info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gullio is Robert Allott
152 views
Skip to first unread message
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 19, 2014, 4:01:06 AM2/19/14
to
The true identity of the ridiculous character "Gullio" in the late Elizabethan play The Return from Parnassus, Part One (written by an anonymous author for a Christmas performance at Cambridge University, ca. 1600) has long been the subject of debate at HLAS and other Shakespeare authorship forums. Some authorship skeptics argue that William Shakespeare was "Gullio," persuaded by arguments made by Diana Price in her influential book Shakespeare's Unorthodox Biography. In rebuttal, some have argued on HLAS that "Gullio" was really the Earl of Southampton.
I propose a new solution to this longstanding literary problem--that "Gullio" was meant to spoof Robert Allott, a minor Elizabethan poet who assembled a popular 1600 miscellany of contemporary English poems and plays.
Gullio has five attributes in particular that help establish his identity.
Attribute 1: Gullio is a foolish poetry-lover.
Attribute 2: Gullio is actively wooing the Lady "Lesbia" at court. He tells the witty writer Ingenioso, a petitioner for his patronage, "Among many dainty court nymphs that with petitioning looks have sued for my love, it pleased me to bestow love, this pleasing fire, upon Lady Lesbia. Many a health have I drunk to her upon my native knees, eating that happy glass in honour of my mistress."
Attribute 3: Gullio writes original sonnets on inconsequential topics. He tells Ingenioso that he has been writing sonnets for Lesbia: "for matters of wit, oft have I sonneted it in the commendations of her squirrel." He claims to be known to the world as a poet--"I am pointed at for a poet in Paul's church yard"--and says that in former years he had "not unfitly been likened to Sir Philip Sidney, only with this difference - that I had the better leg and more amiable face. His Arcadia was pretty, so are my sonnets."
Attribute 4: Gullio claims to have been recently praised in an epigram by John Weever, whose Epigrams were printed in 1599. "I am very lately registered in the rolls of fame in an Epigram made by a Cambridge man, one Weever-fellow, I warrant him, else could he never have had such a quick sight into my virtues. Howsoever, I merit his praise. If I meet with him I will vouchsafe to give him condign thanks."
Attribute 5: Gullio woos Lesbia with shreds of poetry gathered from popular poems and plays, including lines borrowed from Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis and Romeo and Juliet. In a hilarious scene, he practices a romantic speech intended to impress Lesbia by using Ingenioso as a stand-in for his mistress.
Gullio. Pardon fair lady, though sick- thoughted Gullio makes amain unto thee, and like a bold-faced suitor 'gins to woo thee! (From Venus and Adonis.)
Ingenioso. We shall have nothing but pure Shakespeare, and shreds of poetry that he hath gathered at the theatres.
Gullio. Pardon mee moy mittressa, ast am a gentleman the moon in comparison of thy bright hue a mere slut, Anthony's Cleopatra a black-browed milkmaid, Helen a dowdie. (From Romeo and Juliet.)
Ingenioso. Mark--Romeo and Juliet: o monstrous theft! I think he will run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel's.
After a bit more dialogue along these lines, Ingenioso (pretending to be Lesbia) exclaims: "Faith, gentleman, your reading is wonderful in our English poets!" Gullio proudly describes his method: "Sweet mistress, I vouchsafe to take some of their words and apply them to mine own matters by a scholastical imitation."
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN "GULLIO" AND "LUSCUS"
The next step in establishing Gullio's identity relies on the very close similarity between Gullio's portrayal in The Return From Parnassus, Part One and John Marston's satire on a foolish poetry-lover dubbed "Luscus" in The Scourge of Villainy (1598), written some two years earlier. The Latin word "Luscus" means "one-eyed," a person who is half blind (whether in a literal or metaphorical sense). Marston's satire on Luscus reads in full:
Luscus, what's playd to day? faith now I know
I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow
Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.
Say, who acts best? Drusus, or Roscio?
Now I have him, that nere of ought did speake
But when of playes or players he did treate.
Hath made a common-place booke out of playes,
And speakes in print, at least what ere he sayes
Is warranted by Curtaine plaudities.
If ere you heard him courting Lesbias eyes
Say (Curteous Sir) speakes he not movingly,
From out some new pathetique Tragedie?
He writes, he railes, he jests, he courts, what not,
And all from out his huge long scraped stock
Of well-penn'd playes.
Three of Gullio's most striking attributes are also held by Luscus.
Attribute 1: Luscus is a foolish poetry-lover.
Attribute 2: Luscus is courting a woman known as "Lesbia."
Attribute 5: Luscus woos Lesbia with scraps of poetry borrowed from the popular plays of the period, especially Romeo and Juliet.
Attributes 2 and 5 are so pointed and specific that they suggest Gullio and Luscus are one and the same.
Importantly, Marston adds a new attribute not found in Gullio's portrait in The Return From Parnassus:
Attribute 6: Luscus (Gullio?) has made a common-place book out of plays.
In the late 1590s and early 1600s, a new and popular book category emerged: the common-place book quoting from contemporary English writers, not just from the classical Greek and Roman writers. These common-place books sold well, but were despised by the university-trained poets because their compilers were merely recycling superior poets' work, rather than displaying original poetic talent.
The university-trained poets' contemptuous attitude towards the compilers of common-place books is on full display in the following scene from The Return from Parnassus, Part Two (Christmas, 1601/2), in which Judicio and Ingenioso discuss the recently published book Belvedere, organized by the literary patron John Bodenham and edited by Anthony Munday.
Judicio. ...now the world is come to that pass, that there starts up every day an old goose that sits hatching up those eggs which have been filched from the nest[s] of Crows and Kestrels : here is a book, Ingenioso: why to condemn it to the usual Tiburne of all misliving papers, were too fair a death for so foul an offender.
Ingenioso. What's the name of it, I pray thee, Judicio?
Judicio. Look, it's here, "Belvedere."
Ingenioso. What a bellwether in Paules Church-yeard, so called because it keeps a bleating, or because it hath the tinckling bell of so many Poets about the neck of it?
They continue making fun of Belvedere, even mocking the compiler's decorative device:
Judicio. But what's his device? Parnassus with the sun and the laurel : I wonder this owl dares look on the sun, and I marvel this goose flies not the laurel; his device might have been better a fool going into the market place to be seen, with this motto, scribimus indocti (a truncated version of a famous quote from Horace, scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim: "Each desperate blockhead dares to write"), or a poor beggar gleaning of ears in the end of harvest, with this word, sua cuique Gloria ("to each his own glory").
Since the author of the Parnassus trilogy viciously mocked John Bodenham's Belvedere in The Return from Parnassus, Part Two, it would not be surprising if he had similarly taken aim at Gullio in The Return from Parnassus, Part One, if Gullio had made a common-place book including quotations from modern English poets and plays--in other words, if he shared Attribute 6 with Luscus, his apparent double.
IDENTIFYING GULLIO
If "Gullio" was also lampooned as "Luscus," then the following three attributes allow his identity to be determined.
Attribute 3: A sonnet writer who is known to the world as a poet.
Attribute 4: A man who had recently been praised in a 1599 epigram by John Weever.
Attribute 6: A man who has made a common-place book that includes brief quotations from the works of contemporary English playwrights, circa 1600.
Together, these attributes point to Robert Allott, a man whose life remains a biographical mystery. Although no definite facts concerning his life circumstances are known, Robert Allott was praised along with Christopher Middleton in a 1599 epigram by John Weever, satisfying Attribute 4:
Robert Allott and Christopher Middleton:
Quicke are your wits, sharp your conceits,
Short, and more sweete your layes:
Quicke, but no wit, sharpe, no conceit,
Short, and lesse sweete, my praise.
Satisfying Attribute 6, Allott edited a famous miscellany of Elizabethan poetry titled England's Parnassus; or the choycest Flowers of our Modern Poets, with their Poeticall comparisons, Descriptions of Bewties, Personages, Castles, Pallaces, Mountaines, Groves, Seas, Springs, Rivers, &c. (1600). The book includes 2350 quotations from modern poems and plays, including 95 quotations from Shakespeare's works. It also includes short quotations from works by Samuel Daniel, one of the writers whom Gullio enjoyed quoting.
Significantly, Allott's England's Parnassus was printed in 1600, the same year when The Return from Parnassus, Part One is believed to have been written for a Christmas performance.
Although Allott's name does not appear on the title-page of England's Parnassus, the initials "R. A." are appended to the two preliminary sonnets. Wikipedia provides the following useful background information: "Oldys, the antiquary, in the preface to Hayward's British Muse (1738), asserted that he had seen a copy containing the signature "Robert Allott" in full; and it has been solely on Oldys's authority hitherto that the compilation of this valuable anthology has been attributed to Allott. The fact has been overlooked that Dr. Farmer, in a manuscript note in his copy of England's Parnassus, states that he, too, had seen the name "Robert Allott" printed in full."
Robert Allott was a close friend and associate of John Bodenham, the same man who produced the 1601 Belvedere common-place book loathed by the Parnassus trilogy's author. In 1599, the volume Wits Theater of the Little World was printed, a prose "collection of the flowers of antiquities and histories." It appeared without a name on the title-page, but in one surviving copy the dedication reads "To my most esteemed and approved loving friend, Maister John Bodenham," from "Robert Allott."
Since the Parnassus trilogy's author took square aim at Bodenham in The Return from Parnassus, Part Two for Bodenham's Belvedere poetic miscellany, it would not be surprising if the trilogy's author had already targeted Allott, responsible for the poetic miscellany England's Parnassus, in The Return from Parnassus, Part One.
As a final clue, Robert Allott satisfies Attribute 3: he wrote sonnets and was (though just barely) known to the world as a poet by 1600. According to Wikipedia, two sonnets by "Robert Allott" are prefixed to Gervase Markham's Devereux (1597); a "Robert Allott" contributed a sonnet and six Latin hexameters to Christopher Middleton's Legend of Duke Humphrey (1600), and a poet with the initials "R.A." contributed six Latin hexameters to the prefix of Wits Commonwealth.
CONCLUSION
Although nothing is known with any certainty about Robert Allott's biography, the following observations point strongly to Allott as "Gullio," mocked by the Parnassus trilogy's author around 1600, and also "Luscus," mocked by John Marston in 1598.
Gullio has Attribute 1 (a foolish poetry-lover), Attribute 2 (a wooer of Lesbia), Attribute 3 (a sonnet writer and known poet), Attribute 4 (a man praised in a Weever epigram), and Attribute 5 (a man who wooed Lesbia using poetry and play scraps, particularly from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet).
Luscus has Attribute 1 (a foolish poetry-lover), Attribute 2 (a wooer of Lesbia), Attribute 5 (a man who wooed Lesbia using poetry and play scraps, particularly from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet), and Attribute 6 (compiler of a common-place book containing quotations from contemporary English poets and playwrights).
Allott has Attribute 3 (a sonnet writer and known poet), Attribute 4 (a man praised in a Weever epigram), and Attribute 6 (compiler of a common-place book containing quotations from contemporary English poets and playwrights).
I propose a new solution to this longstanding literary problem--that "Gullio" was meant to spoof Robert Allott, a minor Elizabethan poet who assembled a popular 1600 miscellany of contemporary English poems and plays.
Gullio has five attributes in particular that help establish his identity.
Attribute 1: Gullio is a foolish poetry-lover.
