Oxfordian Interpretive Model (Groatsworth of Wit)
lackpurity
OXFORDIAN INTERPRETIVE MODEL
Charlton Ogburn in The Mysterious William Shakespeare writes: "'R.G.'
is telling his three fellow playwrights: 'Be warned by my fate, for in
the hour of my extremity I have been forsaken by the actors who are
beholden to me for the words I have put in their mouths, and so shall
you be. In particular, mistrust a merciless upstart, beautified
through our agency, who, being a jack-of-all-trades, believes himself
as well able to fill out a blank verse as the best of you and esteems
himself the only actor of power in the country. Let the actors perform
the plays with which you have already supplied them and give them no
more.' " (57)
"I leave it up to the Stratfordians to explain what it was about their
man to have caused a dying penitent, facing eternity, and in the
presence of his Maker, to castigate him as an arrogant upstart with a
tiger's heart -- a tiger's heart, mind you. Even if professional
rivalry alone could account for such a savage characterization --
which we may well doubt -- Greene would surely have passed beyond such
considerations: he was not going to write any more for the stage. But
when the Stratfordians tell us that Greene identified the upstart crow
as a playwright, we have to draw the line. He did no such thing.
"R.G." was inveighing against actors, one in particular who was
'beautified with our feathers' -- that is, we playwrights' feathers --
not his own. The upstart crow's plumes were borrowed plumes-borrowed
from the playwrights." (57, 58)
[NOTE: On page 62, Ogburn outlines the work of Warren B. Austin, who
wrote an article for the December 1970 issue of Professor Louis
Marder's The Shakespeare Newsletter showing how he used a computer to
prove that Henry Chettle was the real author of Groatsworth of Wit. On
pages 63-64, Ogburn critiques Schoenbaum's response to Austin's work.]
MM:
Robert Greene was suffering, and only he could tell us what he was
thinking. He was a disciple of Marlowe, and he thought, perhaps that
the Masters (Shakespeare and Marlowe) should relieve him of his
suffering. Shakespeare became the leader of the Wilton Cult after the
death of Marlowe, and Greene called him an "upstart crow," because of
it. Greene was envious, it seems, and lacked faith in Shakespeare,
who had been just another disciple until then.
Shakespeare was bold, and this probably accounts for the quote about
"A Tiger's Heart in a Player's Hide." This is a quote from another
play.
It was not just professional rivalry. Obviously, the man was dying
and felt abandoned. Even he admitted that he merited the results of
his sins, which Marlowe had taught him. The fact that Greene wrote
this does indicate that he had not passed "beyond," such
pigeonholing. There was mention of "actors," but also mention of
writing blank verse with the best of them. Therefore, one can't
eliminate that Greene admitted that Shakespeare was a playwrite. "Our
feathers," has nothing to do with playwrites or actors. It indicates
that Greene and Shakespeare were members of Marlowe's Cult, the Wilton
Cult. Shakespeare was the undisputed leader of the cult. There was
no borrowing of feathers, at all. Oxfordians never want to give the
Strat Man any credit. I'll leave this to the sagacity of the
readers. The Oxfordian case is weak, IMO. There is no mention of the
Earl of Oxford. No mention of a huge cover-up, etc., etc...It's all
about Marlowe and Shakespeare.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
From the same website:
Joseph Sobran in Alias Shakespeare writes: "This supposed swipe at
Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even in the
shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that most
readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is
directed at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
"Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no
author's name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject
of controversy. Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected
it with Shakespeare. So the writer could not have expected a single
oblique reference to remind his readers of the play's author. But what
else could the passage mean?" (34)
MM:
It is not directed at Shakespeare only. Clearly, it is directed to
Marlowe and Shakespeare. Marlowe was the predecessor of Greene's
cult, and Shakespeare was the successor. Since, it is about the cult,
then by implication, it is about Shakespeare, the so-called upstart
crow, leader of the cult. This seems to be irrefutable, but
Oxfordians don't give up easily.
Whether Henry VI was publically known at the time, or not, is
immaterial and irrelevant. The play has been attributed to
Shakespeare. This Oxfordian argument is too weak to consider, IMO.
Even if it were not publically known, it could have been known to
members of the cult, such as Greene and others. This appears to be a
non-issue, constructed by Oxfordians.
Yes, "What else could the passage mean?" Good question. There is no
hint that Eddie de Vere was the author of the canon. The hint is that
insiders of the cult knew that Shakespeare was the leader of it.
Oxfordians are welcome to respond.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
From the same website:
Richard F. Whalen in Shakespeare: Who Was He? writes: "These are the
passages cited by Stratfordian scholars to construct the equation that
Will Shakspere = actor = Shake-scene = dramatist = Shakespeare....For
Stratfordian scholars, it is crucial that the passages be interpreted
in a way that proves the equation to be true. And, in fact, they
insist that the passages are 'obvious' and 'clear.' If their
interpretation is not true, then Will Shakspere's life is devoid of
anything literary. No other evidence from his lifetime links him
personally as an actual person living and working in London to the
writing of Shakespeare's poems and plays...far from being a fairly
clear identification, it is deliberately evasive and obscure." (44)
MM:
Let's leave the interpretation to the sagacity of the readers. Whalen
seems to be writing more about what Stratfordians might want, rather
than an actual rebuttal of Groatsworth of Wit. This indicates a weak
case for Oxfordianism, IMO.
There's a lot of evidence indicating that Will Shakespeare was an
actual person. Groatsworth of Wit is just one more evidence, but is
important, because even his enemies recognized him. What is evasive
and obscure about it? Greene mentions Marlowe and Shakespeare.
Greene admitted that he was a disciple of Marlowe, and obviously, he
was well aware of Shakespeare, Marlowe's successor.
I'd say that Oxfordianism is evasive and obscure.
Michael Martin
Richard
GREENE'S GROATS-WORTH OF WIT" When Shakespeare was 28, Robert Greene
(or Henry Chettle) wrote a death bed pamphlet, Greene's Groats-worth
of Wit, printed in 1592. A question is whether it personally attacked
Shakespeare. If so, he must have already been active in the London
theater some years before Oxfordians say he arrived, well after 1595.
From the pamphlet, with original italics but my explanatory brackets:
Yes [you, university educated playwrights] trust them [theater
managers & players] not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with
our feathers, that whith his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde,
supposes he is as well able to bombast [pad or fill] out a blank verse
with the best of you: & being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in
his conceit the onley Shake-scene in a countrey.
The "Crow, beautified with our feathers" was a stock allusion to a
plagiarist, from Horace. However, Crow had another 16th C meaning, an
implement that no longer exists.
Aside from Horace's feather bedecked black bird, in the 1590s a Crow
was also a strong wooden pole with a heavy curved iron tip, called its
"bill", which looked a crow's beak, hence the name Crow.
The crow was a versatile tool for hooking a barge, rolling logs,
grappling, levering, etc., with so many uses you might even say it was
a Johannes fac totum.
Greene's "an upstart Crow" looked like a heavy spear with a bent tip,
a deformed "Speare" if you will. Combine the capital "Crow" with the
capital "Shake-scene" & it depicts a name, Shakespeare. This might
explain Henry Chettle's later apology.
Any quibble about whoever authored the pamphlet, Chettle or Greene, is
unimportant. It was printed & titled as Greene's Groets-worth of Wit.
I'd say the capitalized "Shake-scene" & "upstart Crow" sneeringly
referred to William Shakespeare.
mylear
> Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even in the
> shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that most
> readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
> impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is
> directed at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
>
> "Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
> assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
> Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
> fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no
> author's name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject
> of controversy. Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected
> it with Shakespeare. So the writer could not have expected a single
> oblique reference to remind his readers of the play's author. But what
> else could the passage mean?" (34)
>
scene", refers not to Shakespeare at all but to the famous
contemporary actor Edward Alleyn. It has been suggested by one scholar
[ H.J. Oliver, 'Shakespeare the Shake-scene', N&Q, n0 26, p 115,
1979 ] that "shake" in this passage means "steal", as it does in
Australian slang. In other words the author of Groatsworth of Wit is
accusing the person being censured of stealing the credit for the
words and the ideas provided by those authors who were commissioned to
write plays. Take this interpretation in conjunction with (a) a
growing recognition (provided by modern stylometric analyses, and in
contrast with the 'Alexander' theory which was in vogue from the 1950s
to the 1990s) that the three parts of Henry 6 were most likely co-
authored works of Marlowe and Shakespeare - with possible
contributions by Greene and Nashe, (b) in 1592 Marlowe - not
Shakespeare - was recognised as the most famous playwright in England,
(c) Edward Alleyn gained his fame by performing Tamburlaine and Dr
Faustus on the London stage, (d) Alleyn had commissioned both Marlowe
and Greene to write plays, and (e) Greene is likely to have harbored a
grudge against Alleyn for not providing him with adequate remuneration
for his efforts in his time of need. Then the explanation becomes
obvious.
