Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Daryl Pinksen, Ned Alleyn, and The Upstart Crow: Part I
137 views
Skip to first unread message
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 22, 2013, 7:48:51 PM4/22/13
to
In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to See off
Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a side-discussion
about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the "Upstart Crow" famously
criticised by Robert Greene. In a follow-up post, he stated that Daryl
Pinksen's article, "Was Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward
Alleyn?", "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in
his opinion. It seems reasonable, then to examine Mr Pinksen's article
more closely. The article is available in PDF format on the Web:
http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl06_03_pinksen_upstartcrowalleyn.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive claim
for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions. He
writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in 1592
while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have played
the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the 'tiger's
heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's Men in 1592?
Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put on a production
of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not indicate which, if
any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry VI/ was performed.
The parody of the line "Oh Tygers hart wrapt in a womans hide" does
suggest that /3 Henry VI/ had already been staged at the time /Greenes
Groats-worth of Witte/ was composed, but gives no indication of who
might have spoken the line. The question of which play Strange's Men
performed is complicated by another 1592 publication, Thomas Nashe's
/Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Divell/, that apparently
alludes to /1 Henry VI/:
How would it have joyed brave /Talbot/ (the terror of the French)
to thinke that after he had lyen two hundred yeare in his Toomb, he
should triumph againe on the Stage, and have his bones new embalmed
with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at severall
times) who, in the Tragedian that represents his person, imagine
they behold him fresh bleeding.
The Tragedian referred to is usually assumed to be Alleyn: with over 400
lines, Talbot is the largest role in /1 Henry VI/ by a wide margin. Mr
Pinksen errs in claiming that York is "the lead" in 3 Henry VI: the
character has fewer than 200 lines and dies at the end of the first act.
It is far from certain who would have played the role. It is true that
the first published version of the play puts York's name first in the
title, but that version also states that the play "was sundrie times
acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants".
Alleyn was not a member of Pembroke's Men: if they were the first
company to perform 3 Henry VI, someone other than Alleyn must have
played York.
Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that while there is no evidence Greene knew
Shakespeare, his "documented dislike of Alleyn dates back to 1590 when
he chastised Alleyn for being 'proud with Aesop's crow, being pranct
with the glory of other's feathers.'" (Ibid.) This is a reference to the
following passage in /Francescos Fortunes/:
...It chanced that /Roscius/ & he met at a dinner, both guests unto
/Archias/ the Poet, where the prowd Comedian dared to make
comparison with /Tully/: which insolencie made the learned Orator to
growe into these terms; why /Roscius/, art thou proud with /Esops/
Crow, being pranct with the glorie of others feathers? of thy selfe
thou canst say nothing, and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say
/Aue Caesar/, disdain not thy tutor, because thous pratest in a
Kings chamber...
This comes in the middle of a long, digressive passage about the history
of the Classical theater. Is there any reason to suppose that Greene
intended 'Roscius' to represent Alleyn? No. He may have meant the
passage as a covert dig at an Elizabethan actor, but there is no way to
determine which actor was the target. The scholar Frederick Fleay was
quite sure that 'Roscius' was Robert Wilson (/A Chronicle History of the
Life and Work of William Shakespeare/ [London: 1886], 119-20). Many
other scholars have asserted with equal certainty that 'Roscius' was
Alleyn, but none has ventured to explain the fact that, as the passage
indicates, Roscius was a great comic actor, not a tragedian like Alleyn.
If Greene actually did dislike Alleyn, it seems strange that he would
have composed the play /The History of Orlando Furioso/ for Alleyn's
company. As it happens, Alleyn kept his copy of Orlando's lines (the
'side') among his papers, where it may still be found. /Orlando Furioso/
was performed by Lord Strange's Men in February 1591: in the same month
they performed Greene's /Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay/ - curious
behaviour if Greene had indeed "chastised" Alleyn the year before. The
identification of 'Roscius' with Alleyn appears to be one of those
commonplaces among scholars that could benefit from sober second
thought.
From 'Roscius', Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that Alleyn is also the
model for the player who hires Roberto in the narrative portion of
/Greenes Groats-worth of witte/:
The Player takes exception to Roberto's judgment of his speaking
voice, and begins to list the roles he is famous for, including -
and now Greene effectively reveals the identity of the Player - "The
Twelve Labors of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the Stage."
To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man fit this description, only
one Player could be described as "thundering on the stage" - Edward
Alleyn... (3)
This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the player's
boasts seriously, which is a little like taking Falstaff's claims for
himself at face value. Greene is alluding to the pageants that were
typical of early Tudor drama:
...Nay then, saide the Player, I mislike your judgement: why, I am
as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was any of
my time. The twelve labor of Hercules have I terrible thundred on
the Stage, and plaid three scenes of the Devill in the High way to
heaven...
What Greene's readers might have made of the player's having thundred as
Hercules is suggested by Bottom's lines in /A Midsummer Night's Dream/:
That will ask some tears in the true performing of it: If I do it,
let the audience look to their eyes; I will move storms, I will
condole in some measure. To the rest:-Yet my chief humour is for a
tyrant: I could play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to
make all split.
It may seem superfluous to note that Bottom is not meant to represent
Edward Alleyn, and his claims to move storms are not meant to be taken
seriously.
Mr Pinksen goes on to claim that the player who hires Roberto is meant
to be the same figure as the Upstart Crow:
...Greene's later description of an actor who thinks himself a
"Shake-scene" and "bombasts" out blank verse only reinforce to his
readers that Edward Alleyn is the intended target. Naming him would
have been superfluous.
Now that Roberto has a better understanding of the Player, he asks
him, "but how mean you to use me?" The Player responds, "Why sir, in
making Plays, for which you shall be well paid, if you will take the
pains." Here is another clue to Greene's grievance: he was promised
to be well paid, yet now here he is, in pain, possibly dying,
debt-ridden, at the same time that Alleyn and his players are
cashing in with ongoing performances of his plays. Greene's later
condemnation of the actor he calls an "upstart Crow" would have been
understood by his readers as a continuation of this first encounter
with the Player. (3-4)
This is misleading. Roberto is, in fact, well paid for his plays, just
as the player promised:
But /Roberto/ now famozed for an Arch-plaimaking-poet, his purse
like the sea sometimes sweld, anon like the same sea fell to a low
ebbe; yet seldom he wanted, his labors were so well esteemed...
The narrative goes on to establish that, far from being the victim of
broken promises, Roberto is the breaker:
...It becoms me, saith hee, to bee contrary to the worlde: for
commonly when vulgar men receiue earnest, they doo performe, when I
am paid any thing afore-hand, I breake my promise...
Roberto is not meant to be an excessively sympathetic character.
...For now when the number of deceites caused /Roberto/ [to] bee
hatefull almost to all men, his immeasurable drinking had made him
the perfect Image of the dropsie, and the loathsome scourge of Lust
tyrannized in his bones...
Though he is reduced to "extreame poverty", he knows it's his own
fault, not the fault of the player who hired him. There is no ground for
claiming that the player who hires Roberto is meant to be identified
with the 'Upstart Crow.'
In the next part, I'll look at Alleyn's association with the play
/Tamber Cam/, and whether it justifies the claim that readers of 1592
would have thought of Alleyn as both a player and a playwright.
--
S.O.P.
Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a side-discussion
about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the "Upstart Crow" famously
criticised by Robert Greene. In a follow-up post, he stated that Daryl
Pinksen's article, "Was Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward
Alleyn?", "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in
his opinion. It seems reasonable, then to examine Mr Pinksen's article
more closely. The article is available in PDF format on the Web:
http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl06_03_pinksen_upstartcrowalleyn.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive claim
for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions. He
writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in 1592
while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have played
the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the 'tiger's
heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's Men in 1592?
Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put on a production
of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not indicate which, if
any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry VI/ was performed.
The parody of the line "Oh Tygers hart wrapt in a womans hide" does
suggest that /3 Henry VI/ had already been staged at the time /Greenes
Groats-worth of Witte/ was composed, but gives no indication of who
might have spoken the line. The question of which play Strange's Men
performed is complicated by another 1592 publication, Thomas Nashe's
/Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Divell/, that apparently
alludes to /1 Henry VI/:
How would it have joyed brave /Talbot/ (the terror of the French)
to thinke that after he had lyen two hundred yeare in his Toomb, he
should triumph againe on the Stage, and have his bones new embalmed
with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at severall
times) who, in the Tragedian that represents his person, imagine
they behold him fresh bleeding.
The Tragedian referred to is usually assumed to be Alleyn: with over 400
lines, Talbot is the largest role in /1 Henry VI/ by a wide margin. Mr
Pinksen errs in claiming that York is "the lead" in 3 Henry VI: the
character has fewer than 200 lines and dies at the end of the first act.
It is far from certain who would have played the role. It is true that
the first published version of the play puts York's name first in the
title, but that version also states that the play "was sundrie times
acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his seruants".
Alleyn was not a member of Pembroke's Men: if they were the first
company to perform 3 Henry VI, someone other than Alleyn must have
played York.
Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that while there is no evidence Greene knew
Shakespeare, his "documented dislike of Alleyn dates back to 1590 when
he chastised Alleyn for being 'proud with Aesop's crow, being pranct
with the glory of other's feathers.'" (Ibid.) This is a reference to the
following passage in /Francescos Fortunes/:
...It chanced that /Roscius/ & he met at a dinner, both guests unto
/Archias/ the Poet, where the prowd Comedian dared to make
comparison with /Tully/: which insolencie made the learned Orator to
growe into these terms; why /Roscius/, art thou proud with /Esops/
Crow, being pranct with the glorie of others feathers? of thy selfe
thou canst say nothing, and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say
/Aue Caesar/, disdain not thy tutor, because thous pratest in a
Kings chamber...
This comes in the middle of a long, digressive passage about the history
of the Classical theater. Is there any reason to suppose that Greene
intended 'Roscius' to represent Alleyn? No. He may have meant the
passage as a covert dig at an Elizabethan actor, but there is no way to
determine which actor was the target. The scholar Frederick Fleay was
quite sure that 'Roscius' was Robert Wilson (/A Chronicle History of the
Life and Work of William Shakespeare/ [London: 1886], 119-20). Many
other scholars have asserted with equal certainty that 'Roscius' was
Alleyn, but none has ventured to explain the fact that, as the passage
indicates, Roscius was a great comic actor, not a tragedian like Alleyn.
If Greene actually did dislike Alleyn, it seems strange that he would
have composed the play /The History of Orlando Furioso/ for Alleyn's
company. As it happens, Alleyn kept his copy of Orlando's lines (the
'side') among his papers, where it may still be found. /Orlando Furioso/
was performed by Lord Strange's Men in February 1591: in the same month
they performed Greene's /Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay/ - curious
behaviour if Greene had indeed "chastised" Alleyn the year before. The
identification of 'Roscius' with Alleyn appears to be one of those
commonplaces among scholars that could benefit from sober second
thought.
From 'Roscius', Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that Alleyn is also the
model for the player who hires Roberto in the narrative portion of
/Greenes Groats-worth of witte/:
The Player takes exception to Roberto's judgment of his speaking
voice, and begins to list the roles he is famous for, including -
and now Greene effectively reveals the identity of the Player - "The
Twelve Labors of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the Stage."
To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man fit this description, only
one Player could be described as "thundering on the stage" - Edward
Alleyn... (3)
This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the player's
boasts seriously, which is a little like taking Falstaff's claims for
himself at face value. Greene is alluding to the pageants that were
typical of early Tudor drama:
...Nay then, saide the Player, I mislike your judgement: why, I am
as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was any of
my time. The twelve labor of Hercules have I terrible thundred on
the Stage, and plaid three scenes of the Devill in the High way to
heaven...
What Greene's readers might have made of the player's having thundred as
Hercules is suggested by Bottom's lines in /A Midsummer Night's Dream/:
That will ask some tears in the true performing of it: If I do it,
let the audience look to their eyes; I will move storms, I will
condole in some measure. To the rest:-Yet my chief humour is for a
tyrant: I could play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to
make all split.
It may seem superfluous to note that Bottom is not meant to represent
Edward Alleyn, and his claims to move storms are not meant to be taken
seriously.
Mr Pinksen goes on to claim that the player who hires Roberto is meant
to be the same figure as the Upstart Crow:
...Greene's later description of an actor who thinks himself a
"Shake-scene" and "bombasts" out blank verse only reinforce to his
readers that Edward Alleyn is the intended target. Naming him would
have been superfluous.
Now that Roberto has a better understanding of the Player, he asks
him, "but how mean you to use me?" The Player responds, "Why sir, in
making Plays, for which you shall be well paid, if you will take the
pains." Here is another clue to Greene's grievance: he was promised
to be well paid, yet now here he is, in pain, possibly dying,
debt-ridden, at the same time that Alleyn and his players are
cashing in with ongoing performances of his plays. Greene's later
condemnation of the actor he calls an "upstart Crow" would have been
understood by his readers as a continuation of this first encounter
with the Player. (3-4)
This is misleading. Roberto is, in fact, well paid for his plays, just
as the player promised:
But /Roberto/ now famozed for an Arch-plaimaking-poet, his purse
like the sea sometimes sweld, anon like the same sea fell to a low
ebbe; yet seldom he wanted, his labors were so well esteemed...
The narrative goes on to establish that, far from being the victim of
broken promises, Roberto is the breaker:
...It becoms me, saith hee, to bee contrary to the worlde: for
commonly when vulgar men receiue earnest, they doo performe, when I
am paid any thing afore-hand, I breake my promise...
Roberto is not meant to be an excessively sympathetic character.
...For now when the number of deceites caused /Roberto/ [to] bee
hatefull almost to all men, his immeasurable drinking had made him
the perfect Image of the dropsie, and the loathsome scourge of Lust
tyrannized in his bones...
Though he is reduced to "extreame poverty", he knows it's his own
fault, not the fault of the player who hired him. There is no ground for
claiming that the player who hires Roberto is meant to be identified
with the 'Upstart Crow.'
In the next part, I'll look at Alleyn's association with the play
/Tamber Cam/, and whether it justifies the claim that readers of 1592
would have thought of Alleyn as both a player and a playwright.
--
S.O.P.
Tom Reedy
Apr 25, 2013, 4:07:30 PM4/25/13
to
On Apr 22, 6:48 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Admiral's Men in the early 1590s. Stange's and Admiral's joined forces
several times, including when Henslowe recorded the "harry vj"
performances.
How can Alleyn be an "upstart" if he was the successful actor who used
to write plays himself and who originally got Greene into the
business? Does that make sense to anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
Alleyn played the lead in Marlowe's *Tamberlaine* and *Jew of Malta*
long before Greene wrote his scald, trivial, lying pamphlet, in which
Greene refers to Marlowe as "thou famous gracer of Tragedians," IOW an
established, celebrated playwright. Yet for some reason Pinksen and
others want the "upstart Crow" to be the same actor who made those
roles famous and brought recognition to their author.
That seems contradictory to me, but of course all anti-Stratfordians
possess first-rate minds according to Scott Fitzgerald's definition,
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function."
TR
wrote:
> In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to See off
> Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a side-discussion
> about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the "Upstart Crow" famously
> criticised by Robert Greene. In a follow-up post, he stated that Daryl
> Pinksen's article, "Was Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward
> Alleyn?", "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in
> his opinion. It seems reasonable, then to examine Mr Pinksen's article
> more closely. The article is available in PDF format on the Web:
>
> http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl...
> Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a side-discussion
> about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the "Upstart Crow" famously
> criticised by Robert Greene. In a follow-up post, he stated that Daryl
> Pinksen's article, "Was Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward
> Alleyn?", "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in
> his opinion. It seems reasonable, then to examine Mr Pinksen's article
> more closely. The article is available in PDF format on the Web:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
>
> As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive claim
> for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions. He
> writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in 1592
> while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have played
> the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the 'tiger's
> heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's Men in 1592?
> Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put on a production
> of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not indicate which, if
> any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry VI/ was performed.
IIRC, Alleyn wasn't the lead actor with Strange, he was with the
> http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
>
> As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive claim
> for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions. He
> writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in 1592
> while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have played
> the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the 'tiger's
> heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's Men in 1592?
> Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put on a production
> of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not indicate which, if
> any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry VI/ was performed.
Admiral's Men in the early 1590s. Stange's and Admiral's joined forces
several times, including when Henslowe recorded the "harry vj"
performances.
to write plays himself and who originally got Greene into the
business? Does that make sense to anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
Alleyn played the lead in Marlowe's *Tamberlaine* and *Jew of Malta*
long before Greene wrote his scald, trivial, lying pamphlet, in which
Greene refers to Marlowe as "thou famous gracer of Tragedians," IOW an
established, celebrated playwright. Yet for some reason Pinksen and
others want the "upstart Crow" to be the same actor who made those
roles famous and brought recognition to their author.
That seems contradictory to me, but of course all anti-Stratfordians
possess first-rate minds according to Scott Fitzgerald's definition,
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two
opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the
ability to function."
TR
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 25, 2013, 8:02:44 PM4/25/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:94fa9b13-3e24-446e...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
19 February and 22 June 1592: although there's no direct evidence that
Alleyn joined the company at that time, it's quite likely that he did.
The British Library, a bastion of orthodoxy, put the claim that Alleyn
was the leading player of Lord Strange's Men in 1592 on its "Shakespeare
in Quarto" website: see
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/players.html
[snip]
anyone else, would have called Alleyn an upstart in 1592.
> Alleyn played the lead in Marlowe's *Tamberlaine* and *Jew of Malta*
> long before Greene wrote his scald, trivial, lying pamphlet, in which
> Greene refers to Marlowe as "thou famous gracer of Tragedians," IOW an
> established, celebrated playwright. Yet for some reason Pinksen and
> others want the "upstart Crow" to be the same actor who made those
> roles famous and brought recognition to their author.
My next post in the series looks at the fanciful scenario Mr Pinksen has
spun to explain how Alleyn had wronged poor Marlowe.
