Gullio is Southampton
Dominic Hughes
1. Gullio is portrayed as a great admirer of "sweet Mr. Shakespeare"
and speaks of him in the third person. It is quite obvious in the
play that Gullio is not a representation of Shakespeare, but is
someone who is easily gulled and has succumbed to the less than
wholesome poetry written by Shakespeare. When Gullio speaks of his
admiration for Shakespeare, is it your claim that he is speaking of
himself? Likewise, when Gullio says that he will obtain a picture of
William Shakespeare for his study are you contending that he is
proposing that he aquire a portrait of himself?
2. In fact, Gullio is much more likely to be a caricature of
Southampton, and Ingenioso is most likely Thomas Nashe. See Ian
Steere's article about Nashe, Southampton and Shakespeare for
some of Nashe’s literary treatment of Southampton:
http://shaksper.net/scholarly-resources/scholarly-papers-for-comments
3. Where in Parnassus does it say explicitly that Gullio dresses “in
a manner above his station.”
4. Birds of a feather flock together, but calling someone a gull is
far different from calling someone a rook or a crow or a goose. Are
you seriously unaware of the different connotations involved with the
use of these birds? If I call you a goose it is not the same thing as
calling you a gull.
> Dennis responds: The bird references are pointed and often delivered
> in precisely the same way. Consider:
That doesn't answer my question at all.
> The Shakespeare-caricatures, Sogliardo and Gullio, are introduced as
> birds and then they enter bragging:
Circular reasoning at its worst. Do you fail to even understand what
you are doing when you engage in this type of argument?
5. Gullio admiringly refers to some of the lines that Shakespeare
penned, speaking of Shakespeare in the third person. How does that
make Gullio a caricature of Shakespeare.
6. Gullio has referred to Shakespeare in the third person…how does
reciting verse and annoying someone make him a caricature of
Shakespeare?
7. Gullio is a patron and Ingenioso is seeking patronage. There is
no factual similarity whatsoever between Gullio and William
Shakespeare such that the character of Gullio can be taken for a
caricature of Shakespeare, no matter how hard you strain to make it
so.
All there are in your idiotic theory are some similarities between
certain characters in literary works [that you speculate to be
Shakespeare] but there is no correspondence between those similarities
between characters and the facts of Shakespeare’s life. On the other
hand, the descriptions of Gullio do correspond to the life actually
led by Southampton. You are mentally unable to address those facts
[your apparent megalomania prevents you from doing so], or you are
dishonest.
8. You don’t even seem to realize that your method is illogical. You
appear to sincerely believe that your interpretations are proof of the
accuracy of your interpretations, that your premises are justified by
your premises, and you seem sincerely unable to grasp this circularity
in your reasoning. That doesn't mean that anyone else needs to
succumb to your illogical methods. Your speculations do not prove
that your speculations are true and accurate.
9. Well, since Gullio refers to Shakespeare in the third person how
does the fact that he has expensive clothes make him a caricature of
Shakespeare? How is it that Shakespeare could afford to spend 200
pounds on apparel? Of course, someone like Southampton would be able
to do that.
10. Once again, since the character Gullio speaks of Shakespeare as
being another person, how is it that Gullio is a caricature of
Shakespeare?
11. Was Shakespeare a member of an Inn at Oxford? Was he the subject
of "congratulatory orations" at such Inn? Did Shakespeare act as a
patron, maintaining scholars and other poetical spirrits? The answer
to these questions is quite obviously "no". Gullio is not
Shakespeare.
12. The main point is that Weever knew that Shakespeare was an
author. He never once said that North was the author of 'Venus &
Adonis' or 'Romeo & Juliet'.
From Mark Steese:
I don't know whether Weever ever wrote about Southampton, but he did
write an epigram that begins "Here lies fat Gullio":
*In obitum sepulcrum Gullionus*
Here lies fat *Gullio*, who caperd in a cord [i.e., was hanged]
To highest heav'n for all his huge great weight,
His friends left at *Tiburne* in the yere of our Lord
1 - 5 - 9 - and 8
What part of his body French men did not eate,
That part he gives freely to worms for their meat.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the point of the joke in
*Parnassus* is that Gullio stupidly thinks a poem about a prisoner
named 'Gullio' who was hanged at Tyburn is really a poem written in
his honor.
There is no joke if Weever's poem to Shakespeare is intended, as that
poem praises Shakespeare’s writing.
