On Monday, 22 August 2016 03:46:28 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> You raise a fascinating point. Indeed, it does seem that the Stationers Register should have wanted to not merely see a copy of the work, but to be given a copy of the work to retain. How else could they resolve ownership disputes? If not to resolve potential conflicts over rights, why would anyone bother to register their work at all? If all that was provided to the Register was the title, then the registrant could change the name of any work to the registered name and claim he owned it.
The Stationers’ Register was a record book maintained by the Stationers' Company of London. The company is a trade guild given a royal charter in 1557 to regulate the various professions associated with the publishing industry, including printers, bookbinders, booksellers, and publishers.
" The Company's charter gave it the right to seize illicit editions and bar the publication of unlicensed books."
Sufficient to act as deterrent I would have thought? Though several publications were not registered.
> I think I read somewhere that Shakespeare's long poems and a few plays were registered before they were printed. Are you claiming that the Stationers Register had sight of Shakespeare's original manuscripts? I doubt it.
We have no record of what they took as proof so maybe they did see a manuscript?
> Note that I am not suggesting that Jonson did not write his First Folio or anything like that.
That makes a change!!!
I am only challenging the authenticity of a single page,
Oh!.. so a forged page in a book that is essentially correct? Screwball ideas start up again...
the page that lists Shakespeare, Burbage, Hemings, Condell as actors, the same actors...
However each play carries the names of the actors and some appear on some of the plays and Shakespeare is one that doesn't always appear!
...listed in "The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes" of Shakespeare's First Folio of 1623...
Shakespeare appears in all of the plays in the first folio, he doesn't in Ben Jonson works...
(performing in all thirty-six plays one must wonder how he found the time for land speculating, wool dealing, grain dealing, and money lending not to mention researching and writing the plays) and the names of the three co-actors are found in Shakespere's Last Will and Testament.
Very easily I would have thought since the plays were written before 1588.
> And so it would seem that the conspirators, thinking that they would be unable to get away with forging Shakespeare's name into the attendance records at Cambridge or Oxford, decided to make him an actor instead. Thus, those two lists of actors that include Shakespeare's name are a deliberate fabrication.
Really! You seem to think that they could get away with doing everything else. Marlowe for example got his degree from class privilege. He was rarely there, acting in the plays of Shakespeare. He was not a spy, by the way...
Shakespeare plays take the piss out of University and education, since you don't read them, you might have missed that. Shakespeare like me takes the piss out of University students and professors. You have to when they can't spot that Queen Elizabeth was what most people would call a dumb blonde. Imagine modern politicians trying to make sense of the Queen if she had been just like Marilyn Monroe!!
> To prove that these lists are not a forgery, all you need to do is to convince "US" that it was normal procedure, with the publication of a play or plays, to include "The Names of the Principall Actors" in addition to, or in place of,
It was not normal to publish a play at all. There are loads of entries in Henslowe diary that were NEVER published.
> a "Drammatis Personae" (list of characters). Please provide us with an example of a published list of actors from that epoch that does not include the name of Shakespeare.
Jonson's book does that on several plays.
> BTW, expert opinion says that it takes, even for a genius, roughly six months to write a play of Shakespearean quality. That converts, for thirty-six plays, into eighteen years of full-time work. Doesn't leave Shakespeare with a lot of time for pimping, does it?
Who are these experts? Did they ever write anything?
I would conclude that six months is bullshit. It takes as long as it takes to do anything. You can't set a time limit on it.
Walter Gibson, creator of the Shadow, famously wrote nearly 1.7 million words in a single year at the height of his output.
Matt Forbeck wrote a full novel — 91,000 words — in two weeks!
I believe that Shakespeare turned out about 600 plays during the period 1581 to 1588, with far fewer after that date and hardly any after 1603. Most his known output were reissued, with just a few changes in the 1590's.
Shakespeare and his team had to produce that many to keep the Queen entertained and the public. The population being so small. You could not do repeats unless you wanted things thrown at you.
You might consider a Shakespeare play to be a product of a genius, but Robert Green didn't.
The small amount of plays that we do have of Shakespeare are a fragment of his work. The rest lost or destroyed, take your pick.
We therefore have very few of the plays to look at. The ones that were crap didn't get published.