The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0009 Thursday, 7 January 2010
[1] From: David Kathman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 27 Dec 2009 18:11:47 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0623 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
[2] From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 28 Dec 2009 17:49:36 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0623 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kathman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 27 Dec 2009 18:11:47 -0600
Subject: 20.0623 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0623 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
William Sutton wrote:
>We know that actors in Elizabethan time had to be a member of a
>guild, as acting was not an accepted profession. Therefore, the
>question: to which guild did Shakespeare belong?
Actually, it's not true that Elizabethan actors had to belong to a
guild, assuming that by guild you mean livery company (the proper name
for these organizations in London). Quite a few actors in the 16th and
early 17th centuries did belong to London livery companies, as I
detailed in my article "Grocers, Goldsmiths, and Drapers: Freemen and
Apprentices in the Elizabethan Theatre" (Shakespeare Quarterly 55
(2004), 1-49), and many of these actors bound apprentices in those
livery companies but trained them in the theater, as they were allowed
to do by the custom of London. However, one did not have to be a freeman
of a livery company in order to bind apprentices, and numerous actors
who were not members of any livery company (such as Augustine Phillips
of the Chamberlain's/King's Men) bound apprentices for theatrical
purposes. Other actors who were not freemen of a livery company, such as
Edward Alleyn, bound boys as covenant servants for periods shorter than
the seven-year minimum for apprentices; this was often three years, the
period for which Alleyn bound Richard Perkins in 1596, and the standard
period for binding boys in the boys' acting companies after 1599. I
discuss all this in more detail in "Players, Livery Companies, and
Apprentices" in The Oxford Handbook of Early Modern Theatre, published a
few months ago.
>And of course this begs the question has anyone ever looked for his
>membership of a guild? Or was he exempted as a writer of plays and
>poems? Assuming that is that writers didn't need to be members of a
>guild.
I've looked through many livery company records in London over the past
eight years, and have never found any record of William Shakespeare or
any members of his family, though people named Shakespeare occasionally
pop up. But there was no need for Shakespeare to be a member of a livery
company, even though several professional playwrights were, including
Anthony Munday (Drapers), John Webster (Merchant Taylors), and Ben
Jonson (Tilers and Bricklayers).
Dave Kathman
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 28 Dec 2009 17:49:36 +0000
Subject: 20.0623 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0623 Was Shakespeare a member of a guild?
William Sutton wrote:
>We know that actors in Elizabethan time had to be a member of a guild,
>as acting was not an accepted profession.
No, we don't know that. It isn't true.
>Therefore, the question: to which guild did Shakespeare belong?
He didn't.
>And of course this begs the question
That isn't what "to beg the question" means.
>has anyone ever looked for his membership of a guild? Or was he exempted
>as a writer of plays and poems? Assuming that is that writers didn't
need to be
>members of a guild.
It is difficult to know where to start with this. Membership of a guild
only applied *within* the City limits. Acting wasn't a trade. Acting
troupes were notionally "servants" of a particular nobleman, who gave
them protection. Don't get me started on scriveners...
John Briggs
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