Weever's Fourth weeke, epigramme 22:
Ad Gulielmum Shakespeare
HONEY-TONGUED Shakespeare, when I saw thine issue,
I swore Apollo got them and none other;
Their rosy-tinted features clothed in tissue,
Some heaven-born goddess said to be their mother:
Rose-cheeked Adonis, with his amber tresses,
Fair fire-hot Venus, charming him to love her,
Chaste Lucretia, virgin-like her dresses,
Proud lust-stung Tarquin, seeking still to prove her:
Romeo, Richard; more whose names I know not,
Their sugared tongues, and power attractive beauty
Say they are saints, although that saints they show not,
For thousands vow to them subjective duty :
They burn in love, thy children, Shakespeare het them,
Go, woo thy Muse, more Nymphish brood beget them.
Epigrammes in the oldest Cut, and newest Fashion.
John Weever. 1599. Fourth Weeke, Epig. 22.
13. The name Gullio comes from Southampton's family crest, which had
four silver falcons which were often described as seagulls.
From Mark Steese:
And a more likely derivative than *Gulielmum* is *Giulio*, which ties
in to Southampton's well-known affection for all things Italian (as
you noted, he mentions attending the University at Padua in his very
first
line of dialogue).
14. Some scholars have opined that Southampton kept rooms in
Shoreditch.
From Mark Steese:
Moreover, Shoreditch was Shakespeare's "first theatrical home" in the
sense that the first public theater in London, where Shakespeare's
first theatrical companies performed (imaginatively named "The
Theatre") was built there; there is no evidence that Shakespeare ever
had a "chamber in Shordiche." (And Shakespeare's "theatrical home"
when *The Return from Parnassus* was written was Southwark, not
Shoreditch: The Theatre was dismantled by the Burbages in 1599. They
ferried the timbers across the Thames and used them in the building of
The Globe.)
15.
> and at one point, when Gullio practices his
> wooing on the young scholar Ingenioso by reciting lines from Venus and
> Adonis, the scholar, acting the mistress, responds by calling him
> "Sweet Mr. Shakespeare"! That’s right: the character Gullio, who
> shares so many peculiar characteristics with the other Shakespeare-
> caricatures, is actually called Shakespeare on stage.
Sigh...this is completely wrong. You show here that you do not
understand how to read a work in context. You are so intent on
hunting out your purported correspondences that you miss the forest
for the trees. Let's look at the actual passage in full:
Gullio Pardon fair lady, though sick- thoughted Gullio makes amain
unto thee, and like a bold-faced suitor 'gins to woo thee!
Ingenioso : We shall have nothing but pure Shakspeare, and shreds
of poetry that he hath gathered at the theatres.
Gullio Pardon mee moy mittressa, ast am a gentleman the moon in
comparison of thy bright hue a mere slut, Anthony's Cleopatra a black-
browed milkmaid, Helen a dowdie. Ingenioso Mark - Romeo and Juliet:
o monstrous theft! I think he will run through a whole book of Samuel
Daniel's.
Gullio
Thrice fairer than my self, thus I began,
The gods fair riches, sweet above compare,
Stain to all nymphs, more lovely than a man,
More white and red than doves and roses are:
Nature that made thee, with herself at strife,
Saith that the world hath ending with thy life.
Ingenioso : Sweet Mr Shakespeare!
Gullio As I am a scholar, these arms of mine are long and strong
withall: Thus elms by vines are compast ere they falle.
Ingenioso : Faith, gentleman, your reading is wonderful in our English
poets!
Gullio Sweet mistress, I vouchsafe to take some of their words and
apply them to mine own matters by a scholastical imitation. Report
thou upon thy credit - is not my vein in courting gallant and
honourable?
Ingenioso is obviously not referring to Gullio as Shakespeare here. He
is referring not to Shakespeare personally, but to Shakespeare's works
["pure Shakespeare" -- but I undersatnd that this is a concept that
you obviously don't understand]. He is commenting [ironically] on
Gullio's wonderful reading of English poets like Shakespeare [lines
from 'Venus & Adonis'] and Thomas Kyd [lines from 'The Spanish
Tragedy'] and [" a book of"] Samuel Daniel, and his adoption of shreds
of poetry picked up at the theaters. As Gullio himself says, he means
to take some of the words of these poets and apply them to his own
purposes by imitation. Your ridiculous reading of the passage would
have Shakespeare [as Gullio] saying that he was going to imitate his
own works.
On the other hand, this passage does accurately correspond to
Southampton.
16. By the way, why is Gullio portrayed as having been abroad and
having been involved in military affairs there? Surely this doesn't
correspond to Shakespeare. On the other hand, just like Gullio,
Southampton was recently returned from Ireland.
Gullio This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
health of England.
Gullio I'faith I care not for fame, but valour and virtue will be
spoken of in spite of oblivion. Had I cared for that prating Echo,
fame, my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale voyage, and
now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere this through every by-
street, and talked of as well at the wheel of a country maid as the
tilts and tournaments of the court.
