Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
a Timeline: 1589-1594, Shakespeare & The Lord Chamberlain's Men
23 views
Skip to first unread message
marco
Jul 29, 2013, 12:44:14 PM7/29/13
to
the Two Gentlemen of Verona 1589-1591
cast of approx 14 + extras
the Taming of the Shrew 1590-1594
cast of approx 17 + extras
Henry VI, part 2 1590-1591
cast of approx 50 + extras
Henry VI, part 3 1591
cast of approx 39 + extras
Henry VI, part 1 1591
cast of approx 37 + extras
Theatre owner Philip Henslowe listed 1 Henry VI as
having been performed by Strange's Men at the Rose on March 3rd, 1592.
Was Shakespeare "part" of the Strange's Men, or just writing for them?
published in 1592,
Robert Greene criticizes Shakespeare, in "Greene's Groats-worth of Witte"
quoting lines from Henry VI, part 3
In summer of 1592, an episodic outbreak of the plague swept through London.
Theatres were among the public gathering places to be shut down.
In April, 1593 the registration of Venus and Adonis, for publication.
The Lord Chamberlain's Men was founded in 1594.
In 1594, the players performed at The Theatre, in Shoreditch.
The initial form of the Chamberlain's men arose largely from the
departure of Edward Alleyn from Lord Strange's Men, in the spring of 1594.
So, as SOP pointed out,
Shakespeare was working, before the Lord Chamberlain's Men,
with other entertainers [and writing] as early as at least 1590.
marc
marco
Jul 30, 2013, 11:56:03 AM7/30/13
to
The Two Gentlemen of Verona
18 Character Entries
2302 lines
in the Henry VI plays, the number of Characters rises quite a bit...
Henry VI Part 2
62 Character Entries
3165 lines
Henry VI Part 3
48 Character Entries
2809 lines
Henry VI Part 1
53 Character Entries
2677 lines
marc
18 Character Entries
2302 lines
in the Henry VI plays, the number of Characters rises quite a bit...
Henry VI Part 2
62 Character Entries
3165 lines
Henry VI Part 3
48 Character Entries
2809 lines
Henry VI Part 1
53 Character Entries
2677 lines
marc
Sneaky O. Possum
Jul 30, 2013, 12:02:23 PM7/30/13
to
marco <21bla...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:58c38286-edd2-48ba...@googlegroups.com:
>
> the Two Gentlemen of Verona 1589-1591
> cast of approx 14 + extras
> the Taming of the Shrew 1590-1594
> cast of approx 17 + extras
>
> Henry VI, part 2 1590-1591
> cast of approx 50 + extras
> Henry VI, part 3 1591
> cast of approx 39 + extras
> Henry VI, part 1 1591
> cast of approx 37 + extras
Don't confuse the number of characters with the number of cast members:
/3 Henry VI/ can be performed with 21 actors (including extras) if some
of the parts are doubled (i.e., the same actor plays both characters).
> Theatre owner Philip Henslowe listed 1 Henry VI as having been
> performed by Strange's Men at the Rose on March 3rd, 1592. Was
> Shakespeare "part" of the Strange's Men, or just writing for them?
It should be noted that Henslowe's accounts don't indicate which part of
/Henry VI/ was being performed: the entry identifies the play only as
"harey the vj." It is possible, though not provable, that it was the
same work we now know as /1 Henry VI/, but it's also possible that it
was part 2 or part 3, and it's possible that it was a now-lost play
about Henry VI by another author - maybe by the same person who wrote
/The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable
Battell of Agin-court/.
The bizarre anti-Stratfordian hypothesis that Greene's "upstart Crow"
was really Edward Alleyn depends partly on the assumption that Strange's
Men performed 3 Henry VI in the spring of 1592, with Alleyn taking the
role of York and speaking the 'tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide'
line on stage. Among the many problems with this assumption is the fact
that the only evidence that /3 Henry VI/ existed at the time Greene (if
it was Greene) wrote the epistle in /Groat's-worth/ is the epistle
itself. It's rather more likely that the play performed was /1 Henry VI/
with Alleyn (if he was in the cast) playing Talbot.
