Thomas Sackville as Shakespeare

[book...@yahoo.com]

[continues from thread "William Stanley, 6th Early of Derby"]

>Bookburn,
>
>Another possibility is that Donne's "Six Holy Sonnets" were addressed to Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset from 1604 - 1608, as the "E of D." This possibility (first suggested to me by Prof. Patrick Buckridge of Griffith University, Australia) would explain both why Donne seems to be addressing a poet much older than him, and a poet whom he believes to be his superior.
>
>>For the case for Sackville as Shakespeare, see:
>>
>>http://apocryphalshakespeare.com/the-case-for-sackville.html
>>
>>--Sabrina Feldman

>Thanks for the reference to Sackville. I see you published an article
>on "The Case for Sackville as Shakespeare" in The Oxfordian and made a
>presentation at the Los Angeles Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable on
>January 30, 2010.

>Your article looks too long to respond to at once, but it looks like
>an interesting read and I can probably spot some good bits. bookburn
---------------------

After reading your interesting essay on Sackville, in The Swallow and
the Crow: the Case for Sackville as Shakespeare, I can recommend it
to Strats and anti-Strats for readability and information that
addresses a wide scope of the subject matter. It's a good source of
information for us all. Has a nice index and bibliography, too.

I discovered what seem to be axioms ruling your parameters in this
study that are revealing, like:

1) evidence of authorship in the apocryphal plays, or "fingerprints"
you list, that I find good to review: "wholesale pilferings, bombast,
breezy style, clumsy blank verse, a salty sense of humor, food jokes,
crude physical slapstick, inventive slang, very funny clown scenes, a
penchant for placing character in disguise, jingoism, bungled Latin
tags and inept classical allusions, unsophisticated but sweet
romances, shrewish and outspoken women, camaraderie among men, and
emphasis on who is or isn't a gentleman, and a complete lack of
interest in political nuance and philosophical digressions."

This is very interesting, yet also seems at odds with the axiom

2) that we're looking for a "purple robed" poet who was likely a
highly educated duke, marquis, earl, or Knight of the Garter, a noble
who avoided publishing under his own name, because of the disrepute of
writing popular plays and poems.

Ironic that such a person would write the wildly popular and
licentious "Venus and Adonis," yet dedicate it to another noble with
deference, but saucy independence, too. Circulate the sonnets with
extensive revelation of personal passions and preferences, ostensibly
as a service to a noble in addressing a Young Man.

It just seems odd that Shakespeare's "fingerprints" don't seem to
square with a "purple robe" description, presumably with it's own
"fingerprints" identified in the great stuff. Yet from your
discussion of Sackville and other peers, I see they did recognize a
calling for great literature.

3) I find other axioms that are of service in targeting the real
Shakespeare, but I guess we are aware of problems in identifying his
sources, as opposed to influences, parallels, and other
possibilities.

I got a lot out of your facts about Gorboduc, which I hadn't
appreciated fully enough. Lots of ways to source Gorboduc in the
plays, I see, with surrounding info supporting inter-connecting
interests with the principle contenders, and others such as Jonson.

So evidently you don't conclude that Sackville is Shakespeare, so much
as reveal how someone could have used Stratman as a "front man,"
keeping open the possibility there was an inner circle of more than
one, including Jonson?

I still have a note or two about something interesting you present,
that I may add. bookburn

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:10:53 -0900, book...@yahoo.com wrote:

>[continues from thread "William Stanley, 6th Early of Derby"]
>
>>Bookburn,
>>
>>Another possibility is that Donne's "Six Holy Sonnets" were addressed to Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset from 1604 - 1608, as the "E of D." This possibility (first suggested to me by Prof. Patrick Buckridge of Griffith University, Australia) would explain both why Donne seems to be addressing a poet much older than him, and a poet whom he believes to be his superior.
>>
>>>For the case for Sackville as Shakespeare, see:
>>>
>>>http://apocryphalshakespeare.com/the-case-for-sackville.html
>>>
>>>--Sabrina Feldman

(snip)

>So evidently you don't conclude that Sackville is Shakespeare, so much
>as reveal how someone could have used Stratman as a "front man,"
>keeping open the possibility there was an inner circle of more than
>one, including Jonson?
>
>I still have a note or two about something interesting you present,
>that I may add. bookburn

--------------------

Here are some of the "good bits" I find thoughtful in your essay.