Ingenioso I dare swear your worship escaped knighting very hardly.
Gullio: (tetchily) That's but a petty requital to good deserts. He
that esteems me of less worth than a knight is a peasant, and a gull!
Give me a new knight of them all, in fence school at a Nimbrocado or
at a Stocado. Sir Oliuer, Sir Randal - base, base chamberterms! I am
saluted every morning by the name of, Good morrow captain, my sword is
at your service!
"Like Southampton, Gullio had just come back from Ireland, was
boastfully proud of his military conquests, had a great quarrel with a
‘puling Liteltonian’ (code for Southampton’s enemy Lord Grey) and
worshipped ‘sweet Mr. Shakespeare’ whose Venus and Adonis he lays
under his pillow and whose picture he will have in his ‘study at the
Court’.
Gullio refers to:
This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of Padua
And boasts:
My Latin was pure Latin, and such as they speak at Rheims and Padua.
So it was clearly known to the coterie audience that Gullio/
Southampton had, by 1601, travelled and studied in Italy. Rheims, a
Catholic seminary, is also a dig at Southampton’s adherence to ‘the
Old Faith’."
17. And Gullio is, quite obviously, a courtier, unlike Shakespeare.
Gullio Tush! man, at the court I think I should grow lousy if I
wore less than two a day.
Gullio I am never seen at the court twice in one suit of apparel!
That's base. As for boots, I never wore one pair above two hours; as
for bands, stockings, and handkerchiefs - mine hostess, where my
trunks lie near the court, hath enough to make her sheets for her
household.
Gullio Well remembered. Aetas prima canit venere, postrema
tumultus: since soldiery is not regarded I'll make the ladies happy
with enjoying my youth, and hang up my sword and buckler to the
beholders. Among many dainty court nymphs that with petitioning looks
have sued for my love, it pleased me to bestow love, this pleasing
fire, upon Lady Lesbia. Many a health have I drunk to her upon my
native knees, eating that happy glass in honour of my mistress.
18. Gullio, with his ‘becoming’ hair, his leg ‘better’ than Sir
Philip Sidney and his ‘amiable face’ is a satire on Southampton. How
would this pertain to William Shakespeare?
Gullio: I had in my days not unfitly been likened to Sir Philip
Sidney, only with this difference - that I had the better leg and more
amiable face. His Arcadia was pretty, so are my sonnets; he had been
at Paris, I at Padua; he fought, and so dare I; he died in the low
countries, and so I think shall I; he loved a scholar, I maintain them
- witness thyself, now: because I saw thee have the wit to acknowledge
those virtues to be mine, which indeed are, I have restored thy
dylaniated back and ruinous estate to those pretty clothes wherein
thou now walkest.
When did Shakespeare maintain scholars like Nashe...we know that
Southampton was, at least for a time, a patron of Nashe, but
Shakespeare never was.
Dennis appears not to understand the difference between acting
companies buying plays from scholars and courtiers acting as patrons.
19:
> Dom: Gullio is portrayed as a great admirer of "sweet Mr.
> > Shakespeare" and speaks of him in the third person.
> Dennis responds: Yeah, and Ingenioso, who, as essentially all scholars
> of the play agree, is a representation of Nashe, also speaks about
> Nashe in the third person. That's the joke, you see (or do you deny
> that Ingenioso is Nashe?).
That might possibly be a joke, but it certainly wouldn't mean that
Gullio speaking of Shakespeare in the third person is meant as a joke,
especially when the mentions of Shakespeare are viewed in context.
20.
> When Gullio
> talks about being entertained by a Countess and a Lord, again
> Ingenioso points out to the audience that this is a lie, "Why he is
> acquainted with neer a lord except my Lord Coulton, and for
> Countesses, he never came in the country where a Countess dwells!"
But he can't be speaking of Shakespeare then either, because
Shakespeare did know Lords such as Southampton and Lord Hunsden.
21.
>But do not
> Studioso's words about the caste-jumping actors, the base-born
> vagabonds in satin suits, also match Gullio in The Return, Part I?
No. Vagabonds are actors [they even passed an act about them], and
Gullio is not a stage-actor, unlike Shakespeare.
22.
> Again, he's called a "base carle clothed in a satin suit." A "carle"
> is a commoner and man of low birth. And his satin suit, which the
> authors of the trilogy associate with actors, is referenced again and
> again and again (see previous response):
And yet Gullio is not an actor, so your correspondence does not work.
He is, in fact, a patron and a courtier.
23. Parnassus is not at all about Shakespeare's hiring of Nashe.
Shakespeare was not a patron and did not "maintain" Nashe, along with
other peotical spirits. It is only your penchant for circular
reasoning that permits you to continue in this vein.