If the play was one of Shakespeare's /Henry VI/ plays, his being a
member of the company provides a plausible explanation for how it got
into their repertoire.
> published in 1592, Robert Greene criticizes Shakespeare, in "Greene's
> Groats-worth of Witte" quoting lines from Henry VI, part 3
>
> In summer of 1592, an episodic outbreak of the plague swept through
> London. Theatres were among the public gathering places to be shut
> down.
>
> In April, 1593 the registration of Venus and Adonis, for publication.
>
> The Lord Chamberlain's Men was founded in 1594.
> In 1594, the players performed at The Theatre, in Shoreditch.
> The initial form of the Chamberlain's men arose largely from the
> departure of Edward Alleyn from Lord Strange's Men, in the spring of
> 1594.
>
> So, as SOP pointed out, Shakespeare was working, before the Lord
> Chamberlain's Men, with other entertainers [and writing] as early as
> at least 1590.
It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for Shakespeare's early
career is circumstantial at best, provided you also point out that the
evidence for virtually /every/ Elizabethan playwright's early career is
similarly thin. Take Marlowe, for example: though we have evidence that
/Tamburlaine/ was being performed c. 1587, and it was printed in 1590,
there are no records associating it with Marlowe's name: in fact, no one
directly attributed the play to Marlowe until 1671.
The first direct association of Marlowe with /The Tragicall History of D.
Faustus/ is the 1604 Quarto, with its title page attribution to "Ch.
Marl." There are no records associating Marlowe with /The Jew of Malta/
prior to the 1633 Quarto ("Written by Christopher Marlo"). The only plays
definitely known to have been attributed to Marlowe in the 16th century are
/Edward II/ and /The Tragedie of Dido Queene of Carthage/, both first
published in 1594: the latter is problematically attributed to "Christopher
Marlowe, and Thomas Nash. Gent." (The first publication of /The Massacre at
Paris/ was undated.)
--
S.O.P.
news:58c38286-edd2-48ba...@googlegroups.com:
>
> the Two Gentlemen of Verona 1589-1591
> cast of approx 14 + extras
> the Taming of the Shrew 1590-1594
> cast of approx 17 + extras
>
> Henry VI, part 2 1590-1591
> cast of approx 50 + extras
> Henry VI, part 3 1591
> cast of approx 39 + extras
> Henry VI, part 1 1591
> cast of approx 37 + extras
/3 Henry VI/ can be performed with 21 actors (including extras) if some
of the parts are doubled (i.e., the same actor plays both characters).
> Theatre owner Philip Henslowe listed 1 Henry VI as having been
> performed by Strange's Men at the Rose on March 3rd, 1592. Was
> Shakespeare "part" of the Strange's Men, or just writing for them?
/Henry VI/ was being performed: the entry identifies the play only as
"harey the vj." It is possible, though not provable, that it was the
same work we now know as /1 Henry VI/, but it's also possible that it
was part 2 or part 3, and it's possible that it was a now-lost play
about Henry VI by another author - maybe by the same person who wrote
/The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable
Battell of Agin-court/.
The bizarre anti-Stratfordian hypothesis that Greene's "upstart Crow"
was really Edward Alleyn depends partly on the assumption that Strange's
Men performed 3 Henry VI in the spring of 1592, with Alleyn taking the
role of York and speaking the 'tiger's heart wrapt in a woman's hide'
line on stage. Among the many problems with this assumption is the fact
that the only evidence that /3 Henry VI/ existed at the time Greene (if
it was Greene) wrote the epistle in /Groat's-worth/ is the epistle
itself. It's rather more likely that the play performed was /1 Henry VI/
with Alleyn (if he was in the cast) playing Talbot.
If the play was one of Shakespeare's /Henry VI/ plays, his being a
member of the company provides a plausible explanation for how it got
into their repertoire.
> published in 1592, Robert Greene criticizes Shakespeare, in "Greene's
> Groats-worth of Witte" quoting lines from Henry VI, part 3
>
> In summer of 1592, an episodic outbreak of the plague swept through
> London. Theatres were among the public gathering places to be shut
> down.
