Shakescene
sid
put-down was supposed to be clever or funny?
Thanks
Art Neuendorffer
> put-down was supposed to be clever or funny?
"WILHELM" "SHAKE" "Speare"
Chap. 14 : THIS STAR OF ENGLAND
by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Star/ch14.html
<<We shall...quote from Edwin Reed's Prefatory Address to the Folio:
of wisdom, philosophy, poetry, and the fine arts. Her original name
simply PALLAS ... from PALLEIN, signifying to brandish or SHAKE.
Athens, the home of the drama, was under the protection
of this spear-shaker." It may be added that the HELMET
she wore was supposed to convey INVISIBILITY.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
[ FRANCIS BACON's Wisdom of the ANCIENTs ]
http://www.fbrt.org.uk/pages/athena/frameset-athena.html
<<Inscribed on [PALLAS ATHENA]'s shield is a Latin motto,
"OBSCURIS VERA INVOLVENS
meaning 'TRUTH is enveloped in obscurity', which explains
the imagery on the shield-the central SUN representing
TRUTH and the surrounding clouds obscurity.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
GOOD FREND FOR [IE]{SVS}' SAKE FORBEARE,
___ TO DIGG THE DV[ST] ENCLOASED HEARE:
AND CVRST BE HE Yt MO[VE]S MY BONES.
The Poems of Edward DE VERE
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/poemslny.htm
But who can leave to look on VENUS' face,
Or yieldeth not to Juno's high estate ?
What wit so wise as gives not PALLAS place ?
These virtues rare ech (sic) Gods did yield a mate;
Bob Grumman
>
>I don't understand this pun (?). Would someone explain to my why this
>put-down was supposed to be clever or funny?
>
>Thanks
>
It was not intended as a joke but as an identifying sarcasm. The author of the
Groatsworth was sneering at Shakespeare as someone who mistook himself for a
terrific theatre-man, someone who could create scenes that shook (i.e., were
vital, energetic, explosive), so he coined a word for such a person, and made it
similar to the name of the person he was talking about to make his target clear.
Strained, yes, but squib-writers of the time did a lot of things like that.
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
Bob Grumman wrote:
Greene had another shakescene in mind to have said the crow
was not the onlie one. If the term was not intended for Shakespeare,
perhaps Shakespeare was the other shakescene that makes the
crow here NOT the onlie shakescene. If the term was intended for
Shakespeare, we know Greene felt there was another shakescene
and he publicly made that known. I honestly cannot consider
the term an insult or a compliment, because it is not obvious on face
value who the shakescene is, or who the other shakescene(s) in
Greene's mind may be (possibly Shakespeare). It is a very watered
down insult to glorify the name of the one you intend to insult.
Since there is no deadline set to decide on Greene's intent,
I'll abide the vagueness. I do think Greene admired Shakespeare
and especially Henry VI, the play, and this is a last ditch effort to
speak in parlance with his peers--something like hazing the new
class, so common in school, the military, business, et al.
Greene perhaps thought of himself as the real shakescene. It is
noteworthy that Shakespeare stole from (rewrote) Greene long
after this episode.
Greg Reynolds
"Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway."
Bob Grumman
exciting scene-makers. Shakespeare was probably not one of that kind, in
Greene's mind, only one who was a Shake-scene in name--but he thought he was a
genuine Shake-scene, and the only one. A possible "joke" might be that theonly
Shakespeare thinks he's the only Shake-scene, but he's not a real Shakes-scene
at all.
--Bob G.
The context makes it plain, it seems to me, that Greene was insulting the Crow;
hence, it doesn't make sense that he would rant that Shakespeare was a great
scene-maker but not the only one.
Weird, how "onlie" seems to make you veer from orthodoxy, Greg.
--Bob G.
Chess One
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cec4n...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I would say Greene thought there were lots of Shake-scenes around, meaning
> exciting scene-makers. Shakespeare was probably not one of that kind, in
> Greene's mind, only one who was a Shake-scene in name--but he thought he
was a
> genuine Shake-scene, and the only one. A possible "joke" might be that
theonly
> Shakespeare thinks he's the only Shake-scene, but he's not a real
Shakes-scene
> at all.
And here's me dising [that's the correct spelling, I checked] the world of
G&S ditties.
But how should I research the actual text for gnostic myths of Sophia, when
I dawdle here with possible jokes.
See here is something, this thought from Pericles of her sin...
"The distorted intelligence manifests itself as Pride - Conceit in the
infallibility of her intellectual powers - which impels her to search out
the Divine Mystery of Depth and Silence using the intellect alone.
...a sin of hubris in this case.
So there must be some on-topic remark which brought me here - perhaps its
what Hughes calls the deadly battle of the two religions? Hughes says for
his argument it is convenient to speak of them as separate religions*.
Is there some tension twixt Greene and the Author here?
Cordially, Phil Innes
*A modern parallel would be T.S. Eliot's early, well-recorded obsession with
the image of St. Sebastian. This vision, behind his 'juvenile' poem, The
Death of Narcissus, provides a key to the inner mythic unity of the cycle of
his poems in much the same way that Venus and Adonis provides a key to the
inner mythic unity of Shakespeare's dramas. In fact, both poets saw the
death of the same God (or demi-god), but from slightly different angles.
Neil Brennen
"The Cornish Hen" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:u6iOc.6373$FZ5.2844@trndny07...
Philsy, so far in the past week and a half you have trolled me, David Webb,
Lynne, Tom Veal, Terry Ross, and Tom Reedy. Earlier this year you trolled
John Kennedy, bookburn, Mark Steese, and Peter Groves. Now you are trolling
Grumman. Is this some sort of game to troll all the regulars on hlas?
Chess One
from slightly different angles.
>
> Philsy, so far in the past week and a half you have trolled me, David
Webb,
> Lynne, Tom Veal, Terry Ross, and Tom Reedy. Earlier this year you trolled
> John Kennedy, bookburn, Mark Steese, and Peter Groves. Now you are
trolling
> Grumman. Is this some sort of game to troll all the regulars on hlas?
Fuck off, you ignoramus.
Peter Groves
news:pZiOc.15379$m_3.6725@trndny05...
A compelling, and (I think) unanswerable refutation.
Peter G,
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
Don't you mean "campeling," Peter?
> Peter G,
>
>
Chess One
> >
> >
>
> A compelling, and (I think) unanswerable refutation.
Thank you. Poetically apt, you might admit.
After being stalked by this misanthrope for can it be 1,000 off-topical,
lying shit-stirring posts, I am glad he can admit some enjoyment in life in
G&S as well as a variety of classical music. Otherwise I would have written
'complete ignoramus' after the admonition.
O Dolores!
Phil Innes
> Peter G,
>
>
Bob Grumman
>>what Greene meant by:
>>
>>"is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene
>>in a countrey."
>>
>>What or who is the other Shake-scene (who
>>would be obvious to Greene and his readers,
>>I presume)? Why specify that this upstart thinks
>>himself to be the onely one? Name another
>>plausible Shake-scene, please (the one Greene
>>was thinking, if possible).
>>
>
>??
>There is no other Shake-scene. It's an idiom,
>for example, if a woman says about a conceited
>man "He thinks he's the only man in town."
>
IDIOM. Yeah. Thanks, Jim. Greene is just saying the Crow thinks he's the only
Shake-scene around but he isn't. But thrust a slightly different way of looking
at a text at me, and I almost always get confused.
--Bob G.
Gary Kosinsky
KQKnave) wrote:
>Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<4109664A...@core.com>...
>> Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ceb39a$j...@library2.airnews.net>, sid says...
>> >
>> >
>> >>I don't understand this pun (?). Would someone explain to my why this
>> >>put-down was supposed to be clever or funny?
>> >>
>> >>Thanks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >It was not intended as a joke but as an identifying sarcasm. The author of the
>> >Groatsworth was sneering at Shakespeare as someone who mistook himself for a
>> >terrific theatre-man, someone who could create scenes that shook (i.e., were
>> >vital, energetic, explosive), so he coined a word for such a person, and made it
>> >similar to the name of the person he was talking about to make his target clear.
>> >Strained, yes, but squib-writers of the time did a lot of things like that.
>> >
>> >--Bob G.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Greene had another shakescene in mind to have said the crow
>> was not the onlie one. If the term was not intended for Shakespeare,
>> perhaps Shakespeare was the other shakescene that makes the
>> crow here NOT the onlie shakescene. If the term was intended for
>> Shakespeare, we know Greene felt there was another shakescene
>> and he publicly made that known. I honestly cannot consider
>> the term an insult or a compliment, because it is not obvious on face
>> value who the shakescene is, or who the other shakescene(s) in
>> Greene's mind may be (possibly Shakespeare). It is a very watered
>> down insult to glorify the name of the one you intend to insult.
>
>You post this nonsense once a year or so. As I said before:
>
>Lines: 34
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave)
>Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
>Date: 11 May 2002 03:48:00 GMT
>References: <3cdc8ffd$0$1418$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler (Queue Name: gng-cn)
>Subject: Re: Greene's Venom
>Message-ID: <20020510234800...@mb-cn.aol.com>
>
>
>In article <3cdc8ffd$0$1418$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net>, Greg Reynolds
><eve...@core.com> writes:
>
>>
>>No nice weekend, Bob, until you finally explain
>>what Greene meant by:
>>
>>"is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene
>>in a countrey."
>>
>>What or who is the other Shake-scene (who
>>would be obvious to Greene and his readers,
>>I presume)? Why specify that this upstart thinks
>>himself to be the onely one? Name another
>>plausible Shake-scene, please (the one Greene
>>was thinking, if possible).
>>
>
>??
>There is no other Shake-scene. It's an idiom,
>for example, if a woman says about a conceited
>man "He thinks he's the only man in town."
Doesn't your example reinforce Greg's point? By
saying "He thinks he's the only man in town.", the woman is
pointing out that the conceited man is not the only man in
town - there are other men in town.
Similarly, then, when Greene says the Crow only
thinks he's the only Shake-scene around, he must mean that
there are other Shake-scenes around. Which I believe is
Greg's point.
- Gary Kosinsky
Neil Brennen
> > > Fuck off, you ignoramus.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > A compelling, and (I think) unanswerable refutation.
>
> Thank you. Poetically apt, you might admit.
Philsy, you couldn't tell irony if it bit you on the arse, as it has here.
Bob Grumman
>>>would be obvious to Greene and his readers,
>>>I presume)? Why specify that this upstart thinks
>>>himself to be the onely one? Name another
>>>plausible Shake-scene, please (the one Greene
>>>was thinking, if possible).
>>>
>>
>>??
>>There is no other Shake-scene. It's an idiom,
>>for example, if a woman says about a conceited
>>man "He thinks he's the only man in town."
>
> Doesn't your example reinforce Greg's point? By
>saying "He thinks he's the only man in town.", the woman is
>pointing out that the conceited man is not the only man in
>town - there are other men in town.
> Similarly, then, when Greene says the Crow only
>thinks he's the only Shake-scene around, he must mean that
>there are other Shake-scenes around. Which I believe is
>Greg's point.
>
>- Gary Kosinsky
I think Greg's point is that Greene was thinking of a specific second
Shake-scene, and that this is for some reason relevant to the meaning of the
passage. Jim and I feel that Greene was just saying Shakespeare, the Crow,
fancied himself special but was not. There's no reason for Greene to have a
specific second Shake-scene, or many specific Shake-scenes, in mind.
--Bob G.
Chess One
"Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspringnospam.com> wrote in message
news:KTAOc.3109$Jp6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Nil! Not another reference to other men's bottoms? ROFL!!!!
No irony there! No sir, nor no significance.
Thanks for cutting out an appreciation /of/ the irony from my post. You
know, if you hadn't done that, your message would be so much less effective.
Please excuse me for changing the header, formal Club-Strat abuse is not
everyone's, ah, scene.
Have a brown day, Phil
Neil Brennen
>
> "Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspringnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:KTAOc.3109$Jp6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:C2sOc.6012$T76.4009@trndny09...
> > > > > Fuck off, you ignoramus.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > A compelling, and (I think) unanswerable refutation.
> > >
> > > Thank you. Poetically apt, you might admit.
> >
> > Philsy, you couldn't tell irony if it bit you on the arse, as it has
here.
>
> Nil! Not another reference to other men's bottoms? ROFL!!!!
It's a common expression, Philsy.
>
> No irony there!
Peter's response to you was full of irony, as full of irony as you are full
of sh*t.
Greg Reynolds
Jim KQKnave wrote:
>gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<410ac71e...@news.individual.net>...
>
>
>>>>"is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene
>>>>in a countrey."
>>>>
>>>>What or who is the other Shake-scene (who
>>>>would be obvious to Greene and his readers,
>>>>I presume)? Why specify that this upstart thinks
>>>>himself to be the onely one? Name another
>>>>plausible Shake-scene, please (the one Greene
>>>>was thinking, if possible).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>??
>>>There is no other Shake-scene. It's an idiom,
>>>for example, if a woman says about a conceited
>>>man "He thinks he's the only man in town."
>>>
>>>
>> Doesn't your example reinforce Greg's point? By
>>saying "He thinks he's the only man in town.", the woman is
>>pointing out that the conceited man is not the only man in
>>town - there are other men in town.
>>
>> Similarly, then, when Greene says the Crow only
>>thinks he's the only Shake-scene around, he must mean that
>>there are other Shake-scenes around. Which I believe is
>>Greg's point.
>>
>>
>
>No.
>
Knave says no but he obviously agrees because his example
reinforces my point. His woman knows his man is not the only
man in town, just as Greene knows crow is not the only
shakescene. Bingo.
>If someone said "He thinks he's the only man in town", that
>means "That man is conceited".
>
Knave, the use of conceit here is better interpreted as "opinion,"
not egotism or self-aggrandizement.
The text says conceit (a noun), and you instead ran off on your
own tangent and came up with "conceited," an adjective. Do
not corrupt the text, please.
>The speaker does not intend for
>you to interpret the idiom literally, that's why it's an idiom.
>
Your example plainly demonstrates that the woman is
making sure her audience knows the man is not the only
man in town, just as Greene is making sure that his
audience knows that the crow is not the only shakescene
in the country.
If I complained that you think you are the only knave, I
would have another knave in mind.
Would you care to try giving some other example? Good luck.
(What part of "only" do you not understand?)
>The person saying it does not intend for you to think "There are
>other men in town", and it's not interpreted that way by a listener.
>
Speak for yourself.
Not for the speaker and not for his audience.
Your example, which you freely offered, shows that you plainly
understand that if one is not the only, there are more.
Which is precisely what Greene was saying.
And precisely what the woman in your example was saying.
>If someone tells you to "Put a lid on it", do you try to put a lid
>on your mouth or do you shut up?
>
If someone says the crow is not the only shakescene,
put a lid on it.
>And Reynolds is out on a whole 'nother limb entirely.
>
Jim, you made a lot of progress this year by offering your
parallel example that demonstrates my observation
of Greene's words.
Now we just need you to believe your own words.
See you next year. I'll probably use your example as it
was so apt. Keep up the great work.
>See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
>http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
>
>The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
>http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
>
>Agent Jim
>
>
If I complained that you think you are the only agent,
I would have another agent in mind. Get it yet?
I think you have a phobia that I believe there are two
Shakespeares. Well, I don't. Greene plainly wants it known
that crow is wrong to believe that he (crow) is the only
shakescene. You are in your short circuit mode again,
much like your stubbornness regarding the funeral elegy.
Greg Reynolds
Gary Kosinsky
KQKnave) wrote:
>gk...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary Kosinsky) wrote in message news:<410ac71e...@news.individual.net>...
>>
>> >>"is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene
>> >>in a countrey."
>> >>
>> >>What or who is the other Shake-scene (who
>> >>would be obvious to Greene and his readers,
>> >>I presume)? Why specify that this upstart thinks
>> >>himself to be the onely one? Name another
>> >>plausible Shake-scene, please (the one Greene
>> >>was thinking, if possible).
>> >>
>> >
>> >??
>> >There is no other Shake-scene. It's an idiom,
>> >for example, if a woman says about a conceited
>> >man "He thinks he's the only man in town."
>>
>> Doesn't your example reinforce Greg's point? By
>> saying "He thinks he's the only man in town.", the woman is
>> pointing out that the conceited man is not the only man in
>> town - there are other men in town.
>>
>> Similarly, then, when Greene says the Crow only
>> thinks he's the only Shake-scene around, he must mean that
>> there are other Shake-scenes around. Which I believe is
>> Greg's point.
>
>No. If someone said "He thinks he's the only man in town", that
>means "That man is conceited". The speaker does not intend for
>you to interpret the idiom literally, that's why it's an idiom.
>The person saying it does not intend for you to think "There are
>other men in town", and it's not interpreted that way by a listener.
Hmmmm...I think I disagree with this. When someone
says that "He thinks he's the only man in town", the point
of the remark is, as you say, to call the subject conceited.
But the means for doing so is to point out that this belief
is not true: the subject is not the only man in town -
there are other men in town.
And when Greene writes that the Crow "...is in his
own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country.", the
implication is that the Crow is mistaken in this belief,
which can only mean that there are others around who Greene
would characterize as Shake-scenes.
>If someone tells you to "Put a lid on it", do you try to put a lid
>on your mouth or do you shut up?
This IS just another example, right? In any event,
I think it is a quite different example from the "only man
in town" example, and the "only Shake-scene" quote.
>And Reynolds is out on a whole 'nother limb entirely.
I may very well be misunderstanding Greg's point.
- Gary Kosinsky
Bob Grumman
>not egotism or self-aggrandizement.
No, Greg: the OED has def. 6, overweening opinion of oneself (or close to
that)--with an example from, of all persons, Dr. Hall; in context that HAS the
be Greene's meaning (hint: he is warning his associates AGAINST the Crow; he
doesn't like the Crow). But Jim wasn't even speaking of Greene's use of
"conceit," he was saying that "onlie Shake-scene in a countrie" means
"conceited" (about his prowess as a theatre-man). I'll let Jim tell you that
"only Shake-scene" is an idiom again, and so should not be taken literally, but
even if one takes it literally, it only means there are one or more other
Shake-scenes in a country, not just Shakespeare. There's no reason to think
Greene is ready to list their names.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
news:410c57f2...@news.individual.net...
I think a better example would have been, "He thinks he's God's gift to
women." Here the speaker clearly intends to say the subject is extremely
egotistical without suggesting that there are other men who are God's gift
to women.
Greene is saying the crow thinks he's hot shit in theatrical circles. He's
not implying that there are a number of others who are hot shit in
theatrical circles also.
TR
Gary Kosinsky
But your example omits the important word "only", so
it's not really applicable. If the statement had been: "He
thinks he's God's only gift to women.", then the speaker
would seem to think that there are other things that are
God's gifts to women.