--
S.O.P.
news:94fa9b13-3e24-446e...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>> As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive
>> claim for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions.
>> He writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in
>> 1592 while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have
>> played the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the
>> 'tiger's heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's
>> Men in 1592? Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put
>> on a production of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not
>> indicate which, if any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry
>> VI/ was performed.
>
> IIRC, Alleyn wasn't the lead actor with Strange, he was with the
> Admiral's Men in the early 1590s. Stange's and Admiral's joined forces
> several times, including when Henslowe recorded the "harry vj"
> performances.
Lord Strange's Men were playing at Henslowe's theater, the Rose, between
>> claim for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions.
>> He writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in
>> 1592 while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have
>> played the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the
>> 'tiger's heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's
>> Men in 1592? Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put
>> on a production of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not
>> indicate which, if any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry
>> VI/ was performed.
>
> IIRC, Alleyn wasn't the lead actor with Strange, he was with the
> Admiral's Men in the early 1590s. Stange's and Admiral's joined forces
> several times, including when Henslowe recorded the "harry vj"
> performances.
19 February and 22 June 1592: although there's no direct evidence that
Alleyn joined the company at that time, it's quite likely that he did.
The British Library, a bastion of orthodoxy, put the claim that Alleyn
was the leading player of Lord Strange's Men in 1592 on its "Shakespeare
in Quarto" website: see
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/players.html
[snip]
> How can Alleyn be an "upstart" if he was the successful actor who used
> to write plays himself and who originally got Greene into the
> business? Does that make sense to anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene, or
> to write plays himself and who originally got Greene into the
> business? Does that make sense to anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
anyone else, would have called Alleyn an upstart in 1592.
> Alleyn played the lead in Marlowe's *Tamberlaine* and *Jew of Malta*
> long before Greene wrote his scald, trivial, lying pamphlet, in which
> Greene refers to Marlowe as "thou famous gracer of Tragedians," IOW an
> established, celebrated playwright. Yet for some reason Pinksen and
> others want the "upstart Crow" to be the same actor who made those
> roles famous and brought recognition to their author.
spun to explain how Alleyn had wronged poor Marlowe.
--
S.O.P.
Tom Reedy
Apr 25, 2013, 10:29:53 PM4/25/13
to
On Apr 25, 7:02 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
memory, and *Tamburlaine* was performed in 1587 by the Admiral's Men
with Alleyn as the lead. The title page of 1690 quarto states it was
played by the Admiral's Men "sundrie times ... upon Stages in the
Citie of London". The members of Stange's Men and the Admirals Men
played together off and on from 1590 to 1594, and beginning in
February 1591/2 through June 1592 the combined companies with Alleyn
as lead player moved into Henslowe's Rose Theatre. It was during this
time that "harey vj" was played 15 times, beginning March 3, 1591/2.
(Strange's Men became Derby's Men, and then when the Earl of Derby
died and the Admiral's Men and the Chamberlain's Men were given the
London duopoly in 1594 they continued in a dissipated form.)
> [snip]
>
> > How can Alleyn be an "upstart" if he was the successful actor who used
> > to write plays himself and who originally got Greene into the
> > business? Does that make sense to anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
>
> Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene, or
> anyone else, would have called Alleyn an upstart in 1592.
Of course not; it would interfere with his "theory".
TR
wrote:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote innews:94fa9b13-3e24-446e...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:48 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> [snip]
> >> As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive
> >> claim for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions.
> >> He writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in
> >> 1592 while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have
> >> played the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the
> >> 'tiger's heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's
> >> Men in 1592? Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put
> >> on a production of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not
> >> indicate which, if any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry
> >> VI/ was performed.
>
> > IIRC, Alleyn wasn't the lead actor with Strange, he was with the
> > Admiral's Men in the early 1590s. Stange's and Admiral's joined forces
> > several times, including when Henslowe recorded the "harry vj"
> > performances.
>
> Lord Strange's Men were playing at Henslowe's theater, the Rose, between
> 19 February and 22 June 1592: although there's no direct evidence that
> Alleyn joined the company at that time, it's quite likely that he did.
> The British Library, a bastion of orthodoxy, put the claim that Alleyn
> was the leading player of Lord Strange's Men in 1592 on its "Shakespeare
> in Quarto" website: seehttp://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/players.html
They're wrong. I did soome checking rather than going by my frail
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:48 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> [snip]
> >> As I noted in the previous thread, Mr Pinksen's first substantive
> >> claim for Alleyn as the "Upstart Crow" rests on unproven assumptions.
> >> He writes that "Alleyn was the lead actor of Lord Strange's Men in
> >> 1592 while they were performing Henry VI, Part III. Alleyn would have
> >> played the lead, Richard Duke of York, the character who spoke the
> >> 'tiger's heart' line." (2) Was /3 Henry VI/ performed by Strange's
> >> Men in 1592? Although Philip Henslowe's accounts show that they put
> >> on a production of a play about Henry VI in 1592, the accounts do not
> >> indicate which, if any, of the three parts of the canonical /Henry
> >> VI/ was performed.
>
> > IIRC, Alleyn wasn't the lead actor with Strange, he was with the
> > Admiral's Men in the early 1590s. Stange's and Admiral's joined forces
> > several times, including when Henslowe recorded the "harry vj"
> > performances.
>
> Lord Strange's Men were playing at Henslowe's theater, the Rose, between
> 19 February and 22 June 1592: although there's no direct evidence that
> Alleyn joined the company at that time, it's quite likely that he did.
> The British Library, a bastion of orthodoxy, put the claim that Alleyn
> was the leading player of Lord Strange's Men in 1592 on its "Shakespeare
> in Quarto" website: seehttp://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/players.html
memory, and *Tamburlaine* was performed in 1587 by the Admiral's Men
with Alleyn as the lead. The title page of 1690 quarto states it was
played by the Admiral's Men "sundrie times ... upon Stages in the
Citie of London". The members of Stange's Men and the Admirals Men
played together off and on from 1590 to 1594, and beginning in
February 1591/2 through June 1592 the combined companies with Alleyn
as lead player moved into Henslowe's Rose Theatre. It was during this
time that "harey vj" was played 15 times, beginning March 3, 1591/2.
(Strange's Men became Derby's Men, and then when the Earl of Derby
died and the Admiral's Men and the Chamberlain's Men were given the
London duopoly in 1594 they continued in a dissipated form.)
> [snip]
>
> > How can Alleyn be an "upstart" if he was the successful actor who used
> > to write plays himself and who originally got Greene into the
> > business? Does that make sense to anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
>
> Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene, or
> anyone else, would have called Alleyn an upstart in 1592.
TR
Peter F.
Apr 26, 2013, 6:20:08 AM4/26/13
to
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
A. n.
1. One who has newly or suddenly risen in position or importance;
a new-comer in respect of rank or consequence; a parvenu;
B. adj.
2. Of persons, families, etc.: Lately or suddenly risen to
prominence or dignity.
parvenu n.
A person from a humble background who has rapidly gained wealth
or an influential social position; a nouveau riche; an upstart,
a social climber.
Edward Alleyn (ODNB)
"By January 1592 Edward Alleyn was established as an actor; for an
indeterminate time he acted with Lord Strange's Men, performing at
the Rose Playhouse, which was owned by Philip Henslowe, a dyer.
By the autumn of 1592 he had begun to form a business partnership
with Henslowe, whose stepdaughter Joan Woodward (d. 1623) he
married on 22 October. Two years later he had achieved celebrity
status on the London stage, by which time he was leader of the
Admiral's Men."
I very much doubt whether Greene would have been too bothered
about exactly how recent or sudden Alleyn's actual rise from
humble beginnings to wealth and a social position would have
been in his choice of insult at that particular moment.
On the other hand...
William Shakespeare (ODNB)
"From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
>
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
<snip>
> > > How can Alleyn be an "upstart" if he was the successful
> > > actor who used to write plays himself and who originally
> > > got Greene into the business? Does that make sense to
> > > anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
> >
> > Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene,
> > or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an upstart in 1592.
>
> Of course not; it would interfere with his "theory".
upstart, n. and adj. (OED)
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
<snip>
> > > How can Alleyn be an "upstart" if he was the successful
> > > actor who used to write plays himself and who originally
> > > got Greene into the business? Does that make sense to
> > > anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
> >
> > Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene,
> > or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an upstart in 1592.
>
> Of course not; it would interfere with his "theory".
A. n.
1. One who has newly or suddenly risen in position or importance;
a new-comer in respect of rank or consequence; a parvenu;
B. adj.
2. Of persons, families, etc.: Lately or suddenly risen to
prominence or dignity.
parvenu n.
A person from a humble background who has rapidly gained wealth
or an influential social position; a nouveau riche; an upstart,
a social climber.
Edward Alleyn (ODNB)
"By January 1592 Edward Alleyn was established as an actor; for an
indeterminate time he acted with Lord Strange's Men, performing at
the Rose Playhouse, which was owned by Philip Henslowe, a dyer.
By the autumn of 1592 he had begun to form a business partnership
with Henslowe, whose stepdaughter Joan Woodward (d. 1623) he
married on 22 October. Two years later he had achieved celebrity
status on the London stage, by which time he was leader of the
Admiral's Men."
I very much doubt whether Greene would have been too bothered
about exactly how recent or sudden Alleyn's actual rise from
humble beginnings to wealth and a social position would have
been in his choice of insult at that particular moment.
On the other hand...
William Shakespeare (ODNB)
"From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Paul Crowley
Apr 26, 2013, 9:56:07 AM4/26/13
to
On 26/04/2013 11:20, Peter F. wrote:
> Edward Alleyn (ODNB)
> "By January 1592 Edward Alleyn was established as an actor; for an
> indeterminate time he acted with Lord Strange's Men, performing at
> the Rose Playhouse, which was owned by Philip Henslowe, a dyer.
> By the autumn of 1592 he had begun to form a business partnership
> with Henslowe, whose stepdaughter Joan Woodward (d. 1623) he
> married on 22 October. Two years later he had achieved celebrity
> status on the London stage, by which time he was leader of the
> Admiral's Men."
>
> I very much doubt whether Greene would have been too bothered
> about exactly how recent or sudden Alleyn's actual rise from
> humble beginnings to wealth and a social position would have
> been in his choice of insult at that particular moment.
If it had just been an insult, you might have an argument.
> Edward Alleyn (ODNB)
> "By January 1592 Edward Alleyn was established as an actor; for an
> indeterminate time he acted with Lord Strange's Men, performing at
> the Rose Playhouse, which was owned by Philip Henslowe, a dyer.
> By the autumn of 1592 he had begun to form a business partnership
> with Henslowe, whose stepdaughter Joan Woodward (d. 1623) he
> married on 22 October. Two years later he had achieved celebrity
> status on the London stage, by which time he was leader of the
> Admiral's Men."
>
> I very much doubt whether Greene would have been too bothered
> about exactly how recent or sudden Alleyn's actual rise from
> humble beginnings to wealth and a social position would have
> been in his choice of insult at that particular moment.
But "Greene" did not give us names. He expected his
readership to know who he meant. His description had to
be reasonably accurate so that his target was recognisable.
Think of any modern actor who has rapidly risen to fame
(e.g. David Tennant). If you were to refer to him as 'the
upstart' without further description, no one would have a
clue as to who or what you were talking about.
> On the other hand...
>
> William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>
> I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
letter is also supposed to be Shakespeare (" . . . myself
have seen his demeanor no less civil than he excellent in
the quality he professes. Besides, the diver of worship
have reported his uprightness of dealing, which argues his
honesty, and his facetious grace in writing that approves
his art . . ") . . . . . "Greene" is manifestly telling Shake-
speare to have nothing to do with himself.
So it's not "double standards". It's an "Olympic race"
where all the competitors have accidentally tied together
the shoelaces of all their shoes.
It's "Stratfordian scholarship" in its full triumphant glory.
Paul.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 26, 2013, 10:18:05 AM4/26/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in news:59c77cd7-c4b2-4429-
bb93-262...@googlegroups.com:
Especially if it wasn't Greene who wrote that part of /Groats-worth/
(which is possible) and the insult wasn't aimed at Alleyn (which is
rather more likely).
There is little evidence that the player who hires Roberto was intended
to represent Alleyn, and the assumption that the 'Upstart Crow' is meant
to be identified with the player who hires Roberto rests on the
assumption that 'Roscius' in /Francescos Fortunes/ was meant to be
Alleyn, which in turn rests on the assumption that the allusion to the
cobbler's crow is a dig at Marlowe's parentage.
> On the other hand...
>
> William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>
> I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
In this we are in agreement. Solely because of the perceived connection
to Shakespeare, the whole 'Upstart Crow' passage has received far more
attention that it deserves, to the point that the casual reader could
easily get the impression that Robert Greene's grudge against a player
who wrote plays was the defining feature of his life rather than one of
the many hundreds of things he wrote about during his short, prolific
career.
Unhappily, Mr Pinksen simply varies the error of the Stratfordians,
making Greene's life and work a footnote to Marlowe's career instead of
Shakespeare's. Greene deserves better.
--
S.O.P.
bb93-262...@googlegroups.com:
(which is possible) and the insult wasn't aimed at Alleyn (which is
rather more likely).
There is little evidence that the player who hires Roberto was intended
to represent Alleyn, and the assumption that the 'Upstart Crow' is meant
to be identified with the player who hires Roberto rests on the
assumption that 'Roscius' in /Francescos Fortunes/ was meant to be
Alleyn, which in turn rests on the assumption that the allusion to the
cobbler's crow is a dig at Marlowe's parentage.
> On the other hand...
>
> William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>
> I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
to Shakespeare, the whole 'Upstart Crow' passage has received far more
attention that it deserves, to the point that the casual reader could
easily get the impression that Robert Greene's grudge against a player
who wrote plays was the defining feature of his life rather than one of
the many hundreds of things he wrote about during his short, prolific
career.
Unhappily, Mr Pinksen simply varies the error of the Stratfordians,
making Greene's life and work a footnote to Marlowe's career instead of
Shakespeare's. Greene deserves better.
--
S.O.P.
Peter F.
Apr 26, 2013, 10:53:55 AM4/26/13
to
Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
> In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to
> See off Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a
> side-discussion about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the
> "Upstart Crow" famously criticised by Robert Greene. In a
> follow-up post, he stated that Daryl Pinksen's article, "Was
> Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward Alleyn?",
> "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in his
> opinion.
This is true. Not so much for the arguments which you try
>
> In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to
> See off Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a
> side-discussion about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the
> "Upstart Crow" famously criticised by Robert Greene. In a
> follow-up post, he stated that Daryl Pinksen's article, "Was
> Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward Alleyn?",
> "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in his
> opinion.
to refute here (which are really A.D.Wraight's, and which I
had some doubts about myself) but for his giving good reasons
for Greene having deliberately chosen Marlowe, Nashe and Peele
for the three 'Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance' to whom he
addressed his letter, for inferring that *Tambercam* was the
play Greene was complaining the upstart Crow had written
(I look forward to your argument in refutation of this), for
thinking that Marlowe had fallen out with Alleyn, and for
understanding why both Nashe and Chettle were so quick to
deny any personal part in this attack.
> It seems reasonable, then to examine Mr Pinksen's article
> more closely. The article is available in PDF format on
> the Web:
>
> http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl06_03_pinksen_upstartcrowalleyn.pdf
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
> From 'Roscius', Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that Alleyn is
> also the model for the player who hires Roberto in the
> narrative portion of /Greenes Groats-worth of witte/:
>
> The Player takes exception to Roberto's judgment of his
> speaking voice, and begins to list the roles he is famous
> for, including - and now Greene effectively reveals the
> identity of the Player - "The Twelve Labors of Hercules
> have I terribly thundered on the Stage."
>
> iption, only one Player could be described as "thundering
> on the stage" - Edward Alleyn... (3)
>
> This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the
> player's boasts seriously, which is a little like taking
> Falstaff's claims for himself at face value.
No of course it doesn't, it supposes that the reader will be
> on the stage" - Edward Alleyn... (3)
>
> This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the
> player's boasts seriously, which is a little like taking
> Falstaff's claims for himself at face value.
reminded of one particular actor.
> Greene is alluding to the pageants that were typical of early
> Tudor drama:
>
> ...Nay then, saide the Player, I mislike your judgement:
> why, I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies,
> as ever was any of my time. The twelve labor of Hercules
> have I terrible thundred on the Stage, and plaid three
> scenes of the Devill in the High way to heaven...
specific actor who has in his past played the title roles in
various plays, including 'Delphrigus' and 'The King of Fairies',
and that this is another clue to whom Greene has in mind.
It is fairly clearly the same actor referred to in Nashe's
preface to Greene's *Menaphon*, where he talks of actors who
"might haue antickt it vntill this time vp and downe the
countrey with the King of the Fairies, and dinde euery daie at
the pease porredge ordinarie with Delphrigus" had it not been
for "the deserued reputation of one Roscius" which was "of
force to inrich a rabble of counterfets." An actor great enough
to get them out a purely itinerant existence?
> What Greene's readers might have made of the player's having
> thundred as Hercules is suggested by Bottom's lines in /A
> Midsummer Night's Dream/:
>
> That will ask some tears in the true performing of it:
> If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes; I will
> move storms, I will condole in some measure. To the
> rest:-Yet my chief humour is for a tyrant: I could play
> Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to make all
> split.
>
> It may seem superfluous to note that Bottom is not meant to
> represent Edward Alleyn, and his claims to move storms are not
> meant to be taken seriously.
actor around, and one who was presumably known for having
terribly thundered "The twelve labors of Hercules".
<snip>
> There is no ground for claiming that the player who hires
> Roberto is meant to be identified with the 'Upstart Crow.'
this in some detail in my "The Batillus, the Player and the
Upstart Crow" (pp. 4-7)
<http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl06_04_farey_batillus.pdf>
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Tom Reedy
Apr 26, 2013, 12:30:07 PM4/26/13
to
especially when you seem to want to parse him so closely in other
matters of diction.
> On the other hand...