JH
elizabeth
> > Joseph Sobran in Alias Shakespeare writes: "This supposed swipe at
> > Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even in the
> > shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that most
> > readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
> > impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is
> > directed at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
>
> > "Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
> > assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
> > Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
> > fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no
> > author's name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject
> > of controversy. Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected
> > it with Shakespeare. So the writer could not have expected a single
> > oblique reference to remind his readers of the play's author. But what
> > else could the passage mean?" (34)
>
> What it could mean is that the supposed pun on Shakespeare, i.e."Shake-
> scene", refers not to Shakespeare at all but to the famous
> contemporary actor Edward Alleyn.
Why would writers insult Edward Alleyn in print?
Alleyn did not intend to stay a player, he moved
in higher circles eventually marrying (or buying)
Dr. Donne's daughter and using the HUGE
fortune he inherited from the owner of a whore-
house, his wife and Henslowe's daughter, to
found the College of God's Gift, a prestigious
prep school. Farey attended College of
God's Gift so they don't just let anybody in.
Alleyn was so enmeshed with the toffs that
Bacon actually attended the founding dinner as
Alleyn's guest of honor. Hmm, I wonder if there
was a theatre connection there. The first
document I found online when I typed in "Francis
Bacon" -- the web was much smaller then -- was
a bond that Bacon had signed for the Globe
Theatre (now since disappeared -- well, the
British are not complete fools, they can't afford
Bacon to be Shakespeare).
I love the College of God's Gift website. It's
states point blank that the college was founded
on the proceeds of prostitution.
> It has been suggested by one scholar
> [ H.J. Oliver, 'Shakespeare the Shake-scene', N&Q, n0 26, p 115,
> 1979 ] that "shake" in this passage means "steal", as it does in
> Australian slang. In other words the author of Groatsworth of Wit is
> accusing the person being censured of stealing the credit for the
> words and the ideas provided by those authors who were commissioned to
> write plays.
It's pretty well-established that the author was
overwriting old plays, either plays that he could
buy at book stalls at Paul's or overwriting his own
earlier plays that he'd written for the stages of aristocratic
houses on The Strand or in Lancashire. The
poet was well-connected in the Cousin Network
so he had entre to all the great houses in England.
I'm working on Lear at the moment. It was preceded
by an earlier version of Leir (which Oxford might have
known had he not been dying of tertiary syphilis -- all
these courtiers and not a few royals would die of it)
but that version doesn't reflect a key source for
Lear, a letter written from Cordell Annesley to Burghley.
So, uh, how did Shaksper of Stratford get hold of Cordell Annesley's
letter? And I wonder who Burghley's amanuensis
and dogsbody was in that year? The guy who opened the
mail and drafted Burghley's replies? Would it be
B A C O N ?
This is how Oxfordian evidence works: To have written
Lear, Oxford, who was dying of syphilis in that year and
is easily the best model for Lear in any event -- WOULD
have gone to the house of a convicted Catholic recusant,
Lord Vaux, then under house arrest, to borrow a copy of
Harsnet's Egregious Popish Impostures which contains
the five names of the "divils" from an earlier and now lost
Booke of Miracles.
In addition to all the Strat stylometric studies that prove
Farey's theory, there are hundreds of topical allusions
that Oxford could not have known. I went through some
of the Shakespeare periodicals like "Shakespeare Survey"
and other sources to find something like thirty topical
allusions for Cymbeline that Oxford simply could not have
known because he died before all but one -- Lear -- of the Jacobean
plays were written.
Unless you're Art and believe in miracles, Oxford could
not have written the last third of the Shakespeare canon.
There's also the problem of the 20,000 emendations in
the authorial hand, the corrections, new lines -- thousands
of those -- in the First Folio, all of them unquestionably
"Shakespearean." We can easily tell Jonson's style from
Shakespeare's but Shaksper was deceased in 1621-23
as was Oxford.
Although I love Oxford's 16th century letters, they're not
Shakespearean. There's no reason to believe that Oxford
wrote any part of the Shakespeare works.
Oxford was a feudal, no feudal wrote the Shakespeare
works.
> growing recognition (provided by modern stylometric analyses, and in
> contrast with the 'Alexander' theory which was in vogue from the 1950s
> to the 1990s) that the three parts of Henry 6 were most likely co-
> authored works of Marlowe and Shakespeare - with possible
> contributions by Greene and Nashe, (b) in 1592 Marlowe - not
> Shakespeare - was recognised as the most famous playwright in England,
> (c) Edward Alleyn gained his fame by performing Tamburlaine and Dr
> Faustus on the London stage,
So? That connection is about as loose as Oxford
married (and brutalized) Burghley's daughter = Oxford
was Shakespeare.
(d) Alleyn had commissioned both Marlowe
> and Greene to write plays, and (e) Greene is likely to have harbored a
> grudge against Alleyn for not providing him with adequate remuneration
> for his efforts in his time of need. Then the explanation becomes
> obvious.
>
> JH
After the Sidney coterie fell apart, the author
continued to try to found the English Protestant
literary movement which the author's father had
called for in 1558.
That literary movement is very easy to track from
the first generation which made mostly translations
(i.e., Bacon's uncle, Sir Thomas Hoby's English
translation of The Courtier) and eight or ten other
poets and writers including Bacon's mother who
contributed famous translations of Italian and Greek
works, to the termination of the Shakespeare plays.
As Bacon wrote in the Cogitata et Visa, he would
"make productions for the people" which would "pit
morality against the human passions" which productions
would be "visible" and that "some would try to imitate
them but would fail."
If Oxford or Shaksper were proven to write that statement
and Bacon had not, I would seriously consider becoming
an Oxfordian or Stratfordian. But there's no evidence that
Oxford had ANY INTENTION of writing the Shakespeare
works or evidence that he did write them. Nothing but
Looney's feverish romantic assertions, each one unsupported
by fact.
In a letter to Bodley Bacon writes that he is sending
Bodley a copy of the Cogitata et Visa.
Bodley was a Puritan who would not allow playbooks
on the shelves of the library he founded at Oxford so
we can detect from the cool tone of Bodley's replays
that the Cogita et Visa is not a philosophical work. Unless
"visible productions" refers to plays, Bodley's suggestion
that Bacon do something better with his life would make
no sense.
And of course an earlier Puritan, the Earl of Leicester ,
founded the first playhouse in London, The Theatre because
the English at that point were almost wholly illiterate and
it was the only way to get the Puritan propaganda of
English nationalism across. And not that long after a genius
commenced writing the Shakespeare history plays.
mylear
> On 1 Jan, 18:19, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Joseph Sobran in Alias Shakespeare writes: "This supposed swipe at
> > > Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even in the
> > > shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that most
> > > readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
> > > impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is
> > > directed at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
>
> > > "Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
> > > assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
> > > Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
> > > fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no
> > > author's name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject
> > > of controversy. Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected
> > > it with Shakespeare. So the writer could not have expected a single
> > > oblique reference to remind his readers of the play's author. But what
> > > else could the passage mean?" (34)
>
> > What it could mean is that the supposed pun on Shakespeare, i.e."Shake-
> > scene", refers not to Shakespeare at all but to the famous
> > contemporary actor Edward Alleyn.
>
> Why would writers insult Edward Alleyn in print?
>
so had nothing to lose by speaking his mind.
>
> Alleyn did not intend to stay a player, he moved
> in higher circles eventually marrying (or buying)
> Dr. Donne's daughter and using the HUGE
> fortune he inherited from the owner of a whore-
> house, his wife and Henslowe's daughter, to
> found the College of God's Gift, a prestigious
> prep school. Farey attended College of
> God's Gift so they don't just let anybody in.
>
> Alleyn was so enmeshed with the toffs that
> Bacon actually attended the founding dinner as
> Alleyn's guest of honor. Hmm, I wonder if there
> was a theatre connection there. The first
> document I found online when I typed in "Francis
> Bacon" -- the web was much smaller then -- was
> a bond that Bacon had signed for the Globe
> Theatre (now since disappeared -- well, the
> British are not complete fools, they can't afford
> Bacon to be Shakespeare).
>
know the story and the bond are not fraudulent?
>
> I love the College of God's Gift website. It's
> states point blank that the college was founded
> on the proceeds of prostitution.
>
> > It has been suggested by one scholar
> > [ H.J. Oliver, 'Shakespeare the Shake-scene', N&Q, n0 26, p 115,
> > 1979 ] that "shake" in this passage means "steal", as it does in
> > Australian slang. In other words the author of Groatsworth of Wit is
> > accusing the person being censured of stealing the credit for the
> > words and the ideas provided by those authors who were
> > commissioned to write plays.
>
> It's pretty well-established
>
please? And has anyone attempted to match these "Shakespearean"
corrections with the established handwriting of authors other than
Jonson?
>
> Although I love Oxford's 16th century letters, they're not
> Shakespearean. There's no reason to believe that Oxford
> wrote any part of the Shakespeare works.
>
> Oxford was a feudal, no feudal wrote the Shakespeare
> works.