1. The "singing swallow" image Davies uses in "Orchestra" contrasts
the image with a "Nightengale", for some reason I don't quite get,
maybe to distinguish S's voice from the noble bird? I notice that
"Shakespeare's birds" are well noted in commentaries, and that
sparrows are often mentioned, to get at some underlying ambiguity.

2. The "poet apes" label comes into play with Marston's satirical
poems mentioning " a still unknown "silent" poet who's place will be
fairer when "the apes are turned forth." Reminds me that the "poet
ape" theme in connection with S's poetic fame is colorful and helpful
in some ways; seems to go beyond just a common label for actors and
literary imitators, to include something national about English aping
Italian and French fashions? Not sure you want to go with "poet ape"
as another way of identifying "frivolous" poetry, if the ape has legs.
Jonson's use of the term must have been well freighted with meanings.
Seems central to the reputation problem nobles had with publishing for
the populace.

3. Hard to understand how Edwards, Davies, and Marston strongly
support the existence of "a secret poet at court . . . whose identity
was a closely guarded secret . . . ," when the poet and supporters
also seem to be at cross-purposes with anonymity, and the comments you
pick up on are, themselves, suggest no secret?

4. Don't quite see your meaning in "Sackville's name began and ended
with the same letter--his titled name was Thomas Lord Buckhurst at
this time." If his name was Thomas Sackville, where are the same
letters?

5. Your conclusion that "nothing in (Sackville's) personal biography
or lifespan rules him out" of contention is resounding and an
invitation to us nitpickers to find something juicy about him that
"proves" otherwise.

6. I would contend that, in fact, Spenser does allude to Will
Shakespeare in his CCCH poem, as identified above, occasioning your
Sackville reply. This is probably a central issue in attributions
scholarship that I will be minding. Possibly/probably goes along with
S's "Will, Will, Will" sonnets, too. Just too good a chance to break
out of the mere initials names among contemporaries so important.

7. Your reference to Sylvester's comment about Sackville and a
"ghost" is interesting, as we know there may be additional meanings to
the report of Shakespeare, the actor's, best performance as a ghost in
his own play. The citation is "lthyself hast sung (under a feigned
ghost) the tragic falls of our ambitious throng", and your suggestion
is this hints that Sackville had been writing under a "feigned ghost,"
a pretended name. Don't know where "ghost writer" in today's parlance
comes from."

8. I would quibble that the Sonnets dedication reference to
"ever-living author implies an author who achieves immortality by
dying. Just too many ambiguities--maybe deliberate--to nail that,
IMO.

9. I have to say the notion you name, that Sackville and others
formulated a "grand plan to relate the histories of England's past
kings," as Shakespeare does, is supported by the unique capabilities
those guys had. Strats have to go along with this, I assume.

10. My impression of the recycling of play sources you recount is
that, yes, they were into plagiarizing for profit, but that a lot of
this is common practice with unpublished mss., and that even today
"borrowing" that Green attacks (facetiously?) is understood to be
somewhat flattering, as all the arts do it. My take on it is that
it's re-creation, something essential to the dynamic process that
could result in a Shakespeare.


There's my 10, and I'm done. Lots more that could be commented about
your Sackville sourcing of the individual plays. For now, thanks for
the ride. bookburn

[Sabrina Feldman]

Bookburn,

Thanks very much for your interest in my 2010 article on Sackville! Here are my responses to your questions/comments, as I understood them.

You summarize the list of "fingerprints" in the apocryphal plays that I provide in my 2010 Oxfordian article "The Swallow and the Crow." My contention is that these fingerprints as a group represent the authorial voice of William Shakespeare as the lowbrow comic playwright who authored many works now assigned to the Shakespeare Apocrypha, or designated as Shakespearean "bad quartos."

For this reason, my axiom (1) is not really at odds with my second axiom that the true author of the Shakespeare canon may have been Thomas Edwards's poet in "purple robes," who was likely a "highly educated duke, marquis, earl, or Knight of the Garter, a noble who avoided publishing under his own name, because of the disrepute of writing popular plays and poems."

My theory (argued at length in The Apocryphal William Shakespeare) is that William Shakespeare wrote his own crude, crowd-pleasing plays while serving as a front man for the poet in purple robes.

