Daryl Pinksen's Hyperbole
Robin G.
Writer's Digest. caught my eye.
"Between 1585 and 1593, Christopher Marlowe transformed the face of
English drama. Before him, scholars say, neither true English blank
verse nor genuine English tragedy existed. By 1593, the year he was
arrested on suspicion of heresy, Marlowe had laid the foundations of
what today we know as Shakespearean drama. Why are Marlowe’s
revolutionary accomplishments largely unknown? Because Marlowe’s name
has been reviled for four hundred years, his reputation in ruins.
Shakespeare by contrast has enjoyed a never-ending rise in fortune
bordering on deification."
Really?
Does Mr. Pinksen believe that Marlowe transformed the face of English
drama all by himself? Thomas Kyd, John Lyly and Robert Greene were all
writing plays between 1585 and 1593. They too help to transform the
face of English drama. Marlowe, Kyd, Lyly and Greene laid the
foundations. Yes, Christopher Marlowe was the best playwright in the
group.
Mr. Pinksen appears to use the term Shakespearean drama in a general
sense. Perhaps, he uses it to confuse his readers? Most scholars in
the fields of theatre and drama use the term Shakespearean drama to
refer to only the plays of William Shakespeare. There are similar
terms when referring to specific playwrights of the period. When
referring to all the plays of the period, they use Elizabethan,
Jacobean, or Caroline drama.
Pinksen wonders, "Why are Marlowe’s revolutionary accomplishments
largely unknown? " Really? They are known to scholars in the field
of theatre and drama. I will grant you they are unknown to the
general public.
"Because Marlowe’s name has been reviled for four hundred years, his
reputation in ruins." Come now, Mr. Pinksen! Who has reviled his name
for four hundred years? His plays were published during his lifetime
and after. His plays were performed during his lifetime and after.
His plays are still performed today. Yes, Doctor Faustus is probably
the most performed. On the other hand, from time to time, there are
productions of Tamburlaine, Edward II, and even The Jew of Malta.
Yes, it is unfair to judge a book by a brief excerpt. On the other
hand, if Mr. Pinksen is wrong about some basic issue, one is left to
wonder about the rest of the book? Is it more of the same?
John W Kennedy
> The following excerpt from Daryl Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost, posted on
> Writer's Digest. caught my eye.
>
> "Between 1585 and 1593, Christopher Marlowe transformed the face of
> English drama. Before him, scholars say, neither true English blank
> verse nor genuine English tragedy existed. By 1593, the year he was
> arrested on suspicion of heresy, Marlowe had laid the foundations of
> Shakespeare by contrast has enjoyed a never-ending rise in fortune
> bordering on deification."
>
> Really?
>
> Does Mr. Pinksen believe that Marlowe transformed the face of English
> drama all by himself? Thomas Kyd, John Lyly and Robert Greene were all
> writing plays between 1585 and 1593. They too help to transform the
> face of English drama. Marlowe, Kyd, Lyly and Greene laid the
> foundations. Yes, Christopher Marlowe was the best playwright in the
> group.
>
> Mr. Pinksen appears to use the term Shakespearean drama in a general
> sense. Perhaps, he uses it to confuse his readers? Most scholars in
> the fields of theatre and drama use the term Shakespearean drama to
> refer to only the plays of William Shakespeare. There are similar
> terms when referring to specific playwrights of the period. When
> referring to all the plays of the period, they use Elizabethan,
> Jacobean, or Caroline drama.
>
> of theatre and drama. I will grant you they are unknown to the
> general public.
>
> for four hundred years? His plays were published during his lifetime
> and after. His plays were performed during his lifetime and after.
> His plays are still performed today. Yes, Doctor Faustus is probably
> the most performed. On the other hand, from time to time, there are
> productions of Tamburlaine, Edward II, and even The Jew of Malta.
>
> Yes, it is unfair to judge a book by a brief excerpt. On the other
> hand, if Mr. Pinksen is wrong about some basic issue, one is left to
> wonder about the rest of the book? Is it more of the same?
Ah, but you see, he's talking about "true" English blank verse and
"genuine" English tragedy. Besides, "scholars" say so.
He's wrong about Shakespeare, of course; for a good, long time,
Shakespeare was perceived as a sort of gifted barbarian.
--
John W Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's
throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of
treason to the United States."
-- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"
Robin G.
> On 2010-05-26 20:02:41 -0400, Robin G. said:
>
>
>
>
> Ah, but you see, he's talking about "true" English blank verse and
> "genuine" English tragedy. Besides, "scholars" say so.
Yep, you've got to be on guard in case some city slicker tries to sell
you false (fake) English blank verse and imitation English tragedy.
Back in my younger days, I bought some mistake. When I got home and
found out, I was sorry for weeks. Good thing, it happened only once.
Seems to me, there should be some type of government stamp to make
sure the verse is true and blank and the tragedy is the real meal
deal.
>
Paul Crowley
> On 2010-05-26 20:02:41 -0400, Robin G. said:
>> The following excerpt from Daryl Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost, posted on
>> Writer's Digest. caught my eye.
>>
>> "Between 1585 and 1593, Christopher Marlowe transformed the face of
>> English drama. Before him, scholars say, neither true English blank
>> verse nor genuine English tragedy existed. By 1593, the year he was
>> arrested on suspicion of heresy, Marlowe had laid the foundations of
>> has been reviled for four hundred years, his reputation in ruins.
>> Shakespeare by contrast has enjoyed a never-ending rise in fortune
>> bordering on deification."
> He's wrong about Shakespeare, of course; for a good,
> long time, Shakespeare was perceived as a sort of
> gifted barbarian.
What's changed?
Shapiro has the Stratman acquiring his
learning while standing at bookstalls,
and through meeting travellers in inns.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> learning while standing at bookstalls,
> and through meeting travellers in inns.
>
> Paul.
Well, that's as plausible as your belief that
he learned everything he ever knew from
the pigs he shared his living quarters with
all his life.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
> The following excerpt from Daryl
> Pinksen's Marlowe's Ghost, posted on Writer's Digest.
> caught my eye.
>
> "Between 1585 and 1593, Christopher Marlowe
> transformed the face of English drama. Before him,
> scholars say, neither true English blank verse nor
> genuine English tragedy existed. By 1593, the year he
> was arrested on suspicion of heresy, Marlowe had laid
> the foundations of what today we know as
> revolutionary accomplishments largely unknown?
> Because Marlowe�s name has been reviled for four
> hundred years, his reputation in ruins. Shakespeare by
> contrast has enjoyed a never-ending rise in fortune
> bordering on deification."
>
> Really?
>
> Does Mr. Pinksen believe that Marlowe transformed the
> face of English drama all by himself? Thomas Kyd,
> John Lyly and Robert Greene were all writing plays
> between 1585 and 1593. They too help to transform
> the face of English drama.
What is wrong with your thinking, and that
of Pinksen's, is the strange belief that a
group of people, doing their best to make a
living, and writing entirely to maximise the
numbers of illiterate bums on seats, might
"transform the face of English drama"
No great art (indeed, no significant art of
any kind) was ever before financed from the
pockets of the common people.
Neither you, nor Pinksen, nor any Strat
nor quasi-Strat is aware of this. Why?