>
> > growing recognition (provided by modern stylometric analyses, and in
> > contrast with the 'Alexander' theory which was in vogue from the 1950s
> > to the 1990s) that the three parts of Henry 6 were most likely co-
> > authored works of Marlowe and Shakespeare - with possible
> > contributions by Greene and Nashe, (b) in 1592 Marlowe - not
> > Shakespeare - was recognised as the most famous playwright in England,
> > (c) Edward Alleyn gained his fame by performing Tamburlaine and Dr
> > Faustus on the London stage,
>
> So? That connection is about as loose as Oxford
> married (and brutalized) Burghley's daughter = Oxford
> was Shakespeare.
>
any taken individually, has significance.
>
> - Show quoted text -
JH
Ovid among the Goths
Edward Alleyn as the "upstart Crow."
In 1993, A.D. Wraight argued that Alleyn was the author of a play
called Tambercam, an attempt to capitalize on the success of Marlowe's
Tamberlaine,(based on accounts in Henslowe's diary). Tambercam was
being performed by Alleyn and Lord Strange's Men at the Rose in the
spring of 1592 (before the theaters were closed for the summer) at the
same time that the Henry VI trilogy was being acted, again with Alleyn
in the lead.
I argue that Greene's accusation that the "upstart Crow" now thought
he could "bombast out a blank verse with the best of you" was aimed at
Alleyn's writing and performance of Tambercam alongside plays by
Greene, Marlowe, Nashe, Peele (the last three being the recipients of
Greene's plea to stop selling plays to the "upstart Crow").
Greene's bitterness against this "upstart Crow" was engendered (in his
words) by being forsaken by him in a time of need.
Take a look and see what you think.
Regards,
Daryl Pinksen
La Mouse
Which Oxfordians are you speaking of?
> From the pamphlet, with original italics but my explanatory brackets:
> Yes [you, university educated playwrights] trust them [theater
> managers & players] not: for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with
> our feathers, that whith his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde,
> supposes he is as well able to bombast [pad or fill] out a blank verse
> with the best of you: & being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in
> his conceit the onley Shake-scene in a countrey.
> The "Crow, beautified with our feathers" was a stock allusion to a
> plagiarist, from Horace. However, Crow had another 16th C meaning, an
> implement that no longer exists.
> Aside from Horace's feather bedecked black bird, in the 1590s a Crow
> was also a strong wooden pole with a heavy curved iron tip, called its
> "bill", which looked a crow's beak, hence the name Crow.
> The crow was a versatile tool for hooking a barge, rolling logs,
> grappling, levering, etc., with so many uses you might even say it was
> a Johannes fac totum.
That's pretty interesting.
Mouse
> Greene's "an upstart Crow" looked like a heavy spear with a bent tip,
> a deformed "Speare" if you will. Combine the capital "Crow" with the
> capital "Shake-scene" & it depicts a name, Shakespeare. This might
> explain Henry Chettle's later apology.
> Any quibble about whoever authored the pamphlet, Chettle or Greene, is
> unimportant. It was printed & titled as Greene's Groets-worth of Wit.
> I'd say the capitalized "Shake-scene" & "upstart Crow" sneeringly
> referred to William Shakespeare.- Hide quoted text -
La Mouse
>
> Regards,
>
> Daryl Pinksen
Very interesting article, Daryl. Thank you for posting the link.
Mouse
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
1. Alleyn's name was not Shakelyn
2. Alleyn was not responsible for the tyger line,
Will Shakespeare was (see the First Folio)
3. Greene, on his death bed was warning his
fellow playwrights to watch out for actors in
general because those actors would dump
them first chance they got. Look, he says,
to support his warning, one of them is writing
plays. That is, actors will soon be writing
their own material so not need Greene's friends.
Shakespeare would have been formidable
competition, Alleyn not, for Alleyn had no
reputation as a playwright and it's only
highly conjectural that he ever wrote any
play. Shakespeare at worst had written
scenes, very successful ones. He is conceited,
but would he be as conceited as Greene portrays
him had he not written a whole play. Not likely.
Read my essay on the Groatsworth at poeticks.com.
It's under "Page," which is on the upper right of
my home page.
--Bob
Gary
An interesting article, Daryl.
A couple of questions arising from the first few pages:
You write that Greene's "....dislike of Alleyn dates back
to 1590 when he chastised Alleyn..." in Greene's
"Francesco's Fortunes". How certain are we that Alleyn was
Greene's target in "Francesco"?
You mention that "Greene effectively reveals the identity
of the Player" as Alleyn when the Player says "The 'Twelve
Labors of Hercules' have I terribly thundered on the Stage".
Did Alleyn ever star in a play that Greene could be
satirizing with the title "The Twelve Labors of Hercules"?
You then say that "To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man
fit this description, only one Player could be described as
'thundering on the stage' - Edward Alleyn."
Why would only one man fit this description? How do you
know this?
That's all for now.
- Gary
sasheargold
wrote:
> 3 big reasons the Crow was not Alleyn are:
>
> 1. Alleyn's name was not Shakelyn
Bob, you're a proper caution, you are! Nobody can match your wit and
down-to-earth logic!
You did a fine job, as you are with Diana Price.
SB.
mylear
one you prefer to give to it.
>
> 2. Alleyn was not responsible for the tyger line,
> Will Shakespeare was (see the First Folio)
>
for the tyger line. Moreover Alleyn played Richard (Duke of York) in
this play when it was performed by Lord Strange's Men in 1592, and
would have spoken the "tyger's heart" line many times.
> 3. Greene, on his death bed was warning his
> fellow playwrights to watch out for actors in
> general because those actors would dump
> them first chance they got. Look, he says,
> to support his warning, one of them is writing
> plays. That is, actors will soon be writing
> their own material so not need Greene's friends.
>
> Shakespeare would have been formidable
> competition,
>
> In 1592, Shakespeare was virtually unknown, both as an actor and as a playwright.
>
> Alleyn not, for Alleyn had no
> reputation as a playwright
>
He did not need to have a reputation as a playwright, and indeed his
lack of reputation as a playwright is the whole point of Greene's
denunciation of him.
>
> and it's only
> highly conjectural that he ever wrote any
> play.
>
It seems there is evidence of a play written by Alleyn called
'Tambercam', and entered in Henslowe's Diary.
>
> Shakespeare at worst had written
> scenes, very successful ones.
>
This is entirely conjectural, given that the plays 2H6 and 3H6 - or
their precursors - were written around 1590-1591.
>
> He is conceited,
> but would he be as conceited as Greene portrays
> him had he not written a whole play. Not likely.
>
As I said, there is evidence that Alleyn had written a whole play.
>
JH
Ovid among the Goths
Bob,
Your 3 points:
1. The first is meant as comedy. Good one.
2. As for the second, let me recite the following famous line from a
movie, "Say hello to my leeetle friend!" Okay, who just came to your
mind? Oliver Stone right? It must have been Oliver Stone, because he
wrote the screenplay for Scarface. You wouldn't think of Al Pacino
would you? No one would do that, since he only spoke the lines in the
movie, he didn't write them. (See the IMDB entry for Scarface)
3. Third point. Greene is asking his friends to keep writing, but to
stop selling their work to this actor: "Let those apes imitate your
past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired
inventions." The problem is with actors (this one in particular)
making money off their work, and being ungrateful.
If Greene was on his deathbed, why would he be worried about
"competition" from an actor-cum-playwright? Is that what you'd be
obsessing about if you thought you were a goner? My theory is that
Greene was angry that Alleyn refused to lend him money during his
illness. You'll find the comparison to Alleyn's relationship with
Richard Jones a real eye-opener.
You really should take a look at the essay. It makes sense of the
collaboration theories about the Henry VI plays, explains Henry
Chettle's involvement, and Thomas Nashe's too.
Daryl
Ovid among the Goths
"Writers" did not insult Alleyn in print, Robert Greene did, within
days of his death, when he had absolutely nothing to lose. It's like
telling off your boss after you win the lottery -- there was no longer
any need for Greene to hold his tongue.
He said what the other writers would have liked to say, but couldn't,
because it would have meant their ruin.
Daryl
Ovid among the Goths
Good questions. I'll try to answer them.
> You write that Greene's "....dislike of Alleyn dates back
> to 1590 when he chastised Alleyn..." in Greene's
> "Francesco's Fortunes". How certain are we that Alleyn was
> Greene's target in "Francesco"?
I'm fairly certain. Here's what Greene said in 1590:
"Why Roscius, art thou proud with Aesop’s crow, being pranct with the
glory
of other’s feathers? Of thyself thou canst say nothing, and if the
Cobbler hath
taught thee to say Ave Caesar, disdain not thy tutor because thou
Pratest in a
King’s Chamber."
In Ben Jonson's tribute to Alleyn, he compares him to Roscius and
Aesop. http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/alleyn.htm
Greene says that the "Cobbler" taught "Roscius" to say "Ave Caesar."
It was well known that Alleyn became a superstar from his performances
of Marlowe's (the Cobbler) great roles, Tamberlaine and Faustus. The
definitive illustration of Alleyn in performance is in the role of
Faustus.
(Incidentally, the line "Ave Caesar," was spoken in Edward III, in a
King's chamber. To my knowledge, this is the only play of the period
where this occurred.)