>
> So evidently you don't conclude that Sackville is Shakespeare, so much
>
> as reveal how someone could have used Stratman as a "front man,"
>
> keeping open the possibility there was an inner circle of more than
>
> one, including Jonson?
>

No, I do conclude that a strong argument can be made for Sackville as the main voice behind Shakespeare's works, and am currently finishing a book which argues the case for Sackville at length (Thomas Sackville and the Shakespearean Glass Slipper). However, I tend to see many of the Bard's plays as palimpsests which have a long history of adaptation, revision, and in some cases multiple authorship over time. There were early plays about Julius Caesar (performed in 1562), Romeo and Juliet (performed in 1562), something very much like The Merchant of Venice (performed in the late 1570s), and several other pre-1585 plays with titles or plots similar to those found in the Bard's works. I suspect that early versions of some the Bard's works were first written and performed by Queen Elizabeth's courtiers including Thomas Sackville, perhaps as co-authored works, and later revised and adapted by William Shakespeare for the public theatres of the late 1580s through early 1610s. This might include Titus Andronicus, The Two Noble Kinsmen, and Henry VIII, in addition to several apocryphal plays and the half-dozen bad quartos.

I wouldn't be surprised if Jonson's voice can be found in a few places in the canonical works, especially if he was chief editor for the 1623 First Folio, but that's not part of my core theory. I do sometimes wonder if Jonson slyly slipped in the "Will Page" Latin lesson scene in Merry Wives of Windsor, which doesn't appear in the bad quarto version, only the 1623 Folio text, but that's a hunch, nothing more.

I'll respond to the rest of your points in a second note.

--Sabrina

[Sabrina Feldman]

Hi Bookburn,

Here are the rest of my responses -- thanks again for your interest in my 2010 Sackville article. It's great to have a thoughtful reader! Or any reader at all; my article on the case for Sackville hasn't received much attention, to put it mildly.

>
> Here are some of the "good bits" I find thoughtful in your essay.
>
>
> 1. The "singing swallow" image Davies uses in "Orchestra" contrasts
>
> the image with a "Nightengale", for some reason I don't quite get,
>
> maybe to distinguish S's voice from the noble bird? I notice that
>
> "Shakespeare's birds" are well noted in commentaries, and that
>
> sparrows are often mentioned, to get at some underlying ambiguity.
>

Yes, Shakespeare and his contemporaries did use interesting bird imagery! I don't have any insight on the Swallow vs. Nightingale question. My own personal favorite bird imagery from the time concerns the amusing character Philip Sparrow of Stratford-upon-Avon in the play Guy, Earl of Warwick, who seems to be a lampoon of William Shakespeare. (If this topic interests you, see http://apocryphalshakespeare.com/guy-earl-of-warwick.html.) Here is Philip Sparrow on the significance of his name -- note that Parnell is the pregnant mistress whom he abandoned.

"Philip: Nay I have a fine finical name, I can tell ye, for my name is Sparrow;
yet I am no house Sparrow, nor no hedge Sparrow, nor no peaking Sparrow, nor no
sneaking Sparrow, but I am a high mounting lofty minded Sparrow, and that
Parnell knows well enough, and a good many more of the pretty Wenches of our
Parish i’faith."

>
> 2. The "poet apes" label comes into play with Marston's satirical
>
> poems mentioning " a still unknown "silent" poet who's place will be
>
> fairer when "the apes are turned forth." Reminds me that the "poet
>
> ape" theme in connection with S's poetic fame is colorful and helpful
>
> in some ways; seems to go beyond just a common label for actors and
>
> literary imitators, to include something national about English aping
>
> Italian and French fashions? Not sure you want to go with "poet ape"
>
> as another way of identifying "frivolous" poetry, if the ape has legs.
>
> Jonson's use of the term must have been well freighted with meanings.
>
> Seems central to the reputation problem nobles had with publishing for
>
> the populace.
>
>

Hmm...the term "ape" was nearly always used derisively, though. Jonson used the term "poet ape" as a derisive term for actors in his 1601 Poetaster, and attacked the playwright "poet ape" in an epigram apparently written around the same time for seeking to be seen as the chief playwright in the land even though he was a playbroker whose works were the cast-off goods of a superior writer, or plagiarized from the works of his peers. Some Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian writers (notably Diana Price) have identified Jonson's Poet Ape with William Shakespeare, and I find this interpretation to be plausible.

