Skip to main content

Did audiences in Shakespeare's time think he was more gifted as an actor or as a playwright?

It is virtually impossible to know exactly what audiences of Shakespeare's day thought of the Bard's skill as an actor. Surprisingly, not much is really known of Shakespeare's life as an actor in London. One surviving document of the day, written by Robert Greene, was quite critical of Shakespeare, calling him an "upstart crow" who "supposes he is well able to bombast out blank verse as the best of you." Later critics, however, thought differently. In his early biography of Shakespeare, John Aubrey concluded that Shakespeare "did act exceedingly well," although this opinion is dubious considering Aubrey never saw Shakespeare on the stage.


In the article, "Was Shakespeare a Good Actor" (The Atlantic, April, 2014), John Paul Rollert argues that Shakespeare, while quite accomplished, was never the main "box-office draw." Actors such as Will Kemp, Richard Burbage and Edward Alleyn often overshadowed Shakespeare in the theater troupe known as the The King's Men. Rollert suggests, however, that the simple fact that Shakespeare continued his acting career uninterrupted for fifteen years was extraordinary in a time when audiences could be very harsh critics, and that actors often performed in up to six plays a week, sometimes playing several roles in one play. An actor might be expected to deliver up to 4,000 lines of verse during that week.


In contrast to the scant evidence of his popularity as an actor, it is quite evident that the audiences of Shakespeare's day believed his plays to be brilliant. That he and the other members of The King's Men became wealthy gentlemen is proof enough of the playwright's ability to write crowd pleasers and attract large audiences. His plays were also popular with both Queen Elizabeth and King James.   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more