> You mention that "Greene effectively reveals the identity
> of the Player" as Alleyn when the Player says "The 'Twelve
> Labors of Hercules' have I terribly thundered on the Stage".
>
> Did Alleyn ever star in a play that Greene could be
> satirizing with the title "The Twelve Labors of Hercules"?
>
> You then say that "To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man
> fit this description, only one Player could be described as
> 'thundering on the stage' - Edward Alleyn."
>
> Why would only one man fit this description? How do you
> know this?
I haven't read everything about the Elizabethan stage, but I've read
quite a bit. There was no other lead actor with the reputation of
Alleyn. There may have been imitators of his style, but Alleyn was the
archetype of the booming voiced, expansive, performing style. If you
were a playgoer reading Greene talking about an actor "thundering on
the stage," and imagining himself, "the only Shake-scene in the
country," Alleyn would have been the first person to come to mind.
Alleyn did indeed seem to be the only actor capable of "shaking the
stage" in the country at that moment. He was a superstar. The rest
were in his long shadow.
It's like a 1950's writer talking about "the Blond bombshell". It
could have been any one of a dozen women, but readers would
automatically think of Marilyn Monroe. If the author intended someone
other than Monroe, he would need to be more specific in order to be
clear, otherwise that description itself is enough to establish the
target.
If Greene knew that his readers would immediately think of Alleyn from
these descriptions, then it follows that he planned for this to
happen.
Daryl
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, thanks! It's been a while since anyone complimented me here.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Read my essay. "Shake-scene" makes little sense unless intended
to indicate a person
> 2. As for the second, let me recite the following famous line from a
> movie, "Say hello to my leeetle friend!" Okay, who just came to your
> mind? Oliver Stone right? It must have been Oliver Stone, because he
> wrote the screenplay for Scarface. You wouldn't think of Al Pacino
> would you? No one would do that, since he only spoke the lines in the
> movie, he didn't write them. (See the IMDB entry for Scarface)
> 3. Third point. Greene is asking his friends to keep writing, but to
> stop selling their work to this actor: "Let those apes imitate your
> past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired
> inventions." The problem is with actors (this one in particular)
> making money off their work, and being ungrateful.
Right. But Greene is warning his playwright friends that the actors
will dump them. Why would he introduce an actor adlibbing lines,
as many actors did, to try to persuade them of this?
> If Greene was on his deathbed, why would he be worried about
> "competition" from an actor-cum-playwright?
My reading is that he probably had a script rejected by WS
and company in his hour of need, so is filled with hatred for
them. He wants his friends to stop giving them plays, and he
gives as his reason the fact that the actors will soon dump
them, anyway.
Also, his book is intended as a sermon--he's telling his friends to
learn from his experiences. One of the things they must learn
is not to trust actors.
> Is that what you'd be
> obsessing about if you thought you were a goner?
Well, I certainly wouldn't be obsessing about an actor adding lines
to a play, or warning other playwrights about it. Actors have to
be continually warned not to change lines--directors also.
> My theory is that
> Greene was angry that Alleyn refused to lend him money during his
> illness. You'll find the comparison to Alleyn's relationship with
> Richard Jones a real eye-opener.
Why doesn't Greene excoriate Alleyn for not lending him money
instead of for ad libbing lines and being conceited, then?
>
> You really should take a look at the essay. It makes sense of the
> collaboration theories about the Henry VI plays, explains Henry
> Chettle's involvement, and Thomas Nashe's too.
It sounds like stuff I've already read--and discussed in my own essay.
So I feel no need to.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 04:03:10 -0800 (PST), Ovid among the
>
>
>
>
>
> Goths wrote:
> > My recent discussion of Groatsworth of Wit lays out the case for
> > Edward Alleyn as the "upstart Crow."
>
> > In 1993, A.D. Wraight argued that Alleyn was the author of a play
> > called Tambercam, an attempt to capitalize on the success of Marlowe's
> > Tamberlaine,(based on accounts in Henslowe's diary). Tambercam was
> > being performed by Alleyn and Lord Strange's Men at the Rose in the
> > spring of 1592 (before the theaters were closed for the summer) at the
> > same time that the Henry VI trilogy was being acted, again with Alleyn
> > in the lead.
>
> > I argue that Greene's accusation that the "upstart Crow" now thought
> > he could "bombast out a blank verse with the best of you" was aimed at
> > Alleyn's writing and performance of Tambercam alongside plays by
> > Greene, Marlowe, Nashe, Peele (the last three being the recipients of
> > Greene's plea to stop selling plays to the "upstart Crow").
>
> > Greene's bitterness against this "upstart Crow" was engendered (in his
> > words) by being forsaken by him in a time of need.
>
> > Take a look and see what you think.
>
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Daryl Pinksen
>
> An interesting article, Daryl.
>
> A couple of questions arising from the first few pages:
>
> You write that Greene's "....dislike of Alleyn dates back
> to 1590 when he chastised Alleyn..." in Greene's
> "Francesco's Fortunes". How certain are we that Alleyn was
> Greene's target in "Francesco"?
>
> You mention that "Greene effectively reveals the identity
> of the Player" as Alleyn when the Player says "The 'Twelve
> Labors of Hercules' have I terribly thundered on the Stage".
>
> Did Alleyn ever star in a play that Greene could be
> satirizing with the title "The Twelve Labors of Hercules"?
>
> You then say that "To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man
> fit this description, only one Player could be described as
> 'thundering on the stage' - Edward Alleyn."
>
> Why would only one man fit this description? How do you
> know this?
>
> That's all for now.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
A quick further note, then no more, I hope, because I feel I've
had my full say on this in my two essays, one of Greene
and one on Chettle (poeticks.com); the player is not the Crow.
--Bob
Peter Farey
>
> A quick further note, then no more, I hope, because I feel I've
> had my full say on this in my two essays, one of Greene
> and one on Chettle (poeticks.com); the player is not the Crow.
Bob, the world has moved on since we first started discussing
this back in the last millenium. Why don't you read what Daryl
has to say in the essay he has written? And while you are about
it, you may like to glance at the latest thoughts I have had on
the same topic too.
http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl06_04_farey_batillus.pdf
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Gary
Goths wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Good questions. I'll try to answer them.
>
>> οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ You write that Greene's "....dislike of Alleyn dates back
>> to 1590 when he chastised Alleyn..." in Greene's
>> "Francesco's Fortunes". οΏ½How certain are we that Alleyn was
>> Greene's target in "Francesco"?
>
> I'm fairly certain. Here's what Greene said in 1590:
> "Why Roscius, art thou proud with AesopοΏ½s crow, being pranct with the
> glory
> of otherοΏ½s feathers? Of thyself thou canst say nothing, and if the
> Cobbler hath
> taught thee to say Ave Caesar, disdain not thy tutor because thou
> Pratest in a
> KingοΏ½s Chamber."
>
> In Ben Jonson's tribute to Alleyn, he compares him to Roscius and
> Aesop. http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/alleyn.htm
I understand Roscius to have been a famous Roman actor.
But why would Jonson bring in Aesope? Wasn't Aesop the
reputed writer of fables, or is this a different Aesop?
> Greene says that the "Cobbler" taught "Roscius" to say "Ave Caesar."
> It was well known that Alleyn became a superstar from his performances
> of Marlowe's (the Cobbler) great roles, Tamberlaine and Faustus. The
> definitive illustration of Alleyn in performance is in the role of
> Faustus.
> (Incidentally, the line "Ave Caesar," was spoken in Edward III, in a
> King's chamber. To my knowledge, this is the only play of the period
> where this occurred.)
Nothing is certain when dealing with these things, but
that's pretty good, IMO. So Alleyn may very well have been
the target of the passage in Greene's "Francesco's
Fortunes".
This doesn't mean that he is also the target of Greene in
Groatsworth. *Any* actor could be described as a crow
dressed in the feathers of playwrights. That Alleyn was
once described by Greene in such a way doesn't mean that
every such reference by Greene concerns Alleyn.
>
>> οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ You mention that "Greene effectively reveals the identity
>> of the Player" οΏ½as Alleyn when the Player says "The 'Twelve
>> Labors of Hercules' have I terribly thundered on the Stage". οΏ½
>>
>> οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ Did Alleyn ever star in a play that Greene could be
>> satirizing with the title "The Twelve Labors of Hercules"?
You passed this by. I'm not really expecting an answer, but
IF Alleyn had ever starred in a play that might be satirized
in such a way, this would lend weight to the theory that
Alleyn is the Groatsworth Player.
>> οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ You then say that "To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man
>> fit this description, only one Player could be described as
>> 'thundering on the stage' - Edward Alleyn."
>>
>> οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ οΏ½ Why would only one man fit this description? οΏ½How do you
>> know this?
>
> I haven't read everything about the Elizabethan stage, but I've read
> quite a bit. There was no other lead actor with the reputation of
> Alleyn. There may have been imitators of his style, but Alleyn was the
> archetype of the booming voiced, expansive, performing style. If you
> were a playgoer reading Greene talking about an actor "thundering on
> the stage," and imagining himself, "the only Shake-scene in the
> country," Alleyn would have been the first person to come to mind.