24.
> Dennis responds: While continuously bragging about his skills as a
> poet, Gullio first quotes or paraphrases two lines from Shakespeare's
> poem, Rape of Lucrece, then two lines from Shakespeare's erotic poem,
> Venus and Adonis, then two lines from Romeo and Juliet, six more lines
> from Venus and Adonis, two lines from Kyd's A Spanish Tragedy,
> followed by two more lines from Venus and Adonis. Thus, of the
> sixteen lines of verse that come out of Gullio's mouth, fourteen of
> them are from works attributed to Shakespeare. The author also
> includes a quotation from A Spanish Tragedy because it helps
> underscore the range of Shakespeare’s appropriation.
Bullshit. You're just making up your own rules as you go along.
"Blah, blah, blah...this is obviously meant as a joke...blah, blah,
blah, this is included "because it underscores the range of
Shakespeare's appropriation". You and Crowley are a lot alike in your
anti-Stratfordian methods. You are unable to admit any problem with
your speculations and so you invent spurious reasons for facts such as
Kyd's works being included in this passage. You are applying two
different standards to the citation of author's works in this passage,
and yet you find nothing problematic about that at all, and go
blithely on your way. When Gullio quotes Shakespeare's works, it
means he is Shakespeare: when he quotes Kyd's work, it means that the
author is attempting to show that Shakespeare stole from a lot of
different authors [significantly, not Thomas North].
What did it mean when the author referenced Daniel?
25.
> As Alden Brooks
> wrote about this identification: "And there we have it! Could anything
> be more unequivocal...? It pins William Shakespeare directly on
> Gullio. No audience witnessing this scene would have had any other
> thought...."
Would that be the same moronic Alden Brooks who thought that Sir
Edward Dyer was getting Shakespeare to buy bad plays for him which he
[Dyer] would then re-write into literary masterpieces. Your appeals
to authority are all rather inept [and partake of the illogical
thinking inherent in such an argument] but this one takes the cake.
You merely quote one dippy anti-Stratfordian in support of another.
This all sounds very familiar:
Alden Brooks..."in 1937 produced a preliminary volume, Will Shakspere:
Factotum and Agent, in an attempt to prove that Shakespeare did not
write the works attributed to him.[8] In this book, Shakespeare is
considered to be a pseudonym, and the sonnets are attributed to Thomas
Nashe, Samuel Daniel, Barnabe Barnes and some other editorial hand. A
contemporary scholar reviewing Brooks's ideas commented that although
"there is absolutely no evidence to support any of his statements
(this) disturbed neither Brooks nor his publishers."[9]
Six years later he fulfilled his earlier promise of identifying the
supposed real author by publishing Will Shakspere and the Dyer's Hand
(1943) declaring that Sir Edward Dyer was the true author. His
methodology consisted of specifying 54 criteria or qualifications
which worked to the exclusion of the many false claimants the
establishment of the true author's identity, only all of which his
candidate, Sir Edward Dyer, was thought to meet in "concordance with
the pattern".[10] The book, in the ironical words of one historian of
the phenomenon, "did not ignite a crusade"."
26.
> As made clear
> with the other Shakespeare caricatures, Shakespeare stole from
> everyone and spoke phrases from numerous plays – not just ones he had
> adapted from North.
He used North as a source but there is absolutely no evidence that
North wrote any plays whatsoever [just as there is no evidence that
Dyer wrote the Shakespeare plays].
27.
> After all, lines from The Spanish Tragedy appear
> in a number of his adaptations, including The Taming of the Shrew and
> The Merchant of Venice. Moreover, as the other caricatures of
> Shakespeare make clear, the Stratford dramatist often spoke in play-
> quotes – and not just his own.
Once again, your interpretations are dragooned into providing "proof"
for your interpretations in a never-ending circle. The really
interesting thing is that none of your supposed correspondences,
allegedly discovered in your speculative interpretation that certain
characters are caricatures of Shakespeare, comport with the picture of
Shakespeare that was put forth in the First Folio, or in other
documentary references to the man [such as Jonson's in 'Timber']
28.
> Lord Chamberlain's Men also performed "Spanish Tragedy" -- and
> Shakespeare was known for stealing not just from North but using
> everyone's lines (see On Poet Ape and Ode to Himself).
He also stole lines from Marlowe...was the person stealing those lines
Shakespeare or North?
29.
> By the way, Gullio courts a woman named "Lesbia" and speaks in
> play-quotes. and Marston, in The Scourge of Villainy, also parodies
> someone who courts a Lesbia and speaks in play quotes -- but this
> person has a "sack of well penned plays."
> I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow
> Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo?
> Say, who acts best? Drusus, or Roscio?