>
> William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>
> I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard from.
And as for "once an upstart, always an upstart", revisit your
definitions and ask yourself what "newly" and "lately" mean.
TR
Tom Reedy
Apr 26, 2013, 12:33:09 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 26, 9:18 am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Greene deserves better.
> --
> S.O.P.
Read much Greene, have you? Personally, I think he's in his rightful
place in the pantheon of EM writers.
TR
wrote:
> Greene deserves better.
> --
> S.O.P.
place in the pantheon of EM writers.
TR
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 27, 2013, 1:30:38 AM4/27/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a1efeecb-ee2f-4a16...@n5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 25, 7:02 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
> af13...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
the British Library's site say otherwise.
> The members of Stange's Men and the Admirals Men
> played together off and on from 1590 to 1594, and beginning in
> February 1591/2 through June 1592 the combined companies with Alleyn
> as lead player moved into Henslowe's Rose Theatre.
strangers men' alone. In his /Shakespeare's Companies/ (Farnham: Ashgate
Publishing Ltd, 2008), Terence Schoone-Jongen writes that "After May of
1591, about which time the Admiral's Men nearly came to blows with James
Burbage, the company is not traceable in London again until 14 May 1594,
when it took up residence at Henslowe's Rose (Foakes 21). Numerous
records, however, attest to its presence in the provinces. While the
Admiral's Men performed exclusively outside London after 1591, its most
famous member, Edward Alleyn, appears to have parted company with the
Admiral's, electing to join the company that would prove to be the most
dominant of the early 1590s: Lord Strange's Men." (66) ("Foakes" is R.
A. Foakes's edition of Henslowe's Diary.) But Schoone-Jongen could of
course be wrong.
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 27, 2013, 1:37:33 AM4/27/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in news:31471eee-a3c6-47f9-ba30-
bddaed...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 26, 9:18�am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Greene deserves better.
>
--
S.O.P.
bddaed...@b20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 26, 9:18�am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Greene deserves better.
>
> Read much Greene, have you? Personally, I think he's in his rightful
> place in the pantheon of EM writers.
The Early Modern writers were men, not gods.
> place in the pantheon of EM writers.
--
S.O.P.
Tom Reedy
Apr 27, 2013, 11:50:11 AM4/27/13
to
On Apr 27, 12:30 am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The site you gave says nothing about it.
> > The members of Stange's Men and the Admirals Men
> > played together off and on from 1590 to 1594, and beginning in
> > February 1591/2 through June 1592 the combined companies with Alleyn
> > as lead player moved into Henslowe's Rose Theatre.
>
> Henslowe's accounts credit the performances that season to 'my lord
> strangers men' alone. In his /Shakespeare's Companies/ (Farnham: Ashgate
> Publishing Ltd, 2008), Terence Schoone-Jongen writes that "After May of
> 1591, about which time the Admiral's Men nearly came to blows with James
> Burbage, the company is not traceable in London again until 14 May 1594,
> when it took up residence at Henslowe's Rose (Foakes 21). Numerous
> records, however, attest to its presence in the provinces. While the
> Admiral's Men performed exclusively outside London after 1591, its most
> famous member, Edward Alleyn, appears to have parted company with the
> Admiral's, electing to join the company that would prove to be the most
> dominant of the early 1590s: Lord Strange's Men." (66) ("Foakes" is R.
> A. Foakes's edition of Henslowe's Diary.) But Schoone-Jongen could of
> course be wrong.
Yes, it appears that I confused myself in my incomplete research.
Checking further, Gurr says that Alleyn left the Admirals Men in 1591,
and that the company then split into two groups, one touring the
provinces and another touring the low countries on the continent, both
using the name Admiral's Men (*Shakespearian Playing Companies*
234-5). Alleyn went with the Admiral's Men again in 1594 when it and
the Chamberlain's Men were reorganized and given the duopoly of
playing in London—Alleyn and Marlowe's plays went with Howard's
company; Burbage and Shakespeare's plays went with Carey's.
TR
> --
> S.O.P.
wrote:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote innews:a1efeecb-ee2f-4a16...@n5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 25, 7:02 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:94fa9b13-3e24-446e-99ce-c64c
> > af131...@n4g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Apr 25, 7:02 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:94fa9b13-3e24-446e-99ce-c64c
> > The members of Stange's Men and the Admirals Men
> > played together off and on from 1590 to 1594, and beginning in
> > February 1591/2 through June 1592 the combined companies with Alleyn
> > as lead player moved into Henslowe's Rose Theatre.
>
> Henslowe's accounts credit the performances that season to 'my lord
> strangers men' alone. In his /Shakespeare's Companies/ (Farnham: Ashgate
> Publishing Ltd, 2008), Terence Schoone-Jongen writes that "After May of
> 1591, about which time the Admiral's Men nearly came to blows with James
> Burbage, the company is not traceable in London again until 14 May 1594,
> when it took up residence at Henslowe's Rose (Foakes 21). Numerous
> records, however, attest to its presence in the provinces. While the
> Admiral's Men performed exclusively outside London after 1591, its most
> famous member, Edward Alleyn, appears to have parted company with the
> Admiral's, electing to join the company that would prove to be the most
> dominant of the early 1590s: Lord Strange's Men." (66) ("Foakes" is R.
> A. Foakes's edition of Henslowe's Diary.) But Schoone-Jongen could of
> course be wrong.
Checking further, Gurr says that Alleyn left the Admirals Men in 1591,
and that the company then split into two groups, one touring the
provinces and another touring the low countries on the continent, both
using the name Admiral's Men (*Shakespearian Playing Companies*
234-5). Alleyn went with the Admiral's Men again in 1594 when it and
the Chamberlain's Men were reorganized and given the duopoly of
playing in London—Alleyn and Marlowe's plays went with Howard's
company; Burbage and Shakespeare's plays went with Carey's.
TR
> --
> S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 27, 2013, 12:33:54 PM4/27/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:6f456caa-2395-452a...@googlegroups.com:
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>>
>> In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to
>> See off Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a
>> side-discussion about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the
>> "Upstart Crow" famously criticised by Robert Greene. In a
>> follow-up post, he stated that Daryl Pinksen's article, "Was
>> Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward Alleyn?",
>> "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in his
>> opinion.
>
> This is true. Not so much for the arguments which you try
> to refute here (which are really A.D.Wraight's, and which I
> had some doubts about myself) but for his giving good reasons
> for Greene having deliberately chosen Marlowe, Nashe and Peele
> for the three 'Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance' to whom he
> addressed his letter,
paper: I note that your paper mentions it only to dismiss it. You cite
Henry Chettle's self-justifying response to accusations that he had
written /Groats-worth/, in which he admits to having "writ it over" but
still denies responsibility for it ("I protest it was all Greenes") as
evidence that "all of the (quite detailed) passages linking the various
parts of 'the book' were written by Greene himself, and that it must
therefore have been his intention for them to be read together, and in
the order in which they are presented."
But /Groats-worth/ was only one of the three posthumously published
works purporting to be the final message of Robert Greene: one of those
works, /Greenes Vision: Written at the instant of his death/, is
generally considered to have been composed c. 1590, while the third,
/The Repentance of Robert Greene Maister of Artes/, is obviously a
series of discrete texts stitched together - and, like /Groats-worth/,
it includes a list of numbered precepts for living a godly life.
These lists are noticeably similar: the first precept in /Groats-worth/
reads "First in al your actions set God before your eies; for the feare
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdome: Let his word be a lanterne to
your feet, and a light unto your paths, then shall you stand as firme
rocks, and not be mocked." The first precept in /Repentance/ reads "The
feare of the Lord is the beginning of wisdome: therfore serve God, least
he suffer thee to be led into temptation," and in the last the reader is
advised to "let the law of the Lord be a lanthorne to thy feete." If
both these lists were written by Greene, it seems reasonable to suppose
that they are both draft versions that were found among his papers after
his death.
There are a great many other obvious similarities between the material
that follows the story of Roberto and Lucanio in /Groats-worth/ and the
material in /Repentance/. It is in my opinion quite likely that Chettle
took a selection of discrete texts from Greene's papers, arranged them,
transcribed them into a single manuscript, and sold it to make a fast
guinea. I see no reason to infer that Greene ever intended the precepts,
the epistle, or the fable of the ant and grasshopper to be appended to
the story of Roberto, which ends quite naturally with the last line of
the verse 'Deceiving world, that with alluring toyes'.
> for inferring that *Tambercam* was the play Greene was complaining the
> upstart Crow had written (I look forward to your argument in
> refutation of this), for thinking that Marlowe had fallen out with
> Alleyn, and for understanding why both Nashe and Chettle were so quick
> to deny any personal part in this attack.
accused Marlowe of atheism would be reason enough. Greene spends a
bit more space admonishing the 'famous gracer of Tragedians' for his
atheism than he spends criticising Shake-scene.
Wonder not, (for with thee wil I first begin) thou famous gracer of
Tragedians, that /Greene/, who hath said with thee (like the foole
in his heart) There is no God, shoulde now give glorie unto his
greatnes...
He goes on to speculate why the famous gracer might have denied the
existence of God:
Is it pestilent Machivilian pollicy that thou hast studied? O
peevish follie! What are his rules but meere confused mockeries,
able to extirpate in small time the generation of mankind[...]The
brocher of this Diabolicall Atheisme is dead, and in his life had
never the felicitie hee aymed at[...]This murderer of many brethren,
had his conscience seared like /Caine/: this betrayer of him that
gave his life for him, inherited the portion of /Judas/: this
Apostata perished as ill as /Julian/: and wilt thou my friend be his
disciple?...
Mr Pinksen's paper relegates "Greene's public outing of Marlowe as an
atheist" to a footnote (p. 13, n. 28); your paper doesn't mention it at
all. This is especially interesting in light of your argument that
accusations of atheism were enough to set Whitgift clamouring for
Marlowe's head a few months later.
<snip>
>> From 'Roscius', Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that Alleyn is
>> also the model for the player who hires Roberto in the
>> narrative portion of /Greenes Groats-worth of witte/:
>>
>> The Player takes exception to Roberto's judgment of his
>> speaking voice, and begins to list the roles he is famous
>> for, including - and now Greene effectively reveals the
>> identity of the Player - "The Twelve Labors of Hercules
>> have I terribly thundered on the Stage."
>>
>> To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man fit this descr-
>> iption, only one Player could be described as "thundering
>> on the stage" - Edward Alleyn... (3)
>>
>> This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the
>> player's boasts seriously, which is a little like taking
>> Falstaff's claims for himself at face value.
>
> No of course it doesn't, it supposes that the reader will be
> reminded of one particular actor.
the stage playing Hercules in the hinterlands in the days before Ned
Alleyn became famous would somehow suggest Ned Alleyn to a 1592 reader's
mind. But it seems rather more likely to me that the theatergoers of
1592 would have had a rather larger pool of reference to draw upon than
we do regarding the famous actors of their day.
>> Greene is alluding to the pageants that were typical of early
>> Tudor drama:
>>
>> ...Nay then, saide the Player, I mislike your judgement:
>> why, I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies,
>> as ever was any of my time. The twelve labor of Hercules
>> have I terrible thundred on the Stage, and plaid three
>> scenes of the Devill in the High way to heaven...
>
> Well, it seems to me fairly obvious that he is referring to a
> specific actor who has in his past played the title roles in
> various plays, including 'Delphrigus' and 'The King of Fairies',
> and that this is another clue to whom Greene has in mind.
>
> It is fairly clearly the same actor referred to in Nashe's
> preface to Greene's *Menaphon*, where he talks of actors who
> "might haue antickt it vntill this time vp and downe the
> countrey with the King of the Fairies, and dinde euery daie at
> the pease porredge ordinarie with Delphrigus" had it not been
> for "the deserued reputation of one Roscius" which was "of
> force to inrich a rabble of counterfets." An actor great enough
> to get them out a purely itinerant existence?
genuinely talented actor spawns hordes of inferior imitators. He could
as easily have been referring to Richard Tarlton as Ned Alleyn - though
of course there is no reason to suppose he was referring to any actual
person.
Moreover, it seems quite likely that 'Delphrigus' was a joke invented by
Nashe and/or Greene rather than an actual role: outside of two
allusions, the one in Nashe's preface and the one in /Groats-worth/,
there is no evidence anywhere of a character or a play named
'Delphrigus' or a player famous for that role - the word 'Delphrigus'
itself was evidently Nashe's coinage. Nashe and Greene both loved a good
in-joke: I wonder what their shades would make of the webs of
speculation spun by scholars over their careless obscurities.
>> What Greene's readers might have made of the player's having
>> thundred as Hercules is suggested by Bottom's lines in /A
>> Midsummer Night's Dream/:
>>
>> That will ask some tears in the true performing of it:
>> If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes; I will
>> move storms, I will condole in some measure. To the
>> rest:-Yet my chief humour is for a tyrant: I could play
>> Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to make all
>> split.
>>
>> It may seem superfluous to note that Bottom is not meant to
>> represent Edward Alleyn, and his claims to move storms are not
>> meant to be taken seriously.
>
> He is meant to be imagining himself as good as the greatest
> actor around, and one who was presumably known for having
> terribly thundered "The twelve labors of Hercules".
great actors did. It wasn't.
Clodius, me thinks, looks passing big of late
With Dunston's browes, and Allens Cutlacks gate.
What humours have possest him so, I wonder?
His eyes are lightning, and his words are thunder.
What meanes the bragart by his alteration?
He knows he's known too wel for this fond fashion
To cause him to be feared: what meanes he than?
Belike, because he cannot play the man,
Yet would be awde, he keepes this filthy revell,
Stalking and roaring like to Job's great devill.
To thunder on the stage was to hark back to the acting style of the
early Tudor era, when actors sought to terrify the audience. Alleyn was
celebrated for creating a style of acting that was better than that.
Thus Heywood ranked him with "Proteus for shapes, and Roscius for a
tongue./So could he speak, so vary..." Alleyn was also celebrated for
his modesty: Heywood finishes by saying that it is not Alleyn's ambition
"To exceed, or equal, being of condition/More modest; this is all that
he intends,/(And that too at the urgence of some friends)/To prove
[i.e., to test] his best, and if none here gainsay it,/The part he hath
studied, and intends to play it."
> <snip>
>
>> There is no ground for claiming that the player who hires
>> Roberto is meant to be identified with the 'Upstart Crow.'
>
> Oh but there is plenty of ground for claiming it. I go into
> this in some detail in my "The Batillus, the Player and the
> Upstart Crow" (pp. 4-7)
> <http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl0
> 6_04_farey_batillus.pdf>
allusion to 'Ezops Crowe, which deckt hir selfe with others feathers' in
a 1584 dedication in which, as you say, Greene was "not referring to
Alleyn".
--
S.O.P.
jaelsheargold
Apr 27, 2013, 1:50:24 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 26, 3:53 pm, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From 'Roscius', MrPinksengoes on to argue that Alleyn is
> <http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl...>
>
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have read your article, Peter, and I can't see the "father of
interludes" in Farewell to Folly, the gentleman-player, and the
upstart crow being the same person.
The best candidate to me for the character in FoF is Anthony Munday as
suggested by T.W. Baldwin and Tracey Hill, for example. Hill explores
his numerous connections to Cripplegate and I think that the "sexton
of St. Giles" is probably a pejorative reference to the puritan cleric
Robert Crowley with whom Munday had associations.
God knows who the gentleman-player is, maybe nobody specific, and I
don't know whether his being able to build a windmill as his proper
cost has anything to do with Faire Em. 'Windmill' was apparently a
slang word for brothel, and it may mean no more than that - we know of
the associations between the theatre and bawdy houses.
It also seems to me that the gentleman-player's writing career has
come to an end - "I was a country author", whereas the upstart crow
has just started to rise in the authorial profession.
SB.
> SneakyO. Possum wrote:
>
> > In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to
> > See off Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a
> > side-discussion about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the
> > "Upstart Crow" famously criticised by Robert Greene. In a
> > follow-up post, he stated that DarylPinksen'sarticle, "Was
>
> > In the thread "From SHAKSPER: Shakespeare Scholars Unite to
> > See off Claims of the 'Bard Deniers'", Peter Farey started a
> > side-discussion about whether or not Edward Alleyn was the
> > "Upstart Crow" famously criticised by Robert Greene. In a
> > Robert Greene's 'Upstart Crow' the actor Edward Alleyn?",
> > "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in his
> > opinion.
>
> This is true. Not so much for the arguments which you try
> to refute here (which are really A.D.Wraight's, and which I
> had some doubts about myself) but for his giving good reasons
> for Greene having deliberately chosen Marlowe, Nashe and Peele
> for the three 'Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance' to whom he
> addressed his letter, for inferring that *Tambercam* was the
> play Greene was complaining the upstart Crow had written
> (I look forward to your argument in refutation of this), for
> thinking that Marlowe had fallen out with Alleyn, and for
> understanding why both Nashe and Chettle were so quick to
> deny any personal part in this attack.
>
> > It seems reasonable, then to examine MrPinksen'sarticle
> > more closely. The article is available in PDF format on
> > the Web:
>
> >http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl...
> > "tipped the balance" in favour of Alleyn, at least in his
> > opinion.
>
> This is true. Not so much for the arguments which you try
> to refute here (which are really A.D.Wraight's, and which I
> had some doubts about myself) but for his giving good reasons
> for Greene having deliberately chosen Marlowe, Nashe and Peele
> for the three 'Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance' to whom he
> addressed his letter, for inferring that *Tambercam* was the
> play Greene was complaining the upstart Crow had written
> (I look forward to your argument in refutation of this), for
> thinking that Marlowe had fallen out with Alleyn, and for
> understanding why both Nashe and Chettle were so quick to
> deny any personal part in this attack.
>
> > It seems reasonable, then to examine MrPinksen'sarticle
> > more closely. The article is available in PDF format on
> > the Web:
>
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yavkhpj
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From 'Roscius', MrPinksengoes on to argue that Alleyn is
>
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have read your article, Peter, and I can't see the "father of
interludes" in Farewell to Folly, the gentleman-player, and the
upstart crow being the same person.