Because merely to put it into words is to
see the absurdity of your 'thinking'.
BUT you and Pinksen and all Strats and
quasi-Strats are agreed on one thing:
There was ONE great and truly outstanding
artist-playwright of that age.
Yet, strangely, you and Pinksen and all
Strats and quasi-Strats think he came late
-- long after the "face of English drama"
had been transformed by other, much
lesser, lights.
So you are going to find it hard to produce a
theory that might help explain the origins of
the English Literary Renaissance. You have
several mysteries to get out of the way first.
Perhaps that's why no such theory exists.
"Tings are de way dey are cos dat's de way
dey are" -- the fundamental doctrine of
English Literary Studies.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Roman drama was also a popular art.
The morality and mystery plays were for the
common people.
There were building called theatres in England during
Shakespeare's time, Paul. All relevant documents show
that people of all classes went to them to watch plays.
Documents tell us that plays by Shakespeare were
among them. Henslowe's diary shows us how he, for one,
made a living from plays shown to the general public. There
is no sane reason to believe Shakespeare did not write
for the general public.
Why don't you tell us about any significant group of dramatists
in world culture who wrote plays for aristocrats only. Yes, I know
that the Spanish at around Shakespeare's time were only
writing minor plays compared to the Great Shakespeare's; still,
they are considered important even today, and they were for
the general public. Who did Racine, Corneille and Moliere write
for, by the way? Or who the commedi del arte performed for.
This ignores other literature, and the effect the printing press had
on whom it was written for.
Amazing as it may seem, your knowledge of world drama is
even more deficient than your knowledge of world poetry.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
> Greek drama was written for the entire city of Athens.
God help us. Your lack of awareness of
elementary historical fact never ceases to
astonish. Someone had to do the cleaning,
collect the wood, make the fires, do the
cooking, make and wash the clothes,
look after the horses, dispose of the
sewerage, etc., etc..
The proportion of slaves in classical societies
was usually close to 90% of the population.
So we are ONLY talking of the 'citizens' --
and the MALE citizens.
> Roman drama was also a popular art.
See above. But how do you know this anyway?
> The morality and mystery plays were for the
> common people.
While Early Modern societies did not usually
have slaves, the manual work still had to be
done, Ninety per-cent did not need literacy
(for example).
> There were building called theatres in England
> during Shakespeare's time, Paul. All relevant
> documents show that people of all classes went
> to them to watch plays.
Wrong. Somewhere Gurr has found a large
list of the classes of people attending (I;ll
try to find the reference later) of which only
two were from the yeomanry. (They were
probably quite lost and thought that they
were going to a religious service or some
such.)
> Documents tell us that plays by Shakespeare
> were among them.
Crap. If they were 'among them' it was
largely happenstance. They would rarely
have been played,.
> Henslowe's diary shows us how he, for one,
> made a living from plays shown to the general
> public.
Except that we have copies of almost
none of those plays.
> There is no sane reason to believe
> Shakespeare did not write for the general public.
Read the texts sometime.
> Why don't you tell us about any significant group
> of dramatists in world culture who wrote plays for
> aristocrats only.
All the Roman ones? All the Greek ones?
> Yes, I know that the Spanish at
> around Shakespeare's time were only writing
> minor plays compared to the Great
> Shakespeare's; still, they are considered
> important even today, and they were for the
> general public.
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
> Who did Racine, Corneille and
> Moliere write for, by the way?
The French Court.
> Or who the commedi del arte performed for.
Who knows? Presumably those who
could pay -- the aristocracy.
> This ignores other literature,
. . . All those categories whose names
you cannot at the moment happen to
remember.
> and the effect the printing press had on whom it
> was written for.
The printing press was powerful -- but very
little of any output, made in quantity before
(say) 1800, could conceivably be regarded
as art.
Paul.
ignoto
On 29/05/10 8:33 AM, in article htpgj9$p6t$1...@speranza.aioe.org, "Paul
Crowley" <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
>> Greek drama was written for the entire city of Athens.
>
> God help us. Your lack of awareness of
> elementary historical fact never ceases to
> astonish. Someone had to do the cleaning,
> collect the wood, make the fires, do the
> cooking, make and wash the clothes,
> look after the horses, dispose of the
> sewerage, etc., etc..
>
> The proportion of slaves in classical societies
> was usually close to 90% of the population.
> So we are ONLY talking of the 'citizens' --
> and the MALE citizens.
So, everyone who was not a slave was an aristocrat?
>
>> Roman drama was also a popular art.
>
> See above. But how do you know this anyway?
>
>> The morality and mystery plays were for the
>> common people.
>
> While Early Modern societies did not usually
> have slaves, the manual work still had to be
> done, Ninety per-cent did not need literacy
> (for example).
Nonsense. The Mysteries (eg) were performed by members of the craft guilds
for the other commoners.
[By way of anecdotal example: "An old man in Cartmel, Lancashire, in the
seventeenth century ... when questioned by a zealous reforming cleric about
his religious beliefs, could remember nothing he had heard in sermons or
homilies, but, on hearing the name of Jesus mentioned, recalled having seen
'that man you spake of once in a playat Kendal [Lancashire], called a Corpus
Christi play, where there was a man on a tree and blood ran down." (Medieval
Drama: an Anthology by Greg Walker (ed) at 3)]
>> There were building called theatres in England
>> during Shakespeare's time, Paul. All relevant
>> documents show that people of all classes went
>> to them to watch plays.
>
> Wrong. Somewhere Gurr has found a large
> list of the classes of people attending (I;ll
> try to find the reference later) of which only
> two were from the yeomanry. (They were
> probably quite lost and thought that they
> were going to a religious service or some
> such.)
Gurr: "The inference is that [the 'ignorant'] citizens were the standard
kind of playgoer in the 1590s, but that they were a distinctly less normal
feature of the later indoor playhouse audiences. This is, regrettably, a
fairly loose calculation. (Playgoing in Shakespeare's London at 70)
>
>> Documents tell us that plays by Shakespeare
>> were among them.
>
> Crap. If they were 'among them' it was
> largely happenstance. They would rarely
> have been played,.
The evidence tells us otherwise.
Ign.
Paul Crowley
>>> Greek drama was written for the entire city of Athens.
>>
>> The proportion of slaves in classical societies
>> was usually close to 90% of the population.
>> So we are ONLY talking of the 'citizens' --
>> and the MALE citizens.
>
> So, everyone who was not a slave was an aristocrat?
Of course not. In talking about 'social classes'
in classical (or even Early Modern) societies,
in effect we usually ignore the bottom 90% of
the population. They are 'nobodies' who only
count when bodies are needed, for (say) armies.
In Rome and Athens, that 90% were slaves,
In Early Modern Europe, they were peasants
and yeomen.
In both Athens and Rome there were ancient
'patrician' or aristocratic families, but they
were aristocrats within the top 10% of the
population. Athenian democracy only applied
to that top 10%, and then only to adult males,
and usually with other restrictions.
[..]