>
> 3. Hard to understand how Edwards, Davies, and Marston strongly
>
> support the existence of "a secret poet at court . . . whose identity
>
> was a closely guarded secret . . . ," when the poet and supporters
>
> also seem to be at cross-purposes with anonymity, and the comments you
>
> pick up on are, themselves, suggest no secret?
>

Well, the problem I see is that Edwards's "poet in purple robes," Davies's noble "Singing Swallow," and Marston's beloved poet with the "silent name" who could not achieve the fame he deserved until "apes" were turned out, don't describe any known poets who were publishing in the 1590s. Several lines of evidence indicate that Thomas Sackville continued writing private or hidden poetry until late in life, and he was such a major poetic talent in his youth that I assume his later poetry would have been exceptional, too.

>
> 4. Don't quite see your meaning in "Sackville's name began and ended
>
> with the same letter--his titled name was Thomas Lord Buckhurst at
>
> this time." If his name was Thomas Sackville, where are the same
>
> letters?
>

He became known as Thomas Buckhurst after his elevation to the peerage in 1567, and signed his name that way; this name starts and ends with "T."

>
>
> 5. Your conclusion that "nothing in (Sackville's) personal biography
>
> or lifespan rules him out" of contention is resounding and an
>
> invitation to us nitpickers to find something juicy about him that
>
> "proves" otherwise.
>

Well, I would love a lively debate on this point! The first argument against Sackville from an opposing view would probably be the dating of The Tempest, but I think there's a good answer in the case of Sackville given his death in 1608 -- late enough to be influenced by Jonson's Jacobean masques, and late enough to explain the 1605/1606 allusions in King Lear and Macbeth. It's trickier with Oxford in 1604.

>
> 6. I would contend that, in fact, Spenser does allude to Will
>
> Shakespeare in his CCCH poem, as identified above, occasioning your
>
> Sackville reply. This is probably a central issue in attributions
>
> scholarship that I will be minding. Possibly/probably goes along with
>
> S's "Will, Will, Will" sonnets, too. Just too good a chance to break
>
> out of the mere initials names among contemporaries so important.
>

I'm curious about your meaning here -- please elaborate if you have time.

>
> 7. Your reference to Sylvester's comment about Sackville and a
>
> "ghost" is interesting, as we know there may be additional meanings to
>
> the report of Shakespeare, the actor's, best performance as a ghost in
>
> his own play. The citation is "lthyself hast sung (under a feigned
>
> ghost) the tragic falls of our ambitious throng", and your suggestion
>
> is this hints that Sackville had been writing under a "feigned ghost,"
>
> a pretended name. Don't know where "ghost writer" in today's parlance
>
> comes from."
>

Yes, I found Sylvester's 1608 allusion to Sackville as writing under a "feigned ghost" intriguing too. While this allows the interpretation that Sackville used a "ghost writer," it also (and most obviously) alludes to Sackville's famous 1563 narrative poem "The Complaint of Henry Duke of Buckingham," supposedly narrated by Buckingham's ghost.

>
> 8. I would quibble that the Sonnets dedication reference to
>
> "ever-living author implies an author who achieves immortality by
>
> dying. Just too many ambiguities--maybe deliberate--to nail that,
>
> IMO.
>

I agree that the 1609 description of the sonnets' author as "ever-living" is ambiguous and does not require a dead author. However, to my mind it's anomalous and suggestive, since the only other living person from this time who was described as "ever-living" was Queen Elizabeth, and that on a single occasion.

>
> 9. I have to say the notion you name, that Sackville and others
>
> formulated a "grand plan to relate the histories of England's past
>
> kings," as Shakespeare does, is supported by the unique capabilities
>
> those guys had. Strats have to go along with this, I assume.
>

Strats would have to agree that Sackville formulated a grand plan to relate the lives of England's past kings in his youth, right around the time he wrote a narrative poem about the reign of Richard III and co-authored Gorboduc, a precursor to King Lear.

>
> 10. My impression of the recycling of play sources you recount is
>
> that, yes, they were into plagiarizing for profit, but that a lot of
>
> this is common practice with unpublished mss., and that even today
>
> "borrowing" that Green attacks (facetiously?) is understood to be
>
> somewhat flattering, as all the arts do it. My take on it is that
>
> it's re-creation, something essential to the dynamic process that
>
> could result in a Shakespeare.
>

Yes, but...there are really two different kinds of plagiarism in Shakespeare's canonical plays vs. the Shakespeare apocryphal plays & bad quartos from the late 1580s and early 1590s. The canonical plays use creative homage and imaginative reinterpretation; the apocryphal plays tend to use crude, wholesale pilfering from the works of Marlowe, Greene, and other popular writers of the period, and I believe this ultimately led to Greene's famous 1592 attack on William Shakespeare as an "upstart crow...beautified with our feathers."

