tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post5913274023066726902..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: Shakespeare’s Anonymous Death by Anthony KellettUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-91805727080042998262010-12-24T12:00:28.478-05:002010-12-24T12:00:28.478-05:00To Bruce Robbins
You say, “When Will died in Stra...To Bruce Robbins<br /><br />You say, “When Will died in Stratford, he was not the "immortal Bard." He was a playmaker for The King's Men, among others, nobody special. When Burbage died, it was a big deal. Actors, as today, were the main calling cards.”<br /><br />The evidence tends to contradict your assertion; since Beaumont (a poet and “playmaker”) was lauded and buried in Westminster Abbey, next to Chaucer and Spenser.<br /><br />Furthermore, in Shakespeare’s Face (2007) by Stephanie Nolen, Jonathon Bate seems to be asserting that Francis Beaumont’s death took the attention away from Shakespeare when the Stratford man died. After all, "theatre is a fickle business," he argues, and Shakespeare at the time of Beaumont's death was "yesterday's man."<br /><br />It seems that Bate disagrees with your assessment of poets and playwrights. Moreover, since Shakespeare (like Beaumont) probably qualified as a bit of a poet too, don’t you think it is warping the argument, slightly, to describe him only as a “playmaker”?<br /><br />You say, “Unless you are saying that there were two Shakespeares, i.e., the actor and the playmaker, what is your point?”<br /><br />If you read the article properly, you will see that it is not ‘my point’; it is Bate’s point. I am rebutting his claim. The clue is in the sub-title to the piece. If you wish to know ‘the point’, I suggest you ask Bate; since he felt the need to justify Shakespeare dying in anonymity, not me.<br /><br />Notwithstanding this, do you seriously not understand that, if one believes William of Stratford was not the author of the works, then of course the “actor” was not the playwright? William of Stratford was almost certainly the theatre-sharer (though, whether he did much acting, is another matter). However, why that necessitates “two Shakespeare’s” is beyond me.<br /><br />You say, “But I love watching you defenders of pretenders to the throne duke it out. Kit vs. de Vere vs. Bacon vs. Sidney vs. Neville, etc. The more, the merrier!!!”<br /><br />From your previous comments, I suggest you start “watching” a little more closely (since you appear not to understand that which you mock). However, where on earth do you get the idea that I am ‘defending’ anyone, in this article? Jonathon Bate made a claim upon which, as far as I am concerned, I cast grave doubts. Moreover, you seem to agree with me too (albeit with dubious logic), since you argue that the death of Beaumont (“a playmaker”) would not have been “a big deal” (a claim with which, both Bate and I disagree). <br /><br />However, if nothing else, we can agree Bate’s claim was dubious, can’t we? If so, that is the only “point” there was; a point which, you obviously grasped, if only by the wrong end!Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-23021080154518223302010-12-24T01:38:23.341-05:002010-12-24T01:38:23.341-05:00I think your comparing present day occurrences wit...I think your comparing present day occurrences with those that happened 400 years ago is disingenuous at best (Natasha Richardson's death---really!).<br /><br />When Will died in Stratford, he was not the "immortal Bard." He was a playmaker for The King's Men, among others, nobody special. When Burbage died, it was a big deal. Actors, as today, were the main calling cards. There is nothing surprising about this.<br /><br />Unless you are saying that there were two Shakespeares, i.e., the actor and the playmaker, what is your point? This is just as fantastic as saying a dead man wrote the Canon, or that somehow his death was faked, and then kept secret many, many years, without anybody finding out about it. That's the stuff of a B Movie.<br /><br />But I love watching you defenders of pretenders to the throne duke it out. Kit vs. de Vere vs. Bacon vs. Sidney vs. Neville, etc. The more, the merrier!!!Bruce Robbinsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-47731351952219177432010-05-31T14:21:53.659-04:002010-05-31T14:21:53.659-04:00Exceptionally done.Exceptionally done.RRaymonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-21621537846889401802009-08-29T22:45:34.430-04:002009-08-29T22:45:34.430-04:00Read it again!Read it again!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872338116302182998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-18878439661486878312009-08-16T10:25:52.903-04:002009-08-16T10:25:52.903-04:00Wonderful writing.Wonderful writing.JPRWakeForestnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-10654821825965239542009-07-15T17:06:48.790-04:002009-07-15T17:06:48.790-04:00as Daryl Pinksen states, a major blow . . . all do...as Daryl Pinksen states, a major blow . . . all doubters could agree with Kellett.ParquVCBCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-23834001450957131522009-07-07T15:41:58.902-04:002009-07-07T15:41:58.902-04:00brilliantly stated.brilliantly stated.PatrickJBoyle, CPAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-72935896603906816552009-05-28T16:52:03.700-04:002009-05-28T16:52:03.700-04:00how do you argue with that?how do you argue with that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-39434648310872514932009-05-28T10:42:55.080-04:002009-05-28T10:42:55.080-04:00This has to be one of the best explanations of Sha...This has to be one of the best explanations of Shakespeare's "anonymous death" that I've ever read.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872338116302182998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-82407327057042740282009-05-27T15:36:45.170-04:002009-05-27T15:36:45.170-04:00an awesome essayan awesome essayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-17080868786722789902009-05-20T13:45:03.812-04:002009-05-20T13:45:03.812-04:00a very well-written piece . . .a very well-written piece . . .LargoMDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-76515162509119256042009-04-29T17:18:00.000-04:002009-04-29T17:18:00.000-04:00I would love to see the good professor bate respon...I would love to see the good professor bate respond to this!!SidneyKochnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-84791351547045627812009-04-28T08:00:00.000-04:002009-04-28T08:00:00.000-04:00fascinatingfascinatingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-47354458984162917152009-04-27T04:56:00.000-04:002009-04-27T04:56:00.000-04:00a very good analysis by Kelletta very good analysis by KellettAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-88589731411855258792009-04-26T09:16:00.000-04:002009-04-26T09:16:00.000-04:00Anthony Kellett has dealt a major blow to Bate's e...Anthony Kellett has dealt a major blow to Bate's explanation of the silence following Shakespeare's death.<br /><br />What is of interest to me is the apparent necessity for some sort of explanation about the silence. That it warrants explanation at all is telling.<br /><br />We see this again in an attempt to explain the silence throughout Shakespeare's life - no letters, journal entries, encomia, preface mentions of other writers. This silence has also been acknowledged by the mainstream as comment-worthy. <br /><br />Mike Wood in "Shakespeare" constructs a case for Shakespeare as a 'hidden Catholic' and suggests that fear of persecution forced him to keep quiet, hidden. The lack of evidence of a literary life, says Wood, was the result of Shakespeare's dangerous (and, we must suppose, devout) Catholic beliefs.<br /><br />It's an open question as to whether or not Shakespeare was a Catholic, hidden or otherwise, but again, the real message here is the admission that an explanation is necessary.Daryl Pinksenhttp://www.marlowesghost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-84755816820434353162009-04-26T07:13:00.000-04:002009-04-26T07:13:00.000-04:00gets you thinking, don't it? Are we supposed to b...gets you thinking, don't it? Are we supposed to believe Beaumont was more celebrated than "Shakespeare"? I agree with you, Mr. Kellett!MarkKlinenoreply@blogger.com