> [By way of anecdotal example: "An old man in Cartmel,
> Lancashire, in the seventeenth century ... when questioned
> by a zealous reforming cleric about his religious beliefs,
> could remember nothing he had heard in sermons or
> homilies, but, on hearing the name of Jesus mentioned,
> recalled having seen 'that man you spake of once in a playat
> Kendal [Lancashire], called a Corpus Christi play, where
> there was a man on a tree and blood ran down." (Medieval
> Drama: an Anthology by Greg Walker (ed) at 3)]
Would you expect such a person to
enjoy a performance of (say) Antony
& Cleopatra?
>>> Documents tell us that plays by Shakespeare
>>> were among them.
>>
>> Crap. If they were 'among them' it was
>> largely happenstance. They would rarely
>> have been played,.
>
> The evidence tells us otherwise.
What evidence is that?
(Btw, Stratfordian imagination does not
count as evidence -- something that
academics like Shapiro have yet to
grasp.)
Paul.
BCD
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> [...]
> > Who did Racine, Corneille and
> > Moliere write for, by the way?
>
> The French Court.
>
"You see an apple-girl in Paris, sitting at a stall with her feet over
a stove in the coldest weather, or defended from the sun by an
umbrella, reading Racine or Voltaire." William Hazlitt, *Notes of a
Journey through France and Italy* (1826), Ch. 5, in the course of
noting the general dedicated French interest in their literature and
drama vis-a-vis its effect on the national character, in contrast to
English ways. Hazlitt's next sentence is: "Who ever saw such a thing
in London as a barrow-woman reading Shakspeare [sic] or Fielding?"
Best Wishes,
--BCD
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> God help us. Your lack of awareness of
> elementary historical fact never ceases to
> astonish.
Go to it, Paul. If I say something that seems ignorant
to you, always assume it is ignorant, and not that
perhaps my expression of a point was loose or
something. If you were honest, you would realize
that my general reading background was about the
same as yours.
> Someone had to do the cleaning,
> collect the wood, make the fires, do the
> cooking, make and wash the clothes,
> look after the horses, dispose of the
> sewerage, etc., etc..
>
> The proportion of slaves in classical societies
> was usually close to 90% of the population.
> So we are ONLY talking of the 'citizens' --
> and the MALE citizens.
I was talking about the citizens, too, Paul. I
don't know if females were allowed to attend plays,
or--really--if slaves were. I doubt they comprised
90% of the population. Anyway, Athenian drama
was not for aristocrats only. Merchants attended.
I'd add that Athens is a special case, too.
> > Roman drama was also a popular art.
>
> See above. But how do you know this anyway?
There were many non-aristocrats in Rome who were not
slaves--the people who went to the Colosseum. I admit
that I don't know this firmly--it's just my understanding
after having actually taken a course in the history of the
drama, and having read a lot about the drama because it's
one of my central interests, and has been since I was
a teen-ager reading unassigned plays. It's also based
on my impression of Roman plays, especially those of
Plautus as being middle-brow, and even low-brow at times.
Another reason for my belief: why wouldn't there be plays
for the lower classes? At any time in history? There was
music for them, juggling for them, story-telling for them (or
do you think not--the documentation for that seems the
same as the documentation for plays for commoners). One
can understand literature's being for the upper class because
requiring literacy, and painting because requiring money, but
not the drama. Also, explain oral poetry--the fact that Homer
was for everybody.
> > The morality and mystery plays were for the
> > common people.
>
> While Early Modern societies did not usually
> have slaves, the manual work still had to be
> done, Ninety per-cent did not need literacy
> (for example).
>
> > There were building called theatres in England
> > during Shakespeare's time, Paul. All relevant
> > documents show that people of all classes went
> > to them to watch plays.
>
> Wrong. Somewhere Gurr has found a large
> list of the classes of people attending (I;ll
> try to find the reference later) of which only
> two were from the yeomanry. (They were
> probably quite lost and thought that they
> were going to a religious service or some
> such.)
What were Elizabethan theatres used for, Paul?
And what do these references to plays put on in
the streets mean? That's where Richard II was put on,
remember. Liz herself said that.
> > Documents tell us that plays by Shakespeare
> > were among them.
>
> Crap. If they were 'among them' it was
> largely happenstance. They would rarely
> have been played,.
Do you have evidence players were prevented from
putting on Shakespeare's plays for the general public?
If not, why would they not have? And if they were not
put on for them, why did Oxford not acknowledge them
as his--since there would have been no danger that
the *wrong people* would have seen them and overthrown
the corrupt government as a result?
> > Henslowe's diary shows us how he, for one,
> > made a living from plays shown to the general
> > public.
>
> Except that we have copies of almost
> none of those plays.
I'm not sure that's true, but so what if it is? The
point is that Henslowe made money by presenting
plays to the general public.
> > There is no sane reason to believe
> > Shakespeare did not write for the general public.
>
> Read the texts sometime.
Well, I'd need somebody real smart like you to help me
and I don't live in New York, so there's no way I could
find somebody real smart. But I do remember reading
them--in a place called junior high school. These
terribly sophisticated plays in cour country are considered
suitable reading for 13-year-olds, Paul! Can you believe it?!!
Why don't you pick one play of Shakespeare's and
cite the passages that only nobles would have been able
to appreciate. Also tell us how any audience could be
too unsophisticated to follow any of the history plays
or Titus Andronicus, or The Comedy of Errors.
One of the many things you, as a rigidnik, will never be
able to understand is that a person can enjoy a play even
if he doesn't understand everything in it. So just because
there are in your opinion some in-jokes for aristocrats in
a play doesn't mean a plebe cannot possible enjoy it, anyway.
The fact that ordinary people have always enjoyed
Shakespeare's plays according to documents from 1800 or
earlier on suggests that ordinary people would have enjoyed
them in Shakespeare's time.
> > Why don't you tell us about any significant group
> > of dramatists in world culture who wrote plays for
> > aristocrats only.
>
> All the Roman ones? All the Greek ones?
Absolute nonsense.
> > Yes, I know that the Spanish at
> > around Shakespeare's time were only writing
> > minor plays compared to the Great
> > Shakespeare's; still, they are considered
> > important even today, and they were for the
> > general public.
>
> HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I told you. I read some books on it, took a class in it,
used common sense, read the Canterbury Tales.
What evidence do you have against it?
>
> > Who did Racine, Corneille and
> > Moliere write for, by the way?
>
> The French Court.
>
> > Or who the commedia del arte performed for.
>
> Who knows? Presumably those who
> could pay -- the aristocracy.
Merchants could pay.
> > This ignores other literature,
>
> . . . All those categories whose names
> you cannot at the moment happen to
> remember.
No, it doesn't bother to mention the names of
kinds of literature everyone can be expected to know.
> > and the effect the printing press had on whom it
> > was written for.
>
> The printing press was powerful -- but very
> little of any output, made in quantity before
> (say) 1800, could conceivably be regarded
> as art.
>
> Paul.
I asked this somewhere but don't recall any answer from you:
just what was the Globe Theatre used for? And the other
outdoor theatres? Why were they said to be in competition
with bear baiting shows? With, that is, entertainments
clearly for the lowest orders? Why do all the authorities
say Shakespeare's plays were performed in public theatres
for general audiences? This, long before any authorship
question. What would be their motive for getting it so
wrong? How did Burbage, Kempe, Alleyne and other
actors become famous if they only performed for
small aristocratic audiences?