> Now I have him, that ne'er of aught did speak
> But when of plays or Players he did treat –
> Hath made a commonplace book out of plays,
> And speaks in print: at least what e'er he says
> Is warranted by Curtain plaudities.
> If e'er you heard him courting Lesbia's eyes;
> Say, (Courteous Sir), speaks he not movingly
> From out some new pathetic tragedy?
> He writes, he rails, he jests, he courts, what not,
> And all from out his huge long scraped stock
> Of well penned plays. (3:372-373).
That is someone, not an actor or a playwright, who has made a
commonplace book containing quotes from well-penned plays, and, when
this person speaks, he speaks in play-quotes and Curtain [theater]
plaudities [he has scraped the plays for entries in his book -- his
stock of quotations]. That has nothing to do with Shakespeare.
NEW CONCERN: Could this be the book that Shakespeare gave to the fair
youth in Sonnet 77?
30.
> In her anti-Stratfordian book, Diana Price underscored the
> commonalities between Gullio and Marston's satirized figure, who also
> courts a "Lesbia" with lines quoted from tragedies, including Romeo
> and Juliet.
Another appeal to an anti-authority, but she may actually be right in
this case, and, as the poem quoted shows, the target of the poem is
not Shakespeare, but someone so enamored of Shakespeare's Romeo &
Juliet that he places passages from the play in his commonplace book
and speaks in quotations from the play ["from out some new pathetic
tragedy"]. That isn't Shakespeare, but feel free to continue
believing that it is.
31.
> In Marston's satire, however, the connection of
> this Gullio-type with the theater is made even clearer. He is asked
> who acts best – Drusus or Roscio? And these famous classical actors
> are likely supposed to represent the most famous of Elizabethan
> actors, Richard Burbage and Edward Allen. But the last three lines
> are the most damning. Everything this wooer of Lesbia says or does
> comes out of his large "stock of well penned plays," which have been
> "long scraped" or gathered over the course of many years and
> apparently include Romeo and Juliet. That wooer of Lesbia who speaks
> in play quotes is not Southampton, it's Shakespeare.
No it isn't Shakespeare...do you even know what a commonplace book
is? And Southampton's wife was named Lizbeth...awfully close to
Lesbia.
32.
> Gullio hires Nashe to write poems for him that Gullio stresses he will
> then correct and pass of as his own. Gullio, of course, would write
> them himself, but he has pressing concerns, so, he says, "I will have
> thee, Ingenioso, to make them: and when thou hast done, I will peruse,
> polish, and correct them." Recall again that the first title pages of
> Shakespeare's plays noted that the works were not "written by"
> Shakespeare – but "Newly set forth, overseen, and corrected" or "Newly
> corrected and augmented" by William Shakespeare. This, of course, is
> Shakespeare's modus operandi: he purchases works from impoverished
> scholars or hires them to pen material according to his direction. He
> then corrects and adapts the works as he sees fit.
Do you understand what circular reasoning means?
Here's the actual exchange between the two characters:
Gullio But stay, it's very true - good wits have bad memories: I
had almost forgotten the chief point I called thee out for! New
Year's
Day approacheth, and whereas other gallants bestow jewels upon their
mistresses (as I have done whilom), I now count it base to do as the
common people do. I will bestow upon them the precious stones of my
wit, a diamond of Invention, that shall be above all value and
esteem!... Therefore, since I am employed in some weighty affairs of
the court, I will have thee, Ingenioso, to make them: and when thou
hast done, I will peruse, polish, and correct them.
Ingenioso My pen is your bounden vassal to command; but what vein
would it please you to have them in?
Gullio Not in a vain vein Pretty, i'faith! - make me them in two
or three diverse veins, in Chaucer's, Gower's and Spencer's, and - Mr
Shakespeare's. Marry, I think I shall entertain those verses which
run
like these:
Euen as the sun with purple-coloured face
Had ta'en his last leave on the weeping morn, etc.
O sweet Mr Shakspeare! I'll have his picture in my study at the court
The passage has nothing to do with Shakespeare paying Nashe to write
plays for him. It has to do with a patron asking a scholar to write
poems for him, which he will then pass off as his own. In this case,
the patron ends up not paying the scholar for his work [unlike what
you claim is what happened between Nashe and Shakespeare, but is very
similar to Nashe's complaint against Southampton].
33.
> > > Has apparel worth exactly "200 pounds": The Play-er/Shake-Scene;
> > > Gullio
Dom: Well, since Gullio refers to Shakespeare in the third person how
does the fact that he has expensive clothes make him a caricature of
Shakespeare? How is it that Shakespeare could afford to spend 200
pounds on apparel? Of course, someone like Southampton would be able
to do that.
