[Sarah-Jane Crowson]

Originally Posted by Shaun J. Russell

I think (and to be clear, this is just an informed critical opinion) that a lot of it has to do with exposure. One fact that is often forgotten is that Shakespeare was an actor. There were some non-actors who would write plays for hire for playing companies (Middleton is one), but often someone who was part of the playing company could and would write the plays they performed. In Shakespeare's case, he was a member of Lord Chamberlain's Men (later the King's Men), which was the preeminent company of the time. Shakespeare did indeed become the main writer of plays, though fellow actor Ben Jonson also wrote, and they also performed some works not written by company members. As a result, with Shakespeare writing most of the work by the most popular playing company, it makes sense that he would have more exposure than other playwrights writing for less prestigious companies (such as Thomas Heywood and John Webster writing for Worcester's Men).

Of course, this reality leads to a number of other questions. First, does "most popular" automatically equate to "best"? There's no good present-day analogue, but in modern film, a summer blockbuster might be seen by millions and win few awards, while a much more limited offering might nab Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay etc. Again, not a great analogue given that Shakespeare was indeed a great writer (which is more than we might say for most blockbuster scribes), but you catch my point: because he was a great writer and because he had the biggest platform, Shakespeare was well-positioned to have endurance. Other play writers weren't exactly toiling away in obscurity, but even if they were superior writers (by whatever metric we might come up with), limited exposure would have given them less notability.

I should also note that the very notion of authorship was far less rigid back then. We see more and more evidence of widespread collaboration among playwrights (which I've alluded to throughout this thread), and although Shakespeare's name might have been a draw, it was surely more about the quality and eminence of the playing company itself that maintained the perpetual success. The playing company couldn't have been so successful without great writing, but one could equally claim that it couldn't have been so successful without great acting or a great venue (the Theatre and the Globe) either. As usual, none of this detracts from Shakespeare's greatness, but it does highlight how it's largely inextricable from his circumstances.

I am so sorry to be so late to catch up on this discussion, but I just wanted to reply to Shaun's post with a link to what is (from my perspective) a potentially interesting contemporary scholarly book which explores that idea of Shakespeare (in this case from the perspective of publishing the folios) living within an ecosystem. Not a plug, just an interesting book which considers the professional networks surrounding Shakespeare (and again I think of the Pooh Perplex, the lampooning, and how 'who we are' as a society reflects on how we write about and understand literature).

I am so so sorry as I know the thread has moved on. Anyway, this is Dr Chris Laoutaris' 'Shakespeare's Book' which might be interesting?

https://harpercollins.co.uk/products...40283787558990