>Greene is saying the crow thinks he's hot shit in theatrical circles.
Right - or whatever characterization that he meant
by "Shake-scene".
>He's
>not implying that there are a number of others who are hot shit in
>theatrical circles also.
And this is where we disagree. To me it seems clear
that he *is* implying, with the use of the word "only", that
there are a number of others who he would similarly
characterize.
"...for there is an upstart crow...[who] is in his own
conceit the only Shake-scene in a country."
- Gary Kosinsky
Tom Reedy
You're right. I forgot about that.
> it's not really applicable. If the statement had been: "He
> thinks he's God's only gift to women.", then the speaker
> would seem to think that there are other things that are
> God's gifts to women.
>
> >Greene is saying the crow thinks he's hot shit in theatrical circles.
>
> Right - or whatever characterization that he meant
> by "Shake-scene".
>
> >He's
> >not implying that there are a number of others who are hot shit in
> >theatrical circles also.
>
> And this is where we disagree. To me it seems clear
> that he *is* implying, with the use of the word "only", that
> there are a number of others who he would similarly
> characterize.
Well, they might be similarly characterized as hot shit in theatrical
circles, but I think the "Shake" part of the epithet was meant to pun on
Shakespeare's name. Otherwise, we'd have more than one reference to
"Shakescenes." Greene's reference is unique.
TR
Greg Reynolds
Bob Grumman wrote:
>>Knave, the use of conceit here is better interpreted as "opinion,"
>>not egotism or self-aggrandizement.
>>
>>
>.
>No,
>
I mean concept or scenario.
A conceit is a version for a premise, a story, a tale.
Let's see how Greene uses the word in his plays.
>Greg: the OED has def. 6,
>
Bob: Let's hear defs. 1-5 first.
>overweening opinion of oneself (or close to
>that)--with an example from, of all persons, Dr. Hall;
>
Yuck yuck.
Johnny (doogie houser?) Hall was a MERE 17 when
Greene used the noun (not Knave's adjective).
I doubt Hall influenced Greene.
>in context that HAS the
>be Greene's meaning (hint: he is warning his associates AGAINST the Crow; he
>doesn't like the Crow). But Jim wasn't even speaking of Greene's use of
>"conceit," he was saying that "onlie Shake-scene in a countrie" means
>"conceited" (about his prowess as a theatre-man).
>
That invention of Jim's onlie distorts the very phrasing we are
studying.
> I'll let Jim tell you that
>"only Shake-scene" is an idiom again,
>
Idiom this.
>and so should not be taken literally, but
>even if one takes it literally, it only means there are one or more other
>Shake-scenes in a country, not just Shakespeare.
>
BINGO
>There's no reason to think
>Greene is ready to list their names.
>
>--Bob G.
>
Here is just a cursory LIST
of the context of the uses of "conceit"
or "conceited" as used in the plays
by Shakespeare (who was inspired
by Greene's writing and could capture
context).
You have right well conceited. let us go, Julius Caesar: I, iii
With twenty odd-conceited true-love knots. The Two Gentlemen of
Verona: II, vii
When thy first griefs were but a mere conceit, Timon of Athens: V, iv
That I know you are a gentleman of good conceit: i As You Like It: V, ii
Liberal-conceited carriages; that's the french bet Hamlet: V, ii
For thy conceit is soaking, will draw in The Winter's Tale: I, ii
For though he seem with forged quaint conceit King Henry VI, part I: IV, i
But that I hope some good conceit of thine Sonnets: XXVI
You have a noble and a true conceit Merchant of Venice: III, iv
Without a tongue, using conceit alone, King John: III, iii
With forms to his conceit? and all for nothing! Hamlet: II, ii
With bracelets of thy hair, rings, gawds, conceits, A Midsummer
Night's Dream: I, i
Why, sir, what's your conceit in that? The Taming of the Shrew: IV, iii
Who, if it had conceit, would die, as i Pericles, Prince of Tyre: III, i
Which his fair tongue, conceit's expositor, Love's Labour's Lost: II, i
Well conceited, davy: about thy business, davy. King Henry IV, part
II: V, i
Though, i'll be sworn, if he be so, his conceit is Much Ado About
Nothing: II, i
Think'st thou I am so shallow, so conceitless, The Two Gentlemen of
Verona: IV, ii
There's some conceit or other likes him well, King Richard III: III, iv
Then the conceit of this inconstant stay Sonnets: XV
Thee. thy conceit is nearer death than thy powers. As You Like It: II, vi
The prince your son, with mere conceit and fear The Winter's Tale: III, ii
The horrible conceit of death and night, Romeo and Juliet: IV, iii
That one of two bad ways you must conceit me, Julius Caesar: III, i
Some horrible conceit: if thou dost love me, Othello: III, iii
She would applaud andronicus' conceit: Titus Andronicus: IV, ii
Seemeth their conference; their conceits have wings Love's Labour's
Lost: V, ii
Proteus, the good conceit I hold of thee-- The Two Gentlemen of
Verona: III, ii
Piercing a hogshead! a good lustre of conceit in a Love's Labour's
Lost: IV, ii
Of wisdom, gravity, profound conceit, Merchant of Venice: I, i
O, sir, the conceit is deeper than you think for: The Taming of the
Shrew: IV, iii
Lay open to my earthy-gross conceit, The Comedy of Errors: III, ii
I shall not fail to approve the fair conceit King Henry VIII: II, iii
He was gotten in drink: is not the humour conceited? Merry Wives of
Windsor: I, iii
He is as horribly conceited of him; and pants and Twelfth Night: III, iv
From one that so imperfectly conceits, Othello: III, iii
From niggard nature fall, yet rich conceit Timon of Athens: V, iv
First, a very excellent good-conceited thing; Cymbeline: II, iii
Finding the first conceit of love there bred Sonnets: CVIII
Dangerous conceits are, in their natures, poisons. Othello: III, iii
Cut me to pieces with thy keen conceit; Love's Labour's Lost: V, ii
Could force his soul so to his own conceit Hamlet: II, ii
conceit, my comfort and my injury. The Comedy of Errors: IV, ii
conceit, more rich in matter than in words, Romeo and Juliet: II, vi
conceit upon her father. Hamlet: IV, v
conceit in weakest bodies strongest works: Hamlet: III, iv
Come, sister: I am press'd down with conceit-- The Comedy of Errors:
IV, ii
But whether unripe years did want conceit, Various poetry: IV
Believe me, thou talkest of an admirable conceited The Winter's Tale:
IV, iv
As, passing all conceit, needs no defence. Various poetry: VIII
As tewksbury mustard; there's no more conceit in him King Henry IV,
part II: II, iv
And, like a strutting player, whose conceit Toilus and Cressida: I, iii
And yet I know not how conceit may rob King Lear: IV, vi
And of very liberal conceit. Hamlet: V, ii
Able to ravish any dull conceit: King Henry VI, part I: V, v
'tis nothing but conceit, my gracious lady. King Richard II: II, ii
'tis nothing less: conceit is still derived King Richard II: II, ii
Spenser to me, whose deep conceit is such Various poetry: VIII
Infusing him with self and vain conceit, King Richard II: III, ii
conceits shall govern. Merchant of Venice: III, v
+++++
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey
"Jim KQKnave" wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> What's daft about Reynolds' interpretation of this passage is
> that he believes that not only are there other SPECIFIC persons
> (other than Greene and the men he addressed) who are good
> playwrights, but that these other specific persons would also be
> metaphorically known as "Shakescene", and that therefore we
> can't be sure that "Shakescene" refers to Shakespeare. All that
> he has done is muddle the meaning of two metaphors: the idiom
> and the moniker "Shakescene".
If it were a moniker, it would be in italics.
> "Base minded men all three
> of you, if by my miserie you be not warnd: for unto none
> of you (like mee) sought those burres to cleave: those
> Puppets (I meane) that spake from our mouths, those
> Anticks garnisht in our colours. Is it not strange, that
> I, to whom they all have beene beholding: is it not like
> that you, to whome they all have beene beholding, shall
> (were yee in that case as I am now) bee both at once of
> them forsaken? Yes trust them not: for there is an up-
> start Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his
> Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as
> well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of
> you: and beeing an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in
> his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey.
> O that I might intreat your rare wits to be imploied in
> more profitable courses: & let those Apes imitate your
> past excellence, and never more acquaint them with
> your admired inventions."
Now where have I seen that before?
"...and beeing an absolute *Johannes fac totum*, is in
his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey."
A "Johnny Know-all" is someone who thinks he knows
the lot, but probably doesn't. (Anyone remember Al
Read?) A "Jack of all trades" is someone who actually
*can* turn his hand to a whole lot of things. I see a
*Johannes fac totum* as falling somewhere between the
two of them - one who thinks he is able to turn his
hand to anything, but who (in Greene's eyes) probably
can't.
I doubt whether the phrase "in his own conceit" has
anything to do with being conceited as we would read
it nowadays (even if that meaning is clearly present
in the rest of the message). Here it is more likely
to mean in his own mind or imagination, by far the
most common usage of the word 'conceit' at that time.
So the 'upstart Crow' thinks of himself, according
to Greene, as "the onely Shake-scene in a countrey".
I haven't found the analogies offered so far to be
particularly helpful, so let me suggest another.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, I wanted to
attack Paul Crowley in the same way that Greene
is attacking the 'upstart Crow'. I might say that
"being an absolute Johnny Know-all, Paul thinks
that he is the only one here who fully understands
the Sonnets".
From this statement, I don't think it's possible for it
to be known whether I believe that anyone *else*
here does actually fully understand them or not.
Similarly, I doubt whether it is possible to know
whether Greene believes there are other "Shake-scenes"
around, particularly as we really don't know what he
means by a "Shake-scene" anyway (whether it is also
a play on Shakespeare's name or not).
As far as that is concerned, we have the strange idea
that *because* he is someone who thinks he is able to
turn his hand to anything, he imagines he is the only
"Shake-scene" around. The impression I get is that,
because he may already be producing, directing and
starring in the stuff, he *also* now thinks (according
to Greene) that he's the only one capable of doing
*everything* in the theatre, which must include the
writing of the plays as well.
One thing that still causes me problems, incidentally,
is the phrase "in a countrey". Why not "the"? The
only way I can get it to make sense is mentally to
add "the size of England" after it, but I don't
really recommend it!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Bob Grumman
What counts is how he uses it in the Groatsworth, Greg.
>>Greg: the OED has def. 6,
>>
>
>Bob: Let's hear defs. 1-5 first.
>
>>overweening opinion of oneself (or close to
>>that)--with an example from, of all persons, Dr. Hall;
>Yuck yuck.
>Johnny (doogie houser?) Hall was a MERE 17 when
>Greene used the noun (not Knave's adjective).
>I doubt Hall influenced Greene.
Probably not. But his use of it to mean "overweening self-evaluation" or the
like shows that that usage was current at the time.
>>in context that HAS the
>>be Greene's meaning (hint: he is warning his associates AGAINST the Crow; he
>>doesn't like the Crow). But Jim wasn't even speaking of Greene's use of
>>"conceit," he was saying that "onlie Shake-scene in a countrie" means
>>"conceited" (about his prowess as a theatre-man).
>>
>
>That invention of Jim's onlie distorts the very phrasing we are
>studying.
Since "that invention" is in the OED, it's not an invention. Why would Greene
NOT use the term insultingly in a passage as loaded with insults of the Crow (as
a representative of the acting profession the whole letter is condemning?
>> I'll let Jim tell you that
>>"only Shake-scene" is an idiom again,
>>
>
>Idiom this.
>
>>and so should not be taken literally, but
>>even if one takes it literally, it only means there are one or more other
>>Shake-scenes in a country, not just Shakespeare.
>
>BINGO
>
>>There's no reason to think
>>Greene is ready to list their names.
>>--Bob G.
>>
>
>Here is just a cursory LIST
>of the context of the uses of "conceit"
>or "conceited" as used in the plays
>by Shakespeare (who was inspired
>by Greene's writing and could capture
>context).
Who cares? We know it can be used many different ways, But Greene would not
say, "This rotten creep unconceitedly imagines he is the only great maker of
scenes in a country." The way you interpret it, Greene isn't even suggesting
he's wrong in his "conceit"!
--Bob G.
Chess One
>
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
<...>
> Here is just a cursory LIST
> of the context of the uses of "conceit"
> or "conceited" as used in the plays
> by Shakespeare (who was inspired
> by Greene's writing and could capture
> context).
What we understand as current meaning may not address a variety of extant
Elizabethan meanings. I offer three definitions of 'conceit' from Halliwell;
which sense does Greene intend, and how do we understand that from any other
context, by either Greene or other writers of the time:-
CONCEIT:
(1.a) To think; or suppose; to suspect. Also an opinion. [West]
(1.b) Often good opinion.
(2) Conception; apprehension [Anglo Norman]
(3) An ingenious device.
CONCEITED: Fanciful; ingenious. Also inclined to jest, merry.
similar words and/or spellings are CONCEYTAT: Conception, and CONCEYTE: see
/conceit/: CONCEYVED: Behaved [Weber]. CONABLE: Convenient; suitable. [A.N.]
It also signifies /famous/, as /conabull/ in Sharpe's Coventry Mysteries. p.
148.
Roots of CON~ and COND~ provide
CON:
(1) To learn; to know [North] also to calculate, to consider.
(2) To fillip [North]
(3) To return thanks
(4) A searching mode of knowing whether a hen is with egg [North] :)
(5) Can; is able
(6) Stout; valiant /Verstegan/.
(7) A squirrel [Cumb]
*Note; a modernism, the verb, to con [as con a boat] is also possible though
has a more discreet provenance than the above, in CONNE: To know; to be
able. [A. Sax]
COND: To conduct [Chaucer]
CONDE: Perused; known [Anglo-Saxon].
It is interesting to note that Shakespeare often uses a similar root~ word
differently than Chaucer, as in:
COMPASSED: Circular. Compassed window, a bay window or oriel. [Shak]
COMPASSING: Contrivance. [Chaucer]
And Shakespeare himself uses a CON~ root as neologism; eg CONFOUND: To
destroy.
The point of this technical homily is to ask what meaning did Greene intend,
or his correspondents understand, and if the term contained an irony,
notwithstanding the rest of the text which presumably would render irony
redundant, to thus provide a super-plus of emphasis.
Perhaps a clue lies in a link to another word Greene employed, 'crow', which
I have not seen appreciated here by the same means as above, and certainly
Ted Hughes employed 'crow' differently, as he did 'conceit'. In Shakespeares
own usage provided by Greg Reynolds below, are their not several distinct
meanings?
Phil Innes
Chess One
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cel6a8$ot3$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Jim KQKnave" wrote:
> So the 'upstart Crow' thinks of himself, according
> to Greene, as "the onely Shake-scene in a countrey".
> I haven't found the analogies offered so far to be
> particularly helpful, so let me suggest another.
Lgd. /ital./
So what did Elizabethans understand by 'crow'?
I think there is an assumption here that the term is derogatory, or worse,
automatically derogatory. Greene may have used it that way, but we only
assume this by his addition of 'upstart', or by providing a retrofitted
modern meaning, 'to crow' which is always derogatory. Hughes understands
another sense of the word in use at the time. One associated with the (#3)
definition for 'crow', but, IMO, with both definitions of 'crous'.
Which, if any of the following list, was Greene employing?
CROW:
(1) A cattle crib* [Lanc]
(2) An iron gavelock
(3) To claim. [Somerset]
(4) To stoop; to crouch [Cumb.]
(5) The craw; the belly. Also the buttock or haunch.
CROUS is much older as has varieties of meaning, thus:
(1) Merry; brisk; lively; bumptious. "/Cruse or crous/, saucy, malapert,
Bor." Kennett, MS. Lansd. 1033. Evidently connected with /crus/, wrathful,
Havelok, 1966; and hence perhaps /crusty/. The following is an instance of
the word in the same sense as in Havelok.
A3eyn hem was he kene and crous,
And side, goth out of my Fadir hous.
/Cursor Mundi, MS. Coll Trin. Cantab. f. 91.
(2) To catterwaul; to provoke. [East].
<ye olde snippage>
> One thing that still causes me problems, incidentally,
> is the phrase "in a countrey". Why not "the"? The
> only way I can get it to make sense is mentally to
> add "the size of England" after it, but I don't
> really recommend it!
This is a fine observation, and if intentional by Greene, is bardic mytholog
fully in Hughes' sense: "Who of our tribe has the voice of the crow?" There
can only be one such animist-shaman poet in Ynys Prydein.
:)
Cordially, Phil Innes
*Of interest only to those who would understand 'ox-pen of the bards'.
Peter Farey
>
> So what did Elizabethans understand by 'crow'?
<snip>
A crow is a sort of bird. Greene words concerned "an
upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers".
He had used this image for an actor before, in
*Francesco's Fortunes* (1590):
"Why Roscius, art thou proud with Esop's Crow, being
pranct with the glorie of others feathers?"
What he was on about was Aesop's fable of The Crow
(sometimes translated as a Jay) and the Peacock.
A crow venturing into a yard where Peacocks used to
walk, found there a number of feathers which had
fallen from the Peacocks when they were moulting.
He tied them all to his tail and strutted down
towards the Peacocks. When he came near them they
soon discovered the cheat, and striding up to him
pecked at him and plucked away his borrowed plumes.
So the crow could do no better than go back to the
other crows, who had watched his behaviour from
a distance; but they were equally annoyed with him,
and told him: "It is not only fine feathers that
make fine birds."
Gary Kosinsky
That's the way I understand it.
>So the 'upstart Crow' thinks of himself, according
>to Greene, as "the onely Shake-scene in a countrey".
>I haven't found the analogies offered so far to be
>particularly helpful, so let me suggest another.
>
>Suppose, for the sake of argument, I wanted to
>attack Paul Crowley in the same way that Greene
>is attacking the 'upstart Crow'. I might say that
>"being an absolute Johnny Know-all, Paul thinks
>that he is the only one here who fully understands
>the Sonnets".
>
>From this statement, I don't think it's possible for it
>to be known whether I believe that anyone *else*
>here does actually fully understand them or not.
That *is* a much better example, Peter.
>Similarly, I doubt whether it is possible to know
>whether Greene believes there are other "Shake-scenes"
>around, particularly as we really don't know what he
>means by a "Shake-scene" anyway (whether it is also
>a play on Shakespeare's name or not).
Again, I think you're right - much depends on the
meaning of "Shake-scene". If Greene meant it in a sense
similar to your example, then there probably aren't other
shake-scenes implied. If he meant it in other senses that
have been mentioned here (an 'exciting playwright', for
example), then he may very well have thought that other
shake-scenes were around, although he need not have had a
specific one or two in mind. And since we'll probably never
know what he meant by "Shake-scene", we'll probably never be
able to decide.