The best candidate to me for the character in FoF is Anthony Munday as
suggested by T.W. Baldwin and Tracey Hill, for example. Hill explores
his numerous connections to Cripplegate and I think that the "sexton
of St. Giles" is probably a pejorative reference to the puritan cleric
Robert Crowley with whom Munday had associations.
God knows who the gentleman-player is, maybe nobody specific, and I
don't know whether his being able to build a windmill as his proper
cost has anything to do with Faire Em. 'Windmill' was apparently a
slang word for brothel, and it may mean no more than that - we know of
the associations between the theatre and bawdy houses.
It also seems to me that the gentleman-player's writing career has
come to an end - "I was a country author", whereas the upstart crow
has just started to rise in the authorial profession.
SB.
Peter F.
Apr 28, 2013, 6:18:59 AM4/28/13
to
Tom Reedy wrote:
That's the way I tend to put things, Tom, reluctant as I am to
imply the certainty typical of most of your posts. I also doubt
that he had a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary to hand
when he was writing. However, if you read Greene's *Quip for an
Upstart Courtier* his usage of the word seems rather more to do
with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
affect a position of importance to which they weren't born, and
less to do with the recency or rapidity of their coming to it.
> > On the other hand...
> >
> > William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> > "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> > silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
> >
> > I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>
with his 'theory'."
My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
have been apparent in some way.
> And as for "once an upstart, always an upstart", revisit your
> definitions and ask yourself what "newly" and "lately" mean.
Well, I both had and have already dealt with that.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
imply the certainty typical of most of your posts. I also doubt
that he had a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary to hand
when he was writing. However, if you read Greene's *Quip for an
Upstart Courtier* his usage of the word seems rather more to do
with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
affect a position of importance to which they weren't born, and
less to do with the recency or rapidity of their coming to it.
> > On the other hand...
> >
> > William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> > "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> > silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
> >
> > I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>
> The difference, Peter, is that Greene's diatribe about an upstart
> fits perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard
> from.
S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> fits perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard
> from.
why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an
upstart in 1592." You replied "Of course not; it would interfere
with his 'theory'."
My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
have been apparent in some way.
> And as for "once an upstart, always an upstart", revisit your
> definitions and ask yourself what "newly" and "lately" mean.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Peter F.
Apr 28, 2013, 6:26:40 AM4/28/13
to
Munday theory before. I had better look into it!
Meanwhile, I still think that my reasons for claiming that the
Player and the Crow must be the same person are stronger than
any arguments I have seen to the contrary.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey>
Tom Reedy
Apr 28, 2013, 9:52:02 AM4/28/13
to
On Apr 28, 5:18 am, "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
> > > > > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > > > How canAlleynbe an "upstart" if he was the successful
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
> > > > > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > > > actor who used to write plays himself and who originally
> > > > > > got Greene into the business? Does that make sense to
> > > > > > anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
>
> > > > > Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene,
> > > > > or anyone else, would have calledAlleynan upstart in 1592.
> > > > > > got Greene into the business? Does that make sense to
> > > > > > anyone besides an anti-Stratfordian?
>
> > > > > Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of why on earth Greene,
>
> > > > Of course not; it would interfere with his "theory".
>
> > > upstart, n. and adj. (OED)
>
> > > A. n.
> > > 1. One who has newly or suddenly risen in position or importance;
> > > a new-comer in respect of rank or consequence; a parvenu;
> > > B. adj.
> > > 2. Of persons, families, etc.: Lately or suddenly risen to
> > > prominence or dignity.
>
> > > parvenu n.
> > > A person from a humble background who has rapidly gained wealth
> > > or an influential social position; a nouveau riche; an upstart,
> > > a social climber.
>
> > >EdwardAlleyn(ODNB)
> > > "By January 1592EdwardAlleynwas established as an actor; for an
> > > > Of course not; it would interfere with his "theory".
>
> > > upstart, n. and adj. (OED)
>
> > > A. n.
> > > 1. One who has newly or suddenly risen in position or importance;
> > > a new-comer in respect of rank or consequence; a parvenu;
> > > B. adj.
> > > 2. Of persons, families, etc.: Lately or suddenly risen to
> > > prominence or dignity.
>
> > > parvenu n.
> > > A person from a humble background who has rapidly gained wealth
> > > or an influential social position; a nouveau riche; an upstart,
> > > a social climber.
>
> > >EdwardAlleyn(ODNB)
> > > indeterminate time he acted with Lord Strange's Men, performing at
> > > the Rose Playhouse, which was owned by Philip Henslowe, a dyer.
> > > By the autumn of 1592 he had begun to form a business partnership
> > > with Henslowe, whose stepdaughter Joan Woodward (d. 1623) he
> > > married on 22 October. Two years later he had achieved celebrity
> > > status on the London stage, by which time he was leader of the
> > > Admiral's Men."
>
> > > I very much doubt whether Greene would have been too bothered
> > > about exactly how recent or suddenAlleyn'sactual rise from
> > > the Rose Playhouse, which was owned by Philip Henslowe, a dyer.
> > > By the autumn of 1592 he had begun to form a business partnership
> > > with Henslowe, whose stepdaughter Joan Woodward (d. 1623) he
> > > married on 22 October. Two years later he had achieved celebrity
> > > status on the London stage, by which time he was leader of the
> > > Admiral's Men."
>
> > > I very much doubt whether Greene would have been too bothered
> > > humble beginnings to wealth and a social position would have
> > > been in his choice of insult at that particular moment.
>
> > Personal doubts are irrelevant to the meaning of what Greene wrote,
> > especially when you seem to want to parse him so closely in other
> > matters of diction.
>
> That's the way I tend to put things, Tom, reluctant as I am to
> imply the certainty typical of most of your posts. I also doubt
> that he had a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary to hand
> when he was writing. However, if you read Greene's *Quip for an
> Upstart Courtier* his usage of the word seems rather more to do
> with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
> affect a position of importance to which they weren't born, and
> less to do with the recency or rapidity of their coming to it.
Well that puts Alleyn even further back in the field of possible
> > > been in his choice of insult at that particular moment.
>
> > Personal doubts are irrelevant to the meaning of what Greene wrote,
> > especially when you seem to want to parse him so closely in other
> > matters of diction.
>
> That's the way I tend to put things, Tom, reluctant as I am to
> imply the certainty typical of most of your posts. I also doubt
> that he had a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary to hand
> when he was writing. However, if you read Greene's *Quip for an
> Upstart Courtier* his usage of the word seems rather more to do
> with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
> affect a position of importance to which they weren't born, and
> less to do with the recency or rapidity of their coming to it.
candidates for the upstart crow. Quoting from SOP's post:
"Alleyn was also celebrated for his modesty: Heywood finishes by
saying that it is not Alleyn's ambition "To exceed, or equal, being of
condition/More modest; this is all that he intends,/(And that too at
the urgence of some friends)/To prove [i.e., to test] his best, and if
none here gainsay it,/The part he hath studied, and intends to play
it."
>
> > > On the other hand...
>
> > > William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> > > "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> > > silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>
> > > I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>
> > The difference, Peter, is that Greene's diatribe about an upstart
> > fits perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard
> > from.
>
> S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have calledAlleynan
> upstart in 1592." You replied "Of course not; it would interfere
> with his 'theory'."
>
> My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> have been apparent in some way.
You are arguing against yourself here if you believe, as you stated
>
> > > On the other hand...
>
> > > William Shakespeare (ODNB)
> > > "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
> > > silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>
> > > I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>
> > The difference, Peter, is that Greene's diatribe about an upstart
> > fits perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard
> > from.
>
> S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have calledAlleynan
> upstart in 1592." You replied "Of course not; it would interfere
> with his 'theory'."
>
> My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> have been apparent in some way.
above, that Greene's use of "upstart" had "rather more to do with the
behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and affect a position
of importance to which they weren't born".
Greene's comment _is_ evidence that Shakespeare was on the rise, not
that he had already risen to a position of importance and prominence.
As we know, Shakespeare's rising status was shortly confirmed with the
publication of V&A and Lucrece. To expect that every "shred of
evidence" concerning Shakespeare or any other commoner from that era
would survive is a common anti-Stratfordian argument.
> > And as for "once an upstart, always an upstart", revisit your
> > definitions and ask yourself what "newly" and "lately" mean.
>
> Well, I both had and have already dealt with that.
words mean".
TR
>
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 28, 2013, 4:29:10 PM4/28/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:5da3dfe2-c53d-493f...@googlegroups.com:
[snip]
> Thanks for this. I confess that I hadn't heard of the Anthony
> Munday theory before. I had better look into it!
>
> Meanwhile, I still think that my reasons for claiming that the
> Player and the Crow must be the same person are stronger than
> any arguments I have seen to the contrary.
There is no evidence that the Player who offers Roberto employment is
> Munday theory before. I had better look into it!
>
> Meanwhile, I still think that my reasons for claiming that the
> Player and the Crow must be the same person are stronger than
> any arguments I have seen to the contrary.
meant to be any real person. No real player of Greene's day was "as
famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was any of my
time" - indeed, as I mentioned in another post, there is no evidence
that 'Delphrigus' ever existed outside of Nashe and Greene's whimsy. No
real player of Greene's day was known for having terribly thundered the
twelve labors of Hercules on the stage or for having played three scenes
of the Devil in the Highway to Heaven. No real player of Greene's day
was known for having penned 'the Dialogue of Dives' or anything like it;
none was known for having spent seven years as "absolute Intepreter to
the puppets."
In your paper, you speculate that Greene probably changed the troupe of
players in /Francescos Fortunes/ to a single player "because in the
Groatsworth story it was important for the Player to be identifiable,
whereas in the other it was not." If Greene wanted his readers to
identify the Player as Alleyn, it is a mystery why he gave the player so
many traits that were the opposite of Alleyn's. Alleyn was a Londoner
who was not known for being an author of morality plays: the Player was
a country author, passing at a Moral, who penned the Moral of man's wit,
the Dialogue of Dives.
Alleyn was sixteen when he became a member of the Earl of Worcester's
Men, but "the world once went hard" for the Player, when he "was faine
to carry my playing Fardle a foote-backe" - no cushy position in a
nobleman's troupe for /him/. (And are we to suppose that Alleyn spent
seven years narrating puppet shows /before/ he joined Worcester's Men?)
Alleyn was celebrated for his well-tuned voice; Roberto thinks the
Player's voice is nothing gracious.
The Player says he was famous in the past but now his almanac is out of
date: Alleyn achieved his first success as the star of the new style of
playwriting pioneered by Marlowe and Greene. Assuming the Player
represents Alleyn is a bit like assuming that Norma Desmond represents
Marilyn Monroe - after all, Ms Monroe's real first name was Norma, which
could hardly be a coincidence.
The Player isn't even a major character in the narrative. He appears at
the end of page 32 of a 40-page narrative and is gone at the end of page
34. Marian, who is a fictional character in the context of the
narrative itself, has a more substantial role than the Player. Roberto
becomes famous for being "an Arch-plaimaking-poet", but all the Player
does is walk on, give him his first job, and walk off - and it was
probably not Alleyn who first commissioned a play from Greene: see
below.
Finally, it was Greene, not Alleyn, who was notorious for imitating
Marlowe in his first attempt at dramaturgy - Greene's /Alphonsus King of
Aragon/ is widely regarded as a crappy imitation of /Tamburlaine/.
Although we don't know who commissioned /Alphonsus/, it seems unlikely
to have been Alleyn, who was then starring in the real /Tamburlaine/.
And it was evidently a flop - Greene makes it clear at the end of
the play that he will write a sequel, but no such sequel was written,
and in his preface to his 1588 prose work /Perymedes the Blacksmith/,
Greene complains about two Gentlemen Poets who derided his inability to
make his verses "jet upon the stage in tragicall buskins, everie worde
filling the mouth like the faburden of Bo-Bell, daring God out of heaven
with that Atheist /Tamburlan/," etc.
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 28, 2013, 9:34:55 PM4/28/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:be4e805a-8371-465c...@googlegroups.com:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>> > William Shakespeare (ODNB)
>> > "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
>> > silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>> >
>> > I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>>
>> The difference, Peter, is that Greene's diatribe about an upstart
>> fits perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard
>> from.
>
> S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an
> upstart in 1592." You replied "Of course not; it would interfere
> with his 'theory'."
>
> My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> have been apparent in some way.
And if Mr Pinksen had written that, then he would have addressed the
>> > "From 1585 to 1592 the records of Shakespeare's life are almost
>> > silent." [Not even 1592, if we are to avoid circular reasoning.]
>> >
>> > I can't help noticing a double standard being applied here.
>>
>> The difference, Peter, is that Greene's diatribe about an upstart
>> fits perfectly with someone who has rarely, if ever, been heard
>> from.
>
> S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an
> upstart in 1592." You replied "Of course not; it would interfere
> with his 'theory'."
>
> My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> have been apparent in some way.
question. He didn't. Nor did he cite any evidence that Alleyn was known
for putting on airs and graces, or that his behaviour was in any way the
sort of behaviour that Greene might associate with an upstart.
You're quite right to point out that the identification of Shakespeare
with the Upstart Crow is problematic due to the lack of external
evidence concerning Shakespeare's activities prior to 1594. The problem
is that the identification of Alleyn is problematic due to the
/abundance/ of external evidence concerning Alleyn's activities prior to
1594. If Alleyn were the sort of social climber one might describe as an
upstart, one would assume that would have been apparent in some way.
One would also assume that if Alleyn had been known as a writer in 1592,
that would have left some trace in the record. But if Alleyn did in fact
write /Tambercam/, Greene was being unusually obtuse in parodying a line
from /3 Henry VI/, which no one thinks was written by Alleyn, instead of
alluding in some way to the play that Alleyn supposedly wrote.
There is no record of anyone besides Henslowe associating the 'boocke
of Tambercam' with Alleyn at any time: nor is there any trace in the
abundant contemporary allusions to Alleyn of his having once written a
play. Mr Pinksen, who rejects the evidence of title pages and
contemporary allusions when it comes to Shakespeare's authorship of the
works of Shakespeare, finds the fact that Philip Henslowe bought a book
from Edward Alleyn in 1602 "good evidence" for Alleyn's authorship of
that book. There is just a hint of a double standard at play here.
And even with all the contemporary evidence available for Alleyn, Mr
Pinksen has, like the Stratfordians, been obliged to assume facts not in
evidence, e.g., that Alleyn played the role of York in /3 Henry VI/ in
1592. Worse, he takes it as given that the play Henslowe marked as
'harey the vj' was 3 Henry VI, but the only evidence for that is the
allusion in /Groats-worth/, which doesn't count if we are to avoid
circular reasoning. Worse still, there's evidence that the play was
actually Part 1 of the trilogy - and so long as we're speculating, brave
Talbot seems a part rather better suited to Alleyn, does it not?
(By the way, you still haven't responded to my observation that the same
source that gives the title of /3 Henry VI/ as /The True Tragedie of
Richard Duke of Yorke/ also says that the play was "sundrie times acted
by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his servants". There is
no evidence to suggest that Alleyn ever acted with Pembroke's Men.)
--
S.O.P.
Peter F.
Apr 29, 2013, 8:02:26 AM4/29/13
to
Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
And that's what it is. Documentary evidence.
> But /Groats-worth/ was only one of the three posthumously pub-
words to the contrary. Why couldn't the *Repentance* version have
been a draft for the one in *Groatsworth* if, as you say, *Repent-
ance* is obviously a series of discrete texts stitched together?
> There are a great many other obvious similarities between the
> material that follows the story of Roberto and Lucanio in
> /Groats-worth/ and the material in /Repentance/. It is in my
> opinion quite likely that Chettle took a selection of discrete
> texts from Greene's papers, arranged them, transcribed them
> into a single manuscript, and sold it to make a fast guinea.
> I see no reason to infer that Greene ever intended the precepts,
> the epistle, or the fable of the ant and grasshopper to be
> appended to the story of Roberto, which ends quite naturally
> with the last line of the verse 'Deceiving world, that with
> alluring toyes'.
And I see no reason for Greene's penning his own version of the
fable unless it was intended for just such a purpose, providing
a link between Roberto's story and his complaint about the
upstart crow.
> > for inferring that *Tambercam* was the play Greene was
> > complaining the upstart Crow had written (I look forward
> > to your argument in refutation of this), for thinking that
> > Marlowe had fallen out with Alleyn, and for understanding
> > why both Nashe and Chettle were so quick to deny any pers-
inted, and cares not if he never is, to be Marlowe. Chettle
does in fact say that he "struck out what then in conscience
I thought [Greene] in some displeasure writ, or had it been
true, yet to publish it was intolerable", so he was already
admitting that it was his decision to leave in what actually
appeared about Marlowe.
It is the *other* whose opinion is important to him and whom
he quite clearly wants to avoid offending. That Alleyn was
becoming Henslowe's business partner (and by then presumably
engaged to Henslowe's daughter) would certainly make him
someone whom playwrights (unless they were at death's door!)
would be most eager to keep on the right side of. I acknow-
ledge that in Nashe's case both reasons would have probably
applied.
<snip>
> Mr Pinksen's paper relegates "Greene's public outing of
> Marlowe as an atheist" to a footnote (p. 13, n. 28); your
> paper doesn't mention it at all. This is especially inter-
two parts of it referred to in it's title - *The Batillus,
the Player and the Upstart Crow*. My argument is in any case
not really about accusations of atheism, but about accusations
of his having tried (particularly in writing) to "persuade
others to atheism", which is not mentioned by Greene.
> <snip>
>
> > > From 'Roscius', Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that Alleyn
> > > is also the model for the player who hires Roberto in
> > > the narrative portion of /Greenes Groats-worth of witte/:
> > >
> > > The Player takes exception to Roberto's judgment of his
> > > speaking voice, and begins to list the roles he is famous
> > > for, including - and now Greene effectively reveals the
> > > identity of the Player - "The Twelve Labors of Hercules
> > > have I terribly thundered on the Stage."