Attribute 2: Gullio is actively wooing the Lady "Lesbia" at court. He tells the witty writer Ingenioso, a petitioner for his patronage, "Among many dainty court nymphs that with petitioning looks have sued for my love, it pleased me to bestow love, this pleasing fire, upon Lady Lesbia. Many a health have I drunk to her upon my native knees, eating that happy glass in honour of my mistress."
Attribute 3: Gullio writes original sonnets on inconsequential topics. He tells Ingenioso that he has been writing sonnets for Lesbia: "for matters of wit, oft have I sonneted it in the commendations of her squirrel." He claims to be known to the world as a poet--"I am pointed at for a poet in Paul's church yard"--and says that in former years he had "not unfitly been likened to Sir Philip Sidney, only with this difference - that I had the better leg and more amiable face. His Arcadia was pretty, so are my sonnets."
Attribute 4: Gullio claims to have been recently praised in an epigram by John Weever, whose Epigrams were printed in 1599. "I am very lately registered in the rolls of fame in an Epigram made by a Cambridge man, one Weever-fellow, I warrant him, else could he never have had such a quick sight into my virtues. Howsoever, I merit his praise. If I meet with him I will vouchsafe to give him condign thanks."
Attribute 5: Gullio woos Lesbia with shreds of poetry gathered from popular poems and plays, including lines borrowed from Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis and Romeo and Juliet. In a hilarious scene, he practices a romantic speech intended to impress Lesbia by using Ingenioso as a stand-in for his mistress.
Gullio. Pardon fair lady, though sick- thoughted Gullio makes amain unto thee, and like a bold-faced suitor 'gins to woo thee! (From Venus and Adonis.)
Ingenioso. We shall have nothing but pure Shakespeare, and shreds of poetry that he hath gathered at the theatres.
Gullio. Pardon mee moy mittressa, ast am a gentleman the moon in comparison of thy bright hue a mere slut, Anthony's Cleopatra a black-browed milkmaid, Helen a dowdie. (From Romeo and Juliet.)
Ingenioso. Mark--Romeo and Juliet: o monstrous theft! I think he will run through a whole book of Samuel Daniel's.
After a bit more dialogue along these lines, Ingenioso (pretending to be Lesbia) exclaims: "Faith, gentleman, your reading is wonderful in our English poets!" Gullio proudly describes his method: "Sweet mistress, I vouchsafe to take some of their words and apply them to mine own matters by a scholastical imitation."
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN "GULLIO" AND "LUSCUS"
The next step in establishing Gullio's identity relies on the very close similarity between Gullio's portrayal in The Return From Parnassus, Part One and John Marston's satire on a foolish poetry-lover dubbed "Luscus" in The Scourge of Villainy (1598), written some two years earlier. The Latin word "Luscus" means "one-eyed," a person who is half blind (whether in a literal or metaphorical sense). Marston's satire on Luscus reads in full:
Luscus, what's playd to day? faith now I know
I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow
Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo.
Say, who acts best? Drusus, or Roscio?
Now I have him, that nere of ought did speake
But when of playes or players he did treate.
Hath made a common-place booke out of playes,
And speakes in print, at least what ere he sayes
Is warranted by Curtaine plaudities.
If ere you heard him courting Lesbias eyes
Say (Curteous Sir) speakes he not movingly,
From out some new pathetique Tragedie?
He writes, he railes, he jests, he courts, what not,
And all from out his huge long scraped stock
Of well-penn'd playes.
Three of Gullio's most striking attributes are also held by Luscus.
Attribute 1: Luscus is a foolish poetry-lover.
Attribute 2: Luscus is courting a woman known as "Lesbia."
Attribute 5: Luscus woos Lesbia with scraps of poetry borrowed from the popular plays of the period, especially Romeo and Juliet.
Attributes 2 and 5 are so pointed and specific that they suggest Gullio and Luscus are one and the same.
Importantly, Marston adds a new attribute not found in Gullio's portrait in The Return From Parnassus:
Attribute 6: Luscus (Gullio?) has made a common-place book out of plays.
In the late 1590s and early 1600s, a new and popular book category emerged: the common-place book quoting from contemporary English writers, not just from the classical Greek and Roman writers. These common-place books sold well, but were despised by the university-trained poets because their compilers were merely recycling superior poets' work, rather than displaying original poetic talent.
The university-trained poets' contemptuous attitude towards the compilers of common-place books is on full display in the following scene from The Return from Parnassus, Part Two (Christmas, 1601/2), in which Judicio and Ingenioso discuss the recently published book Belvedere, organized by the literary patron John Bodenham and edited by Anthony Munday.
Judicio. ...now the world is come to that pass, that there starts up every day an old goose that sits hatching up those eggs which have been filched from the nest[s] of Crows and Kestrels : here is a book, Ingenioso: why to condemn it to the usual Tiburne of all misliving papers, were too fair a death for so foul an offender.
Ingenioso. What's the name of it, I pray thee, Judicio?
Judicio. Look, it's here, "Belvedere."
Ingenioso. What a bellwether in Paules Church-yeard, so called because it keeps a bleating, or because it hath the tinckling bell of so many Poets about the neck of it?
They continue making fun of Belvedere, even mocking the compiler's decorative device:
Judicio. But what's his device? Parnassus with the sun and the laurel : I wonder this owl dares look on the sun, and I marvel this goose flies not the laurel; his device might have been better a fool going into the market place to be seen, with this motto, scribimus indocti (a truncated version of a famous quote from Horace, scribimus indocti doctique poemata passim: "Each desperate blockhead dares to write"), or a poor beggar gleaning of ears in the end of harvest, with this word, sua cuique Gloria ("to each his own glory").
Since the author of the Parnassus trilogy viciously mocked John Bodenham's Belvedere in The Return from Parnassus, Part Two, it would not be surprising if he had similarly taken aim at Gullio in The Return from Parnassus, Part One, if Gullio had made a common-place book including quotations from modern English poets and plays--in other words, if he shared Attribute 6 with Luscus, his apparent double.
IDENTIFYING GULLIO
If "Gullio" was also lampooned as "Luscus," then the following three attributes allow his identity to be determined.
Attribute 3: A sonnet writer who is known to the world as a poet.
Attribute 4: A man who had recently been praised in a 1599 epigram by John Weever.
Attribute 6: A man who has made a common-place book that includes brief quotations from the works of contemporary English playwrights, circa 1600.
Together, these attributes point to Robert Allott, a man whose life remains a biographical mystery. Although no definite facts concerning his life circumstances are known, Robert Allott was praised along with Christopher Middleton in a 1599 epigram by John Weever, satisfying Attribute 4:
Robert Allott and Christopher Middleton:
Quicke are your wits, sharp your conceits,
Short, and more sweete your layes:
Quicke, but no wit, sharpe, no conceit,
Short, and lesse sweete, my praise.
Satisfying Attribute 6, Allott edited a famous miscellany of Elizabethan poetry titled England's Parnassus; or the choycest Flowers of our Modern Poets, with their Poeticall comparisons, Descriptions of Bewties, Personages, Castles, Pallaces, Mountaines, Groves, Seas, Springs, Rivers, &c. (1600). The book includes 2350 quotations from modern poems and plays, including 95 quotations from Shakespeare's works. It also includes short quotations from works by Samuel Daniel, one of the writers whom Gullio enjoyed quoting.
Significantly, Allott's England's Parnassus was printed in 1600, the same year when The Return from Parnassus, Part One is believed to have been written for a Christmas performance.
Although Allott's name does not appear on the title-page of England's Parnassus, the initials "R. A." are appended to the two preliminary sonnets. Wikipedia provides the following useful background information: "Oldys, the antiquary, in the preface to Hayward's British Muse (1738), asserted that he had seen a copy containing the signature "Robert Allott" in full; and it has been solely on Oldys's authority hitherto that the compilation of this valuable anthology has been attributed to Allott. The fact has been overlooked that Dr. Farmer, in a manuscript note in his copy of England's Parnassus, states that he, too, had seen the name "Robert Allott" printed in full."
Robert Allott was a close friend and associate of John Bodenham, the same man who produced the 1601 Belvedere common-place book loathed by the Parnassus trilogy's author. In 1599, the volume Wits Theater of the Little World was printed, a prose "collection of the flowers of antiquities and histories." It appeared without a name on the title-page, but in one surviving copy the dedication reads "To my most esteemed and approved loving friend, Maister John Bodenham," from "Robert Allott."
Since the Parnassus trilogy's author took square aim at Bodenham in The Return from Parnassus, Part Two for Bodenham's Belvedere poetic miscellany, it would not be surprising if the trilogy's author had already targeted Allott, responsible for the poetic miscellany England's Parnassus, in The Return from Parnassus, Part One.
As a final clue, Robert Allott satisfies Attribute 3: he wrote sonnets and was (though just barely) known to the world as a poet by 1600. According to Wikipedia, two sonnets by "Robert Allott" are prefixed to Gervase Markham's Devereux (1597); a "Robert Allott" contributed a sonnet and six Latin hexameters to Christopher Middleton's Legend of Duke Humphrey (1600), and a poet with the initials "R.A." contributed six Latin hexameters to the prefix of Wits Commonwealth.
CONCLUSION
Although nothing is known with any certainty about Robert Allott's biography, the following observations point strongly to Allott as "Gullio," mocked by the Parnassus trilogy's author around 1600, and also "Luscus," mocked by John Marston in 1598.
Gullio has Attribute 1 (a foolish poetry-lover), Attribute 2 (a wooer of Lesbia), Attribute 3 (a sonnet writer and known poet), Attribute 4 (a man praised in a Weever epigram), and Attribute 5 (a man who wooed Lesbia using poetry and play scraps, particularly from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet).
Luscus has Attribute 1 (a foolish poetry-lover), Attribute 2 (a wooer of Lesbia), Attribute 5 (a man who wooed Lesbia using poetry and play scraps, particularly from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet), and Attribute 6 (compiler of a common-place book containing quotations from contemporary English poets and playwrights).
Allott has Attribute 3 (a sonnet writer and known poet), Attribute 4 (a man praised in a Weever epigram), and Attribute 6 (compiler of a common-place book containing quotations from contemporary English poets and playwrights).
Bob Grumman
Feb 19, 2014, 5:44:36 PM2/19/14
to
Wow, Sabrina, on impulse I dropped in here where I ain't been in ever so long and find an Intelligent Post! Wotz going on??? You have me semi-convinced, but I I'm not enough up on the Southampton theory to be sure your man makes better sense than Hank. So, your next duty is to tell us why rival theories are inferior to your own.
One question about Gullio: who was the real-life Lesbia? Did you say and I missed it--in my lazy read? Have any scholars made guesses?
Anyhow, glad to bump into you again. Hope all's going well with you and your life is not as hectic as it was when we were last in contact. I'm not doing much re: SAQ, just annoying people at Amazon review threads. Mark Johnson has written several posts arguing for Southampton as Gullio, good ones, at the Amazon thread generated by Dr. Waugaman's (if that's the right spelling) review of Anonymous. Might be a good place to check out your competition.
all best, Bob
One question about Gullio: who was the real-life Lesbia? Did you say and I missed it--in my lazy read? Have any scholars made guesses?