>As far as that is concerned, we have the strange idea
>that *because* he is someone who thinks he is able to
>turn his hand to anything, he imagines he is the only
>"Shake-scene" around. The impression I get is that,
>because he may already be producing, directing and
>starring in the stuff, he *also* now thinks (according
>to Greene) that he's the only one capable of doing
>*everything* in the theatre, which must include the
>writing of the plays as well.
>
>One thing that still causes me problems, incidentally,
>is the phrase "in a countrey". Why not "the"? The
>only way I can get it to make sense is mentally to
>add "the size of England" after it, but I don't
>really recommend it!
The thought has occurred to me that Greene was
delirious when he wrote portions of Groatsworth, and would
be amazed that people are trying to understand his ravings.
- Gary Kosinsky
Bob Grumman
Bob Grumman
All I wanted to say that it continues to strike my as unlikely that Greene would
not have used "coneit" to mean (or "co-mean") "overweening pride," since that
was a meaning in use at the time, and he was writing a dispargeing statement
about an actor he considered conceited.
As for "Shakese-scene," I still can't understand why its meaning isn't obvious:
it must mean something to do with the theater because of "scene" and because of
the context; it must mean something admirable because the Crow is sneered at for
thinking he is one; it most likely has to do with excitedment since "shake"
suggests nothing else admirable. Ergo, the word means, "one who is responsible
in some way for exciting theatre." For the context, it would seem fairly
certain that he is responsible in many, perhaps ALL ways, for exciting theatre.
As for "*a* country," I suspect it's "a country" as opposed to "a neighborhood"
or "a city." But it's incredibly minor.
I think any passage in any Elziabethan writer of comparable length could be
ambiguated as extensively as this one has. The secret to reading such lines is
to assume that they mean what they are 90% or more likely to mean, not start
doubting what they mean because a few details seem off.
--Bob G.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Apologies for my computer's posting a non-reply from
> me, who knows why.
>
> All I wanted to say that it continues to strike my as
> unlikely that Greene would not have used "coneit" to
> mean (or "co-mean") "overweening pride," since that
> was a meaning in use at the time, and he was writing
> a dispargeing statement about an actor he considered
> conceited.
It is of course possible for Greene to have had your
meaning at the back of his mind in using the word, but
what I was arguing with was your bald assertion that
Greg was *wrong* to say that the use of the word
conceit was better interpreted as "opinion" and not
egotism or self-aggrandizement. That the OED found its
example of your usage from such an obscure source, and
that Greg has given you some fifty examples of Shake-
speare using it without that sense, shows me that the
usage was far from common at the time. In fact it is
noticable that the only time Shakespeare used it with
anything like your meaning he found it necessary to
add the words 'self and vain' to it.
You were right to point out, however, that Jim had not
suggested the the *word* conceit had had that meaning,
Greg's argument about that was in fact a red herring.
> As for "Shakese-scene," I still can't understand why
> its meaning isn't obvious: it must mean something to
> do with the theater because of "scene" and because of
> the context; it must mean something admirable because
> the Crow is sneered at for thinking he is one; it
> most likely has to do with excitedment since "shake"
> suggests nothing else admirable. Ergo, the word means,
> "one who is responsible in some way for exciting
> theatre." For the context, it would seem fairly
> certain that he is responsible in many, perhaps ALL
> ways, for exciting theatre.
Indeed, and this is what I said too. But since we
have both argued for other meanings in the past, I
would say that it's not really 'obvious'.
> As for "*a* country," I suspect it's "a country" as
> opposed to "a neighborhood" or "a city." But it's
> incredibly minor.
How does one know that what someone is saying is
'incredibly minor' if one doesn't know what it is?
> I think any passage in any Elziabethan writer of
> comparable length could be ambiguated as extensively
> as this one has.
No doubt, but as these words are offered as proof that
Shakespeare was in London by the end of 1592, we had
better be damned sure we know what he meant by them.
> The secret to reading such lines is to assume that
> they mean what they are 90% or more likely to mean,
> not start doubting what they mean because a few
> details seem off.
The scholarly approach, eh?
Chess One
> "Chess One" wrote:
> >
> > So what did Elizabethans understand by 'crow'?
>
> <snip>
>
> A crow is a sort of bird. Greene words concerned "an
> upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers".
Peter. Have you solved the mystery of Authorship? It would also throw a new
light onto the Dark Lady, or should we now say Mz Crow?
Of course Greene is figuring with 'crow', but Hughes uses the implication
without adopting Ćsop's irony and would no doubt have seized upon 'Roscrus,
art th...' as a not insignificant modifier.
There is a might of contention, the following note is not so:-
> He had used this image for an actor before, in
> *Francesco's Fortunes* (1590):
>
> "Why Roscius, art thou proud with Esop's Crow, being
> pranct with the glorie of others feathers?"
Uncontentious is 'pranked', pranct being an unusual spelling:-
The Author himself uses the word in Winter's Tale. iv. 3. "...a woman
pranked up", though the implication in both Shak. and Hollyband is that it
is a reference to female behavior, in Hollyband's Dictionarie, 1593, he
gives it as a translation of /orner/.
It is also found: "Fourthlye, that they be not pranked and decked up in
gorgious and sumptious apparrell in their play." /Northbrooke's Treatise,
1577
Phil Innes
Bob Grumman
>> unlikely that Greene would not have used "coneit" to
>> mean (or "co-mean") "overweening pride," since that
>> was a meaning in use at the time, and he was writing
>> a dispargeing statement about an actor he considered
>> conceited.
>
>It is of course possible for Greene to have had your
>meaning at the back of his mind in using the word, but
>what I was arguing with was your bald assertion that
>Greg was *wrong* to say that the use of the word
>conceit was better interpreted as "opinion" and not
>egotism or self-aggrandizement. That the OED found its
>example of your usage from such an obscure source, and
>that Greg has given you some fifty examples of Shake-
>speare using it without that sense, shows me that the
>usage was far from common at the time. In fact it is
>noticable that the only time Shakespeare used it with
>anything like your meaning he found it necessary to
>add the words 'self and vain' to it.
I'm saying that since an ordinary man of the time used the word to mean
overweening pride, that Greene would have been aware of that meaning. If so, it
is UNLIKELY that he would not have used it to mean, or "co-mean," that in a
passage a main intent of which was to accuse an actor of "overweening pride."
>> As for "Shakese-scene," I still can't understand why
>> its meaning isn't obvious: it must mean something to
>> do with the theater because of "scene" and because of
>> the context; it must mean something admirable because
>> the Crow is sneered at for thinking he is one; it
>> most likely has to do with excitedment since "shake"
>> suggests nothing else admirable. Ergo, the word means,
>> "one who is responsible in some way for exciting
>> theatre." For the context, it would seem fairly
>> certain that he is responsible in many, perhaps ALL
>> ways, for exciting theatre.
>
>Indeed, and this is what I said too. But since we
>have both argued for other meanings in the past, I
>would say that it's not really 'obvious'.
"Obvious" to someone who has studied the matter.
>> As for "*a* country," I suspect it's "a country" as
>> opposed to "a neighborhood" or "a city." But it's
>> incredibly minor.
>
>How does one know that what someone is saying is
>'incredibly minor' if one doesn't know what it is?
I know what it is, Peter: it's the use of "a" instead of "the." There is no way
that can not be "incredibly minor."
>> I think any passage in any Elizabethan writer of
>> comparable length could be ambiguated as extensively
>> as this one has.
>
>No doubt, but as these words are offered as proof that
>Shakespeare was in London by the end of 1592, we had
>better be damned sure we know what he meant by them.
>
>> The secret to reading such lines is to assume that
>> they mean what they are 90% or more likely to mean,
>> not start doubting what they mean because a few
>> details seem off.
>
>The scholarly approach, eh?
The sane approach. I forgot to add that unless there's direct evidence against
it, we should assume the writer meant us to understand him.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> If I complained that you think you are the only agent,
> I would have another agent in mind. Get it yet?
That doesn't follow. "George W. Bush thinks he's the only white hope of
democracy". "Diana Price thinks she's the only scientific Oxfordian."
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
John W. Kennedy
> Who cares? We know it can be used many different ways, But Greene would not
> say, "This rotten creep unconceitedly imagines he is the only great maker of
> scenes in a country." The way you interpret it, Greene isn't even suggesting
> he's wrong in his "conceit"!
Of course he is. You're beginning to twist meanings to win an argument.
Don't do that; we have enough of it from the Shakespeare deniers.
And no-one is saying that "in his own conceit" means "unconceitedly",
but rather that it means "in his own thinking", "in his own conception",
"in his own mind" -- which is a far more common use of the word when
coming from a man of Greene's generation.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have
always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
Greg Reynolds
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
>> If I complained that you think you are the only agent,
>> I would have another agent in mind. Get it yet?
>
>
> That doesn't follow. "George W. Bush thinks he's the only white hope
> of democracy". "Diana Price thinks she's the only scientific Oxfordian."
>
So there is no shake-scene. Okay.
Elizabeth Weir
>
> It was not intended as a joke but as an identifying sarcasm. The author of the
> Groatsworth was sneering at Shakespeare as someone who mistook himself for a
> terrific theatre-man,
There's no 'mistook himself' because the Elizabethan
definition of 'supposes' is 'pretends.'
Check out the OED.
The Crow PRETENDS to be the only shake-scene
in a country. The Crow PRETENDS to be the preeminent
playwright but he is feigning (supposses = feigns in
OED) and this deception makes Greene livid.
These Elizabethan definitions are consistent with the other
elements in Greene's foundational (to Strats) paragraph
but 20th c. Strats have resorted to modern dictionaries to
get what they need from Greene.
If you replace anachronistic Strat definitions
with the 1590s originals you'll see that Greene
isn't 'straining' anything and in fact he makes
an additional pun on 'shake-scene.'
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Buffalo
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ceo16...@drn.newsguy.com...
Bob, I don't know why you're holding out for a meaning that was clearly a
very uncommon one at the time. Because there is no mileage in it. It doesn't
materially change the interpretation of the passage as a whole, since the
"vanity" element that you maintain belongs to "conceit" is still present in
the rest of the wording. Obviously if a man thinks he's the only
Shake-scene, that would be vain. It isn't necessary to prove that the word
"conceit" itself has that meaning in order to interpret the Greene's charge
as one of vanity.
"In his own conceit" just means "in his own eyes", or "the way he sees
himself". The word "own" is quite consistent with this meaning since many
people can have an opinion about Shakespeare's status, and "his own"
distinguishes Shakespeare's opinion from everyone else's. But it would not
make sense if "conceit" meant vanity, because only Shakespeare can be vain
about Shakespeare. To write "in his own vanity" would be silly. Who else's
vanity could it be?
As for your interpretation of the "the only Shake-scene", you are right to
dig your heels in and to dismiss the idea that there were other Shake-scenes
(as opposed to other playwrights). A couple of years ago the supporters of
Liverpool football club had favourite chant, sung to the tune of
"Guantanamera":
One Michael Owen
There's only one Michael Owen
One Michael OOOOwen,
Since everyone knows that there is no player in the English league called
Michael Owen except the one who plays for Liverpool, you might wonder why it
was necessary for the fans to point it out. But it simply means "The one and
only Michael Owen". Similarly "the only Shake-scene" just means "the one and
only Shakespeare".
> >> As for "*a* country," I suspect it's "a country" as
> >> opposed to "a neighborhood" or "a city."
I think it's just another turn of phrase. "What is a fellow to do?" is not a
question about any old fellow, even if it seems to be. It means: what is
*this* fellow to do - what am *I* to do. "In a country" just means "in this
country".
Buffalo
Elizabeth Weir
> Greene had another shakescene in mind to have said the crow
> was not the onlie one.
You're right.
In modern translation Greene appears to state that
the crow is the 'onely shake-scene' but Greene earlier
states that the crow 'supposes' ('feigns, pretends' OED)
to be the 'onely shake-scene.'
If the upstart crow is the fake shake-scene we can deduce
that there is a 'second onely shake-scene.'
The other clue to Greene's meaning is in the Elizabethan
definition of 'onely.'
5. Unique in quality, character, rank, etc.; peerless,
preëminent. In OE. in form nlíc. In mod.Eng. from
16th c., only as hyperbolic use of 2, the only one to
be counted, reckoned, or considered; with superl.
onliest (arch. or dial.). onlie begetter [f. BEGETTER 2,
quot. 1606], the sole originator.
The OED shows the Elizabethan 'onely' was widely
in use in religious texts and government papers in
reference to kings, princes and those with any type
of preeminence.
In Groatsworth 'onely' is ironically troped by
Greene to mark the distance between the class and
occupation of the 'upstart' play-broker and the 'other
onely shakescene' whose plays--probably a stash of
them--the duplicitous play-broker has somehow acquired.
In 'On Poet Ape' and again in 'De Shakespeare Nostrat
(not 'Nostrati') Jonson backs up Greene's disclosures.
There are at least two elements in Groatsworth that
eliminate Oxford as the other 'onlie shake-scene'
which I'll write on separately--and hey, Price, I'm
copyrighting this.
> If the term was not intended for Shakespeare,
> perhaps Shakespeare was the other shakescene that makes the
> crow here NOT the onlie shakescene.
> If the term was intended for
> Shakespeare, we know Greene felt there was another shakescene
> and he publicly made that known.
Exactly.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Gary Kosinsky
<none...@here.com> wrote:
SNIP
>As for your interpretation of the "the only Shake-scene", you are right to
>dig your heels in and to dismiss the idea that there were other Shake-scenes
>(as opposed to other playwrights). A couple of years ago the supporters of
>Liverpool football club had favourite chant, sung to the tune of
>"Guantanamera":
>
> One Michael Owen
> There's only one Michael Owen
> One Michael OOOOwen,
>
>Since everyone knows that there is no player in the English league called
>Michael Owen except the one who plays for Liverpool, you might wonder why it
>was necessary for the fans to point it out. But it simply means "The one and
>only Michael Owen". Similarly "the only Shake-scene" just means "the one and
>only Shakespeare".
I don't think that's a very good example. In it,
the fans are complimenting Owen, pointing out that he is the
one and only Michael Owen in the league. Applying this to
Groatsworth, we would have Greene criticizing Shakespeare
for thinking he was the one and only Shakespeare. So how
many Shakespeare's were there? Or what was wrong with
Shakespeare thinking he was the one and only Shakespeare
when he was the one and only Shakespeare?
- Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
No, that's not what they're pointing out. That is just a matter of the
uniqueness of his personal name in the league - something that also applies
to Nicky Butt, and David James and Gary Neville. Having a unique name in the
league is hardly a compliment. Saying that "there's only one Michael Owen"
is a reference to his footballing skills, not his genealogy.
>Applying this to
> Groatsworth, we would have Greene criticizing Shakespeare
> for thinking he was the one and only Shakespeare.
That's right - where "the only Shake-scene" is a reference to his
playwrighting credentials, not his genealogy. He is, according to Greene,
presuming a pre-eminent status (like Michael Owen's) to which he is not
entitled.
My guess: Greene wrote "the only scene-maker", thought about it for a while
and wondered whether he'd done enough to identify the man in question,
changed it to "scene-Shaker", thought about it some more, changed it to
"Shake-scene".
Buffalo
Peter Farey
"Buffalo" wrote:
>
> Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> >
> > "Buffalo" wrote:
> > >
> > > As for your (Bob's) interpretation of the "the only
> > > Shake-scene", you are right to dig your heels
> > > in and to dismiss the idea that there were
> > > wrights). A couple of years ago the supporters
> > > of Liverpool football club had favourite chant,
> > > sung to the tune of "Guantanamera":
> > >
> > > One Michael Owen
> > > There's only one Michael Owen
> > > One Michael OOOOwen,
> > >
> > > Since everyone knows that there is no player in
> > > the English league called Michael Owen except
> > > the one who plays for Liverpool, you might wonder
> > > why it was necessary for the fans to point it out.
> > > But it simply means "The one and only Michael Owen".
> > > Similarly "the only Shake-scene" just means "the
> > > one and only Shakespeare".
> >
> > I don't think that's a very good example. In it,
> > the fans are complimenting Owen, pointing out that
> > he is the one and only Michael Owen in the league.
>
> No, that's not what they're pointing out. That is just
> a matter of the uniqueness of his personal name in the
> league - something that also applies to Nicky Butt,
> and David James and Gary Neville.
What's wrong with Steve Gerrard? On second thoughts,
after Euro 2004, don't answer that.
> Having a unique name in the league is hardly a
> compliment. Saying that "there's only one Michael
> Owen" is a reference to his footballing skills, not
> his genealogy.
>
> > Applying this to Groatsworth, we would have Greene
> > criticizing Shakespeare for thinking he was the one
> > and only Shakespeare.
>
> That's right - where "the only Shake-scene" is a
> reference to his playwrighting credentials, not his
> genealogy.
I think it probably has a wider meaning than play-
wrighting (?). But the main problem is in the
addition of "in a country". Unique is unique, and
loses impact if a georaphical limitation is imposed.
> He is, according to Greene, presuming a pre-eminent
> status (like Michael Owen's) to which he is not
> entitled.
This is certainly true. And what's more he was probably
a lousy striker.
> My guess: Greene wrote "the only scene-maker", thought
> about it for a while and wondered whether he'd done
> enough to identify the man in question, changed it to
> "scene-Shaker", thought about it some more, changed
> it to "Shake-scene".
This makes more sense than your original suggestion that
it was *primarily* a play on his name.
Following on from your Kop example, one thought
I did have was that Shakespeare might have already had
the nickname "Shake-scene". This seems unlikely, however,
as it doesn't appear in italics in *Groatsworth*, where
every other name does. This fact does, incidentally,
push the meaning back towards Greg's version. There
may well have been more than one person who *could*
have been described as a 'shake-scene', but Greene said
that this one (who happened to have a similar name, nudge
nudge) wrongly thought *he* was the pre-eminent one.
A final thought. In my opinion, whoever Greene is talking
about, it is probably the same person as the anonymous
author of *Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter*.
Roger Nyle Parisious
Almost what I have been saying for many years now,Peter,(the
frontman rather than,as you believe, the author) and as Simpson
pointed out before us.If posterity had followed his lead on this
rather than the delusive Shakspere's hand in the play of Sir Thomas
More hypothesis,we would be much further along by now. Incredibly,I
was the first to make the further connection between Greene's remarks
on "Fair Em"(not later than October,l587)and George Buc's visit to
William Shakespeare(as he had recently become)in respect of the
authorship of Greene's "George-a-Green"(printed l599 but played
shortly after Greene's death).Shakspere,on that memorable
occasion(unfortunately for Stratfordians,Will's only surviving
interview), lied in his teeth to Buc on a question of disputed
authorship. He swore with the force of an oath that the play was the
work of a cleric who played the lead himself.