> Alleyn did indeed seem to be the only actor capable of "shaking the
> stage" in the country at that moment. He was a superstar. The rest
> were in his long shadow.
> It's like a 1950's writer talking about "the Blond bombshell". It
> could have been any one of a dozen women, but readers would
> automatically think of Marilyn Monroe. If the author intended someone
> other than Monroe, he would need to be more specific in order to be
> clear, otherwise that description itself is enough to establish the
> target.
>
> If Greene knew that his readers would immediately think of Alleyn from
> these descriptions, then it follows that he planned for this to
> happen.
Let's keep in mind the possibility that the Player in the
first part of Groatsworth may not be the Upstart Crow of the
second part.
In the first part, the Player says "...I have terribly
thundered on the Stage." By itself, this might be a
reference to Alleyn.
But that "Shake-scene" business in the second part. That
is a *very* peculiar way to describe a booming, expansive
actor. Why not "Scene-shaker"? Or simply "good actor"?
Green seems to be going out of his way to use the term
"Shake-scene". So he must have had a reason for doing so.
That he was using the term to reference Shakespeare seems
more understandable to me than that he was using the unusual
term to refer to a expansive actor.
- Gary
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > A quick further note, then no more, I hope, because I feel I've
> > had my full say on this in my two essays, one of Greene
> > and one on Chettle (poeticks.com); the player is not the Crow.
>
> Bob, the world has moved on since we first started discussing
> this back in the last millenium. Why don't you read what Daryl
> has to say in the essay he has written? And while you are about
> it, you may like to glance at the latest thoughts I have had on
> the same topic too.
>
>
> Peter F.
> <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Maybe eventually, when I have much more time for such things than I do
now, or
if anyone takes the time to critique my essays, which no one has.
But if YOU have time, why not say why the Gentleman-Player is the
Crow. What evidence do you have that you didn't present when we
discussed it?
--Bob
mylear
>
> > Greene says that the "Cobbler" taught "Roscius" to say "Ave Caesar."
> > It was well known that Alleyn became a superstar from his performances
> > of Marlowe's (the Cobbler) great roles, Tamberlaine and Faustus. The
> > definitive illustration of Alleyn in performance is in the role of
> > Faustus. (Incidentally, the line "Ave Caesar," was spoken in Edward III,
> > in a King's chamber. To my knowledge, this is the only play of the
> > period where this occurred.)
>
> Nothing is certain when dealing with these things, but
> that's pretty good, IMO. So Alleyn may very well have been
> the target of the passage in Greene's "Francesco's
> Fortunes".
> This doesn't mean that he is also the target of Greene in
> Groatsworth. *Any* actor could be described as a crow
> dressed in the feathers of playwrights. That Alleyn was
> once described by Greene in such a way doesn't mean that
> every such reference by Greene concerns Alleyn.
>
Alleyn seems to be more likely than other admissible actors, that's
the point. We are only dealing here with probabilities. It seems to me
that the Alleyn theory is a good alternative explanation to the
Shakespeare theory.
JH
elizabeth
> Elizabeth,
>
> "Writers" did notinsultAlleyninprint, Robert Greene did, within
> days of his death, when he had absolutely nothing to lose.
I was replying to mylear who wrote:
"What it could mean is that the supposed pun
on Shakespeare, i.e."Shake-scene", refers not
to Shakespeare at all but to the famous
contemporary actor Edward Alleyn."
I replied off-topically:
"Why would writers insult Edward Alleyn in print?
Alleyn did not intend to stay a player, he moved
in higher circles . . . "
Like your choice of a nick.
It's like
> telling off your boss after you win the lottery -- there was no longer
> any need for Greene to hold his tongue.
>
> He said what the otherwriterswouldhave liked to say, but couldn't,
> because itwouldhave meant their ruin.
>
> Daryl
>
> > WhywouldwritersinsultEdwardAlleyninprint?
> >Alleyndid not intend to stay a player, he moved
lackpurity
MM:
Greene was talking about Shakespeare's mystic cult. It was not about
theater managers & players specifically, although some of them were
part of the mystic cult no doubt. Greene, himself, was one,
obviously.
that whith his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde,
> supposes he is as well able to bombast [pad or fill] out a blank verse
> with the best of you: & being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in
> his conceit the onley Shake-scene in a countrey.
> The "Crow, beautified with our feathers" was a stock allusion to a
> plagiarist, from Horace. �However, Crow had another 16th C meaning, an
> implement that no longer exists.
> � � � � Aside from Horace's feather bedecked black bird, in the 1590s a Crow
> was also a strong wooden pole with a heavy curved iron tip, called its
> "bill", which looked a crow's beak, hence the name Crow.
> The crow was a versatile tool for hooking a barge, rolling logs,
> grappling, levering, etc., with so many uses you might even say it was
> a Johannes fac totum.
> Greene's "an upstart Crow" looked like a heavy spear with a bent tip,
> a deformed "Speare" if you will. Combine the capital "Crow" with the
> capital "Shake-scene" & it depicts a name, Shakespeare. This might
> explain Henry Chettle's later apology.
> Any quibble about whoever authored the pamphlet, Chettle or Greene, is
> unimportant. It was printed & titled as �Greene's Groets-worth of Wit.
> I'd say the capitalized "Shake-scene" & "upstart Crow" sneeringly
> referred to William Shakespeare.
MM:
In mysticism, crows are often mentioned analogously for the sinners,
those who feed on the carrion and other impurities of this world. Of
course, Greene was wrong. By contrast, the purest mystics have been
called "swans" or "hansas." Ben Jonson continued this tradition with
his enconium, mentioning the sweet swan of avon.
It appears that Greene was so bitter and jealous, that he resorted to
calling Shakespeare names.
Yes, I agree that Shake-scene and upstart crow were Shakespeare.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> > Joseph Sobran in Alias Shakespeare writes: "This supposed swipe at
> > Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even in the
> > shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that most
> > readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
> > impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is
> > directed at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
>
> > "Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
> > assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
> > Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
> > fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no
> > author's name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject
> > of controversy. Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected
> > it with Shakespeare. So the writer could not have expected a single
> > oblique reference to remind his readers of the play's author. But what
> > else could the passage mean?" (34)
>
> What it could mean is that the supposed pun on Shakespeare, i.e."Shake-
> scene", refers not to Shakespeare at all but to the famous
> contemporary actor Edward Alleyn. It has been suggested by one scholar
> [ H.J. Oliver, 'Shakespeare the Shake-scene', N&Q, n0 26, p 115,
> 1979 ] that "shake" in this passage means "steal", as it does in
> Australian slang.
MM:
Do you have any proof that Alleyn was a thief, or are you pursuing
your favorite pastime, quoting so-called scholars?
In other words the author of Groatsworth of Wit is
> accusing the person being censured of stealing the credit for the
> words and the ideas provided by those authors who were commissioned to
> write plays. Take this interpretation in conjunction with (a) a
> growing recognition (provided by modern stylometric analyses, and in
> contrast with the 'Alexander' theory which was in vogue from the 1950s
> to the 1990s) that the three parts of Henry 6 were most likely co-
> authored works of Marlowe and Shakespeare - with possible
> contributions by Greene and Nashe, (b) in 1592 Marlowe - not
> Shakespeare - was recognised as the most famous playwright in England,
> (c) Edward Alleyn gained his fame by performing Tamburlaine and Dr
> Faustus on the London stage, (d) Alleyn had commissioned both Marlowe
> and Greene to write plays, and (e) Greene is likely to have harbored a
> grudge against Alleyn for not providing him with adequate remuneration
> for his efforts in his time of need. Then the explanation becomes
> obvious.
>
> JH
MM:
Shakespeare might have included some of Marlowe's writings, after his
death. It's no big deal. It doesn't mean that he (Marlowe) survived,
or that he wrote Shakespeare's canon. Shakespeare would have put his
stamp of approval on it. He was the successor of Marlowe.
This article doesn't make many points, IMO.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
The Wilton Cult was still going during the term of Philip Herbert as
the Living Master. Bacon was on the fringes of the Wilton Cult. He
thanked it (his predecessors.) His father has been overestimated by
you, regarding Bacon's mission. It was more influenced by Ben Jonson,
for example.
> commenced writing the Shakespeare history plays.- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
> On Jan 2, 3:29�pm, elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 Jan, 18:19, mylear <herm...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > Joseph Sobran in Alias Shakespeare writes: "This supposed swipe at
> > > > Shakespeare is mentioned in every biography, and appears even in the
> > > > shortest biographical sketches. It has been quoted so often that most
> > > > readers, including most English professors, have formed the mistaken
> > > > impression that not only this sentence but the whole pamphlet is
> > > > directed at Shakespeare." (33, 34)
>
> > > > "Yet there are problems with this interpretation, apart from its
> > > > assumption of a rather poor and awkward pun. For one thing, Henry VI,
> > > > Part 3, was not yet publicly known to be Shakespeare's in 1592. In
> > > > fact, when it was first published three years later, it bore no
> > > > author's name -- a curious fact, if its author was already a subject
> > > > of controversy. Only the Folio, many years later, definitely connected
> > > > it with Shakespeare. So the writer could not have expected a single
> > > > oblique reference to remind his readers of the play's author. But what
> > > > else could the passage mean?" (34)
>
> > > What it could mean is that the supposed pun on Shakespeare, i.e."Shake-
> > > scene", refers not to Shakespeare at all but to the famous
> > > contemporary actor Edward Alleyn.
