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

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more