The Will I Knew, by C. Burbage
DaveMore
Because of its importance and length, I thought it warranted a heading of its
own.
BOB: > >There's also the total absence of any evidence that the actor
was not
> >the writer.
>
DAVE: > This is debatable (as the history of this ng testifies), but I
ain't gonna.
>
<<RICHARD: Come on. Give us a single piece of evidence that the actor
was not the author.>>
I have previously offered Cuthbert Burbage's testimony to the Earl of Pembroke,
circa 1635, twelve years after the folio:
> Quoted from George Greenwood, *The Shakespeare Problem Restated* (1908):
>
> "Let us now turn to an undoubted allusion to Shakspere the player, made by
one
> whose family havd been long associated with him, and who must have known
him
> well. In 1635 Cuthbert Burbage, son of James, and brother of Richard the
famous
> actor, addressed a petition, on behalf of himself "and winifred his
brother's
> wife, and William his son," to the Earl of Pembroke, the survivor of the
> "Incomparable Pair" to whom the Folio was dedicated, and then Lord
Chamberlain.
>
>
> "The petition .is given *in extenso* by the industrious
Halliwell-Phillipps
> (I.291). Cuthbert Burbage recites that his father "was the first builder
of
> playhouses, and was himself in his younger years a player," that he built
his
> first playhouse on leased land, and had a lawsuit with his landlord, "and
by
> his death the like troubles fell on us his sons; we then bethought us of
> altering from thence, and at like expense built the Globe. And to
ourselves we
> joined those deserving men, Shakspere, Hemmings, Condall, Phillips and
others,
> partners in the profits of that they call the House," of which the
petitioners
> were lessees. He adds that when he and his brother took possession of the
> Blackfriars (which his father had "purchased in extreme rates") they
"placed men
> players, which were Hemmings, Condall, Shakspere, etc." as successors to
the
> children of the Chapel. It does seem strange that the proprietor of the
> playhouses which had been made famous by the production of the
Shakespearean
> plays, would in 1635-twelve years after the publication of the great
> Folio-describe their reputed author to the survivor of the Incomparable
Pair as
> merely a 'man-player' and a 'deserving man'! "
>
> Greenwood asks: "Why did he not remind the Lord Chamberlain that this
deserving
> man was the author of all those famous dramas dedicated to Pembroke's
honor a
> decade before?"
>
> Was Burbage ignorant of the actor's fame as "Soul of the Age"? Or was
William
> simply a "man-player," though "deserving," as this evidence strongly
suggests.
Self-styled Stratfordians (Fakespeareans) downplay Cuthbert Burbage's unguarded
and undoubtedly truthful testimony that William Shakspere (as he spells it) was
no more than a "man-player."
Who can blame them?
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
but not as a playwright means that Burbage testified that Shakespeare
the actor was not Shakespeare the writer. Right, Dave, and if I speak
of O. J. Simpson, and describe him only as a former football player,
it means I don't believe he was a murderer.
Now try to come up with DIRECT EVIDENCE that Shakespeare the Writer
was not Shakespeare the Actor, Dave.
--Bob G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
richie miller
dave...@aol.comedian says...
I definitely want to know the Start opinion on this! Richie
DaveMore
>Dave claims that Cuthbert Burbage's referring to Shakespeare as an actor
>but not as a playwright means that Burbage testified that Shakespeare
>the actor was not Shakespeare the writer.
Burbage, who was as knowledgable about hte goings on at the Globe Theater as
there was referred to William Shakspere (sic) as "a deserving man" and "a man
player" a mere twelve years after the plays by the man called the Soul of the
Age dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert Burbage was writing.
What you have here is truthful testimony of the history of the theater. Burbage
appears to have left nothing out, including the fact that William was "a man
player" and a "deserving man." (whose plays your grace received a few years
ago, Cuthbert might have added.)
> Right, Dave, and if I speak
>of O. J. Simpson, and describe him only as a former football player,
>it means I don't believe he was a murderer.
Poor example. Casual reference. Burbage was writing detailed history to an
informed reader.
>Now try to come up with DIRECT EVIDENCE that Shakespeare the Writer
>was not Shakespeare the Actor, Dave.
I just did Bob. If you want more, you'll have to read my book. "Marlowe,
Shakespeare and More." with a foreword by you! ;)
dave
David More
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Come off it. He was writing some kind of legal petition. He reminded
the person he was writing to that Shakespeare, a deserving man, was
involved in the ownership of the theatre, then listed him as one of
the players. Did it ever occur to you that to Cuthbert Shakespeare may
have been just a player, who happened also to supply the troupe with
some of its plays? There are many other reasons he may have written
what he did. For instance, he may have been unsure how whomever
he was writing the paper for took playwriting, or Shakespeare's
plays. They may have been thought obsolete by some at that
time. Or, gasp, maybe Cuthbert thought his brother Richard had
been responsible for the success of the King's Men,not the
fellow that merely provided dialogue for him. Whatever he wrote, you
would find a way to interpret it to mean that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.
If he'd wasted a bunch of words to say that Shakespeare was a deserving
man and a terrific writer, you'd claim that he was in on the hoax.
> >Now try to come up with DIRECT EVIDENCE that Shakespeare the Writer
> >was not Shakespeare the Actor, Dave.
>
> I just did Bob.
Sorry, Dave, but you didn't. Direct evidence that Shakespeare the actor
was not a writer is a statement that Shakespeare the actor was not a
writer, not a statement that Shakespeare the actor was in a certain
company of actors.
> If you want more, you'll have to read my book.
> Marlowe, Shakespeare and More." with a foreword by you! ;)
mmmphf.
Richard Nathan
You are still attempting to argue that there were two William
Shakespeares, the actor and the writer. But in the thread just before
this one, you seemed to acknowledge that the listing of William
Shakespeare's name first among all the actors in the first folios was at
least evidence the authors wanted people to think the author was the
actor.
Now you're arguing that people didn't think the actor was the author.
Can't you keep a thought in your head for more than thirty seconds.
In any event, the fact that Burbage refers to Shakespeare as a player
does not mean Burbage didn't also know he was the author.
And your references to Shakespeare being "merely" a man-player or
"simply" a man-player or "no more than" a man-player is just more
evidence of your fundamental dishonesty.
Shakespeare was listed among other players, all of whom were named as
players. He wasn't singled out, and it was never said that he was only
a player.
Have you no shred of honesty?
RLamb
richie miller wrote in message ...<snip>
I've got a book with the facsimile of the front page of this document, which
as near as I can tell runs as follows:
"To ye Right Hon[ora]ble Philip Earle of Pembroke & Montgomery
Lorde Chamberlaine of his Ma[jes]t[y]s Houshold.
Right Hon[ora]ble & our singular good Lord. Wee your humble suppl[ian]ts
Cutbert Burbage & Winifrid his Brothers wife & W[illiam]m his sonne doe
tender to your hon[ora]ble consideration for what respects & good reasons
wee ought not in all charity to bee disabled of o[u]r livelyhoods by men
soe soone shott vp, since it hath beene the custome that they should
come to it by farre more antiquity and desert, then these can iustly
attribute to themselves.
And first humbly shewing to your honor the infinite Charges,
the manifold law suits, the leases expiration by the restrainte
in sicknes times & other accidents that did cutt from them the
best part of the gaines that y[ou]r honor is informed they haue re
ceaued.
The father of us Cutbert & Rich[ar]d Burbage was the first builder of
Play howses & was him selfe in his younger yeeres a Player. The
Theater was built w[i]th many Hundred pounds taken up at interest.
The Players that liued in those first times had onely the profitts
arising from the Doors, but now the players receaue all the commings
in at the doors to thems selues & halfe the Galleries from the
Housekepers. Hee built this house upon leased ground, by w[hi]ch
meanes the Landlord & Hee had a great suite in law & by his
death, the like troubles fell on us, his sonnes : wee then bethought us
of altering from thence; & at like expence built the Globe w[i]th more
summes of money taken up at interest, which lay heavy on us many
yeeres, & to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
they call the House, but makeing the Leases for 21 yeares hath
beene the destruction of o[u]r selues & others, for they dyeinge at the
expiration of 3 or 4 yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres
became dissolued to strangers as by marrying w[it]h their widdowes
& the like by their Children.
Thus Right Hon[ora]ble, as concerning the Globe, where wee o[u]r selues
are but Lessees. Now for the Blackfriers that is o[u]r inheritance, o[u]r
father purchased it at extreame rates & made it into a play house
w[i[th great charge and troble, which after was leased out to one Evans
that first set up the Boyes com[m]only called the Queenes Ma[jes]t[y]s
Children of the Chappell. In processe of time the boyes growing
up to bee men which were Underwood, Field, Ostler & were taken
to strengthen the Kings service, & the more to strengthen the
service, the boyes dayly wearing out, it was considered that house
would bee as fitt for o[u]r selues, & soe purchased the lease remaining
from Evans w[i]th o[u]r money & placed men Players, which were
Hemings, Condall Shakspeare etc. And Richard Burbage, who for
35 yeeres paines, cost, and labour made meanes to leaue his
wife and Children, some estate & out of whose estate, soe many"
... and there my copy stops. But judge for yourselves - does this sound
like some chatty letter in which you would slip in a reminder of the fame of
Shakespeare the author? Or does it sound like a brief exposition of the
evolution of the Kings' Men's financial arrangements, and more concerned
with setting that out in detail? The Burbages don't bother to remind
Pembroke that Heminges & Condell had singled him and his brother out as
dedicatees of a book, either. Their personal details don't matter here, and
nor did Shakespeare's. His playwriting wasn't relevant to the matter in
hand so the Burbages don't drag it in; his status as a sharer and an adult
player was - so they mention it.
