Francis Meres' Comments on Shakespeare, 1598
Stanley Olsen
anecdotes, quotations, etc., called "Palladis Tamia: Wit's
Treasury", which includes the essay "A Comparative Discourse
on Our English Poets with the Greek, Latin, and Italian Poets".
This gives a prominent place to our "mellifluous and honey-
tounged Shakespeare", as well as listing and assessing the
merits of many other "modern" authors by name, including Marlowe,
Kyd, Lord Buckhurst, Doctor Leg of Cambridge, Doctor Edes of
Oxford, Spenser, Drayton, Peele, Chapman, Breton, Ben Jonson,
Henry Howard Earl of Surry, Dyer, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Philip
Sidney, and so on. How do those who believe Shakespeare was
not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
author of the essay simply misinformed?
volker multhopp
> How do those who believe Shakespeare was
> not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
> Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
> author of the essay simply misinformed?
Meres is simply reporting on the basis of under which name the works
were printed or plays presented. It's like talking about the works of
"Mark Twain". No one denies the works were by "Shakespeare". People
just don't accept that "Shakespeare" was William Shakspere of Stratford.
--Volker
Dave Kathman
Except that Meres praised the Earl of Oxford in one of the same
paragraphs in which he praised "Shakespeare". Can you show us any
place where somebody wrote of both "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens"
on the same page?
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
volker multhopp
> Except that Meres praised the Earl of Oxford in one of the same
> paragraphs in which he praised "Shakespeare". Can you show us any
> place where somebody wrote of both "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens"
> on the same page?
Afaik, Twain never wrote anything of note under the name "Clemens".
--Volker
Michael Stanton
> How do those who believe Shakespeare was
> not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
> Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
> author of the essay simply misinformed?
On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> No one denies the works were by "Shakespeare". People just don't
> accept that "Shakespeare" was William Shakspere of Stratford.
That's true, although Meres' references do raise some interesting
questions, such as whether we are entitled to conclude that any
author who was list alongside "Shakespeare" was not (as far as
Meres knew) "Shakespeare". Also, notice the numerous Sir's, Lords,
Doctors, and other eminent personages in Meres' list of English
dramatists. Does this accord with the view that a man of polite
society would consider it a disgrace to have it known that he wrote
plays? Finally, when Meres says (in 1598)
As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
honey-tounged Shakespeare... As Platus and Seneca are accounted
best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare
among the English is the most excellent for both kinds for
the stage...
is it credible that a man (or his family) would consider such
attention disreputable? Is it really true that dramatists were
considered low-lifes? Clearly Meres didn't consider them such.
volker multhopp
> ... Meres says (in 1598)
> As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
> so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
> honey-tounged Shakespeare... As Platus and Seneca are accounted
> best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare
> among the English is the most excellent for both kinds for
> the stage...
> is it credible that a man (or his family) would consider such
> attention disreputable? Is it really true that dramatists were
> considered low-lifes? Clearly Meres didn't consider them such.
translator of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* be known as the soul of Ovid?
Puttenham tells us loudly and insistantly that there were nobles who
could not be known as poets. If, furthermore, the queen had ordered
that Oxford not be identified as the author of "Shakespeare's" works,
who would go against her?
--Volker
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
> Michael Stanton wrote:
>
> > ... Meres says (in 1598)
>
> > As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
> > so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
> > honey-tounged Shakespeare... As Platus and Seneca are accounted
> > best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare
> > among the English is the most excellent for both kinds for
> > the stage...
>
> > is it credible that a man (or his family) would consider such
> > attention disreputable? Is it really true that dramatists were
> > considered low-lifes? Clearly Meres didn't consider them such.
>
> The sweet witty soul of Ovid-- mightn't the poetic nephew of Golding,
> translator of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* be known as the soul of Ovid?
Volker, the soul is the very core, not a translator. Hope you're kidding.
