King Lear docs 1607, 1608, 1619

[marco]

[King Lear was mentioned a while back; here are some historical documents]


1. Novvember 26, 1607, Stationers' Register entry for King Lear

Nathaniel Butter and John Busby entered King Lear into Liber C of the Stationers' Company on November 26, 1607, as "Master William Shakespeare his 'historye of Kinge Lear' as yt was played before the kinges maiestie at Whitehall vppon Sainct Stephens night at Christmas Last by his maiesties servantes playinge vsually at the 'Globe' on the Banksyde."

http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/stationers-register-entry-king-lear


2. King Lear, first edition, 1608 quarto edition

M. William Shakespeare: his True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear and his three Daughters.

This is the first edition of King Lear. It was printed in 1608 by Nicholas Okes, most likely within a year of when Nathaniel Butter and John Busby registered the play with the Stationers’ Company on November 26, 1607. Lear was probably written in 1605 or 1606, as there is record of it being performed at court in December of 1606

Scholars believe that this edition shows the play as Shakespeare first wrote it, while the text in the First Folio (omitting about 300 lines from the quarto version, and including about 100 new lines) is a revised version. Despite the fact that today King Lear is considered one of Shakespeare’s great tragedies, both the Stationers’ Company register and the title page of this edition refer to the play as a “history.”

http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/king-lear-first-edition


3. King Lear, second edition, 1619 quarto edition

M. VVilliam Shake-speare, his true chronicle history of the life and death of King Lear, and his three daughters.

http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/document/king-lear-second-edition


[from shakespearedocumented.org]

marc

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[marco]

.

[Morten St. George]

A while back I posted a list of some of the printers (p) and publishers (pub) of Shakespeare’s quartos that I will now repeat here:

Thomas Creed (p); Thomas Millington (pub); Valentine Simmes (p); T. P. (p); Iohn Danter (p); Edward White (pub); Andrew Wise (p); Thomas Purfoot (p); Mathew Law (pub); Iohn Norton (p); P. S. (p); W. W. (p); Iohn Danter (p); Cuthbert Burby (pub); Iohn Smethwick (pub); R. Young (p); S. S. (p); T. P. (p); V. S. (p); William Aspley (pub); Iohn Busby (pub); Thomas Pauier (pub); Thomas Fisher (pub); Iames Roberts (p); F. Roberts (p); Thomas Heyes (pub); M. P. (p); Laurence Hayes (pub); T. C. (p); Arthur Iohnson (pub); T. H. (p); R. Meigben (pub); N. L. (pub); Iohn Trundell (pub); W. S. (p); Nathaniel Butter (p); G. Eld (p); R. Bonian (p); H. Wallen (p); Henry Gossan (pub); I. N. (p); K. B. (p); Thomas Cotes (p); N. O. (p). Thomas Walkley (pub); A. M. (p); Richard Hawkins (pub).

Thanks to Marco we now know that "W. S." could be William Stansby and that we can add Nicholas Okes (p) to the list. Still, I have a few question to raise:

1. Since Shakespeare wrote exclusively for just one acting company and just one theater (forced, as Philip Henslowe in his extensive theatrical diary covering events from 1591 to 1609 appears to have never heard of William Shakespeare), why did he need so many printers and publishers for his quartos? In modern times, authors often make a long-term contract with the single publisher who offers them the best deal. Why wasn’t this done in Shakespeare’s day?

2. With Shakespeare evidently having contact with many publishers and printers, why did none of them render their condolences when he died in 1616? Did any of the first readers of these quartos from the general public make comments about them in their writings or letters?

3. In an epoch when, apparently, it was not normal to publish the scripts of plays at all, why were so many of Shakespeare’s plays published? Is there any record of how many copies were printed and sold for any particular quarto?

4. In an epoch when it was normal to include dedications in publications, why do none of Shakespeare’s quartos include a dedication? Could it be because the dedicatee or his descendants could challenge his ever having known the author?

