The latest fad seems to be delving into the conspiracy theories that someone other than the Bard of Stratford on Avon wrote all those Shakespearean plays.
The new movie entitled Anonymous comes out October 8. (The opening of the film has been delayed twice to try to find a better weekend with lesser competition.) The film proposes that Edward de Verre, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the works.
My book, The Shakespeare Conspiracy, of course, proposes that Christopher Marlowe was the real author. You can check all this out on my web site: www.TheShakespeareConspiracy.com.
For your information, the stage version of my novel will be presented October 21 in a staged reading by the Artists Ensemble Theatre company in Rockford, Illinois, west of Chicago.
And they're presently preparing to shoot the movie version of the novel in Winnipeg, Canada. I wish I had more information on that, but I don't.
But new conspiracy accounts seem to be formulating daily.
A new book is out entitled The Consequences of Anonymity and Attribution. The final chapter in the book is called "The Anonymous Shakespeare: Heresy, Authorship, and the Anxiety of Orthodoxy" by Bruce Danner.
Professor Danner, of St. Lawrence University, Canton, New York, is a widely published mainstream Shakespeare scholar.
Danner lists some of the central problems with the legendary author. He writes, "Stratfordians have not established the chronology of the plays; they are ignorant as to the author’s political, religious, and cultural opinions; they cannot establish the authorial text for the plays. Such facts provide the foundations of literary study… and yet these are just such definitive issues that the Shakespearean profession cannot resolve."
Welcome to the club, Professor Danner.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Theater in Shakespeare's Time Was Different
When we look at theater in the 21st century, we have a tendency to assume it's always been literature on a stage.
It hasn't.
Even our concept of productions at such cherished locations as the Globe Theatre in London convey the image of class and classic.
Wrong.
In Shakespeare's time, it was definitely a different ball game.
Until the coronation of England’s King James I, theater in England was considered akin to prostitution, thievery and vagrancy. All theaters in London were required to be built outside the city walls along with brothels, prisons and lunatic asylums. Theaters were usually considered to be disreputable places, dens of iniquity, and definitely low class.
Sure Royalty might occasionally be in the audience, but the overall image was closer to a night at a World Wrestling Association event than to a performance at the Old Vic.
Another common assumption about theater was that is was a breeding ground for the plague.
Consequently, whenever the plague flared up, they were the first places to be closed.
The epidemic which began in London in the summer of 1592 was one of the longest closures. More than 14% of the population of the city died during this period.
Whenever the theaters closed, the actors as well as all those connected with the company would be faced with two options: lose all income or begin touring the small countryside towns where the plague was not as virulent. In order to sustain at least a little income, most decided to tour.
By first day of the year, 1593, the deaths had lessened enough to allow theaters to reopen. But that did not last long. On January 21, the Privy Council prohibited any more performances as the number of deaths began to rise. This time the plague wiped out an additional ten per cent of London.
The only recourse that seemed to be considered was to get out of London or any big city.
Even after these especially severe epidemics, the plague was virtually always present and would mysteriously flare up every few years. Whenever the death toll in London reached forty, all public gatherings except for church services were banned within seven miles of the city.
Most problematic was the knowledge that the actors had no idea when the theaters would again be allowed to open. So productions were on again and then off again.
No one knew for sure Romeo and Juliet would make it to the stage that day.
Want to know more? Check out the web site for my book. www.TheShakespeareConspiracy.com
It hasn't.
Even our concept of productions at such cherished locations as the Globe Theatre in London convey the image of class and classic.
Wrong.
In Shakespeare's time, it was definitely a different ball game.
Until the coronation of England’s King James I, theater in England was considered akin to prostitution, thievery and vagrancy. All theaters in London were required to be built outside the city walls along with brothels, prisons and lunatic asylums. Theaters were usually considered to be disreputable places, dens of iniquity, and definitely low class.
Sure Royalty might occasionally be in the audience, but the overall image was closer to a night at a World Wrestling Association event than to a performance at the Old Vic.
Another common assumption about theater was that is was a breeding ground for the plague.
Consequently, whenever the plague flared up, they were the first places to be closed.
The epidemic which began in London in the summer of 1592 was one of the longest closures. More than 14% of the population of the city died during this period.
Whenever the theaters closed, the actors as well as all those connected with the company would be faced with two options: lose all income or begin touring the small countryside towns where the plague was not as virulent. In order to sustain at least a little income, most decided to tour.
By first day of the year, 1593, the deaths had lessened enough to allow theaters to reopen. But that did not last long. On January 21, the Privy Council prohibited any more performances as the number of deaths began to rise. This time the plague wiped out an additional ten per cent of London.
The only recourse that seemed to be considered was to get out of London or any big city.
Even after these especially severe epidemics, the plague was virtually always present and would mysteriously flare up every few years. Whenever the death toll in London reached forty, all public gatherings except for church services were banned within seven miles of the city.
Most problematic was the knowledge that the actors had no idea when the theaters would again be allowed to open. So productions were on again and then off again.
No one knew for sure Romeo and Juliet would make it to the stage that day.
Want to know more? Check out the web site for my book. www.TheShakespeareConspiracy.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)