Shakespeare had been dead for nineteen years. I'm sure the Burbages
remembered him fondly, but it's entirely possible when they did so they
thought of him more as a business colleague than a great poet. I honestly
don't think people close to him in time could begin to guess at the stature
he would eventually attain - maybe not even Ben Jonson, for all his kind
words in the Folio.
Rita
DaveMore
You make me laugh, Richard. Didn't your mommy teach you any manners? I won't be
reading the rest of your post because of your rudeness.
david "with charity for all" more
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
dave...@aol.comedian (DaveMore) wrote:
> >Wrong again, idiot.
>
> You make me laugh, Richard. Didn't your mommy teach you any manners? I
won't be
> reading the rest of your post because of your rudeness.
>
>
The classical anti-Stratfordian strategy. If you can't beat their
arguments, become sensitive to their rudeness.
david "with charity for all" more
>
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Clark
> Burbage, who was as knowledgable about hte goings on at the Globe Theater
as
> there was referred to William Shakspere (sic) as "a deserving man" and "a
man
> player" a mere twelve years after the plays by the man called the Soul of
the
> Age dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert Burbage was writing.
So, by your argument, wouldn't Cuthbert have said "Shakspere the player, not
the author Shakespeare who wrote all those plays that were dedicated to you
a few years back, and who was also listed as a player"? If Cuthbert had
thought of them as two separate persons, wouldn't he have identified them as
such to clear up any confusion in the mind of the one man who would have
thought he meant the author?
Or are you just trolling again?
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare web page at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm
Marlovian
>So, by your argument, wouldn't Cuthbert have said "Shakspere the player, not
>the author Shakespeare who wrote all those plays that were dedicated to you
>a few years back, and who was also listed as a player"?
There would be no need for this. The Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke) knew very well
who was who.
> If Cuthbert had
>thought of them as two separate persons, wouldn't he have identified them as
>such to clear up any confusion in the mind of the one man who would have
>thought he meant the author?
Pembroke was a DEDICATEE of the FF. He knew.
>Or are you just trolling again?
Please explain the trolling reference, Clark. You doubt my sincerity, or the
validity of my evidence? Or do I misunderstand the meaning of the term?
dave
***********
>DaveMore wrote
>
>> Burbage, who was as knowledgable about hte goings on at the Globe Theater
>as
>> there was referred to William Shakspere (sic) as "a deserving man" and "a
>man
>> player" a mere twelve years after the plays by the man called the Soul of
>the
>> Age dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert Burbage was writing.
>
David More
<http://members.aol.com:/marlovian/>
Marlovian
>Come off it. He [Cuthbert] was writing some kind of legal petition. He
reminded
>the person he was writing to that Shakespeare, a deserving man, was
>involved in the ownership of the theatre, then listed him as one of
>the players.
Uh huh.
Did it ever occur to you that to Cuthbert Shakespeare may
>have been just a player, who happened also to supply the troupe with
>some of its plays?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the plays of William Shakespeare the bread
and butter of the theater? Or were his plays a small part of the repertoire?
Regardless, the plays had been collected in issued in a major edition not long
prior to Cuthbert's letter. Since Cuthbert was asking for the Earl's help, it
would have been rhetorically appropriate to drop a mention of this in a phrase
such as, William Shakspere, that deserving man, whose plays your worship
worshipped.
Let's put it this way, Burbage's SILENCE on this point doesn't help the vaunted
"Stratfordian" case.
>There are many other reasons he may have written
>what he did.
It's Grum Time, everybody! Gather round and listen to Uncle Bob's tail.
>For instance, he may have been unsure how whomever
>he was writing the paper for took playwriting,
WHOMEVER HE WAS WRITING THE PAPER FOR? Bob, get with it!!! Read the
evidence!!!! (Rita Lamb helpfully provides the beginning, along with her
opinion of Burbage's silence.)
This is why I don't enjoy discussing these important matters with you, Bob. You
are so full of yourself and your own opinions, that it's like "Evidence be
damned," (thinks Grumman) "I'll come up with so many unfalsifiable theories
that their heads will spin."
or Shakespeare's
>plays. They may have been thought obsolete by some at that
>time.
C'mon. Time moved slower then than it does now--no electronic media, etc.--and
it was only TWELVE (count 'em 12) years before. That would be 1988, right? Does
that seem so long ago? Remember the FOLIO HAD BEEN DEDICATED TO PEMBROKE and
his brother, and Cuthbert wanted the Earl to intervene on the behalf of his
family because they were being squeezed out of theatrical profits.
Maybe Cuthbert just didn't know about the folio, that's the only possible
Stratfordian explanation, though an unlikely one.
>Or, gasp, maybe Cuthbert thought his brother Richard had
>been responsible for the success of the King's Men,
I'm gasping for relief from your hot air here.
>not the
>fellow that merely provided dialogue for him.
MERELY provided dialogue??? His plays were published in an oversized edition,
dedicated to two of the most powerful men in the realm and he was referred to
as the SOUL OF THE AGE!
>Whatever he wrote, you
>would find a way to interpret it to mean that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.
No, Bob. I wouldn't. It's YOU who are desparately trying to find a way to
support a preconceived interpretation. (See above).
> If he'd wasted a bunch of words to say that Shakespeare was a deserving
>man and a terrific writer, you'd claim that he was in on the hoax.
You know, I thought of that. You're probably right. :)
>> >Now try to come up with DIRECT EVIDENCE that Shakespeare the Writer
>> >was not Shakespeare the Actor,
>>
>> I just did Bob.
>
>Sorry, Dave, but you didn't. Direct evidence that Shakespeare the actor
>was not a writer is a statement that Shakespeare the actor was not a
>writer,
If such a statement ever existed, it'd either be long gone, or well under wraps
by now, don't you think? I mean it Bob, don't you think? ;)
>not a statement that Shakespeare the actor was in a certain
>company of actors.
>
>> If you want more, you'll have to read my book.
>> Marlowe, Shakespeare and More." with a foreword by you! ;)
>
>mmmphf.
I'll take that as a yes.
dave
********
Previously:
> dave...@aol.comedian (DaveMore) wrote:
>> Grumman grumbles:
>>
>> >Dave claims that Cuthbert Burbage's referring to Shakespeare as an
>actor
>> >but not as a playwright means that Burbage testified that Shakespeare
>> >the actor was not Shakespeare the writer.
>>
>> Burbage, who was as knowledgable about hte goings on at the Globe
>Theater as
>> there was referred to William Shakspere (sic) as "a deserving man" and
>"a man
>> player" a mere twelve years after the plays by the man called the Soul
>of the
>> Age dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert Burbage was writing.
>>
>> What you have here is truthful testimony of the history of the
>theater. Burbage
>> appears to have left nothing out, including the fact that William was
>"a man
>> player" and a "deserving man." (whose plays your grace received a few
>years
>> ago, Cuthbert might have added.)
>>
>> > Right, Dave, and if I speak
>> >of O. J. Simpson, and describe him only as a former football player,
>> >it means I don't believe he was a murderer.
>>
>> Poor example. Casual reference. Burbage was writing detailed history
>> to an informed reader.
>
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
marl...@aol.cometolife (Marlovian) wrote:
> BobGrumman (Nut-N-But.Nut) advises
>
> >Come off it. He [Cuthbert] was writing some kind of legal petition.
He
> reminded
> >the person he was writing to that Shakespeare, a deserving man, was
> >involved in the ownership of the theatre, then listed him as one of
> >the players.
>
> Uh huh.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that to Cuthbert Shakespeare may
> >have been just a player, who happened also to supply the troupe with
> >some of its plays?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the plays of William Shakespeare
the bread
> and butter of the theater? Or were his plays a small part of the
repertoire?
Did it ever occur to you that to CUTHBERT BURBAGE Shakespeare may have
been just a player, who happened also to supply the troupe with
some of its plays, albeit many of its most successful plays, thanks
to Richard Burbage's acting.
snip
> Let's put it this way, Burbage's SILENCE on this point doesn't help
> the vaunted "Stratfordian" case.
Ah, yes, the mysterious silence of various people who failed to tell
us, with their every utterance about Shakespeare, that he came from
Stratford and was a Major Writer. But Cuthbert does say Shakespeare
was an actor, as his will shows that the Stratford man also was. So
Cuthbert, alone, shows beyond reasonable doubt that Shakespeare wrote
the plays attributed to him.
That sums up my position on this, Dave.
--Bob G.
merrill...@my-deja.com
>
>The Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke) knew very well
> who was who.