> > >
> > > To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man fit this descr-
> > > iption, only one Player could be described as "thunder=
"Yet my chief humor is for a tyrant. I could play Ercles
rarely" and ""This is Ercles' vein, a tyrant’s vein." He's
getting two parts mixed up. Since when was Hercules a
tyrant? Even when MND was written, the most famous stage
tyrant was still Tamburlaine. That's why Pistol parodies
the line "Holla ye pampered jades of Asia" in *1 Henry IV*.
> But it seems rather more likely to me that the theatergoers
> of 1592 would have had a rather larger pool of reference to
> draw upon than we do regarding the famous actors of their
> day.
No doubt. Unfortunately we have only the information available
today, which is that Alleyn was famous for the sort of part
where "thundering" was essential, and I certainly know of no
other such actor.
> > > Greene is alluding to the pageants that were typical of
> > > early Tudor drama:
> > >
> > > ...Nay then, saide the Player, I mislike your judgement:
> > > why, I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies,
> > > as ever was any of my time. The twelve labor of Hercules
> > > have I terrible thundred on the Stage, and plaid three
> > > scenes of the Devill in the High way to heaven...
> >
> > Well, it seems to me fairly obvious that he is referring to a
> > specific actor who has in his past played the title roles in
> > various plays, including 'Delphrigus' and 'The King of Fairies',
> > and that this is another clue to whom Greene has in mind.
> >
> > It is fairly clearly the same actor referred to in Nashe's
> > preface to Greene's *Menaphon*, where he talks of actors who
> > "might haue antickt it vntill this time vp and downe the
> > countrey with the King of the Fairies, and dinde euery daie
> > at the pease porredge ordinarie with Delphrigus" had it not
> > been for "the deserued reputation of one Roscius" which was
> > "of force to inrich a rabble of counterfets." An actor great
> > enough to get them out a purely itinerant existence?
> Nashe is fairly obviously referring to the phenomenon whereby
> a genuinely talented actor spawns hordes of inferior imitators.
No he isn't. Inferior imitators would still be up and down the
country.
> He could as easily have been referring to Richard Tarlton as
> Ned Alleyn - though of course there is no reason to suppose
> he was referring to any actual person.
Except that this is precisely what Nashe was most known for,
and which Greene specifically warned him against doing.
> Moreover, it seems quite likely that 'Delphrigus' was a joke
> invented by Nashe and/or Greene rather than an actual role:
> outside of two allusions, the one in Nashe's preface and the
> one in /Groats-worth/, there is no evidence anywhere of a
> character or a play named 'Delphrigus' or a player famous for
> that role - the word 'Delphrigus' itself was evidently Nashe's
> coinage. Nashe and Greene both loved a good in-joke: I wonder
> what their shades would make of the webs of speculation spun
> by scholars over their careless obscurities.
Greene associates it with *The Twelve Labours of Hercules*, and
Bottom's reference to it would suggest that this was a real play.
There is also a possible corroboration of this in Sidney's
*Arcadia* - "with the voice of one that plaieth Hercules in a
play". It is unlikely that *Hercules* would be real and *Delph-
rigus* not.
> > > What Greene's readers might have made of the player's having
> > > thundred as Hercules is suggested by Bottom's lines in /A
> > > Midsummer Night's Dream/:
> > >
> > > That will ask some tears in the true performing of it:
> > > If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes; I will
> > > move storms, I will condole in some measure. To the
> > > rest:-Yet my chief humour is for a tyrant: I could play
> > > Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to make all
> > > split.
Takes me back, that. Played Bottom twice and directed MND once.
> > > It may seem superfluous to note that Bottom is not meant
> > > to represent Edward Alleyn, and his claims to move storms
> > > are not meant to be taken seriously.
> >
> > He is meant to be imagining himself as good as the greatest
> > actor around, and one who was presumably known for having
> > terribly thundered "The twelve labors of Hercules".
>
> You seem to be under the impression that 'thundering' was
> something great actors did. It wasn't.
Yes it was, when appropriate.
> Clodius, me thinks, looks passing big of late
> With Dunston's browes, and Allens Cutlacks gate.
> What humours have possest him so, I wonder?
> His eyes are lightning, and his words are thunder.
> What meanes the bragart by his alteration?
> He knows he's known too wel for this fond fashion
> To cause him to be feared: what meanes he than?
> Belike, because he cannot play the man,
> Yet would be awde, he keepes this filthy revell,
> Stalking and roaring like to Job's great devill.
>
> To thunder on the stage was to hark back to the acting style
> of the early Tudor era, when actors sought to terrify the
> audience. Alleyn was celebrated for creating a style of acting
> that was better than that.
That's true, but there were still some thunderous parts to be
played, and it would appear that Alleyn was well known for
being both physically and vocally suited to such roles.
> Thus Heywood ranked him with "Proteus for shapes, and Roscius
> for a tongue./So could he speak, so vary..." Alleyn was also
> celebrated for his modesty: Heywood finishes by saying that
> it is not Alleyn's ambition "To exceed, or equal, being of
> condition/More modest; this is all that he intends,/(And that
> too at the urgence of some friends)/To prove [i.e., to test]
> his best, and if none here gainsay it,/The part he hath
> studied, and intends to play it."
And Ben Jonson admired this in him too:
And present worth in all dost so contract,
As others speak, but only thou dost act.
Given the state he was in as a result of what he saw as a
betrayal by actors, however, Greene probably wouldn't have felt
like agreeing with them at that point in time.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > There is no ground for claiming that the player who hires
> > > Roberto is meant to be identified with the 'Upstart Crow.'
> >
> > Oh but there is plenty of ground for claiming it. I go into
> > this in some detail in my "The Batillus, the Player and the
> > Upstart Crow" (pp. 4-7)
> > <http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl0
> > 6_04_farey_batillus.pdf>
>
> It's interesting that one of the first things in your paper
> is Greene's allusion to 'Ezops Crowe, which deckt hir selfe
> with others feathers' in a 1584 dedication in which, as you
> say, Greene was "not referring to Alleyn".
No, he was referring to himself, but he associates it with the
poet Batillus, which was the point I was making. Did you have
one?
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
> But /Groats-worth/ was only one of the three posthumously pub-
> lished works purporting to be the final message of Robert Greene:
> one of those works, /Greenes Vision: Written at the instant of
> his death/, is generally considered to have been composed c. 1590,
> while the third, /The Repentance of Robert Greene Maister of
> Artes/, is obviously a series of discrete texts stitched together
> - and, like /Groats-worth/, it includes a list of numbered
> precepts for living a godly life.
>
> These lists are noticeably similar: the first precept in /Groats-
> worth/ reads "First in al your actions set God before your eies;
> for the feare of the Lord is the beginning of wisdome: Let his
> word be a lanterne to your feet, and a light unto your paths,
> then shall you stand as firme rocks, and not be mocked." The
> first precept in /Repentance/ reads "The feare of the Lord is
> the beginning of wisdome: therfore serve God, least he suffer
> thee to be led into temptation," and in the last the reader is
> advised to "let the law of the Lord be a lanthorne to thy feete."
> If both these lists were written by Greene, it seems reasonable
> to suppose that they are both draft versions that were found
> among his papers after his death.
It might be reasonable to assume it if we didn't have Chettle's
> one of those works, /Greenes Vision: Written at the instant of
> his death/, is generally considered to have been composed c. 1590,
> while the third, /The Repentance of Robert Greene Maister of
> Artes/, is obviously a series of discrete texts stitched together
> - and, like /Groats-worth/, it includes a list of numbered
> precepts for living a godly life.
>
> These lists are noticeably similar: the first precept in /Groats-
> worth/ reads "First in al your actions set God before your eies;
> for the feare of the Lord is the beginning of wisdome: Let his
> word be a lanterne to your feet, and a light unto your paths,
> then shall you stand as firme rocks, and not be mocked." The
> first precept in /Repentance/ reads "The feare of the Lord is
> the beginning of wisdome: therfore serve God, least he suffer
> thee to be led into temptation," and in the last the reader is
> advised to "let the law of the Lord be a lanthorne to thy feete."
> If both these lists were written by Greene, it seems reasonable
> to suppose that they are both draft versions that were found
> among his papers after his death.
words to the contrary. Why couldn't the *Repentance* version have
been a draft for the one in *Groatsworth* if, as you say, *Repent-
ance* is obviously a series of discrete texts stitched together?
> There are a great many other obvious similarities between the
> material that follows the story of Roberto and Lucanio in
> /Groats-worth/ and the material in /Repentance/. It is in my
> opinion quite likely that Chettle took a selection of discrete
> texts from Greene's papers, arranged them, transcribed them
> into a single manuscript, and sold it to make a fast guinea.
> I see no reason to infer that Greene ever intended the precepts,
> the epistle, or the fable of the ant and grasshopper to be
> appended to the story of Roberto, which ends quite naturally
> with the last line of the verse 'Deceiving world, that with
> alluring toyes'.
fable unless it was intended for just such a purpose, providing
a link between Roberto's story and his complaint about the
upstart crow.
> > for inferring that *Tambercam* was the play Greene was
> > complaining the upstart Crow had written (I look forward
> > to your argument in refutation of this), for thinking that
> > Marlowe had fallen out with Alleyn, and for understanding
> > onal part in this attack.
>
> It seems to me that a desire to avoid the stigma of having
> publicly accused Marlowe of atheism would be reason enough.
> Greene spends a bit more space admonishing the 'famous gracer
> of Tragedians' for his atheism than he spends criticising
> Shake-scene.
Most scholars take the writer with whom Chettle wasn't acqua-
>
> It seems to me that a desire to avoid the stigma of having
> publicly accused Marlowe of atheism would be reason enough.
> Greene spends a bit more space admonishing the 'famous gracer
> of Tragedians' for his atheism than he spends criticising
> Shake-scene.
inted, and cares not if he never is, to be Marlowe. Chettle
does in fact say that he "struck out what then in conscience
I thought [Greene] in some displeasure writ, or had it been
true, yet to publish it was intolerable", so he was already
admitting that it was his decision to leave in what actually
appeared about Marlowe.
It is the *other* whose opinion is important to him and whom
he quite clearly wants to avoid offending. That Alleyn was
becoming Henslowe's business partner (and by then presumably
engaged to Henslowe's daughter) would certainly make him
someone whom playwrights (unless they were at death's door!)
would be most eager to keep on the right side of. I acknow-
ledge that in Nashe's case both reasons would have probably
applied.
<snip>
> Mr Pinksen's paper relegates "Greene's public outing of
> Marlowe as an atheist" to a footnote (p. 13, n. 28); your
> esting in light of your argument that accusations of
> atheism were enough to set Whitgift clamouring for
> Marlowe's head a few months later.
My paper is not about the whole of *Groatsworth*, just those
> atheism were enough to set Whitgift clamouring for
> Marlowe's head a few months later.
two parts of it referred to in it's title - *The Batillus,
the Player and the Upstart Crow*. My argument is in any case
not really about accusations of atheism, but about accusations
of his having tried (particularly in writing) to "persuade
others to atheism", which is not mentioned by Greene.
> <snip>
>
> > > From 'Roscius', Mr Pinksen goes on to argue that Alleyn
> > > is also the model for the player who hires Roberto in
> > > the narrative portion of /Greenes Groats-worth of witte/:
> > >
> > > The Player takes exception to Roberto's judgment of his
> > > speaking voice, and begins to list the roles he is famous
> > > for, including - and now Greene effectively reveals the
> > > identity of the Player - "The Twelve Labors of Hercules
> > > have I terribly thundered on the Stage."
> > >
> > > To Greene's 1592 audience, only one man fit this descr-
> > > ing on the stage" - Edward Alleyn... (3)
> > >
> > > This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the
> > > player's boasts seriously, which is a little like taking
> > > Falstaff's claims for himself at face value.
> >
> > No of course it doesn't, it supposes that the reader will
> > be reminded of one particular actor.
>
> It supposes that a player who describes himself as having
> thundered on the stage playing Hercules in the hinterlands
> in the days before Ned Alleyn became famous would somehow
> suggest Ned Alleyn to a 1592 reader's mind.
Yes it does. That's also why Bottom claims:
> > >
> > > This seems to suppose that the reader is meant to take the
> > > player's boasts seriously, which is a little like taking
> > > Falstaff's claims for himself at face value.
> >
> > No of course it doesn't, it supposes that the reader will
> > be reminded of one particular actor.
>
> It supposes that a player who describes himself as having
> thundered on the stage playing Hercules in the hinterlands
> in the days before Ned Alleyn became famous would somehow
> suggest Ned Alleyn to a 1592 reader's mind.
"Yet my chief humor is for a tyrant. I could play Ercles
rarely" and ""This is Ercles' vein, a tyrant’s vein." He's
getting two parts mixed up. Since when was Hercules a
tyrant? Even when MND was written, the most famous stage
tyrant was still Tamburlaine. That's why Pistol parodies
the line "Holla ye pampered jades of Asia" in *1 Henry IV*.
> But it seems rather more likely to me that the theatergoers
> of 1592 would have had a rather larger pool of reference to
> draw upon than we do regarding the famous actors of their
> day.
today, which is that Alleyn was famous for the sort of part
where "thundering" was essential, and I certainly know of no
other such actor.
> > > Greene is alluding to the pageants that were typical of
> > > early Tudor drama:
> > >
> > > ...Nay then, saide the Player, I mislike your judgement:
> > > why, I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies,
> > > as ever was any of my time. The twelve labor of Hercules
> > > have I terrible thundred on the Stage, and plaid three
> > > scenes of the Devill in the High way to heaven...
> >
> > Well, it seems to me fairly obvious that he is referring to a
> > specific actor who has in his past played the title roles in
> > various plays, including 'Delphrigus' and 'The King of Fairies',
> > and that this is another clue to whom Greene has in mind.
> >
> > It is fairly clearly the same actor referred to in Nashe's
> > preface to Greene's *Menaphon*, where he talks of actors who
> > "might haue antickt it vntill this time vp and downe the
> > countrey with the King of the Fairies, and dinde euery daie
> > at the pease porredge ordinarie with Delphrigus" had it not
> > been for "the deserued reputation of one Roscius" which was
> > "of force to inrich a rabble of counterfets." An actor great
> > enough to get them out a purely itinerant existence?
> Nashe is fairly obviously referring to the phenomenon whereby
> a genuinely talented actor spawns hordes of inferior imitators.
country.
> He could as easily have been referring to Richard Tarlton as
> Ned Alleyn - though of course there is no reason to suppose
> he was referring to any actual person.
and which Greene specifically warned him against doing.
> Moreover, it seems quite likely that 'Delphrigus' was a joke
> invented by Nashe and/or Greene rather than an actual role:
> outside of two allusions, the one in Nashe's preface and the
> one in /Groats-worth/, there is no evidence anywhere of a
> character or a play named 'Delphrigus' or a player famous for
> that role - the word 'Delphrigus' itself was evidently Nashe's
> coinage. Nashe and Greene both loved a good in-joke: I wonder
> what their shades would make of the webs of speculation spun
> by scholars over their careless obscurities.
Bottom's reference to it would suggest that this was a real play.
There is also a possible corroboration of this in Sidney's
*Arcadia* - "with the voice of one that plaieth Hercules in a
play". It is unlikely that *Hercules* would be real and *Delph-
rigus* not.
> > > What Greene's readers might have made of the player's having
> > > thundred as Hercules is suggested by Bottom's lines in /A
> > > Midsummer Night's Dream/:
> > >
> > > That will ask some tears in the true performing of it:
> > > If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes; I will
> > > move storms, I will condole in some measure. To the
> > > rest:-Yet my chief humour is for a tyrant: I could play
> > > Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in, to make all
> > > split.
> > > It may seem superfluous to note that Bottom is not meant
> > > to represent Edward Alleyn, and his claims to move storms
> > > are not meant to be taken seriously.
> >
> > He is meant to be imagining himself as good as the greatest
> > actor around, and one who was presumably known for having
> > terribly thundered "The twelve labors of Hercules".
>
> You seem to be under the impression that 'thundering' was
> something great actors did. It wasn't.
> Clodius, me thinks, looks passing big of late
> With Dunston's browes, and Allens Cutlacks gate.
> What humours have possest him so, I wonder?
> His eyes are lightning, and his words are thunder.
> What meanes the bragart by his alteration?
> He knows he's known too wel for this fond fashion
> To cause him to be feared: what meanes he than?
> Belike, because he cannot play the man,
> Yet would be awde, he keepes this filthy revell,
> Stalking and roaring like to Job's great devill.
>
> To thunder on the stage was to hark back to the acting style
> of the early Tudor era, when actors sought to terrify the
> audience. Alleyn was celebrated for creating a style of acting
> that was better than that.
played, and it would appear that Alleyn was well known for
being both physically and vocally suited to such roles.
> Thus Heywood ranked him with "Proteus for shapes, and Roscius
> for a tongue./So could he speak, so vary..." Alleyn was also
> celebrated for his modesty: Heywood finishes by saying that
> it is not Alleyn's ambition "To exceed, or equal, being of
> condition/More modest; this is all that he intends,/(And that
> too at the urgence of some friends)/To prove [i.e., to test]
> his best, and if none here gainsay it,/The part he hath
> studied, and intends to play it."
And present worth in all dost so contract,
As others speak, but only thou dost act.
Given the state he was in as a result of what he saw as a
betrayal by actors, however, Greene probably wouldn't have felt
like agreeing with them at that point in time.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > There is no ground for claiming that the player who hires
> > > Roberto is meant to be identified with the 'Upstart Crow.'
> >
> > Oh but there is plenty of ground for claiming it. I go into
> > this in some detail in my "The Batillus, the Player and the
> > Upstart Crow" (pp. 4-7)
> > <http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/jl0
> > 6_04_farey_batillus.pdf>
>
> It's interesting that one of the first things in your paper
> is Greene's allusion to 'Ezops Crowe, which deckt hir selfe
> with others feathers' in a 1584 dedication in which, as you
> say, Greene was "not referring to Alleyn".
poet Batillus, which was the point I was making. Did you have
one?