This proves a quite fortunate lie for the modern
researcher,however,as it takes us back directly to Greene ,l587.He
there linked the semi-literate would be writer who was set up as a
Terence by someone in the Catholic Stanley circle,as simultaneously
connected to the red-hot Protestant circle operating from
St.Giles-outside-Cripplegate.
You may believe that the anonymous(at least semi-aristocratic)
author (who was certainly not William Stanley.See Titherley.) was
Shake-scene or you may believe,as I recollect William Honey did, that
Shakspere did write "Fair Em" in which case he was definitely not the
author of the major part of the Shakespeare Canon,as the wretched
copyist of "Sir Thomas More" ,Hand D section, could on the basis of
hhis performance not have been its original author.
I do not know of any direct evidence Shakspere penned "Faire Em"
and Greene's wording taken in its plain surface sense appears to call
for the first interpretation.In which case you hold the Stanley
connection to be Shake-scene but not Shakespeare.
I would appreciate your valued elucidation without attention to
indulge in further controversy.
RNP
Chess One
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.04080...@posting.google.com...
> Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> The other clue to Greene's meaning is in the Elizabethan
> definition of 'onely.'
>
> 5. Unique in quality, character, rank, etc.; peerless,
> preëminent. In OE. in form nlíc. In mod.Eng. from
> 16th c., only as hyperbolic use of 2, the only one to
> be counted, reckoned, or considered; with superl.
> onliest (arch. or dial.). onlie begetter [f. BEGETTER 2,
> quot. 1606], the sole originator.
>
> The OED shows the Elizabethan 'onely' was widely
> in use in religious texts and government papers in
> reference to kings, princes and those with any type
> of preeminence.
I think this is correct. ONLIEST; means only [Cheshire] It is singularly
used as a superlative.
The root One~ in English is much more commonly A. Sax. than latin. Thee is
also OONE: Alone, only.
In any case, I am unsure of the usage of several words in Green's phrases,
and even the emphasis on 'upstart' since if 'crow' is derogatory, upstart is
redundant.
Phil Innes
Gary Kosinsky
<none...@here.com> wrote:
Right, I understood that.
>>Applying this to
>> Groatsworth, we would have Greene criticizing Shakespeare
>> for thinking he was the one and only Shakespeare.
>
>That's right - where "the only Shake-scene" is a reference to his
>playwrighting credentials, not his genealogy. He is, according to Greene,
>presuming a pre-eminent status (like Michael Owen's) to which he is not
>entitled.
So you think "shake-scene" = "writer of pre-eminent
status"? If so, then surely there would be other
shake-scenes?
Also, clarify something for me: you do think that
the Crow is the author William Shakespeare of Stratford,
don't you?
- Gary Kosinsky
Peter Farey
"Roger Nyle Parisious" wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > A final thought. In my opinion, whoever Greene is talking
> > about, it is probably the same person as the anonymous
> > author of *Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter*.
>
No time right now to work out both what you are
saying *and* reply to it, as I'm on the point of going
into hospital for an operation, and other things seem a
bit more pressing. I'll get back to hlas on this once I'm
back home again, and when and if I feel like it!
At the moment, that's all I'm saying. Whoever Greene
was referring to as 'Shake-scene" was most probably
the true author of *Faire Em*. That this would cause
Stratfordians some discomfort if it were true is hardly
surprising
(P.S. Next Test against the Windies starts 12th August
at Old *Trafford*, Manchester)
Buffalo
Plenty, but none would be referred to as "Shake-scene". That title would be
reserved for Shakespeare. With the pun on his name, it wouldn't make a lot
of sense applied to anyone else.
> Also, clarify something for me: you do think that
> the Crow is the author William Shakespeare of Stratford,
> don't you?
Wow! That's one out of the blue. I'm wondering what I wrote to deserve that
question.
Well, it's really a two-parter. First, was the Crow Shakespeare the author?
Second, was the author William of Stratford?
The answer to the first is yes. The pun on his name in "Shake-scene" is an
extra and gratuitous identifier for an author who is already identifiable
from the "Tiger's heart" quotation. Even though that play (and any others
he'd so far written) had not yet been published, every writer in London
would have known who the author was. Anti-Strats often refer to the
"anonymous author", implying that Greene might have been quoting from a play
without knowing who wrote it. It's nonsense, of course. None of Marlowe's
plays had been published either, but that didn't stop Greene referring to
him as the "famous gracer of Tragedians". Greene and all the other
playwrights knew perfectly well who had written the "anonymous" Tamburlaine
and The Jew of Malta, even if the public didn't, and the same applies to
Henry VI.
The answer to the second part - was the author William of Stratford? - is
not deducible from Groatsworth as a positive. But some negatives are
deducible. A significant point is that Greene is being disparaging about the
work as well as the man. The "Tiger's heart" line is being held up to scorn,
as if he were saying "look how this fool goes on". Greene would not have
done that had he thought the line was written by a nobleman. That doesn't
quite make him a Stratfordian, but it does rule out most alternatives, since
most alternatives are nobleman alternatives.
But the question was what I believe, not what Greene believed. And I believe
with about ninety percent certainty that the plays were written by William
of Stratford. The remaining ten percent is occupied by various other
hypotheses, but the Oxfordian hypothesis isn't one of them.
Buffalo
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
> No time right now to work out both what you are
> saying *and* reply to it, as I'm on the point of going
> into hospital for an operation, and other things seem a
> bit more pressing. I'll get back to hlas on this once I'm
> back home again, and when it!
I wish you well, Peter, and when you're better
I'll ask you a question about Chettle.
Elizabeth
Roger Nyle Parisious
God forbid that you should feel compelled to do anything which you
do not "feel like". Particularly when facing hospitalization, on
which misfortune you have my sincere sympathies.
I have given an ever expanding reading of the Faire Em reference in
Farewell to Follie(I know of no other reference to Faire Em to which
you could have referred)several times both here and at national forms
and so far have met with either approval or silence on my replies. I
really did not wish, as I made plain,to indulge in controversy with
you.I never have. I just want to know what your position on this issue
is, for as stated thus far,it is open to several alternative
constructions.
As I cannot immediately find the complete Greene quote (which I
printed here,but which for some reason is not indexed under Farewell
to Follie)I will print another contributiion which I think should
clarify any confusion which you experienced.It is the first complaint
I have received on this score.
We might start with the original preface to Greene's "Farewell to
Follie"(l587,but only published ,with an additional preface ,in the
early
nineties).
This was spotted by Richard Simpson(one of the most intelligent
Statfordian minds in the second half of the nineteenth century,his
"Thomas More" essay aside), in the early l870's.
According to Greene,someone who could not write a manuscript
without the aid of the parish clerk (St.Giles outside Cripplegate is
specifically mentioned in said paragraph) is being made the "father of
interludes" One of these interludes is very specifically identified by
two separate quotations given as "Faire Em". This appeared,undated and
anonymously, in a wretched transcription ,exactly as Greene had
predicted.
Further,according to both Startfordian(Simpson and Alwin Thaler)
and anti-Stratfordian scholars(Titherley and Lefranc) "Faire Em"
contains a series of direct links to the circle, and geographical
holdings, of Fernando and William Stanley.In fact, a then still living
neighbor and recorded household guest is brought on as a character."
In other words someone was being made "the father of interludes"
but that someone had control over the finished text, which was
abominable.Did this editorial job make him the final author? I want to
know which of the two Peter believes to be Shake-Scene and do not
intend to comment further.
Elizabeth Weir
I wrote:
> > The OED shows the Elizabethan 'onely' was widely
> > in use in religious texts and government papers in
> > reference to kings, princes and those with any type
> > of preeminence.
>
> I think this is correct. ONLIEST; means only [Cheshire] It is singularly
> used as a superlative.
Since Cornwall was the last holdout from
the 'prestige dialect' of East Midlands, I believe
you.
> The root One~ in English is much more commonly A. Sax. than latin. Thee is
> also OONE: Alone, only.
Greene's use of the Elizabethan 'absolute' could be
'recluse' according to the OED.
An acceptable Elizabethan reading could be
'reclusive would-be universal genius' in his
own 'fancy' the only Shake-scene in 'a countrie'
of playwrights,' i.e., a population of one kind of
professionals such as 'a countrie of lawyers'
(OED).
Among other definitions the OED translates the
Elizabethan Johannes Fac Totum as 'would-be
unversal genius' with the modern meaning closer
to 'a man of all work.'
> In any case, I am unsure of the usage of several words in Green's phrases,
> and even the emphasis on 'upstart' since if 'crow' is derogatory, upstart is
> redundant.
If it were a verb you'd get the picture of a crow
lifting off as in Spenser's 'upstart rabbit'--
1590 SPENSER F.Q. I. i. 16 Their dam vpstart, out
of her den effraide, And rushed forth. 1602 2nd Pt.
Return Parnass. II. v. 908 At last he [sc. the hart]
vpstarted at the other side of the water.
Here's the entire OED entry for 'upstart' before
1616:
A. n.
1. One who has newly or suddenly risen in position or
importance; a new-comer in respect of rank or
consequence; a parvenu; = START-UP ppl. a. and n.1 1.
1555 Instit. Gentl. Ciiijb, These gentlemen are nowe
called vpstartes, a terme lately inuented by such as
pondered not ye groundes of honest meanes of rising or
commyng to promocion. 1577 B. GOOGE Heresbach's Husb. I.
46b, The newe vpstart; that takes vpon him the name of a
gentleman. 1592 GREENE Vpst. Courtier B4, Mary gyp
goodman vp~start, who made your father a gentleman?
B. adj.
1. a. Of things: Lately come into existence or notice;
new-fangled.
1565 STAPLETON Fortr. Faith 9 The grounde and foundation
of all your vpsterte ghospell. Ibid. 94 Their small
secret, and late vpstert congregation. 1593 BILSON Govt.
Christ's Ch. 286 This up-start fansie is far from God's
ordinance. 1607 J. NORDEN Surv. Dial. I. 18
Surveying..is an upstart arte found out of late.
b. Characteristic of upstarts.
a1593 MARLOWE Edw. II, I. iv. 336 Think you that we can
brooke this vpstart pride? 1603 B. JONSON Sejanus V.
viii, It is a note Of vpstart greatnesse, to..watch For
these poore trifles.
2.
Of persons, families, etc.: Lately or suddenly risen to
prominence or dignity.
1566 STAPLETON Ret. Untr. Jewel I. 8 Your late vpstert
masters of Germany and Geneua. 1586 J. FERNE Blaz.
Gentrie 260 He will..passe vp and downe the streates of
London in a side gowne, like vnto some newe vp-start
Legist. 1615 CROOKE Body of Man 88 It is more safe to
side with the old Legions led by Galen,..then with new
and vpstart Nouices.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Gary Kosinsky
<none...@here.com> wrote:
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
>news:411196d4...@news.individual.net...
>> So you think "shake-scene" = "writer of pre-eminent
>> status"? If so, then surely there would be other
>> shake-scenes?
>
>Plenty, but none would be referred to as "Shake-scene". That title would be
>reserved for Shakespeare. With the pun on his name, it wouldn't make a lot
>of sense applied to anyone else.
But for it to be a pun, "Shake-scene" *has* to refer
to someone or something else, doesn't it?
>> Also, clarify something for me: you do think that
>> the Crow is the author William Shakespeare of Stratford,
>> don't you?
>
>Wow! That's one out of the blue. I'm wondering what I wrote to deserve that
>question.
I probably misinterpreted a couple of things you've
recently written.
SNIP
>But the question was what I believe, not what Greene believed. And I believe
>with about ninety percent certainty that the plays were written by William
>of Stratford. The remaining ten percent is occupied by various other
>hypotheses, but the Oxfordian hypothesis isn't one of them.
Glad to hear it. I was beginning to think we might
have to put you on the "To Watch" list.
- Gary Kosinsky
Peter Farey
"Roger Nyle Parisious" wrote:
>
> God forbid that you should feel compelled to do anything which you
> do not "feel like". Particularly when facing hospitalization, on
> which misfortune you have my sincere sympathies.
Thanks, Roger. The point is, however, that I am about
to go into hospital *right now*, that I am going to be
off my feet and unable to drive for a week or two, and
that I therefore had a whole lot of jobs to do before
this happened. I may not "feel like it" because I
understand the procedure (although fairly trivial) can
be quite painful afterwards. It has nothing to do with
the subject matter, which interests me greatly.
> I have given an ever expanding reading of the Faire Em reference in
> Farewell to Follie(I know of no other reference to Faire Em to which
> you could have referred)
You surprise me. There is at least one far more obvious
one which I think Simpson mentioned.
> several times both here and at national forms
> and so far have met with either approval or silence on my replies. I
> really did not wish, as I made plain,to indulge in controversy with
> you.I never have. I just want to know what your position on this issue
> is, for as stated thus far,it is open to several alternative
> constructions.
Yes, just give me a few days, OK?
> As I cannot immediately find the complete Greene quote (which I
> printed here,but which for some reason is not indexed under Farewell
> to Follie)I will print another contributiion which I think should
> clarify any confusion which you experienced.It is the first complaint
> I have received on this score.
The confusion arose solely from your somewhat idiosyncratic
of putting things, which I often find quite hard to follow.
I was not complaining about the content. In fact said that
I didn't want to talk about it right now.
> We might start with the original preface to Greene's "Farewell to
> Follie"(l587,but only published ,with an additional preface ,in the
> early
> nineties).
> This was spotted by Richard Simpson(one of the most intelligent
> Statfordian minds in the second half of the nineteenth century,his
> "Thomas More" essay aside), in the early l870's.
>
> According to Greene,someone who could not write a manuscript
> without the aid of the parish clerk (St.Giles outside Cripplegate is
> specifically mentioned in said paragraph) is being made the "father of
> interludes" One of these interludes is very specifically identified by
> two separate quotations given as "Faire Em". This appeared,undated and
> anonymously, in a wretched transcription ,exactly as Greene had
> predicted.
>
> Further,according to both Startfordian(Simpson and Alwin Thaler)
> and anti-Stratfordian scholars(Titherley and Lefranc) "Faire Em"
> contains a series of direct links to the circle, and geographical
> holdings, of Fernando and William Stanley.In fact, a then still living
> neighbor and recorded household guest is brought on as a character."
>
> In other words someone was being made "the father of interludes"
> but that someone had control over the finished text, which was
> abominable.Did this editorial job make him the final author? I want to
> know which of the two Peter believes to be Shake-Scene and do not
> intend to comment further.
That's fine. Wait until I have time to answer your question
properly, OK?
Elizabeth Weir
> He
> there linked the semi-literate would be writer who was set up as a
> Terence by someone in the Catholic Stanley circle,as simultaneously
> connected to the red-hot Protestant circle operating from
> St.Giles-outside-Cripplegate.
Bacon was 'simultaneously connected' to the
Catholic Stanleys through his Spencer of
Althorpe cousins, two of whom married Derby
earls as well as connected to Launcelot Andrewes,
the Vicar of St. Giles-outside-Cripplegate.
Andrewes and Bacon were friends for decades.
Spedding's Works contains many personal
anecdotes written by Bacon about Andrewes.
Why does the playwright who set up 'a Terence'
have to be connected to both the Stanleys and
St. Giles-outside-Cripplegate?
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> Also, clarify something for me: you do think that
> the Crow is the author William Shakespeare of Stratford,
> don't you?
Where does it say that Shake-scene is an 'author?'
Greene says the Crow supposes--he poses--he's
a poser (OED)--that he is as well able to bumbast
out a blank verse as the best of the playwrights.
Greene tells that Shake-scene is anything but a
playwright.
Elizabeth
LynnE
>
> "Roger Nyle Parisious" wrote:
> >
> > God forbid that you should feel compelled to do anything which you
> > do not "feel like". Particularly when facing hospitalization, on
> > which misfortune you have my sincere sympathies.
>
> Thanks, Roger. The point is, however, that I am about
> to go into hospital *right now*, that I am going to be
> off my feet and unable to drive for a week or two, and
> that I therefore had a whole lot of jobs to do before
> this happened. I may not "feel like it" because I
> understand the procedure (although fairly trivial) can
> be quite painful afterwards. It has nothing to do with
> the subject matter, which interests me greatly.
Best of luck with your surgery, Peter. Get well fast.
Lynne
Roger Nyle Parisious
The original playwright need have no connection with
St.Giles-outside-Cripplegate. It is the "Terence" (my word , not RG's)
who is connected with
the latter and who obviously must have a connection in the Stanley
circles,probably through the Earl of Derby's men.
However this "Terence" does have literary ambitions of his own and it
is correctly predicted that the undated issue of "Faire Em" would
prove a disaster.
As a long standing Greene target(the l587 remarks were retained for
the printing four years later in l591) "Terence" is a logical
candidate for Shake-Scene,Sept.,l592.
He is also a logical candidate for the final editor of
"Locrine",(registered l594, printed l595) the only other certified
anonymous aristocratic drama to hit the stands in the 90's.. This
editor signed himself "W.S." And he certainly rewrote at least the
very last lines as the years of Elizabeth's reign are altered to
coincide with l595.
It is interesting to note that in the case of all three of these
publications,"Farewell to Follie","Faire Em" and "Locrine" ,as in the
case of Thomas Edwards (registered September,l593), there were
extended gaps between composition and publication.Any single "staying"
is ,of course, capable of an indefinite number of alternative
explanations, but four publications in four years running which
involve pseudonymous or anonymous aristocratic works is rather too
many coincidences. George Buc's post publication involvement in both
"Locrine" and "George-a-Green" are a clear indication there was reason
for alarm.
Shakspere definitely seems to have prevaricated to the future master
of the revels in efforts to throw him off the track regarding the
source of a
posthumous Robert Greene production.The simplest explanation for this
is that after the Shake-Scene episode is that he,understandably,did
not wish to be linked to any saleable items formerly in possession of
the dying Robert Greene.
Peter,if you are reading this,do not be surprised that I forgot a
"Faire Em"
reference.I have had not had any of my notes and ninety-nine per cent
of my library available since I came on here. I expected to be
resettled within a couple of months at that time but there have been
complications in obtaining suitable housing in the remote area where I
presently live. This is why I have not elaborated(to take the most
notable example) my Ben Jonson comments of two years ago.Right now I
am only stating things which are firmly fixed in my mind or which can
be corrected on the web.I have a feeling the second "Faire Em"
reference would have been in my original speeches in Los Angeles and
Detroit but get at them or my Simpson right now.Believe me,I never
argue seriously unless I believe the requisite evidence is at hand.
And get well soon. You will be missed.