I will certainly admit to not being able to argue this point
well, because I'm not on top of the history of drama, and
lack the time to refresh my memory of it. So my bottom
line is merely that since everyone who has discussed the
matter in print but you agrees with me that Shakespearfe
wrote for the general public, I am much more likely to
be right than you.
--Bob
--Bob
Paul Crowley
> Go to it, Paul. If I say something that seems
> ignorant to you, always assume it is ignorant, and
> not that perhaps my expression of a point was
> loose or something. If you were honest, you would
> realize that my general reading background was
> about the same as yours.
It's not a question of reading -- but of
understanding. Such misunderstanding
is widespread, and reading bad academics
who don't understand it either is no help.
Pre-modern social structure required a high
proportion of people who had no need to
read, and for whom reading would have
been -- from the point of view of the society
as a whole -- an impediment.
You just don't get this -- assuming that
class was somehow irrelevant or that it
arose largely by chance. As I say, such
ignorance is common, and one marker
of it is Stratfordianism. You believe that
a yeoman -- son of an illiterate yeomen
and an illiterate yeowoman, living in the
country -- could and would not merely
acquire literacy, but become supremely
knowledgeable about literature, skilled
in its use, and highly articulate in the
most complex of language.
It's like suggesting that someone growing
up on the Siberian steppes could become
a skilled surgeon, or even if he never saw
a musical instrument nor heard music,
could become something like Beethoven.
A Stratfordian must necessarily lack
all understanding of social structure
-- as well as of history and of people.
>> Someone had to do the cleaning,
>> collect the wood, make the fires, do the
>> cooking, make and wash the clothes,
>> look after the horses, dispose of the
>> sewerage, etc., etc..
>>
>> The proportion of slaves in classical societies
>> was usually close to 90% of the population.
>> So we are ONLY talking of the 'citizens' --
>> and the MALE citizens.
>
> I was talking about the citizens, too, Paul. I don't
> know if females were allowed to attend plays
They weren't. (Strats must necessarily lack
all understanding of pre-modern sexual
relations.)
> or--really--if slaves were.
They weren't. (Strats must necessarily lack
all understanding of pre-modern social
structure.)
> I doubt they comprised 90% of the population.
The Athenian state (dependant upon all
those peasant farmers -- and their slaves)
must necessarily have had such a social
structure.
> There were many non-aristocrats in Rome who
> were not slaves--the people who went to the
> Colosseum.
True -- Rome had a population of one million.
But the Colosseum was not a theatre.
> It's also
> based on my impression of Roman plays,
> especially those of Plautus as being middle-brow,
> and even low-brow at times.
So aristocrats must necessarily be high-brow?
> Another reason for my belief: why wouldn't there be
> plays for the lower classes? At any time in
> history?
A perfect illustration of my point. Do you
think many in an average football (or boxing
or ice-hockey or baseball) crowd would want
to sit through a two-hour play?
People who do hard manual work for most
of the daylight hours do not have time for
the discussion of complex ideas. They
don't have a need to discuss complex ideas.
So they lack the appropriate vocabulary.
They don't often use words like 'although'
They automatically (and necessarily) pass
on to their children a distaste for such
things. Wittgenstein's Tractatus is not
merely not discussed. Anyone who raised
that kind of topic would soon be 'put right'.
> There was music for them, juggling for
> them, story-telling for them (or do you think not--
> the documentation for that seems the same as the
> documentation for plays for commoners).
Simple music, simple juggling, and
simple story-telling. More complex things
take time to learn how to appreciate, and
that time is not available.
> One can understand literature's being for the upper
> class because requiring literacy, and painting
> because requiring money, but not the drama.
What kind of drama can be delivered to
an audience that had little knowledge of
the world outside their village?
> Also, explain oral poetry--the fact that Homer was
> for everybody.
I don't know who Homer was for -- any more
than you.
> What were Elizabethan theatres used for, Paul?
The entertainment of the masses -- much
like what you see on mainstream TV.
> And what do these references to plays put on in
> the streets mean? That's where Richard II was put
> on, remember. Liz herself said that.
It was ' . open streets and houses . . '
We can allow Liz some hyperbole, and
that was probably over a dozen years or
more. Such plays may have been
performed sometimes for general audiences
(depending on the current attitude of the
government) but that is not to say that
they were written for such audiences.
> Do you have evidence players were prevented from
> putting on Shakespeare's plays for the general
> public? If not, why would they not have?
Much the same reason as today. How
far do you have to go to see a performance
of Richard II? It demands far too much
from most audiences.
> And if they were not put on for them, why did
> Oxford not acknowledge them as his--since there
> would have been no danger that the *wrong people*
> would have seen them and overthrown the corrupt
> government as a result?
This is silly. The 'wrong people' were far
too many. Even if most of them never, or
very rarely, attended the theatre, a few
might. The risks were too great, whereas
the measures for risk-avoidance were easy
and cheap.
There is nothing special in this. The
private plays that (say) Henri III or Cardinal
Richelieu watched in France would have
been equally as inappropriate for the
public stage -- and as dangerous if they
had ever got out. But no one thought of
publishing them, since (presumably)
their artistic value was not outstanding,
or maybe it was just that the French
monarchs were more careful.
> I'm not sure that's true, but so what if it is? The
> point is that Henslowe made money by presenting
> plays to the general public.
Sure, and Walt Disney, Sam Golwyn and
the Warner Brothers made money by
presenting films to the general public.
Are their scripts now part of the
curriculum of most schools?
>>> There is no sane reason to believe
>>> Shakespeare did not write for the general public.
>>
>> Read the texts sometime.
>
> Well, I'd need somebody real smart like you to help
> me and I don't live in New York, so there's no way I
> could find somebody real smart. But I do
> remember reading them--in a place called junior
> high school. These terribly sophisticated plays in
> cour country are considered suitable reading for 13-
> year-olds, Paul! Can you believe it?!!
So are (or recently used to be) Virgil,
Horace, Homer and Ovid. That does not
mean that people paid for public readings
of those works.
> Why don't you pick one play of Shakespeare's and
> cite the passages that only nobles would have
> been able to appreciate.
Firstly, it's 'educated people' (a category
that at the time did not go much beyond
'noble'). Take the first speech of more than
20 lines in any play.
> Also tell us how any
> audience could be too unsophisticated to follow
> any of the history plays or Titus Andronicus, or The
> Comedy of Errors.
The plays are FREE and well known.
When did you last see a full performance
of one at peak hours on mainstream TV?
That's your 'too unsophisticated audience'.
> One of the many things you, as a rigidnik, will
> never be able to understand is that a person can
> enjoy a play even if he doesn't understand
> everything in it. So just because there are in your
> opinion some in-jokes for aristocrats in a play
> doesn't mean a plebe cannot possible enjoy it,
> anyway.
You are an idiot. Your first recourse is
to invent a straw man. The question is
NOT whether you might sometimes find
a pleb who likes a play. The issue is
whether or not it was written for an
audience of plebs. Does it pack them
in? Does it fill the house? Are bums
on seats maximised?