>
>
>
> There's my 10, and I'm done. Lots more that could be commented about
>
> your Sackville sourcing of the individual plays. For now, thanks for
>
> the ride. bookburn

And thanks again for your comments and interest! Sabrina

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 8:43:36 AM UTC-8, book...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 00:10:53 -0900, book...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >[continues from thread "William Stanley, 6th Early of Derby"]
>
> >
>
> >>Bookburn,
>
> >>
>
> >>Another possibility is that Donne's "Six Holy Sonnets" were addressed to Thomas Sackville, Earl of Dorset from 1604 - 1608, as the "E of D." This possibility (first suggested to me by Prof. Patrick Buckridge of Griffith University, Australia) would explain both why Donne seems to be addressing a poet much older than him, and a poet whom he believes to be his superior.
>
> >>
>
> >>>For the case for Sackville as Shakespeare, see:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>http://apocryphalshakespeare.com/the-case-for-sackville.html
>
> >>>
>
> >>>--Sabrina Feldman
>
>
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> >So evidently you don't conclude that Sackville is Shakespeare, so much
>
> >as reveal how someone could have used Stratman as a "front man,"
>
> >keeping open the possibility there was an inner circle of more than
>
> >one, including Jonson?

Jonson was loyal to Bacon. Jonson was a massive fellow but he had the most
exquisite handwriting, so he continually lived with Bacon as Bacon's scribe.

[book...@yahoo.com]

I think I remember reading that at some point it was in vogue even for
courtiers to play at the anonymity/fame game, signing all kinds of
names and merely "anonymous." I'm probably dabbling in this, too,
with my "bookburn" handle, borrowed from "Farenheit 451."

>
>
>>
>> 4. Don't quite see your meaning in "Sackville's name began and ended
>>
>> with the same letter--his titled name was Thomas Lord Buckhurst at
>>
>> this time." If his name was Thomas Sackville, where are the same
>>
>> letters?
>>
>
>He became known as Thomas Buckhurst after his elevation to the peerage in 1567, and signed his name that way; this name starts and ends with "T."

Okay, my error; sorry.

>>
>>
>> 5. Your conclusion that "nothing in (Sackville's) personal biography
>>
>> or lifespan rules him out" of contention is resounding and an
>>
>> invitation to us nitpickers to find something juicy about him that
>>
>> "proves" otherwise.
>>
>
>
>Well, I would love a lively debate on this point! The first argument against Sackville from an opposing view would probably be the dating of The Tempest, but I think there's a good answer in the case of Sackville given his death in 1608 -- late enough to be influenced by Jonson's Jacobean masques, and late enough to explain the 1605/1606 allusions in King Lear and Macbeth. It's trickier with Oxford in 1604.

Hard to tell if some real scholars will weigh in on this beside me.
Some do lurk here and may do more on this meaty topic than give it a
lick and a smell, and we regulars sometimes come up with good bites.
I'll try to think of a plan of attack, gnaw the bone a bit.

>
>>
>> 6. I would contend that, in fact, Spenser does allude to Will
>>
>> Shakespeare in his CCCH poem, as identified above, occasioning your
>>
>> Sackville reply. This is probably a central issue in attributions
>>
>> scholarship that I will be minding. Possibly/probably goes along with
>>
>> S's "Will, Will, Will" sonnets, too. Just too good a chance to break
>>
>> out of the mere initials names among contemporaries so important.
>>
>
>I'm curious about your meaning here -- please elaborate if you have time.

I think I'm keying on the importance of Spencer and the value of CCCHA
at that time. Here's what Wikipedia mentions.

(quote)
In the poem, Colin Clouts gives a description of the London visit; the
poem is Spenser's most autobiographical and identifies a number of
anonymous poets, the real life identities of whom have been the grist
of speculation over time.
(unquote)

The article also mentions that CCCA has not had that much critical
attention.