Gary Kosinsky
(Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
Schoenbaum, in WS:ACDL, notes that some readers of
Groatsworth have interpreted it as Greene's charge of
plagiarism against the Crow. He doesn't mention your
definition of "supposes", which would support that reading.
It's an interesting idea. But like most things
Groatsworth, I suspect it will remain undecided.
- Gary Kosinsky
Buffalo
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:30:07 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo"
> <none...@here.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> >news:411196d4...@news.individual.net...
>
> >> So you think "shake-scene" = "writer of pre-eminent
> >> status"? If so, then surely there would be other
> >> shake-scenes?
> >
> >Plenty, but none would be referred to as "Shake-scene". That title would
be
> >reserved for Shakespeare. With the pun on his name, it wouldn't make a
lot
> >of sense applied to anyone else.
>
> But for it to be a pun, "Shake-scene" *has* to refer
> to someone or something else, doesn't it?
Well, the other referent would be implied in the "scene" part. Obviously
conjuring up the stage. As a pun, it's well down the quality scale - no
better than, for example, calling another contributor to this thread
"Elizabeth Weird".
> >> Also, clarify something for me: you do think that
> >> the Crow is the author William Shakespeare of Stratford,
> >> don't you?
> >
> >Wow! That's one out of the blue. I'm wondering what I wrote to deserve
that
> >question.
>
> I probably misinterpreted a couple of things you've
> recently written.
>
> SNIP
>
>
> >But the question was what I believe, not what Greene believed. And I
believe
> >with about ninety percent certainty that the plays were written by
William
> >of Stratford. The remaining ten percent is occupied by various other
> >hypotheses, but the Oxfordian hypothesis isn't one of them.
>
> Glad to hear it. I was beginning to think we might
> have to put you on the "To Watch" list.
Oh, go on. It would give me a certain cachet to be on someone's Watch List.
"A sinister character, that Buffalo. Spotted at anti-Strat rallies, looking
unshaven and menacing. Suggest maximum surveillance in this case."
Buffalo
Chess One
>
> I wrote:
>
> > > The OED shows the Elizabethan 'onely' was widely
> > > in use in religious texts and government papers in
> > > reference to kings, princes and those with any type
> > > of preeminence.
> >
> > I think this is correct. ONLIEST; means only [Cheshire] It is singularly
> > used as a superlative.
>
> Since Cornwall was the last holdout from
> the 'prestige dialect' of East Midlands, I believe
> you.
Elizabeth, this citation was from a list of words rare in 1840. I have
noticed that Greene himself prominently used the word 'only' in his very
strange Bacon and Bongay, in the published Quarto edition 1594, and it is
thought it was written 1589 and linked somewhat with Faustus. His concluding
paragraph begins and ends:-
K. Hen:
This prophesy is mystical._
But, glorious commanders of Europa's love,
That makes fair England like that wealthy isle
Circled with Gihon and swift Euphrates,
In royalised Albion
...
It rests, to furnish up this royal feast,
Only your hearts be frolic; for the time
Craves that we taste of naught but jouissance.
Thus glories England over all the west.
Exeunt omnes.
Omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci.
What is rather strange about this writer is that he would NOT make an
allusion to some very esoteric topic at the time. Here above we have a
passing distinction to England and to a Circled Albion, no less.
Ffriars Bacon and Bongay while ostensibly a history, is utter nonsense,
while including a character Vandermast [!] But my interest rests in his use
of 'Crow' more than OO NLIE. Not that that double OO has not appeared
before.
Below you note the use of several words - and 'Crow 'appears first as a
verb, not a noun, and continued as a verb even though also applying to a
bird. And Greene's use is a coinage, no?
Cordially, Phil
Chess One
news:<411196d4...@news.individual.net>...
>
> > Also, clarify something for me: you do think that
> > the Crow is the author William Shakespeare of Stratford,
> > don't you?
>
> Where does it say that Shake-scene is an 'author?'
>
> Greene says the Crow supposes--he poses--he's
> a poser (OED)--that he is as well able to bumbast
> out a blank verse as the best of the playwrights.
I challenge this. What citation [date and MSS] is given by the OED? Phil
Innes
Gary Kosinsky
<none...@here.com> wrote:
>
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
>news:4112bbf5...@news.individual.net...
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:30:07 +0000 (UTC), "Buffalo"
>> <none...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:411196d4...@news.individual.net...
>>
>> >> So you think "shake-scene" = "writer of pre-eminent
>> >> status"? If so, then surely there would be other
>> >> shake-scenes?
>> >
>> >Plenty, but none would be referred to as "Shake-scene". That title would
>be
>> >reserved for Shakespeare. With the pun on his name, it wouldn't make a
>lot
>> >of sense applied to anyone else.
>>
>> But for it to be a pun, "Shake-scene" *has* to refer
>> to someone or something else, doesn't it?
>
>Well, the other referent would be implied in the "scene" part. Obviously
>conjuring up the stage.
Right. He's making some sort of reference to the
stage in addition to playing on Shakespeare's name. But it's
unclear to us just what that stage reference means, and how
the phrase "Shake-scene" would be interpreted by the
Elizabethan readers. Depending on its meaning, there might
very well have been other 'shake-scenes' around, or there
may not have been. Which pretty much takes us back to where
we started.
- Gary Kosinsky
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.04080...@posting.google.com...
> > Where does it say that Shake-scene is an 'author?'
> >
> > Greene says the Crow supposes--he poses--he's
> > a poser (OED)--that he is as well able to bumbast
> > out a blank verse as the best of the playwrights.
>
> I challenge this. What citation [date and MSS] is given by the OED? Phil
> Innes
The OED ( 2nd ed). Elizabethan definitions,
quotations and etymology:
The OED for suppose, v.
12. To feign, pretend; occas. to forge. Obs.
1566 PAINTER Pal. Pleas. I. v. 13 The maide..was the
doughter of his owne bondwoman, who afterwardes being stolen
awaye, was caried to the house of Virginius, and supposed to
be his childe. 1622-3 N. Riding Rec. (1885) III. II. 161
Ninian Etherington, supposing himself to be a Sheriffes
Baliffe, did distreigne and carrie awaie a cow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. To substitute by artifice or fraud: cf. SUPPOSITITIOUS. Obs.
1614 SELDEN Titles Hon. II. i. 176 That they when the Queen
is in child-birth,..warily obserue least the Ladies should
priuily counterfeit the enheritable sex, by supposing som
other Male when the true birth is female.
1631 MASSINGER Believe as You List II. ii, To suppose a bodie;
and..to inter it In a rich monument, and then proclaime 'This is
the bodye of Antiochus.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The etymology for suppose, v.
[ad. L. suppnre: see SUPPOSE v. Cf. Pr. supponer, It.
sopporre, Sp. suponer, Pg. suppôr.]
1. trans. To substitute fraudulently: = SUPPOSE v. 13.
13. To substitute by artifice or fraud: cf. SUPPOSITITIOUS. Obs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More etymology for 'sub-poser or supposer.'
repr. L. sub- = the prep. sub under
[a. OF. sup(p)oser, (mod.F. supposer), f. sup- = SUB- 2 +
poser POSE v.1, to represent L. supposit-, suppnre
SUPPONE v.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo
Well, they would interpret it using the same data that we have. The meaning
is implicit in the preceding wording, particularly the "Tiger's heart"
quote. The Crow is an author, a playwright, a make-scene.
>Depending on its meaning, there might
> very well have been other 'shake-scenes' around, or there
> may not have been.
There were certainly other playwrights around, but no one except Shakespeare
would have been called "Shake-scene".
Which pretty much takes us back to where
> we started.
Not sure where we started. It's a clear identification of Shakespeare as a
new playwright. It doesn't identify him as William of Stratford, but it does
identify him as someone to whom Greene (and/or Chettle) feels no need to
defer. He carries no social clout.
Buffalo
Chess One
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.04080...@posting.google.com...
> "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<aP4Rc.270$BS3.180@trndny04>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.04080...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
> > > Where does it say that Shake-scene is an 'author?'
> > >
> > > Greene says the Crow supposes--he poses--he's
> > > a poser (OED)--that he is as well able to bumbast
> > > out a blank verse as the best of the playwrights.
> >
> > I challenge this. What citation [date and MSS] is given by the OED? Phil
> > Innes
Elizabeth - my fault, I meant cits of usage of 'crow' not 'supposes'. Phil
> The OED ( 2nd ed). Elizabethan definitions,
> quotations and etymology:
>
> The OED for suppose, v.
>
> 12. To feign, pretend; occas. to forge. Obs.
>
> 1566 PAINTER Pal. Pleas. I. v. 13 The maide..was the
> doughter of his owne bondwoman, who afterwardes being stolen
> awaye, was caried to the house of Virginius, and supposed to
> be his childe. 1622-3 N. Riding Rec. (1885) III. II. 161
> Ninian Etherington, supposing himself to be a Sheriffes
> Baliffe, did distreigne and carrie awaie a cow.
>
> > > Elizabeth
Peter Farey
instructed to keep the foot elevated above the level
of my heart as much as possible, probably not for long!
Thanks to those of you who wished me well, both here
and by e-mail. I'm feeling fine, thanks.
So where were we? Ah yes. My reason for saying that the
person referred to by Greene as 'Shake-scene' was also
probably the author of "A Pleasant Commodie of Faire
Em the Millers daughter of Manchester".
This is a pleasant enough play, written in blank verse,
the main plot of which takes place in a *windmill*. It
was "sundrie times publiquely acted in the honourable
citie of London, by the right honourable the Lord
Strange his seruants", most probably in the period
1589-90. It also seems quite likely to have had its
premiere at a Lancashire stately home belonging to
the Earl fo Derby, in January 1589.
Returning to Greene's *Groats-worth of Witte*, let us
look for a moment at the main story, which concerns a
scholar called Roberto, who has fallen on hard times,
but who meets a player who offers to help him:
*Roberto* wondring to heare such good wordes, for
that this iron age affoordes few that esteeme of
vertue; returnd him thankfull gratulations, and
(urgde by necessitie) uttered his present griefe,
beseeching his advise how he might be imployed.
Why, easily, quoth hee, and greatly to your bene-
fite: for men of my profession gette by schollers
their whole living. What is your profession, said
*Roberto*? Truly sir, saide hee, I am a player. A
player, quoth *Roberto*, I tooke you rather for a
Gentleman of great living, for if by outward habit
men should be censured, I tell you, you would bee
taken for a substantiall man. So am I where I dwell
(quoth the player) reputed able at my proper cost
to build a Windmill.
Richard Simpson was the first to point out the link
with *Faire Em* that this seems to suggest, and few
have disagreed with him. The main disagreement has
always been as to whether this meant that Shakespeare
(the Shake-scene who appears later in the book) must
also have written *Faire Em*, as Simpson suggested,
and virtually everyone else has rejected that.
After hearing some more about the player's background
Roberto asks:
how meane you to use mee? Why sir, in making Playes,
said the other, for which you shall be well paid,
if you will take the paines. *Roberto* perceiving
no remedie, thought best in respect of his present
necessitie, to try his wit, & went with him will-
ingly: who lodgd him at the Townes end in a house
of retayle,
One might be tempted to think that the 'windmill'
connection was a coincidence, were it not for the
fact that Greene refers to the author of *Faire Em*
(in a rather less friendly way) elsewhere. In the
Preface to his *Farewell to Folly*, the year before,
he had this to say to the "Gentlemen students of
both Universities" about people who might criticize
this work:
...Others will flout and ouer read euerie line with
a frumpe and say tis scuruie when they themselves
are such scabd Iades that they are like to dye of
the fazion [ulcerated throat]: but if they come
to write, or publish anie thing in print, it is
either distild out of ballets, or borrowed of
Theological poets, which, for their calling and
grauitie being loth to haue anie prophane pamphlets
pass under their hand, get some other Batillus to
set his name to their verses.
Thus is the asse made proud by this vnder hande
brokerie. And he that can not write true Englishe
without the helpe of Clearkes of parish Churches,
will needes make him selfe the father of interludes.
O tis a iollie matter when a man hath a familiar
stile, and can endite a whole yeare, and neuer be
beholding to art? But to bring Scripture to proue
any thing he sayes, and kill it dead with the text
in a trifling subiect of loue. I tell you is no
small peece of cunning. As for example two louers
on the stage arguing one an other of vnkindnesse,
his Mistris runnes ouer to him with his canonicall
sentence, A mans conscience is a thousande witnesses,
and hir knight againe excuseth him selfe with that
saying of the Apostle, Loue couereth the multitude
of sinnes, I thinke this was but simple abusing of
the Scripture. In charitie be it spoken I am per-
swaded the sexton of Saint Giles without Creeple
gate, would haue beene ashamed of such blasphemous
Rhetoricke."
Although the context is slightly different, it is
clear that those two quotations at the end are from
*Faire Em*. The first is said by Em to Manville, the
lover who abandons her:
Thy conscience, Manville, is a hundred witnesses.
The other is said earlier in the same scene by King
Zweno of Denmark to his daughter Blanche:
Yet love, that covers multitude of sins,
Makes love in parents wink at childrens faults.
Greene seems therefore to be saying that the author
of *Faire Em* can hardly write 'true English' without
help, but that because he was asked to present himself
as the author of other people's verses (as Batillus
did) he had fooled himself into thinking that he could
write plays in verse - thus looking rather like the Ass
in Aesop's fable of The Ass in the Lion's Skin
An Ass once found a Lion's skin which the hunters
had left out in the sun to dry. He put it on and
went towards his native village. All fled at his
approach, both men and animals, and he was a proud
Ass that day. In his delight he lifted up his
voice and brayed, but then every one knew him, and
his owner came up and gave him a sound cudgelling
for the fright he had caused. And shortly after-
wards a Fox came up to him and said: "Ah, I knew
you by your voice."
Fine clothes may disguise, but silly words will
disclose a fool.
In this case, Greene is complaining that an uneducated
person wrongly thinks that he is able to write blank
verse plays as well as true poets. In the story of
Roberto (whose life in most parts agrees with Greene's,
he says), he apparently identifies this person as an
actor with several years in the business. He then,
in the Groatsworth letter, says almost exactly the
same things about someone he calls "Shake-scene", and
who is almost universally accepted as Shakespeare.
Support for this also comes from a book which was in
the library of Charles II and entitled *Shakespeare
Volume I*, which contained *Faire Em* and two other
anonymous plays - *Mucedorus* and *The Merry Devil
of Edmonton*.
What certainly appears to be the case is that the
player who helped him originally, and grew even more
wealthy on the back of the plays provided by Greene and
his fellow-writers, has now abandoned him. Greene is
dying, cannot even afford the medicines he needs, and
those who are beholding to him for much of their wealth,
such as "Shake-scene", have now left him in the lurch.
It all makes perfect sense except for one thing. *Faire
Em* just isn't good enough to have been written by the
author we know of as Shakespeare.
The answer for Stratfordians has to be that the player
in the Roberto story cannot be the same player as the
one called "Shake-scene".
My own answer would be that William Shakespeare *was*
the author of *Faire Em*, and the player referred to
both in the *Roberto* story and in the "upstart Crow"
letter. But just a few months later he returned to
being a "Batillus" as far as *Venus and Adonis* was
concerned, and joined up with a surviving (but hidden)
Christopher Marlowe to become the 'new' William Shake-
speare, one who was now quite capable of creating the
works that we think of as his.
Tom Reedy
<snip>
I hope you make a speedy recovery, Peter. I have recently ended a lengthy
convalescence, and I am happy it is over, as I'm sure you will be.
I have repasted some of the following throughout my reply for easier
reference.
Well, maybe, but not exactly. It seems to me Greene is complaining of his
critics, who might read his work with "a frumpe and say tis scuruie" when
they themselves can't write anything original, If they have to write
anything, they are forced to use popular ballads as sources (a reference to
Arden of Feversham?) or borrow from theological poets who have their works
printed under others' names. He doesn't accuse his critics of being the
frontmen for the theological poets.
> ...Others will flout and ouer read euerie line with
> when they themselves
> are such scabd Iades that they are like to dye of
> the fazion [ulcerated throat]: but if they come
> to write, or publish anie thing in print, it is
> either distild out of ballets, or borrowed of
> Theological poets, which, for their calling and
> grauitie being loth to haue anie prophane pamphlets
> pass under their hand, get some other Batillus to
> set his name to their verses.
<snip Aesop example>
> Thus is the asse made proud by this vnder hande
> brokerie. And he that can not write true Englishe
> without the helpe of Clearkes of parish Churches,
> will needes make him selfe the father of interludes.
> O tis a iollie matter when a man hath a familiar
> stile, and can endite a whole yeare, and neuer be
> beholding to art? But to bring Scripture to proue
> any thing he sayes, and kill it dead with the text
> in a trifling subiect of loue. I tell you is no
> small peece of cunning.
> In this case, Greene is complaining that an uneducated
> person wrongly thinks that he is able to write blank
> verse plays as well as true poets.
So you think the "art" Green refers to is the ability to write blank verse?
If so, then why does he immediately say, "But to bring Scripture to proue
any thing he sayes . . . ."
It seems to me he is ridiculing the use of Biblical allusions, which were
available to anybody who attended church, instead of classical allusions,
which were preferred by the university wits and Greene, who also borrowed
liberally from other poets, making him one of those who was "beholding to
art."
That also seems to be the meaning of his example, "And he that can not write
true Englishe without the helpe of Clearkes of parish Churches, will needes
make him selfe the father of interludes."
Greene also seems to be writing about different people, one whose writing is
"either distild out of ballets, or borrowed of Theological poets," and
another who "can not write true Englishe without the helpe of Clearkes of
parish Churches." I think that, at least, is clear, but with Greene, you
never know for sure exactly what he is saying.
In the story of
> Roberto (whose life in most parts agrees with Greene's,
> he says), he apparently identifies this person as an
> actor with several years in the business.
You seem to think Greene wrote only about one person. Do you really think
his circle of acquaintances was that constricted?
> He then,
> in the Groatsworth letter, says almost exactly the
> same things about someone he calls "Shake-scene", and
> who is almost universally accepted as Shakespeare.
So similar criticisms indicate the target is the same person? Interesting.
>
> Support for this also comes from a book which was in
> the library of Charles II and entitled *Shakespeare
> Volume I*, which contained *Faire Em* and two other
> anonymous plays - *Mucedorus* and *The Merry Devil
> of Edmonton*.
>
> What certainly appears to be the case is that the
> player who helped him originally, and grew even more
> wealthy on the back of the plays provided by Greene and
> his fellow-writers, has now abandoned him.
That does not "certainly appear to be the case" unless you conflate Greene's
pamphlets and declare his subjects to be the same person.