> The fact that ordinary people have always enjoyed
> Shakespeare's plays according to documents from
> 1800 or earlier on suggests that ordinary people
> would have enjoyed them in Shakespeare's time.
Yeah, yeah. What a dope you are !
You are capable of believing anything.
Presumably it's a requirement for being
a Strat.
>>> Yes, I know that the Spanish at
>>> around Shakespeare's time were only writing
>>> minor plays compared to the Great
>>> Shakespeare's; still, they are considered
>>> important even today, and they were for the
>>> general public.
>>
>> HOW DO YOU KNOW?
>
> I told you. I read some books on it, took a class in
> it, used common sense, read the Canterbury
> Tales.
Sure -- and Chaucer tells us that Don Quixote
went down a treat.
[..]
> I asked this somewhere but don't recall any answer
> from you: just what was the Globe Theatre used
> for? And the other outdoor theatres? Why were
> they said to be in competition with bear baiting
> shows? With, that is, entertainments clearly for
> the lowest orders?
I wasn't there, so I can't tell you. But it
would have been the equivalent of modern
TV reality shows. Do you think anyone
keeps the 'scripts' of such works? Or
that in 400 years time anyone will be
able to explain their nature or the reasons
for their popularity?
> Why do all the authorities say
> Shakespeare's plays were performed in public
> theatres for general audiences?
Because that's what they were meant
to think.
> This, long before any authorship question.
There was an authorship question from the
time the poet was ten (in 1560). Remember
Gorboduc?
> What would be their
> motive for getting it so wrong? How did Burbage,
> Kempe, Alleyne and other actors become famous if
> they only performed for small aristocratic
> audiences?
Whoever suggested that? They performed
in public plays for public audiences, putting
bums on seats. They rarely, if ever, did
that with the canonical plays.
> I will certainly admit to not being able to argue this
> point well, because I'm not on top of the history of
> drama, and lack the time to refresh my memory of
> it. So my bottom line is merely that since
> everyone who has discussed the matter in print but
> you agrees with me that Shakespearfe wrote for
> the general public, I am much more likely to be
> right than you.
I suppose that's why you're also a
Creationist, and believe in fairies, vampires,
guns and extra-terrestrial visitations by
aliens. The majority is always right.
Paul.
Daryl Pinksen
I read your critique of my Writer's Digest excerpt with great
interest. I think I owe you some answers.
> "Between 1585 and 1593, Christopher Marlowe transformed the face of
English drama." Does Mr. Pinksen believe that Marlowe transformed the
face of English
> drama all by himself? Thomas Kyd, John Lyly and Robert Greene were all
> writing plays between 1585 and 1593. They too help to transform the
> face of English drama. Marlowe, Kyd, Lyly and Greene laid the
> foundations. Yes, Christopher Marlowe was the best playwright in the
> group.
By way of analogy, I could also say that, "Einstein transformed the
face of modern physics." Hyperbole? Well, there were plenty of other
physicists who contributed to the development of modern physics;
Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger, and other illustrious scientists were
all making great strides in the first decades of the 20the century.
They too helped transform modern physics. I would argue that Marlowe's
dominance of his group was as great, or perhaps greater, than
Einstein's dominance of his group. Would physicists take issue with my
statement about Einstein? Some might, but let's be honest, how would
their protestations sound? My statement is not hyperbole, it is
informed opinion.
> Mr. Pinksen appears to use the term Shakespearean drama in a general
> sense. Perhaps, he uses it to confuse his readers? Most scholars in
> the fields of theatre and drama use the term Shakespearean drama to
> refer to only the plays of William Shakespeare. There are similar
> terms when referring to specific playwrights of the period. When
> referring to all the plays of the period, they use Elizabethan,
> Jacobean, or Caroline drama.
I am not using the term generally. I use the term, as you do, for the
Shakespeare plays. Where we differ is that I argue that the Marlowe
plays, and the Marlowe plays alone, are a part of that tradition.
Marlowe, it can be argued, without hyperbole, created the style of
drama which we now know as "Shakespearean." I'm essentially
paraphrasing Harold Bloom, among others: "Yet Marlowe, himself a wild
original, was Shakespeare’s starting point, curiously difficult for
the young Shakespeare to exorcise completely.… And yet that means the
strongest writer known to us served a seven-year apprenticeship to
Christopher Marlowe." Bloom’s Major Dramatists: Christopher Marlowe.
2002. p.10
> Pinksen wonders, "Why are Marlowe’s revolutionary accomplishments
> largely unknown? " Really? They are known to scholars in the field
> of theatre and drama. I will grant you they are unknown to the
> general public.
In 2002 Michael Rubbo toured the streets of Canterbury (Marlowe's
hometown, for the uninitiated), and asked people if they knew who
Christopher Marlowe was. Most of them did not. To use another physics
analogy, if I were to say, "Why are Nikola Tesla's revolutionary
accomplishments unknown?" many physicists might object, saying that
they know who he is and what he did. But this book, and my
hypothetical book about Tesla, was not written to cater to a small
number of scholars, it was written for the intelligent general reader.
The statement is not hyperbole, it is accurate.
> "Because Marlowe’s name has been reviled for four hundred years, his
> reputation in ruins." Come now, Mr. Pinksen! Who has reviled his name
> for four hundred years? His plays were published during his lifetime
> and after. His plays were performed during his lifetime and after.
> His plays are still performed today. Yes, Doctor Faustus is probably
> the most performed. On the other hand, from time to time, there are
> productions of Tamburlaine, Edward II, and even The Jew of Malta.
See my Chapter titled "Vile Esteem" for a litany of denunciations of
Christopher Marlowe from 1593 onward. In 1891, a memorial plaque was
erected to Marlowe in Canterbury. The original idea had been to place
a memorial for him in Poet's Corner of Westminster Abbey (as he richly
deserved), but this was ruled out because of opposition rising from
those concerned about “Marlowe’s acknowledged life and expressions.”
Marlowe's image has been somewhat rehabilitated in the last few
decades, but a few token performances of Doctor Faustus does not make
up for the trashing his name took after 1593. For the last several
centuries Marlowe has been routinely described as a homosexual,
pedophilic, blaspheming, treasonous, heretical atheist. In the last
few decades, the public has been willing to ignore most of these
charges, but this does not erase the past.
> Yes, it is unfair to judge a book by a brief excerpt. On the other
> hand, if Mr. Pinksen is wrong about some basic issue, one is left to
> wonder about the rest of the book?
Perhaps, instead of assuming I am wrong on these basic issues, you
should read the arguments I make to defend them first before rendering
judgment? In the two years since I published Marlowe's Ghost, flaws
have been pointed out to me, places where I should have qualified
statements, removed words, changed wording, etc., if I had it to do
over. The book is not perfect, as you will discover should you take
the time to read it, but it is very strong. I would be very happy to
face your criticisms, and answer any questions, if you decide to read
on.
Again, thanks for taking the time to read and comment,
Sincerely,
Daryl Pinksen
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Creationist, and believe in fairies, vampires,
> guns and extra-terrestrial visitations by
> aliens. The majority is always right.
>
> Paul.
You persistence in beating this drum made me decide to
get out of this thread. What kind of moronic argument IS
it? That the majority isn't always right, so it's wrong
abouit who wrote Shakespeare?