Anyhow, glad to bump into you again. Hope all's going well with you and your life is not as hectic as it was when we were last in contact. I'm not doing much re: SAQ, just annoying people at Amazon review threads. Mark Johnson has written several posts arguing for Southampton as Gullio, good ones, at the Amazon thread generated by Dr. Waugaman's (if that's the right spelling) review of Anonymous. Might be a good place to check out your competition.
all best, Bob
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 20, 2014, 12:02:36 AM2/20/14
to
Hi Bob, what a nice surprise to see your comment here! It's quite a coincidence that you caught my post, because I haven't posted here for years. I wasn't able to convince a single Stratfordian at HLAS to read The Apocryphal William Shakespeare when it came out in 2011, despite offering it for free, and my posts were clearly unwelcome. With the passage of time, however, I realize that I was partly at fault. I showed up on HLAS as a complete stranger with no credentials other than your good report, and didn't post on any topics other than The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. So it's not that surprising I wasn't a welcome guest here. This post is a toe dip in the water to show that I might have some interesting ideas to offer, and to see if HLAS can be civil to me.
I don't know who Lesbia might have been, and not enough is known about Robert Allott's life for me to even venture a guess.
The reason I became interested in Gullio's identity is that I found the arguments for both William Shakespeare and Southampton to be implausible, and don't think Gullio's identity is relevant to the Shakespeare authorship debate. However, I'm still interested in who he was as a historical mystery.
As far as why not Southampton: at an instinctual level, because I don't believe Cambridge University students would have thought it was a good idea to sneer at one of the great lords of the realm using pointed hints and clues, or mock him for being a fool. However, there are also three important discrepancies that convince me Gullio could not have been meant to lampoon Southampton.
Discrepancy 1: Mismatch in travel experiences.
Gullio is an army captain who claims to have been at the "University of Padua" in Italy, and to have killed "a Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the health of England." Later, Gullio also claims to have been "at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland." However, Ingenioso scoffs in an aside that Gullio had never been any further than Flushing in the Netherlands, "and then he came home sick of the scurveys."
Southampton was a well traveled military man and traveler who had visited the Azores, France, and Ireland by 1600 when The Return From Parnassus Part One is thought to have been written.
Discrepancy 2: Mismatch in marital status.
Gullio is a bachelor. When Ingenioso wonders how Gullio has avoided getting married, Gullio replies: "Nay, I cannot abide to be tied to Cleopatra, if she were alive. It's enough for me to crop virginity."
In contrast, Southampton married Elizabeth Vernon in 1598, who shortly after gave birth to their daughter Penelope.
Discrepancy 3: Mismatch in social status.
Gullio is a foolish social climber who pretends to be on close terms with leading members of the nobility. In one scene he tells Ingenioso, "A countess and two lords expect me today at dinner, they are my very honourable friends, I must not disappoint them." Later, he reports that "The Countess and my lord entertained me very honorably. Indeed they used my advice in some state matters, and I perceived the Earl would fain have thrust one of his daughters upon me..." Ingenioso grumbles to himself, "I think he means to poison me with a lie. Why he is acquainted with never a lord except my Lord Coulton, and for Countesses, he never came in the country where a Countess dwells!"
In contrast, Southampton was at the very pinnacle of the aristocracy, acquainted with all the leading nobles of the court.
Once again, it's so nice to see your comment here! Thanks for posting,
Sabrina
I don't know who Lesbia might have been, and not enough is known about Robert Allott's life for me to even venture a guess.
The reason I became interested in Gullio's identity is that I found the arguments for both William Shakespeare and Southampton to be implausible, and don't think Gullio's identity is relevant to the Shakespeare authorship debate. However, I'm still interested in who he was as a historical mystery.
As far as why not Southampton: at an instinctual level, because I don't believe Cambridge University students would have thought it was a good idea to sneer at one of the great lords of the realm using pointed hints and clues, or mock him for being a fool. However, there are also three important discrepancies that convince me Gullio could not have been meant to lampoon Southampton.
Discrepancy 1: Mismatch in travel experiences.
Gullio is an army captain who claims to have been at the "University of Padua" in Italy, and to have killed "a Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the health of England." Later, Gullio also claims to have been "at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland." However, Ingenioso scoffs in an aside that Gullio had never been any further than Flushing in the Netherlands, "and then he came home sick of the scurveys."
Southampton was a well traveled military man and traveler who had visited the Azores, France, and Ireland by 1600 when The Return From Parnassus Part One is thought to have been written.
Discrepancy 2: Mismatch in marital status.
Gullio is a bachelor. When Ingenioso wonders how Gullio has avoided getting married, Gullio replies: "Nay, I cannot abide to be tied to Cleopatra, if she were alive. It's enough for me to crop virginity."
In contrast, Southampton married Elizabeth Vernon in 1598, who shortly after gave birth to their daughter Penelope.
Discrepancy 3: Mismatch in social status.
Gullio is a foolish social climber who pretends to be on close terms with leading members of the nobility. In one scene he tells Ingenioso, "A countess and two lords expect me today at dinner, they are my very honourable friends, I must not disappoint them." Later, he reports that "The Countess and my lord entertained me very honorably. Indeed they used my advice in some state matters, and I perceived the Earl would fain have thrust one of his daughters upon me..." Ingenioso grumbles to himself, "I think he means to poison me with a lie. Why he is acquainted with never a lord except my Lord Coulton, and for Countesses, he never came in the country where a Countess dwells!"
In contrast, Southampton was at the very pinnacle of the aristocracy, acquainted with all the leading nobles of the court.
Once again, it's so nice to see your comment here! Thanks for posting,
Sabrina
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 20, 2014, 2:52:06 AM2/20/14
to
Bob, as additional arguments against Southampton I should add:
He did not compile a common-place book around 1600.
He was not complimented in an epigram by John Weever in 1599.
He is not known as the author of inconsequential sonnets.
There are no rumors that he was courting a lady to whom he was not married around 1600.
--Sabrina
He did not compile a common-place book around 1600.
He was not complimented in an epigram by John Weever in 1599.
He is not known as the author of inconsequential sonnets.
There are no rumors that he was courting a lady to whom he was not married around 1600.
--Sabrina
Bob Grumman
Feb 20, 2014, 12:50:17 PM2/20/14
to
Sorry to hear no Stratfordian ordered a free copy of your book, Sabrina. Unlike too many SAQ books, it has a lot of interesting factual information about the literary climate of the times, and fun stuff about non-Shakespearean plays worth reading, or at least knowing about.
Your comments on Southampton as Gullio make good sense. One question: what does Southampton have in common with Gullio that Allott does not have? I think there were a few, but can't recall them. One of those subjects I wanted to get better acquainted with but never had a chance to. I haven't even read the Parnassus plays. Seems to me you could do an excellent study of them if you had the time to.
By the way, what I think best about your ideas is that, like your SAQ book, they bring us an interesting writer of Shakespeare's time who is worth knowing about regardless of whether you are right about him or not. The first Oxfordians did this, too. Their followers are generally saying too little that's new to be worth reading. I suppose the guy writing about Oxford's Italian travels does so--about the Europe of the times, but only maybe about Oxford.
Your comments on Southampton as Gullio make good sense. One question: what does Southampton have in common with Gullio that Allott does not have? I think there were a few, but can't recall them. One of those subjects I wanted to get better acquainted with but never had a chance to. I haven't even read the Parnassus plays. Seems to me you could do an excellent study of them if you had the time to.
By the way, what I think best about your ideas is that, like your SAQ book, they bring us an interesting writer of Shakespeare's time who is worth knowing about regardless of whether you are right about him or not. The first Oxfordians did this, too. Their followers are generally saying too little that's new to be worth reading. I suppose the guy writing about Oxford's Italian travels does so--about the Europe of the times, but only maybe about Oxford.
Bob Grumman
Feb 20, 2014, 1:01:23 PM2/20/14
to
I lean toward your identification, Sabrina--although, alas, we know too little about all the many people of the time that Gullio could have been a satire on, ir any real person. One argument I don't think you mentioned (but may have) is how right it feels that a author of something like the Parnassus plays would include a caricature of another writer, or literary figure of some sort, at his level, whom he would likely have known. I agree that such a writer would not likely have gone after Southampton--or, if he had, would find other things to make fun of, including his having had poems written about him (probably).
But as a Stratfordian I like Southampton as Gullio so far a hero-worship of Shakespeare was concerned. I can't accept him, though, because Gullio is not an aristocrat, as you point out.
Dang, now I'm becoming really interested (again) in the Parnassus plays. But I have too much going on in my life at the moment get more involved with them!
But as a Stratfordian I like Southampton as Gullio so far a hero-worship of Shakespeare was concerned. I can't accept him, though, because Gullio is not an aristocrat, as you point out.
Dang, now I'm becoming really interested (again) in the Parnassus plays. But I have too much going on in my life at the moment get more involved with them!
Dominic Hughes
Feb 20, 2014, 5:59:34 PM2/20/14
to
On Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:02:36 AM UTC-5, Sabrina Feldman wrote:
> Hi Bob, what a nice surprise to see your comment here! It's quite a coincidence that you caught my post, because I haven't posted here for years. I wasn't able to convince a single Stratfordian at HLAS to read The Apocryphal William Shakespeare when it came out in 2011, despite offering it for free, and my posts were clearly unwelcome. With the passage of time, however, I realize that I was partly at fault. I showed up on HLAS as a complete stranger with no credentials other than your good report, and didn't post on any topics other than The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. So it's not that surprising I wasn't a welcome guest here. This post is a toe dip in the water to show that I might have some interesting ideas to offer, and to see if HLAS can be civil to me.
>
>
>
> I don't know who Lesbia might have been, and not enough is known about Robert Allott's life for me to even venture a guess.
>
>
>
> The reason I became interested in Gullio's identity is that I found the arguments for both William Shakespeare and Southampton to be implausible, and don't think Gullio's identity is relevant to the Shakespeare authorship debate. However, I'm still interested in who he was as a historical mystery.
> As far as why not Southampton: at an instinctual level, because I don't believe Cambridge University students would have thought it was a good idea to sneer at one of the great lords of the realm using pointed hints and clues, or mock him for being a fool. However, there are also three important discrepancies that convince me Gullio could not have been meant to lampoon Southampton.
I'm not sure you understand students and the traditions of the Christmas plays [where riots were often part of the program]...not to mention that Southampton had attended St. John's college.
> Hi Bob, what a nice surprise to see your comment here! It's quite a coincidence that you caught my post, because I haven't posted here for years. I wasn't able to convince a single Stratfordian at HLAS to read The Apocryphal William Shakespeare when it came out in 2011, despite offering it for free, and my posts were clearly unwelcome. With the passage of time, however, I realize that I was partly at fault. I showed up on HLAS as a complete stranger with no credentials other than your good report, and didn't post on any topics other than The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. So it's not that surprising I wasn't a welcome guest here. This post is a toe dip in the water to show that I might have some interesting ideas to offer, and to see if HLAS can be civil to me.
>
>
>
> I don't know who Lesbia might have been, and not enough is known about Robert Allott's life for me to even venture a guess.
>
>
>
> The reason I became interested in Gullio's identity is that I found the arguments for both William Shakespeare and Southampton to be implausible, and don't think Gullio's identity is relevant to the Shakespeare authorship debate. However, I'm still interested in who he was as a historical mystery.