>
> > Why would writers insult Edward Alleyn in print?
>
> Because Greene had a grudge against Alleyn and was on his death-bed,
> so had nothing to lose by speaking his mind.
MM:
This "grudge" against Alleyn is merely an allegation. Clearly, the
grudge is against Marlowe and later, Shakespeare.
> > Alleyn did not intend to stay a player, he moved
> > in higher circles eventually marrying (or buying)
> > Dr. Donne's daughter and using the HUGE
> > fortune he inherited from the owner of a whore-
> > house, his wife and Henslowe's daughter, to
> > found the College of God's Gift, a prestigious
> > prep school. �Farey attended College of
> > God's Gift so they don't just let anybody in.
>
> > Alleyn was so enmeshed with the toffs that
> > Bacon actually attended the founding dinner as
> > Alleyn's guest of honor. �Hmm, I wonder if there
> > was a theatre connection there. �The first
> > document I found online when I typed in "Francis
> > Bacon" -- the web was much smaller then -- was
> > a bond that Bacon had signed for the Globe
> > Theatre (now since disappeared -- well, the
> > British are not complete fools, they can't afford
> > Bacon to be Shakespeare).
>
> Hmm .. seems a little cynical. And if it has disappeared, how do you
> know the story and the bond are not fraudulent?
MM:
Even if the bond existed, it wouldn't make Bacon the author of the
canon. The globe was like a HOLY SITE.
MM:
Anti-Strat wild goose chases. LOL
Michael Martin
> JH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
> Elizabeth,
>
> "Writers" did not insult Alleyn in print, Robert Greene did, within
> days of his death, when he had absolutely nothing to lose. It's like
> telling off your boss after you win the lottery -- there was no longer
> any need for Greene to hold his tongue.
>
> He said what the other writers would have liked to say, but couldn't,
> because it would have meant their ruin.
>
> Daryl
MM:
It is all about Marlowe and Shakespeare. How you guys have interposed
Alleyn without any evidence is quite surprising, even for Anti-
Strats. Alleyn was a friend of Marlowe, and likely a friend of the
cult, including William Shakespeare. You guys appear to be swimming
upstream against the current on this one.
Michael Martin
> > Why would writers insult Edward Alleyn in print?
> > Alleyn did not intend to stay a player, he moved
> > in higher circles eventually marrying (or buying)
> > Dr. Donne's daughter and using the HUGE
> > fortune he inherited from the owner of a whore-
> > house, his wife and Henslowe's daughter, to
> > found the College of God's Gift, a prestigious
> > prep school. �Farey attended College of
> > God's Gift so they don't just let anybody in.- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
>
> - Show quoted text -
MM:
Read "Groatsworth." Geene admitted that he could be held responsible
for his own sins, but the continued with his gripes against Marlowe
and Shakespeare. It had nothing to do with Alleyn, who was THEIR
FRIEND.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> My recent discussion of Groatsworth of Wit lays out the case for
> Edward Alleyn as the "upstart Crow."
>
> In 1993, A.D. Wraight argued that Alleyn was the author of a play
> called Tambercam, an attempt to capitalize on the success of Marlowe's
> Tamberlaine,(based on accounts in Henslowe's diary). Tambercam was
> being performed by Alleyn and Lord Strange's Men at the Rose in the
> spring of 1592 (before the theaters were closed for the summer) at the
> same time that the Henry VI trilogy was being acted, again with Alleyn
> in the lead.
>
> I argue that Greene's accusation that the "upstart Crow" now thought
> he could "bombast out a blank verse with the best of you" was aimed at
> Alleyn's writing and performance of Tambercam alongside plays by
> Greene, Marlowe, Nashe, Peele (the last three being the recipients of
> Greene's plea to stop selling plays to the "upstart Crow").
MM:
IMO, your "argument" is illogical.
> Greene's bitterness against this "upstart Crow" was engendered (in his
> words) by being forsaken by him in a time of need.
MM:
Groatsworth clearly refers to Marlowe(who had died) and Shakespeare,
who had succeeded him. It had nothing to do with Alleyn.
> Take a look and see what you think.
>
> http://www.marloweshakespeare.org/files/Was_Robert_Greene_s_upstart_c...
>
> Regards,
>
> Daryl Pinksen
MM:
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
The article explains certain issues, but is wrong about Alleyn.
Why would he write about his sins, if it were about Alleyn? It is
clear that Greene thought Marlowe and Shakespeare should have saved
him from his physical sufferings.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
but.net> wrote:
> 3 big reasons the Crow was not Alleyn are:
>
> 1. Alleyn's name was not Shakelyn
>
> 2. Alleyn was not responsible for the tyger line,
> Will Shakespeare was (see the First Folio)
>
> 3. Greene, on his death bed was warning his
> fellow playwrights to watch out for actors in
> general because those actors would dump
> them first chance they got. �Look, he says,
> to support his warning, one of them is writing
> plays. �That is, actors will soon be writing
> their own material so not need Greene's friends.
MM:
Bob, I got news for you. Writing a play is not necessarily a sin.
Greene was mad because of his own distorted ego. He thought,
mistakenly, that Marlowe and Shakespeare owed him and other famous
people something. This is wrong. Masters don't owe anybody. They
are always bestowing grace on us, just by being here with us. They
live and die for our sins, as they are sent as Saviours. Greene
grudgingly admitted, if you read carefully, the he merited the results
of his sins. This would have nothing whatsoever to do with Alleyn,
the actor. It had to do with the Sat Gurus, Marlowe and Shakespeare.
Greene was suffering everyday, and he wanted some remission from his
own sins, it seems. He could not have expected actors, even his
friends, to save him from his physical suffering, so Mylear and Ovid
need to provide a rebuttal, as their contentions seem nonsensical.
> Shakespeare would have been formidable
> competition, Alleyn not, for Alleyn had no
> reputation as a playwright and it's only
> highly conjectural that he ever wrote any
> play. �Shakespeare at worst had written
> scenes, very successful ones. �He is conceited,
> but would he be as conceited as Greene portrays
> him had he not written a whole play. �Not likely.
MM:
Green's perception of Shakespeare is clearly a result of his own
distorted ego and its distorted demands. He mentions blank verse, but
his real gripe is with the spiritual leadership of Marlowe and
Shakespeare.
> Read my essay on the Groatsworth at poeticks.com.
> It's under "Page," which is on the upper right of
> my home page.
>
> --Bob
MM:
Maybe you need to update it?
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> On Jan 3, 6:33�am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > 3 big reasons the Crow was not Alleyn are:
>
> > 1. Alleyn's name was not Shakelyn
>
> As you well know, 'Shake" has several interpretations other than the
> one you prefer to give to it.
MM:
Maybe you would prefer to fantasize about Alleyn? Incredible. The
first five letters are exactly the same, yet you feel a need for
another interpretation.
> > 2. Alleyn was not responsible for the tyger line,
> > Will Shakespeare was (see the First Folio)
>
> Correction: The authors of 3H6 - or its precursor - were responsible
> for the tyger line. �
MM:
Bob is right. Shakespeare was the author.
Moreover Alleyn played Richard (Duke of York) in
> this play when it was performed by Lord Strange's Men in 1592, and
> would have spoken the "tyger's heart" line many times.
MM:
So? He was not the spiritual Master of Robert Greene. That was
Shakespeare.
> > 3. Greene, on his death bed was warning his
> > fellow playwrights to watch out for actors in
> > general because those actors would dump
> > them first chance they got. �Look, he says,
> > to support his warning, one of them is writing
> > plays. �That is, actors will soon be writing
> > their own material so not need Greene's friends.
>
> > Shakespeare would have been formidable
> > competition,
>
> > In 1592, Shakespeare was virtually unknown, both as an actor and as a playwright.
>
> > Alleyn not, for Alleyn had no
> > reputation as a playwright
>
> He did not need to have a reputation as a playwright, and indeed his
> lack of reputation as a playwright is the whole point of Greene's
> denunciation of him.
MM:
Both of you are wrong. It was a spiritual complaint, having nothing
to do with actors or playwrights.
> > and it's only
> > highly conjectural that he ever wrote any
> > play. �
>
> It seems there is evidence of a play written by Alleyn called
> 'Tambercam', and entered in Henslowe's Diary.
MM:
This is just tiptoeing through the tulips.
> > Shakespeare at worst had written
> > scenes, very successful ones.
>
> This is entirely conjectural, given that the plays 2H6 and 3H6 - or
> their precursors - were written around 1590-1591.
MM:
I agree with Bob. John appears to trying to make something out of
nothing.
> >�He is conceited,
> > but would he be as conceited as Greene portrays
> > him had he not written a whole play. �Not likely.