> Puttenham tells us loudly and insistantly
Once and vaguely, not "loudly and insistently." I doubt your statement is fair.
> that there were nobles who
> could not be known as poets.
Natural selection, not conspiracy.
> If, furthermore, the queen had ordered
> that Oxford not be identified as the author of "Shakespeare's" works,
> who would go against her?
Well, when she died and Shakespeare was still recording plays, I guess its mute.
Then Oxford died and still Will recorded new plays with the Master of Revels,
coupled with a productive public record in theater. You can refute this?
Greg Reynolds
Clark
> If, furthermore, the queen had ordered
>that Oxford not be identified as the author of "Shakespeare's" works,
>who would go against her?
You place considerable reliance on the (groundless) speculation that the
queen ordered that Oxenford not be identified as the author. Do you have
evidence of other such decrees on her part? You condemn the F1 as being
"myth-making", and then manufacture an implausible imperial decree to
explain away the fact that no one ever mentioned that Oxenford was
"Shakespeare". Typical Oxenforder "logic"--discount hard evidence and favor
wild fantasy.
- Clark
R. Yerington
> Puttenham tells us loudly and insistantly that there were nobles who
> could not be known as poets. If, furthermore, the queen had ordered
> that Oxford not be identified as the author of "Shakespeare's" works,
> who would go against her?
However Meres DOES identify Oxford as an author, so there is no question
that he could not be known - he WAS known as an author, by Meres, by the
Queen, and everyone else. You would have a better argument, and as much
evidence, arguing that Elizabeth herself wrote Shakespeare's works, and
could not be known as the author.
R. Yerington
> Dave Kathman wrote:
> Can you show us any
> > place where somebody wrote of both "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens"
> > on the same page?
>
> Afaik, Twain never wrote anything of note under the name "Clemens".
>
> --Volker
You dodged the question. I'll repeat it. Can you show us any place where
volker multhopp
> You dodged the question. I'll repeat it. Can you show us any place where
> somebody wrote of both "Mark Twain" and "Samuel Clemens" on the same
> page?
Yes, you just did.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > Puttenham tells us loudly and insistantly
Either you haven't read Puttenham, or, like Terry, only poorly.
> Then Oxford died and still Will recorded new plays with the Master of Revels,
> coupled with a productive public record in theater. You can refute this?
Yes. "Will" didn't record anything. The MoR recorded played submitted
by the company. Furthermore, there's no public record of the
Shakespeare person in the theater after Oxford's death.
--Volker
Terry Ross
> Michael Stanton wrote:
>
> > ... Meres says (in 1598)
>
> > As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
> > so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
> > honey-tounged Shakespeare... As Platus and Seneca are accounted
> > best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare
> > among the English is the most excellent for both kinds for
> > the stage...
>
> > is it credible that a man (or his family) would consider such
> > attention disreputable? Is it really true that dramatists were
> > considered low-lifes? Clearly Meres didn't consider them such.
>
> The sweet witty soul of Ovid-- mightn't the poetic nephew of Golding,
> translator of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* be known as the soul of Ovid?
Golding (whom Meres praises) outlived Oxford by two years. Oxford's poems
and letters aren't particularly Ovidian, and I know of nobody who ever
compared him or his works to Ovid. Meres describes Shakespeare as the
author of a number of named works none of which any contemporary ever
attributed to Oxford.
> Puttenham tells us loudly and insistantly that there were nobles who
> could not be known as poets.
Golding names nobles (or greater) who were publicly known to be poets,
including Queen Elizabeth, Sackville (Lord Buckhurst), Lord Paget, and
even Oxford, so if there were nobles in his day who "could not be known as
poets" (which, of course, is not what he said) they must have been other
people. King James VI of Scotland, the heir to the English throne, was
also publicly known as a poet.
> If, furthermore, the queen had ordered
> that Oxford not be identified as the author of "Shakespeare's" works,
> who would go against her?
