Was Shakespeare a playwright?
Alan Jones
the Lord Chamberlain, upon the council's warrent dated at Whitehall xv die
Marcij 1594 for two several comedies or interludes showed by them before her
Majesty in Christmas time last past, viz; upon St. Stephan's day and
Innocent's day, xiiij li. vj s. viij d. and by way of her Majesty's
reward..."
Burbage was the star "straight" actor, I believe, and Kempe the comedian.
What might Shakespeare's role have been in the entertainment that justified
his receiving a similarly generous reward?
Alan Jones
Pat Dooley
You will note that the payment is for performances ("showed by them").
The one thing the three men have in common is that they were sharers
in the Lord Chamberlain's men and it is the sharers who are paid for
performances.
While it is obvious you want the answer to be "William Shakespeare was
paid for writing", that is an unlikely answer. The plays were usually
the property of the acting company and it would have paid the
playwright or owner directly.
In most of the official documentation for acting companies, the listed
members are the sharers. Prominence of position in such lists usually
goes to the business manager/business agent/financier of the
operation. When Shakespeare disappears from the records of the King's
Men, his place in the documentation is taken by Heminges. That tends
to indicate that Shakespeare's role was business oriented. Given his
documented prowess as a businessman, that should not be surprising.
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
Laila Roth
For providing the play, whether he wrote it or not.
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Roundtable
(snip)
>That tends
> to indicate that Shakespeare's role was business oriented. Given his
> documented prowess as a businessman, that should not be surprising.
On the other hand, he was frequently in debt and didn't always pay
his taxes, so maybe he was not as wonderful a businessman as some
would have us believe.
Roundtable
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Paul Crowley
> "To William Kempe, William Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage, servants to
> the Lord Chamberlain, upon the council's warrent dated at Whitehall xv die
> Marcij 1594 for two several comedies or interludes showed by them before her
This was "March 1595" New Style -- (i.e. as we
understand it now)
> Majesty in Christmas time last past, viz; upon St. Stephan's day and
> Innocent's day, xiiij li. vj s. viij d. and by way of her Majesty's
> reward..."
>
> Burbage was the star "straight" actor, I believe, and Kempe the comedian.
> What might Shakespeare's role have been in the entertainment that justified
> his receiving a similarly generous reward?
What plays could he have written by this time --
under the Stratfordian scenario? Plague had
closed the theatres for virtually all of 1593 and
1594, so there was little or no demand for new
plays in the period leading up to these dates.
It simply does not make sense to suggest that
a new playwright would be as important to the
company (during that most difficult time) as its
two well-established actors, Burbage and
Kemp.
The Dooley/Price scenario of the 'financier /
fixer / play-broker' likewise makes little sense
here. Where would the Stratman have got the
money in the years up to Dec 1594? What fixing
or play-broking would have been profitable,
desirable, or necessary, for the company in the
period preceding Dec 1594 (or March 1595) ?
What could he have done in those years to have
been made a sharer in the company?
When historical records don't make sense on
their face, it is reasonable to consider that some
other story may lie behind them. What exactly it
was, we will probably never know.
However, the thirteen (and 1/3rd) pounds sterling
paid to the trio was for a performance at court.
If 'William Shakespeare' (whoever that was) had
some hand in those arrangements, then we can
assume that the person designated had good
connections at court. That effectively rules out the
Stratman . . . leaving . . . ?
Paul.
Bob Grumman
and son of important theatre man
> > and Kempe the comedian.
> > What might Shakespeare's role have been in the entertainment
> > that justified his receiving a similarly generous reward?
> What plays could he have written by this time --
> under the Stratfordian scenario?
By 1592, under that sane scenario, he had certainly written the
very popular Henry VI trilogy, and Titus Andronicus. He had
probably written other histories, and possibly Two Gentlemen of
Verona and/or The Taming of the Shrew. Burbage would probably
have recognized his potential. Also, he had established himself
as a poet with his two narrative poems. If Southampton did reward
him, then he may have bought into the company. He would also have
been wanted in the company for his acting and jack-of-all-trades
abilities. I think he would be worth making a sharer as an actor
who could provide two or more good plays a year for the company.
