Shakespeare Fans discussion

Our local community theatre is doing Equivocation in November. I'm the props person. The play is set in the early 1600s. During the play, Shag (Shakespeare) visits Tom Wintour in his cell where there are no chairs, tables, desks. Tom dictates a letter to his wife. What kind of writing instruments would Shag bring with him and what would he carry them in? Would he use a quill and inkwell? Were there more portable instruments at that time?

Susan, a very interesting question!

A thing we fail to note about Elizabethan England is that paper was, by modern standards, very expensive. The raw materials for paper are cheap enough, but before the industrial revolution, all manufactured goods were much more expensive, relative to say, the price of eggs and bread, than they are today. There was probably a supply-and-demand problem too. Literacy went up under the Tudors which put a big demand on paper: paper manufacturers had difficulty meeting the required supply.

Paper can be recycled, so used paper had a good resale value for pulping. This may explain why ephemeral documents from the early Elizabethan period are so scarce. (This is all discussed in Conrad Russell's The Crisis Of Parliaments: English History, 1509-1660.) Things improved in the later Elizabethan period. So we have no plays from the period in manuscript form, few letters etc.

In schools chalk and slate were used, by pupils and teachers. Much cheaper. But of course that's no use when writing a letter. So I think S would have brought in paper, possibly a large sheet, hand made, rough edges, and would have treated it with some care. Imagine one sheet costing a few dollars. The ink would have been in a small bottle -- look for a black glass bottle with a round shape, and the pen would have been a goosequill.

Feather quills are usually pretty in Hollywood movies, but the feather was usually stripped back to the "stalk" with the penknife, and looked quite functional. Oh yes, and give S a penknife if you can. The quills broke at the nib end with use, and a new nib would then have to be cut.

The film "S in love" is fairly accurate in the way we see S writing.

Of course, you could defy history, and go for a deliberate anachronism. In "The Draughtsman's Contract" the 17th century artist uses a modern lead pencil. They knew it was all wrong, but went ahead and did it anyway! See

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekTn...

at 11 mins 45 secs

Of course, "Equivocation" is set in the times of James, but the same thing roughly applies.

I had not come across the play before but it does sound interesting. The use of equivocator / equivocate in Macbeth is often taken as referring to the Gunpowder plot.

It would be interesting, Susan, to have your reactions to the play.

Martin wrote: "Susan, a very interesting question!

A thing we fail to note about Elizabethan England is that paper was, by modern standards, very expensive. The raw materials for paper are cheap enough, but befo..."

Thank you so much Martin. Lots of great information here.

Martin wrote: "Of course, "Equivocation" is set in the times of James, but the same thing roughly applies.

I had not come across the play before but it does sound interesting. The use of equivocator / equivocate..."

It's a great play. Lots of VERY funny moments. We have 6 cast playing multiple roles...many roles changed mid-sentence. Great opportunity for actors to really define their roles without the use of costumes. We chose this play in honour of the death of Shakespeare's 400th anniversary instead of actually doing a Shakespeare play.

Martin wrote: "Susan, a very interesting question!

A thing we fail to note about Elizabethan England is that paper was, by modern standards, very expensive. The raw materials for paper are cheap enough, but befo..."

Nice answer Martin! I glanced at "The Draughtsman's Contract" link you gave and that looks like a kind of funny movie. But it did make me think, when is it ok to insert a deliberate anachronism into a historical piece of fiction? I personally am pretty untroubled by it, but I have learned that many readers of historical fiction (and watchers of similar movies) are very, very sensitive to this issue. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on when it is ok/acceptable, and when it is not?

Very good question Lea.

I quite like anachronisms, especially if they're done with a certain deliberate whimsy. And there are lots of anachronisms in Shakespeare of course. (Hector in Troilus and Cressida quoting Aristotle, is a favourite.) But I get annoyed when film dialogue uses modern phrases in periods before they became current. I then think the screenwriters are just being lazy.

The Draughtsmans Contract is one of my favorite film experiences. I think I saw it on a large screen at least three times...and I am inspired to visit it again from the notes here.

The se of the pencil is one of those choices that made me feel like the movie was trying to deconstruct itself...and test a viewers belief and what "realism" is in art. (it's ver-rated in my opinion) There is a feeling of forcing the viewer to experience something meta, and self-conscious. Like splashing paint in a realistic painting...to break the sense of belief.

Here is a rather interesting article by Greenaway about details like the pencil...with wigs and camera versus drawing...

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2003...