Greene is
> dying, cannot even afford the medicines he needs, and
> those who are beholding to him for much of their wealth,
> such as "Shake-scene", have now left him in the lurch.
Key words in your sentence: "such as."
>
> It all makes perfect sense except for one thing. *Faire
> Em* just isn't good enough to have been written by the
> author we know of as Shakespeare.
>
> The answer for Stratfordians has to be that the player
> in the Roberto story cannot be the same player as the
> one called "Shake-scene".
Yes, or the player Greene writes about is a conflation of Shakespeare and
other similar theatrical persons, such as Henslowe, Alleyn and Burbage.
>
> My own answer would be that William Shakespeare *was*
> the author of *Faire Em*, and the player referred to
> both in the *Roberto* story and in the "upstart Crow"
> letter. But just a few months later he returned to
> being a "Batillus" as far as *Venus and Adonis* was
> concerned, and joined up with a surviving (but hidden)
> Christopher Marlowe to become the 'new' William Shake-
> speare, one who was now quite capable of creating the
> works that we think of as his.
Yes, that would be your answer.
TR
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> I hope you make a speedy recovery, Peter. I have recently
> ended a lengthy convalescence, and I am happy it is over,
> as I'm sure you will be.
Thanks, Tom. I'm pleased to hear it is over for you.
Unfortunately the problem I have concerns *both* feet,
and this is just the first!
> I have repasted some of the following throughout my reply
> for easier reference.
Always enjoy a good repast, me.
<snip>
> > Greene seems therefore to be saying that the author
> > of *Faire Em* can hardly write 'true English' without
> > help, but that because he was asked to present himself
> > as the author of other people's verses (as Batillus
> > did) he had fooled himself into thinking that he could
> > write plays in verse
>
> Well, maybe, but not exactly. It seems to me Greene is
> complaining of his critics, who might read his work with
> "a frumpe and say tis scuruie" when they themselves can't
> write anything original,
Yes, that's the way I see it too, but I was talking only
about the *Fair Em* bit.
> If they have to write anything, they are forced to use
> popular ballads as sources (a reference to Arden of
> Feversham?)
Not sure about that. At this point he seems to be talking
more about poetry than plays
> or borrow from theological poets who have
> their works printed under others' names. He doesn't
> accuse his critics of being the frontmen for the
> theological poets.
I don't think I said that, did I? There are several
groups he is talking about.
1) A group of critics the details of whom I didn't
include in the extract I originally quoted.
2) Another group: the 'frumpy' critics, who - if they
try to write anything, copy from ballads and theo-
logical poets and hide behind a 'Batillus'.
3) The Batilli themselves who get proud and think they
can write plays.
4) A single example of one of these 'proud asses'.
It's certainly an art which he thinks such people lack.
> If so, then why does he immediately say, "But to bring
> Scripture to proue any thing he sayes . . . ."
Because this is what they do *instead* of using art?
> It seems to me he is ridiculing the use of Biblical
> allusions, which were available to anybody who attended
> church, instead of classical allusions, which were
> preferred by the university wits and Greene, who also
> borrowed liberally from other poets,
Yes, that's how it seems to me too, although I think he
would consider 'art' in verse to involve rather more than
just the use of classical allusions. (see Puttenham).
> making him one of
> those who was "beholding to art."
I don't think so, it says that they wrote in a "familiar
style" *without* art. They were *not* beholding to art
because they made no use of it.
> That also seems to be the meaning of his example, "And
> he that can not write true Englishe without the helpe of
> Clearkes of parish Churches, will needes
> make him selfe the father of interludes."
>
> Greene also seems to be writing about different people,
> one whose writing is "either distild out of ballets, or
> borrowed of Theological poets," and another who "can not
> write true Englishe without the helpe of Clearkes of
> parish Churches." I think that, at least, is clear,
So do I.
> but with Greene, you never know for sure exactly what he
> is saying.
I think you do in this case. It's what you said.
> > In the story of
> > Roberto (whose life in most parts agrees with Greene's,
> > he says), he apparently identifies this person as an
> > actor with several years in the business.
>
> You seem to think Greene wrote only about one person.
> Do you really think his circle of acquaintances was that
> constricted?
Not at all. He says quite a lot about the players as a
group; but I am saying that he is upset with one actor
in particular, and that this actor plays an important
part in one of the book's messages - "If thou be left
rich, remember those that want, & so deale, that by thy
wilfulnes thy selfe want not:."
> > He then,
> > in the Groatsworth letter, says almost exactly the
> > same things about someone he calls "Shake-scene", and
> > who is almost universally accepted as Shakespeare.
>
> So similar criticisms indicate the target is the same
> person? Interesting.
What indicates he is the same person is partly this, of
course. Also the fact that Roberto's player is the one
most likely to be who he would have hoped to help him out
in his hour of need but who in fact forsook him. How many
Ants are there in the story of *The Ant & the Grasshopper*
as Greene tells it in *Groatsworth*, Tom?
> > Support for this also comes from a book which was in
> > the library of Charles II and entitled *Shakespeare
> > Volume I*, which contained *Faire Em* and two other
> > anonymous plays - *Mucedorus* and *The Merry Devil
> > of Edmonton*.
> >
> > What certainly appears to be the case is that the
> > player who helped him originally, and grew even more
> > wealthy on the back of the plays provided by Greene and
> > his fellow-writers, has now abandoned him.
>
> That does not "certainly appear to be the case" unless
> you conflate Greene's pamphlets and declare his subjects
> to be the same person.
1) All of the players have abandoned him.
2) The man who helped him originally was a player.
Therefore (assuming he is still alive!) the man
who helped him originally has abandoned him.
> > Greene is
> > dying, cannot even afford the medicines he needs, and
> > those who are beholding to him for much of their wealth,
> > such as "Shake-scene", have now left him in the lurch.
>
> Key words in your sentence: "such as."
Indeed. But how many Ants was it?
> > It all makes perfect sense except for one thing. *Faire
> > Em* just isn't good enough to have been written by the
> > author we know of as Shakespeare.
> >
> > The answer for Stratfordians has to be that the player
> > in the Roberto story cannot be the same player as the
> > one called "Shake-scene".
>
> Yes, or the player Greene writes about is a conflation of
> Shakespeare and other similar theatrical persons, such as
> Henslowe, Alleyn and Burbage.
This is possible, of course, but I doubt it. Here is what
he has to say about himself:
What though the world once went hard with me, when I
was faine to carry my playing Fardle a footebacke
*Tempora mutantur*, I know you know the meaning of it
better than I, but I thus conster it, its otherwise
now; for my very share in playing apparell will not
be sold for two hundred pounds. Truly (said Roberto)
tis straunge, that you should so prosper in that vayne
practise, for that it seemes to mee your voice is
nothing gratious. Nay then, saide the Player, I
mislike your judgement: why, I am as famous for Delph-
rigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was any of my
time. The twelve labors of Hercules have I terribly
thundred on the Stage, and plaid three Scenes of the
Devil in the High way to heaven. Have ye so (saide
Roberto?) then I pray you pardon me. Nay more (quoth
the Player) I can serve to make a pretie speech, for
I was a countrey Author, passing at a Morrall, for
twas I that pende the Morrall of mans witte, the
Dialogue of Dives, and for seven yeers space was
absolute Interpreter to the puppets.
This (plus the 'windmill' reference) sounds to me far
more like a description of an individual whom readers
were expected to be able to identify.
> > My own answer would be that William Shakespeare *was*
> > the author of *Faire Em*, and the player referred to
> > both in the *Roberto* story and in the "upstart Crow"
> > letter. But just a few months later he returned to
> > being a "Batillus" as far as *Venus and Adonis* was
> > concerned, and joined up with a surviving (but hidden)
> > Christopher Marlowe to become the 'new' William Shake-
> > speare, one who was now quite capable of creating the
> > works that we think of as his.
>
> Yes, that would be your answer.
It's the only one that makes sense, if that's what you
mean (although somehow I doubt it!)
Bob Grumman
Elizabeth has tuned in to this thread with the refuted belief that "supposes"
means "pretends." As for "conceit," I suppose (or guess) that my final stand is
that Greene meant opinion when he used it in his letter BUT that he liked its
conveying connotations that the word seems definitely to have had at the time of
excessive vanity--because he was the kind of writer who didn't mind pouring it
on, and because he had a reasonably large vocabulary.
I prefer my slightly different take on "in a country" to yours, but if you can
find some other writer of the time who used "in a (place)" to mean "in this
place," fine. Your "thinks himself the one and only Shake-scene" makes sense
but I still go equally with "thinks himself the only great theatre man around,"
or some such, with no thought of any particular other great theatre men--like
someone's saying, "he thought himself the only boy who'd ever been ditched by a
girl," would not likely suggest that if the speaker went on, he would have said,
"when Joe Smith and Frank Adams were."
--Bob G.
>Bob, I don't know why you're holding out for a meaning that was clearly a
>very uncommon one at the time. Because there is no mileage in it. It doesn't
>materially change the interpretation of the passage as a whole, since the
>"vanity" element that you maintain belongs to "conceit" is still present in
>the rest of the wording. Obviously if a man thinks he's the only
>Shake-scene, that would be vain. It isn't necessary to prove that the word
>"conceit" itself has that meaning in order to interpret the Greene's charge
>as one of vanity.
>
>"In his own conceit" just means "in his own eyes", or "the way he sees
>himself". The word "own" is quite consistent with this meaning since many
>people can have an opinion about Shakespeare's status, and "his own"
>distinguishes Shakespeare's opinion from everyone else's. But it would not
>make sense if "conceit" meant vanity, because only Shakespeare can be vain
>about Shakespeare. To write "in his own vanity" would be silly. Who else's
>vanity could it be?
>
>
>As for your interpretation of the "the only Shake-scene", you are right to
>dig your heels in and to dismiss the idea that there were other Shake-scenes
>(as opposed to other playwrights). A couple of years ago the supporters of
>Liverpool football club had favourite chant, sung to the tune of
>"Guantanamera":
>
> One Michael Owen
> There's only one Michael Owen
> One Michael OOOOwen,
>
>Since everyone knows that there is no player in the English league called
>Michael Owen except the one who plays for Liverpool, you might wonder why it
>was necessary for the fans to point it out. But it simply means "The one and
>only Michael Owen". Similarly "the only Shake-scene" just means "the one and
>only Shakespeare".
>
>> >> As for "*a* country," I suspect it's "a country" as
>> >> opposed to "a neighborhood" or "a city."
>
>I think it's just another turn of phrase. "What is a fellow to do?" is not a
>question about any old fellow, even if it seems to be. It means: what is
>*this* fellow to do - what am *I* to do. "In a country" just means "in this
>country".
>
>Buffalo
>
>
>
Bob Grumman
>not deducible from Groatsworth as a positive. But some negatives are
>deducible. A significant point is that Greene is being disparaging about the
>work as well as the man. The "Tiger's heart" line is being held up to scorn,
>as if he were saying "look how this fool goes on". Greene would not have
>done that had he thought the line was written by a nobleman. That doesn't
>quite make him a Stratfordian, but it does rule out most alternatives, since
>most alternatives are nobleman alternatives.
Also, Greene calls him an "upstart," which tends to rule out the 42-year-old
Oxford, who supposedly had been writing plays for decades. The Crow is an
actor, too, which rules out all the pretenders, leaving Peter's Alleyn.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>>playwright.
>
> Schoenbaum, in WS:ACDL, notes that some readers of
>Groatsworth have interpreted it as Greene's charge of
>plagiarism against the Crow. He doesn't mention your
>definition of "supposes", which would support that reading.
>
> It's an interesting idea. But like most things
>Groatsworth, I suspect it will remain undecided.
>
>
>- Gary Kosinsky
Not by those with enough common sense to see how absurd it would be for Greene
to talk about being betrayed on his deathbed by someone pretending to be a
playwright (using a line Greene says is HIS line) and who actually thinks
himself the top theatre man around even though he must know he's a fake
playwright. It also requires Greene to be using an extremely uncommon
definition of "supposes" that no one else of the time has been discovered to use
WITHOUT REALIZING THAT A READER MIGHT THINK HE INTENDED "SUPPOSES" TO MEAN WHAT
TEN OR ELEVEN OF ITS OTHER DEFINITIONS SAID IT DID--or realized that but didn't
care if he confused anyone.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>believe
>> >with about ninety percent certainty that the plays were written by
>William
>> >of Stratford. The remaining ten percent is occupied by various other
>> >hypotheses, but the Oxfordian hypothesis isn't one of them.
>>
>> Glad to hear it. I was beginning to think we might
>> have to put you on the "To Watch" list.
>
>Oh, go on. It would give me a certain cachet to be on someone's Watch List.
>"A sinister character, that Buffalo. Spotted at anti-Strat rallies, looking
>unshaven and menacing. Suggest maximum surveillance in this case."
>
>Buffalo
The truth is we'd have eliminated him by now if not for his use of a pseudonym.
90%, indeed!
Brigadier Corporal Seventh-Class Grumman
Bob Grumman
about that in my essay, which most everyone is now ignoring.
One comment: my guess as to how Greene came up with "Shake-scene" is that he had
heard Will's fellows pun admiringly on his ability to make a scene shake, and
grimaced when Will smiled at the compliment, as though he merited it.
Oh, and something I just thought of: the "owne" in "his owne conceit" would be
superfluous regardless of the meaning of "conceit." Reminds me of such phrases
as "in my own mind." Who else's mind would I be in?
Final thought: if we lose Shake-scene as Shakespeare, we can claim Will was
indeed born on St. George's Day and that Greene was referring to him rather than
to George Peele when he made the remark about "St. George" that most scholars
believe was his way of identifying Peele.
--Bob G.
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > the author of *Faire Em*, and the player referred to
> > both in the *Roberto* story and in the "upstart Crow"
> > letter. But just a few months later he returned to
> > being a "Batillus" as far as *Venus and Adonis* was
> > concerned, and joined up with a surviving (but hidden)
> > Christopher Marlowe to become the 'new' William Shake-
> > speare, one who was now quite capable of creating the
> > works that we think of as his.
>
> Yes, that would be your answer.
In his semi-autobiographical *Francesco's Fortunes*
(1590), Robert Greene wrote that "he fell in amongst
a companie of Players, who perswaded him to trie his
wit in writing of Comedies, Tragedies, or Pastorals,
and if he could performe anything worth the stage,
then they would largelie reward him for his paines."
However, in his *Groatsworth of Wit* (1592), this
story has changed slightly, and it is now a solitary
Player, about whom we learn quite a lot, who starts
him (i.e. *Roberto*) off as a playwright.
I would suggest that this change was made because in
the *Groatsworth* story it was important for the
Player to be identifiable, whereas in the other it
was not. The reason for this is not hard to find,
either, since a clear parallel is shown between the
story of Roberto and that of the Ant and the Grass-
hopper, in which a single Ant who is a former friend
eventually forsakes the Grasshopper. Just as this
story would not work so well if the "waspish little
worme" had not been an "olde acquaintance", so
Greene's tale would not work so well if an earlier
relationship had not been similarly evident.
Thus, if Greene's "Shake-scene" is indeed William
Shakespeare, as is generally accepted, then so is
the Player in the Roberto story, an idea entertained
by Park Honan, who wonders whether the "nothing
gratious" voice is due to his Warwickshire accent.
This is what we find out about the Player.
What is your profession, said *Roberto*? Truly sir,
saide hee, I am a player. A player, quoth *Roberto*,
I tooke you rather for a Gentleman of great living,
for if by outward habit men should be censured, I
tell you, you would bee taken for a substantiall
man. So am I where I dwell (quoth the player)
reputed able at my proper cost to build a Windmill.
What though the world once went hard with me, when I
was faine to carry my playing Fardle a footebacke
*Tempora mutantur*, I know you know the meaning of it
better than I, but I thus conster it, its otherwise
now; for my very share in playing apparell will not
be sold for two hundred pounds. Truly (said Roberto)
tis straunge, that you should so prosper in that vayne
practise, for that it seemes to mee your voice is
nothing gratious. Nay then, saide the Player, I
mislike your judgement: why, I am as famous for Delph-
rigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was any of my
time. The twelve labors of Hercules have I terribly
thundred on the Stage, and plaid three Scenes of the
Devil in the High way to heaven. Have ye so (saide
Roberto?) then I pray you pardon me. Nay more (quoth
the Player) I can serve to make a pretie speech, for
I was a countrey Author, passing at a Morrall, for
twas I that pende the Morrall of mans witte, the
Dialogue of Dives, and for seven yeers space was
absolute Interpreter to the puppets.
As we have already discussed, I see the reference to
the windmill as being about the play *Faire Em*. He
cannot be made to say that he *wrote* it because in
1587 (about the time when such a meeting would have
occurred) it had not yet been written, but this is
as good a way as any to indicate that he will do so.
This reference is, as I have said, supported by the
passage in Greene's preface to *Farewell to Folly*,
where he criticises the author of *Faire Em* as one
who, just like "Shake-scene", fancies that he can
write far better blank verse than he can in reality.
Also by the inclusion of *Faire Em* in a book
entitled "Shakespeare: Volume I" in Charles II's
library.
*Faire Em* contains references to a Lancashire family
(the Traffords) which seem to indicate it having been
written initially for private performance at a stately
home in Lancashire (1589?). This in turn suggests some
local knowledge on the part of the author, and thus
gives support to the "William Shakeshafte" theory
(involving the Lancashire families of Hoghton, Hesketh
and Stanley) favoured by Honigman and others.
The really interesting bit for me, however, is the
Player's claim that he "for seven yeers space was
absolute Interpreter to the puppets", which would
lead back to just about the time when "Shakeshafte"
was with Hoghton. Was puppeteering the main skill
which took him first to Hoghton Hall and then, via
Hesketh, to Lord Strange's company?
Here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say
about "interpreters" in this context:
In many forms of puppet theatre...the dialogue is
not conducted as if through the mouths of the puppets,
but instead the story is recited or explained by a
person who stands outside the puppet stage to serve
as a link with the audience. This technique was
certainly in use in England in Elizabethan times,
when the "interpreter" of the puppets is frequently
referred to.
A (from my point of view) very interesting illust-
ration of an interpreter in action is given by Ben
Jonson in *Bartholmew Fair* (Act 5, scenes 3-5)
In this extract (using Michael Jamieson's Penguin
version), Lantern Leatherhead, the 'interpreter',
is presenting his version of Marlowe's *Hero and
*Leander*. One of the audience (Cokes) asks:
COKES: But do you play it according to the printed
book? I have read that.
LEATHERHEAD: By no means, sir.
COKES: No? How then?
LEATHERHEAD: A better way, sir; that is too learned
and poetical for our audience. What do they know
what Hellespont is? 'Guilty of true loves blood'?
Or what Abydos is? Or 'the other Sestos height'?