> Now consider this:
> The Shakespeare-caricatures, the Player and Gullio, both brag they
> have "apparel" worth "two hundred pounds."
> Groatsworth:
> PLAYER: …for my very share in playing apparel will not be sold for two
> hundred pounds¶
> Parnassus 1
> GULLIO: …pretty sleightie apparel, stood me not past in two hundred
> pounds.
> After considering all the other specific identifiers are we really to
> believe this is a coincidence?
One is playing apparel [costumes[ and another is apparel worn to
court. Beside that, it has nothing to do with Shakespeare...where is
that connection? This should be something that would warn you against
your interpretations but I fear that will not be the case.
34.
> There is no
> > factual similarity whatsoever between Gullio and William Shakespeare
> living in
> Shoreditch,
Which could also apply to Southampton.
>reciting Shakespearean lines,
In the context of the play this is not Shakespeare.
> having a name "Gullio,"
Which could also apply to Southampton.
> being called Shakespeare on stage,
He wasn't, but you don't do context.
>hiring Nashe to write for him,
He didn't. [And by the way, Gullio didn't pay]
> introduced as bird and then enters bragging,
Birds of different feathers...and your correspondences between your
alleged caricatures don't prove that your supposed caricatures are of
Shakespeare. But you will never understand this rather simple fact.
>speaking in play-quotes,
In context, this is not Shakespeare.
> reciting verse when first meeting a scholar annoying the listener,
Again, not Shakespeare, since Gullio is not Shakespeare.
> being a social-climbing wanna-be aristocrat,
Shakespeare was not a wanna-be aristocrat. He attained the status of
Gentleman.
> dressing above his station,
Wearing costumes on stage [play apparel] is dressing above his
station?
>wearing a satin suit, having apparel worth exactly 200
> pounds, etc.,? That's a lot of coincidences.
There are some trivial and meaningless coincidences between your
imagined caricatures of Shakespeare but that doesn't mean that the
character of Gullio is actually a caricature of Shakespeare. There are
at least as many facts that rebut such a claim, and parts of your
argument [such as the contention that Gullio is specifically addressed
as Shakespeare] are quite simply wrong, but I'm sure you won't let
that stop you.
35. Does it strike you as at all problematic to your conclusions that
you change the rules to suit your needs in your analysis of these
texts -- you choose to take some lines quite literally, and yet other
lines you treat as if they don't mean what they explicitly say.
36: You have not shown that Gullio's foreign travel and military
service are lies. You have not proven that he is not a courtier and
that he knows no aristocrats [I don't recognize the reference to Lord
Coulton, but I'd presume it is some kind of humorous reference]. All
you have shown is that Ingenioso is making quite broad and insulting
jokes at Gullio's expense.
As to the reference to Lord Coulton, Mark Steese has taken care of
that, as follows:
It appears to be a Cambridge in-joke. In Leishman's edition of the
Parnassus plays, he gave one Professor F. P. Wilson props for pointing
out the following passage in Henry Peacham's *The Worth of a Peny*:
"I will instance one; In *Cambridge* there dwelt, some twenty or
thirty years ago [c. 1615], one *Godfrey Colton*, who was by his Trade
a Tailor, but a merry companion with his Taber and Pipe, and for
singing all manner of Northern songs before Nobles and Gentlemen, who
much delighted in his company. Beside, he was Lord of *Sturbridge*
Fair, and all the misorders
there." (The fair was held at Stourbridge Common in Cambridge; by the
Elizabethan Era it was reputedly the largest fair in Europe.)
A joke associating Gullio with a Cambridge tailor and musician makes
sense if Wriothesley, who was a Cambridge man, is the target; it makes
no sense at all if Shakespeare, who had no associations with
Cambridge, is the target.
Dennis responds to Mark’s scholarship with a non sequitur. For some
odd reason Dennis thinks that Gullio is saying he only knows one lord
and doesn't know any Countesses [this wouldn't even be applicable to
Shakespeare].
37. Is there any reason to believe that William Shakespeare ever once
boasted about foreign travel and military experience. If not, and I
am quite confident in saying that he didn't do so, then there is no
reason to conclude that Gullio is Shakespeare. The references to
foreign travel and to military service correspond to Southampton's
experience, but not to William Shakespeare's, so far as any of us
know. All that Ingenioso is doing is pointing out how Gullio/
Southampton is exaggerating his foreign travel and his military
exploits...he is telling jokes that the audience, at least those in
the know, would associate not with Shakespeare but with Southampton,
an aristocrat who was smitten with the poet William Shakespeare [the
same man who dedicated two poems to Southampton]. The actions and the
content of the play fit the relationship between Southampton and
Shakespeare, not your notion that Gullio is Shakespeare speaking about
himself.