>
> In April, 1593 the registration of Venus and Adonis, for publication.
>
> The Lord Chamberlain's Men was founded in 1594.
> In 1594, the players performed at The Theatre, in Shoreditch.
> The initial form of the Chamberlain's men arose largely from the
> departure of Edward Alleyn from Lord Strange's Men, in the spring of
> 1594.
>
> So, as SOP pointed out, Shakespeare was working, before the Lord
> Chamberlain's Men, with other entertainers [and writing] as early as
> at least 1590.
career is circumstantial at best, provided you also point out that the
evidence for virtually /every/ Elizabethan playwright's early career is
similarly thin. Take Marlowe, for example: though we have evidence that
/Tamburlaine/ was being performed c. 1587, and it was printed in 1590,
there are no records associating it with Marlowe's name: in fact, no one
directly attributed the play to Marlowe until 1671.
The first direct association of Marlowe with /The Tragicall History of D.
Faustus/ is the 1604 Quarto, with its title page attribution to "Ch.
Marl." There are no records associating Marlowe with /The Jew of Malta/
prior to the 1633 Quarto ("Written by Christopher Marlo"). The only plays
definitely known to have been attributed to Marlowe in the 16th century are
/Edward II/ and /The Tragedie of Dido Queene of Carthage/, both first
published in 1594: the latter is problematically attributed to "Christopher
Marlowe, and Thomas Nash. Gent." (The first publication of /The Massacre at
Paris/ was undated.)
--
S.O.P.
Paul Crowley
Jul 30, 2013, 2:00:59 PM7/30/13
to
On 30/07/2013 17:02, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for Shakespeare's early
> career is circumstantial at best,
It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for
any part of Shakespeare's supposed "career" is
> It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for Shakespeare's early
> career is circumstantial at best,
It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for
circumstantial at best,
Strats invariably forget this when they are fulminating
against anti-Strats for disregarding the 'overwhelming
evidence' or when they are claiming that the case for
the Stratman is "beyond doubt".
> provided you also point out that the evidence for virtually /every/
> Elizabethan playwright's early career is similarly thin.
though there was useful evidence for "Shakespeare's
middle or late career". What a laugh! The man
was supposed to have written Richard III and Romeo
& Juliet by 1594, and was top his profession (and
a favourite at court) as well as an actor -- yet there
is not one word of anyone talking to him, or seeing
him or writing to him, or getting a letter from him
over the next TWENTY years.
> Take Marlowe, for example: though we have evidence that
> /Tamburlaine/ was being performed c. 1587, and it was printed in 1590,
or to any other playwright, He had more publications
to his name than any other, or even all of them
combined -- for the very good reason that he was
head and shoulders above them all, a fact that all
at the time knew perfectly well -- at least those
who had some education and an appreciation of
the theatre (actually a very small proportion of
the population).
Paul.
marco
Aug 3, 2013, 11:39:15 AM8/3/13
to
neon...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2013, 2:52:45 AM8/6/13
to
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:00:59 AM UTC-7, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 30/07/2013 17:02, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for Shakespeare's early
>
> > career is circumstantial at best,
>
>
>
> It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for
>
> any part of Shakespeare's supposed "career" is
>
> circumstantial at best,
>
>
>
> Strats invariably forget this when they are fulminating
>
> against anti-Strats for disregarding the 'overwhelming
>
> evidence' or when they are claiming that the case for
>
> the Stratman is "beyond doubt".
>
>
>
> > provided you also point out that the evidence for virtually /every/
>
> > Elizabethan playwright's early career is similarly thin.
>
>
>
> Note the silly nonsense about "early career" -- as
>
> though there was useful evidence for "Shakespeare's
>
> middle or late career". What a laugh! The man
>
> was supposed to have written Richard III and Romeo
>
> & Juliet by 1594, and was top his profession (and
>
> a favourite at court) as well as an actor -- yet there
>
> is not one word of anyone talking to him, or seeing
>
> him or writing to him, or getting a letter from him
>
> over the next TWENTY years.