And if a frog had wings.... As long as you're just making this stuff up
(again), why not pretend that the queen gave express orders that every
subject should try to get literary attributions right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
bobgrum...@my-dejanews.com
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Michael Stanton wrote:
>
> > ... Meres says (in 1598)
>
> > As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
> > so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
> > honey-tounged Shakespeare... As Platus and Seneca are accounted
> > best for Comedy and Tragedy among the Latins, so Shakespeare
> > among the English is the most excellent for both kinds for
> > the stage...
>
> > is it credible that a man (or his family) would consider such
> > attention disreputable? Is it really true that dramatists were
> > considered low-lifes? Clearly Meres didn't consider them such.
>
> The sweet witty soul of Ovid-- mightn't the poetic nephew of Golding,
> translator of Ovid's *Metamorphoses* be known as the soul of Ovid?
> that Oxford not be identified as the author of "Shakespeare's" works,
> who would go against her?
>
>
According to your theory, moron, Oxford DID go against her--by
acting on the public stage under the name, William Shakespeare.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marlovian
<< I know of nobody who ever
compared him [Edward Devere] or his works to Ovid. >>
Need I point out that the same can not be said of Christopher Marlowe, who had
translated Ovid's Amores?
Meres wrote:
>> > As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
>> > so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
>> > honey-tounged Shakespeare...
David More
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > volker multhopp wrote:
>
> > > Puttenham tells us loudly and insistantly
>
> > Once and vaguely, not "loudly and insistently." I doubt your statement is fair.
>
> Either you haven't read Puttenham, or, like Terry, only poorly.
I read Terry Ross' debunking of the Frontline expose on the Art of the Poesie (Aug
30, '98). I misspoke by saying once, there appear to be three mentions. Your
emotionally charged "loudly and insistently" was what I was objecting to. Is not all
writing just as loud and just as insistent?
> > Then Oxford died and still Will recorded new plays with the Master of Revels,
> > coupled with a productive public record in theater. You can refute this?
>
> Yes. "Will" didn't record anything.
Entries for Shaxberd as writer dated after the death of Oxford are in the record. I
use "recorded new plays" as I would say I renewed my drivers license, even though
the department of motor vehicles literally renewed my drivers license. This is a
fair statement. What business does a dead man have with the Master of Revels?
> The MoR recorded played submitted
> by the company. Furthermore, there's no public record of the
> Shakespeare person in the theater after Oxford's death.
"William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, gentlemen" are listed as the primary
tenants of the Globe theater in 1608. Will also was a member of the King’s Men,
which acquired the Blackfriars Theatre in 1609.
Dispute what you may. I can't ignore the record.
Greg Reynolds
Marlovian
descriptions of various authors, including Shakespeare:
<<How do those who believe Shakespeare was
not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
author of the essay simply misinformed? >>
I think we can rule out forgery.
Mis-dated? No, not probable.
Since the plays weren't advertised in lights, or even posters, where did Mere's
get his information? From the theater company? The players would certainly not
be *in on* an authorship imposture. (Can you imagine entrusting an important
matter of state to the crew of actors like those shown in SIL?) There is no
reason why they would be told. Meres book was published twenty-five years
before Hemings and Condell pointed to their friend the actor as the author, and
there is no reason to think that Meres was personal friends with all of writers
he names.
Dave M.
The rest of Stan's post is as follows:
<<In 1598 Francis Meres published a sort of literary Almanac of
anecdotes, quotations, etc., called "Palladis Tamia: Wit's
Treasury", which includes the essay "A Comparative Discourse
on Our English Poets with the Greek, Latin, and Italian Poets".