>
> As I said, there is evidence that Alleyn had written a whole play.
>
> JH
MM:
It was about Gurus and karmas, not about writing plays.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Would money have kept him from suffering due to his own sins? No. It
was not about money. He wanted salvation from his own sins,
immediately. His desires were distorted, IOW.
> You really should take a look at the essay. It makes sense of the
> collaboration theories about the Henry VI plays, explains Henry
> Chettle's involvement, and Thomas Nashe's too.
>
> Daryl
MM:
The fact that Chettle apologized indicates that it was about
Shakespeare and not Alleyn. Greene was a mental case, when he wrote
that, apparently. Shakespeare was a popular spiritual leader. His
following might have demanded an apology. Chettle might have complied
with that demand.
Michael Martin
Ovid among the Goths
I've read your Groatsworth essay on your Wordpress blog. Don't worry
-- I don't expect you to reciprocate.
It turns out we agree on a key point. One of the possible reasons you
give for why Greene was so angry with the "upstart Crow," and his
fellow actors, was that they "(3) refus[ed] to give him extra money
for some play he’d already sold them." This is exactly the claim I
make in my essay --- that Greene was arguing for residual payments for
plays of his that continued to be performed by Alleyn and Co.. Greene
had requested additional monies, in light of the continued revenues
generated by his plays, and his grave illness, and he had been turned
down flat.
I was already aware of the necessity to assert that the "Letter to the
playwrights" is unrelated to "Roberto's Tale", the "Ant and
Grasshopper", and Greene's apology to his wife. It would have to be,
in order for the Shakespeare interpretation to stand. Still, this does
leave me some questions . . .
I was wondering what your opinion was of the identity of the Player
who propositions Roberto to begin writing plays for him and his
company? As you know, I think it was Edward Alleyn. Perhaps you think
it may have been someone else? And If not Alleyn, do you have a
preference for some other candidate?
I was also curious about your take on the "Ant and the Grasshopper". I
was under the impression that Greene was analogizing himself as the
Ant, and someone else as the Grasshopper. Is this tale linked
thematically to Roberto's Tale? Is the "Grasshopper" also the Player
and/or the upstart Crow? Or is this tale also unrelated to "Roberto's
Tale", as you claim that the "Letter to the Playwrights" is?
Finally, what do you imagine contemporary readers of Groatsworth would
have thought of these four chapters being bound together and sold as a
single publication? Would they likewise have been fooled into thinking
that Greene meant for these components to be read together, and
treated as parts of a whole? Or would they have been aware, perhaps
through some disclaimer instructing the readers not to put two and two
together?
Regards,
Daryl Pinksen
Ovid among the Goths
famine Grasshopper, of course.
Sorry!
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Hi Bob,
>
> I've read your Groatsworth essay on your Wordpress blog. Don't worry
> -- I don't expect you to reciprocate.
>
> It turns out we agree on a key point. One of the possible reasons you
> give for why Greene was so angry with the "upstart Crow," and his
> fellow actors, was that they "(3) refus[ed] to give him extra money
> for some play he’d already sold them." This is exactly the claim I
> make in my essay --- that Greene was arguing for residual payments for
> plays of his that continued to be performed by Alleyn and Co.. Greene
> had requested additional monies, in light of the continued revenues
> generated by his plays, and his grave illness, and he had been turned
> down flat.
In his tyger passage, Greene is clearly NOT arguing for residual
payments, he is warning his friends that actors are going to dump
them. He wants his friends to dump them first, which would give
Greene partial revenge for their (apparently) dumping him
> I was already aware of the necessity to assert that the "Letter to the
> playwrights" is unrelated to "Roberto's Tale", the "Ant and
> Grasshopper", and Greene's apology to his wife. It would have to be,
> in order for the Shakespeare interpretation to stand. Still, this does
> leave me some questions . . .
I didn't "assert" the lack of relationship but showed it with
supporting evidence and common sense reasoning..
> I was wondering what your opinion was of the identity of the Player
> who propositions Roberto to begin writing plays for him and his
> company? As you know, I think it was Edward Alleyn. Perhaps you think
> it may have been someone else? And If not Alleyn, do you have a
> preference for some other candidate?
We don't know. Alleyne is a plausible choice but so is NO ONE. He
may be a composite of such people. That is, Greene may have been a
creative writer. The gentleman-player is clearly not the man from
Stratford since Greene would have run into him long before WS was on
the scene--and he seems to me too unlike WS. I do think he was
someone since the Roberto story is, according to Greene, the story of
his literary life.
> I was also curious about your take on the "Ant and the Grasshopper". I
> was under the impression that Greene was analogizing himself as the
> Ant, and someone else as the Grasshopper. Is this tale linked
> thematically to Roberto's Tale?
Sure.
> Is the "Grasshopper" also the Player and/or the upstart Crow?
You mean the ant. Maybe Greene thought so, but he presents nothing in
his Ant tale to indicate anything except that the ant was an ant, the
grasshopper a grasshopper.
> Or is this tale also unrelated to "Roberto's
> Tale", as you claim that the "Letter to the Playwrights" is?
It's a variation on his over-all theme, nothing more as far as anyone
can tell from the textual evidence, and it need not be anything more.
The Groatsworth seems just what Chettle says it was, a bunch of
writings found among Greene's belongings that Chettle made a book of.
> Finally, what do you imagine contemporary readers of Groatsworth would
> have thought of these four chapters being bound together and sold as a
> single publication? Would they likewise have been fooled into thinking
> that Greene meant for these components to be read together, and
> treated as parts of a whole? Or would they have been aware, perhaps
> through some disclaimer instructing the readers not to put two and two
> together?
Wasn't there, can't know. My impression of the literature of the time
was that
collections of miscellaneous texts without much or any relationship to
each other were common at the time. I think general readers would
have read the pieces as separate from each other, and wonder who the
letter was to and about, and who the gentleman-player was. Probably
gossip would have helped them. Theatre people would probably have a
good idea who was meant.
--Bob
Ovid among the Goths
I now have a much better idea of how you read Groatsworth. There is
one more small point that I would ask you to elaborate on:
> In his tyger passage, Greene is clearly NOT arguing for residual
> payments, he is warning his friends that actors are going to dump
> them. He wants his friends to dump them first, which would give
> Greene partial revenge for their (apparently) dumping him
I'm not sure what you mean by dumped. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
but you seem to suggest that Alleyn and Strange's Men (who were
performing Greene's plays), stopped buying his plays, and that Greene
was warning the other playwrights that the actors would eventually
stop buying their plays as well, and that they should stop selling
them as a sort of pre-emptive strike. I'm pretty sure this is
incorrect.
In the tyger passsage, Greene pleads with the other playwrights to
stop selling their plays to these actors. He says he was "forsaken" by
them, and warns the others that if they end up in dire straits, as he
is now, that they too will be forsaken. I assume "forsaken" to mean
monetarily forsaken, since all Greene cared about --especially at that
moment -- was whether or not his purse was full.
I don't think Alleyn and Co., had lost interest in Greene's work, and
here's why. All through the spring of 1592 (there were no performances
that summer, and Greene was dead by the end of summer), Alleyn and
Strange's Men had several of Greene's plays in heavy rotation. It
would stand to reason that public interest in Greene's work was still
strong, and if OLD plays by Greene were still in demand, then a new
one would have been in much greater demand. However, since Greene was
unable to continue writing plays after he fell ill, he was no longer
an asset to the players, and was callously dumped from financial
support. They would only have given him a loan as a cash-advance on
new plays, but since no new plays were forthcoming - there was no self-
serving reason to loan him further monies. Forsaken, dumped, either
way, Greene was cut off, and there would be no money to support his
convalescence. In Greene's mind, the fact that his plays were
continuing to make money for Alleyn and Co, was legitimate grounds for
Greene to complain that he had been "forsaken/ dumped" in his hour of
need.
The playwrights Greene addressed, Marlowe, Nashe and Peele (probably)
were likewise still making money for Alleyn and Co. The actors needed
these writers to continue producing new work. By asking them to refuse
to sell more plays to the company, Greene was in effect encouraging
them to strike, to punish them financially, to show them where their
wealth came from, in order to obtain a more equitable share of the
profits for the writers.
I think this reading makes a lot more sense (no need to disagree, this
can be assumed), and that it is rejected only because it does not
begin with the assumption that the target was Shakespeare, and
therefore, cannot be correct.
The point I am trying to get across is that this is a viable
alternative explanation to the standard one, and therefore no
justification for scholars to behave as if there is "no doubt" that
Greene was referring to Shakespeare.
Regards,
DPinksen
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Thanks Bob,
>
> I now have a much better idea of how you read Groatsworth. There is
> one more small point that I would ask you to elaborate on:
>
> > In his tyger passage, Greene is clearly NOT arguing for residual
> > payments, he is warning his friends that actors are going to dump
> > them. He wants his friends to dump them first, which would give
> > Greene partial revenge for their (apparently) dumping him
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by dumped. Please correct me if I'm wrong,
> but you seem to suggest that Alleyn and Strange's Men (who were
> performing Greene's plays), stopped buying his plays, and that Greene
> was warning the other playwrights that the actors would eventually
> stop buying their plays as well, and that they should stop selling
> them as a sort of pre-emptive strike. I'm pretty sure this is
> incorrect.