>
why would there be a need to specify they were the same?
Clark
> At last, an intelligent question. Clark Holloway asks:
>
> >So, by your argument, wouldn't Cuthbert have said "Shakspere the player,
not
> >the author Shakespeare who wrote all those plays that were dedicated to
you
> >a few years back, and who was also listed as a player"?
>
> There would be no need for this. The Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke) knew very
well
> who was who.
Since Shakespeare the Stratfordian's name was spelled both as Shakespeare
and Shakspere, how would Pembroke have known who was being referred to?
"Shakespeare" in the folio was described as an actor, and "Shakspere" was
referred to by Cuthbert as an actor. If Pembroke thought of them as two
separate people, both of whom have had their names spelled in various
interchangeable ways, he would have required more of an identification than
"actor", since that described both.
On the other hand, if there was only one Shakespeare, and if Pembroke knew
very well who he was, then there would be no need to list every one of
Shakespeare's accomplishments (such as the fact that he was an author as
well as an actor) in order to identify him in Pembroke's mind, and your
argument that Cuthbert would/should have written "author" if he meant
Shakespeare the author won't hold water.
> >Or are you just trolling again?
>
> Please explain the trolling reference, Clark. You doubt my sincerity, or
the
> validity of my evidence? Or do I misunderstand the meaning of the term?
I mean that you throw out a lot of arguments that lack logical consistency.
Either you are unable to see the weaknesses of your arguments, or you're
just trying to bait Strats into meaningless arguments.
Marlovian
>the plays attributed to him.
Beyond a REASONABLE doubt? That's Rich, Rob.
Did you actually READ Cuthbert's petition?
Oh, what's the use. Must be leaving.
Marlovian
>If there was no need to specify the writer and actor were different,
>why would there be a need to specify they were the same?
It is not a question of Cuthbert NEEDING to specify. He told the story exactly
as he knew it.
It's just that, if the actor WERE the author of the plays contained in the
expensive Folio edition dedicated to the very Earl to whom Cuthbert was asking
a personal favor, it would have been RHETORICALLY appropriate to drop a mention
of William's work, if William had done any work to worthy of mention--like
written a body of plays as yet unsurpassed in the language.
The Earl of Pembroke was a very great admired of the author William
Shakespeare.
That Cuthbert Burbage doesn't see fit to say anything more about his actor
friend indicates one of two things:
1. Cuthbert did NOT know William to be the writer of the plays dedicated to the
Earl a mere twelve years. Plays said to be FOR ALL TIME! He knew William as a
deserving man. A performer. That's all.
or
2. At the very least, Cuthbert missed a tremendous opportunity to "butter up"
his Lordship (whose assistance he was seeking in a very important matter) by
reminding him that that plays written by the same "deserving man" hired by
Cuthbert and his family to perform in the Globe theater, along with the other
man players, was also the great author.
I'm not talking about layers and layers of praise, just a mention. It would
have fit the communication situation perfectly, as any rhetorically-minded
reader would agree.
I'm currently at work at a lengthier reply to Clark on the subject using a
modern-day example.
Haven't yet obtained the rest of the text of the document (via
Halliwell-Phillips) when I do, I'll post it, along with further commentary.
dave
*******************
Originally I wrote:
>>
>>The Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke) knew very well
>> who was who.
David More
<http://members.aol.com:/marlovian/>
DaveMore
<< Since Shakespeare the Stratfordian's name was spelled both as Shakespeare
and Shakspere, how would Pembroke have known who was being referred to?>>
Because Cuthbert makes it clear. He tells how William and the other "man
players" joined the company in the early days.
<< "Shakespeare" in the folio was described as an actor, and "Shakspere" was
referred to by Cuthbert as an actor. >>
Yes. this is true.
<<If Pembroke thought of them as two separate people, both of whom have had
their names spelled in various interchangeable ways, he would have required
more of an identification than "actor", since that described both.>>
See above. William the "deserving" man-player told the Earl exactly which
"Shakespeare" he was referring to. Since the Earl "much-favored AUTHOR living,"
and the collected plays were dedicated to him and his brother, there would be
no need for him to be told that the "deserving" William was not the "Soul of
the Age."
<< On the other hand, if there was only one Shakespeare, and if Pembroke knew
very well who he was, then there would be no need to list every one of
Shakespeare's accomplishments (such as the fact that he was an author as well
as an actor) in order to identify him in Pembroke's mind,
It's not a question mentioning EVERY ONE of his accomplishments, but mentioned
his SINGLE GREATEST accomplishment as a playwright.
Is "deserving man player" the BEST that Cuthbert could do for a man whose plays
were said to be "for ALL TIME" by the Age's most respected pundit?
Remember, this "deserving man-player" was supposedly the author of the greatest
collection of plays ever written in the English language, and they were
dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert is writing!
Cuthbert was writing to ask his Lordship a FAVOR: He wants the Earl to help him
and his family get their fair share of theatrical profits which they were being
squeezed out of by later generations.
Since Clark is in the field of public communications, this example might help
him (and the rest of you) to understand the situation better.
THE STORY OF CUTBAIT BOURBON:
Once upon a time there was a gourmet cook named Marthe Stewart, who, as a young
woman, invented some of the most delicious dishes anyone had ever tasted.
Her early recipes were so good that people thought she should have her own
television show.
But there was a big problem. Mar was VERY ugly because of a youthful
indiscretion. So the producers decide to hire someone else to stand-in for Mar.
Her name was Marthe Stuart, but she changed her spelling to Stewart, and she
had a pleasant personality and people liked her and everybody connected with
the show made a lot of money.
Although most people thought Mar Stuart's was the true cook, some, like Network
president (Herbert Love) knew very well WHO was the true creator of those
magnificent recipes. Those who knew what the real Mar looked like would never
reveal the secret because they'd be out of work and besides they loved Mar and
didn't want to embarrass her.
Now it was Cutbait's father who originally created and produced the successful
television program and on whose production crew Cutbait himself had toiled.
But that was a many years ago. Now (Yr 2000) BOTH Mars are dead. And so are
most of the other people on the show, except for Cutbait and a handful of
others.
Since his retirement, he and his family have been squeezed out of the profits
of the show, which is still making money in syndication.
So Cutbait wants Network president Herbert to intervene and help him and his
family get their fair share.
Herbert much-favored the recipes created by Mar (especially her "truffles"). He
often requested them when Mar was still living. In 1988 (a mere twelve years
ago) Herbert a famous coffee-table edition of Mar's truffles was dedicated to
him – with her stand-in Marthe Stewart's picture on the dust-jacket.
.
Cutbait reminds Herbert how his father created the show and how different
performers were hired to help prepare the recipes on each day's program. In
Cutbait's words "to ourselves we joined those deserving performers: Jules
Child, Noel Cowardly, and Mar Stewart."
Shouldn't Cutbait have mentioned Mar's culinary genius in the same breath?
Considering Network President Herbert's special fondness for her work—both when
she lived AND after she died?
[end of helpful example]
Clark concludes:
<<[the] argument that Cuthbert would/should have written "author" if he meant
Shakespeare the author won't hold water.>>
On the contrary, under the circumstances, i.e. in the communications CONTEXT,
Cuthbert's failure to drop a mention of Shakespeare's success as a writer is
telling indeed. It tells us that the William he knew was a "deserving
man-player" and only that.
I haven't yet been able to obtain the rest of Cuthbert's petition (Rita Lamb
posted the first page from a facsimile she had). Might it shed further light?
And I wonder what was the outcome of Cuthbert's petition.
Maybe it was something like this:
"Dear Cuthbert: because you referred to my favorite author in the whole world
as nothing more than a 'man-player', I'm denying your petition."
But then Cuthbert would really have had no call to say anything more than
that--given his first-hand knowledge of William and the other deserving men who
spoke the words on stage written by the author Shakespeare and the rest.
dave
>>
Marlovian wrote
> At last, an intelligent question. Clark Holloway asks:
>
> >So, by your argument, wouldn't Cuthbert have said "Shakspere the player,
not
> >the author Shakespeare who wrote all those plays that were dedicated to
you
> >a few years back, and who was also listed as a player"?
>
> There would be no need for this. The Lord Chamberlain (Pembroke) knew very
well
> who was who.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
an argument that even a blockhead should recognize as destroying
his case:
If mentioning the Divine William could have helped Cuthbert so much,
and the actor Shakespeare was not he, why did Cuthbert not describe the
players he names as "THOSE WHO STAGED THE PLAYS OF THAT WONDERFUL AUTHOR
YOU LIKED SO MUCH, WILL SHAKESPEARE?"
(Would any Stratfordian who reads this please let me know if it is
as devastating a request as I think it is? I'd much appreciate it.
I know More will either ignore it, pan it or find some daft way to
counter it.)
--Bob G.
Richie Miller
Please do us all a favor and step outside, into the sunshine, and take a
deep breath, and stop thinking about Dave and his wild theories and go back
into the discussion of the plays. I put up a post about LLL that probably
no one will respond to so why don't you read it and post a response and we
can have a little discussion that just has to do with the art of the plays
and take a break from all this pissing and moaning about trifles. Sound
good?