Especially if most other playwrights were already writing for
Henslowe, as the records suggest. One other thing to consider is
that Shakespeare seems to have been a nice fellow, one who may
well have used his personality to hook up with Burbage.
> Plague had closed the theatres for virtually all of 1593 and
> 1594, so there was little or no demand for new
> plays in the period leading up to these dates.
You're saying that Shakespeare would not have written a play or
two, anyway--or that acting companies would not still be looking
for good new material for when they could perform again?
> It simply does not make sense to suggest that
> a new playwright would be as important to the
> company (during that most difficult time) as its
> two well-established actors, Burbage and Kemp.
No, he would have been MORE important. Try to think about
how secure a new company would feel with a good in-house
playwright under contract.
> The Dooley/Price scenario of the 'financier /
> fixer / play-broker' likewise makes little sense
> here. Where would the Stratman have got the
> money in the years up to Dec 1594?
Oxford paid him huge sums to front for him?
> What fixing
> or play-broking would have been profitable,
> desirable, or necessary, for the company in the
> period preceding Dec 1594 (or March 1595) ?
> What could he have done in those years to have
> been made a sharer in the company?
Also, DooleyPrice would say he made big bucks as a usurer
during times of money-shortages--and probably loaned Burbage
so much money that Burbage had to take him on as a sharer.
> When historical records don't make sense on
> their face, it is reasonable to consider that some
> other story may lie behind them. What exactly it
> was, we will probably never know.
We will certainly never know exactly what took place. But
the historical records make sense to everyone but wacks.
> However, the thirteen (and 1/3rd) pounds sterling
> paid to the trio was for a performance at court.
> If 'William Shakespeare' (whoever that was) had
> some hand in those arrangements,
He didn't.
> then we can assume that the person designated had good
> connections at court.
Or that he was a persuasive talker. Or that the plays he
wrote sold themselves.
> That effectively rules out the Stratman . . .
Not really. Southampton could have worshipped Shakespeare as
a poet and been Shakespeare's connection. Many other possibilities.
> leaving . . . ?
The Master of Revels, or whatever the personage was?
--Bob G.
>
>
> Paul.
Ken Kaplan
have. Probably, possibly. "I think he would..or could". He *might have
been* a persuasive talker, or that "the plays he wrote (might have)
sold themselves."
"We will cetainly never know exactly what took place."
The understatement of the century.
Do you hear yourself? At least you're consistent with the great
tradition of Stratfordian biography.
Ken Kaplan
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message news:<b9ae5219f274328bb59...@mygate.mailgate.org>...
Laila Roth
You are perfectly right all the way, Paul. For me, the definite
argument for Oxford/Derby has always been the question of
Shakespeare's nobility. One could almost point to it as a red thread
throughout Shakespeare's production, the element of nobility, which
must have been inherent in the author. But what nobility do you find
in the Stratman, his petty business, his marrying an 8 year older
woman whom he had made pregnant, his litigating about coppers with his
Stratford neighbours, his onesidedly businesslike will, his deigning
to bestow on his wife that second best bed of his.... etc, etc. There
is not a trace of any nobility in the whole of the Stratfordian
businessman's life.
And where do you find it in Bacon, in his betraying his benefactor
Essex, his acting as his prosecutor giving him over to the hangman,
and his totally unmotivated repeated betraying procedure against
Raleigh, giving the King the means to execute him just because he was
an embarrassing remnant of the previous glorious reign....etc, etc.
There is absolutely nothing noble about Bacon.
In Marlowe you find elements of tragedy but no real nobility. The
first characteristic Shakespeare traits of nobility are in the
character of Henry VI and others of those plays, like Humphrey of
Gloucester. Then nobility constantly grows stronger, culminating in
Othello, the mentality of which character in real life only was found
in Derby in his relations with his beautiful but wanton wife. Othello
in the Italian story is a totally different character. The Othello of
real life is only found in Derby - but the nobility of Shakespeare was
both that of Oxford and of Derby.
compliments, Paul, one of the few remaining knights for our cause,
Laila Roth, Derbyite
Neil Brennen
Laila Roth wrote in message ...
