Erm, once a Shakespeare play was passed to the company (and we do have direct testimony from Ben Jonson that Shakespeare did so) it belonged to the company. A scribe would have then produced parts from it. Shakespeare as a sharer would have a one-eighth right in his own plays. When plays were published they were sold to the printer-publisher who then owned the printing rights. So the plays remained valuable to the company and in this case the author until they were printed. Shakespeare was quite fortunate in having rights in the company, most of his fellows did not, they sold their plays to the players and that was that.

I have no idea, Mr Cain, where you derive you derive your idea of my 'theories' of a 'Byronic' Shakespeare from, i have no such notions. I think of Shakespeare very much as an actor-playwright - his parts were moulded according to the players available. In that sense, yes, Burbage, and Augustine Phillips, and Condell etc all formed part of the work. But I do think of Shakespeare as the main hand in the plays. His prime job was the production of the literary material for realisation. Just as Burbage was the principal tragedian, Kempe then Sly the comic lead, and Phillips followed by Hemmings and Condell something like the company manager.

It has been thought for years that Henry VI ii & iii (but not i) were joint productions (though almost certainly Marlowe) and 'maybe' Titus A. while at the other end of his career there is evidence of collaborations with Fletcher and others. Additionally there is a case for George Wilkes being involved in Pericles and the texts we have of Macbeth and Measure for Measure are probably the result of a revision for (shorter) public performance at the Globe by Thomas Middleton in 1616 after Shakespeare's death.

The texts as we have them are anything but sacrosant, we have short versions for the 'common stage' and longer material for private performance jumbled together, as well as possibly different drafts from originals and revivals. As you say, his narrative poems were meticulously prepared, and there is evidence that his texts for the players were too. Ironically, the quartos and First Folio are not from original papers, despite the claims of the editors.

As for actors inserting their own lines, Shakespeare's views are known.

I have no idea where you derive the notion that Shakespeare was functionally illiterate. Quite remarkable then, that he made such a meticulous job of presenting the narrative poems.

You seem to be beset with romanticised notions of oral poetry. I know that there are remarkable feats of memory from oral culture, but literacy is an inevitable result of social groups growing in size, complexity and distance.

In British male prisons the illiteracy rate is something like 50 % minimum. There's nothing romantic about their condition of orature. I know of people who keep going back inside because they can't sign on and aren't prepared to admit they need help with reading. Great deal of fucking good oral poets are to them.

On 24 January 2017 at 09:13, Robin Hamilton <[log in to unmask]om> wrote:

                          "among other things, writing was taught before reading"

That should, of course, have read, "among other things, reading was taught before writing".

My bad.

R.

--

David Joseph Bircumshaw