OK...you may return to your computer now. But you may not respond to a DM
post for 1 week. Listen to your doc! Your rich...@aol.com!
Take it easy Bob,
Richard II
www.omencity.com
Clark
<snip>
>Clark wrote:
> << On the other hand, if there was only one Shakespeare, and if Pembroke
knew
> very well who he was, then there would be no need to list every one of
> Shakespeare's accomplishments (such as the fact that he was an author as
well
> as an actor) in order to identify him in Pembroke's mind,
>
> It's not a question mentioning EVERY ONE of his accomplishments, but
mentioned
> his SINGLE GREATEST accomplishment as a playwright.
> Is "deserving man player" the BEST that Cuthbert could do for a man whose
plays
> were said to be "for ALL TIME" by the Age's most respected pundit?
>
> Remember, this "deserving man-player" was supposedly the author of the
greatest
> collection of plays ever written in the English language, and they were
> dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert is writing!
Remember that Shakespeare's plays weren't considered the "greatest
collection of plays ever written in the English language" back then. In
Cuthbert's day, Shakespeare's plays had lost a lot of their popularity. He
had been surpassed in popularity during his own lifetime by Jonson and
Fletcher & Beaumont. The First Folio probably only had a print run of about
1200 copies (according to the frontmatter to the Norton Facsimile), and
though the quartos were popular, they were little more than the pulp fiction
of the day.
Given all this, it's not surprising to me that Shakespeare may have been
better known at the time as a player and sharer in the Globe and
Blackfriars. As a sharer in the theaters he may have had a reputation as a
sound man of business, which may have been Cuthbert's point.
> THE STORY OF CUTBAIT BOURBON:
<snip>
> [end of helpful example]
I'll give you this--there's as much reason to believe that your "helpful
example" is true as there is to believe that your conclusions as to what
Cuthbert meant by omitting to mention Shakespeare's reputation as an author
is true. Both are products of your fanciful, though somewhat
ill-disciplined, imagination. (No offense intended.)
> Clark concludes:
>
> <<[the] argument that Cuthbert would/should have written "author" if he
meant
> Shakespeare the author won't hold water.>>
>
> On the contrary, under the circumstances, i.e. in the communications
CONTEXT,
> Cuthbert's failure to drop a mention of Shakespeare's success as a writer
is
> telling indeed. It tells us that the William he knew was a "deserving
> man-player" and only that.
This is pure speculation. Perhaps Cuthbert thought Shakespeare's reputation
as a man of business was more important in the context of the letter.
The petition tells us next to nothing about what Cuthbert thought of
Shakespeare. I challenge you to capture anyone's lifetime achievements in
two sentences. Even the most humble person's life would take more space to
summarize than that.
Your whole argument rests on what you think Cuthbert "should" have said. I
submit that only Cuthbert knew why he wrote what he did. There's not enough
evidence to use this petition to draw any positive conclusions regarding
Shakespeare's role in Elizabethan and Jacobean society one way or the other.
Any speculation based on this petition is less than useful.
Parentheticus
DM>> Remember, this "deserving man-player" was supposedly the author of the
>greatest
>> collection of plays ever written in the English language, and they were
>> dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert is writing!
CH>Remember that Shakespeare's plays weren't considered the "greatest
>collection of plays ever written in the English language" back then.
Remember, twelve short years BEFORE the man from Stratford was idealized as the
"soul of the age" "sweet swan of avon" and "for all time" to the VERY MAN to
whom Cuthbert was now writing. He, of ALL LIVING MEN, most-favored the plays
and the author living.
>In
>Cuthbert's day, Shakespeare's plays had lost a lot of their popularity.
I must challenge this statement, Clark. As a matter of fact, a SECOND Folio
would soon be printed, with many more plays added. Beyond this, it isn't
likely that the author had lost popularity in the mind of William Herbert.
Without evidence this is pure speculation on your part.
>He
>had been surpassed in popularity during his own lifetime by Jonson and
>Fletcher & Beaumont.
During his own lifetime (1616) has no bearing at all on the time we are
discussing (1635), since the 1623 FF put William's name on the map, as it were.
> The First Folio probably only had a print run of about
>1200 copies (according to the frontmatter to the Norton Facsimile), and
>though the quartos were popular, they were little more than the pulp fiction
>of the day.
Again, the Quartos are irrelevant here.
>Given all this, it's not surprising to me that Shakespeare may have been
>better known at the time as a player and sharer in the Globe and
>Blackfriars.
Yes. I completely agree with you. BUT NOT TO WILLIAM HERBERT! He had just had
the FF dedicated to him. (Actually, small point of accuracy here: "H&C" (Ben
Jonson) actually states that they are dedicating the FF to a TEMPLE! What
Temple? Any educated guesses?)
>As a sharer in the theaters he may have had a reputation as a
>sound man of business, which may have been Cuthbert's point.
No Cuthbert's purpose was to get a continued share of theatrical profits and he
was reminding William Herbert of his (Burbage's) family's important role in
establishing the Globe. If they were still producing Shakespeare, then Cuthbert
might share some of the satisfaction with his Lordship.
IMPORTANT POINT OF EVIDENCE HERE...Were Shakespeare's plays still being
performed in 1635?
>> THE STORY OF CUTBAIT BOURBON:
><snip>
>> [end of helpful example]
>
>I'll give you this--there's as much reason to believe that your "helpful
>example" is true as there is to believe that your conclusions as to what
>Cuthbert meant by omitting to mention Shakespeare's reputation as an author
>is true.
What was wrong with my "helpful example"? Wasn't it helpful?
>Both are products of your fanciful, though somewhat
>ill-disciplined, imagination. (No offense intended.)
Gee. Fanciful AND ill-disciplined. No offense taken! I'd ask you to back it up
with evidence, but then I'd be asking for it, wooden eye? (And if I responded
to you by shouting "HAIR LIP!" would anyone who reads it get it? --There's
fanciful and undisciplined for you!)
>> Clark concludes:
>>
>> <<[the] argument that Cuthbert would/should have written "author" if he
>meant
>> Shakespeare the author won't hold water.>>
>>
>> On the contrary, under the circumstances, i.e. in the communications
>CONTEXT,
>> Cuthbert's failure to drop a mention of Shakespeare's success as a writer
>is
>> telling indeed. It tells us that the William he knew was a "deserving
>> man-player" and only that.
>
>This is pure speculation. Perhaps Cuthbert thought Shakespeare's reputation
>as a man of business was more important in the context of the letter.
Not PURE speculation. It's adulterated with evidence and common sense.
William's reputation as a man of business does not enter the discussion. He is
merely mention IN PASSING along with the rest of the deserving men-players.
CUTHBERT: << & to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
they call the House, but makeing the Leases for 21 yeares hath
beene the destruction of o[u]r selues & others, for they dyeinge at the
expiration of 3 or 4 yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres
became dissolued to strangers as by marrying w[it]h their widdowes
& the like by their Children.>>
Cuthbert was talking about the year 1599, when the AUTHOR Shakespeare was at
the PEAK OF HIS POWERS. The Globe theater might be described as "The House
that Will Built" Twenty-four years later, his plays are collected and
described as FOR ALL TIME. Twelve years after this, a man who knew the actor
very well lumps him in with a few other "deserving men-players."
>The petition tells us next to nothing about what Cuthbert thought of
>Shakespeare.
Deserving man.
Man-player.
That's it.
I challenge you to capture anyone's lifetime achievements in
>two sentences.
I used to teach a similar exercise to Technical Writing students, stressing the
ABC's: Accuracy, Brevity, and Clarity. Two sentences would be more than enough
for most people. Some (like Clark) might only require one. Kidding there,
Clark. That was for fanciful and undisciplined.
>Even the most humble person's life would take more space to
>summarize than that.
Just to show you how easy this is, I'll start with two words: Husband and
great-grandfather, then add two more: Dentist and Rotarian, and two more: WWII
and hero. This could easily be strung together with some key functional words
to make one or two sentences to capture or "snap shot" that life.
In the case of the actor William, if he were indeed the author of the works
described by Ben Jonson (writing under the pseudonym "Heminge & Condell") as
being (justifiably, it turns out) FOR ALL TIME in a prominent publication to
THE VERY EARL to whom the volume was dedicated a few years before, here's what
Cuthbert might have added, something like: "whose plays your Lordship so much
favored."
BURBAGE WROTE <<to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
they call the House>>
HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IF WILLIAM WAS AN ACTOR/AUTHOR:
to ourselves we joined as partners in the profits of that they call the House
those deserving men, Hemings, Condall, Philips, and Shakespeare, whose plays
your Lordship so much favored.
>Your whole argument rests on what you think Cuthbert "should" have said.
Exactly. I'm asserting that if Cuthbert knew William the ACTOR to be
Shakespeare the AUTHOR, he should have--nay WOULD have--said so. It would have
helped his case if he gave William an opportunity to write plays for the Globe.
>I submit that only Cuthbert knew why he wrote what he did.
I submit that the receiver of the message, WILLIAM HERBERT, knew why did as
well.