It is easy to see how using a single publisher could turn out to be problematic: "my granddaddy never published those quartos", but with two dozen publishers, if one or two were to fail, the rest of them would remain standing to support the existence of a playwright called Shakespeare.

I’ve been through all this before, with Nostradamus’ Almanacs dated from 1550 to 1566, all small booklets like Shakespeare’s quartos, all having a cute drawing on the cover like Shakespeare’s quartos, all printed by a different printers like Shakespeare’s quartos, and probably like Shakespeare’s quartos, all backdated forgeries, an effort to give life to an astrologer who never existed.

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 16:31:37 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> 1. Since Shakespeare wrote exclusively for just one acting company and just one theater

He did NOT...

(forced, as Philip Henslowe in his extensive theatrical diary covering events from 1591 to 1609 appears to have never heard of William Shakespeare),

Yet Henslowe diary describes several performances of Shakespeare Plays and how much they took. You must have seen the Michael Wood documentary where he looks at this and sees that Shakespeare plays make money then Marlowe's.

why did he need so many printers and publishers for his quartos? In modern times, authors often make a long-term contract with the single publisher who offers them the best deal. Why wasn’t this done in Shakespeare’s day?

NO it wasn't. It was more like the art world today. You sell your work to a dealer and they make a huge amount of money from it.
It's a flat fee system back in Shakespeare's day.

>
> 2. With Shakespeare evidently having contact with many publishers and printers, why did none of them render their condolences when he died in 1616?

Shakespeare probably submitted only those that carry a dedication and his name. The rest were probably submitted by other people, such as Ben Jonson. His name was known, but he wasn't. And since there were no newspapers and the printers were generally London base. They simply wouldn't know he had died, especially as he was in Stratford.

>
> 3. In an epoch when, apparently, it was not normal to publish the scripts of plays at all, why were so many of Shakespeare’s plays published? Is there any record of how many copies were printed and sold for any particular quarto?

Rather depends on how many Shakespeare plays there were doesn't it. If for example there were 600 plays then what was published was a tiny fraction. If 100 then a considerable amount were published.
There are no book publishing charts and if printers kept records, they are probably about how much money they made from all of there business.

>
> 4. In an epoch when it was normal to include dedications in publications, why do none of Shakespeare’s quartos include a dedication? Could it be because the dedicatee or his descendants could challenge his ever having known the author?

Probably more down to the publishers, the author could have put in a dedication, but the publisher didn't want it in for reasons it takes up space and the buyer of the play was not interested in it anyway. Once whoever had been paid for the text to be printed, they lost control of it how it appears in print. Actually even today commercial publishers control what a book looks like and even how it is wrote up.
For example a friend of my had done a book on education in the thirties in Sheffield and even though he was an ex headmaster the University publisher made massive changes to his text and the layout. He had No choice in it. One thing he told me was that the word "turk" was commonly used for bad school boys in the 30's. The University would not contemplate him allowing it in the book at all. Even though it was an historical fact.

>
> It is easy to see how using a single publisher could turn out to be problematic: "my granddaddy never published those quartos", but with two dozen publishers, if one or two were to fail, the rest of them would remain standing to support the existence of a playwright called Shakespeare.

Or in a fee based system for you work, you go to the one who gives you extra cash.

>
> I’ve been through all this before, with Nostradamus’ Almanacs dated from 1550 to 1566, all small booklets like Shakespeare’s quartos, all having a cute drawing on the cover like Shakespeare’s quartos, all printed by a different printers like Shakespeare’s quartos, and probably like Shakespeare’s quartos, all backdated forgeries, an effort to give life to an astrologer who never existed.

On the other hand it could be just the free market system at work.
Have you seen the music trade!
The current UK number one single by Callum Scott has three versions to download all priced the same! All the same sound and length. Just that one has the NOW 94 cover on the image when played by a media player.

