Yay, new entry!
Cheers
Shakespeare: A Biography
by
Peter Ackroyd
Part Three
Chapter 31: Ile Neuer Pawse Againe, Neuer Stand Still
So a picture emerges of the young Shakespeare, in his mid-twenties was already achieving considerable popularity with a range of histories, comedies and melodramas. He turned his hand to anything with the expedition and confidence of one who seems able to give his words wings. He wrote on his own as well as collaborating with others. He was also earning his living as an actor. He had moved to Lord Strange's Men by 1588 and in the early months of 1589 they were travelling the country. They were back in London by the autumn of that year though they are recorded as playing at the Cross Keys Inn.
There had been some public controversy over certain farces referring to religious disputes of the time, forcing the Lord Mayor to summon the Admiral's Men and Lord Strange's Men to prohibit them from performing in the city. It was an indication of the constant tension between the civil authorities and the play companies. A letter from the Lord Mayor, of 6 November, declared that the Admiral's Men had obeyed the request but that Lord Strange's Men had obviously not. It resulted in the play company being arrested and taken to prison, and it is very possible that Shakespeare was one of those consigned to prison.
Lord Strange's Men then proceeded from the Cross Keys to the Curtain, which was outside t he jurisdiction of the city authorities. The Curtain was their "summer' house, but it was fortunately empty in this period. In the early months of 1590 they were collaborating again. In the performances given at court before the queen. in December 1590 and February 1591 and the company is officially named in Strange's in one document and Admiral's in another and soon they were indistinguishable. Together they would have had the resources to mount the large and lavish productions that were never rivaled in later years. And this combined company was the one in which Shakespeare and his principal history plays were to be found.
When he was in London town, Shakespeare lived in Shoreditch. If he wanted to be "debauch'd" there were plenty of opportunities in the neighbourhood. The presence of the theatres attracted inns and brothels. When Shakespeare introduced the "low life" to his plays, the pimps and the pandars, he knew first hand of what he wrote. There were a row of houses along both sides of Shoreditch High Street and it is possible Shakespeare may have lodged in one of them/ If he had not returned to Stratford before his death, this might have been his last resting place. It was famous for its peal bells.
By late 1590 the Admiral's Men were once again playing at the Theatre and Lord Strange's Men at the Curtain. Shakespeare was working alongside the greatest tragedians of his generation as well as assorted comics and character actors. It was a highly combustible mixture of individual talents and there is such historical evidence of violence, arguments between actors and the public as well as between actors and their managers. One incident occurred in the winter of 1590, when the widow of John Brayne fell into dispute with James Burbage over the division of the takings. The widow and her friends arrived at the gallery entrance and demanded their share of the money. Burbage described her as a "murdering whore". Then Richard Burbage, the tragic actor, came forward with a broomstick in his hand and began to beat the widow's men. It is part of the rumbustious texture of the sixteenth-century London world and would deserve not notice here, were it not for the fact that certain scholars have traced the presence of this quarrel in Shakespeare's rewriting of King John.
A theatrical quarrel of more serious consequence took place six months later, in the spring of 1591, when Edward Alleyn was engaged in a dispute with James Burbage.The precise cause and nature of their controversy are not known, but no doubt it had something to do with money.The consequence was that Alleyn decamped to the Rose, the theatre on the other side of the Thames. He also took with him a a large part of the combined Admiral's and Strange's company of players as well as certain playbooks and costumes.
Shakespeare no doubt decided to remain with Burbage and his men because he would then be the principal writer of the company. It was gratifying to have a company at hand to give expression to his vision of the world. This was unusual since the plays generally belonged to the companies or to the managers of the playhouses, but it suggests that even at this early stage he was not lacking a certain business acumen or professional expertise.
Shakespeare was an apologist for royal power. He makes the Catholic distinction between the priest and his office-the weak priest or king must still be obeyed because of the sacredness of his role. His sympathies may be found also in the fact that he describes the followers of Jack Cade as a :rabblement" against the government of Henry VI. It was an unsuccessful uprising, yet Cade himself is vilified by Shakespeare in a manner wholly at odds with his immediate sources. Shakespeare seems to have been averse to any kind of popular movement. In particular he ridicules illiteracy of the London artisanal class, as if to be literate was a singular mark of distinction and separation from the mass. He felt himself to be apart.
But there is a curious paradox here, one which he and his audience may have observed. The sixteenth-century theatre is a democratizing force. On the space of the stage itself nobles and commoners are sometimes engaged within a shared action. There is no dramatic difference between the varying ranks of society. In the history of plays Shakespeare creates ironic associations and parallels between the chivalric action of the nobles and the comic action of the commoners. It is a complicated point, perhaps but one that suggests the subversive or revolutionary potential of the stage. It was in essence a populist medium.
A theatrical quarrel of more serious consequence took place six months later, in the spring of 1591, when Edward Alleyn was engaged in a dispute with James Burbage.The precise cause and nature of their controversy are not known, but no doubt it had something to do with money.The consequence was that Alleyn decamped to the Rose, the theatre on the other side of the Thames. He also took with him a a large part of the combined Admiral's and Strange's company of players as well as certain playbooks and costumes.
Shakespeare no doubt decided to remain with Burbage and his men because he would then be the principal writer of the company. It was gratifying to have a company at hand to give expression to his vision of the world. This was unusual since the plays generally belonged to the companies or to the managers of the playhouses, but it suggests that even at this early stage he was not lacking a certain business acumen or professional expertise.
Shakespeare was an apologist for royal power. He makes the Catholic distinction between the priest and his office-the weak priest or king must still be obeyed because of the sacredness of his role. His sympathies may be found also in the fact that he describes the followers of Jack Cade as a :rabblement" against the government of Henry VI. It was an unsuccessful uprising, yet Cade himself is vilified by Shakespeare in a manner wholly at odds with his immediate sources. Shakespeare seems to have been averse to any kind of popular movement. In particular he ridicules illiteracy of the London artisanal class, as if to be literate was a singular mark of distinction and separation from the mass. He felt himself to be apart.
But there is a curious paradox here, one which he and his audience may have observed. The sixteenth-century theatre is a democratizing force. On the space of the stage itself nobles and commoners are sometimes engaged within a shared action. There is no dramatic difference between the varying ranks of society. In the history of plays Shakespeare creates ironic associations and parallels between the chivalric action of the nobles and the comic action of the commoners. It is a complicated point, perhaps but one that suggests the subversive or revolutionary potential of the stage. It was in essence a populist medium.
No comments:
Post a Comment