Anyway, all this discussion is doing is letting those few
who bother looking on on it know how little you and I
know about the Elizabethan theatre, although only
I admit it. ONe proper way to continue our debate
would be for us both to read some standard history
of theatre in England between 1500 and 1650 that
went into detail about buildings where plays were
put on, actors and acting companies, publication of
plays and so forth and discuss that--carefully, perhaps
page by page as I'm discussing the Price book.
Our current way of jumping from subject to subject,
era to era. country to country, is close to worthless,
and would be even if you, for one, did more than make
evidence-free assertions and insult my knowledge,
which though weak is not as weak as yours.
actually, it might be more sensible to discuss
just one question, like whom did Shakespeare
write his plays mainly for, starting specifically
with whom he wrote Titus Andronicus for.
We could use facts, for instance:
that
(1) its first edition says it had been performed by
three different companies, Derby's Men,
Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men.
(2) According to Boyce, it was among the most
popular English drams for around thirty years. He
gives no evidence for this.
(3) Derby's Men--a group of actors using that name
from 25 September 1594 until the spring of 1595
when they became Strange's Men, or the
Chamberlain's Men.
(4) Some scholars believe Shakespeare acted in
this company.
(5) The first record of their performing as the Lord
Chamberlain's Men was 5 June 1594 when they
put on a play at the theatre in Newington Butts
(6) So we have documentary evidence that one play
of Shakespeare's, Titus, was performed by a company
that generally performed in public theatres. I don't know
if they ever performed at court. One way to check that
would be to look at the copy of the play that said the
three companies named performed it, and see if if was
said to have been performed at court, too. I think my
source would say it had if it had, because it would be
a big selling point.
(7) What we seem to have is a play documented to have
been performed by three companies who performed at
public theatres and not performed at court. This a sane
person would have to take as good evidence that it
was intended for the general public.
(8) But Sussex's Men Boyce says performed at
Elizabeth's court in 1592.
(9) SUssex's Men performed for Philip Henslowe, perhaps
at the Rose Theatre for a short time when Titus was in
their repertoire..
(10) Pembroke's Men also performed for the queen.
(11) Pembroke's Men, performed 2 Henry VI according
to the title-page of the version of it published in 1595.
Too tired for more. Or to bother answering your tripe.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> I suppose that's why you're also a
>> Creationist, and believe in fairies, vampires,
>> guns and extra-terrestrial visitations by
>> aliens. The majority is always right.
>
> You persistence in beating this drum made me
> decide to get out of this thread. What kind of
> moronic argument IS it? That the majority isn't
> always right, so it's wrong abouit who wrote
> Shakespeare?
It was YOU who raised the moronic
argument -- that the majority was on your
side, and so therefore you must be right.
> ONe proper way to continue our debate would be
> for us both to read some standard history of
> theatre in England between 1500 and 1650 that
> went into detail about buildings where plays were
> put on, actors and acting companies, publication
> of plays and so forth and discuss that--carefully,
But all that 'scholarship' is Stratfordian
and therefore worthless. You might as
well ask a modern geologist to look at
the academic papers on mountain building
written in the 1960s.
> actually, it might be more sensible to discuss
> just one question, like whom did Shakespeare
> write his plays mainly for, starting specifically
> with whom he wrote Titus Andronicus for.
Firstly, it is clearly the work of a master-
dramatist -- someone who had written
many earlier plays. But its vigour and
blood-thirstiness suggest a fairly young
playwright. I would suggest a court/
aristocratic audience in the early 1570s.
> We could use facts, for instance:
> that
>
> (1) its first edition says it had been performed by
> three different companies, Derby's Men,
> Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men.
That range suggests that it had been
around for a long time (maybe 20 years),
and certainly was not written for any one
of them.
> (5) The first record of their performing as the Lord
> Chamberlain's Men was 5 June 1594 when they
> put on a play at the theatre in Newington Butts
>
> (6) So we have documentary evidence that one
> play of Shakespeare's, Titus, was performed by a
> company that generally performed in public
> theatres. I don't know if they ever performed at
> court. One way to check that would be to look at
> the copy of the play that said the three companies
> named performed it, and see if if was said to have
> been performed at court, too. I think my source
> would say it had if it had, because it would be a
> big selling point.
The detail of Titus is so blood-thirsty, that
the royal court would probably not want
to be associated with it.
> (7) What we seem to have is a play documented
> to have been performed by three companies who
> performed at public theatres and not performed at
> court. This a sane person would have to take as
> good evidence that it was intended for the general
> public.
Before that, a sane person would look at
its total mastery of stagecraft, its powerful
language, its superb and highly complex
characterisations, its bold and striking
devices, and conclude that its author had
been successfully writing plays for the past
ten or fifteen years.
> This a sane person would have to take as
> good evidence that it was intended for the general
> public.
Over history, the predominant characteristic
of plays aimed at the general public is their
timidity. They play safe -- (a) from fear
of protests from conventionally-minded
audiences, and (b) from fear of a reaction
by the authorities.
The author of Titus manifestly had no such
fears. He did not begin to conceive of
them. At no stage was he worried that an
over-anxious producer or theatre manager
would fail to stage his play, or censor it,
or tell him to re-write certain scenes.
That tells us that the play was NOT
written for a conventional theatre
company putting on conventional plays
for conventional audiences.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> I suppose that's why you're also a
> >> Creationist, and believe in fairies, vampires,
> >> guns and extra-terrestrial visitations by
> >> aliens. The majority is always right.
>
> > decide to get out of this thread. What kind of
> > moronic argument IS it? That the majority isn't
> > always right, so it's wrong abouit who wrote
> > Shakespeare?
>
> It was YOU who raised the moronic
> argument -- that the majority was on your
> side, and so therefore you must be right.
I have never said that. What I constantly say,
after you make your standard claim that you're
right because you say you are, is that WHEN THE
MAJORITY IS ON YOUR SIDE OF A QUESTION,
YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT
THAN NOT. I would add that when the majority of
people KNOWLEDGEABLE about this question are
on your side, AND HAVE BEEN FOR FOUR HUNDRED
YEARS, you're almost surely right.
But get it into you head: I have not and never would
say that the majority is always right. (Intentionally--
I could certainly mistype something or leave out a "not.")
I don't even know how you could sanely believe I could.
I would never accuse you of believing the majority is always
wrong.
> > On proper way to continue our debate would be
> > for us both to read some standard history of
> > theatre in England between 1500 and 1650 that
> > went into detail about buildings where plays were
> > put on, actors and acting companies, publication
> > of plays and so forth and discuss that--carefully,
>
> But all that 'scholarship' is Stratfordian
> and therefore worthless.
If you think that, you should withdraw from
the debate because more than half of what
you believe, you've gotten directly or indirectly
from "Stratford scholarship."
> You might as
> well ask a modern geologist to look at
> the academic papers on mountain building
> written in the 1960s.
Typical rigidnikry: if a geologist is wrong about
continental drift, everything he has to say about
geology must be worthless.
> > actually, it might be more sensible to discuss
> > just one question, like whom did Shakespeare
> > write his plays mainly for, starting specifically
> > with whom he wrote Titus Andronicus for.