> In the tyger passsage, Greene pleads with the other playwrights to
> stop selling their plays to these actors.
I'm speaking of the only part of the letter that refers
directly to Shakespeare, the tyger's heart line. That
line uses Shakespeare to illustrate that actors in general
will dump the professional writers, or stop buying their
plays, because they will have in-house writers. The line makes
no suggestion as to what the playwrights should do about
this, but later in the letter Greene seems to tell them to
stop selling stuff to them.
He says he was "forsaken" by
> them, and warns the others that if they end up in dire straits, as he
> is now, that they too will be forsaken. I assume "forsaken" to mean
> monetarily forsaken, since all Greene cared about --especially at that
> moment -- was whether or not his purse was full.
Well, he was dying, so needed money. But I suspect food,
nursing, medicine would have been okay with him. He may
have wanted simple visits and sympathy, too. All we can be
sure of is that he thought actors in general had treated him very
badly, and he wants his friends on his side--I think in hopes they
will revenge him by not writing plays anymore.
> I don't think Alleyn and Co., had lost interest in Greene's work, and
> here's why. All through the spring of 1592 (there were no performances
> that summer, and Greene was dead by the end of summer), Alleyn and
> Strange's Men had several of Greene's plays in heavy rotation. It
> would stand to reason that public interest in Greene's work was still
> strong, and if OLD plays by Greene were still in demand, then a new
> one would have been in much greater demand. However, since Greene was
> unable to continue writing plays after he fell ill, he was no longer
> an asset to the players, and was callously dumped from financial
> support. They would only have given him a loan as a cash-advance on
> new plays, but since no new plays were forthcoming - there was no self-
> serving reason to loan him further monies. Forsaken, dumped, either
> way, Greene was cut off, and there would be no money to support his
> convalescence. In Greene's mind, the fact that his plays were
> continuing to make money for Alleyn and Co, was legitimate grounds for
> Greene to complain that he had been "forsaken/ dumped" in his hour of
> need.
It is plausible that he offered some play or maybe just idea for a
play and got no advance on it, from ANY actors.
> The playwrights Greene addressed, Marlowe, Nashe and Peele (probably)
> were likewise still making money for Alleyn and Co. The actors needed
> these writers to continue producing new work. By asking them to refuse
> to sell more plays to the company, Greene was in effect encouraging
> them to strike, to punish them financially, to show them where their
> wealth came from, in order to obtain a more equitable share of the
> profits for the writers.
>
> I think this reading makes a lot more sense (no need to disagree, this
> can be assumed), and that it is rejected only because it does not
> begin with the assumption that the target was Shakespeare, and
> therefore, cannot be correct.
>
> The point I am trying to get across is that this is a viable
> alternative explanation to the standard one, and therefore no
> justification for scholars to behave as if there is "no doubt" that
> Greene was referring to Shakespeare.
>
> Regards,
> DPinksen
Even I don't say there's no doubt about it, and a
number of revisionists doubt it it strongly (how
else to make a splash?), but I think it ten times
more likely that Shake-scene was Shakespeare,
than Alleyn or anyone else. My essay has the
reasons, and there I will leave it (I hope).
--Bob
lackpurity
MM:
There is nothing viable about your alternative. It is off the wall,
IMO.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Give me a break. It is not about selling stuff to them. It's about
supporting the Wilton Cult. Marlowe was the Great Dramatist and
leader of the cult. When he died, Shakespeare succeeded him. Great
Mystics often face dissension and opposition. Greene was trying to
rally the oppostion to the "upstart crow." It was not about
playwrights, actors, or money. It was about a spiritual cult.
> He says he was "forsaken" by
>
> > them, and warns the others that if they end up in dire straits, as he
> > is now, that they too will be forsaken. I assume "forsaken" to mean
> > monetarily forsaken, since all Greene cared about --especially at that
> > moment -- was whether or not his purse was full.
MM:
Bob, he was worried about dying, not about his purse. He appears
angry about all the suffering that he was experiencing, as well.
> Well, he was dying, so needed money. �But I suspect food,
> nursing, medicine would have been okay with him. �He may
> have wanted simple visits and sympathy, too. �All we can be
> sure of is that he thought actors in general had treated him very
> badly, and he wants his friends on his side--I think in hopes they
> will revenge him by not writing plays anymore.
MM:
It's not about writing plays per se. It's about supporting the Wilton
Cult. Of course, writing plays was one method of supporting and
spreading the teachings of the cult.
> > I don't think Alleyn and Co., had lost interest in Greene's work, and
> > here's why. All through the spring of 1592 (there were no performances
> > that summer, and Greene was dead by the end of summer), Alleyn and
> > Strange's Men had several of Greene's plays in heavy rotation. It
> > would stand to reason that public interest in Greene's work was still
> > strong, and if OLD plays by Greene were still in demand, then a new
> > one would have been in much greater demand. However, since Greene was
> > unable to continue writing plays after he fell ill, he was no longer
> > an asset to the players, and was callously dumped from financial
> > support. They would only have given him a loan as a cash-advance on
> > new plays, but since no new plays were forthcoming - there was no self-
> > serving reason to loan him further monies. Forsaken, dumped, either
> > way, Greene was cut off, and there would be no money to support his
> > convalescence. In Greene's mind, the fact that his plays were
> > continuing to make money for Alleyn and Co, was legitimate grounds for
> > Greene to complain that he had been "forsaken/ dumped" in his hour of
> > need.
>
> It is plausible that he offered some play or maybe just idea for a
> play and got no advance on it, from ANY actors.
MM:
Incredible. Here we have a man dying, and you guys are still
discussing plays or money.
> > The playwrights Greene addressed, Marlowe, Nashe and Peele (probably)
> > were likewise still making money for Alleyn and Co. The actors needed
> > these writers to continue producing new work. By asking them to refuse
> > to sell more plays to the company, Greene was in effect encouraging
> > them to strike, to punish them financially, to show them where their
> > wealth came from, in order to obtain a more equitable share of the
> > profits for the writers.
>
> > I think this reading makes a lot more sense (no need to disagree, this
> > can be assumed), and that it is rejected only because it does not
> > begin with the assumption that the target was Shakespeare, and
> > therefore, cannot be correct.
>
> > The point I am trying to get across is that this is a viable
> > alternative explanation to the standard one, and therefore no
> > justification for scholars to behave as if there is "no doubt" that
> > Greene was referring to Shakespeare.
>
> > Regards,
> > DPinksen
>
> Even I don't say there's no doubt about it, and a
> number of revisionists doubt it it strongly (how
> else to make a splash?), but I think it ten times
> more likely that Shake-scene was Shakespeare,
> than Alleyn or anyone else. �My essay has the
> reasons, and there I will leave it (I hope).
>
> --Bob
MM:
Alleyn was on Shakespeare's side. Shake-scene was Shakespeare,
whether Anti-Strats are willing to admit it, or not.
Michael Martin
Ovid among the Goths
> MM:
> Bob, he was worried about dying, not about his purse.
> MM:
> Incredible. Here we have a man dying, and you guys are still
> discussing plays or money.
Michael,
What are you talking about? Greene was gravely ill, had no medical
insurance, could not work, and he was broke. If you were to become
gravely ill in America without any medical insurance, would money to
support yourself while you could not work, and money to pay for
medical treatment, not be your primary concern? I trust the question
is rhetorical.
DPinksen
lackpurity
> > MM:
> > Bob, he was worried about dying, not about his purse.
> > MM:
> > Incredible. �Here we have a man dying, and you guys are still
> > discussing plays or money.
>
> Michael,
>
> What are you talking about?
MM:
I said the man was dying. What are you talking about?
Greene was gravely ill, had no medical
> insurance, could not work, and he was broke.
MM:
I'll try to be open-minded to what you have written. Could you please
support your allegations with quotes from Groatsworth of Wit? Then,
make clear your connections to plays and money. I'm not necessarily
against you, but I'm not seeing things the way you are. That's for
sure.
You might discuss "abandon." Did he mean that he was abandoned
financially or spiritually? Try to make it clear before jumping to
conclusions.
If you were to become
> gravely ill in America without any medical insurance,
MM:
Are you sure that the Wilton Cult abandoned him financially? You need
to make clear why his gripe was about finances and not something
else. You can quote from Groatsworth. I'll be glad to read your
evidence.
would money to
> support yourself while you could not work, and money to pay for
> medical treatment, not be your primary concern?
MM:
If I were a member of a brotherhood or cult, and they took care of
their own, then it would not be my primary concern. There are so many
non-profits, churchs, etc., similar to the Wilton Cult who do charity
work everyday.
I trust the question
> is rhetorical.
>
> DPinksen
MM:
Well, I just wrote my reply. You still seem to think that he was more
interested in his finances than in his terminally ill situation.
You're welcome to your opinion, but it seems to be an allegation from
my POV.
Michael Martin