>You are perfectly right all the way, Paul. For me, the definite
>argument for Oxford/Derby has always been the question of
>Shakespeare's nobility. One could almost point to it as a red thread
>throughout Shakespeare's production, the element of nobility, which
>must have been inherent in the author. But what nobility do you find
>in the Stratman, his petty business, his marrying an 8 year older
>woman whom he had made pregnant, his litigating about coppers with his
>Stratford neighbours, his onesidedly businesslike will, his deigning
>to bestow on his wife that second best bed of his.... etc, etc. There
>is not a trace of any nobility in the whole of the Stratfordian
>businessman's life.
>And where do you find it in Bacon, in his betraying his benefactor
>Essex, his acting as his prosecutor giving him over to the hangman,
>and his totally unmotivated repeated betraying procedure against
>Raleigh, giving the King the means to execute him just because he was
>an embarrassing remnant of the previous glorious reign....etc, etc.
>There is absolutely nothing noble about Bacon.
>
>In Marlowe you find elements of tragedy but no real nobility. The
>first characteristic Shakespeare traits of nobility are in the
>character of Henry VI and others of those plays, like Humphrey of
>Gloucester. Then nobility constantly grows stronger, culminating in
>Othello, the mentality of which character in real life only was found
>in Derby in his relations with his beautiful but wanton wife.
This is like arguing Steinbeck couldn't have written "Of Mice and Men"
because he had never killed a retarded man.
Othello
>in the Italian story is a totally different character. The Othello of
>real life is only found in Derby - but the nobility of Shakespeare was
>both that of Oxford and of Derby.
>
>compliments, Paul, one of the few remaining knights for our cause,
Compliments, Laila Bosh, on proving your status as a rigidnik.
Bob Grumman
news:81b80d38.02051...@posting.google.com
> Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
As opposed to couldn'ta, shouldn'ta, wouldn'ta.
> May have, might have. Most certainly could
> have. Probably, possibly. "I think he would..or could". He *might have
> been* a persuasive talker, or that "the plays he wrote (might have)
> sold themselves."
Yes, Ken, that's what even semi-scholars say when we lack
sufficient data to say more--but, unlike you wacks, we also
at times say "this DID happen," basing that on hard evidence.
What you will never understand is that our side has the hard
data--the names on the title pages; so all we have to do against
your side's moronic arguments is show that our man could have
done the things required of a playwright/poet you say he could
not have.
Aside from that, I was telling Crowley how the Stratfordians
would handle the question he proposed. My actual answer is not
a coulda, but the following: Shakespeare was named as one of
the three persons paid for plays given at court because he was,
as actor, jack-of-all-trades, and in-house playwright for
that company with a number of hits behind him (as recorded by
Nashe and suggested by Greene and Chettle, and later verified
by a multitude of other witnesses) and suddenly quite popular
poet, one of the three leading members of the company of actors
that performed those plays.
--Bob G.
Roundtable
>For me, the definite
> argument for Oxford/Derby has always been the question of
> Shakespeare's nobility. One could almost point to it as a red thread
> throughout Shakespeare's production, the element of nobility, which
> must have been inherent in the author.
So what are they now - noble plays or bawdy ones?
> But what nobility do you find in the Stratman, his petty business,
Co-management of a theatre is petty?
>his marrying an 8 year older woman whom he had made pregnant,
I find it singularly disturbing that a woman should join in this
old-fogey macho view of women not being allowed to have a younger
lover or husband. It is now the year 2002 and I RESENT still having
to read such old-fashioned and extremely CRUEL opinions.
Equal rights, please - right up into the bedroom!
And as for the fact that she got pregnant before she was married -
look, I'm a believing Roman Catholic, but I also believe that love is
sacred, and what you feel in the eyes of God counts for more than
whether it happened before or after bureaucratic ceremonies.
It is STILL the custom in Sicilia when a girl wants to marry a boy
of whom her family does not approve, that they go off together
and they sleep together, whereupon he "has" to marry her so that
her honour remains intact.
Anne was of a socially higher level than Will, remember, and who knows
whether marriage under normal circumstances would have been agreed to
otherwise, what with his father's bankruptcy.
> his onesidedly businesslike will, his deigning
> to bestow on his wife that second best bed of his....
Views have been expressed that this was done to prevent Annes'
brothers, (whom Will did not like and thought were too grasping and
meddling) from putting their hands on his property and fortune.
Roundtable