>There's not enough
>evidence to use this petition to draw any positive conclusions regarding
>Shakespeare's role in Elizabethan and Jacobean society one way or the other.
I won't argue with that, but will disagree with you that
>Any speculation based on this petition is less than useful.
Which, I assume includes your own. If so, then I guess the only thing we can
say for certain is this:
THE ONLY DIRECT STATEMENT surviving in the public record about the MAN William
Shakespeare is that he was "deserving."
I have no argument with that. It's an improvement on "bumpkin" and "clown" and
other insulting names given to him by insensitive anti-Stratfordians, but still
a far cry from "Soul of the Age."
I offer the petition as evidence that Cuthbert Burbage did not KNOW the actor
William to be the AUTHOR of the plays in which he and his fellow men players
acted at the Globe Theater. I maintain that if he had known, he would have
mentioned it, if only in passing, because it would have helped his case by
reminding his Lordship of his part in giving William work (and the opportunity
to ply his craft). So the only direct testimony that exists about William the
man, makes it unmistakably clear that he was only a "man player."
Further evidence of William's diminished status is offered in another post
(this one seems quite long enough) under the title "Touchstone and William."
"deserving" dave
**************
>DaveMore wrote:
>
><snip>
>>Clark wrote:
>> << On the other hand, if there was only one Shakespeare, and if Pembroke
>knew
>> very well who he was, then there would be no need to list every one of
>> Shakespeare's accomplishments (such as the fact that he was an author as
>well
>> as an actor) in order to identify him in Pembroke's mind,
>>
>> It's not a question mentioning EVERY ONE of his accomplishments, but
>mentioned
>> his SINGLE GREATEST accomplishment as a playwright.
>> Is "deserving man player" the BEST that Cuthbert could do for a man whose
>plays
>> were said to be "for ALL TIME" by the Age's most respected pundit?
>>
David More
<http://members.aol.com:/marlovian/>
Clark
> Picking up where Clark left off:
>
> DM>> Remember, this "deserving man-player" was supposedly the author of
the
> >greatest
> >> collection of plays ever written in the English language, and they were
> >> dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert is writing!
>
> CH>Remember that Shakespeare's plays weren't considered the "greatest
> >collection of plays ever written in the English language" back then.
>
> Remember, twelve short years BEFORE the man from Stratford was idealized
as the
> "soul of the age" "sweet swan of avon" and "for all time" to the VERY MAN
to
> whom Cuthbert was now writing. He, of ALL LIVING MEN, most-favored the
plays
> and the author living.
All epitaphs for a (fairly) recently deceased friend when Jonson wrote those
words in 1623. And declaring who or what Shakespeare had been was NOT the
purpose of Cuthbert's petition.
> >In
> >Cuthbert's day, Shakespeare's plays had lost a lot of their popularity.
>
> I must challenge this statement, Clark. As a matter of fact, a SECOND
Folio
> would soon be printed, with many more plays added. Beyond this, it isn't
> likely that the author had lost popularity in the mind of William Herbert.
> Without evidence this is pure speculation on your part.
No, the Second Folio was published in 1632, and the "many more plays added"
didn't show up until the 4th Folio. I happen to own a couple of plays
extracted from a broken-up copy of the 2nd Folio, and therefore feel
compelled to respond to your "challenge". (Shameless plug: visit my
Shakespeare web site for a facsimile copy of the 2nd Folio version of Much
Ado About Nothing at: http://members.home.net/cjh5801/much~int.htm
> >He
> >had been surpassed in popularity during his own lifetime by Jonson and
> >Fletcher & Beaumont.
>
> During his own lifetime (1616) has no bearing at all on the time we are
> discussing (1635), since the 1623 FF put William's name on the map, as it
were.
No, William's name was "on the map" long before the 1,200 copies of the
First Folio were printed. The First Folio was a rememberance, not an
introduction.
> >Given all this, it's not surprising to me that Shakespeare may have been
> >better known at the time as a player and sharer in the Globe and
> >Blackfriars.
>
> Yes. I completely agree with you. BUT NOT TO WILLIAM HERBERT! He had just
had
> the FF dedicated to him. (Actually, small point of accuracy here: "H&C"
(Ben
> Jonson) actually states that they are dedicating the FF to a TEMPLE! What
> Temple? Any educated guesses?)
Not "just". The actual dedication took place 12 years previously.
> >As a sharer in the theaters he may have had a reputation as a
> >sound man of business, which may have been Cuthbert's point.
>
> No Cuthbert's purpose was to get a continued share of theatrical profits
and he
> was reminding William Herbert of his (Burbage's) family's important role
in
> establishing the Globe. If they were still producing Shakespeare, then
Cuthbert
> might share some of the satisfaction with his Lordship.
Yes, and therefore it would have been important to establish that his
(Burbage's) family's role in the Globe was as important as Shakespeare's.
You don't do this by pointing out that Shakespeare was the company
playwright, you do it by mentioning how he was similar to Burbage, i.e.,
actor and sharer.
> IMPORTANT POINT OF EVIDENCE HERE...Were Shakespeare's plays still being
> performed in 1635?
There were revivals of Titus around this time, I believe, as well as some
others. But Shakespeare's plays were *not* the major draws of 1635.
> >> Clark concludes:
> >>
> >> <<[the] argument that Cuthbert would/should have written "author" if he
> >meant
> >> Shakespeare the author won't hold water.>>
> >>
> >> On the contrary, under the circumstances, i.e. in the communications
> >CONTEXT,
> >> Cuthbert's failure to drop a mention of Shakespeare's success as a
writer
> >is
> >> telling indeed. It tells us that the William he knew was a "deserving
> >> man-player" and only that.
> >
> >This is pure speculation. Perhaps Cuthbert thought Shakespeare's
reputation
> >as a man of business was more important in the context of the letter.
>
> Not PURE speculation. It's adulterated with evidence and common sense.
> William's reputation as a man of business does not enter the discussion.
He is
> merely mention IN PASSING along with the rest of the deserving
men-players.
And thereby showing that Richard Burbage was as important as Shakespeare in
the success of the Globe. Why would Cuthbert have singled Shakespeare out
for praise? How would that have helped him establish that the Burbages's
deserved a share in the profits?
> CUTHBERT: << & to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
> Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
> they call the House, but makeing the Leases for 21 yeares hath
> beene the destruction of o[u]r selues & others, for they dyeinge at the
> expiration of 3 or 4 yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres
> became dissolued to strangers as by marrying w[it]h their widdowes
> & the like by their Children.>>
>
> Cuthbert was talking about the year 1599, when the AUTHOR Shakespeare was
at
> the PEAK OF HIS POWERS. The Globe theater might be described as "The
House
> that Will Built" Twenty-four years later, his plays are collected and
> described as FOR ALL TIME. Twelve years after this, a man who knew the
actor
> very well lumps him in with a few other "deserving men-players."
Playing up Shakespeare's role would downplay Cuthbert's claim that the
Burbages were as deserving as the rest of the sharers and actors--if
Shakespeare was singled out as the person that "built the Globe", then the
Burbages would have been superfluous, and hardly deserving in shares in the
profits. You are arguing against your own point.
> I challenge you to capture anyone's lifetime achievements in
> >two sentences.
>
> I used to teach a similar exercise to Technical Writing students,
stressing the
> ABC's: Accuracy, Brevity, and Clarity. Two sentences would be more than
enough
> for most people. Some (like Clark) might only require one. Kidding there,
> Clark. That was for fanciful and undisciplined.
Perhaps you're right. "Fanciful and undisciplined" seems a fairly accurate,
brief, and clear description of your life's accomplishments, and it doesn't
even require a complete sentence (at least you've granted me a complete
sentence). Score a point for you.
> In the case of the actor William, if he were indeed the author of the
works
> described by Ben Jonson (writing under the pseudonym "Heminge & Condell")
as
> being (justifiably, it turns out) FOR ALL TIME in a prominent publication
to
> THE VERY EARL to whom the volume was dedicated a few years before, here's
what
> Cuthbert might have added, something like: "whose plays your Lordship so
much
> favored."
Again, how would this advance Cuthbert's claim that the Burbages were
equally deserving?
> BURBAGE WROTE <<to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
> Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
> they call the House>>
>
> HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IF WILLIAM WAS AN ACTOR/AUTHOR:
> to ourselves we joined as partners in the profits of that they call the
House
> those deserving men, Hemings, Condall, Philips, and Shakespeare, whose
plays
> your Lordship so much favored.
How would praising Shakespeare have advanced the Burbages' claim to equal
shares?
> >Your whole argument rests on what you think Cuthbert "should" have said.
>
> Exactly. I'm asserting that if Cuthbert knew William the ACTOR to be
> Shakespeare the AUTHOR, he should have--nay WOULD have--said so. It would
have
> helped his case if he gave William an opportunity to write plays for the
Globe.
No, it would have argued against his claim that his family had been just as
important to the Globe's success.
> >I submit that only Cuthbert knew why he wrote what he did.
>
> I submit that the receiver of the message, WILLIAM HERBERT, knew why did
as
> well.
And your point? We don't know how Herbert took Cuthbert's reference to
Shakespeare either.