So if the poem is really autobiographical, and Spencer speaks
allegorically about Willy in conjunction with a missing muse, or
something, it seems this is a fathomable comment. My seminar reading
of Spencer's pastoral poetry remembers that he's talking allegorically
about a favorite chief shepherd/poet who has gone missing because his
shepherdess/muse has disappeared, so complains and laments. So there
are a few arrows/clues that should allow some meaty surmise

.

>>
>> 7. Your reference to Sylvester's comment about Sackville and a
>>
>> "ghost" is interesting, as we know there may be additional meanings to
>>
>> the report of Shakespeare, the actor's, best performance as a ghost in
>>
>> his own play. The citation is "lthyself hast sung (under a feigned
>>
>> ghost) the tragic falls of our ambitious throng", and your suggestion
>>
>> is this hints that Sackville had been writing under a "feigned ghost,"
>>
>> a pretended name. Don't know where "ghost writer" in today's parlance
>>
>> comes from."
>>
>
>Yes, I found Sylvester's 1608 allusion to Sackville as writing under a "feigned ghost" intriguing too. While this allows the interpretation that Sackville used a "ghost writer," it also (and most obviously) alludes to Sackville's famous 1563 narrative poem "The Complaint of Henry Duke of Buckingham," supposedly narrated by Buckingham's ghost.
>
>>
>> 8. I would quibble that the Sonnets dedication reference to
>>

>> "ever-living author [does not imply] an author who achieves immortality by

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:16:15 -0800 (PST), Sabrina Feldman
<sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Bookburn,
>
>Thanks very much for your interest in my 2010 article on Sackville! Here are my responses to your questions/comments, as I understood them.
>
>You summarize the list of "fingerprints" in the apocryphal plays that I provide in my 2010 Oxfordian article "The Swallow and the Crow." My contention is that these fingerprints as a group represent the authorial voice of William Shakespeare as the lowbrow comic playwright who authored many works now assigned to the Shakespeare Apocrypha, or designated as Shakespearean "bad quartos."
>
>For this reason, my axiom (1) is not really at odds with my second axiom that the true author of the Shakespeare canon may have been Thomas Edwards's poet in "purple robes," who was likely a "highly educated duke, marquis, earl, or Knight of the Garter, a noble who avoided publishing under his own name, because of the disrepute of writing popular plays and poems."
>
>My theory (argued at length in The Apocryphal William Shakespeare) is that William Shakespeare wrote his own crude, crowd-pleasing plays while serving as a front man for the poet in purple robes.
>
>>
>> So evidently you don't conclude that Sackville is Shakespeare, so much
>>
>> as reveal how someone could have used Stratman as a "front man,"
>>
>> keeping open the possibility there was an inner circle of more than
>>
>> one, including Jonson?
>>
>
>No, I do conclude that a strong argument can be made for Sackville as the main voice behind Shakespeare's works, and am currently finishing a book which argues the case for Sackville at length (Thomas Sackville and the Shakespearean Glass Slipper). However, I tend to see many of the Bard's plays as palimpsests which have a long history of adaptation, revision, and in some cases multiple authorship over time. There were early plays about Julius Caesar (performed in 1562), Romeo and Juliet (performed in 1562), something very much like The Merchant of Venice (performed in the late 1570s), and several other pre-1585 plays with titles or plots similar to those found in the Bard's works. I suspect that early versions of some the Bard's works were first written and performed by Queen Elizabeth's courtiers including Thomas Sackville, perhaps as co-authored works, and later revised and adapted by William Shakespeare for the public theatres of the late 1580s through early 1610s. This might
include Titus Andronicus, The Two Noble Kinsmen, and Henry VIII, in addition to several apocryphal plays and the half-dozen bad quartos.

Something tells me there's a missing category after the apocryphal
mss., the dirty mss., and the Bad Quartoes, where Shakespeare's
composition mechanics includes things like actors' emendations,
moveable scenes for traveling players, revisions made by Shakespeare
as a "play doctor," etc.. I like the idea that Stratman was at the
center of a dynamic process and didn't think he was the sole creator.
How else to account for the King Lear with a different ending?