[Morten St. George]

I forgot to mention that like the Nostradamus Almanacs, the Shakespeare playbooks often give the address of the printer / bookseller. But note that I am not challenging the authenticity of Shakespeare's printers and publishers. That's because Nostradamus investigators discovered that many of the named printers really existed, so it seems likely that their forgers obtained the name and address of the printers from old books found in their library.

Similarly, it seems likely that many of Shakespeare's printers really printed something at some point, only not Shakespeare.

A book highly recommended by Laraine states that "the first English bookseller's catalogue appeared in 1595, Andrew Maunsell's _The first part of the catalogue of English published books_ (STC 17699) but its contents are selective and it contains no playbooks. Catalogues that featured individual stationer's stock (a prominent feature on the Continent since the sixteenth century) did not start appearing until the 1650s."

In 1584, there appeared a comprehensive list of books published in the French language and, lo and behold, all those Nostradamus publications were nowhere to be found. Over in England, to protect the Shakespeare playbooks from similar refutation, they came up with an ingenious solution: from 1595 until the death King Charles in 1649, they simply banned the publication of book catalogs!

[laraine]

I recall mentioning the link from Cambridge Press with monthly
free S articles to commemorate 1616... Hope it was helpful.
Actually, I shared that because you seemed interested in the topic.
(I can't claim to know about the topic or to have read those articles,
though I did glance at those and others.)

C.

[marco]

.

[Morten St. George]

On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:27:21 PM UTC-4, laraine wrote:
>
> I recall mentioning the link from Cambridge Press with monthly
> free S articles to commemorate 1616... Hope it was helpful.
> Actually, I shared that because you seemed interested in the topic.
> (I can't claim to know about the topic or to have read those articles,
> though I did glance at those and others.)

Thanks, Laraine, for that link. It was indeed helpful. Traditional arguments against Shakspere have become tired, so it is wonderful that something new presents itself. The multiplicity of printers and publishers as well as other anomalies for Shakespeare’s quartos open up a technical avenue for making progress on the authorship question.

When Nostradamus scholars discovered his Almanacs in the libraries of Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries, they assumed that they were genuine for the dates shown on the cover. I’m sure the same is true for the Stratfordians who found Shakespeare’s quartos decades or centuries later.

Today, forensic analysis of the quartos in comparison with other works printed by the same printers could possible detect forgeries. Unfortunately, it is very doubtful that anyone will be able or allowed to undertake such analysis, but at least the anti-Stratfordians have one more argument to add to their case.

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 23:52:24 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> I forgot to mention that like the Nostradamus Almanacs, the Shakespeare playbooks often give the address of the printer / bookseller. But note that I am not challenging the authenticity of Shakespeare's printers and publishers. That's because Nostradamus investigators discovered that many of the named printers really existed, so it seems likely that their forgers obtained the name and address of the printers from old books found in their library.
>

Sorry but I having no interest in Nostradamus you mention forged editions. Where these forged editions proven to be so by other reputable people (other than yourself) or just by you? Sorry but you cry "wolf" too often so I'm not going to take your word on them being forged.

I can see why someone would want to forge predictions of Nostradamus. His name would carry weight to crackpot ideas, not associated with astrology. Just like you with your crackpot ideas Mutton, using Shakespeare's name.

> Similarly, it seems likely that many of Shakespeare's printers really printed something at some point, only not Shakespeare.

They are NOT Shakespeare's printers. They are money gabbing publishers out to make money. Shakespeare's name would do that so they got hold of Shakespeare plays and printed them. They could do that by going to a theatre and copying the text down, if they so wished.

>
> A book highly recommended by Laraine states that "the first English bookseller's catalogue appeared in 1595, Andrew Maunsell's _The first part of the catalogue of English published books_ (STC 17699) but its contents are selective and it contains no playbooks. Catalogues that featured individual stationer's stock (a prominent feature on the Continent since the sixteenth century) did not start appearing until the 1650s."
>
> In 1584, there appeared a comprehensive list of books published in the French language and, lo and behold, all those Nostradamus publications were nowhere to be found. Over in England, to protect the Shakespeare playbooks from similar refutation, they came up with an ingenious solution: from 1595 until the death King Charles in 1649, they simply banned the publication of book catalogs!