This gives a prominent place to our "mellifluous and honey-
tounged Shakespeare", as well as listing and assessing the
merits of many other "modern" authors by name, including Marlowe,
Kyd, Lord Buckhurst, Doctor Leg of Cambridge, Doctor Edes of
Oxford, Spenser, Drayton, Peele, Chapman, Breton, Ben Jonson,
Henry Howard Earl of Surry, Dyer, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Philip
Sidney, and so on.>>
David More
Dave Kathman
>
> Stan Olsen asks some good question about Francis Meres
> descriptions of various authors, including Shakespeare:
>
> <<How do those who believe Shakespeare was
> not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
> Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
> author of the essay simply misinformed? >>
>
> I think we can rule out forgery.
>
> Mis-dated? No, not probable.
>
> Since the plays weren't advertised in lights, or even posters, where did Mere's
> get his information?
What on earth are you talking about? Of course the plays were
advertised.
How else would the public know that a play was being performed, and
which play it was? The main medium for this advertising was playbills,
which would be posted around town to inform people what was playing.
Very few of these playbills have survived because of their ephemeral
nature, but we know that they were printed. (One printer -- I can't
remember whether it was Edward Blount or Isaac Jaggard -- had an
exclusive contract to print playbills around 1600.)
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Greg Reynolds
Dave Kathman wrote:
> <> Of course the plays were
> advertised.
> How else would the public know that a play was being performed, and
> which play it was? The main medium for this advertising was playbills,
> which would be posted around town to inform people what was playing.
> Very few of these playbills have survived because of their ephemeral
> nature, but we know that they were printed. (One printer -- I can't
> remember whether it was Edward Blount or Isaac Jaggard -- had an
> exclusive contract to print playbills around 1600.)
Isn't it true the Globe also flew a white flag, visible for kilometers, to say there
was a play that afternoon?
Greg Reynolds
Terry Ross
> Terry wrote to Volker
>
> << I know of nobody who ever
> compared him [Edward Devere] or his works to Ovid. >>
>
> Need I point out that the same can not be said of Christopher Marlowe, who had
> translated Ovid's Amores?
Meres mentions Ovid serveral times, but he never singles out Marlowe for
special comparison to Ovid. Besides the Shakespeare/Ovid comparison,
Meres also says, "Ovid writ a Chronicle from the beginning of the world to
his own time, that is, to the raign of Augustus the Emperour: so hath
Harding the Chronicler (after his manner of old harsh riming) from Adam to
his time, that is, to the raigne of King Edward the fourth."
Of course, for Volker this probably means that Oxford was also Harding.
Meres does not list Marlowe among the noted translators:
"As Terence for his translations out of Apollodorus & Menander, and
Aquilius for his translation out of Menander, and C. Germanicus Augustus
for his out of Aratus, and Ausonius for his translated Epigrams out of
Greeke, and Doctor Iohnson for his Frogge-fight out of Homer, and Watson
for his Antigone out of Sophocles, have got good commendations: so these
versifiers for their learned translations are of good note among us, Phaer
for Virgils Aeneids, Golding for Ovids Metamorphosis, Harrington for his
Orlando Furioso, the translators of Senecaes Tragedies, Barnabe Googe for
Palingenius, Turbervile for Ovid's Epistles and Mantuan, and Chapman for
his inchoate Homer."
Marlow pops up on a couple of Meres's lists:
"the English tongue is mightily enriched, and gorgeouslie invested in rare
ornaments and replendent abiliments by sir Philip Sidney, Spencer, Daniel,
Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlow and Chapman." You have to say,
that's a pretty fine list to be on; Oxford, needless to say, didn't make
the cut.
Marlow also makes the general list of the best for tragedy: "so these are
our best for tragedie, the Lorde Buckhurst, Doctor Leg of Cambridge,
Doctor Edes of Oxforde, maister Edward Ferris, the Author of the Mirror
for Magistrates, Marlow, Peele, Watson, Kid, Shakespeare, Drayton,
Chapman, Decker, and Beniamin Johnson."
In his most extensive discussion of Marlowe's writings, Meres says, "As
Musaeus, who wrote the love of Hero and Leander, had two excellent
schollers, Thamaras & Hercules: so hath he in England two excellent Poets,
imitators of him in the same argument and subject, Christopher Marlow and
George Chapman.
