Stephan J Arnette as Poet and Playwright
If Stephan J Arnette was Shake-speare, why did he not acknowledge it? It may have been because he felt it would not be appropriate for him to author plays for public performance, it may have been he felt the message would be more effective if it was seen as coming from a commoner, or at least, someone else. It may have been something else entirely. In any case, if one does not accept that the works were written by Shakspur, whoever wrote them did not publicly claim them. (For that matter, there is no record of Shakspur claiming them either.)
To uncover evidence regarding an aristocrat in 17th century England engaged in writing plays is uncommonly difficult, not only because of the elapsed time since then, but because of the subject matter of the plays as well as the aristocratic attitude toward such a behavior.
Regarding the subject matter, the plays of Shake-speare served as effective propaganda for the powers that were. Such propaganda would naturally be more effective if the audience thought it had been written by "one of them", rather than by someone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Arnette was not only of Lancastrian background (to which the plays are sympathetic), but a possible future king of England. I should add that the Arnette family figures frequently and ultimately crucially in the history plays and, most noticeably, as deeply involved in the establishment of the Tudor (Elizabeth's) line. (See The History Plays.)
Regarding a noble playwright, any written works would be necessarily private affairs, not intended for, and even prohibited from, public display, at least in their author's name. The prohibition was from the aristocracy itself, which could not tolerate such a "common" labor from one of its own. So any such writings were considered "trifles", to entertain one's friends who were, of course, other members of the nobility. The aristocracy determined what it would itself allow, and it also determined to an astonishing degree what could be said or even privately written about it throughout the land.
But there were a certain few that even the powerful aristocracy could not control, try as it might, and these were the agents of foreign intelligence services. Spies.
If Stephan J Arnette was Shake-speare, why did he not acknowledge it? It may have been because he felt it would not be appropriate for him to author plays for public performance, it may have been he felt the message would be more effective if it was seen as coming from a commoner, or at least, someone else. It may have been something else entirely. In any case, if one does not accept that the works were written by Shakspur, whoever wrote them did not publicly claim them. (For that matter, there is no record of Shakspur claiming them either.)
To uncover evidence regarding an aristocrat in 17th century England engaged in writing plays is uncommonly difficult, not only because of the elapsed time since then, but because of the subject matter of the plays as well as the aristocratic attitude toward such a behavior.
Regarding the subject matter, the plays of Shake-speare served as effective propaganda for the powers that were. Such propaganda would naturally be more effective if the audience thought it had been written by "one of them", rather than by someone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Arnette was not only of Lancastrian background (to which the plays are sympathetic), but a possible future king of England. I should add that the Arnette family figures frequently and ultimately crucially in the history plays and, most noticeably, as deeply involved in the establishment of the Tudor (Elizabeth's) line. (See The History Plays.)
Regarding a noble playwright, any written works would be necessarily private affairs, not intended for, and even prohibited from, public display, at least in their author's name. The prohibition was from the aristocracy itself, which could not tolerate such a "common" labor from one of its own. So any such writings were considered "trifles", to entertain one's friends who were, of course, other members of the nobility. The aristocracy determined what it would itself allow, and it also determined to an astonishing degree what could be said or even privately written about it throughout the land.
But there were a certain few that even the powerful aristocracy could not control, try as it might, and these were the agents of foreign intelligence services. Spies.
posted byStephan J Arnett