>
>
>
> > Take Marlowe, for example: though we have evidence that
>
> > /Tamburlaine/ was being performed c. 1587, and it was printed in 1590,
>
> Uhh, Crowley, Bacon wrote all the plays in the 1623 First Folio, his
> On 30/07/2013 17:02, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for Shakespeare's early
>
> > career is circumstantial at best,
>
>
>
> It is not unfair to point out that the evidence for
>
> any part of Shakespeare's supposed "career" is
>
> circumstantial at best,
>
>
>
> Strats invariably forget this when they are fulminating
>
> against anti-Strats for disregarding the 'overwhelming
>
> evidence' or when they are claiming that the case for
>
> the Stratman is "beyond doubt".
>
>
>
> > provided you also point out that the evidence for virtually /every/
>
> > Elizabethan playwright's early career is similarly thin.
>
>
>
> Note the silly nonsense about "early career" -- as
>
> though there was useful evidence for "Shakespeare's
>
> middle or late career". What a laugh! The man
>
> was supposed to have written Richard III and Romeo
>
> & Juliet by 1594, and was top his profession (and
>
> a favourite at court) as well as an actor -- yet there
>
> is not one word of anyone talking to him, or seeing
>
> him or writing to him, or getting a letter from him
>
> over the next TWENTY years.
>
>
>
> > Take Marlowe, for example: though we have evidence that
>
> > /Tamburlaine/ was being performed c. 1587, and it was printed in 1590,
>
>
> close friend and scribe Ben Jonson supplying marvelous verses for
>
> the Front Matter. So really it's Bacon v. Shakespeare, and I agree
>
> that the evidence for the scrofulous Broker writing anything is
>
> perilously thin. He wrote NOTHING. I've spent weeks checking it out,
>
> he couldn't even recognize HIS OWN HANDWRITING on the Montjoy
>
> deeds.
>
> So, Crowley, do you have any ideas for putting this HOAX upon an
>
> unwitting public out of it's misery?
>
> It's ridiculous to compare Shakespeare to Marlowe
>
> or to any other playwright, He had more publications
>
> to his name than any other, or even all of them
>
> combined -- for the very good reason that he was
>
> head and shoulders above them all, a fact that all
>
> at the time knew perfectly well -- at least those
>
> who had some education and an appreciation of
>
> the theatre (actually a very small proportion of
>
> the population).
>
> Well, Bacon did write thirty seven of the greatest
> It's ridiculous to compare Shakespeare to Marlowe
>
> or to any other playwright, He had more publications
>
> to his name than any other, or even all of them
>
> combined -- for the very good reason that he was
>
> head and shoulders above them all, a fact that all
>
> at the time knew perfectly well -- at least those
>
> who had some education and an appreciation of
>
> the theatre (actually a very small proportion of
>
> the population).
>
>
> plays every staged, he took the 1623 First Folio
>
> to the printers, then went down to stay for seven
>
> years at Wilton Upon Avon, trying out the plays
>
> on Wilton's indoor stage, that must have been a riot,
>
> Bacon and Mary were the closest of cousins if you
>
> get my drift.
>
>
>
> Paul.
neon...@gmail.com
Aug 6, 2013, 2:57:42 AM8/6/13
to
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> The Two Gentlemen of Verona
>
> 18 Character Entries
>
> 2302 lines
>
> Bacon is the author of the 1623 First Folio with its abundance
> The Two Gentlemen of Verona
>
> 18 Character Entries
>
> 2302 lines
>
>
> of plays re: the Henries. This is easily explained by the fact
>
> that Bacon (and his brother Oxford) descended through the
>
> royal line of Henries, Bacon must have just picked up a lot of
>
> Tudor family history as he was writing the Henrican plays.
>
>
>
> in the Henry VI plays, the number of Characters rises quite a bit...
>
>
>
>
>
> Henry VI Part 2
>
> 62 Character Entries
>
> 3165 lines
>
>
>
> Henry VI Part 3
>
> 48 Character Entries
>
> 2809 lines
>
>
>
> Henry VI Part 1
>
> 53 Character Entries
>
> 2677 lines
>
>
> There was no mystery here, Bacon was renown as a speedy
>
>
> in the Henry VI plays, the number of Characters rises quite a bit...
