Evening Post. SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1930. AN IMMORTAL JOKE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 57, 8 March 1930, Page 8

Evening Post. SATURDAY, MARCH 8, 1930. AN IMMORTAL JOKE

The cablegram which was reported on Wednesday to have been sent by a Canadian film-producer to. , the author of "The Taming of the Shrew" seems far too good to be true, but the evidence of authenticity, if not conclusive, is quite strong enough for ordinary purposes, and far stronger, we might say, than that on which rests the poet's title to considerable parts of this very play. The message was dispatched from Toronto via the Western Union service, was delivered in the usual manner, "which," we are told, "says much for the simple faith and professional honour of the service"—or should we say for its sense of humour?—and inquiries showed that the supposed sender of the message is in the film business in Toronto. The last point does not amount to much, since a forger would have been sure to use a real name, but coupled with the fact that there has been no repudiation it raises a strong presumption of bona fides. The message, without which no Shakespearian collection can henceforth be regarded as complete, was as follows:—

William. Shakespeare, playwright, care Mayor, Stratford-on-Avon, England. Re your film play, "Taming Qf the Shrew," now appearing Toronto. I informed you have written several others not yet filmed. How much do you require to sell me the film rights for Canada and United States of all other plays you havo written or may write? Please cable immediately, Goldstein, Kingston road, Toronto, Canada.

A joke so obviously deserving of immortality was surely not meant for death. Johnson said of the death of Garrick that it- "eclipsed the gaiety of nations and impoverished the public stock of harmless pleasure." The man who seeks a similar effect by destroying this immortal joke would be better employed in peeping and ■ botanising upon his mother's grave. The anathema of. the world would be upon him just as its blessing rests to-day upon one who has rendered the ideal service bespoken by an American journalist at a time of not severer international tension than the present by cracking a joke of the first magnitude at which all the nations could laugh together.

In justice to Mr. Goldstein it is right to point out that the light in him is not altogether darkness. He knew that Shakespeare was the author of "The Taming of the Shrew," and he believed that this was not the only play to Shakespeare's credit, though, as a conscientious man, he preferred not to state it too positively:

I am informed you have written sev^ eral others not yet filmed.

Yes, this promising playwright had written about three dozen others, of which- only "Henry VIII." and a few others had been filmed. But-if we adopt Mr. Goldstein's chronology and, skipping the slight gap of 334 years, assume that his message had reached Shakespeare when "The Taming of the Shrew" was a brandnew play, then the poet had already about ten t plays to his credit, and was to produce a dozen more within the next ten years. As he added to other qualifications those of a keen man of business, he might therefore have reasonably replied in this fashion:— v Goldstein,' Kingston road, Toronto, Canada. Your esteemed favour duly received contents noted ten plays already produced going strong can promise twelve more next ten years all guaranteed knock spota off Taming Shrew all rights nearly sold but prefer dqal your goodsolf wire what price whole bunch no reasonable firm offer declined. , W. Shakespeare, Theatre, Shoreditch. But to carry the negotiations any further is beyond the powers of our imagination. How could the scales of the actor-manager and playwright of the 16th century and the "movie"producer of the 20th be brought into relation? Even the imagination of a Shakespeare would have boggled at the contrast. Before 1599, die year in which Shakespeare's co-operation in the building of the Globe Theatre first brought him a share in the profits of a playhouse, Sir Sidney Lee says that the highest price known to have been paid to an author for a play by the manager of an acting company was £11, and the lowest £6, but custom added some extra legal gratuities. For half his professional career, Shakespeare, though a poor actor, got better wages in that capacity than as a dramatist. The 19 plays written by him between 1591 and 1599, combined with his labours in improving the work of others, are estimated by Sir Sidney Lee at not less than £200—-about £20 a year. But between 1599 and 1611 there was a general rise in the remuneration of both playwrights and players, *and Shakespeare's growing reputation was a third factor in the improvement of his position.

The exceptional popularity of Shaker speare's work after 1099 gave him, says Sir Sidney Lee, the full advantage of higher rates of pecuniary reward in all directions. The 17 plays which were

produced by Mm between that year and the closo of his professional career could not liavo brought him less on an average than &2b each, or some £400 in all—nearly £40 a year—while the '•'benefits" and-other supplementary dues of authorship may bo presumed to have added a further £20.

Even in those days £60 a year was not a princely salary for the writing of the plays that were to make Shakespeare's name immortal, but with the addition of his pay as an actor and the income of his share in the "Globe," Lee estimates that during fourteen or fifteen years of the. later period of his life he must have been earning a sum well exceeding £700 a year. After allowing for the fall in the value of money, it would be interesting to know how many weeks it would take a moviestar to earn as much as Shakespeare was able to earn in a year from all sources at the climax of his career. It seems a safe conjecture that "The Taming of the Shrew" has been worth more to Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks, who took the leading parts in the film version.of the play which has brought Shakespeare's name to the knowledge of Mr. Goldstein, than any half-dozen of the plays were worth to the dramatist himself. It is interesting to note that with the name of Shakespeare no inkling of his fame can have dawned upon Mr. -Goldstein's mind. The "pep" revealed by the film and the information that there were other plays by "the same hand made him think that there might' be money in them. But he knew better ..than to dispatch his message to so small a writer in so large a town without some more precise address. He addressed it accordingly to "William Shakespeare, playwright, care Mayor, Stratford-on-Avon, England." This, explains the paradoxical statement in our cabled report that the message was "delivered in the usual way." It was delivered not to the playwright but to, the Mayor, which was all that the Telegraph Office was asked to do. Had this precaution not been taken the message might have come back to the sender as a "dead" telegram or vanished into space like that wireless message directed to Mars a year or two ago. From the safe hands of the Mayor we may presume that Mr. Goldstein's message has since passed to a well-merited immortality in the Shakespeare Museum at Stratford-on-Avon.