In the mid-1990s I followed the "Shakespeare authorship question." One of the "doubters" of the traditional "Man from Stratford" was one of the stars of this movie, Leslie Howard (Prof. Higgins).
One of the "authorship" arguments is how could a commoner from the country, in a society when the noble elite were so closed-off against such people, have known so much about the inner life of the noble class as to be able to present -- to an audience of nobles -- noble characters that convinced them that the characters were authentic.
In 1938's "Pygmalion" Prof. Henry Higgins takes a lower-class cockney girl, Eliza Doolittle, and transforms her into a young woman who can pass so convincingly as a member of the upper class that she can fool a ballroom full of real nobles at an embassy reception.
What Henry Higgins is doing is creating a fictional noblewoman whom real noblemen and women will accept as one of themselves.
Which is exactly what Shakespeare was doing: creating fictional noble characters whom, when presented to an audience of real nobles, would be accepted by those nobles as one of themselves.
And what was the most difficult problem Higgins faced? Stripping away from Eliza errors born of ignorance of how members of that class act in their private encounters: actions and words and behaviors erroneous for a person born and bred to a status of nobility.
There is a scene in which Higgins introduces Eliza to a social group of the upper class for the very first time. It is a tea afternoon hosted by his mother. It is soon apparent that while Eliza has learned vocabulary and diction, the subjects she introduces to speak about, and the facts of her life and relatives that she reports, expose her as not of the upper class. It is her errors that expose her.
Higgins thereupon embarks on a detailed program of teaching her the proper substance and content of what it is to be upper class. Watch Higgins as he teaches Eliza how to curtsy and dance without errors, as he orders the right hair-dressers and the right dress-makers and rents the right jewelry. He makes no errors that expose the fiction. He knows how to curtsy and dance and the hair and clothes and jewels because he was born to the class in which people curtsy and dance. This is the key point: he is able to do this only because he himself is a born member of that class. Only a born member of the class will have the innate, instinctive, detailed knowledge to identify every single moment when Eliza goes off-character and does or says something, or does or says it in a particular way, that will expose her as a false, fictional character, not noble, not even upper class.
This is what Shakespeare knew. Shakespeare presented dozens of noble major characters (and including minor characters, hundreds) to an audience of real nobles. He did, dozens and dozens of times, what Henry Higgins in Pygmalion did but once. And his noble characters had no betraying errors, were always accepted by nobles as authentic nobles. Not once did he present a noble character who rang false. Shakespeare never did this with lower-class characters; they are all caricatures. He had to have been born to the noble class in order to create fictional nobles whom real nobles would accept as real.
Writers who try to create fictional characters who are part of the same real-world social class or group as the intended readers of the novel, or audience members of the play, are acutely aware of the danger of ignorantly including in the character elements that make the character ring false, as not really being part of the intended class or group that comprises the readership or audience. They fear making errors such as did Eliza Doolittle in her tea with Henry Higgins' mother. Professors and others who have never attempted to create a fictional character who can pass as real in an elite milieu do not realize the difficulty and danger of humiliating failure in this effort.
The problem is particularly insurmountable when the real-world group of which the fictional character is supposed to be a part happens to be, in the real world, socially exclusive and closed-off to outsiders. In the world of Henry Higgins, the upper-class Higgins is able to conduct research among the lower-classes because the lower-classes are exposed, in public, in the streets. But a lower-class person could never do the reverse, and conduct research among the upper-classes, because the upper-classes are protected by buildings and servants. A lower-class person cannot get any proximity to them to observe them as they speak and behave, unless voluntarily admitted by an upper-class person, and even then that access will be limited by the boundaries set by the upper-class person who has given admittance.
A writer who presents -- to an audience of earls and dukes -- a private conversation between an earl and a duke, must be a writer who knows what things are NOT said and NOT done in such conversations, in order to present a conversation that convinces real earls and dukes. That is what it takes to pass-off an Eliza Doolittle to nobles as a noble herself -- as portrayed in the grand climatic ball.
Now when I watch the ball scene, and see Eliza enter the room, ascend the stairs, and convince real duchesses and nobles that she is, in fact, a Hungarian royal princess, under the escort and gaze of Henry Higgins, I feel I am seeing Shakespeare escorting and watching one of his own fictional nobles advance into the gaze and evaluation of real nobles, there to find acceptance by them as one of their own.
