On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, John Clark wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tim May tcmay@got.net 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.