COKES: Th' art i' the right, I do not know myself.
LEATHERHEAD: No, I have entreated Master Littlewit
to take a little pains to reduce it to a more
familiar strain for our people.
COKES: How, I pray thee, good Master Littlewit?
LITTLEWIT: It pleases him to make a matter of it,
sir. But there is no such matter, I assure you.
I have only made it a little easy and modern for
the times, sir, that's all: as for the Hellespont,
I imagine our Thames here; and then Leander I make
a dyer's son, about Puddle Wharf; and Hero a wench
o' the Bankside, who going over one Morning to Old
Fish Street, Leander spies her land at Trig Stairs,
and falls in love with her. Now do I introduce
Cupid, having metamorphos'd himself into a Drawer,
and he strikes Hero in love with a pint of sherry.
So here, according to Ben Jonson, nine years before
the publication of the First Folio, we have the
Puppets' interpreter (Shakespeare?) taking a work by
Christopher Marlowe, and dumbing down the original
enough for the audience to be able to understand it!
The puppet-play is in fact based on two stories, the
second of which is an equally wildly changed version
of *Damon and Pythias*. These were two great friends,
one of whom is condemned to death by the monarch
(Dionysius) but who is allowed to leave the country
if his place is taken by his friend. In this version
of the story, however, Dionysius is portrayed - rather
strangely - as having died already. I wonder why?
Chess One
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:cfeng...@drn.newsguy.com...
<.>
> Oh, and something I just thought of: the "owne" in "his owne conceit"
would be
> superfluous regardless of the meaning of "conceit." Reminds me of such
phrases
> as "in my own mind." Who else's mind would I be in?
Of course it is either superfluous or an emphasis; just as is the 'upstart'
tagged with 'crow' by current definitions of the words.
So, is Greene's phrasing lazy, an infra-dig, or emphasising somtheing else?
I haven't read anyone here Bob, who says that 'crow' is a verb as we
currently use it, and therefore to call someone a crow (noun) is not even
necessarily derogatory in the C16th.
And no one here at all has read or apparently even heard of the 30-some
poems by Hughes on the Crow; Hughes who makes a quite different and
animistic sense, and Hughes who was fascinated by the Author.
Phil Innes
Elizabeth Weir
> about that in my essay, which most everyone is now ignoring.
We're just getting started on Shake-scene.
There was constant chatter about the 'Onely
Shake-scene' and his 'Crow'--or at least a concealed
playwright and his batillus--beginning with Greene
and ending with Timbers and The Assizes Holden
On Parnassus published the same year as Timbers
in 1632. Scholars think The Assizes is Jonson's work.
I've started a list of all the references to the
'onely playwright and poet' and so far I've got
more than twenty.
Some of these references directly corroborate
Greene's 'two Shake-scenes' such as Jonson's
'On Poet Ape' and 'De Shakespeare No Strat.'
(not 'Nostrati'--Jonson would never put himself
in the same class by indicating that the play-broker
was his friend with the use of 'Our' Shakespeare--
desperate Strats have forged that 'i' to make it
appear that Jonson considered the play-broker his
peer and Jonson most emphatically did not).
In Timbers, Jonson indicates why the young actors
(Posterity) were fooled by the perfect manuscripts
that Shakespeare bragged were his own.
Other references indicate that an aloof playwright
was furnishing scripts for private theatres or private
coteries. There is no evidence that the 'onely'
playwright ever wrote for the public theatre.
> One comment: my guess as to how Greene came up with "Shake-scene" is that he had
> heard Will's fellows pun admiringly on his ability to make a scene shake, and
> grimaced when Will smiled at the compliment, as though he merited it.
Your right about the 'guess' part.
> Oh, and something I just thought of: the "owne" in "his owne conceit" would be
> superfluous regardless of the meaning of "conceit." Reminds me of such phrases
> as "in my own mind." Who else's mind would I be in?
The Elizabethan word 'conceit' meant
'conception' or 'idea' but it could be
used saracastically as 'fantastical notion'
and we can know that Greene is using
'conceit' that way because of 'onely' which
then meant something like 'one and only'
or 'pre-eminent.' Christ was the 'onely'
in Elizabethan sermons and religious poetry--
Bacon's cousin the religious poet George Herbert
used 'onely' in that sense--and the OED equates
'onlie Begetter' to 'one and only.'
The Crow has been 'feigning' (supposing) that
he's a playwright and has bought into his own lie
and has come to fancy himself to be the Onely Shake-scene
'in the countrie' (of playwrights)--'countrie' in the OED
defines the body of the members of a profession
or trade, such as a 'countrie of lawyers.'
Greene's use of 'countrie' in that sense reinforces
'onely' or the 'one and only' above all other playwrights.
The pre-eminent playwright of all the playwrights--a gripe
we hear repeated time and again.
Two years later--during the five-year repression of satire
and satirical references to the personages Greene calls
the 'Crow' and 'Onely Shake-scene,' Thomas Edwards
slips something through on the One or Adon who wrote
both the V & A and the Spenser works, probably
because Edward's satire is so incoherent that Whitgift
missed it.
Two years earlier Marston and Hall had their original versions
of Certaine Satyres and the Vergidemiarum on the same subject
of the battilus and the premier playwright seized and burned by
Whitgift.
In 1598, perhaps coindently at the same point in time Bacon
broke with his overzealous and overprotective patron Essex,
Marston and Hall printed watered-down versions of their earlier
attacks on the concealed poet and his blabber mouth batillus
and over-protective patron Essex--which were again seized by
Whitgift and again burned--one copy of each miraculously
survived.
After Whitgift died the satirical attacks again flare up in Jonson's
stage works and again Marston is involved as is Chapman,
Dekker and others. Strats refuse to write about the Poet's War
because it doesn't prop up the National Myth.
> Final thought: if we lose Shake-scene as Shakespeare, we can claim Will was
> indeed born on St. George's Day and that Greene was referring to him rather than
> to George Peele when he made the remark about "St. George" that most scholars
> believe was his way of identifying Peele.
You never had Shakespeare so I wouldn't start
worrying about it now.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Tom Reedy
I've been too busy. Maybe this weekend.
TR
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cf76nl$kbg$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Tom Reedy
> Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<cfeng...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > Probably no more from me on Shake-scene since I said most of what I have
to say
> > about that in my essay, which most everyone is now ignoring.
>
> We're just getting started on Shake-scene.
>
> There was constant chatter about the 'Onely
> Shake-scene' and his 'Crow'--or at least a concealed
> playwright and his batillus--beginning with Greene
> and ending with Timbers and The Assizes Holden
> On Parnassus published the same year as Timbers
> in 1632. Scholars think The Assizes is Jonson's work.
>
> I've started a list of all the references to the
> 'onely playwright and poet' and so far I've got
> more than twenty.
>
> Some of these references directly corroborate
> Greene's 'two Shake-scenes' such as Jonson's
> 'On Poet Ape' and 'De Shakespeare No Strat.'
> (not 'Nostrati'--Jonson would never put himself
> in the same class by indicating that the play-broker
> was his friend with the use of 'Our' Shakespeare--
> desperate Strats have forged that 'i' to make it
> appear that Jonson considered the play-broker his
> peer and Jonson most emphatically did not).
If ever there were an indication of trollery, this has to be it. It's a
relief, actually, to know that no person is as asinine as she has been
pretending ever since she started posting (except for Crowley, of course).
TR
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> "Buffalo" (I think - Bob didn't say) wrote:
> >
> > The answer to the second part - was the author William
> > of Stratford? - is not deducible from Groatsworth as a
> > icant point is that Greene is being disparaging about
> > the work as well as the man. The "Tiger's heart" line
> > is being held up to scorn, as if he were saying "look
> > how this fool goes on".
This is a good point, which I don't remember anyone else
having made before. When you think about it, it really is
a rather weird mixture of metaphors, isn't it? We know of
an ass in a lion's skin and a wolf in a sheep's skin, but
why would anyone's *heart* be wrapped up in this way?
> > Greene would not have done that had he thought the line
> > was written by a nobleman. That doesn't quite make him
> > a Stratfordian, but it does rule out most alternatives,
> > since most alternatives are nobleman alternatives.
>
> Also, Greene calls him an "upstart," which tends to rule
> out the 42-year-old Oxford, who supposedly had been writing
> plays for decades. The Crow is an actor, too, which rules out
> all the pretenders, leaving Peter's Alleyn.
Strictly speaking, "A.D.Wraight's Alleyn" rather than mine.
As I have said on more than one occasion, my main interest
in this has always been to protest at the *certainty* with
which this Shake-scene is always identified as Shakespeare
when other possibilities exist, and not that I think the
Shakespeare identification is necessarily wrong.
Peter Farey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> I've been trying to find the time to reply to this post, Peter, but so far
> I've been too busy. Maybe this weekend.
>
> TR
No hurry, I'm not going anywhere!
The important issue, it seems to me, is whether Greene
intended us to think that the Roberto's Player and the
upstart Crow were one and the same person. Bob has
argued against it to a certain extent iin his essay, but it
is not something that we have really spent any time
debating here, preferring to concentrate instead on
whether 'Shake-scene' was Shakespeare or not.
This is a pity, as it has a quite separate importance as
far as Shakespearean biography is concerned, whether
it has any effect on the authorship question or not.
Chess One
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7gUSc.19494> >
Some of these references directly corroborate
> > Greene's 'two Shake-scenes' such as Jonson's
> > 'On Poet Ape' and 'De Shakespeare No Strat.'
> > (not 'Nostrati'--Jonson would never put himself
> > in the same class by indicating that the play-broker
> > was his friend with the use of 'Our' Shakespeare--
> > desperate Strats have forged that 'i' to make it
> > appear that Jonson considered the play-broker his
> > peer and Jonson most emphatically did not).
>
> If ever there were an indication of trollery, this has to be it. It's a
> relief, actually, to know that no person is as asinine as she has been
> pretending ever since she started posting (except for Crowley, of course).
>
> TR
With the possible exception of yourself? Perhaps in a surfeit of anxiety
lest the discussion actually investigate the subject the writer has
indicated, you forgot to include the necessary second and self-reflexive
verb in your final sentence.
Phil Innes
Bob Grumman
in, but it sounds like you'll survive, right!? I think I hope so. . . .
Now a question to entertain you in your bed: do you know of any books or the
equivalent published by Greene in which he combined pieces intended to comment
on each other as you claim his Roberto story, his letter to other playwrights
and his ant fable did? How about other writers of the time. I believe Chettle
threw those three things and the other letter together because they were left
behind in a pile by Greene, and that they have no particular relationship to one
another except that they were composed around the same time (probably).
I wasn't going to return to this thread because my essay says about all I
believe I'll be able to say on the subject, but then I thought of the above.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>> Greene's 'two Shake-scenes' such as Jonson's
>> 'On Poet Ape' and 'De Shakespeare No Strat.'
>> (not 'Nostrati'--Jonson would never put himself
>> in the same class by indicating that the play-broker
>> was his friend with the use of 'Our' Shakespeare--
>> desperate Strats have forged that 'i' to make it
>> appear that Jonson considered the play-broker his
>> peer and Jonson most emphatically did not).
>
>If ever there were an indication of trollery, this has to be it. It's a
>relief, actually, to know that no person is as asinine as she has been
>pretending ever since she started posting (except for Crowley, of course).
>
>TR
It's complete idiocy, or Priceanism, which is the same thing. . . . But is it
"trollery?" Seriously, I don't feel I have Internet slang down as well as I'd
like to, so I need clarification on this. My impression is that a troll is out
to demolish discussion--and might write stuff like Elizabeth's. But I feel
she's out tho further discussion and only inadvertantly demolishes it. Is there
an Internet name for that kind of person? Other than "troll," I mean.
Ah, but I now see that you think Elizabeth is pretending. Maybe, but it's hard
to believe anyone could spend so much time to so little purpose.
Actually, the bit about the forged i is genius of the first order! I think I
may have reverse myself on who is the funniest HLASer. (I've always been loyal
to Paul Crowley.) Think of it: we Trust-Agents spending months in agonized
brainstorming about what to do about Jonson's saying "no Strat." about
Shakespeare. Our fake moniment, forged will interlineations, and First Folio
aren't enough. Suddenly one of us--it may well have been you, Tom--jumps up and
says, "We'll call the period after 'Strat' an i!" And quickly our allies, the
Jonson scholars, fix all their texts. How I wish Crowley and Elizabeth and a
few of the others could get together and write a book going into detail about
how we at the Trust operate.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>> Greene's 'two Shake-scenes' such as Jonson's
>> 'On Poet Ape' and 'De Shakespeare No Strat.'
>> (not 'Nostrati'--Jonson would never put himself
>> in the same class by indicating that the play-broker
>> was his friend with the use of 'Our' Shakespeare--
>> desperate Strats have forged that 'i' to make it
>> appear that Jonson considered the play-broker his
>> peer and Jonson most emphatically did not).
>
>If ever there were an indication of trollery, this has to be it. It's a
>relief, actually, to know that no person is as asinine as she has been
>pretending ever since she started posting (except for Crowley, of course).
>
>TR
Whatever it is, Tom, it's sheer Genius! I can just see us at the Trust spending
months of agonized brainstorming about Jonson's calling Will "no Strat." Foster
has been discredited, our faked interlineations to the will, our forged
moniment, First Folio and Herald's Office document haven't worked. No one's
paid any attention to all the copies we made of the phony Basse poem, and all my
efforts on Greene have come to nothing. Crowley is killing us on the Sonnets.
Even our getting Richard Kennedy back into the loony bin hasn't helped. We're
doomed. Then someone--you, perhaps!--jumps up and says, "I have it! We'll
pretend the period after 'Strat' is an 'i!'" "Yes, by Jove!" exclaims Nigel.
"And, zounds, it works as proper Latin!" We break into jubilant celebration
while Terry, the only one who has kept his head, rushes off to notify our
Jonsonian allies, who quickly agree to fix their texts. . . .
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>having made before. When you think about it, it really is
>a rather weird mixture of metaphors, isn't it? We know of
>an ass in a lion's skin and a wolf in a sheep's skin, but
>why would anyone's *heart* be wrapped up in this way?
Ha, yes, it's preposterous, and I have to admit that I never before saw it as
preposterous. I thought Greene just found it too overwrought, or maybe no big
deal.
>> > Greene would not have done that had he thought the line
>> > was written by a nobleman. That doesn't quite make him
>> > a Stratfordian, but it does rule out most alternatives,
>> > since most alternatives are nobleman alternatives.
>>
>> Also, Greene calls him an "upstart," which tends to rule
>> out the 42-year-old Oxford, who supposedly had been writing
>> plays for decades. The Crow is an actor, too, which rules out
>> all the pretenders, leaving Peter's Alleyn.
>
>Strictly speaking, "A.D.Wraight's Alleyn" rather than mine.
>As I have said on more than one occasion, my main interest
>in this has always been to protest at the *certainty* with
>which this Shake-scene is always identified as Shakespeare
>when other possibilities exist, and not that I think the
>Shakespeare identification is necessarily wrong.
Peter, good friend, does Wraight's being the first (if she was) to identify the
Crow as Alleyn mean he will always be hers alone?
I don't believe in historical certainty, but do believe the Crow's being
Shakespeare is beyond reasonable doubt (though far less near-certain as other
historical "facts"). That doesn't mean I'll not consider the matter further
given further date. The possibility that "supposes" could mean "pretends" made
me back a fraction of a notch down from claiming that the Crow's having been a
full-scale playwright is beyond reasonable doubt.
Hey, did Chettle know Alleyn?
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
> If ever there were an indication of trollery, this has to be it. It's a
> relief, actually, to know that no person is as asinine as she has been
> pretending ever since she started posting (except for Crowley, of course).
You're just bitter because the Strachey letter is--
oddly--not on the Kathman-Reedy Fourth Fallacy
Shakespeare Authorship Evidence list.
Why is that, Reedy?
Why, on one of the Shakespeare Authorship
webpages, does Kathman prove that the Strachey
letter is indisputable evidence of Shakespeare
authorship--no scholar disputes that--but the Strachey
letter doesn't show up on the Kathman-Reedy
'proof of authorship' webpage?
That is very telling, Reedy.
It's really too bad you can't use it, Reedy, because
the Strachey letter has nine secure dates in 1609-10
that categorically falsify the Oxfordian fairy tale.
If I were a Strat I'd be bitter too.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> First off, good luck with your hospital fun, Peter.
> Sorry to hear you had to go in, but it sounds like
> you'll survive, right!? I think I hope so. . . .
Yes, you don't get rid of me that easily, I'm afraid!
Thanks for the good wishes. I hope that you managed to
escape the worst effects of Hurricane Charlie too.
> Now a question to entertain you in your bed: do you
> know of any books or the equivalent published by
> Greene in which he combined pieces intended to comment
> on each other as you claim his Roberto story, his
> letter to other playwrights and his ant fable did?
No, I don't, and it is not something that is all that
easy for me to find out from 'in bed' either! Fact is,
however, that I really don't give a toss whether he did
or not, since it is *Groatsworth* we are talking about.
and the direct concrete evidence so dear to your heart
tells us clearly and unambiguously that all except the
preface by William Wright and the final letter to his
wife were left by Greene as a single book.
> How about other writers of the time.
Ditto.
> I believe Chettle threw those three things and the
> other letter together because they were left behind
> in a pile by Greene,
I doubt that. You believe it because it is inconvenient
for your views about Shakespeare to believe otherwise.
> and that they have no particular relationship to one
> another except that they were composed around the same
> time (probably).
But the *evidence* is that the three of then constitute
a single work.
Firstly, this is how the printer, William Wright,
introduces Groatsworth:
I have published here Gentlemen for your mirth and
benefite Greenes groates worth of wit. With sundry
of his pleasant discourses, ye have beene before
delighted: But nowe hath death given a period to
his pen, onely this happened into my handes which
I have published for your pleasures: Accept it
favourably because it was his last birth and not
least worth. In my poore opinion. But I will cease
to praise that which is above my conceipt, and
leave it selfe to speak for it selfe: and so abide
your learned censuring.
Notice how he refers to "it" in the singular, which
does of course beg the question of where the "it" to
which he is referring actually finishes. Fortunately
he answers this for us immediately after the fable of
the Ant and the Grasshopper:
A letter written to his wife, founde with
this booke after his death.
"This book" therefore consists of the "Roberto" story,
the actual 'Groatsworth' (with the ten precepts), the
letter to his fellow writers, and the Ant & the Grass-
hopper fable. Because the letter from Greene to his
wife is not included, the 'book' does not mean every-
thing between the covers.
Second, Henry Chettle tells us:
About three moneths since died M. *Robert Greene*,
leauing many papers in sundry Booke sellers hands,
among other his Groatsworth of wit, in which a
letter written to diuers play-makers, is offensiuly
by one or two of them taken.