>
> Firstly, it is clearly the work of a master-
> dramatist -- someone who had written
> many earlier plays. But its vigour and
> blood-thirstiness suggest a fairly young
> playwright. I would suggest a court/
> aristocratic audience in the early 1570s.
Fine, you're discussing it. But the second thing to
do is discuss it objectively. That means gathering
FACTS about it, not subjective opinions, particularly
bardolatrous subjective opinions.
> > We could use facts, for instance:
> > that
>
> > (1) its first edition says it had been performed by
> > three different companies, Derby's Men,
> > Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men.
>
> That range suggests that it had been
> around for a long time (maybe 20 years),
> and certainly was not written for any one
> of them.
I would suggest that before we discuss the facts
in the matter, we gather them. I would suggest, too,
that we not snip anything on the list of facts,
expecially without stating that we have.
> > (5) The first record of their performing as the Lord
> > Chamberlain's Men was 5 June 1594 when they
> > put on a play at the theatre in Newington Butts
>
> > (6) So we have documentary evidence that one
> > play of Shakespeare's, Titus, was performed by a
> > company that generally performed in public
> > theatres. I don't know if they ever performed at
> > court. One way to check that would be to look at
> > the copy of the play that said the three companies
> > named performed it, and see if if was said to have
> > been performed at court, too. I think my source
> > would say it had if it had, because it would be a
> > big selling point.
>
> The detail of Titus is so blood-thirsty, that
> the royal court would probably not want
> to be associated with it.
Right. And they were on top of everything, even what
went on title pages about where plays were performed.
> > (7) What we seem to have is a play documented
> > to have been performed by three companies who
> > performed at public theatres and not performed at
> > court. This a sane person would have to take as
> > good evidence that it was intended for the general
> > public.
>
> Before that, a sane person would look at
> its total mastery of stagecraft, its powerful
> language, its superb and highly complex
> characterisations, its bold and striking
> devices, and conclude that its author had
> been successfully writing plays for the past
> ten or fifteen years.
Yet no scholar, including those for whom there was no
authorship question, ever claimed it was not written
early in Shakespeare's writing career. We have their
subjective opinion against yours. Because you are
sole judge in the matter, you win.
> > This a sane person would have to take as
> > good evidence that it was intended for the general
> > public.
>
> Over history, the predominant characteristic
> of plays aimed at the general public is their
> timidity. They play safe -- (a) from fear
> of protests from conventionally-minded
> audiences, and (b) from fear of a reaction
> by the authorities.
I have no response. Your idea that timidity is the
PREDOMINANT characteristic o fpopular plays is
simply too insane for me to cope with. You win again,
Paul.
>
> The author of Titus manifestly had no such
> fears. He did not begin to conceive of
> them. At no stage was he worried that an
> over-anxious producer or theatre manager
> would fail to stage his play, or censor it,
> or tell him to re-write certain scenes.
>
> That tells us that the play was NOT
> written for a conventional theatre
> company putting on conventional plays
> for conventional audiences.
>
> Paul.
As I was saying, we need to gather objective facts
and anlayze them using logic.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> You might as
>> well ask a modern geologist to look at
>> the academic papers on mountain building
>> written in the 1960s.
>
> Typical rigidnikry: if a geologist is wrong about
> continental drift, everything he has to say about
> geology must be worthless.
If you knew anything about Geology, you'd
know that books and papers written before
1970 are now only read for historical
interest. Before 1970 geologists understood
as much about how mountains were built
as Galen knew about germs, or as modern
Strats understand about English literature.
>>> actually, it might be more sensible to discuss
>>> just one question, like whom did Shakespeare
>>> write his plays mainly for, starting specifically
>>> with whom he wrote Titus Andronicus for.
>>
>> Firstly, it is clearly the work of a master-
>> dramatist -- someone who had written
>> many earlier plays. But its vigour and
>> blood-thirstiness suggest a fairly young
>> playwright. I would suggest a court/
>> aristocratic audience in the early 1570s.
>
> Fine, you're discussing it. But the second thing to
> do is discuss it objectively. That means gathering
> FACTS about it, not subjective opinions, particularly
> bardolatrous subjective opinions.
The facts include (a) that its plotting is
highly complex but tightly controlled;
(b) its characterisation is broadly
excellent (if not up to the poet's later
standard).
>>> We could use facts, for instance:
>>> that
>>> (1) its first edition says it had been performed by
>>> three different companies, Derby's Men,
>>> Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men.
>>
>> That range suggests that it had been
>> around for a long time (maybe 20 years),
>> and certainly was not written for any one
>> of them.
>
> I would suggest that before we discuss the facts
> in the matter, we gather them. I would suggest, too,
> that we not snip anything on the list of facts,
> expecially without stating that we have.
Your real purpose here is to postpone
all discussion -- because you'd lose all
the arguments.
>>> (5) The first record of their performing as the Lord
>>> Chamberlain's Men was 5 June 1594 when they
>>> put on a play at the theatre in Newington Butts
>>> (6) So we have documentary evidence that one
>>> play of Shakespeare's, Titus, was performed by a
>>> company that generally performed in public
>>> theatres. I don't know if they ever performed at
>>> court. One way to check that would be to look at
>>> the copy of the play that said the three companies
>>> named performed it, and see if if was said to have
>>> been performed at court, too. I think my source
>>> would say it had if it had, because it would be a
>>> big selling point.
>>
>> The detail of Titus is so blood-thirsty, that
>> the royal court would probably not want
>> to be associated with it.
>
> Right. And they were on top of everything, even what
> went on title pages about where plays were performed.
Its first publication (presumably in 1594)
would have been a big deal -- as one of
the first of his plays to appear in print.
We can assume that the poet was
consulted and that he was aware of the
nature of the play.
>>> (7) What we seem to have is a play documented
>>> to have been performed by three companies who
>>> performed at public theatres and not performed at
>>> court. This a sane person would have to take as
>>> good evidence that it was intended for the general
>>> public.
>>
>> Before that, a sane person would look at
>> its total mastery of stagecraft, its powerful
>> language, its superb and highly complex
>> characterisations, its bold and striking
>> devices, and conclude that its author had
>> been successfully writing plays for the past
>> ten or fifteen years.
>
> Yet no scholar, including those for whom there was no
> authorship question, ever claimed it was not written
> early in Shakespeare's writing career. We have their
> subjective opinion against yours. Because you are
> sole judge in the matter, you win.
I win because I have the evidence and
the argument. Note how you dodge all
such tedious things. Note how all the
'scholars' dodge such tedious things.
Since -- according to their timetable --
the Stratman had recently arrived in
London, the play must have been one
of his first, and therefore its construction
could not have been up to scratch.
Like you, they close their eyes to the
evidence.
>>> This a sane person would have to take as
>>> good evidence that it was intended for the general
>>> public.
>>
>> Over history, the predominant characteristic
>> of plays aimed at the general public is their
>> timidity. They play safe -- (a) from fear
>> of protests from conventionally-minded
>> audiences, and (b) from fear of a reaction
>> by the authorities.
>
> I have no response. Your idea that timidity is the
> PREDOMINANT characteristic o fpopular plays is
> simply too insane for me to cope with. You win again,
> Paul.