> As far as why not Southampton: at an instinctual level, because I don't believe Cambridge University students would have thought it was a good idea to sneer at one of the great lords of the realm using pointed hints and clues, or mock him for being a fool. However, there are also three important discrepancies that convince me Gullio could not have been meant to lampoon Southampton.
> Discrepancy 1: Mismatch in travel experiences.
> Gullio is an army captain who claims to have been at the "University of Padua" in Italy, and to have killed "a Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the health of England." Later, Gullio also claims to have been "at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland." However, Ingenioso scoffs in an aside that Gullio had never been any further than Flushing in the Netherlands, "and then he came home sick of the scurveys."
> Southampton was a well traveled military man and traveler who had visited the Azores, France, and Ireland by 1600 when The Return From Parnassus Part One is thought to have been written.
> Discrepancy 2: Mismatch in marital status.
> Gullio is a bachelor. When Ingenioso wonders how Gullio has avoided getting married, Gullio replies: "Nay, I cannot abide to be tied to Cleopatra, if she were alive. It's enough for me to crop virginity."
> In contrast, Southampton married Elizabeth Vernon in 1598, who shortly after gave birth to their daughter Penelope.
> Discrepancy 3: Mismatch in social status.
> Gullio is a foolish social climber who pretends to be on close terms with leading members of the nobility. In one scene he tells Ingenioso, "A countess and two lords expect me today at dinner, they are my very honourable friends, I must not disappoint them." Later, he reports that "The Countess and my lord entertained me very honorably. Indeed they used my advice in some state matters, and I perceived the Earl would fain have thrust one of his daughters upon me..."
> Ingenioso grumbles to himself, "I think he means to poison me with a lie. Why he is acquainted with never a lord except my Lord Coulton, and for Countesses, he never came in the country where a Countess dwells!"
> In contrast, Southampton was at the very pinnacle of the aristocracy, acquainted with all the leading nobles of the court.
> Once again, it's so nice to see your comment here! Thanks for posting,
>
> Sabrina
Dom
p.s. -- > Attribute 4: Gullio claims to have been recently praised in an epigram by John Weever, whose Epigrams were printed in 1599. "I am very lately registered in the rolls of fame in an Epigram made by a Cambridge man, one Weever-fellow, I warrant him, else could he never have had such a quick sight into my virtues. Howsoever, I merit his praise. If I meet with him I will vouchsafe to give him condign thanks."
This is actually a very good joke.
Weever did, in fact, write an epigram that begins "Here lies fat Gullio":
*In obitum sepulcrum Gullionus*
Here lies fat *Gullio*, who caperd in a cord [i.e., was hanged]
To highest heav'n for all his huge great weight,
His friends left at *Tiburne* in the yere of our Lord
1 - 5 - 9 - and 8
What part of his body French men did not eate,
That part he gives freely to worms for their meat.
The joke is that Gullio, being the vainglorious dolt that he is, knows only that a poem was written to Gullio, and so he idiotically believes that a poem about someone who was hanged at Tyburn was actually written in his honor. He obviously doesn't know the poem itself, only that it was written about Gullio.
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 20, 2014, 10:20:33 PM2/20/14
to
Dom,
Thanks for posting the Gullio=Southampton perspective. You probably know this already, but in case anyone else who reads this post is interested: I've been told this argument was first made by Eric Sams in The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years (1564-1594), which strongly influenced my own thinking about the Shakespeare authorship question. It can also be found in Rene Weis's Shakespeare Unbound: Decoding a Hidden Life (which argues that William Shakespeare was a hidden Catholic point of view).
I find it fascinating that you and I approach the Gullio passages from such fundamentally different perspectives. Jokes that seem obvious to you are not obvious to me, and jokes that seem obvious to me are not obvious to you. I was indeed aware of Weever's Epigram to Fat Gullio:
> *In obitum sepulcrum Gullionus*
>
> Here lies fat *Gullio*, who caperd in a cord [i.e., was hanged]
> To highest heav'n for all his huge great weight,
> His friends left at *Tiburne* in the yere of our Lord
> 1 - 5 - 9 - and 8
> What part of his body French men did not eate,
> That part he gives freely to worms for their meat.
>
From my perspective as a Robert Allotian in this matter, Gullio's pride in having been praised by Weever in an epigram is a double joke, since there was a real Weever epigram to Robert Allott and a silly Weever epigram to a dead fat man dubbed Gullio.
I don't disagree that the weakest part of my argument for Robert Allott is that virtually nothing is known of Allott's life. Was the real Robert Allott courting a "Lesbia"? It's impossible to be sure. Was he as foolish as Gullio? It's impossible to be sure. However, I think the balance of probability is tipped in Allott's favor.
Regarding your argument that Allott wasn't a patron of poets -- how can you possibly know this? Allott was a dear friend of John Bodenham, who was certainly a patron of poets. Since we don't know any circumstances of Allott's life, we can't know whether he patronized poets or not.
I haven't written up my full theory on Gullio's identity yet, but the two key arguments I left out in my original posts concern two epigrams by John Harington, a witty godson of Queen Elizabeth.
Harington's Epigram 81 on "Don Pedro" sounds like another lampoon of Gullio to me. "Don Pedro" is (1) a patron of poets who pays low wages to his hirelings; (2) a well known sonnet writer who didn't actually write the poems credited to him; and (3) a man who is suggested to have recently married the former widow "Lesbia," a one-time beauty gone to seed.
Harington's Epigram 81: "Of Don Pedro and his Poetry"
Sir, I shall tell you news, except you know it
Our noble friend Don Pedro is a poet.
His verses all abroad are read and shown
And he himself doth swear they are his own
His own? Tis true for he for them hath paid
Two crowns a sonnet as I heard it said
So Ellen hath fair teeth, that in her purse
She keeps all night, and she sleeps near the worse
So widow Lesbia with her painted hide
Seemed for the time, to make a handsome bride
If Pedro be for this a poet called
So you may call one hairy that is bald.
Harington's Epigram 82 provides context for Ingenioso's claim to have written poetry for Ingenioso in exchange for money. Evidently this was not an uncommon practice during Shakespeare's time.
Epigram 82: "A comfort for poor poets"
Henceforth for pensions poets need not care
Who call you beggars you may call them liars
Verses are grown such merchantable ware,
That now for Sonnets, sellers are, and buyers.
Whether or not these arguments convince you that it is more likely that Gullio was Allott than Southampton (a balance of probabilities that lies in the eye of the beholder), I really appreciate your posting a response and explaining the Gullio=Southampton position. Given my personality, I always prefer lively debate to boring consensus.
Thanks again for weighing in with your thoughts,
Sabrina
Sabrina
Thanks for posting the Gullio=Southampton perspective. You probably know this already, but in case anyone else who reads this post is interested: I've been told this argument was first made by Eric Sams in The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years (1564-1594), which strongly influenced my own thinking about the Shakespeare authorship question. It can also be found in Rene Weis's Shakespeare Unbound: Decoding a Hidden Life (which argues that William Shakespeare was a hidden Catholic point of view).
I find it fascinating that you and I approach the Gullio passages from such fundamentally different perspectives. Jokes that seem obvious to you are not obvious to me, and jokes that seem obvious to me are not obvious to you. I was indeed aware of Weever's Epigram to Fat Gullio:
> *In obitum sepulcrum Gullionus*
>
> Here lies fat *Gullio*, who caperd in a cord [i.e., was hanged]
> To highest heav'n for all his huge great weight,
> His friends left at *Tiburne* in the yere of our Lord
> 1 - 5 - 9 - and 8
> What part of his body French men did not eate,
> That part he gives freely to worms for their meat.
>
I don't disagree that the weakest part of my argument for Robert Allott is that virtually nothing is known of Allott's life. Was the real Robert Allott courting a "Lesbia"? It's impossible to be sure. Was he as foolish as Gullio? It's impossible to be sure. However, I think the balance of probability is tipped in Allott's favor.
Regarding your argument that Allott wasn't a patron of poets -- how can you possibly know this? Allott was a dear friend of John Bodenham, who was certainly a patron of poets. Since we don't know any circumstances of Allott's life, we can't know whether he patronized poets or not.
I haven't written up my full theory on Gullio's identity yet, but the two key arguments I left out in my original posts concern two epigrams by John Harington, a witty godson of Queen Elizabeth.
Harington's Epigram 81 on "Don Pedro" sounds like another lampoon of Gullio to me. "Don Pedro" is (1) a patron of poets who pays low wages to his hirelings; (2) a well known sonnet writer who didn't actually write the poems credited to him; and (3) a man who is suggested to have recently married the former widow "Lesbia," a one-time beauty gone to seed.
Harington's Epigram 81: "Of Don Pedro and his Poetry"
Sir, I shall tell you news, except you know it
Our noble friend Don Pedro is a poet.
His verses all abroad are read and shown
And he himself doth swear they are his own
His own? Tis true for he for them hath paid
Two crowns a sonnet as I heard it said
So Ellen hath fair teeth, that in her purse
She keeps all night, and she sleeps near the worse
So widow Lesbia with her painted hide
Seemed for the time, to make a handsome bride
If Pedro be for this a poet called
So you may call one hairy that is bald.
Harington's Epigram 82 provides context for Ingenioso's claim to have written poetry for Ingenioso in exchange for money. Evidently this was not an uncommon practice during Shakespeare's time.
Epigram 82: "A comfort for poor poets"
Henceforth for pensions poets need not care
Who call you beggars you may call them liars
Verses are grown such merchantable ware,
That now for Sonnets, sellers are, and buyers.
Whether or not these arguments convince you that it is more likely that Gullio was Allott than Southampton (a balance of probabilities that lies in the eye of the beholder), I really appreciate your posting a response and explaining the Gullio=Southampton position. Given my personality, I always prefer lively debate to boring consensus.
Thanks again for weighing in with your thoughts,
Sabrina
Sabrina
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 20, 2014, 10:36:51 PM2/20/14
to
Ack! Was typing too fast. Instead of "Ingenioso's claim to have written poetry for Ingenioso," I meant to write "Ingenioso's claim to have written poetry for Gullio."
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 21, 2014, 6:21:49 AM2/21/14
to
Bob, you are my favorite Stratfordian! Thanks for your kind words about my research. I am fascinated by the Elizabethan and early Jacobean literature, far beyond the authorship question, and have made it a personal mission to read every play, poem, and pamphlet from the period that I can access from Amazon.com, Google books, Luminarium, and other online sources.
Since you are an open-minded person willing to consider new arguments, whether or not you agree with them, you might not be capable of imagining the complete lack of interest that your fellow Stratfordians have shown in The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. In the 27 months since I published the book, it has not been read or written about by a single Shakespeare scholar whose opinion matters to the world. This is not for lack of trying on my part. I have written to more than a hundred traditional Shakespeare scholars (at some point I lost count), and sent free paperback copies to dozens of Shakespeare scholars and reviewers who have expressed an opinion on the authorship question. Not a single Stratfordian has responded with interest since the book was published in Nov. 2011. Many who have written publicly on the authorship question (Stanley Wells, James Shapiro, Stephen Greenblatt, etc.) refused to read anything written by me because they were so sure my arguments would be wrong. I had the same experience here at HLAS, which taught me that the taboo surrounding the authorship question is very strong. Whether my arguments are wonderful or terrible, no one whose opinion matters to the world could possibly know because they haven't read them.
As you know, I have a good job and did not write TAWS in an attempt to make money. This is lucky, because it hasn't sold above 100 copies yet to people outside my immediate circle of family and friends.