The letter is *in* the 'Groatsworth of wit'. Right?
Third, writing of his own role in the publication,
Chettle said:
To be breife I writ it ouer, and as neare as I
could, followed the copy, onely in that letter
I put something out, but in the whole booke not
a word in, for I protest it was all *Greenes*,
not mine nor Master Nashes, as some uniustly
have affirmed.
This means that all of the passages linking the
various parts of 'the book' (which are far more
detailed than your essay suggests) were written
by Greene himself, and that it must therefore have
been his intention for them to be read together,
and in the order in which they are presented.
This is what the direct concrete evidence tells us,
> I wasn't going to return to this thread because my
> essay says about all I believe I'll be able to say
> on the subject, but then I thought of the above.
What you say in your essay is that:
the pamphlet seems clearly a collection of misc-
ellaneous texts such as Greene, when he died, might
have left (separately or "organized" by an editor)
in the possession of a book-seller (as Chettle, the
editor of the the Groatsworth, says was the case.
Read it again, Bob. Unfortunately for your argument,
what "seems clearly" to you is not evidence, whereas
what I have presented above is. Your claim that there
is "no warrant for taking the Groatsworth as a
coherent whole" is simply not true, and therefore
casts considerable doubt upon the validity of any
conclusions that you may have based upon it.
Buffalo
Sobran credits Jay Hoster with the idea. Hoster's "Tiger's Heart" was
published in 1993. I don't know which of Wraight's books has the same
theory, so I can't say whether it pre-dates or post-dates Hoster. But it
hardly matters. As a theory, it's a bummer.
> I don't believe in historical certainty, but do believe the Crow's being
> Shakespeare is beyond reasonable doubt (though far less near-certain as
other
> historical "facts"). That doesn't mean I'll not consider the matter
further
> given further date. The possibility that "supposes" could mean "pretends"
made
> me back a fraction of a notch down from claiming that the Crow's having
been a
> full-scale playwright is beyond reasonable doubt.
Why are you giving that idiotic hypothesis brain-time? First, "suppose" as
"fraudulently pretends" is almost unknown in Elizabethan documents (and I've
written to the OED to try to persuade them that it's *completely* unknown).
Second, it makes no sense at all in context. Is the "Tiger's Heart" line an
example of how you fraudulently pretend to be a good writer? If a line of
drama or poetry can deceive people into thinking you are a good writer,
well, then it must be a good line, and therefore you *are* a good writer.
If, on the other hand, it's being held up as a bad line (as I believe) then
it's difficult to see how you could be committing fraud with it. And it is
"with it", isn't it? ("...that with his Tiger's heart....supposes" ) The
line is apparently the instrument of fraud. It's nonsense.
Buffalo
Buffalo
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > "Buffalo" (I think - Bob didn't say) wrote:
> > >
> > > The answer to the second part - was the author William
> > > of Stratford? - is not deducible from Groatsworth as a
> > > positive. But some negatives are deducible. A signif-
> > > icant point is that Greene is being disparaging about
> > > the work as well as the man. The "Tiger's heart" line
> > > is being held up to scorn, as if he were saying "look
> > > how this fool goes on".
>
> This is a good point, which I don't remember anyone else
> having made before. When you think about it, it really is
> a rather weird mixture of metaphors, isn't it? We know of
> an ass in a lion's skin and a wolf in a sheep's skin, but
> why would anyone's *heart* be wrapped up in this way?
Well, it isn't a good line, if that's what you mean, and that's why Greene
is holding it up to scorn. It's one of those lines justifying Jonson's "Many
times he fell into those things could not escape laughter". I also believe
that it was held up to scorn by the other playwrights, and that that was the
reason Greene could allude to it, and mangle it, and still know that
Marlowe, etc, would recognize it. The three Henry VI plays constitute a big
body of text. Even if they were popular (as they apparently were) there is
no reason why any particular line should be remembered unless there was
something particularly memorable about it. Marlowe's own "pampered jades of
Asia line" was apparently shouted in the streets by the carmen, or perhaps
*at* the carmen by pedestrians - and why not? it's a great line. If the the
Tiger's heart line had the same sort of currency, that could only be for
reasons lying somewhere at the other end of the spectrum - because it isn't
a great line. I believe that the Wits batted this line back and forth
between themselves, with satirical variations, as today we might do with
politicians' ill-conceived phrases. From the photo on your website, you look
old enough to remember Harold Wilson trying to put a positive spin on
currency devaluation with his "the pound in your pocket" speech - and you
might remember all the elaborations that followed in Private Eye and other
satirical vehicles : "The pound in your pocket will soon be in mine", etc. I
think the same thing happened to the Tiger's heart line, and that Greene's
little emendation was just one of many doing the rounds.
> > > Greene would not have done that had he thought the line
> > > was written by a nobleman. That doesn't quite make him
> > > a Stratfordian, but it does rule out most alternatives,
> > > since most alternatives are nobleman alternatives.
> >
> > Also, Greene calls him an "upstart," which tends to rule
> > out the 42-year-old Oxford, who supposedly had been writing
> > plays for decades. The Crow is an actor, too, which rules out
> > all the pretenders, leaving Peter's Alleyn.
>
> Strictly speaking, "A.D.Wraight's Alleyn" rather than mine.
> As I have said on more than one occasion, my main interest
> in this has always been to protest at the *certainty* with
> which this Shake-scene is always identified as Shakespeare
> when other possibilities exist, and not that I think the
> Shakespeare identification is necessarily wrong.
A much more likely interpretation is that Alleyn, or someone like Alleyn,
fits the "impresario" role fictionalised in the "country author". That
character is, at any rate, a different person from the Crow. A significant
clue is in the wording of the Crow paragraph, which comes after the
"countrey author" section - "there is an upstart Crow". The choice of
wording persuades me that someone new is being introduced, someone not
mentioned or alluded to before. Why would you say "there is" if it was
someone you'd already been talking about? Furthermore, the impresario has
been established as Greene's mentor, or his Mephistopheles, if you will,
enticing him into the play-making business with false promises of glory and
riches. Having painted him thus, it is quite out of kilter to then call him
an upstart. You might call him a cad, a bounder, a mountebank, a charlatan -
but not, I think, an upstart, especially when many years must have passed
since you first encountered him. Leaving W.S. himself out of it for the
moment, the Crow is a very bad fit for the "country author". They are quite
clearly different people.
Buffalo
John W. Kennedy
> If a line of
> drama or poetry can deceive people into thinking you are a good writer,
> well, then it must be a good line, and therefore you *are* a good writer.
Not /quite/. One of the greatest lines in all English verse is the last
line of Dean Burgon's "Petra". As far as I know, the man never wrote
another worthwhile line in his life, and he is best known today for his
obscurantist position on the text of the New Testament. (He is the
patron saint of fundamentalists who believe that the corrupt [not very
corrupt, mind you, but corrupt] Greek texts of the 16th century [/i.e.,/
those that underly the King James Version] are the one and only, pure,
original writings, and that textual criticism, consequently, is the work
of the Devil.)
But your general argument anent Greene's logic stands.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
Peter Farey
"Jim KQKnave" wrote:
>
> One reason that I believe that Greene thinks that Shakespeare
> plagiarized is that the "tiger's heart" line in 3H6 is itself
> a variation of an image used by Greene in one of his
> own works, *Mamillia* (1580).
>
> In the edition of GGW edited by D. Allen Carroll, a footnote
> quotes Baldwin as saying that Greene "usually substitutes
> the tiger for the wolf in the Biblical figure of the wolf in
> sheep's clothing, though twice in early work he has the
> original figure." The footnote quotes the line from *Mamillia*
> (1580) mentioned by Hotson: "Covering...the heart of the
> Tigre with the fleece of a Lambe". Note that it is not just
> any tiger, the tiger has hidden himself in sheep's clothing.
> In GGW, there is a "tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide".
>
> The Bible citation is Matthew 7:15:
>
> "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's
> clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
>
> So the simile in GGW appears to have the genesis:
>
> wolf in sheep's clothing--->tiger in sheep's clothing---->
> tiger's heart in sheep's clothing------>tiger's heart in
> woman's clothing------>tiger's heart in player's clothing.
This is interesting, and does seem to make it rather
less likely that Greene was criticizing it as a line
of poetry *per se*.
Peter Farey
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking, "A.D.Wraight's Alleyn" rather than mine.
> > > As I have said on more than one occasion, my main interest
> > > in this has always been to protest at the *certainty* with
> > > which this Shake-scene is always identified as Shakespeare
> > > when other possibilities exist, and not that I think the
> > > Shakespeare identification is necessarily wrong.
> >
> > Peter, good friend, does Wraight's being the first (if
> > she was) to identify the Crow as Alleyn mean he will
> > always be hers alone?
>
> Sobran credits Jay Hoster with the idea. Hoster's "Tiger's
> Heart" was published in 1993. I don't know which of Wraight's
> books has the same theory, so I can't say whether it pre-dates
> or post-dates Hoster.
I first came across it in her "Christopher Marlowe and Edward
Alleyn", also published in 1993. It would not surprise me one
bit if she had 'borrowed' the theory from someone else, however,
as several ideas in that book were lifted, without his being given
any acknowledgement whatsoever, from William Honey's "The
Life, Loves and Achievements of Christopher Marlowe, alias
Shakespeare" (1982).
> But it hardly matters. As a theory, it's a bummer.
I disagree. But I have no intention of getting into that one
yet again right now. See the thread "upstart proofs", among
many others, for what I think the main arguments are.
<snip>
Peter Farey
"Buffalo" wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >
> > > "Buffalo" (I think - Bob didn't say) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The answer to the second part - was the author William
> > > > of Stratford? - is not deducible from Groatsworth as a
> > > > positive. But some negatives are deducible. A signif-
> > > > icant point is that Greene is being disparaging about
> > > > the work as well as the man. The "Tiger's heart" line
> > > > is being held up to scorn, as if he were saying "look
> > > > how this fool goes on".
> >
> > This is a good point, which I don't remember anyone else
> > having made before. When you think about it, it really is
> > a rather weird mixture of metaphors, isn't it? We know of
> > an ass in a lion's skin and a wolf in a sheep's skin, but
> > why would anyone's *heart* be wrapped up in this way?
>
> Well, it isn't a good line, if that's what you mean, and
> that's why Greene is holding it up to scorn.
Do you still think this, given that (as Jim has just pointed
out) it was one that Greene himself seems to have used in
a slightly different form in *Mamillia*? "Covering...the
heart of the Tigre with the fleece of a Lambe".
> It's one of those lines justifying Jonson's "Many times
> he fell into those things could not escape laughter". I
> also believe that it was held up to scorn by the other
> playwrights, and that that was the reason Greene could
> allude to it, and mangle it, and still know that Marlowe,
> etc, would recognize it. The three Henry VI plays
> constitute a big body of text. Even if they were popular
> (as they apparently were) there is no reason why any
> particular line should be remembered unless there was
> something particularly memorable about it.
Well, dramatically, there undoubtedly is. His son has just
been butchered, and she offers York a handkerchief soaked
in the boy's blood "to dry thy cheeks withal". The whole
of York's highly charged response, of which this is an
important part, must have been memorable. It was without
doubt milked by the actor, given Northumberland's
comment.
Beshrew me, but his passions move me so
That hardly can I check my eyes from tears.
> Marlowe's own "pampered jades of Asia line" was apparently
> shouted in the streets by the carmen, or perhaps *at* the
> carmen by pedestrians - and why not? it's a great line.
And delivered by a great actor (Alleyn), who may well have
also played York, even if he is killed off in Act One. It
was the original 'title role', after all.
> If the the Tiger's heart line had the same sort of currency,
> that could only be for reasons lying somewhere at the other
> end of the spectrum - because it isn't a great line. I
> believe that the Wits batted this line back and forth
> between themselves, with satirical variations, as today
> we might do with politicians' ill-conceived phrases.
I fear we may be losing sight of what Greene is *really*
on about, though. For me, this is *mainly* about the fact
that he is dying "comfortles without remedy", and bitter
at how he has been forsaken. He is accusing this person
of extreme cruelty, and using Margaret's hard-heartedness
as an indicator of just how cruel he thinks the Crow has
been. Not only is this guy (who is beholding to him for
much of his wealth) refusing to help Greene out at this
time of need, he is compounding the offence by (a) doing
badly what Greene himself thinks *he* should be doing,
and (b) pinching some of Greene's own lines in doing it!
> From the photo on your website, you look old enough to
> remember Harold Wilson trying to put a positive spin on
> currency devaluation with his "the pound in your pocket"
> speech
Do I! I was stranded at Rome airport with nothing but
sterling that day, and nobody was prepared to accept it.
The full quote was "It does not mean that the pound
here in Britain, in your pocket or purse or in your
bank, has been devalued." Didn't say anything about us
poor buggers overseas!
While off-topic, I picked up a small volume of Mary
Wilson's poems for 25p from a second-hand booksale a
couple of days ago - the poems aren't at all bad -
and I've only just noticed that the copy is actually
signed by her.
> - and you might remember all the elaborations that
> followed in Private Eye and other satirical vehicles :
> "The pound in your pocket will soon be in mine", etc. I
> think the same thing happened to the Tiger's heart line,
> and that Greene's little emendation was just one of many
> doing the rounds.
>
> > > > Greene would not have done that had he thought the line
> > > > was written by a nobleman. That doesn't quite make him
> > > > a Stratfordian, but it does rule out most alternatives,
> > > > since most alternatives are nobleman alternatives.
> > >
> > > Also, Greene calls him an "upstart," which tends to rule
> > > out the 42-year-old Oxford, who supposedly had been writing
> > > plays for decades. The Crow is an actor, too, which rules out
> > > all the pretenders, leaving Peter's Alleyn.
> >
> > Strictly speaking, "A.D.Wraight's Alleyn" rather than mine.
> > As I have said on more than one occasion, my main interest
> > in this has always been to protest at the *certainty* with
> > which this Shake-scene is always identified as Shakespeare
> > when other possibilities exist, and not that I think the
> > Shakespeare identification is necessarily wrong.
>
> A much more likely interpretation is that Alleyn, or someone
> like Alleyn, fits the "impresario" role fictionalised in the
> "country author". That character is, at any rate, a different
> person from the Crow.
This is the question that I would like to explore.
> A significant clue is in the wording of the Crow paragraph,
> which comes after the "countrey author" section - "there is
> an upstart Crow". The choice of wording persuades me that
> someone new is being introduced, someone not mentioned or
> alluded to before. Why would you say "there is" if it was
> someone you'd already been talking about?
Although, as I have shown, the different pieces comprising
*Groatsworth* are presented as a single literary work, it
is not to be assumed that the writers Greene is addressing
in his letter will have just read the Roberto story. The
items are presented as free-standing, with only the subject-
matter connecting them. It is for the reader to make any
of the connections required.
> Furthermore, the impresario has been established as Greene's
> mentor, or his Mephistopheles, if you will, enticing him
> into the play-making business with false promises of glory
> and riches.
Not at all. The glory and the riches came:
But Roberto now famozed for an Arch-plaimaking-poet,
his purse like the sea somtime sweld, anon like the
same sea fell to a low ebbe; yet seldom he wanted,
his labors were so well esteemed.
but Greene blew it all, as he admits, through his profligate
life-style and untrustworthiness.
> Having painted him thus, it is quite out of kilter to then
> call him an upstart. You might call him a cad, a bounder,
> a mountebank, a charlatan - but not, I think, an upstart,
> especially when many years must have passed since you first
> encountered him.
As I see it, Greene is deperate for money, whether by an
advance on some play he might write or a loan, but nobody
is prepared to help him any longer. His bitterness is
directed at anyone who might have been able to help him,
at actors in particular, but at this one above all. And
I would expect that person to be the one who has been
most help to him in the past, and who is also the one
most beholding to him for the wealth he now enjoys.
> Leaving W.S. himself out of it for the moment, the Crow
> is a very bad fit for the "country author". They are
> quite clearly different people.
Are they?
"...Yes trust them not: for there is an upstart..."
Upstart (adj): Lately or suddenly risen to prominence
or dignity (SOED)
One might quibble about the time aspect, but from the
point of view of the probably older Robert Greene, the
word would still apply to a relatively ill-educated
person who "was faine to carry my playing Fardle a
footebacke...but...its otherwise now; for my very
share in playing apparell will not be sold for two
hundred pounds."
"...Crow..."
This was the slang word for an actor used (coined?) by
both Greene and Nashe at least. Certainly appropriate
for someone describing his profession as a player.
"...beautified with our feathers..."
Made to look good by the plays that Greene and his
fellow University Wits have provided. As our "countrey
author" put it: "men of my profession gette by schollers
their whole living."
"...that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hyde..."
Being as cruel as he is. i.e this is the situation *now*
in stark contrast to how generous he was when he wanted
something *from* 'Roberto'.
"...supposes he is as well able to bombast out a
blanke verse as the best of you..."
As I said, the only reasonable interpretation of the
words "reputed able at my proper cost to build a Wind-
mill" in this context is that Greene is obliquely
referring to the blank verse play *Faire Em* and
saying that it is this guy who is going to write it.
Greene complains elsewhere that (unlike "the best of
you", presumably) its author is not even able to
write true English.
"...and beeing an absolute Johannes fac totum..."
Player, porter, wardrobe master, actor, speech maker,
country author, rhymester, puppet interpreter, play
commissioner, employer, "impresario"?
"...is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene..."
As in "I mislike your judgement: why, I am as famous
for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was
any of my time. The twelve labors of Hercules have I
terribly thundred on the Stage..."
"...in a countrey."
Would having been a "countrey author" count?
Seems to me that the description of the Crow could
hardly fit the Player any better if it had been
written for him.
Chess One
"Buffalo" <none...@here.com> wrote in message
news:cflddo$i3u$2...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Why are you giving that idiotic hypothesis brain-time? First, "suppose" as
> "fraudulently pretends" is almost unknown in Elizabethan documents (and
I've
> written to the OED to try to persuade them that it's *completely*
unknown).
Good points.
Suppose means to know with certainty [Salop.] and is not a rare word. There
is also an entry in //Taylor's Workes, 1630, iii, 22//, with the sense of
supposition:-
To speake with him she kindly doth entreat,
Desiring him to cleare her darke suppose.
An extant word in period might be SUPPRISSID: Oppessed [Apology for the
Lollards, p. 79]. And SUPPUTED means imputed [Drayton]. SUPPOSALL; also
means supposition [Stephen's Essayes and Characters, 1615, p. 219.]
A word for 'fraudulently pretends' might be SWAPPER, [Kent] but which is a
noun.
Phil Innes