You could have pointed to other plays on the
public stage (at any point in history) which
were even more bloody. Or which depicted
rulers even more unpleasantly. But
somehow you forgot.
>> The author of Titus manifestly had no such
>> fears. He did not begin to conceive of
>> them. At no stage was he worried that an
>> over-anxious producer or theatre manager
>> would fail to stage his play, or censor it,
>> or tell him to re-write certain scenes.
>>
>> That tells us that the play was NOT
>> written for a conventional theatre
>> company putting on conventional plays
>> for conventional audiences.
>
> As I was saying, we need to gather objective facts
> and anlayze them using logic.
The important thing -- whatever else you do
-- is to remember that you are a Strat, and
never allow yourself to consider the plain
simple truth.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> You might as
> >> well ask a modern geologist to look at
> >> the academic papers on mountain building
> >> written in the 1960s.
>
> > Typical rigidnikry: if a geologist is wrong about
> > continental drift, everything he has to say about
> > geology must be worthless.
>
> If you knew anything about Geology, you'd
> know that books and papers written before
> 1970 are now only read for historical
> interest. Before 1970 geologists understood
> as much about how mountains were built
> as Galen knew about germs, or as modern
> Strats understand about English literature.
>
someone who thinks Shakespeare invented poetry,
the drama, democracy, the law, philsophy and
the modern world.
>
>
>
> >>> actually, it might be more sensible to discuss
> >>> just one question, like whom did Shakespeare
> >>> write his plays mainly for, starting specifically
> >>> with whom he wrote Titus Andronicus for.
>
> >> Firstly, it is clearly the work of a master-
> >> dramatist -- someone who had written
> >> many earlier plays. But its vigour and
> >> blood-thirstiness suggest a fairly young
> >> playwright. I would suggest a court/
> >> aristocratic audience in the early 1570s.
>
> > Fine, you're discussing it. But the second thing to
> > do is discuss it objectively. That means gathering
> > FACTS about it, not subjective opinions, particularly
> > bardolatrous subjective opinions.
>
> The facts include (a) that its plotting is
> highly complex but tightly controlled;
> (b) its characterisation is broadly
> excellent (if not up to the poet's later
> standard).
These are not facts. Look up "objectivity" and
"subjectivity."
> >>> We could use facts, for instance:
> >>> that
> >>> (1) its first edition says it had been performed by
> >>> three different companies, Derby's Men,
> >>> Pembroke's Men, and Sussex's Men.
>
> >> That range suggests that it had been
> >> around for a long time (maybe 20 years),
> >> and certainly was not written for any one
> >> of them.
>
> > I would suggest that before we discuss the facts
> > in the matter, we gather them. I would suggest, too,
> > that we not snip anything on the list of facts,
> > expecially without stating that we have.
>
> Your real purpose here is to postpone
> all discussion -- because you'd lose all
> the arguments.
I would suggest that if you find anything wrong
with what I propose, you present an argument against
it, not make lunatic guesses about my motives, which
are irrelevant.
> >>> (5) The first record of their performing as the Lord
> >>> Chamberlain's Men was 5 June 1594 when they
> >>> put on a play at the theatre in Newington Butts
> >>> (6) So we have documentary evidence that one
> >>> play of Shakespeare's, Titus, was performed by a
> >>> company that generally performed in public
> >>> theatres. I don't know if they ever performed at
> >>> court. One way to check that would be to look at
> >>> the copy of the play that said the three companies
> >>> named performed it, and see if if was said to have
> >>> been performed at court, too. I think my source
> >>> would say it had if it had, because it would be a
> >>> big selling point.
>
> >> The detail of Titus is so blood-thirsty, that
> >> the royal court would probably not want
> >> to be associated with it.
>
> > Right. And they were on top of everything, even what
> > went on title pages about where plays were performed.
>
> Its first publication (presumably in 1594)
> would have been a big deal -- as one of
> the first of his plays to appear in print.
> We can assume that the poet was
> consulted and that he was aware of the
> nature of the play.
No, we can't.
Once again you lie about the reasoning of
the scholars. Of course, the known fact
that the known playwright was young at
the time the play was first heard of is used
to support their case, but there is much more
to their case, including subjective anyalses of
the plays just like yours--except that they agree,
pretty much, with each other, and no one agrees
with you.
> Like you, they close their eyes to the
> evidence.
You have presented a single piece of objective
evidence in the matter yet, Paul.
> >>> This a sane person would have to take as
> >>> good evidence that it was intended for the general
> >>> public.
>
> >> Over history, the predominant characteristic
> >> of plays aimed at the general public is their
> >> timidity. They play safe -- (a) from fear
> >> of protests from conventionally-minded
> >> audiences, and (b) from fear of a reaction
> >> by the authorities.
>
> > I have no response. Your idea that timidity is the
> > PREDOMINANT characteristic of fpopular plays is
> > simply too insane for me to cope with. You win again,
> > Paul.
>
> You could have pointed to other plays on the
> public stage (at any point in history) which
> were even more bloody. Or which depicted
> rulers even more unpleasantly. But
> somehow you forgot.
Somehow I realized it would have been irrelevant. You
are saying that the predominant characteristic of popular
plays is their timidity. Are you now suggesting that
the predominant characteristic was . . . lack of
bloodthirstiness?
No, I have to stop myself. I suddenly think of ten or twenty
arguments against your insane notion, but I will NOT give
in and waste more time on this. It's like arguing against
the notion that Sonnet 18 is not mainly about a comparison of a person
to a summer's day.
> >> The author of Titus manifestly had no such
> >> fears. He did not begin to conceive of
> >> them. At no stage was he worried that an
> >> over-anxious producer or theatre manager
> >> would fail to stage his play, or censor it,
> >> or tell him to re-write certain scenes.
>
> >> That tells us that the play was NOT
> >> written for a conventional theatre
> >> company putting on conventional plays
> >> for conventional audiences.
>
> > As I was saying, we need to gather objective facts
> > and anlayze them using logic.
>
> The important thing -- whatever else you do
> -- is to remember that you are a Strat, and
> never allow yourself to consider the plain
> simple truth.
>
> Paul.
Let me venture to say, as one who has written ten
or so full-length plays and many other literary works,
compared to you ZERO published works of any kind
(so far as you are willing to let us know), that I doubt
that very many creative writers are much concerned
with any perceived risks they may be taking when they
compose their first drafts. They have many more important
concerns. Later, they may realize they might offend or
disgust or otherwise alienate the people they want to
like their work, and consequently modify it.
As for Titus, there seem to have been quite a few bloody
plays drawing audiences when he wrote it. Hence, the
references of people like Nashe to "Senecan" plays. I have
to confess that I've never read anything by Seneca, but I
would not be surprised if his some of his plays were just
as bloody as Titus. I doubt, too, that Titus was the bloodiest
English play ever. I am sure that it was not significantly more
bloody than any other. If it was, so what? Why would its
author risk anything more than having people laugh at him
for writing such junk? Moreover, if it were so "untimid," how
is it that it quickly got a reputation as being a crowd-pleaser?
Seems to me it would have been much riskier to write an
intelligent play.
--Bob