> >Any speculation based on this petition is less than useful.
>
> Which, I assume includes your own.
Obviously it includes my own. My purpose is to show that your speculations
are irresponsible, misleading, and of no importance. If my presentation of
speculations that are equally frivolous will prove that point, then I've
accomplished my purpose.
>...If so, then I guess the only thing we can
> say for certain is this:
> THE ONLY DIRECT STATEMENT surviving in the public record about the MAN
William
> Shakespeare is that he was "deserving."
Actually, this isn't true. The epitaph on the Stratford monument is about
the MAN Shakespeare, and he's praised as a writer there.
> I have no argument with that. It's an improvement on "bumpkin" and "clown"
and
> other insulting names given to him by insensitive anti-Stratfordians, but
still
> a far cry from "Soul of the Age."
>
> I offer the petition as evidence that Cuthbert Burbage did not KNOW the
actor
> William to be the AUTHOR of the plays in which he and his fellow men
players
> acted at the Globe Theater. I maintain that if he had known, he would have
> mentioned it, if only in passing, because it would have helped his case by
> reminding his Lordship of his part in giving William work (and the
opportunity
> to ply his craft). So the only direct testimony that exists about William
the
> man, makes it unmistakably clear that he was only a "man player."
And I maintain that mentioning it would have weakened the claim in his
petition. It would have hurt, not helped, his case. We have direct
testimony that William the man was a writer on his monument.
Parentheticus
petition to Lord Chamberlain, Philip Herbert has raised some questions of fact
and interpretation which perhaps some reader more knowledgeable than either of
us will be kind enough to address:
1. SHAKESPEARE'S FAME IN 1599
Up until the year that the Globe was constructed (1599) the author
Shakespeare's public fame was more as a POET than as a playwright (based on
reprintings of his two narrative poems, *Venus & Adonis* and *The Rape of
Lucrece*. In mid-1599, only three or four plays were in print and these were
poor quartos.) On the other hand, the author's skill as a playwright is
testified to by Francis Meres in 1598.
Then what's wrong with this picture? Cuthbert remembers 1599:
> CUTHBERT: << & to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
> Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
> they call the House, ...
> Cuthbert was talking about the year 1599, when the author Shakespeare was
at
> the peak of his powers.
Assuming that the actor William WAS the author, why would he have been lumped
in with the other men-players in 1599?
2. SHAKESPEARE'S FAME IN 1635
Clark says that Shakespeare's fame was in ECLIPSE in 1635:
> >In Cuthbert's day,
> > Shakespeare's plays had lost a lot of their popularity.
Were Shakespeare's plays still being performed in 1635 by the company that
devolved from the Burbages?
Clark writes: <<There were revivals of Titus around this time, I believe, as
well as some others. But Shakespeare's plays were *not* the major draws of
1635.>>
I'd like to take Clark's word for it, but he doesn't offer any evidence for his
statement that Shakespeare was no longer popular in 1635.
> >Given all this, it's not surprising to me that Shakespeare may have been
> >better known at the time [1635!] as a player and sharer in the Globe and
> >Blackfriars. (brackets added)
The above is a good example of Clark's "less than useful" speculation. The
Globe had burned to the ground twenty years prior to Cuthbert's writing.
A more than useless speculation would be that the author had NOT lost
popularity in the mind of Philip Herbert, to whom the great Folio collection of
plays had been (fairly recently) dedicated. Based on the recent printing of a
second Folio, and the continued performance of the plays, the name Shakespeare
would still have loomed large in the mind of Philip Herbert.
3. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE OMISSION
What is the significance of Cuthbert's not mentioning that his actor associate
was also the author of plays that had only three years before gone into a
second Folio printing? The omission is dismissed by Rita Lamb and Clark
Holloway as irrelevant and unnecessary.
I maintain that IF IT WERE TRUE that the man-player William Shakespere was the
great author of the superb Folio plays (fairly recently dedicated to the man to
whom Cuthbert was writing) that Cuthbert would have mentioned it.
Clark says
<<...declaring who or what Shakespeare had been was NOT the purpose of
Cuthbert's petition.>>
It was not the purpose, but that it would have HELPED ACCOMPLISH the purpose.
;)
> >As a sharer in the theaters he may have had a reputation as a
> >sound man of business, which may have been Cuthbert's point.
> No Cuthbert's purpose was to get a continued share of theatrical profits
and he
> was reminding Philip Herbert of his (Burbage's) family's important role
in
> establishing the Globe. If they were still producing Shakespeare, then
Cuthbert
> might share some of the satisfaction with his Lordship.
> >Yes, and therefore it would have been important to establish that his
> > (Burbage's) family's role in the Globe was as important as Shakespeare's.
> > You don't do this by pointing out that Shakespeare was the company
> > playwright, you do it by mentioning how he was similar to Burbage, i.e.,
> > actor and sharer.
I disagree. Cuthbert had already established his family's KEY role in taking
the financial risk necessary for building The Globe. Mentioning that he *hired*
William and gave him an opportunity to become the Soul of the Age, certainly
would not hurt his case, since Philip Herbert, the man to whom he was writing,
so much favored the author.
For his part, Cuthbert gives every appearance of telling the story of The Globe
theater exactly as he remembers it, a full and truthful account of the actor
William Shakspere's role in the company.
If it were other than that, Cuthbert would not need to "point out" that the
actor was also the company playwright; the Lord Chamberlain would know this.
But if that same "man-player" named "Shakspere," whom the Burbage family hired
along with some other deserving men, went on to write the plays in the famous
FF dedicated to that same Philip Herbert, and Cuthbert didn't even mention it,
it would be leaving out a VERY important benefit that his family's FINANCIAL
investment created. Far from hurting his case, it would HELP his petition if it
were it true.
Clark objects:
> >Your whole argument rests on what you think Cuthbert "should" have said.
> Exactly. I'm asserting that if Cuthbert knew William the ACTOR to be
> Shakespeare the AUTHOR, he should have--nay WOULD have--said so. It would
have
> helped his case if he gave William an opportunity to write plays for the
Globe.
In the communications CONTEXT, Cuthbert's failure to drop a mention of the
actor's success as a writer is telling indeed. It tells us that, in the eyes of
Richard Burbage's brother, William was a "deserving man-player" and only that.
Clark counters
> >This is pure speculation.
Then speculates:
> > Perhaps Cuthbert thought Shakespeare's reputation
> > as a man of business was more important in the context of the letter.
> > And thereby showing that Richard Burbage was as important
> > as Shakespeare in the success of the Globe.
Cuthbert was not calculating his rhetorical effect in his petition, if he were,
he would have mentioned that the actor he hired in 1599 became the author of
the Folio plays since it would help his case. No, Cuthbert WAS telling the
truth, the whole truth--and nothing but the truth: William Shakspere was a
"deserving man-player", a sharer in the house profits..
> > Why would Cuthbert have singled Shakespeare out for praise?
> > How would that have helped him establish that the Burbages's
> > deserved a share in the profits?
If the actor he hired was also the author of the magnificent Folio plays,
Cuthbert would have mentioned it because it would have strengthened his case by
showing how his family's FINANCIAL INVESTMENT AND EFFORT gave William a venue
in which to ply his trade.
Clark disagrees. He thinks "playing up Shakespeares role"
> > would downplay Cuthbert's claim that the
> >Burbages were as deserving as the rest of the sharers and actors--if
> >Shakespeare was singled out as the person that "built the Globe", then the
> >Burbages would have been superfluous, and hardly deserving in shares in the
> > profits. You are arguing against your own point.
Not "playing up," (although he would be justified in doing so), but making a
wholly appropriate reference to help his case. The Burbage's financial risk
helped to make it possible for the performance of plays by the author
Shakespeare, whom the Earl of Pembroke "much favored."
> >Again, how would this advance Cuthbert's claim that the Burbages were
> > equally deserving?
Equally deserving as whom? Cuthbert's point is that his family took all the
risks, but didn't get a long enough lease (by law) so now new people who had
nothing to do with the venture are moving in and taking profits which Cuthbert
feels should go to him and his family.
TWO MORE THINGS:
1. I still haven't found the conclusion of the petition. Rita Lamb, you will
recall, posted a facsimile of the first page (see below), but there is more.
(I'm trying to obtain the rest.)
2. It would also be helpful to learn the outcome of the petition
*****
Here's page 1 of Cuthbert's petition to Philip (courtesy of Rita Lamb)
"To ye Right Hon[ora]ble Philip Earle of Pembroke & Montgomery
Lorde Chamberlaine of his Ma[jes]t[y]s Houshold.
Right Hon[ora]ble & our singular good Lord. Wee your humble suppl[ian]ts
Cutbert Burbage & Winifrid his Brothers wife & W[illiam]m his sonne <B>doe
tender to your hon[ora]ble consideration for what respects & good reasons
wee ought not in all charity to bee disabled of o[u]r livelyhoods by men
soe soone shott vp</B>, since it hath beene the custome that they should
come to it by farre more antiquity and desert, then these can iustly
attribute to themselves.
