On 30/04/2014 17:35, Melanie Sands wrote:
> There was a documentary on German TV called "Der nackte
> Shakespeare" - all anti-Strat stuff, of course - looking
> for locations corresponding to places in his plays, etc.
> etc. and the onscreen guide said the film was about
> how "a myth became a truth, that a man from Statford upon
> Avon, in spite of there being no handwritten manuscripts,
> no handwritten letters or any indication during his
> lifetime that he had actually written the plays..."
>
> ....and I thought:
>
> a) yeah right, Christopher Marlowe for example, left
> thousands of pages of handwritten manuscripts to
> all his plays,
Marlowe had the misfortune to die before
(as least as far as the records tell us) anyone
noticed his talent or remarked on his literary
achievements.
His (supposed) career and that supposed of
Shakespeare (as Stratman) were remarkably
parallel -- with one huge difference. The
Stratman supposedly pranced around the
London literary and dramatic scene for the
next twenty years and more. That's twenty
years AFTER writing great plays, such as
Romeo & Juliet, Richard II, Richard III, and
Mid-Summers Nights Dream. And Hamlet
was supposedly written around 1600. He
published vastly more than every other play-
wright put together, and then there was his
poetry which mostly went into numerous
editions. So he was famous -- a great
celebrity. But (it seems) no one ever met
him, or saw him on stage, or wrote to him
-- except for one letter found in Stratford
about local matters, that was apparently not
delivered. Apparently he never wrote to
anyone. No one ever talked to him -- except
for one recorded conversation with his
lawyer (a highly learned man and competent
poet). That conversation was about a local
Stratford land-grab, about which the Stratman
was non-committal, perhaps because he
would be a beneficiary.
But he was seen in London. Given the litigious
nature of people then, it was almost impossible
to avoid the courts. So was he up before the
magistrates on account of something he had
written? Nah -- unlike every other writer of
quality who commented on political issues, the
authorities never noticed him.
Was he suing, or being sued for his multiple
financial interests? -- Nah. Did he use the
courts to prevent the wholesale breach of
his copyright? -- Nah. We encounter him
as a witness in a minor domestic matter.
where he featured as "the lodger upstairs",
with not one word or whisper from anyone
suggesting that he was anything more.
That all make sense to you?
> b) not to speak of his collected letters, which are now
> published in paperback, Volume One "Letters from Christopher
> Marley to his playwright friends", Volume Two "Letters
> from Christina Over-M. to his Nancyboys" and finally, Volume
> Three, "Letters in Code now for the first time revealed
> found in a strongbox in the cellars of the British
> Government, deciphered by MI6".
Marlowe was a spy, and they generally avoid
leaving documents about themselves lying
around. BUT he did, in fact, leave quite a lot
of records in his short life. His name came up
at the Privy Council a few times -- more than
that of Shake-speare, which was conspicuously
absent, especially during the Essex trial and
investigation.
> And then I thought:
>
> Right, no indication at all during Shakespeare's lifetime
> that he wrote plays. Nope.
A name, very roughly resembling his, was
attached to the plays. But that was manifestly
a joke -- as we can see from numerous other
items, such as the absurd "portrait" of him in
the First Folio. Illiterate yeomen do not write,
let alone write plays. let alone write highly
political ones full of immense learning.
> And I also loved the way they (in the documentary) discussed
> how Shakespeare must have "invented" the plotline for this play
> in Venice, and how he must have "invented" the idea for that play
> in Verona, and how he must have "come up with" the story for the
> other play in Milano, etc. - and no mention at all of any pre-existing
> plays/stories that might have served as a point-of-departure, shall
> we call it.
The 'departures' from the received works are,
by far, the most interesting bits .
> Don't you just love it how anti-Strats always get their facts right?
You haven't quoted anything direct. I'm sure
it had faults, but you don't suggest any.
Paul.