Presumably you have NOT found a single document to say that book catalogues were banned. So if you can't back that up withdraw the Statement.
All of this assumes that Shakespeare plays would become popular. That's a false assumption for a start. Since it was only at some later time that Shakespeare plays became of general interest.

[marco]

.

[Morten St. George]

You can put it down that it is solely on my authority that the Nostradamus Almanacs are deemed fraudulent because I see that these Almanacs are still accepted as genuine by Nostradamians who have no more intelligence than Stratfordians.

Besides their non-appearance in the catalog of French books published in the 16th century, the Almanacs contain poems almost certainly written by Aime de Chavigny in 1594 but, like the Stratfordians, the Nostradamians refuse to acknowledge reality.

During the 17th century, Nostradamus became extremely popular in France, making the fabrication of Almanacs a very lucrative industry. This could explain why there are two versions of the Almanac for some years.

I imagine that Shakespeare eventually became popular in England, making the fabrication of original playbooks a lucrative industry. They got the material they needed from the First and Second Folios, then made changes to the plays to make it look like they predate the Folio version. Over in France, charlatans did the same with the Nostradamus prophecies: they made lots of minor changes to make it look like they were offering something new.

This applies to only some of the playbooks; for sure, many of them were fabricated by the original conspirators. Only the playbooks published as anonymous (without Shakespeare’s name on the cover) may stand some chance of being genuine.

Scholars encountering these playbooks centuries later have little means of verifying when they were really printed, especially if they were printed only a decade or two later.

You are welcome to delude yourself into believing that no printer or bookseller wanted to publish a catalog of books from 1595 until the 1650s, but I will continue to suspect that the secret service let it be known that they shouldn’t do that.

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, 31 August 2016 18:02:52 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:52:28 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
> > Sorry but I having no interest in Nostradamus you mention forged editions. Where these forged editions proven to be so by other reputable people (other than yourself) or just by you? Sorry but you cry "wolf" too often so I'm not going to take your word on them being forged.
> >
> > I can see why someone would want to forge predictions of Nostradamus. His name would carry weight to crackpot ideas, not associated with astrology. Just like you with your crackpot ideas Mutton, using Shakespeare's name.

> You can put it down that it is solely on my authority that the Nostradamus Almanacs are deemed fraudulent because I see that these Almanacs are still accepted as genuine by Nostradamians who have no more intelligence than Stratfordians.

WHO'S AFRAID OF THE BIG BAD WOLF.

So you cried wolf again. Presumably you told the Nostril people about you wacky ideas and they told where you can SHOVE THEM!
>
catalog

STILL SPELLING IT WRONG!!!

Conspiracy theory then! That Morton is really a woman called Cate Bog? And being called "Bog" has to go under the silly name of Morten St George. With even a false picture of bold haired man that looks like Jasper Carrott.

[Morten St. George]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 7:00:21 PM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> catalog
>
> STILL SPELLING IT WRONG!!!

It's just that my spell checker mysteriously rejected "catalogue" (which is what I wrote) but accepted "catalog". In any case, I checked it out with Shakespeare and I'm afraid you're right: the correct spelling is in fact "catalogue". My apologies.

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[marco]

.

