, his work was circulated far more extensively than the works of his contemporaries. People brought their copies along on their own pilgramages to Canturbury, where countless others heard his works being read aloud (as they were intended to be) and may have then purchased or had transcribed their own copies.

[Harry]

Gower (who is the Prologue in one of Shakespeare's plays--I can't remember which off hand) was a contemporary of Chaucer who wrote in English. So was the author of Piers Plowman, though he wrote in a dialect much different from Chaucer's London dialect. Of course, Chaucer, Gower, and the like, fall far short of being the earliest writers in English. That honor must go to the author of Beowulf. (For extra credit: what recent Hollywood movie is based on Beowulf? Antonio Banderas--I think that's right--starred and Omar Sharif had a small role.)

Chaucer, like Shakespeare, is worth the trouble to get familiar with his language. With Chaucer, it's a bit more trouble than Shakespeare but the rewards are high. Chaucer had a wonderful sense of character and a sly sense of humor. The pilgrims he spends the most time with (the Tales are unfinished) are marvelously drawn: the "perfect gentle Knight," his son, the Squire, the coarse Miller, the Oxford clerk who would rather buy books than food ("and gladly would he teach, and gladly learn"), the Host of the Tabard (an Inn to rival the Boar's Head ), the Wife of Bath, and Madame Eglantine (the Prioress) are all wonderfully drawn.

[Juliet]

Chaucer is great, although I need to get re-started on the Canterbury Tales. They're so much fun...I found a great edition with the original Middle English on one side and a modern translation on the other, which was perfect for me. Once you get into the flow of the language, though, it's easy to read the original text, and sometimes the translation isn't what I'd have translated a line as. Which, in its way, merely adds to the fun.

Once I finish Canterbury Tales, I think I want to read his Troilus and Cressida. It'd be interesting to compare that with Shakespeare's. Shakespeare himself probably got the story, at least in part, from Chaucer.

~Juliet~

[shaxper]

I highly recommend reading Two Noble Kinsmen alongside The Knight's Tale (again, not a reference to the new movie ). It's a lot of fun.

Strangely enough, I found learning Middle English easier than learning Renaissance English. Figure that one out. Maybe I just expected it to be so much harder than it was that I later assumed it was easy?