[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

If such a thing were possible, in 400 years we would have expected to find a superior poet. No such person has arisen.

Incorrect. Such a thing most certainly is possible - nay, probable - nay, likely! In fact, I bet that if I were to put you in a room with nine of Shakespeare's lesser-known sonnets (really, only around 30-40 of the 154 are widely familiar and/or regularly anthologized) and one by a skilled poet familiar with Elizabethan grammar, you would not be able to tell which was not by Shakespeare. I could actually administer this test now, and would if it weren't for the online environment and the ease of Googling.

The very important point I made above (and in other posts here, but c'est la vie) is that context is everything. Shakespeare is of his time. His expertise has echoed for centuries, but he's gradually becoming less and less accessible, hence the abhorrent No Fear editions of his plays (which "modernize" his language). Put Shakespeare in the 18th century and he's outre. Put him in the 19th and he's gauche. Put him in the 20th or 21st century and he's quaint and archaic. Only when we put him in the context of his time can we really appreciate what makes him so great.

This thread isn't about N. Matheson, but I'm admittedly curious: how many of Shakespeare's plays and poems have you read? Whether your answer is "all" or "few" isn't going to change anything I and others have been talking about, but it might help explain why you seem to be hung up on the idea that nobody in any era is a better poet than Shakespeare.