Partially restoring my faith in humanity, I very recently wrote to Alan Nelson (author of Monstrous Adversary, a scholarly biography of Edward de Vere) to ask if I could send him a copy of my book. He responded like a true scholar, writing: "As a self-professed scholar, I will never refuse to read a book or listen to an argument, so if you want to send me a copy of your book I'm currently at the address below." He reminds me of you! Another shining beacon in the Stratfordian world is Prof. Rob Watson at UCLA, who read a draft version of The Apocryphal William Shakespeare and provided wonderful feedback.
Since you are an open-minded person willing to consider new arguments, whether or not you agree with them, you might not be capable of imagining the complete lack of interest that your fellow Stratfordians have shown in The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. In the 27 months since I published the book, it has not been read or written about by a single Shakespeare scholar whose opinion matters to the world. This is not for lack of trying on my part. I have written to more than a hundred traditional Shakespeare scholars (at some point I lost count), and sent free paperback copies to dozens of Shakespeare scholars and reviewers who have expressed an opinion on the authorship question. Not a single Stratfordian has responded with interest since the book was published in Nov. 2011. Many who have written publicly on the authorship question (Stanley Wells, James Shapiro, Stephen Greenblatt, etc.) refused to read anything written by me because they were so sure my arguments would be wrong. I had the same experience here at HLAS, which taught me that the taboo surrounding the authorship question is very strong. Whether my arguments are wonderful or terrible, no one whose opinion matters to the world could possibly know because they haven't read them.
As you know, I have a good job and did not write TAWS in an attempt to make money. This is lucky, because it hasn't sold above 100 copies yet to people outside my immediate circle of family and friends.
Partially restoring my faith in humanity, I very recently wrote to Alan Nelson (author of Monstrous Adversary, a scholarly biography of Edward de Vere) to ask if I could send him a copy of my book. He responded like a true scholar, writing: "As a self-professed scholar, I will never refuse to read a book or listen to an argument, so if you want to send me a copy of your book I'm currently at the address below." He reminds me of you! Another shining beacon in the Stratfordian world is Prof. Rob Watson at UCLA, who read a draft version of The Apocryphal William Shakespeare and provided wonderful feedback.
Bob Grumman
Feb 21, 2014, 5:28:49 PM2/21/14
to
Bob, you are my favorite Stratfordian! Thanks for your kind words about my research. I am fascinated by the Elizabethan and early Jacobean literature, far beyond the authorship question, and have made it a personal mission to read every play, poem, and pamphlet from the period that I can access from Amazon.com, Google books, Luminarium, and other online sources.
Since you are an open-minded person willing to consider new arguments, whether or not you agree with them, you might not be capable of imagining the complete lack of interest that your fellow Stratfordians have shown in The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. In the 27 months since I published the book, it has not been read or written about by a single Shakespeare scholar whose opinion matters to the world. This is not for lack of trying on my part. I have written to more than a hundred traditional Shakespeare scholars (at some point I lost count), and sent free paperback copies to dozens of Shakespeare scholars and reviewers who have expressed an opinion on the authorship question. Not a single Stratfordian has responded with interest since the book was published in Nov. 2011. Many who have written publicly on the authorship question (Stanley Wells, James Shapiro, Stephen Greenblatt, etc.) refused to read anything written by me because they were so sure my arguments would be wrong. I had the same experience here at HLAS, which taught me that the taboo surrounding the authorship question is very strong. Whether my arguments are wonderful or terrible, no one whose opinion matters to the world could possibly know because they haven't read them.
I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL, SABRINA. THEY AREN'T INTERESTED IN MY BOOK, EITHER. RIGIDNIKRY, AS YOU MAY RECALL MY NAME FOR IT IS. (BY THE WAY, GOOGLE CERTAINLY HAS MADE IT HARD TO REPLY INTELLIGENTLY TO POSTS SINCE I LEFT. OR MAYBE THEY HAVEN'T AND I'M JUST IGNORANT OF THEIR VERY INTELLIGENT SET-UP. BUT IT SEEMS YOU (1) CAN'T RESPOND TO A SPECIFI POST, ONLY TO A THREAD, AND (2) YOU CAN'T ANSWER ONE THE WAY I'm ANSWERING YOURS--AFTER CUT&PASTING YOUR TEXT INTO THE BOX I'VE BEEN GIVEN TO RESPOND IN.)
Since you are an open-minded person willing to consider new arguments, whether or not you agree with them, you might not be capable of imagining the complete lack of interest that your fellow Stratfordians have shown in The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. In the 27 months since I published the book, it has not been read or written about by a single Shakespeare scholar whose opinion matters to the world. This is not for lack of trying on my part. I have written to more than a hundred traditional Shakespeare scholars (at some point I lost count), and sent free paperback copies to dozens of Shakespeare scholars and reviewers who have expressed an opinion on the authorship question. Not a single Stratfordian has responded with interest since the book was published in Nov. 2011. Many who have written publicly on the authorship question (Stanley Wells, James Shapiro, Stephen Greenblatt, etc.) refused to read anything written by me because they were so sure my arguments would be wrong. I had the same experience here at HLAS, which taught me that the taboo surrounding the authorship question is very strong. Whether my arguments are wonderful or terrible, no one whose opinion matters to the world could possibly know because they haven't read them.
THE NON-READERS ARE ALSO RATHER NARROW FOR ASSUMING THAT EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT THAT YOU'RE WRONG, THAT YOU CAN'T BE WORTH READING ANYWAY.
As you know, I have a good job and did not write TAWS in an attempt to make money. This is lucky, because it hasn't sold above 100 copies yet to people outside my immediate circle of family and friends.
Partially restoring my faith in humanity, I very recently wrote to Alan Nelson (author of Monstrous Adversary, a scholarly biography of Edward de Vere) to ask if I could send him a copy of my book. He responded like a true scholar, writing: "As a self-professed scholar, I will never refuse to read a book or listen to an argument, so if you want to send me a copy of your book I'm currently at the address below." He reminds me of you! Another shining beacon in the Stratfordian world is Prof. Rob Watson at UCLA, who read a draft version of The Apocryphal William Shakespeare and provided wonderful feedback.
MEANWHILE, I HOPE YOU AND DOM KEEP GOING. I THINK YOU'RE BOTH MAKING GOOD POINTS BUT AM TOO IGNORANT OF THE PARNASSUS PLAYS TO HAVE ANY IDEA WHO IS WINNING.
ALL BEST, BOB
Sneaky O. Possum
Feb 22, 2014, 5:14:59 PM2/22/14
to
Sabrina Feldman <sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:34e4f5f0-49ea-4ef7...@googlegroups.com:
[snippage]
> Regarding your argument that Allott wasn't a patron of poets -- how
> can you possibly know this? Allott was a dear friend of John
> Bodenham, who was certainly a patron of poets. Since we don't know any
> circumstances of Allott's life, we can't know whether he patronized
> poets or not.
If I may interject a word or two, I'll note that while it is impossible
to be absolutely sure that Allott was not a patron, the same
circumstantial evidence that leads us to conclude that John Bodenham
/was/ a patron - viz., that he is described as such in dedicatory verses
- also leads us to conclude that Allott was not one. Sometimes absence
of evidence is in fact evidence of absence: given the assiduousness with
which Elizabethan and Jacobean poets sought and acknowledged patronage,
it is reasonable to suppose that if Allott had provided any, it would
have earned him a dedication or two.
> I haven't written up my full theory on Gullio's identity yet, but the
> two key arguments I left out in my original posts concern two epigrams
> by John Harington, a witty godson of Queen Elizabeth.
>
> Harington's Epigram 81 on "Don Pedro" sounds like another lampoon of
> Gullio to me. "Don Pedro" is (1) a patron of poets who pays low wages
> to his hirelings; (2) a well known sonnet writer who didn't actually
> write the poems credited to him; and (3) a man who is suggested to
> have recently married the former widow "Lesbia," a one-time beauty
> gone to seed.
>
> Harington's Epigram 81: "Of Don Pedro and his Poetry"
>
> Sir, I shall tell you news, except you know it
> Our noble friend Don Pedro is a poet.
> His verses all abroad are read and shown
> And he himself doth swear they are his own
> His own? Tis true for he for them hath paid
> Two crowns a sonnet as I heard it said
> So Ellen hath fair teeth, that in her purse
> She keeps all night, and she sleeps near the worse
> So widow Lesbia with her painted hide
> Seemed for the time, to make a handsome bride
> If Pedro be for this a poet called
> So you may call one hairy that is bald.
I don't see any suggestion there that 'Don Pedro' married 'Lesbia': she
and 'Ellen' are merely being used as other examples of people who have
presented false appearances. Moreover, 'Don Pedro' is a recurring
character in Harington's epigrams ("Don Pedro's out of debt be bold to
say it/for they are said to owe, that mean to pay it"): if he was meant
to represent a real person, that person was presumably a nobleman:
Don Pedro drinks to no man at the boord
nor once a tast doth of his cup affoord
Some thinke it pryde in him, but see their blyndnes
I know therein his Lordship doth vs kyndnes.
If Pedro is similar to Gullio, that strengthens the case that Gullio is
meant to represent someone with a title. It should also be noted that
Harington served directly under Henry Wriothesley's command during
Essex's Irish campaign.
--
S.O.P.
news:34e4f5f0-49ea-4ef7...@googlegroups.com:
[snippage]
> Regarding your argument that Allott wasn't a patron of poets -- how
> can you possibly know this? Allott was a dear friend of John
> Bodenham, who was certainly a patron of poets. Since we don't know any
> circumstances of Allott's life, we can't know whether he patronized
> poets or not.
to be absolutely sure that Allott was not a patron, the same
circumstantial evidence that leads us to conclude that John Bodenham
/was/ a patron - viz., that he is described as such in dedicatory verses
- also leads us to conclude that Allott was not one. Sometimes absence
of evidence is in fact evidence of absence: given the assiduousness with
which Elizabethan and Jacobean poets sought and acknowledged patronage,
it is reasonable to suppose that if Allott had provided any, it would
have earned him a dedication or two.
> I haven't written up my full theory on Gullio's identity yet, but the
> two key arguments I left out in my original posts concern two epigrams
> by John Harington, a witty godson of Queen Elizabeth.
>
> Harington's Epigram 81 on "Don Pedro" sounds like another lampoon of
> Gullio to me. "Don Pedro" is (1) a patron of poets who pays low wages
> to his hirelings; (2) a well known sonnet writer who didn't actually
> write the poems credited to him; and (3) a man who is suggested to
> have recently married the former widow "Lesbia," a one-time beauty
> gone to seed.
>
> Harington's Epigram 81: "Of Don Pedro and his Poetry"
>
> Sir, I shall tell you news, except you know it
> Our noble friend Don Pedro is a poet.
> His verses all abroad are read and shown
> And he himself doth swear they are his own
> His own? Tis true for he for them hath paid
> Two crowns a sonnet as I heard it said
> So Ellen hath fair teeth, that in her purse
> She keeps all night, and she sleeps near the worse
> So widow Lesbia with her painted hide
> Seemed for the time, to make a handsome bride
> If Pedro be for this a poet called
> So you may call one hairy that is bald.
and 'Ellen' are merely being used as other examples of people who have
presented false appearances. Moreover, 'Don Pedro' is a recurring
character in Harington's epigrams ("Don Pedro's out of debt be bold to
say it/for they are said to owe, that mean to pay it"): if he was meant
to represent a real person, that person was presumably a nobleman:
Don Pedro drinks to no man at the boord
nor once a tast doth of his cup affoord
Some thinke it pryde in him, but see their blyndnes
I know therein his Lordship doth vs kyndnes.
