[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shakespeare
On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, John Clark wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tim May [email protected] Wrote:
>
> >I read part of a book about some pretty convincing evidence that the
> >works of "Shakespeare" were probably written by a member of Queen
> >Elizabeth's royal court.
>
> I think that's unlikely, the myth probably started because some people can't
> imagine a person without royal blood being a genius.
>
It is possible that you are both right, to some extent. Shakespeare has
often been accused of borrowing other's works, but the practice was quite
common in his day. If one author could not pull off a successful
presentation of a story line, another would often pick up the idea, refine
it, and present the concept in a somewhat different light. There were no
copyrights in those days. (it was also hard to come by an entire script -
these were jealously guarded to discourage plagirism - if a play was
"copied", it was more often from memory of a performance, or from the
recollection of actors than from the actual script itself)
There were also two distinct forms of theatre; the small indoor
presentations (such as were presented to the royal court) were highbrow,
while the outdoor theatres were sustained by the commoners and varied
from the serious to the bawdy (or downright vulgar - the outdoor
theatres were not well received in some social circles, either). It is
entirely possible that a play that failed to gain acceptance, or even an
audience, at a more prestigeous indoor theatre was re-worked by another
author for the Theatre, or even the Curtain (a rowdy playhouse that often
doubled as a bear pit). Shakespeare may very well have picked up the
central theme for one(or more) of his works from an obscure indoor play,
possibly written by a courtier; that doesn't diminish his genius.