38.
They also fit in with the fact that Nashe/Ingenioso was a frustrated
patronage-seeker from Southamton and that the two had a history. These
correspondences shouldn't actually lead a literary sleuth to turn his
attention away from Southampton, but actually it should be seen as a
slam-you-across-the-face, could-it-be-any-more-obvious identifier of
the target of the parody. And the target found in
Gullio is not Shakespeare...he is merely collateral damage.
39.
> Dom's continues to quote Gullio's false boasts (arguing that they
> match Southampton),
They are not false boasts so much as they are exaggerations, as
pointed out by Ingenioso in his joking and insulting asides. Once
again, do you have any reason to believe that William Shakespeare
would be involved in excessive boasting about foreign travel and
military experience. If not, how can he be said to correspond to
Gullio. Your theory here is full of holes.
40.
> but unfortunately they exclude Ingenioso's asides
> that prove Gullio's lying about all his claims and does not have these
> experiences.
The asides prove nothing of the sort. They are jokes that are
actually funny [unlike your notion that Gullio speaking of Shakespeare
in the third person is actually a joke -- ha ha]. They do not prove
that Gullio is lying about all his claims...they show that he is an
exaggerator and a braggart, but they don't show that he didn't travel
abroad, return from Ireland, or serve in the military.
Let's take the following passage, for example:
Gullio I'faith I care not for fame, but valour and virtue will be
spoken of in spite of oblivion. Had I cared for that prating Echo,
fame, my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale voyage, and
now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere this through every by-
street, and talked of as well at the wheel of a country maid as the
tilts and tournaments of the court.
Ingenioso I dare swear your worship escaped knighting very hardly.
Gullio: That's but a petty requital to good deserts.
This is a specific reference to the fact that Southampton was in
Ireland with Essex. While in Ireland Essex was criticized for
excessively granting knighthoods to his followers [Essex had dubbed 59
knights during the campaign - in a wilful abuse of his powers]. Here,
Ingenioso is joking that Gullio/Southampton didn't even get knighted
when he was in Ireland, when knighthoods were a dime a dozen.
How could this passage possibly be applicable to William Shakespeare?
41.
> But Dom neglects Ingenioso's aside: "He was never any further than
> Flushing, and then he came home sick of the scurveys. -
> [Then Ingenioso speaking to Gullio] "Surely, sir, a notable exploit,
> worthy to be chronicled! But had you any witness of your valiancy?"
> See Ingenioso here is placating Gullio, even though he knows it's a
> lie.
No, he knows that it is boasting of Gullio's false exploits, not that
his military service or travel abroad were lies.
By the way, is there any reason to believe that Shakespeare made it to
Flushing but got scurvy and came home? If not, and since you take
Ingenioso's statements literally, then Gullio is not Shakespeare.
42.
> Later, When Gullio talks about being entertained by a Countess and a
> Lord, again Ingenioso points out to the audience that this is a lie,
> Ingenioso: "Why he is acquainted with neer a lord except my Lord
> Coulton, and for Countesses, he never came in the country where a
> Countess dwells!"
> Obviously, if it were a true aristocrat (and especially Southampton)
> he would know Lords and Countesses -- and he would have travelled out
> of England (pas Flushing.
I think you need to flush your argument as to Gullio.
> Later Ingenioso would refer to Gullio "as a
> haberdasher of lies" and complained about having "To hear a thousand
> lies in one short day."
This is more joking that you don't understand. Sorry about that. And
the fact is that you miss the biggest and bawdiest joke in this
exchange. Ingenioso is playing on the fact that Southampton is
homosexual when he says that Gullio 'never CAME in the COUNTRY [cunt]
where a Countess dwells." Anyone with any familiarity with the
literature of the time should be able to discern the very obvious
wordplay here. Why, even an American can get it.
43.
You write: "By the way, why is Gullio portrayed as having been abroad
> and having been involved in military affairs there? Surely this
> doesn't correspond to Shakespeare. On the other hand, just like
> Gullio, Southampton was recently returned from Ireland."
> You do understand, right, that Gullio wasn't recently returned from
> Ireland, right?
Nope. And you are dodging my question. If Gullio is a caricature of
Shakespeare, why is he boasting about having been recently returned
from Ireland.
44.
Can we also agree that your argument about Weever's epigram and your
argument that Ingenioso specifically calls Gullio Sweet Mr.
Shakespeare should also be flushed?
Dennis doesn't recognize the joke in Gullio referring to an epigram by
Weever which is directed at someone identified as Gullio.
45.