But Marlowe seems chiefly important to Meres for what he had heard of his
death:
"As Iodelle, a French tragical poet beeing an Epicure, and an Atheist,
made a pitifull end: so our tragical poet Marlow for his Epicurisme and
Atheisme had a tragicall death; you may read of this Marlow more at large
in the Theatre of Gods judgments, in the 25. chapter entreating of
Epicures and Atheists.
"As the poet Lycophron was shot to death by a certain rival of his; so
Christopher Marlow was stabd to death by a bawdy Servingman, a rivall of
his in lewde love."
> > Meres wrote:
>
> >> > As the soul of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras,
> >> > so the sweet wiity soul of Ovid lives in the mellifluous and
> >> > honey-tounged Shakespeare...
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kathman
Marlovian
But I didn't make myself clear. I said not advertised * in lights*, simply
meaning that posters wouldn't be a source of Meres' knowledge of the
Shakespeare canon, circa 1598. And the *Shakespeare* name didn't receive any
billing at all, in those early days (if it ever did). Theater was a bit more
"off broadway" than it is now. And Meres was no a Elizabethan Moss Hart. He got
his information from someone else, don't you think? Any guesses?
Oh, and what is the very earliest London playbill in existence?
Thanks from
Another Dave
Marlovian wrote:
>
> Stan Olsen asks some good question about Francis Meres
> descriptions of various authors, including Shakespeare:
>
> <<How do those who believe Shakespeare was
> not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
> Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
> author of the essay simply misinformed? >>
>
> I think we can rule out forgery.
>
> Mis-dated? No, not probable.
>
> Since the plays weren't advertised in lights, or even posters, where did
Mere's
> get his information?
What on earth are you talking about? Of course the plays were
advertised.
How else would the public know that a play was being performed, and
which play it was? The main medium for this advertising was playbills,
which would be posted around town to inform people what was playing.
Very few of these playbills have survived because of their ephemeral
nature, but we know that they were printed. (One printer -- I can't
remember whether it was Edward Blount or Isaac Jaggard -- had an
exclusive contract to print playbills around 1600.)
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David More
bobgrum...@my-dejanews.com
was a fine translator, I suddenly wondered why no Marlovian
translations were published after 1593.
--Bob G.
In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.99041...@mail.bcpl.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Terry Ross
> When I read Terry's informative post and was reminded that "Marlow"
> was a fine translator, I suddenly wondered why no Marlovian
> translations were published after 1593.
>
Uh, actually they were. Some of his translations of Ovid's *Amores*
appeared in surreptitious editions before 1599, and a complete edition
appeared in 1600 as *All Ovids Elegies*.
John Flasket's 1600 edition of *Hero and Leander* described that poem as
"Begunne by Christopher Marlowe: Whereunto is added the first booke of
Lucan translated . . . by the same author," but this edition (and its
reprints) included not only Marlowe's beginning but also Chapman's
conclusion of *Hero and Leander* yet did not include Marlowe's *Lucan*.
In the same year *Lucan's First Book* (Marlowe's translation of the first
book of *Pharsalia*) appeared with an epistle from Thomas Thorpe
dedicating the volume to Edward Blount in memory of Marlowe.
john_baker
Olsen) wrote:
>In 1598 Francis Meres published a sort of literary Almanac of
>anecdotes, quotations, etc., called "Palladis Tamia: Wit's
>Treasury", which includes the essay "A Comparative Discourse
>on Our English Poets with the Greek, Latin, and Italian Poets".
>This gives a prominent place to our "mellifluous and honey-
>tounged Shakespeare", as well as listing and assessing the
>merits of many other "modern" authors by name, including Marlowe,
>Kyd, Lord Buckhurst, Doctor Leg of Cambridge, Doctor Edes of
>Oxford, Spenser, Drayton, Peele, Chapman, Breton, Ben Jonson,
>Henry Howard Earl of Surry, Dyer, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Philip
>Sidney, and so on. How do those who believe Shakespeare was
>not a recognized author in his own day account for Meres' book?