And first humbly shewing to your honor the infinite Charges,
the manifold law suits, the leases expiration by the restrainte
in sicknes times & other accidents that did cutt from them the
best part of the gaines that y[ou]r honor is informed they haue re
ceaued.
The father of us Cutbert & Rich[ar]d Burbage was the first builder of
Play howses & was him selfe in his younger yeeres a Player. The
Theater was built w[i]th many Hundred pounds taken up at interest.
The Players that liued in those first times had onely the profitts
arising from the Doors, but now the players receaue all the commings
in at the doors to thems selues & halfe the Galleries from the
Housekepers.
Hee built this house upon leased ground, by w[hi]ch
meanes the Landlord & Hee had a great suite in law & by his
death, the like troubles fell on us, his sonnes : wee then bethought us
of altering from thence; & at like expence built the Globe w[i]th more
summes of money taken up at interest, which lay heavy on us many
yeeres,
& to o[u]r selues wee ioyned those deserueing men Shakspere
Hemings, Condall, Philips and others partners in ye profitts of that
they call the House, but makeing the Leases for 21 yeares hath
beene the destruction of o[u]r selues & others, for they dyeinge at the
expiration of 3 or 4 yeeres of their lease, the subsequent yeeres
became dissolued to strangers as by marrying w[it]h their widdowes
& the like by their Children.
Thus Right Hon[ora]ble, as concerning the Globe, where wee o[u]r selues
are but Lessees.
Now for the Blackfriers that is o[u]r inheritance, o[u]r
father purchased it at extreame rates & made it into a play house
w[i[th great charge and troble,
which after was leased out to one Evans
that first set up the Boyes com[m]only called the Queenes Ma[jes]t[y]s
Children of the Chappell.
In processe of time the boyes growing
up to bee men which were Underwood, Field, Ostler & were taken
to strengthen the Kings service, & the more to strengthen the
service, the boyes dayly wearing out, it was considered that house
would bee as fitt for o[u]r selues,
& soe purchased the lease remaining
from Evans w[i]th o[u]r money & <B>placed men Players, which were
Hemings, Condall Shakspeare</B> etc. And Richard Burbage, who for
35 yeeres paines, cost, and labour made meanes to leaue his
wife and Children, some estate & out of whose estate, soe many"
... and there Rita's copy stops.
David More
http://members.aol.com:/marlovian
**To reply remove the anti-spam suffix "edian" **
The editor
(the surviving member of the Incomparable Pair of Brethren to whom the
Shakespeare First Folio was dedicated) in Halliwell-Phillipps *Outlines of
Shakespeare,* which follows (in modern spelling):
<<...of other players and their families have been maintained, these new men,
that were never bred from children in the Kings service, would take away with
oaths and menaces that we shall be forced and that they will not thank us for
it; so that it seems they would not pay us for what they would have or we can
spare, which, more to satisfy your honor than their threatening pride, we are
for ourselves willing to part with a part between us, they paying according as
ever hath been the custom and the number of years the lease is made for.
<<Then, to show your Honor against these sayings, that we eat the fruit of
their labours, we refer it to your Honors judgement to consider their profits,
which we may safely maintain, for it appeareth by their own accomptes for one
whole year last past, beginning from Whitson Monday, 1634, to Whitson Monday,
1635, each of these complainants gained severally, as he was a player and no
housekeeper, 180 li. Besides Mr. Swanston hath received from the Blackfriars
this year, as he is there a housekeeper, above 30 li., all which being
accompted together may very well keep him from starving.
<<Wherefore your honor's most humble suppliants entreats they may not further
be trampled upon than their estates can bear, seeing how dearly it hath been
purchased by the infinite cost and pains of the family of the Burbages, and the
great desert of Richard Burbage for his quality of playing, that his wife
should not starve in her old age; submitting ourselves to part with one part to
them for valuable consideration and let them seek further satisfaction
elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or assigns of Mr. Hemings and Mr. Condall, who
had theirs of the Blackfriars of us for nothing; it is only we that suffer
continually.--Therefore humbly relying upon your Honorable charity in
discussing their clamor against us, we shall, as we are in duty bound, still
pray for the daily increase of your honors health and happiness. >>
My current software config won't permit a longer post, or I'd include the first
section along with this (lucky you!), but it is the last paragraph above that
is especially revealing for the purpose of this discussion: Cuthbert speaks of
the great desert of his brother, Richard, whose wife is in danger of starving.
Richard's "quality of playing" is singled out. How did Richard achieve
greatness? By performing Shakespeare, whose great Folio of plays "for all time"
had been published the decade before (and in a second edition in 1632),
dedicated to the very man to whom Cuthbert is writing his petition. It was
through *the infinite cost and pains* of the Burbage family that Shakespeare
got his shot. Yet all Cuthbert can bring himself to say earlier in his petition
about William is that (in 1599) he was a deserving man, when, by then,
Shaksespeare was "the franchise". Cuthbert would have said more about the actor
if he could, but he spoke the simple truth instead.
David More
http://members.aol.com/marlovian
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
marl...@aol.cometolife (The editor) wrote:
> I've finally located the conclusion of Cuthbert's petition to Philip
One thing he could have said was, "Give us what we want, creep, or
I'll let the world know who WILLIE SHAKESPEARE was!"
Why didn't he?
The editor
redoubtable Bob Grumman writes:
<<One thing he [Cuthbert] could have said was, "Give us what we want, creep, or
I'll let the world know who WILLIE SHAKESPEARE was!" Why didn't he?>>
At first, I thought I would ignore this "less than helpful" contribution from
Bob, but--give the drivel his due--he indirectly raises the question of the
outcome of the petition.
Does anyone know if Richard Burbage's widow ultimately benefited from her
brother-in-laws petition? Dr. Dave? Clark? Where would a person go to find out
that sort of thing?
David More
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"less than helpful," without, of course, ever showing why they
they are that. You claim Cuthbert had to have described Shakespeare
as the author but didn't because Shakespeare was only an actor.
Which means that Cuthbert knew Marlowe wrote the Shakespearean plays.
Which makes my question as to why Cuthbert didn't use that knowledge
to get his way with someone who, according to Dave, did not want it
known that Marlowe wrote the plays quite pertinent. I now think of
another unhelpful question: if Shakespeare the writer was so important
to everyone concerned in this case, why didn't Cuthbert at least
indirectly mention him? Why didn't he speak, for instance, of
the wonderful plays that the Herbert brothers liked so well and
that Cuthbert's brother and the other deserving actors put on?
Okay, Dave, I won't enter this thread again. But I have to admit that
I do think I sometimes come up with unhelpful questions that it's not
certain anyone else will think of, and I want to make them public.
Parentheticus
<<About your favorite response to my arguments, Dave, is to call them "less
than helpful," without, of course, ever showing why they
they are that.>>
I haven't budgeted time to budge you, Bob. You seem to prefer just shooting
from from the hip (or unhip, as the case may be). Shooting up the playground
like a kid with an air rifle. I'd rather play basketball.
<<You claim Cuthbert had to have described Shakespeare
as the author but didn't because Shakespeare was only an actor.>>
Would have, yes.
<<Which means that Cuthbert knew Marlowe wrote the Shakespearean plays.>>
No no, Robert. Never said that. We don't know if Cuthbert knew who the author
was. For all I know, he may have thought it was Edward Devere.
<<Which makes my question as to why Cuthbert didn't use that knowledge to get
his way with someone who, according to Dave, did not want it known that Marlowe
wrote the plays quite pertinent.>>
This wasn't some cheap tv movie, but an important interaction between two
important players in the Shakespeare drama. Your suggestion of Cuthbert's
blackmailing the Lord Chamberlain is risible. (After all, Cuthbert was in duty
bound to pray for his Lordship's health and happiness.)
Moreover, if there WERE a concealed author, the fact would be irrelevant to
Cuthbert's petition.
<<I now think of another unhelpful question: if Shakespeare the writer was so
important to everyone concerned in this case, why didn't Cuthbert at least
indirectly mention him? >>
Why should he? It is irrelevant to his petition. Cuthbert was seeking some
relief from those who were taking his brother's widow's entitlement (so
Cuthbert thought) due to the extreme pains his family took to open the Globe.
The (concealed) author Shakespeare had nothing to do with his family's expense
of time and money, except as a (mutual) beneficiary.
<<Why didn't he speak, for instance, of the wonderful plays that the Herbert
brothers liked so well and that Cuthbert's brother and the other deserving
actors put on?>>
Philip already knew that. It was irrelevant.
<<Okay, Dave, I won't enter this thread again.>>
Don't go away mad, Bob. Just go away. :)
<<But I have to admit that I do think I sometimes come up with unhelpful
questions that it's not certain anyone else will think of, and I want to make
them public.>>
April 15th is coming up, Bob. Did you pay your syntax?