If Pedro is similar to Gullio, that strengthens the case that Gullio is
meant to represent someone with a title. It should also be noted that
Harington served directly under Henry Wriothesley's command during
Essex's Irish campaign.
--
S.O.P.
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 22, 2014, 6:27:08 PM2/22/14
to
Interesting points, S.O.P.
I'm not convinced by The Return from Parnassus that Gullio was a serious or significant patron of poets. He's a foolish poetry-lover, social climber, and liar who makes all sorts of claims that Ingenioso disputes -- for instance, pretending to change his suits twice a day at court, while Ingenioso swears that he doesn't have more than one suit to his name, and that not yet paid for.
Ingenioso: I have heard that you were wont to wear seven sundry suits of apparel in a week - and them no mean ones.
Gullio: Tush! man, at the court I think I should grow lousy if I wore less than two a day.
Ingenioso : The devil of a suit hath he but this, and that's not paid for yet.
Gullio:I am never seen at the court twice in one suit of apparel! That's base. As for boots, I never wore one pair above two hours...
As an Earl, Southampton surely had a large number of costly suits, so this scene just doesn't seem to point in his direction to me.
As far as whether Gullio was a patron worth pursuing and honoring in books--he comes across as a terrible patron. He does claim to maintain scholars -- when he compares himself to Sir Philip Sidney, he says "he loved a scholar, I maintain them." But his only maintenance of Ingenioso consists in giving him a lousy old suit that he bought from a soldier, and failing to pay for the poetry Ingenioso writes for him.
Gullio also implies that Weever's epigram praising his merits was the result of some sort of literary patronage. He says that in addition to giving Ingenioso an old lousy suit, he maintains "other poetical spirits...I reward the poor 'ergos' most bountifully, and send them away. I am very lately registered in the rolls of fame in an Epigram made by a Cambridge man, one Weever - fellow, I warrant him, else could he never have had such a quick sight into my virtues." In this context, Weever's epigram to Allott is thus a point in favor of Allott's having been a minor patron.
Regarding Harington's epigrams about Don Pedro, you raise a very valid point. If Don Pedro was really a Lord, that's not a good fit for Allott. However, the Don Pedro = Allott argument is not central to the Gullio = Allott argument. Buying poems to pass off as one's own seems to have been a not uncommon practice.
While Don Pedro may have been a Lord, Gullio admits to Ingenioso that his highest rank is captain and that he is not a knight.
Ingenioso: I dare swear your worship escaped knighting very hardly.
Gullio: That's but a petty requital to good deserts. He that esteems me of less worth than a knight is a peasant, and a gull! Give me a new knight of them all, in fence school at a Nimbrocado or at a Stocado. Sir Oliuer, Sir Randal - base, base chamberterms! I am saluted every morning by the name of, Good morrow captain, my sword is at your service!
Ingenioso: Good faith, an honourable title.
I just can't read this scene and think that an Earl was being lampooned here.
Thanks very much for posting the other Don Pedro verses.
I only hatched my Gullio = Allott theory a week or so ago, and it certainly needs to be refined and critiqued by arguments such as yours if it's to survive as a serious possibility. (Or shot down if there's a fatal flaw.)
I'm not convinced by The Return from Parnassus that Gullio was a serious or significant patron of poets. He's a foolish poetry-lover, social climber, and liar who makes all sorts of claims that Ingenioso disputes -- for instance, pretending to change his suits twice a day at court, while Ingenioso swears that he doesn't have more than one suit to his name, and that not yet paid for.
Ingenioso: I have heard that you were wont to wear seven sundry suits of apparel in a week - and them no mean ones.
Gullio: Tush! man, at the court I think I should grow lousy if I wore less than two a day.
Ingenioso : The devil of a suit hath he but this, and that's not paid for yet.
Gullio:I am never seen at the court twice in one suit of apparel! That's base. As for boots, I never wore one pair above two hours...
As an Earl, Southampton surely had a large number of costly suits, so this scene just doesn't seem to point in his direction to me.
As far as whether Gullio was a patron worth pursuing and honoring in books--he comes across as a terrible patron. He does claim to maintain scholars -- when he compares himself to Sir Philip Sidney, he says "he loved a scholar, I maintain them." But his only maintenance of Ingenioso consists in giving him a lousy old suit that he bought from a soldier, and failing to pay for the poetry Ingenioso writes for him.
Gullio also implies that Weever's epigram praising his merits was the result of some sort of literary patronage. He says that in addition to giving Ingenioso an old lousy suit, he maintains "other poetical spirits...I reward the poor 'ergos' most bountifully, and send them away. I am very lately registered in the rolls of fame in an Epigram made by a Cambridge man, one Weever - fellow, I warrant him, else could he never have had such a quick sight into my virtues." In this context, Weever's epigram to Allott is thus a point in favor of Allott's having been a minor patron.
Regarding Harington's epigrams about Don Pedro, you raise a very valid point. If Don Pedro was really a Lord, that's not a good fit for Allott. However, the Don Pedro = Allott argument is not central to the Gullio = Allott argument. Buying poems to pass off as one's own seems to have been a not uncommon practice.
While Don Pedro may have been a Lord, Gullio admits to Ingenioso that his highest rank is captain and that he is not a knight.
Ingenioso: I dare swear your worship escaped knighting very hardly.
Gullio: That's but a petty requital to good deserts. He that esteems me of less worth than a knight is a peasant, and a gull! Give me a new knight of them all, in fence school at a Nimbrocado or at a Stocado. Sir Oliuer, Sir Randal - base, base chamberterms! I am saluted every morning by the name of, Good morrow captain, my sword is at your service!
Ingenioso: Good faith, an honourable title.
I just can't read this scene and think that an Earl was being lampooned here.
Thanks very much for posting the other Don Pedro verses.
I only hatched my Gullio = Allott theory a week or so ago, and it certainly needs to be refined and critiqued by arguments such as yours if it's to survive as a serious possibility. (Or shot down if there's a fatal flaw.)
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 23, 2014, 3:01:50 AM2/23/14
to
S.O.P.,
I've been thinking some more about the question of Don Pedro's identity. If Don Pedro was really a Lord/nobleman of the realm who went around pretending to have written sonnets that he actually paid "two crowns" for, as in Harington's Epigram 81, then he might also be the "Absolute Castilio" from John Marston's 1598 Scourge of Villainy, a collection of satirical poems. In case you're not already familiar with the satire I have in mind...
In one of his satires, Marston targets "the absolute Castilio," a man whom the world believes to be a consummate courtier. (The name Castilio derives from Baldassare Castiglione's "The Book of the Courtier," which explains how to behave after the pattern of the perfect courtier.) Although "Castilio" is famous for his "fine set speeches, and for sonnetting," he is "but broker of another's wit." (A broker was a dealer in second hand goods.) Indeed, "if all things were well known and view'd," Castilio "doth but champ that which another chew'd." This seemingly perfect courtier had been passing off another man's literary works as his own -- and getting away with it.
But oh! The absolute Castilio
He that can all the points of courtship show;
He that can trot a courser, break a rush,
And arm'd in proof, dare dure a straw's strong push;
He, who on his glorious scutcheon
Can quaintly show wit's new invention,
Advancing forth some thirsty Tantalus,
Or else the vulture on Prometheus,
With some short motto of a dozen lines;
He that can purpose it in dainty rhymes,
Can set his face, and with his eye can speak,
Can dally with his mistress' dangling feak,
And wish that he were it, to kiss her eye
And flare about her beauty's deity :--
Tut! he is famous for his revelling,
For fine set speeches, and for sonnetting;
He scorns the viol and the scraping stick,
And yet's but broker of another's wit.
Certes [Certain], if all things were well known and view'd,
He doth but champ that which another chew'd.
Come, come, Castilion, skim thy posset curd,
Show thy queer substance, worthless, most absurd.
Take ceremonious compliment from thee!
Alas! I see Castilio's beggary.
O if Democritus were now alive,
How he would laugh to see this devil thrive!
And by an holy semblance blear men's eyes,
When he intends some damned villanies.
Since you pointed out to me that Don Pedro is not just described as "our noble friend" in Harington's Epigram 81 (which could have been sarcastic) but also as a Lord in a different Harington epigram, I do suspect that "Don Pedro" may have been "the absolute Castilio." One hopes there weren't too many lords in Elizabeth's court who went around buying sonnets from the poor poets of the time to bolster their reputations and woo their lovers with fake poetry.
Back to the Gullio question:
My argument that "Don Pedro" might have been "Castilio," and the very existence of Marston's satire on "the absolute Castilio," both fall on the Gullio=Southampton side of the scales.
However, I forgot to highlight another point against Gullio=Southampton in my last post:
In Harington's Epigram 81, "Lesbia" is a widow whose looks have been going to seed, though she long disguised this with makeup. Assuming the poets of the time lampooned one woman in particular as "Lesbia," this wouldn't apply to Southampton's wife Elizabeth Vernon, since her first marriage was to the Earl in 1598, when she was 26 years old.
I suppose it is possible that more than one "Elizabeth" was nicknamed "Lesbia" by the poets of the period, although we don't know for sure that any Elizabeth was. I do agree that the nickname "Lesbia" would have been a good way for a poet of the time to satirize an "Elizabeth" in print while disguising her identity, given the loose similarity of the names.
I've been thinking some more about the question of Don Pedro's identity. If Don Pedro was really a Lord/nobleman of the realm who went around pretending to have written sonnets that he actually paid "two crowns" for, as in Harington's Epigram 81, then he might also be the "Absolute Castilio" from John Marston's 1598 Scourge of Villainy, a collection of satirical poems. In case you're not already familiar with the satire I have in mind...
In one of his satires, Marston targets "the absolute Castilio," a man whom the world believes to be a consummate courtier. (The name Castilio derives from Baldassare Castiglione's "The Book of the Courtier," which explains how to behave after the pattern of the perfect courtier.) Although "Castilio" is famous for his "fine set speeches, and for sonnetting," he is "but broker of another's wit." (A broker was a dealer in second hand goods.) Indeed, "if all things were well known and view'd," Castilio "doth but champ that which another chew'd." This seemingly perfect courtier had been passing off another man's literary works as his own -- and getting away with it.
But oh! The absolute Castilio
He that can all the points of courtship show;
He that can trot a courser, break a rush,
And arm'd in proof, dare dure a straw's strong push;
He, who on his glorious scutcheon
Can quaintly show wit's new invention,
Advancing forth some thirsty Tantalus,
Or else the vulture on Prometheus,
With some short motto of a dozen lines;
He that can purpose it in dainty rhymes,
Can set his face, and with his eye can speak,
Can dally with his mistress' dangling feak,
And wish that he were it, to kiss her eye
And flare about her beauty's deity :--
Tut! he is famous for his revelling,
For fine set speeches, and for sonnetting;
He scorns the viol and the scraping stick,
And yet's but broker of another's wit.
Certes [Certain], if all things were well known and view'd,
He doth but champ that which another chew'd.