>Is it suspected of being a forgery? Or mis-dated? Or was the
>author of the essay simply misinformed?
he was very well informed. Have you ever read this book? really
wild? I've never seen anything like it outside of a nut house.
But the point here is that the literary life of Shakespeare related to
the works published under his name or said his that were seen in
manuscripts...the point is that F.M. doesn't connect these works to
the actor...for all F.M. knew the author could have been a university
don...
baker
abcedminded
In article <371b94ff....@news.localaccess.com>,
john baker wrote:
>I've never seen anything like it outside of a nut house.
Do a lot of reading "inside", John?
abc
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > > Then Oxford died and still Will recorded new plays with the Master of Revels,
> > > coupled with a productive public record in theater. You can refute this?
> > Yes. "Will" didn't record anything.
> Entries for Shaxberd as writer dated after the death of Oxford are in the record. I
> use "recorded new plays" as I would say I renewed my drivers license, even though
> the department of motor vehicles literally renewed my drivers license. This is a
> fair statement. What business does a dead man have with the Master of Revels?
It was not "Shaxberd" who recorded the plays-- it was the company that
registered the plays with the MoR-- they recorded the author, and the
author was the author, dead or alive.
> > The MoR recorded played submitted
> > by the company. Furthermore, there's no public record of the
> > Shakespeare person in the theater after Oxford's death.
> "William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, gentlemen" are listed as the primary
> tenants of the Globe theater in 1608.
I think you have the date wrong here-- 1601?
> Will also was a member of the King’s Men,
> which acquired the Blackfriars Theatre in 1609.
He's not mentioned there.
> Dispute what you may. I can't ignore the record.
There's no record here for you to ignore.
--Volker
David L. Webb
<vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > The MoR recorded played submitted
> > > by the company. Furthermore, there's no public record of the
> > > Shakespeare person in the theater after Oxford's death.
Where does this factoid originate? Ogburn?
> > "William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, gentlemen" are listed as the
primary
> > tenants of the Globe theater in 1608.
>
> I think you have the date wrong here-- 1601?
(1) From <http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/howdowe.html#4>:
----------
4d. In a deed of sale of John Collet's interest to John Bodley in 1608, the
^^^^
Globe is once more described as being tenanted by "Richard Burbadge and
Willm Shakespeare, gent."
3c. On 17 August 1608, Shakespeare sued John Addenbrooke in the Court of
Record at Stratford. In the court documents Shakespeare is described as
"generosus, nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie" (gentleman,
recently at the court of lord James, present king of England). This
identifies the Stratford man
as the same William Shakespeare who was in the court of King James, where
the King's Men had performed 13 times during the previous Christmas
season, most recently in February 1608.
3e. Shakespeare bought the Blackfriar's Gatehouse in London in 1613. On
the deed dated 10 March 1613, John Hemmyng, gentleman (also spelled
Hemming on the same page) acted as trustee for the buyer, "William
Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." This property is disposed of in
Shakespeare's will.
----------
(2) Augustine Phillips's will is dated May 4, 1605, according to Matus,
and it names Shakespeare (even using the spelling "Shakespeare"):
"Item, I give and bequeath to my fellow William Shakespeare a 30 shilling
piece in gold."
In the very next sentence, Phillips bequeaths "To my fellow Henry Condell
one other 30 shilling piece in gold." Phillips also itemizes bequests to
other members of the company, including Lawrence Fletcher, Robert Armin,
and others.
(3) Matus's _Shakespeare In Fact_ also refers to the 1635 document that
traces the history of the syndicate from James Burbage to Cuthbert and
Richard Burbage. The portion concerning the reclamation of the
Blackfriars is quoted, and Heminges, Condell and Shakespeare are
*explicitly* named as having joined the undertaking. Matus concludes:
"The Burbages reclaimed the Blackfriars in August 1608 and this document
leaves no doubt that Shakespeare was still an active member of the company
at the time and even names him as a player."
