Well Judy I've had a look at a number of the Mary Sidney Shakespeare sites
and am afraid I found them full of unsupported assertions and unfounded
assumption.
This whole 'authorship' issue around Shakespeare - well for a start one
thing that screams out from the plays is that they were written by a
professional actor. Secondly, Shakespeare did have an artistic partnership,
that with his leading man, Richard Burbage, one of the modern western
world's first 'star' actors. He could do the big parts so Shakespeare wrote
them for him. Audiences tended to remember actors rather than writers, as
in Hollywood, and it was so at Burbage's death, when elegies mourned the
loss of their Lear, Hamlet etc.
best
Dave
On 4 December 2014 at 11:22, Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, David,
>
> Yes, it's fascinating to me to see that so many supporters of Shaksper as
> Shakespeare who live here in the UK object to any other writers because of
> their class status, whereas USAmericans tend to object on the ground of
> gender. Maybe as time goes on, the USAmericans will object on the grounds
> of wealth because we've never actually had a purely 'class' ranking of
> ourselves. Keep reading, much and carefully, as you always do -- try JCA
> Rathmell: *The Psalms of Sir Philip Sidney and the Countess of Pembroke*.
> It was my first major eye-opener.
>
> I'm glad you had the -- shall we say 'courage'? -- to respond so
> passionately to what I knew would be a hefty challenge.
>
> Best, Judy
>
> On 4 December 2014 at 06:52, David Bircumshaw <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Judy
>>
>> one big, really really big, problem with suggesting Mary Sidney as author
>> of Shakspeare is that a substantial selection of the work she did publish
>> is freely available at http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/marybib.htm
>> because once you even dip into this it rather difficult to stop laughing.
>> She was a rhymester, not a poet. I must confess my puzzlement as to why so
>> many US Americans want Shakespeare to have been a titled somebody:
>> according to stereotype, shouldn't the Brits be the more likely candidates
>> for such an obsession? Accordingly I propose the following: that the
>> authors of books that suggest other 'candidates' for the Authorship (of
>> Shakespeare) have all been the pseudonyms of MINOR MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH
>> ARISTOCRACY, inheritors of failed estates and fallen houses all, desperate
>> to restore pedigree to a notch above the marketplace.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 December 2014 at 04:50, Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter, I can't answer your questions, but have found your crunching down
>>> the matters rather provocative. I'm decidedly on the wrong list -- am
>>> USAmerican born (tho now living in the UK), am a playwright
>>> who writes poetic stretches in plays, and regard most poetry (yes, most
>>> poetry) as *sometimes* engaging, playful blow-ups of an element or two
>>> of that which makes up poetry. And, thoroughly non-BritPo, I guess, my
>>> poet faves are Mary Sidney ('Shakespeare', as her works are known) in the
>>> poetic bits of her plays but not her sonnets, as well as some parts of the
>>> musical DT's 'Fern Hill'. Others' poetry, from time to time, I 'like very
>>> much' but not so completely and utterly as Mary Sidney's.
>>>
>>> And I explode with boredom when folks try to categorise and list-ise
>>> poetry and poets (tho I happily and seriously do it m'sel'). I do read all
>>> these threads and contemplate what's behind and around them, usually wonder
>>> what in the world you lot are going on about. ;-)
>>>
>>> Best, Judy
>>>
>>> On 3 December 2014 at 23:42, Peter Riley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Re Tim:
>>>> "whenever you talk of the avant-garde you limit them to one particular
>>>> section with which you have had profound disagreements"
>>>>
>>>> I don't think this is right. (I don't think "Cambridge" was avant-garde
>>>> at all. Avant-garde or experimental in those days was stuff like Finlay,
>>>> Cobbing, Rot, Dada, ... than which not much could be further away.) I'm
>>>> well aware of the varieties, and endless proliferation.
>>>>
>>>> Why I'm here is I would like to see a statement from someone willing to
>>>> be called avant-gardiste, about why she finds it necessary or important,
>>>> now, to write in this way, and to say this without reference to the dreaded
>>>> philosophical book-list which John mentioned, or any other authorities on
>>>> the human condition or on language, and without dragging in politics, and
>>>> not a purely negative claim based on disdain for "mainstream". Just a
>>>> straightforward why it is, about being read by people and how they should
>>>> benefit. Or, why a writing which cannot, and is not allowed to, say. What
>>>> is wrong with saying? Surely everyone must have thought about this. I'm
>>>> waiting.
>>>>
>>>> Pr
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Joseph Bircumshaw
>> Website and A Chide's Alphabet
>> http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
>> The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
>> Tumblr: http://zantikus.tumblr.com/
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
>> blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
>> Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.com
>>
>
>
--
David Joseph Bircumshaw
Website and A Chide's Alphabet
http://www.staplednapkin.org.uk
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/david.bircumshaw
Tumblr: http://zantikus.tumblr.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/bucketshave
blog: http://groggydays.blogspot.com/
Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.com