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Peter F.
Apr 29, 2013, 8:46:44 AM4/29/13
to
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
<snip>
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> > However, if you read Greene's *Quip for an
> > Upstart Courtier* his usage of the word seems rather more to do
> > with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
> > affect a position of importance to which they weren't born, and
> > less to do with the recency or rapidity of their coming to it.
>
> Well that puts Alleyn even further back in the field of possible
> candidates for the upstart crow. Quoting from SOP's post:
>
> "Alleyn was also celebrated for his modesty: Heywood finishes
> by saying that it is not Alleyn's ambition "To exceed, or equal,
> being of condition/More modest; this is all that he intends,/(And
> that too at the urgence of some friends)/To prove [i.e., to test]
> his best, and if none here gainsay it,/The part he hath studied,
> and intends to play it."
held the purse strings, whereas Greene was writing with a real sense
of grievance and anger, and couldn't care less. Whether his target
was *really* accurately described as an 'upstart' or as having a
'tiger's heart' is hardly relevant. Alleyn had risen from humble
beginnings to a position of importance. That's enough for him to be
dubbed an 'upstart' by someone feeling wronged by him. Refusing to
advance the money Greene needed for essential medicines is enough
for Greene to call him a "tiger's heart, decked in a player's hide."
<snip>
> > S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> > why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have calledAlleynan
> > upstart in 1592." You replied "Of course not; it would interfere
> > with his 'theory'."
> >
> > My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> > position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> > evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> > any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> > have been apparent in some way.
>
> You are arguing against yourself here if you believe, as you
> stated above, that Greene's use of "upstart" had "rather more to
> do with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
> affect a position of importance to which they weren't born".
the recency or rapidity of their coming to it".
> Greene's comment _is_ evidence that Shakespeare was on the rise,
> not that he had already risen to a position of importance and
> prominence.
reasoning!
> As we know, Shakespeare's rising status was shortly confirmed
> with the publication of V&A and Lucrece.
they have trailers on the telly or something?
> To expect that every "shred of evidence" concerning Shakespeare
> or any other commoner from that era would survive is a common
> anti-Stratfordian argument.
know about him because of his rise to prominence in the theatre.
That a poem attributed to someone might be in the charts two
years later would hardly justify their being called an 'upstart'.
<snip>
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
book...@yahoo.com
Apr 29, 2013, 2:05:31 PM4/29/13
to
accounting for the University Wits factor in Greene's assumed
audience, as well as his "author's intention," since he was one. My
thought is that, if you first get it right as to the audience, then
some things about intention can be surmised.
Must be highly significant that an editorial sort of apology was
subsequently made to the targeted "upstart crow," I get that; and have
the impression that not only wit but humour and respect was
communicated. Makes me think that the person targeted might not be
player and/or playwright, but theatre man. Was Alleyn a theatre man,
too, I wonder? Couldn't be PC's illiterate Stratman, of course; that
would be too elaborate a joke. bookburn
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 29, 2013, 5:08:30 PM4/29/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:3091b314-d436-418f...@googlegroups.com:
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>>
>> Mr Pinksen glosses over the dubious provenance of /Groats-
>> worth/ in his paper: I note that your paper mentions it only to
>> dismiss it. You cite Henry Chettle's self-justifying response
>> to accusations that he had written /Groats-worth/, in which he
>> admits to having "writ it over" but still denies responsibility
>> for it ("I protest it was all Greenes") as evidence that "all
>> of the (quite detailed) passages linking the various parts of
>> 'the book' were written by Greene himself, and that it must
>> therefore have been his intention for them to be read together,
>> and in the order in which they are presented."
>
> And that's what it is. Documentary evidence.
that he was innocent of forging the /Groats-worth/. It is not
documentary evidence that Chettle actually /was/ innocent, much less
documentary evidence of Greene's intentions.
[snip]
> It might be reasonable to assume it if we didn't have Chettle's
> words to the contrary.
write his own works if we didn't have Ben Jonson's words to the
contrary. Yet somehow you choose to believe that Jonson, who was not
defending himself against the charge of writing Shakespeare's works, is
nevertheless an unreliable witness, while Chettle, who was defending
himself, may be considered reliable. I can't help noticing a double
standard being applied here.
> Why couldn't the *Repentance* version have been a draft for the one in
> discrete texts stitched together?
/Groatsworth/ is also obviously a series of discrete texts stitched
together. It is of course possible that Greene himself was the one who
did the stitching, but stitched it was.
[snip]
>> It seems to me that a desire to avoid the stigma of having
>> publicly accused Marlowe of atheism would be reason enough.
>> Greene spends a bit more space admonishing the 'famous gracer
>> of Tragedians' for his atheism than he spends criticising
>> Shake-scene.
>
> Most scholars take the writer with whom Chettle wasn't acqua-
> inted, and cares not if he never is, to be Marlowe.
are they not? Is there any reason to suppose that they are any more
reliable on any of the other aspects of the /Groats-worth/ controversy?
> Chettle
> does in fact say that he "struck out what then in conscience
> I thought [Greene] in some displeasure writ, or had it been
> true, yet to publish it was intolerable", so he was already
> admitting that it was his decision to leave in what actually
> appeared about Marlowe.
> It is the *other* whose opinion is important to him and whom
> he quite clearly wants to avoid offending. That Alleyn was
> becoming Henslowe's business partner (and by then presumably
> engaged to Henslowe's daughter) would certainly make him
> someone whom playwrights (unless they were at death's door!)
> would be most eager to keep on the right side of. I acknow-
> ledge that in Nashe's case both reasons would have probably
> applied.
grace in writting, that aprooves his art"? What a shame, then, that
/Tamber Cam/ has been lost, since we have Chettle's word for its
quality. Perhaps it was better than /Tamburlaine/.
<snip>
>> > No of course it doesn't, it supposes that the reader will
>> > be reminded of one particular actor.
>>
>> It supposes that a player who describes himself as having
>> thundered on the stage playing Hercules in the hinterlands
>> in the days before Ned Alleyn became famous would somehow
>> suggest Ned Alleyn to a 1592 reader's mind.
>
> Yes it does. That's also why Bottom claims:
>
> "Yet my chief humor is for a tyrant. I could play Ercles
> rarely" and ""This is Ercles' vein, a tyrant's vein." He's
> getting two parts mixed up. Since when was Hercules a
> tyrant?
So Greene set out to remind his readers of Alleyn, who was famous for
>> > be reminded of one particular actor.
>>
>> It supposes that a player who describes himself as having
>> thundered on the stage playing Hercules in the hinterlands
>> in the days before Ned Alleyn became famous would somehow
>> suggest Ned Alleyn to a 1592 reader's mind.
>
> Yes it does. That's also why Bottom claims:
>
> "Yet my chief humor is for a tyrant. I could play Ercles
> rarely" and ""This is Ercles' vein, a tyrant's vein." He's
> getting two parts mixed up. Since when was Hercules a
> tyrant?
playing a tyrant, by depicting someone who played Hercules, who was
famous for /not/ being a tyrant.
> Even when MND was written, the most famous stage
> tyrant was still Tamburlaine. That's why Pistol parodies
> the line "Holla ye pampered jades of Asia" in *1 Henry IV*.
Dream/ and /1 Henry IV/ is Marlowe himself. The fact that he was
self-indulgently alluding to his first big hit tells us nothing about
Tamburlaine's fame among the general populace.
[snip]
>> Nashe is fairly obviously referring to the phenomenon whereby
>> a genuinely talented actor spawns hordes of inferior imitators.
>
> No he isn't. Inferior imitators would still be up and down the
> country.
Nashe says that "the deserved reputation of one /Roscius/, is of force
>> a genuinely talented actor spawns hordes of inferior imitators.
>
> No he isn't. Inferior imitators would still be up and down the
> country.
to inrich a rabble of counterfets". Are you seriously claiming that
there is a difference between a rabble of counterfeits and a horde of
inferior imitators?
>> He could as easily have been referring to Richard Tarlton as
>> Ned Alleyn - though of course there is no reason to suppose
>> he was referring to any actual person.
>
> Except that this is precisely what Nashe was most known for,
> and which Greene specifically warned him against doing.
vaine men, for thou canst do it, no man better, no man so well," though
he advised him against naming them. He also warned young Juvenal against
getting enemies "by bitter wordes," but I rather doubt Alleyn, or any
other player, would have taken "the deserved reputation of one
/Roscius/" as bitter words.
>> Moreover, it seems quite likely that 'Delphrigus' was a joke
>> invented by Nashe and/or Greene rather than an actual role:
>> outside of two allusions, the one in Nashe's preface and the
>> one in /Groats-worth/, there is no evidence anywhere of a
>> character or a play named 'Delphrigus' or a player famous for
>> that role - the word 'Delphrigus' itself was evidently Nashe's
>> coinage. Nashe and Greene both loved a good in-joke: I wonder
>> what their shades would make of the webs of speculation spun
>> by scholars over their careless obscurities.
>
> Greene associates it with *The Twelve Labours of Hercules*, and
> Bottom's reference to it would suggest that this was a real play.
> There is also a possible corroboration of this in Sidney's
> *Arcadia* - "with the voice of one that plaieth Hercules in a
> play". It is unlikely that *Hercules* would be real and *Delph-
> rigus* not.
it elsewhere: in addition to Sidney, there is a reference to a two-part
play called �Hercules� in Henslowe�s accounts. (You might also have
noted that the infant Hercules appears in the pageant of the Nine
Worthies in /Loves Labours Lost/. And of course there is a large body of
Classical material referring to ol� Herc. There is no known Classical
text that refers to �Delphrigus�; no hint of the name in Henslowe�s
accounts; no hint of the name /anywhere/ except Nashe�s preface and
Greene�s pamphlet.
Other authors have been known to allude to real roles and fictional ones
within the same text: in /Hamlet/, for example, Polonius�s reminiscence
of playing Julius Caesar is not evidence that there was a real play
about the murder of Gonzago.
[snip]
> Given the state he was in as a result of what he saw as a
> betrayal by actors, however, Greene probably wouldn't have felt
> like agreeing with them at that point in time.
Greene blamed himself for the state he was in. As he writes in the
> betrayal by actors, however, Greene probably wouldn't have felt
> like agreeing with them at that point in time.
epistle, "I know the least of my demerits merit this miserable death".
In his list of precepts, he writes that "Had I regarded the first of
these rules [i.e., "First in al your actions set God before your eies",
etc.], or beene obedient to the last [i.e., "If thou be a Sonne or
Servant, despise not reproofe", etc.]; I had not now at my last ende,
beene left thus desolate." Roberto becomes "hardened in wickednesse"
and the number of his deceits causes him to "bee hatefull almost to all
men". To read the /Groats-worth/ as Greene blaming his troubles on 'a
betrayal by actors' is to miss its point entirely.
I think it's probable that Greene had tried to secure a loan from a
troupe of actors, been refused, and felt aggrieved over the slight;
alternatively, he may have successfully borrowed money from a troupe at
an extravagant interest rate, and been harassed over paying it back
while he was in his last illness, which would account for the line "I
knowe the best husband of you all will never prove an Usurer". But
though he accused the players of forsaking him, he certainly did not
blame them for his demise.
<snip>
>> > <http://www.marlowe-society.org/pubs/journal/downloads/rj06articles/
>> > jl0 6_04_farey_batillus.pdf>
>>
>> It's interesting that one of the first things in your paper
>> is Greene's allusion to 'Ezops Crowe, which deckt hir selfe
>> with others feathers' in a 1584 dedication in which, as you
>> say, Greene was "not referring to Alleyn".
>
> No, he was referring to himself, but he associates it with the
> poet Batillus, which was the point I was making. Did you have
> one?
Just that the allusions came readily to Greene's hand without reference
>>
>> It's interesting that one of the first things in your paper
>> is Greene's allusion to 'Ezops Crowe, which deckt hir selfe
>> with others feathers' in a 1584 dedication in which, as you
>> say, Greene was "not referring to Alleyn".
>
> No, he was referring to himself, but he associates it with the
> poet Batillus, which was the point I was making. Did you have
> one?
to either Alleyn or players in general. I see that your paper omits
Greene's allusion to Batillus in the address to the Gentlemen Readers at
the beginning of /Menaphon/:
It fareth with mee, Gentlemen, as with /Batillus/, the over bold
poet of /Rome/, that at everie winke of /Caesar/ would deliver up an
hundred verses, though never a one plausible, thinking the Emperours
smile a priviledge for his ignorance: so I having your favor in
letting passe my Pamphlets, feare not to trouble your patience with
many works, and such as if /Batillus/ had lived, hee might well have
subscribed his name to.
It would seem that Greene associated Batillus more with himself than
any other individual, though I concede that the allusion in the Epistle
to the Gentlemen Readers in /Greenes Farewell to Follie/ is likely an
allusion to a different writer, most likely a writer whose works were
"distilld out of Ballets [i.e., ballads], or borrowed of Theologicall
Poets" - a writer such as Anthony Munday, so famous for his ballads that
Jonson parodied him as 'Antonio Balladino', and also for religious works
such as /The mirrour of mutabilitie/ ("Selected out of the sacred
Scriptures").
Greene sneers that this person "cannot write true English without the
helpe of Clearkes of Parish-churches"; Munday counted Robert Crowley,
the vicar of the parish church of St Giles Cripplegate, among his
closest associates ("In charity be it spoken, I am perswaded the Sexton
of S. /Gyles/ without /Creeplegate/, would have been ashamed of such
blasphemous Rethoricke".)
--
S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 29, 2013, 9:39:12 PM4/29/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:6452555c-8e56-4367...@googlegroups.com:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> > However, if you read Greene's *Quip for an
>> > Upstart Courtier* his usage of the word seems rather more to do
>> > with the behaviour of those who put on airs and graces, and
>> > affect a position of importance to which they weren't born, and
>> > less to do with the recency or rapidity of their coming to it.
>>
>> Well that puts Alleyn even further back in the field of possible
>> candidates for the upstart crow. Quoting from SOP's post:
>>
>> "Alleyn was also celebrated for his modesty: Heywood finishes
>> by saying that it is not Alleyn's ambition "To exceed, or equal,
>> being of condition/More modest; this is all that he intends,/(And
>> that too at the urgence of some friends)/To prove [i.e., to test]
>> his best, and if none here gainsay it,/The part he hath studied,
>> and intends to play it."
>
> Elizabethans were very adept at saying nice things about those who
> held the purse strings,
part of Heywood嚙編 tribute to Alleyn were in fact addressed to Richard
Perkins, the actor who followed in Alleyn嚙編 footsteps in the revival of
/The Jew of Malta/ at the Cockpit theater c. 1630; Heywood嚙編 point was
that Perkins was too modest to attempt to equal Alleyn嚙編 greatness. My
apologies!
> whereas Greene was writing with a real sense of grievance and anger,
> and couldn't care less. Whether his target was *really* accurately
> described as an 'upstart' or as having a 'tiger's heart' is hardly
> relevant.
person, and that one may infer that person's identity from what Greene
wrote, then the accuracy of Greene's description is entirely relevant.
If Greene was merely hurling insults with no concern for their accuracy
or appropriateness, he could have been writing about anyone connected
with the stage. If he couldn't care less whether the Crow was really an
upstart, why would he care whether the Crow was really a player? Maybe
the attack was directed at Henslowe. Maybe it was directed at Chettle,
and the /Kind-Harts Dreame/ epistle was Chettle嚙編 ingenious way of
deflecting the insult! Why not?
It amuses me to note that Shakespeare went on to fit the role of an
upstart much better than Alleyn did: having achieved success, Shakes did
exactly what one would expect an upstart to do - bought himself a fancy
house in the country, acquired a coat of arms, and set himself up as a
Very Important Person Indeed. Alleyn used his money to endow a school
for poor children, a school that exists to this day: Shakey used his
money to make more money through real estate speculations, all the while
avoiding his tax obligations in London - and so far as we know, never
gave a shilling to charity. It was Shakey, not Ned Alleyn, who sued his
neighbours to recover monies owed to him.
Jonson's evidence indicates that Shakespeare was an amiable fellow, a
good friend even, and I suspect that he was; I also suspect that Jonson
was shrewd enough to avoid asking his friend for a loan.
Mr Pinksen suggests that Alleyn may have refused a loan to Greene, and
his evidence is a letter from the player Richard Jones thanking Alleyn
for his "great bounty". I suggest that Shakespeare may have /given/ a
loan to Greene, and then harassed him about repaying it, and my evidence
is his lawsuit against Philip Rogers, to whom he had sold 20 bushels of
malt on credit and lent two shillings, for the recovery of 35 shillings
and tenpence, plus ten shillings damages and his lawsuit against for the
recovery of six pounds, plus damages, against John Addenbrooke. So far
as I know, there is no evidence that Alleyn ever refused to lend anyone
money, or sued to recover it, but as my confusion about Heywood嚙編 poem
shows, I am all too fallible, and I will be greatly interested in any
evidence anyone may know of to the contrary.
> Alleyn had risen from humble beginnings to a position of importance.
> That's enough for him to be dubbed an 'upstart' by someone feeling
> wronged by him. Refusing to advance the money Greene needed for
> essential medicines is enough for Greene to call him a "tiger's heart,
> decked in a player's hide."
this be the same Greene who dined at a fatal banquet of Rhenish wine and
pickled herring with Thomas Nashe and 'Will Monox' only a month before
he died? The one whose "only care was to have a spel in his purse to
conjure up a good cuppe of wine with at all times"?
Nashe also reported that Greene had the counsel of "a learned Doctour of
Phisicke" during his last illness: either the doctor extended charity or
Greene got the money to pay him from somewhere. It seems a bit unlikely
that Greene was able to arrange for a doctor, but not for medicine.