Come, come, Castilion, skim thy posset curd,
Show thy queer substance, worthless, most absurd.
Take ceremonious compliment from thee!
Alas! I see Castilio's beggary.
O if Democritus were now alive,
How he would laugh to see this devil thrive!
And by an holy semblance blear men's eyes,
When he intends some damned villanies.
Since you pointed out to me that Don Pedro is not just described as "our noble friend" in Harington's Epigram 81 (which could have been sarcastic) but also as a Lord in a different Harington epigram, I do suspect that "Don Pedro" may have been "the absolute Castilio." One hopes there weren't too many lords in Elizabeth's court who went around buying sonnets from the poor poets of the time to bolster their reputations and woo their lovers with fake poetry.
Back to the Gullio question:
My argument that "Don Pedro" might have been "Castilio," and the very existence of Marston's satire on "the absolute Castilio," both fall on the Gullio=Southampton side of the scales.
However, I forgot to highlight another point against Gullio=Southampton in my last post:
In Harington's Epigram 81, "Lesbia" is a widow whose looks have been going to seed, though she long disguised this with makeup. Assuming the poets of the time lampooned one woman in particular as "Lesbia," this wouldn't apply to Southampton's wife Elizabeth Vernon, since her first marriage was to the Earl in 1598, when she was 26 years old.
I suppose it is possible that more than one "Elizabeth" was nicknamed "Lesbia" by the poets of the period, although we don't know for sure that any Elizabeth was. I do agree that the nickname "Lesbia" would have been a good way for a poet of the time to satirize an "Elizabeth" in print while disguising her identity, given the loose similarity of the names.
Sneaky O. Possum
Feb 24, 2014, 1:54:36 AM2/24/14
to
Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote in
news:27e1854c-6453-4127...@googlegroups.com:
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:02:36 AM UTC-5, Sabrina Feldman
> wrote:
[snip]
from Ireland c. 1600. Moreover, you argue below that the events depicted
in the play are /not/ pertinent to Southampton's life c. 1600, saying
that "the scenario depicted in RFP, I, therefore, takes place around
1593" to explain why Gullio is depicted as a bachelor. It seems very odd
that the playwright would allude to Southampton's recent return from
Ireland but not his recent marriage.
> Southampton had been with Essex in Ireland [there is actually an
> excellent joke in RFP, Part I, dealing with some of the gossip that
> circulated regarding Southampton having indulged in a homosexual
> dalliance with an officer while in Ireland. See if you can find it.
> Here is a hint...it has something to do with what is colloquially
> referred to as "morning lumber".
It seems that no such gossip ever circulated: the only evidence for the
"homosexual dalliance" is a single letter that one William Reynolds
wrote to Robert Cecil shortly after Essex's Rebellion. Nor is Reynolds a
reliable witness: quite the contrary, he was much given to fantasy -
Katherine Duncan-Jones notes that he believed that Queen Elizabeth
wanted his bod, and that her desire for him was depicted in
Shakespeare's "Venus and Adonis" (see /Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to
Sweet Swan: 1592-1623/, p. 83).
And is the "excellent joke" you're thinking of Gullio's claim that he
is "saluted every morninge by the name of 'Good morow, Captaine, my
sworde is at youre service!'"? Because I don't think that means what you
think it means.
>> Discrepancy 2: Mismatch in marital status.
>
>> Gullio is a bachelor. When Ingenioso wonders how Gullio has avoided
>> getting married, Gullio replies: "Nay, I cannot abide to be tied to
>> Cleopatra, if she were alive. It's enough for me to crop virginity."
>
>> In contrast, Southampton married Elizabeth Vernon in 1598, who
>> shortly after gave birth to their daughter Penelope.
>
> Since you acknowledge that Ingenioso is seeking patronage from Gullio,
> how do you also contend that Gullio is Robert Allot, who was never a
> patron to anyone and never would have been such in a system where
> patrons belonged to the courtier class? The fact is that Ingenioso is
> a thinly-veiled portrait of Thomas Nashe [this proposition is widely
> accepted, and bits of his dialogue are actually cribbed from Nashe's
> own writings].
While the Ingenioso depicted in the third Parnassus play may
well be a thinly-veiled portrait of Nashe, the character is markedly
different in the first and second plays. There is in fact very little
reason to suppose that /any/ of the characters in /The Pilgrimage to
Parnassus/ or the first /Return from Parnassus/ is meant to represent
a specific individual.
> RFP1 depicts a scenario in which Nashe and Shakespeare
> are in competition to see which can obtain the patronage of
> Southampton.
Really? Why would Gullio commission lines in "Mr. Shakspear's veyne"
from Ingenioso if he could have commissioned them directly from "sweet
Mr. Shakspeare"?
> Ingenioso writes a pornographic poem for the courtier Gullio ["wanton
> lines to please lewd Gullio"], just as Nashe dedicated his 'Choice of
> Valentines' to Lord "S",
The dedicatee of Nashe's poem was as likely to have been Lord Strange as
Lord Southampton: "fairest bud the red rose euer bare" fits Stanley, a
descendant of Mary Tudor, rather better than it does Wriothesley.
> and later complained that he hadn't received any patronage from
> Gullio, just as Nashe complained about Southampton not paying him.
Nashe included a dedicatory epistle to "the right Honorable Lord Henrie
Wriothesley" in the front matter to /The Unfortunate Traueller/, which
was published in 1594: he was on much better terms with Southampton than
Ingenioso is with Gullio. And it seems very curious that the author of
/The Return from Parnassus/ would have alluded to a privately-circulated
poem dedicated to 'Lord S' but failed to make any allusion whatsoever to
an explicit dedication to Southampton in Nashe's best-known published
work.
> 'Choice', also known as 'Nashe's Dildo', was composed around 1593,
> which would be the same year that WS dedicated V&A to Southampton. The
> scenario depicted in RFP, I, therefore, takes place around
> 1593...prior to Southampton marrying Elizabeth {Lesbia"?} Vernon.
But 'Lesbia' rejects Gullio: Ingenioso reports that she told him to warn
Gullio "that hee looke to his rheumeticke witt, that he bespitt paper
pages noe more to mee; if he doe, I'le have some porter or bearewoode to
cudgell the vayne braggadochio." (And 'Lesbia' is herself a stock type,
an obvious allusion to Catullus.)
>> Discrepancy 3: Mismatch in social status.
>
>> Gullio is a foolish social climber who pretends to be on close terms
>> with leading members of the nobility. In one scene he tells
>> Ingenioso, "A countess and two lords expect me today at dinner, they
>> are my veryhonourable friends, I must not disappoint them." Later, he
thrust Elizabeth Vere on Southampton, and that had happened back in
1591: if Gullio's lines are taken as an allusion to that "real-life
event," we must now suppose that the action of this scene is taking
place in 1591, 1593, and 1600 simultaneously.
And why would a character meant to represent the Earl of Southampton be
made to boast, truly or falsely, of having dined with a Countess and an
Earl? Wriothesley would hardly have considered that something to brag
about.
>> Ingenioso grumbles to himself, "I think he means to poison me with a
>> lie. Why he is acquainted with never a lord except my Lord Coulton,
>> and for Countesses, he never came in the country where a Countess
>> dwells!"
>
> Do you miss this joke as well and how it might be a shot at the
> alleged homosexual tendencies of Southampton?
Rather more likely to be pointed at Gullio's lack of acquaintance with
titled women than at his lack of acquaintance with any sort of women -
this is the same 'lewd Gullio' who claims that "It's enough for me to
crop virginitie, and to take heed that noe ladies dye vestalls and leade
aps in hell." Note also the crude joke about Gullio's tastes in women in
the scene where he compares himself and Sir Philip Sidney - "he dyed in
the Lowe Cuntries, and soe I thinke shall I." Elsewhere Ingenioso refers
to him as a "ladyemunger," and on taking his leave of Gullio, he says
"Nowe had I rather live in povertie/Than be tormented with the tedious
talks/Of Gullio's wench and of his luxuries..."
It must take quite an effort to find possible allusions to alleged
homosexual tendencies in the play while completely ignoring such crude
indications of Gullio's sexual persuasion as him claim that "for matters
of witt oft have I sonnetted it in the commendacons of her sqirill..."
[snip]
> There are many other parallels between the description of Gullio in
> the play and actual events in Southampton's life.
Hardly. Gullio is pretty clearly a stock type (viz., a "vayne
braggadochio") rather than a caricature of any real person. And it
requires very selective reading skills to imagine him to be a caricature
of any hereditary nobleman, much less Henry Wriothesley:
"Ingen. I dare sweare youre worship scapt knightinge verie hardly.
"Gull. That's but a pettie requitall to good deserts! He that esteems me
of less worth than a knight is peasande and a gull. Give mee a new
knight of them all, in fenc-school, att a Nimbrocado or at a Stocado!
Sir Oliver, Sir Randal, base, base chamber-tearmes! I am saluted every
morninge by the name of 'Good morow, Captaine, my sworde is at youre
service!'"
Why would someone put such words in the mouth of a character meant to
represent Southampton, who had been an earl since the death of his
father in 1581? Gullio is clearly a low-born sort who has risen above
his station - Ingenioso describes him as "this post put into a sattin
sute," and on taking leave of him repeats the insult more directly -
"Farewell, base carle clothed in a sattin sute,/Farewell, guilte ass,
farewell, base broker's poste!" Hank Wriothesley was a lot of things,
but base wasn't one of 'em.
--
S.O.P.
news:27e1854c-6453-4127...@googlegroups.com:
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:02:36 AM UTC-5, Sabrina Feldman
> wrote:
>> Southampton was a well traveled military man and traveler who had
>> visited the Azores, France, and Ireland by 1600 when The Return From
>> Parnassus Part One is thought to have been written.
>
> Do you really not understand the joke in this passage and in
> Ingenioso's aside to the audience? As a matter of fact, the language
> here is borrowed from Thomas Nashe and slight changes are made in
> order to make it pertinent to Southampton...such as to his recent
> return from Ireland.
A great many other people besides Southampton had recently returned
>> visited the Azores, France, and Ireland by 1600 when The Return From
>> Parnassus Part One is thought to have been written.
>
> Do you really not understand the joke in this passage and in
> Ingenioso's aside to the audience? As a matter of fact, the language
> here is borrowed from Thomas Nashe and slight changes are made in
> order to make it pertinent to Southampton...such as to his recent
> return from Ireland.
from Ireland c. 1600. Moreover, you argue below that the events depicted
in the play are /not/ pertinent to Southampton's life c. 1600, saying
that "the scenario depicted in RFP, I, therefore, takes place around
1593" to explain why Gullio is depicted as a bachelor. It seems very odd
that the playwright would allude to Southampton's recent return from
Ireland but not his recent marriage.
> Southampton had been with Essex in Ireland [there is actually an
> excellent joke in RFP, Part I, dealing with some of the gossip that
> circulated regarding Southampton having indulged in a homosexual
> dalliance with an officer while in Ireland. See if you can find it.
> Here is a hint...it has something to do with what is colloquially
> referred to as "morning lumber".
"homosexual dalliance" is a single letter that one William Reynolds
wrote to Robert Cecil shortly after Essex's Rebellion. Nor is Reynolds a
reliable witness: quite the contrary, he was much given to fantasy -
Katherine Duncan-Jones notes that he believed that Queen Elizabeth
wanted his bod, and that her desire for him was depicted in
Shakespeare's "Venus and Adonis" (see /Shakespeare: Upstart Crow to
Sweet Swan: 1592-1623/, p. 83).