[Morten St. George]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 1:02:52 PM UTC-4, Morten St. George wrote:
>
> During the 17th century, Nostradamus became extremely popular in France, making the fabrication of Almanacs a very lucrative industry. This could explain why there are two versions of the Almanac for some years.
>
> I imagine that Shakespeare eventually became popular in England, making the fabrication of original playbooks a lucrative industry. They got the material they needed from the First and Second Folios, then made changes to the plays to make it look like they predate the Folio version. Over in France, charlatans did the same with the Nostradamus prophecies: they made lots of minor changes to make it look like they were offering something new.
>
> This applies to only some of the playbooks; for sure, many of them were fabricated by the original conspirators. Only the playbooks published as anonymous (without Shakespeare’s name on the cover) may stand some chance of being genuine.
>
> Scholars encountering these playbooks centuries later have little means of verifying when they were really printed, especially if they were printed only a decade or two later.

This requires some clarification. In a speech that can be seen on YouTube, Diana Price (author of Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography) maintains that there is no documentary evidence establishing William Shakspere as a writer prior to his death in 1616. She mentions that Stanley Wells (head of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust) concurs with her that all the evidence is posthumous though, apparently, Wells believes that such evidence once existed but has since gone up in smoke.

I take the whole matter one step further. Having seen the large scale fabrication and backdating of Nostradamaus Amanacs, I challenge the authenticity of quartos bearing the name of William Shakespeare on the cover. If, as I suggest, these quartos and a couple of other sources are backdated, then we are left with no documentary evidence that William Shakespeare of anywhere (never mind William Shakspere of Stratford) was a writer prior to 1616.

This leads us to the main reason why the question of Shakespearean authorship remain unresolved: both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians accept the quartos as genuine. Neither side can imagine that people could be so powerful and devious as to put false names and dates on the title page of publications.

[marco]

Morton,

since you haven't finished reading one Shakespeare play,
your opinion & claims are questionable

of course there's evidence Shakespeare was a writer, you just have to look;
you are simply in denial for some reason, which only you can answer

marc

[Morten St. George]

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 12:48:29 AM UTC-4, marco wrote:
>
> since you haven't finished reading one Shakespeare play,
> your opinion & claims are questionable

Perhaps by approaching the authorship question from outside the literary world, I am able to achieve insights that escape the rest of you.

> of course there's evidence Shakespeare was a writer, you just have to look;
> you are simply in denial for some reason, which only you can answer

It has been firmly established by Diana Price that there is no pre-1616 evidence of any type that would establish Shakspere of Stratford as a writer, and Stanley Wells concurs with this. End of story.

There is, of course, pre-1616 evidence that someone called William Shakespeare (whether that be Shakspere, a real person called Shakespeare, or just a pen name) was a writer. But what is radically new from my part, never before theorized by anyone as far as I know, is challenging the authenticity of that evidence.

The strongest pre-1616 evidence that Shakespeare was a writer comes in the form of some two dozen books called quartos, each bearing the name William Shakespeare (or Shake-speare) on the cover and each displaying a date that precedes 1616.

The argument against the quartos begins with a philosopher called Giordano Bruno, who became a friend of Queen Elizabeth, Sir Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville, John Florio and others. Bruno published many of his books (written in the Italian and Latin languages) in England when he lived there, but these books did not bear English imprints. Instead, they were falsely attributed to printers located all over Italy and even one in France.

A decade later, by deductive theory, the English printed numerous Nostradamus Almanacs, falsely attributed them to printers located all over France and several, in translation, in other countries. By 1606, they had acquired a press located in the Netherlands which may have replaced the clandestine English press.

And finally, they printed the Shakespeare quartos, and similarly to the Bruno and Nostradamus publications, they falsely attributed them to a large number of different printers and publishers who were active in the decade corresponding to the false date.

Let me ask a few questions:

1. For any particular quarto, can you tell me from printer or bookseller records how many copies were printed and sold?

2. Can you find any of these quartos in any pre-1616 catalogue of books for any library, printer, or bookseller in England?

3. Are you able to find pre-1616 remarks about any of those quartos from any reader of them in any source including private letters?

I think that if those quartos were really printed and sold in the year indicated, Shakspere would have been so famous by 1616 that surely someone would have written him an eulogy when he died and there would be no authorship question today.