That Greene felt forsaken by the players because he was refused a loan
from them is plausible speculation, but there is no direct evidence that
he sought such a loan, much less what he sought it for. And it is
entirely possible that he felt forsaken for some other reason - perhaps
he had written a play on spec and been unable to sell it; perhaps the
payment for his contribution to /1 Henry VI/ had been slow in coming.
In any case, his anger at the players is a minor portion of the
/Groats-worth/, as anyone who reads the work in its entirety may see for
themselves.
--
S.O.P.
Tom Reedy
Apr 30, 2013, 12:49:50 AM4/30/13
to
On Apr 29, 8:39 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> It amuses me to note that Shakespeare went on to fit the role of an
> upstart much better than Alleyn did: having achieved success, Shakes did
> exactly what one would expect an upstart to do - bought himself a fancy
> house in the country, acquired a coat of arms, and set himself up as a
> Very Important Person Indeed. Alleyn used his money to endow a school
> for poor children, a school that exists to this day: Shakey used his
> money to make more money through real estate speculations, all the while
> avoiding his tax obligations in London
The first list was of persons who were in default because they were
either dead, departed from the city, moved into another district, or
hiding from the tax man. Shakespeare was one of those who had moved
out of the parish. Evidently he paid up because this particular
default (5 shillings) disappears from the record. The second was an
assessment of 13 shillings 4 pence, which appears twice and then
disappears.
> - and so far as we know, never
> gave a shilling to charity.
His will left 10 pounds to the poor in his will, which was a third of
what he paid for his house.
> It was Shakey, not Ned Alleyn, who sued his
> neighbours to recover monies owed to him.
>
> Jonson's evidence indicates that Shakespeare was an amiable fellow, a
> good friend even, and I suspect that he was; I also suspect that Jonson
> was shrewd enough to avoid asking his friend for a loan.
>
> Mr Pinksen suggests that Alleyn may have refused a loan to Greene, and
> his evidence is a letter from the player Richard Jones thanking Alleyn
> for his "great bounty". I suggest that Shakespeare may have /given/ a
> loan to Greene, and then harassed him about repaying it, and my evidence
> is his lawsuit against Philip Rogers, to whom he had sold 20 bushels of
> malt on credit and lent two shillings, for the recovery of 35 shillings
> and tenpence, plus ten shillings damages
That's 2 pounds, 5 shillings 10 pence, almost 4 percent of what he
paid for his home. Would you sue someone who owed you 4 percent the
value of your house in small claims court? I would.
> and his lawsuit against for the
> recovery of six pounds, plus damages, against John Addenbrooke.
A tenth of the value of his house. The Stratford court records are jam-
packed with lawsuits of this type.
There's no doubt Shakespeare had a covetous mind and wanted to get
what was his.
> So far
> as I know, there is no evidence that Alleyn ever refused to lend anyone
> money, or sued to recover it,
IIRC, Henslowe was a prolific moneylender, and he would give advances
to playwrights on plays they were working on. I'm sure that the
business ledgers of Shakespeare's company would look much the same.
I'm with you in that I think Greene's vitriol had something to do with
a loan or an advance that went wrong somehow--maybe he failed to
deliver on time and was refused an installment or some such business.
Or maybe he really got screwed, who knows?
> but as my confusion about Heywood’s poem
Greene was looking for loopholes à la W. C. Fields.
TR
> --
> S.O.P.
wrote:
<snip>
> It amuses me to note that Shakespeare went on to fit the role of an
> upstart much better than Alleyn did: having achieved success, Shakes did
> exactly what one would expect an upstart to do - bought himself a fancy
> house in the country, acquired a coat of arms, and set himself up as a
> Very Important Person Indeed. Alleyn used his money to endow a school
> for poor children, a school that exists to this day: Shakey used his
> money to make more money through real estate speculations, all the while
> avoiding his tax obligations in London
either dead, departed from the city, moved into another district, or
hiding from the tax man. Shakespeare was one of those who had moved
out of the parish. Evidently he paid up because this particular
default (5 shillings) disappears from the record. The second was an
assessment of 13 shillings 4 pence, which appears twice and then
disappears.
> - and so far as we know, never
> gave a shilling to charity.
what he paid for his house.
> It was Shakey, not Ned Alleyn, who sued his
> neighbours to recover monies owed to him.
>
> Jonson's evidence indicates that Shakespeare was an amiable fellow, a
> good friend even, and I suspect that he was; I also suspect that Jonson
> was shrewd enough to avoid asking his friend for a loan.
>
> Mr Pinksen suggests that Alleyn may have refused a loan to Greene, and
> his evidence is a letter from the player Richard Jones thanking Alleyn
> for his "great bounty". I suggest that Shakespeare may have /given/ a
> loan to Greene, and then harassed him about repaying it, and my evidence
> is his lawsuit against Philip Rogers, to whom he had sold 20 bushels of
> malt on credit and lent two shillings, for the recovery of 35 shillings
> and tenpence, plus ten shillings damages
paid for his home. Would you sue someone who owed you 4 percent the
value of your house in small claims court? I would.
> and his lawsuit against for the
> recovery of six pounds, plus damages, against John Addenbrooke.
packed with lawsuits of this type.
There's no doubt Shakespeare had a covetous mind and wanted to get
what was his.
> So far
> as I know, there is no evidence that Alleyn ever refused to lend anyone
> money, or sued to recover it,
to playwrights on plays they were working on. I'm sure that the
business ledgers of Shakespeare's company would look much the same.
I'm with you in that I think Greene's vitriol had something to do with
a loan or an advance that went wrong somehow--maybe he failed to
deliver on time and was refused an installment or some such business.
Or maybe he really got screwed, who knows?
> but as my confusion about Heywood’s poem
TR
> --
> S.O.P.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 30, 2013, 2:38:55 AM4/30/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f329a43d-719a-4145...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 29, 8:39 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It amuses me to note that Shakespeare went on to fit the role of an
>> upstart much better than Alleyn did: having achieved success, Shakes
>> did exactly what one would expect an upstart to do - bought himself a
>> fancy house in the country, acquired a coat of arms, and set himself
>> up as a Very Important Person Indeed. Alleyn used his money to endow
>> a school for poor children, a school that exists to this day: Shakey
>> used his money to make more money through real estate speculations,
>> all the while avoiding his tax obligations in London
>
> The first list was of persons who were in default because they were
> either dead, departed from the city, moved into another district, or
> hiding from the tax man. Shakespeare was one of those who had moved
> out of the parish. Evidently he paid up because this particular
> default (5 shillings) disappears from the record. The second was an
> assessment of 13 shillings 4 pence, which appears twice and then
> disappears.
>> - and so far as we know, never gave a shilling to charity.
>
> His will left 10 pounds to the poor in his will, which was a third of
> what he paid for his house.
lifetime".
And ten pounds was a sixth of what Shakey paid for New Place. And of
course he left 150 pounds to Judith, plus an additional 150 "if she, or
any issue of her body, be living at the end of three years next ensuing
the day of the date of this my will" (if not, the money would go to
Elizabeth Hall and Joan Hart); he left another twenty pounds to Joan
outright, "five pounds a piece" to Joan's three sons, five pounds to
Thomas Russel, esq., and thirteen pounds, six shillings, and eight pence
to Francis Collins. Not counting the small bequests to buy rings, that
adds up to 353 pounds and change. And that doesn't include the value of
"all that capital messuage or tenement, with the appurtenances, in
Stratford aforesaid" - New Place and the two properties in Henley Street
- and the "barns, stables, orchards, gardens, lands, tenements, and
hereditaments whatsoever" that he left to Susannah. But yes, he did
leave ten whole pounds to the poor. What a mensch.
>> It was Shakey, not Ned Alleyn, who sued his neighbours to recover
>> monies owed to him.
>>
>> Jonson's evidence indicates that Shakespeare was an amiable fellow, a
>> good friend even, and I suspect that he was; I also suspect that
>> Jonson was shrewd enough to avoid asking his friend for a loan.
>>
>> Mr Pinksen suggests that Alleyn may have refused a loan to Greene,
>> and his evidence is a letter from the player Richard Jones thanking
>> Alleyn for his "great bounty". I suggest that Shakespeare may have
>> /given/ a loan to Greene, and then harassed him about repaying it,
>> and my evidence is his lawsuit against Philip Rogers, to whom he had
>> sold 20 bushels of malt on credit and lent two shillings, for the
>> recovery of 35 shillings and tenpence, plus ten shillings damages
>
> That's 2 pounds, 5 shillings 10 pence, almost 4 percent of what he
> paid for his home. Would you sue someone who owed you 4 percent the
> value of your house in small claims court? I would.
>> and his lawsuit against for the recovery of six pounds, plus damages,
>> against John Addenbrooke.
>
> A tenth of the value of his house.
> The Stratford court records are jam- packed with lawsuits of this
> type.
unusual. I'd be a happier man myself if I had his knack for business.
But it looks a bit different when you're Philip Rogers or John
Addenbrooke.
>> So far as I know, there is no evidence that Alleyn ever refused to
>> lend anyone money, or sued to recover it,
>
> IIRC, Henslowe was a prolific moneylender, and he would give advances
> to playwrights on plays they were working on.
> I'm sure that the business ledgers of Shakespeare's company would look
> much the same. I'm with you in that I think Greene's vitriol had
> something to do with a loan or an advance that went wrong
> somehow--maybe he failed to deliver on time and was refused an
> installment or some such business. Or maybe he really got screwed, who
> knows?
vitriolic in the passage in question. He could be much worse. And if he
was referring to Shakespeare, which I believe, you can't fault his
perception: Shakespeare was indeed an upstart Crow who believed he could
bombast out a blank verse as well as the best playwright in England (he
lived up to that, of course, but not until after Greene's death). And he
wouldn't have gotten where he did if it hadn't been for Marlowe, Greene,
Nashe, Peele, et al.
There's a curious parallel between Shakespeare and George Washington,
now that I think of it. Both of them were businessmen at heart, both of
them became legends due to circumstances beyond their control, and
Greene's bitterness towards the upstart Crow is similar to Thomas
Paine's bitterness toward Washington, whom he thought should have done
more to help him after he was imprisoned by the Montagnards at the end
of 1793. Or done anything to help him, really. (Greene and Paine were
also notorious for their 'atheist' opinions, though as far as I know
Paine never used that term to describe himself, as Greene did in
/Groats-worth/ - assuming Greene really did write the darned thing.)
>> but as my confusion about Heywood's poem shows, I am all too
>> fallible, and I will be greatly interested in any evidence anyone may
>> know of to the contrary.
>> In any case, his anger at the players is a minor portion of the
>> /Groats-worth/, as anyone who reads the work in its entirety may see
>> for themselves.
>
You missed the point of that anecdote, I take it? Fields never repented.
Greene was more the prototype of the Kentucky Moonshiner: herrings when
I'm hungry, Rhenish when I'm dry, shillings when I'm hard up, and
religion when I die.
--
S.O.P.
Peter F.
Apr 30, 2013, 5:44:36 AM4/30/13
to
Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
<snip>
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
<snip>
> > S.O.P.'s words were "Mr Pinksen never addresses the question of
> > why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an
> > upstart in 1592." You [TR] replied "Of course not; it would
> > why on earth Greene, or anyone else, would have called Alleyn an
> > interfere with his 'theory'."
> >
> > My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> > position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> > evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> > any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> > have been apparent in some way.
>
> And if Mr Pinksen had written that, then he would have addressed
> the question. He didn't. Nor did he cite any evidence that Alleyn
> was known for putting on airs and graces, or that his behaviour
> was in any way the sort of behaviour that Greene might associate
> with an upstart.
>
> You're quite right to point out that the identification of Shake-
> >
> > My point is that whereas we know that Alleyn had risen in
> > position, importance and prominence, there is not a shred of
> > evidence that Shakespeare had, and that one would assume that
> > any such prominence, if there had been any, would by definition
> > have been apparent in some way.
>
> And if Mr Pinksen had written that, then he would have addressed
> the question. He didn't. Nor did he cite any evidence that Alleyn
> was known for putting on airs and graces, or that his behaviour
> was in any way the sort of behaviour that Greene might associate
> with an upstart.
>
> speare with the Upstart Crow is problematic due to the lack of
> external evidence concerning Shakespeare's activities prior to
> 1594. The problem is that the identification of Alleyn is
> problematic due to the /abundance/ of external evidence concerning
> Alleyn's activities prior to 1594. If Alleyn were the sort of
> social climber one might describe as an upstart, one would assume
> that would have been apparent in some way.
We aren't talking about "one", however. We are talking about Greene,
> external evidence concerning Shakespeare's activities prior to
> 1594. The problem is that the identification of Alleyn is
> problematic due to the /abundance/ of external evidence concerning
> Alleyn's activities prior to 1594. If Alleyn were the sort of
> social climber one might describe as an upstart, one would assume
> that would have been apparent in some way.
who clearly has a perceived grudge against this person, and is using
a word which is intentionally insulting to describe him.
> One would also assume that if Alleyn had been known as a writer
> in 1592, that would have left some trace in the record. But if
> Alleyn did in fact write /Tambercam/, Greene was being unusually
> obtuse in parodying a line from /3 Henry VI/, which no one
> thinks was written by Alleyn, instead of alluding in some way to
> the play that Alleyn supposedly wrote.
spoke the line than the writer of it (and I'll get to that later)
but it is of course possible that this *was* a line in *Tambercam*,
pinched from *The True Tragedy*, having previously been pinched
from Greene's own *Mamillia*!
> There is no record of anyone besides Henslowe associating the
> 'boocke of Tambercam'
> with Alleyn at any time: nor is there any trace in the abundant
> contemporary allusions to Alleyn of his having once written a
> play. Mr Pinksen, who rejects the evidence of title pages and
> contemporary allusions when it comes to Shakespeare's authorship
> of the works of Shakespeare, finds the fact that Philip Henslowe
> bought a book
book" or "the book".
> from Edward Alleyn in 1602 "good evidence" for Alleyn's author-
> ship of that book. There is just a hint of a double standard at
> play here.
>
> And even with all the contemporary evidence available for Alleyn,
> Mr Pinksen has, like the Stratfordians, been obliged to assume
> facts not in evidence, e.g., that Alleyn played the role of York
> in /3 Henry VI/ in 1592.
Yes, his stating that as a fact is unjustified.
> play here.
>
> And even with all the contemporary evidence available for Alleyn,
> Mr Pinksen has, like the Stratfordians, been obliged to assume
> facts not in evidence, e.g., that Alleyn played the role of York
> in /3 Henry VI/ in 1592.
> Worse, he takes it as given that the
> play Henslowe marked as 'harey the vj' was 3 Henry VI,
> but the only evidence for that is the allusion in /Groats-worth/,
> which doesn't count if we are to avoid circular reasoning.
> Worse still, there's evidence that the play was actually Part 1
> of the trilogy - and so long as we're speculating, brave
> Talbot seems a part rather better suited to Alleyn, does it not?
equivalent of 1 Henry VI" and written as a prequel to "The first
part of the contention..." and "The true tragedy of Richard Duke
of York..." which became Parts 2 and 3, respectively. And yes,
I do think that Talbot was ideally suited to Alleyn.
> (By the way, you still haven't responded to my observation that
> the same source that gives the title of /3 Henry VI/ as /The True
> Tragedie of Richard Duke of Yorke/ also says that the play was
> "sundrie times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of
> Pembrooke his servants". There is no evidence to suggest that
> Alleyn ever acted with Pembroke's Men.)
of the play which Pembroke's Men took on tour with them. However,
I was interested to read what your friend Terence G. Schoone-
Jongen had to say about this (pp. 128-9)
Moreover, the presence of *Contention/True True Tragedy* in
Pembroke's repertory may also indicate plays were transferred
from Strange's to Pembroke's, as *Contention/True True Tragedy*
are related to *2, 3 Henry VI*, which are either sequels or
predecessors to *1 Henry VI*, which Strange's may have played
at the Rose as 'harey the vj' (ii.129-30)"
If this were so, then Alleyn could come into the reckoning for the
London versions. We also need to bear in mind that Richard Duke of
York was the largest part in *Contention*, and Edward Alleyn would
very probably have played it - although an alternative could have
been the double role of Gloucester (Duke Humphrey) and Cade, which
would be much longer. It would have been understandable, however,
if they had wanted to continue with Alleyn as York (but doubled
with Clarence) in the sequel.
On the point of whether it is more likely to be the writer of the
tiger's heart line or the actor of it which Greene is attacking,
I've asked this before, but (other than the character being
played) who would one first associate with each of the following?
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"
- The Italian Job;
"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"
- Gone with the Wind;
"You talkin' to me?"
- Taxi Driver;
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning"
- Apocalypse Now;
"I do wish we could chat longer. But I'm having an old friend for
dinner"
- Silence of the Lambs;
"Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it in for me"
- Carry on Cleo.
I would simply suggest that is the actor rather than the writer
in every case, and there no reason to think that it would have
been any different in those days either.
And that's my lot for today. Slow down a bit, will you? I have
other things to do!
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/>
Peter F.
Apr 30, 2013, 5:57:23 AM4/30/13
to
P.S. Oh, I should have mentioned that Schoone-Jongen
was actually reporting what Chambers had said, (and
didn't include those extra "True"s which I did!)
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/>
was actually reporting what Chambers had said, (and
didn't include those extra "True"s which I did!)
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/>
jaelsheargold
Apr 30, 2013, 6:39:52 AM4/30/13
to
beautified himself with the feathers of Norden and Muir when he wrote
that line! :)
SB.
>
> And that's my lot for today. Slow down a bit, will you? I have
> other things to do!
>
> Peter F.
Tom Reedy
Apr 30, 2013, 9:18:46 AM4/30/13
to
On Apr 30, 1:38 am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It depends on who's asking. And buying stocks, bonds, and funds are
all forms of loans.
> >> and his lawsuit against for the recovery of six pounds, plus damages,
> >> against John Addenbrooke.
>
> > A tenth of the value of his house.
>
> A tenth of the purchase price. Not nearly the same thing.