And is the "excellent joke" you're thinking of Gullio's claim that he
is "saluted every morninge by the name of 'Good morow, Captaine, my
sworde is at youre service!'"? Because I don't think that means what you
think it means.
>> Discrepancy 2: Mismatch in marital status.
>
>> Gullio is a bachelor. When Ingenioso wonders how Gullio has avoided
>> getting married, Gullio replies: "Nay, I cannot abide to be tied to
>> Cleopatra, if she were alive. It's enough for me to crop virginity."
>
>> In contrast, Southampton married Elizabeth Vernon in 1598, who
>> shortly after gave birth to their daughter Penelope.
>
> Since you acknowledge that Ingenioso is seeking patronage from Gullio,
> how do you also contend that Gullio is Robert Allot, who was never a
> patron to anyone and never would have been such in a system where
> patrons belonged to the courtier class? The fact is that Ingenioso is
> a thinly-veiled portrait of Thomas Nashe [this proposition is widely
> accepted, and bits of his dialogue are actually cribbed from Nashe's
> own writings].
well be a thinly-veiled portrait of Nashe, the character is markedly
different in the first and second plays. There is in fact very little
reason to suppose that /any/ of the characters in /The Pilgrimage to
Parnassus/ or the first /Return from Parnassus/ is meant to represent
a specific individual.
> RFP1 depicts a scenario in which Nashe and Shakespeare
> are in competition to see which can obtain the patronage of
> Southampton.
from Ingenioso if he could have commissioned them directly from "sweet
Mr. Shakspeare"?
> Ingenioso writes a pornographic poem for the courtier Gullio ["wanton
> lines to please lewd Gullio"], just as Nashe dedicated his 'Choice of
> Valentines' to Lord "S",
Lord Southampton: "fairest bud the red rose euer bare" fits Stanley, a
descendant of Mary Tudor, rather better than it does Wriothesley.
> and later complained that he hadn't received any patronage from
> Gullio, just as Nashe complained about Southampton not paying him.
Wriothesley" in the front matter to /The Unfortunate Traueller/, which
was published in 1594: he was on much better terms with Southampton than
Ingenioso is with Gullio. And it seems very curious that the author of
/The Return from Parnassus/ would have alluded to a privately-circulated
poem dedicated to 'Lord S' but failed to make any allusion whatsoever to
an explicit dedication to Southampton in Nashe's best-known published
work.
> 'Choice', also known as 'Nashe's Dildo', was composed around 1593,
> which would be the same year that WS dedicated V&A to Southampton. The
> scenario depicted in RFP, I, therefore, takes place around
> 1593...prior to Southampton marrying Elizabeth {Lesbia"?} Vernon.
Gullio "that hee looke to his rheumeticke witt, that he bespitt paper
pages noe more to mee; if he doe, I'le have some porter or bearewoode to
cudgell the vayne braggadochio." (And 'Lesbia' is herself a stock type,
an obvious allusion to Catullus.)
>> Discrepancy 3: Mismatch in social status.
>
>> Gullio is a foolish social climber who pretends to be on close terms
>> with leading members of the nobility. In one scene he tells
>> Ingenioso, "A countess and two lords expect me today at dinner, they
>> reports that "The Countess and my lord entertained me very honorably.
>> Indeed they used my advice in some state matters, and I perceived the
>> Earl would fain have thrust one of his daughters upon me..."
>
> Do you really miss the joke in this passage and how it applies
> specifically to real-life events in the life of Southampton [as well
> as referencing Lord Oxenforde]?
In fact, it was William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley who would fain have
>> Indeed they used my advice in some state matters, and I perceived the
>> Earl would fain have thrust one of his daughters upon me..."
>
> Do you really miss the joke in this passage and how it applies
> specifically to real-life events in the life of Southampton [as well
> as referencing Lord Oxenforde]?
thrust Elizabeth Vere on Southampton, and that had happened back in
1591: if Gullio's lines are taken as an allusion to that "real-life
event," we must now suppose that the action of this scene is taking
place in 1591, 1593, and 1600 simultaneously.
And why would a character meant to represent the Earl of Southampton be
made to boast, truly or falsely, of having dined with a Countess and an
Earl? Wriothesley would hardly have considered that something to brag
about.
>> Ingenioso grumbles to himself, "I think he means to poison me with a
>> lie. Why he is acquainted with never a lord except my Lord Coulton,
>> and for Countesses, he never came in the country where a Countess
>> dwells!"
>
> Do you miss this joke as well and how it might be a shot at the
> alleged homosexual tendencies of Southampton?
titled women than at his lack of acquaintance with any sort of women -
this is the same 'lewd Gullio' who claims that "It's enough for me to
crop virginitie, and to take heed that noe ladies dye vestalls and leade
aps in hell." Note also the crude joke about Gullio's tastes in women in
the scene where he compares himself and Sir Philip Sidney - "he dyed in
the Lowe Cuntries, and soe I thinke shall I." Elsewhere Ingenioso refers
to him as a "ladyemunger," and on taking his leave of Gullio, he says
"Nowe had I rather live in povertie/Than be tormented with the tedious
talks/Of Gullio's wench and of his luxuries..."
It must take quite an effort to find possible allusions to alleged
homosexual tendencies in the play while completely ignoring such crude
indications of Gullio's sexual persuasion as him claim that "for matters
of witt oft have I sonnetted it in the commendacons of her sqirill..."
[snip]
> There are many other parallels between the description of Gullio in
> the play and actual events in Southampton's life.
braggadochio") rather than a caricature of any real person. And it
requires very selective reading skills to imagine him to be a caricature
of any hereditary nobleman, much less Henry Wriothesley:
"Ingen. I dare sweare youre worship scapt knightinge verie hardly.
"Gull. That's but a pettie requitall to good deserts! He that esteems me
of less worth than a knight is peasande and a gull. Give mee a new
knight of them all, in fenc-school, att a Nimbrocado or at a Stocado!
Sir Oliver, Sir Randal, base, base chamber-tearmes! I am saluted every
morninge by the name of 'Good morow, Captaine, my sworde is at youre
service!'"
Why would someone put such words in the mouth of a character meant to
represent Southampton, who had been an earl since the death of his
father in 1581? Gullio is clearly a low-born sort who has risen above
his station - Ingenioso describes him as "this post put into a sattin
sute," and on taking leave of him repeats the insult more directly -
"Farewell, base carle clothed in a sattin sute,/Farewell, guilte ass,
farewell, base broker's poste!" Hank Wriothesley was a lot of things,
but base wasn't one of 'em.
--
S.O.P.
Bob Grumman
Feb 25, 2014, 4:22:55 PM2/25/14
to
SOP: If I may interject a word or two, I'll note that while it is impossible
I wonder why Gullio need be based on just one person, myself. Still, I have read the Parnassus plays, so won't intrude in this thread too much.
to be absolutely sure that Allott was not a patron, the same
circumstantial evidence that leads us to conclude that John Bodenham
/was/ a patron - viz., that he is described as such in dedicatory verses
- also leads us to conclude that Allott was not one. Sometimes absence
of evidence is in fact evidence of absence: given the assiduousness with
which Elizabethan and Jacobean poets sought and acknowledged patronage,
it is reasonable to suppose that if Allott had provided any, it would
have earned him a dedication or two.
Not too good a counter, SOP, considering how few dedicatory verses have SURVIVED. but Sabrina's other arguments seem pretty good to me, too.
circumstantial evidence that leads us to conclude that John Bodenham
/was/ a patron - viz., that he is described as such in dedicatory verses
- also leads us to conclude that Allott was not one. Sometimes absence
of evidence is in fact evidence of absence: given the assiduousness with
which Elizabethan and Jacobean poets sought and acknowledged patronage,
it is reasonable to suppose that if Allott had provided any, it would
have earned him a dedication or two.
I wonder why Gullio need be based on just one person, myself. Still, I have read the Parnassus plays, so won't intrude in this thread too much.
Sabrina Feldman
Feb 25, 2014, 6:56:45 PM2/25/14
to
Hi S.O.P.,
I really enjoyed your last post, and agree with your arguments with one caveat. You maintain that "There is in fact very little reason to suppose that /any/ of the characters in /The Pilgrimage to Parnassus/ or the first /Return from Parnassus/ is meant to represent a specific individual."
The Parnassus plays were written during the War of the Theatres, a period when the playwrights of the time were constantly lampooning each other and their contemporaries. While these satirical portraits were veiled and deliberately ambiguous, to provide plausible deniability, they often contain such specific details that they seem clearly intended for particular individuals.
While Gullio's portrait is built upon a stock character base, the "foolish social climber," his portrayal seems to be tailored to a specific person: one who spoke play scraps, had been commended by Weever, and bought poems from an Ingenioso-type to pass off as his own.
Despite the title of my post, I don't think it's as simple as Gullio=Allott. A more accurate statement of my position is that I think that Allott is likely to have inspired Gullio's portrayal.
As a point of interest: Thomas Nashe sometimes wrote "toys for private gentleman," as he informs us in his 1596 pamphlet "Have with you to Saffron Walden," because he was too poor to neglect this potential source of writing income. "I am fain," he explains, "to let my plow stand still in the midst of a furrow, and follow some of these new-fangled Galiardos and Senior Fantasticos, to whose amorous villanellos and qui passas I prostitute my pen, in the hope of gain." In other words: he had recently been forced to abandon his own literary efforts mid-stream to write love songs and poems for silly men with disposable incomes who wished to flatter and impress their mistresses through poetry. Just like Ingenioso did for Gullio.
I really enjoyed your last post, and agree with your arguments with one caveat. You maintain that "There is in fact very little reason to suppose that /any/ of the characters in /The Pilgrimage to Parnassus/ or the first /Return from Parnassus/ is meant to represent a specific individual."
The Parnassus plays were written during the War of the Theatres, a period when the playwrights of the time were constantly lampooning each other and their contemporaries. While these satirical portraits were veiled and deliberately ambiguous, to provide plausible deniability, they often contain such specific details that they seem clearly intended for particular individuals.
While Gullio's portrait is built upon a stock character base, the "foolish social climber," his portrayal seems to be tailored to a specific person: one who spoke play scraps, had been commended by Weever, and bought poems from an Ingenioso-type to pass off as his own.
Despite the title of my post, I don't think it's as simple as Gullio=Allott. A more accurate statement of my position is that I think that Allott is likely to have inspired Gullio's portrayal.
As a point of interest: Thomas Nashe sometimes wrote "toys for private gentleman," as he informs us in his 1596 pamphlet "Have with you to Saffron Walden," because he was too poor to neglect this potential source of writing income. "I am fain," he explains, "to let my plow stand still in the midst of a furrow, and follow some of these new-fangled Galiardos and Senior Fantasticos, to whose amorous villanellos and qui passas I prostitute my pen, in the hope of gain." In other words: he had recently been forced to abandon his own literary efforts mid-stream to write love songs and poems for silly men with disposable incomes who wished to flatter and impress their mistresses through poetry. Just like Ingenioso did for Gullio.
marco
Aug 20, 2014, 2:56:46 PM8/20/14
to
Art N
0 new messages