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:49:44 -0900, book...@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:02:24 -0800 (PST), Sabrina Feldman
><sabrinama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi Bookburn,
>>
>>Here are the rest of my responses -- thanks again for your interest in my 2010 Sackville article. It's great to have a thoughtful reader! Or any reader at all; my article on the case for Sackville hasn't received much attention, to put it mildly.
>>
>>>
>>> Here are some of the "good bits" I find thoughtful in your essay.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. The "singing swallow" image Davies uses in "Orchestra" contrasts
>>> the image with a "Nightengale", for some reason I don't quite get,
>>> maybe to distinguish S's voice from the noble bird? I notice that
>>> "Shakespeare's birds" are well noted in commentaries, and that
>>> sparrows are often mentioned, to get at some underlying ambiguity.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, Shakespeare and his contemporaries did use interesting bird imagery! I don't have any insight on the Swallow vs. Nightingale question. My own personal favorite bird imagery from the time concerns the amusing character Philip Sparrow of Stratford-upon-Avon in the play Guy, Earl of Warwick, who seems to be a lampoon of William Shakespeare. (If this topic interests you, see http://apocryphalshakespeare.com/guy-earl-of-warwick.html.) Here is Philip Sparrow on the significance of his name -- note that Parnell is the pregnant mistress whom he abandoned.
>>
>>"Philip: Nay I have a fine finical name, I can tell ye, for my name is Sparrow;
>>yet I am no house Sparrow, nor no hedge Sparrow, nor no peaking Sparrow, nor no
>>sneaking Sparrow, but I am a high mounting lofty minded Sparrow, and that
>>Parnell knows well enough, and a good many more of the pretty Wenches of our
>>Parish i’faith."

The "pretty Wenches" comment seems to reply to the image of a sparrow
that is commonly cuckolded, and I see that Shakespeare in the canon
frequently associates the sparrow with the cuckoo and its practice of
laying eggs in the sparrows nest to survive. See his extended image
in

King Henry IV, Part i
Act 5, Scene 1

EARL OF WORCESTER
. . . .
And from this swarm of fair advantages
You took occasion to be quickly woo'd
To gripe the general sway into your hand;
Forget your oath to us at Doncaster;
And being fed by us you used us so
As that ungentle hull, the CUCKOO'S bird,
Useth the SPARROW; did oppress our nest;
Grew by our feeding to so great a bulk
That even our love durst not come near your sight
For fear of swallowing; but with nimble wing
We were enforced, for safety sake, to fly
Out of sight and raise this present head;
. . . .

Did Sparrow's name immediately envoke comic interest by an audience?
Is the use of Shakespeare as a sock puppet by a concealed poet similar
to cuckoo laying an egg in another bird's nest? Does Davies play on
the cuckoo-swallow motif?

>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. The "poet apes" label comes into play with Marston's satirical
>>> poems mentioning " a still unknown "silent" poet who's place will be
>>> fairer when "the apes are turned forth." Reminds me that the "poe

>>> ape" theme in connection with S's poetic fame is colorful and helpfu

>>> in some ways; seems to go beyond just a common label for actors and
>>> literary imitators, to include something national about English aping
>>> Italian and French fashions? Not sure you want to go with "poet ape"
>>> as another way of identifying "frivolous" poetry, if the ape has legs.
>>>
>>> Jonson's use of the term must have been well freighted with meanings

>>> Seems central to the reputation problem nobles had with publishing for
>>> the populace.
>>>
>>
>>Hmm...the term "ape" was nearly always used derisively, though. Jonson used the term "poet ape" as a derisive term for actors in his 1601 Poetaster, and attacked the playwright "poet ape" in an epigram apparently written around the same time for seeking to be seen as the chief playwright in the land even though he was a playbroker whose works were the cast-off goods of a superior writer, or plagiarized from the works of his peers. Some Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian writers (notably Diana Price) have identified Jonson's Poet Ape with William Shakespeare, and I find this interpretation to be plausible.

Derisively, but instructively? Like, how if Jonson uses poet ape to
critique the function of a poet in imitating, not finding his/her own
muse? I get the impression those guys were serious about examining
what they were doing, looking at purpose and motive, wondering about
their part in the Chain of Being, being Renaissance Men, etc.. After
all, there were social philosophers like Sydney around trying to map
out poetics.

>I think I'm keying on the importance of Spencer and the value of CCCHA and TM

Kind of interesting how this plays into the poet ape motif, as if the
University Wits were being aped, when they were trying to write plays
for PUBLIC theatres to get the money. I assume the "feathers" are of
Davies Nightengale type, not the sparrow's.