The comaprison between the purchase price and the law suit amount are
apt, and gives us more context instead of looking at these as paltry
figures.
> > The Stratford court records are jam- packed with lawsuits of this
> > type.
>
> Yes, I know. I didn't mean to suggest that Shakespeare did anything
> unusual. I'd be a happier man myself if I had his knack for business.
> But it looks a bit different when you're Philip Rogers or John
> Addenbrooke.
>
> >> So far as I know, there is no evidence that Alleyn ever refused to
> >> lend anyone money, or sued to recover it,
>
> > IIRC, Henslowe was a prolific moneylender, and he would give advances
> > to playwrights on plays they were working on.
>
> He was, and he would. IIRC, Henslowe wasn't Alleyn.
Right, but I'm discussing Greene's complaint in the context of the
apparently usual practice of paying playwrights, not whether Alleyn
was the crow.
> > I'm sure that the business ledgers of Shakespeare's company would look
> > much the same. I'm with you in that I think Greene's vitriol had
> > something to do with a loan or an advance that went wrong
> > somehow--maybe he failed to deliver on time and was refused an
> > installment or some such business. Or maybe he really got screwed, who
> > knows?
>
> You're not with me in that I don't think Greene was being especially
> vitriolic in the passage in question. He could be much worse.
Everything could be worse.
> And if he
> was referring to Shakespeare, which I believe, you can't fault his
> perception:
Yes, he's spot on. I was, like you, casting about for likely
motivations from what we know about the theatrical milieu.
> Shakespeare was indeed an upstart Crow who believed he could
> bombast out a blank verse as well as the best playwright in England (he
> lived up to that, of course, but not until after Greene's death). And he
> wouldn't have gotten where he did if it hadn't been for Marlowe, Greene,
> Nashe, Peele, et al.
>
> There's a curious parallel between Shakespeare and George Washington,
> now that I think of it. Both of them were businessmen at heart, both of
> them became legends due to circumstances beyond their control, and
> Greene's bitterness towards the upstart Crow is similar to Thomas
> Paine's bitterness toward Washington, whom he thought should have done
> more to help him after he was imprisoned by the Montagnards at the end
> of 1793. Or done anything to help him, really. (Greene and Paine were
> also notorious for their 'atheist' opinions, though as far as I know
> Paine never used that term to describe himself, as Greene did in
> /Groats-worth/ - assuming Greene really did write the darned thing.)
>
> >> but as my confusion about Heywood's poem shows, I am all too
> >> fallible, and I will be greatly interested in any evidence anyone may
> >> know of to the contrary.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> In any case, his anger at the players is a minor portion of the
> >> /Groats-worth/, as anyone who reads the work in its entirety may see
> >> for themselves.
>
> > Greene was looking for loopholes à la W. C. Fields.
example of bias: since Greene has been castigated so much over the
centuries as an enemy of Shakespeare (or at least not on friendly
terms) I automatically assumed bad faith on his part, whilst a more
generous spirit would take his repentance at face value.
TR
wrote:
all forms of loans.
> >> and his lawsuit against for the recovery of six pounds, plus damages,
> >> against John Addenbrooke.
>
> > A tenth of the value of his house.
>
> A tenth of the purchase price. Not nearly the same thing.
apt, and gives us more context instead of looking at these as paltry
figures.
> > The Stratford court records are jam- packed with lawsuits of this
> > type.
>
> Yes, I know. I didn't mean to suggest that Shakespeare did anything
> unusual. I'd be a happier man myself if I had his knack for business.
> But it looks a bit different when you're Philip Rogers or John
> Addenbrooke.
>
> >> So far as I know, there is no evidence that Alleyn ever refused to
> >> lend anyone money, or sued to recover it,
>
> > IIRC, Henslowe was a prolific moneylender, and he would give advances
> > to playwrights on plays they were working on.
>
> He was, and he would. IIRC, Henslowe wasn't Alleyn.
apparently usual practice of paying playwrights, not whether Alleyn
was the crow.
> > I'm sure that the business ledgers of Shakespeare's company would look
> > much the same. I'm with you in that I think Greene's vitriol had
> > something to do with a loan or an advance that went wrong
> > somehow--maybe he failed to deliver on time and was refused an
> > installment or some such business. Or maybe he really got screwed, who
> > knows?
>
> You're not with me in that I don't think Greene was being especially
> vitriolic in the passage in question. He could be much worse.
> And if he
> was referring to Shakespeare, which I believe, you can't fault his
> perception:
motivations from what we know about the theatrical milieu.
> Shakespeare was indeed an upstart Crow who believed he could
> bombast out a blank verse as well as the best playwright in England (he
> lived up to that, of course, but not until after Greene's death). And he
> wouldn't have gotten where he did if it hadn't been for Marlowe, Greene,
> Nashe, Peele, et al.
>
> There's a curious parallel between Shakespeare and George Washington,
> now that I think of it. Both of them were businessmen at heart, both of
> them became legends due to circumstances beyond their control, and
> Greene's bitterness towards the upstart Crow is similar to Thomas
> Paine's bitterness toward Washington, whom he thought should have done
> more to help him after he was imprisoned by the Montagnards at the end
> of 1793. Or done anything to help him, really. (Greene and Paine were
> also notorious for their 'atheist' opinions, though as far as I know
> Paine never used that term to describe himself, as Greene did in
> /Groats-worth/ - assuming Greene really did write the darned thing.)
>
> >> but as my confusion about Heywood's poem shows, I am all too
> >> fallible, and I will be greatly interested in any evidence anyone may
> >> know of to the contrary.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> In any case, his anger at the players is a minor portion of the
> >> /Groats-worth/, as anyone who reads the work in its entirety may see
> >> for themselves.
>
>
> You missed the point of that anecdote, I take it?
If you assume good faith on Green's part, I suppose so. This is a good
> You missed the point of that anecdote, I take it?
example of bias: since Greene has been castigated so much over the
centuries as an enemy of Shakespeare (or at least not on friendly
terms) I automatically assumed bad faith on his part, whilst a more
generous spirit would take his repentance at face value.
TR
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 30, 2013, 1:01:40 PM4/30/13
to
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d21feccf-eb3f-42d6...@i3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Apr 30, 1:38 am, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote
> 8098...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Apr 29, 8:39 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > That's 2 pounds, 5 shillings 10 pence, almost 4 percent of what he
>> > paid for his home. Would you sue someone who owed you 4 percent the
>> > value of your house in small claims court? I would.
>>
>> You'd /lend/ someone 4 percent of the value of your house?
>
> It depends on who's asking. And buying stocks, bonds, and funds are
> all forms of loans.
Good lord, no. Like the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare, investments
>> > wrote:
>> > That's 2 pounds, 5 shillings 10 pence, almost 4 percent of what he
>> > paid for his home. Would you sue someone who owed you 4 percent the
>> > value of your house in small claims court? I would.
>>
>> You'd /lend/ someone 4 percent of the value of your house?
>
> It depends on who's asking. And buying stocks, bonds, and funds are
> all forms of loans.
and loans are superficially similar but profoundly different. If you
lend me $10,000 for my business, I assume the risk; If you buy $10,000
worth of stock in my business, /you/ assume the risk. If I have a loan
and the market for my product (bumper stickers featuring quotes from
Shakespeare) goes in the toilet, so that my income decreases by
five-sixths, I'm still obligated to pay you back every dime I borrowed
from you, plus interest. If I sell you stock in Bard Bumpers, Inc., and
the decrease in company income reduces the value of that stock to $1667,
I owe you nothing. If I default on the loan, you have the right to sue
me to recover your money: if my company goes bankrupt, you're out of
luck.
Conversely, if I borrow from you and the market for Shakespearian bumper
stickers booms and my income increases, I still only owe you what I
borrowed, plus interest; whereas if the value of the stock you bought
increases, you can sell it and realize a substantial profit.
The recent subprime mortgage fiasco, in which mortgages (which are a
form lof loan) were treated like stocks, provides an excellent
illustration of the perils of treating loans like investments.
>> >> and his lawsuit against for the recovery of six pounds, plus
>> >> damages, against John Addenbrooke.
>>
>> > A tenth of the value of his house.
>>
>> A tenth of the purchase price. Not nearly the same thing.
>
> The comaprison between the purchase price and the law suit amount are
> apt, and gives us more context instead of looking at these as paltry
The comparison is not apt, and I wasn't looking at them as paltry
figures: I was looking at them as examples of Shakespeare's willingness
to sue to recover monies lent. Greene's account of 'Roberto's' behaviour
following his rise to success as a playwright suggests that Greene was
in the habit of carelessly borrowing money and failing to pay it back,
and that he usually got away with it. Shakes wasn't the type to let him
get away with it. Nor am I suggesting that Shakes should have been that
type. I think Greene was a hell of a writer, but I wouldn't lend him
money. (I might /give/ him money, though. I'm kind of stupid that way.
Among other ways.)
[snip]
>> >> In any case, his anger at the players is a minor portion of the
>> >> /Groats-worth/, as anyone who reads the work in its entirety may
>> >> see for themselves.
>>
>>
>> You missed the point of that anecdote, I take it?
>
> If you assume good faith on Green's part, I suppose so. This is a good
> example of bias: since Greene has been castigated so much over the
> centuries as an enemy of Shakespeare (or at least not on friendly
> terms) I automatically assumed bad faith on his part, whilst a more
> generous spirit would take his repentance at face value.
Oh, I'm hardly a more generous spirit - but the balance of the evidence
>> You missed the point of that anecdote, I take it?
>
> If you assume good faith on Green's part, I suppose so. This is a good
> example of bias: since Greene has been castigated so much over the
> centuries as an enemy of Shakespeare (or at least not on friendly
> terms) I automatically assumed bad faith on his part, whilst a more
> generous spirit would take his repentance at face value.
indicates that Greene really was terrified of what was going to happen
to him in the next world, and that thoughts of damnation had been
occupying his mind for some years before his death - see, for example,
his late works /Greenes Vision/ (which was written c. 1590, not "at the
moment of his death", as Thomas Newman had it) and /Greenes Mourning
Garment/. In the end, he was unwilling to give up his sins - but he
really believed they /were/ sins.
Mr Fields, on the other hand, maintained his atheism even unto the grave
- the �looking for loopholes� jest is poorly provenanced, and I suspect
it belongs in the same class as the one about Burbage, Shakespeare, and
the Richard III fan.
Sneaky O. Possum
Apr 30, 2013, 2:09:18 PM4/30/13
to
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in
news:b6a7c6e6-f3fe-4d51...@googlegroups.com:
> Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
>>
>> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> You're quite right to point out that the identification of Shake-
>> speare with the Upstart Crow is problematic due to the lack of
>> external evidence concerning Shakespeare's activities prior to
>> 1594. The problem is that the identification of Alleyn is
>> problematic due to the /abundance/ of external evidence concerning
>> Alleyn's activities prior to 1594. If Alleyn were the sort of
>> social climber one might describe as an upstart, one would assume
>> that would have been apparent in some way.
>
> We aren't talking about "one", however. We are talking about Greene,
> who clearly has a perceived grudge against this person, and is using
> a word which is intentionally insulting to describe him.
Obviously Greene (if he wrote it) was being intentionally insulting. But
>> speare with the Upstart Crow is problematic due to the lack of
>> external evidence concerning Shakespeare's activities prior to
>> 1594. The problem is that the identification of Alleyn is
>> problematic due to the /abundance/ of external evidence concerning
>> Alleyn's activities prior to 1594. If Alleyn were the sort of
>> social climber one might describe as an upstart, one would assume
>> that would have been apparent in some way.
>
> We aren't talking about "one", however. We are talking about Greene,
> who clearly has a perceived grudge against this person, and is using
> a word which is intentionally insulting to describe him.
'upstart' is only insulting if it fits: if someone called me an upstart,
I'd laugh - and I'm not normally the sort to laugh at insults.
>> One would also assume that if Alleyn had been known as a writer
>> in 1592, that would have left some trace in the record. But if
>> Alleyn did in fact write /Tambercam/, Greene was being unusually
>> obtuse in parodying a line from /3 Henry VI/, which no one
>> thinks was written by Alleyn, instead of alluding in some way to
>> the play that Alleyn supposedly wrote.
>
> Well, as you know, we think it was more likely to be the actor who
> spoke the line than the writer of it (and I'll get to that later)
> but it is of course possible that this *was* a line in *Tambercam*,
> pinched from *The True Tragedy*, having previously been pinched
> from Greene's own *Mamillia*!
from "the Tyger then hideth his crabbed countenance, when he meaneth to
take his pray", etc., that hardly constituted pinching it - the notion
that a tiger conceals his intentions from his prey, and the comparison
to someone who dissembles, was commonplace:
SALADINE having thus set up the Scedule, and hangd about his
Fathers hearse many passionate Poems, that /France/ might suppose
him to be passing sorrowfull, he clad himselfe and his Brothers all
in black, & in such sable sutes discoursed his griefe: but as the
HIENA when she mournes is then most guilefull, so SALADINE under
this show of griefe shadowed a heart full of contented thoughtes:
the TYGER though hee hide his clawes, will at last discover his
rapine...
That's from Thomas Lodge's /Rosalynde/. As it happens, there is a
minority opinion among scholars that Greene's 'Young Juvenal' was Lodge,
not Nashe (based on the fact that Lodge, unlike Nashe, is known to have
co-authored a play with Greene).
>> There is no record of anyone besides Henslowe associating the
>> 'boocke of Tambercam'
>
> "his boocke"
>
>> with Alleyn at any time: nor is there any trace in the abundant
>> contemporary allusions to Alleyn of his having once written a
>> play. Mr Pinksen, who rejects the evidence of title pages and
>> contemporary allusions when it comes to Shakespeare's authorship
>> of the works of Shakespeare, finds the fact that Philip Henslowe
>> bought a book
>
> "his boocke", when all of the others from Alleyn were either "a
> book" or "the book".
well, including a complete set of Shakespeare's plays. Did I also write
them?
As I've already noted, Henslowe used "a boocke", "the boocke", and "his
boocke" interchangeably: Thomas Dekker received money for "a boocke cald
the hole history of Forunatus", "his boocke called the wholle historye
of fortewnatus", and "the boocke of the wholl history of fortewnatus",
all within the same month.
But of course Dekker is credited with the play /The Pleasant Comedie of
Old Fortunatus/ (first published in 1599), so maybe Alleyn did write
/Tamber Cam/. But - as I have also noted - Henslowe's records indicate
that /Fortunatus/ was performed early in 1596, nearly four years before
Dekker was paid to write it. Unless Dekker and Alleyn had acquired the
ability to compose plays retroactively, it seems reasonable to suppose
that both /Fortunatus/ and /Tambercam/ were old plays that they rewrote,
revised, or simply owned copies of.
>> from Edward Alleyn in 1602 "good evidence" for Alleyn's author-
>> ship of that book. There is just a hint of a double standard at
>> play here.
>>
>> And even with all the contemporary evidence available for Alleyn,
>> Mr Pinksen has, like the Stratfordians, been obliged to assume
>> facts not in evidence, e.g., that Alleyn played the role of York
>> in /3 Henry VI/ in 1592.
>
> Yes, his stating that as a fact is unjustified.
>
>> Worse, he takes it as given that the
>> play Henslowe marked as 'harey the vj' was 3 Henry VI,
>
> Does he? I can't find him saying that anywhere in his article.
actor of Lord Strange's Men in 1592 while they were performing Henry VI,
Part III" - he doesn't cite Henslowe. In fact, he doesn�t cite any source
at all.
[snip]
> On the point of whether it is more likely to be the writer of the
> tiger's heart line or the actor of it which Greene is attacking,
> I've asked this before, but (other than the character being
> played) who would one first associate with each of the following?
writing a letter to three other playwrights. The general reader in 1592
likely had no idea who had written the �Tygers hart� line, but Greene,
Marlowe, Nashe, and Peele were rather more likely to have that knowledge.
[snip list of movie quotes]
> I would simply suggest that is the actor rather than the writer
> in every case, and there no reason to think that it would have
> been any different in those days either.
differently - and then point out that, given that we don�t know which
company first performed /3 Henry VI/, and given that we know Shakespeare
was a player, we should not overlook the possibility that Shakespeare
himself played York in /3 Henry VI/, and was thus both the author and
utterer of the line - which would give Greene�s use of it a certain added
piquancy.
> And that's my lot for today. Slow down a bit, will you? I have
> other things to do!
write fast. My apologies.
--
S.O.P.
Paul Crowley
Apr 30, 2013, 3:05:31 PM4/30/13
to
On 30/04/2013 19:09, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> We aren�t talking about �one�, however. We are talking about a playwright
IS he, or is he NOT, one of the playwrights addressed
by "Greene". The sentences below have always been
taken that way -- as I understand. Chettle admitted
responsibility for publishing "Greene's" words -- AND he
states that the letter was addressed to this playwright):
" . . . myself have seen his demeanor no less civil than
he excellent in the quality he professes. Besides, the
diver of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing,
which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in
writing that approves his art . . ".
If you can't get this small issue settled, there's no point
whatever in looking at anything else in this matter.
Paul.
> We aren�t talking about �one�, however. We are talking about a playwright
> writing a letter to three other playwrights. The general reader in 1592
> likely had no idea who had written the �Tygers hart� line, but Greene,
> Marlowe, Nashe, and Peele were rather more likely to have that knowledge.
Hey, what happened to Shake-speare (the playwright)?
IS he, or is he NOT, one of the playwrights addressed
by "Greene". The sentences below have always been
taken that way -- as I understand. Chettle admitted
responsibility for publishing "Greene's" words -- AND he
states that the letter was addressed to this playwright):
" . . . myself have seen his demeanor no less civil than
he excellent in the quality he professes. Besides, the
diver of worship have reported his uprightness of dealing,
which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in
writing that approves his art . . ".
If you can't get this small issue settled, there's no point
whatever in looking at anything else in this matter.
Paul.
marco
May 19, 2013, 11:38:10 PM5/19/13
to
0 new messages