One of the "authorship" arguments is how could a commoner from the country, in a society when the noble elite were so closed-off against such people, have known so much about the inner life of the noble class as to be able to present -- to an audience of nobles -- noble characters that convinced them that the characters were authentic.
In 1938's "Pygmalion" Prof. Henry Higgins takes a lower-class cockney girl, Eliza Doolittle, and transforms her into a young woman who can pass so convincingly as a member of the upper class that she can fool a ballroom full of real nobles at an embassy reception.
What Henry Higgins is doing is creating a fictional noblewoman whom real noblemen and women will accept as one of themselves.
Which is exactly what Shakespeare was doing: creating fictional noble characters whom, when presented to an audience of real nobles, would be accepted by those nobles as one of themselves.
And what was the most difficult problem Higgins faced? Stripping away from Eliza errors born of ignorance of how members of that class act in their private encounters: actions and words and behaviors erroneous for a person born and bred to a status of nobility.
There is a scene in which Higgins introduces Eliza to a social group of the upper class for the very first time. It is a tea afternoon hosted by his mother. It is soon apparent that while Eliza has learned vocabulary and diction, the subjects she introduces to speak about, and the facts of her life and relatives that she reports, expose her as not of the upper class. It is her errors that expose her.
Higgins thereupon embarks on a detailed program of teaching her the proper substance and content of what it is to be upper class. Watch Higgins as he teaches Eliza how to curtsy and dance without errors, as he orders the right hair-dressers and the right dress-makers and rents the right jewelry. He makes no errors that expose the fiction. He knows how to curtsy and dance and the hair and clothes and jewels because he was born to the class in which people curtsy and dance. This is the key point: he is able to do this only because he himself is a born member of that class. Only a born member of the class will have the innate, instinctive, detailed knowledge to identify every single moment when Eliza goes off-character and does or says something, or does or says it in a particular way, that will expose her as a false, fictional character, not noble, not even upper class.
This is what Shakespeare knew. Shakespeare presented dozens of noble major characters (and including minor characters, hundreds) to an audience of real nobles. He did, dozens and dozens of times, what Henry Higgins in Pygmalion did but once. And his noble characters had no betraying errors, were always accepted by nobles as authentic nobles. Not once did he present a noble character who rang false. Shakespeare never did this with lower-class characters; they are all caricatures. He had to have been born to the noble class in order to create fictional nobles whom real nobles would accept as real.
Writers who try to create fictional characters who are part of the same real-world social class or group as the intended readers of the novel, or audience members of the play, are acutely aware of the danger of ignorantly including in the character elements that make the character ring false, as not really being part of the intended class or group that comprises the readership or audience. They fear making errors such as did Eliza Doolittle in her tea with Henry Higgins' mother. Professors and others who have never attempted to create a fictional character who can pass as real in an elite milieu do not realize the difficulty and danger of humiliating failure in this effort.
The problem is particularly insurmountable when the real-world group of which the fictional character is supposed to be a part happens to be, in the real world, socially exclusive and closed-off to outsiders. In the world of Henry Higgins, the upper-class Higgins is able to conduct research among the lower-classes because the lower-classes are exposed, in public, in the streets. But a lower-class person could never do the reverse, and conduct research among the upper-classes, because the upper-classes are protected by buildings and servants. A lower-class person cannot get any proximity to them to observe them as they speak and behave, unless voluntarily admitted by an upper-class person, and even then that access will be limited by the boundaries set by the upper-class person who has given admittance.
A writer who presents -- to an audience of earls and dukes -- a private conversation between an earl and a duke, must be a writer who knows what things are NOT said and NOT done in such conversations, in order to present a conversation that convinces real earls and dukes. That is what it takes to pass-off an Eliza Doolittle to nobles as a noble herself -- as portrayed in the grand climatic ball.
Now when I watch the ball scene, and see Eliza enter the room, ascend the stairs, and convince real duchesses and nobles that she is, in fact, a Hungarian royal princess, under the escort and gaze of Henry Higgins, I feel I am seeing Shakespeare escorting and watching one of his own fictional nobles advance into the gaze and evaluation of real nobles, there to find acceptance by them as one of their own.