David More
http://members.aol.com:/marlovian
(a rash enterprise in progress)
Remove the anti-spam suffix "ment" to reply
The editor
As long as we're all in agreement (pace Grumman) about the telling significance
of Cuthbert Burbage's omitting to mention that his colleague, the deserving
William, was the author of Folio plays that had been recently dedicated to
Philip Herbert and his brother William, allow me to pose another query (at the
least):
Towards the end of his petition, referring to those who were receiving a share
of the theatrical pie beyond their desserts, Cuthbert states:
> Let them seek further satisfaction elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or
assigns
> or Mr. Hemings or Mr. Condall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars of us for
> nothing;
What is Cuthbert talking about? When exactly did John and Henry get "theirs" of
the Blackfriars? What exactly was 'theirs'? Why did they get it "for nothing."
What is the best secondary source for the details?
Thanks for sharing.
Dave
David More
*********************************************************
Visit the Marlowe Live! website (a rash enterprise in progress)
** http://members.aol.com:/marlovian ***
To reply: Remove the anti-spam suffix "etolife"
Parentheticus
>Towards the end of his petition to Philip Herbert (1635), referring to those
who were receiving a share
>of the theatrical pie beyond their de(s)serts, Cuthbert states:
<<Let them seek further satisfaction elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or
assigns
or Mr. Hemings or Mr. Condall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars of us for
nothing;>>
When exactly did John and Henry get "theirs" of the Blackfriars? What was
'theirs'? Why did they get it "for nothing." What is the best secondary source
for the details?
Who knows?
*******
Originally I wrote:
>This is one goes out to DJK, TR, and other knowledgable Shakespeareans:
>
>As long as we're all in agreement (pace Grumman) about the telling
>significance
>of Cuthbert Burbage's omitting to mention that his colleague, the deserving
>William, was the author of Folio plays that had been recently dedicated to
>Philip Herbert and his brother William, allow me to pose another query (at
>the
>least):
> etc.
>
>
David More
http://members.aol.com:/marlovian
(a rash enterprise in progress)
Remove the anti-spam suffix "ment" to reply
The editor
>On Saturday, Patient Dave wrote to the Doctor of Knowledge:
>
>>Towards the end of his petition to Philip Herbert (1635), referring to those
>who were receiving a share
>>of the theatrical pie beyond their de(s)serts, Cuthbert states:
>
><<Let them seek further satisfaction elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or
>assigns
>or Mr. Hemings or Mr. Condall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars of us for
>nothing;>>
>
>When exactly did John and Henry get "theirs" of the Blackfriars? What was
>'theirs'? Why did they get it "for nothing." What is the best secondary
>source
>for the details?
>
>Who knows?
Yo, DK...have you no light to shed on this claim? No facts to grant? No broom
with which to sweep this telling document away?
Does no one?
Persistently yours,
dave
>*******
>Originally I wrote:
>
>>This is one goes out to DJK, TR, and other knowledgable Shakespeareans:
>>
>>As long as we're all in agreement (pace Grumman) about the telling
>>significance
>>of Cuthbert Burbage's omitting to mention that his colleague, the deserving
>>William, was the author of Folio plays that had been recently dedicated to
>>Philip Herbert and his brother William, allow me to pose another query (at
>>the
>>least):
>> etc.
>
David More
*********************************************************
Visit the Marlowe Live! website (a rash enterprise in progress)
** http://members.aol.com:/marlovian **
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On 18 Apr 2000, The editor wrote:
> (Parentheticus) (that's me) wrote to DK (that's he or ye, as the case may be):
>
> >On Saturday, Patient Dave wrote to the Doctor of Knowledge:
> >
> >>Towards the end of his petition to Philip Herbert (1635), referring to those
> >who were receiving a share
> >>of the theatrical pie beyond their de(s)serts, Cuthbert states:
> >
> ><<Let them seek further satisfaction elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or
> >assigns
> >or Mr. Hemings or Mr. Condall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars of us for
> >nothing;>>
Looks like there's a typo in there. I'd guess that it should read
"Let them seek further satisfaction elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or
assigns of Mr. Hemings or Mr. Condall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars
of us for nothing;"
> >
> >When exactly did John and Henry get "theirs" of the Blackfriars? What was
> >'theirs'? Why did they get it "for nothing." What is the best secondary
> >source
My guesses:
"They" is a reference to the heirs or assigns of Heminges and Condell.
"Theirs" is a reference to shares in the theater or perhaps income from
shares in the theater.
"For nothing" is a reference to the fact that the said heirs and
assigns had not contributed anything towards the running of the
theater.
<snip>
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
Parentheticus
I guess Rob's right about "who" referring to the heirs and not H&C themselves.
It raises another question, though: what of the heirs and assigns of William?
Did they continue sharing? (I think the answer is no). When did the heirs and
assigns of H&C get 'theirs... for nothing'? Why didn't Shakespeare's?
As corrected by Rob, Cuthbert Burbage wrote to Philip Herbert in 1635:
"...Let them seek further satisfaction elsewhere, that is, of the heirs or
assigns of Mr. Hemings or Mr. Condall, who had theirs of the Blackfriars
of us for nothing;..."
I asked
> >
> >When exactly did John and Henry get "theirs" of the Blackfriars? What was
> >'theirs'? Why did they get it "for nothing." What is the best secondary
> >source
Rob guessed << >>:
<<"They" is a reference to the heirs or assigns of Heminges and Condell.
<<"Theirs" is a reference to shares in the theater or perhaps income from
shares in the theater.
<<"For nothing" is a reference to the fact that the said heirs and
assigns had not contributed anything towards the running of the
theater. >>
>>
My guess is that Shakespeare's heirs and assigns were cut out BEFORE his
demise, and H&C's were cut in AFTER the Folio.
Can someone who knows better confirm or contradict this conjecture?
David More
http://members.aol.com:/marlovian
(a rash enterprise in progress)
Remove the anti-spam suffix "ment" to reply
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
The heirs of H&C would have been given their shares upon the deaths of
H&C. (Obviously, they got them after the FF publication.)
In 1612, Heminges and Condell held 3 shares in the Globe between them. By
1633, their families held 4 shares. I believe that the standard
assumption is that Heminges and Condell acquired that extra share either
from Shakespeare himself or from the Halls. There does not seem to be any
extant record of the transaction by which H&C acquired that extra share,
so it seems that your conjecture is neither confirmable nor deniable.
Parentheticus
>The heirs of H&C would have been given their shares upon the deaths of
>H&C. (Obviously, they got them after the FF publication.)
>
>In 1612, Heminges and Condell held 3 shares in the Globe between them. By
>1633, their families held 4 shares. I believe that the standard
>assumption is that Heminges and Condell acquired that extra share either
>from Shakespeare himself or from the Halls. There does not seem to be any
>extant record of the transaction by which H&C acquired that extra share,
>so it seems that your conjecture is neither confirmable nor deniable.
>
And were William's heirs and assigns cut out BEFORE the First Folio?
*******
Originally:
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On 19 Apr 2000, Parentheticus wrote:
> Rob rightly writes:
>
> >The heirs of H&C would have been given their shares upon the deaths of
> >H&C. (Obviously, they got them after the FF publication.)
> >
> >In 1612, Heminges and Condell held 3 shares in the Globe between them. By
> >1633, their families held 4 shares. I believe that the standard
> >assumption is that Heminges and Condell acquired that extra share either
> >from Shakespeare himself or from the Halls. There does not seem to be any
> >extant record of the transaction by which H&C acquired that extra share,
> >so it seems that your conjecture is neither confirmable nor deniable.
> >
>
> And were William's heirs and assigns cut out BEFORE the First Folio?
The families of H&C appear to have had possession of Shakespeare's
share in 1633. We can presume that H&C got possession of said share
sometime prior to their deaths. Heminges died in 1630. Condell in
1627.
Therefore, assuming that your words "cut out" mean something like "not
in possession," William or his heirs appear to have been "cut out"
of a share in the Globe sometime between 1611 and 1627.
I really don't see what the date the share was sold has to do with the FF,
unless perhaps one imagines that the share was used to bribe H&C into
letting loose the unpublished playbooks.
<snip>
Rob
Parentheticus
>I really don't see what the date the share was sold has to do with the FF,
>unless perhaps one imagines that the share was used to bribe H&C into
>letting loose the unpublished playbooks.
Good one! :)
*******
Previously on "The Rest of the Story":
>On 19 Apr 2000, Parentheticus wrote:
>
>> Rob rightly writes:
>>
>> >The heirs of H&C would have been given their shares upon the deaths of
>> >H&C. (Obviously, they got them after the FF publication.)
>> >
>> >In 1612, Heminges and Condell held 3 shares in the Globe between them. By
>> >1633, their families held 4 shares. I believe that the standard
>> >assumption is that Heminges and Condell acquired that extra share either
>> >from Shakespeare himself or from the Halls. There does not seem to be any
>> >extant record of the transaction by which H&C acquired that extra share,
>> >so it seems that your conjecture is neither confirmable nor deniable.
>> >
>>
>> And were William's heirs and assigns cut out BEFORE the First Folio?
>
>The families of H&C appear to have had possession of Shakespeare's
>share in 1633. We can presume that H&C got possession of said share
>sometime prior to their deaths. Heminges died in 1630. Condell in
>1627.
>
>Therefore, assuming that your words "cut out" mean something like "not
>in possession," William or his heirs appear to have been "cut out"
>of a share in the Globe sometime between 1611 and 1627.
David More