[...]
> There's no record here for you to ignore.
Then precisely *where* is the Kathman/Ross web page in error? And how
is Matus's book in error? You can look up the documents yourself.
David Webb
volker multhopp
> <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > > > The MoR recorded played submitted
> > > > by the company. Furthermore, there's no public record of the
> > > > Shakespeare person in the theater after Oxford's death.
> > > tenants of the Globe theater in 1608.
> > I think you have the date wrong here-- 1601?
> (1) From <http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/howdowe.html#4>:
> Willm Shakespeare, gent."
I have several "standard works"-- they cite the 1601 document, not a
1608 one. If the 1608 cite is right, then it's my error.
> 3c. On 17 August 1608, Shakespeare sued John Addenbrooke in the Court of
> Record at Stratford. In the court documents Shakespeare is described as
> "generosus, nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie" (gentleman,
> recently at the court of lord James, present king of England). This
> identifies the Stratford man
> as the same William Shakespeare who was in the court of King James, where
> the King's Men had performed 13 times during the previous Christmas
> season, most recently in February 1608.
Typical Strat thinking and argumentation! Shakspere had visited court
in 1608; the King's Men had played in Court; ergo Shakspere must have
been a King's Men before Court in 1608. What gross illogic!
> 3e. Shakespeare bought the Blackfriar's Gatehouse in London in 1613. On
> the deed dated 10 March 1613, John Hemmyng, gentleman (also spelled
> Hemming on the same page) acted as trustee for the buyer, "William
> Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon." This property is disposed of in
> Shakespeare's will.
This goes to property possession-- it's arguably theater-related,
because it's near the theater, but it doesn't place him as an actor or
author.
> (2) Augustine Phillips's will is dated May 4, 1605, according to Matus,
> and it names Shakespeare (even using the spelling "Shakespeare"):
> "Item, I give and bequeath to my fellow William Shakespeare a 30 shilling
> piece in gold."
> In the very next sentence, Phillips bequeaths "To my fellow Henry Condell
> one other 30 shilling piece in gold." Phillips also itemizes bequests to
> other members of the company, including Lawrence Fletcher, Robert Armin,
> and others.
Yes, close. These are references internal to the King's Men, people
with fiduciary interests in keeping the Shakespeare identity alive. I
give you these, but they are bits of a small conspiracy.
> (3) Matus's _Shakespeare In Fact_ also refers to the 1635 document that
> traces the history of the syndicate from James Burbage to Cuthbert and
> Richard Burbage. The portion concerning the reclamation of the
> Blackfriars is quoted, and Heminges, Condell and Shakespeare are
> *explicitly* named as having joined the undertaking. Matus concludes:
> "The Burbages reclaimed the Blackfriars in August 1608 and this document
> leaves no doubt that Shakespeare was still an active member of the company
> at the time and even names him as a player."
Again, this is a reference not found in my standard works. A 1635
document says Shakespeare was a King's Men in 1608? Ok, my error.
--Volker
bobgr...@rocketmail.com
> > 3c. On 17 August 1608, Shakespeare sued John Addenbrooke in the Court of
> > Record at Stratford. In the court documents Shakespeare is described as
> > "generosus, nuper in curia domini Jacobi, nunc regis Anglie" (gentleman,
> > recently at the court of lord James, present king of England). This
> > identifies the Stratford man
> > as the same William Shakespeare who was in the court of King James, where
> > the King's Men had performed 13 times during the previous Christmas
> > season, most recently in February 1608.
>
court in 1608; the King's Men had played in Court; ergo Shakspere must have
been a King's Men before Court in 1608. What gross illogic!
No, moron, what gross misrepresentation, as usual, on your part.
--Bob G.