[Sabrina Feldman]

>
> Something tells me there's a missing category after the apocryphal
>

> mss., the dirty mss., and the Bad Quartos, where Shakespeare's

>
> composition mechanics includes things like actors' emendations,
>
> moveable scenes for traveling players, revisions made by Shakespeare
>
> as a "play doctor," etc.. I like the idea that Stratman was at the
>
> center of a dynamic process and didn't think he was the sole creator.
>
> How else to account for the King Lear with a different ending?
>
>

Yes, I couldn't agree more! The First Folio makes it seem as if the Bard's play texts are fixed in stone, but in Shakespeare's time they seem to have been quite fluid.

[Sabrina Feldman]

Neonprose, you write:

"Jonson was loyal to Bacon. Jonson was a massive fellow but he had the most
exquisite handwriting, so he continually lived with Bacon as Bacon's scribe."

I take it you're a Baconian? Indeed, Jonson was extremely loyal to Bacon, whose writing style he clearly admired. Jonson also had a friendly documented relationship with Thomas Sackville, but Jonson's effusive praise for Bacon in his unpublished notebook is one of the stronger points in Bacon's favor.

[Sabrina Feldman]

Interesting comment! I don't know, but this is a fascinating possibility.

Concerning Ben Jonson's use of the term "Poet Ape," which I termed derisive, you write:


> Derisively, but instructively? Like, how if Jonson uses poet ape to
>
> critique the function of a poet in imitating, not finding his/her own
>
> muse? I get the impression those guys were serious about examining
>
> what they were doing, looking at purpose and motive, wondering about
>
> their part in the Chain of Being, being Renaissance Men, etc.. After
>
> all, there were social philosophers like Sydney around trying to map
>
> out poetics.
>

I'm sure you're right that the term "poet ape" could have been / was sometimes used by Elizabethan poets as constructive criticism to a fellow poet, rather than as an attack on actors. However, I don't pick up this gentler, more helpful meaning in Jonson's cutting epigram "On Poet Ape." http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/poetape.htm

Concerning Greene's 1592 attack on an actor whom Greene dubs Shake-scene for writing bombastic plays that are "beautified with our feathers," implying that Shake-scene's plays are stuffed with lines imported from works written by Marlowe, Greene, Nashe, and Peele, you write:

> Kind of interesting how this plays into the poet ape motif, as if the
>
> University Wits were being aped, when they were trying to write plays
>
> for PUBLIC theatres to get the money. I assume the "feathers" are of
>
> Davies Nightengale type, not the sparrow's.
>

Yes, I agree! Greene is referring to beautiful/well-written/carefully crafted poetic feathers, not ugly/silly/overly bombastic ones.

--Sabrina Feldman

[book...@yahoo.com]

Jonson's thoughts sound negative, but rather profound, about "He takes
up all, "mak[ing] each man's wit his own" and uncritically accepting
"it to be his, as well as our ours."

I know Jonson elsewhere criticizes Shakespeare about having his own
wit, but needing control of it, so I'm sure "constructive criticism"
is what he's about.

>Concerning Greene's 1592 attack on an actor whom Greene dubs Shake-scene for writing bombastic plays that are "beautified with our feathers," implying that Shake-scene's plays are stuffed with lines imported from works written by Marlowe, Greene, Nashe, and Peele, you write:
>
>> Kind of interesting how this plays into the poet ape motif, as if the
>>
>> University Wits were being aped, when they were trying to write plays
>>
>> for PUBLIC theatres to get the money. I assume the "feathers" are of
>>
>> Davies Nightengale type, not the sparrow's.
>>
>
>Yes, I agree! Greene is referring to beautiful/well-written/carefully crafted poetic feathers, not ugly/silly/overly bombastic ones.
>
>--Sabrina Feldman

The appearance of our posts is somewhat bothered by the line spacing.
Is it your server that's configured that way? In my third post to
this thread, I emended line spacing to see if it would repair the
appearance, and it did. Maybe your line length could be set to 70 or
something, and enabling "word-wrapping" fixes this, not sure. A
couple other do this, too, and I'm not sure if the cause is my old
XP-3 features or others Windows 8? bookburn

[John W Kennedy]

Not just "in Shakespeare's time". I knew one of the original cast of
"Dogg's Hamlet / Cahoot's Macbeth", and he told me that Stoppard
tinkered with the text all through the run.

--
John W Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"