>
>
>
>
>
> Henry VI Part 2
>
> 62 Character Entries
>
> 3165 lines
>
>
>
> Henry VI Part 3
>
> 48 Character Entries
>
> 2809 lines
>
>
>
> Henry VI Part 1
>
> 53 Character Entries
>
> 2677 lines
>
>
>
> penman, his friends noted that his "hand and mind went
>
> together."
>
> The Broker, on the other hand, struggled and sweated to
>
> write his letters, so to speak. You know, Paul, somebody
>
> ought to write a book outing this despicable nonenity,
>
> maybe we should collaborate.
>
> Elizabeth.
>
>
>
> marc
David L. Webb
Aug 6, 2013, 11:42:28 AM8/6/13
to
In article <466be2ab-3411-424b...@googlegroups.com>,
> descended through the
> royal line of Henries, Bacon must have just picked up a lot of
> Tudor family history as he was writing the Henrican plays.
Neither man was a Tudor.
> > in the Henry VI plays, the number of Characters rises quite a bit...
> >
> > Henry VI Part 2
> > 62 Character Entries
> > 3165 lines
> >
> > Henry VI Part 3
> > 48 Character Entries
> > 2809 lines
> >
> > Henry VI Part 1
> > 53 Character Entries
> > 2677 lines
> There was no mystery here, Bacon was renown [sic] as a speedy
> maybe we should collaborate.
By all means -- please do so! A Crowley/Weir collaboration would
combine the funniest, most bizarre delusions of both. Indeed, some of
those delusions are apparently *already* shared -- Elizabeth's delusion
that Old English was spoken as late as the nineteenth century dovetails
quite nicely with Crowley's delusion that all European languages have
been spoken virtually unchanged since antiquity, and that Latin is a
simplified form of Italian. Perhaps Elizabeth can persuade Crowley that
a North Korean submarine attack was responsible for the Deep Water
Horizon spill. The comic possibilities of such a collaborative venture
are virtually limitless!
> Elizabeth.
> > marc
"neon...@gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> > The Two Gentlemen of Verona
> > 18 Character Entries
> > 2302 lines
> Bacon is the author of the 1623 First Folio with its abundance
> of plays re: the Henries. This is easily explained by the fact
> that Bacon (and his brother Oxford)
Oxford was not Bacon's brother.
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> > The Two Gentlemen of Verona
> > 18 Character Entries
> > 2302 lines
> Bacon is the author of the 1623 First Folio with its abundance
> of plays re: the Henries. This is easily explained by the fact
> that Bacon (and his brother Oxford)
> descended through the
> royal line of Henries, Bacon must have just picked up a lot of
> Tudor family history as he was writing the Henrican plays.
> > in the Henry VI plays, the number of Characters rises quite a bit...
> >
> > Henry VI Part 2
> > 62 Character Entries
> > 3165 lines
> >
> > Henry VI Part 3
> > 48 Character Entries
> > 2809 lines
> >
> > Henry VI Part 1
> > 53 Character Entries
> > 2677 lines
> penman, his friends noted that his "hand and mind went
> together."
>
> The Broker, on the other hand, struggled and sweated to
> write his letters, so to speak. You know, Paul, somebody
> ought to write a book outing this despicable nonenity [sic],
> together."
>
> The Broker, on the other hand, struggled and sweated to
> write his letters, so to speak. You know, Paul, somebody
> maybe we should collaborate.
By all means -- please do so! A Crowley/Weir collaboration would
combine the funniest, most bizarre delusions of both. Indeed, some of
those delusions are apparently *already* shared -- Elizabeth's delusion
that Old English was spoken as late as the nineteenth century dovetails
quite nicely with Crowley's delusion that all European languages have
been spoken virtually unchanged since antiquity, and that Latin is a
simplified form of Italian. Perhaps Elizabeth can persuade Crowley that
a North Korean submarine attack was responsible for the Deep Water
Horizon spill. The comic possibilities of such a collaborative venture
are virtually limitless!
> Elizabeth.
> > marc
0 new messages