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

On Thursday, 8 September 2016 03:40:07 UTC+1, Morten St. George wrote:
>> It has been firmly established by Diana Price that there is no pre-1616 evidence of any type that would establish Shakspere of Stratford as a writer, and Stanley Wells concurs with this. End of story.

It has NOT been firmly established by Diana Price, because she is a crackpot, who believes other people wrote Shakespeare. I would also dispute Wells concurs with is. Though he's brother chip to you Mutton!

>
> There is, of course, pre-1616 evidence that someone called William Shakespeare (whether that be Shakspere, a real person called Shakespeare, or just a pen name) was a writer. But what is radically new from my part, never before theorized by anyone as far as I know, is challenging the authenticity of that evidence.

As I have told you before the plays were published by independent persons, who paid a flat fee to whoever brought the manuscript to them. That could have been a varity of person, one of which MAY have been William Shakespeare. So each Shakespeare name quoted printed publication is unique to that printer/publisher. Except if the same one printed another play. That by definition is impossible to fake. Because you have multiple "firms" doing different things.
Unlike today a play or book with someone name on doesn't give them automatic copyright. In the case of the plays printed during his life and afterward. Shakespeare had no copyright, nor did anyone else you might think wrote the plays.
For example Romeo and Juliet printed 1599 the copyright was with Cuthbert Burby. He took any profit from the sale of the publication.

>
> The strongest pre-1616 evidence that Shakespeare was a writer comes in the form of some two dozen books called quartos, each bearing the name William Shakespeare (or Shake-speare) on the cover and each displaying a date that precedes 1616.
>
> The argument against the quartos begins with a philosopher called Giordano Bruno, who became a friend of Queen Elizabeth, Sir Philip Sidney, Fulke Greville, John Florio and others. Bruno published many of his books (written in the Italian and Latin languages) in England when he lived there, but these books did not bear English imprints. Instead, they were falsely attributed to printers located all over Italy and even one in France.

Bruno would have undertaken the finance and printing himself if he published the books. But that is probably what did NOT happen. Several printers, publishers got hold of the manuscript or even a French book. And then printed them for profit.

>
> A decade later, by deductive theory, the English printed numerous Nostradamus Almanacs, falsely attributed them to printers located all over France and several, in translation, in other countries. By 1606, they had acquired a press located in the Netherlands which may have replaced the clandestine English press.

We know that isn't true either it's just you saying that!

>
> And finally, they printed the Shakespeare quartos, and similarly to the Bruno and Nostradamus publications, they falsely attributed them to a large number of different printers and publishers who were active in the decade corresponding to the false date.

And of course that is complete nonsense. The shops were there. The printers were there and they were entered into the Stationers Register. They are found in the collections of great houses.

>
> Let me ask a few questions:
>
> 1. For any particular quarto, can you tell me from printer or bookseller records how many copies were printed and sold?

As I said before those sort of records probably are not around. You might be able to find in archives accounts for some of the shops or printers. But these will not be on-line. They did not keep book sales charts back then. Even in the 20th Century book sales charts were largely inaccurate, due to the supermarkets, who listed a book sale as a "non-food item".

>
> I think that if those quartos were really printed and sold in the year indicated, Shakspere would have been so famous by 1616 that surely someone would have written him an eulogy when he died and there would be no authorship question today.

It's a good point! But what you need to do is explain how it might have NOT come about if Shakespeare was the famous man you say he was!
Rather than event fairy stories about faking loads of documents just to make him look real!

[Morten St. George]

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:03:05 AM UTC-4, graham.a...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> It has NOT been firmly established by Diana Price, because she is a crackpot, who believes other people wrote Shakespeare. I would also dispute Wells concurs with is. Though he's brother chip to you Mutton!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQNWpo1PSs

[graham.a...@btinternet.com]

Posting a video of someone talking doesn't make it firmly established at all.
My video proves he was on the scene well before even the Straffordians have him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqoMDfPD28s

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N