Nobody has said that the Gullio [Southampton] character is not
exaggerating [lying] about his exploits. That is, quite obviously,
what Ingenioso is saying in his comedic asides. However, that doesn’t
mean that he didn’t travel abroad and didn’t serve in the military.
Southampton did both of those things, and so did Gullio. Is there any
evidence that Shakespeare ever did? For Dennis’ argument [such as it
is] to make any sense at all, he has to assume that Shakespeare was
going about bragging about foreign travel and military exercises, and
being a member of an Inn at Oxford.
Here is some more evidence for the Southampton identification:
DMc: “You do understand, right, that Gullio wasn't recently returned
from Ireland, right?”
From Parnassus:
I had in my days not vnfitly been likned to Sr Phillip Sidney, only
with this diference, that I had the better legg, and more amiable
face. His Arcadia was prittie, soe are my sonnetes; he had bene at
Paris, I at Padua; he fought, and so dare I; he dyed in the lowe
cuntries, and soe I thinke shall I; he loued a scholler, I mantaine
them, witness thy selfe, nowe, because I sawe thee haue the wit to
acknowledge those vertus to be mine, which indeede are, I haue
restored thy dylaniated back & ruinous estate to those prettie clothes
wherin thou now walkest.
Ingenioso Oh it is a most lousie caste sute of his, that he before
bought of an Irish souldier. - Durste enuie otherwise reporte of your
excellencie than I haue done, I would bob him on the pate, & make
forlorne malice recante. If I liue, I will lime out your vertues in
such rude colours as I haue, that youre late nephwes may knowe what
good witts were youre worshipps most bounden.
If Gullio had, in fact, not been to Ireland, then why is Ingenioso
stating that the cast-off suit that his patron Gullio has given him to
wear was originally purchased from an Irish soldier?
As I have also shown, although Southampton [“your excellencie”] was
with the Essex military expedition in Ireland, he was not permitted to
fight and spent his time in an amorous dalliance with another man.
Therefore, any talk of his military exploits while serving in Ireland
would be outright exaggerations [to placate Denies, lies]. However,
that wouldn’t mean that his having gone to Ireland with the military
was a lie. The audience, in the know, would have recognized these
allusions to Southampton’s life.
46. What Dennis has done is to assert that Gullio is a caricature of
Shakespeare because he shares some similar and trivial characteristics
with other literary figures that Denies believes to also be
caricatures of Shakespeare. What I have done is to show actual
correspondences between the actual facts of Southampton’s life and the
representation of the Gullio character, and that the representation of
Gullio does not, in fact, match the circumstances of William
Shakespeare’s life. Instead of dealing with these arguments,
Dennissimply absconds…he doesn’t even label me a quibbler.
47. Even at that, Denies operates with his own set of rules that
allow him to treat the text in whatever way best suits his needs at
any one time. Ingenioso makes a joke about how Gullio traveled to
Europe, didn’t get very far, and had to turn back, and that joke must
be taken quite literally. On the other hand, Gullio is shown to have
been a member of one of the Inns at Oxford and a patron of scholars
and other poetical spirits. Denniss presumably doesn’t treat these
remarks as literally true. Instead, he completely ignores or evades
those facts, even though I have directly questioned him on these
subjects.
48. I believe that Gullio is an aristocrat who has been to Europe and
has also recently returned from Ireland? I believe that it would make
no sense whatsoever for the author[s] of the Parnassus plays to depict
Shakespeare, in the character of Gullio, bragging about having
traveled to Europe, having recently been to Ireland, and/or having
experienced military service in those locales. I don't think there is
any reason whatsoever to believe that the audience would recognize
William Shakespeare in such boasting -- and you have provided zero
evidence that any audience would have found such boasts to be
connected in any way to William Shakespeare. Here is your opportunity
to show how such references correspond to William Shakespeare, such
that the character of Gullio is a caricature of William Shakespeare.
While you're at it, show how there is a correspondence between William
Shakespeare and the reference that shows he avoided being knighted
while in Ireland. Explain the logic behind that reference which would
induce the Elizabethan audience to believe that the Gullio character
was a caricature of William Shakespeare of Stratford.
49. As an aside, what does the reference to "puling Littletonians
have to do with William Shakespeare [another question for you to
dodge]? As for a correspondence to Southampton, you might want to
check into the feud between Southampton and Thomas Lord Gray.
50. Here is another correspondence to the relationship between
Gullio/ Southampton and Nashe to add to my list of concerns as to
Dennis' identification of Gullio as a caricature of Shakespeare.
Ingenioso states as follows:
Farewell guilty ass, base broker’s post.
Too oft have I rubbed o’er thy mule’s dead head,
Fed like a fly on thy corruption:
Now had I rather live in poverty
Than be tormented with the tedious tales
Of Gullio’s wench and of his luxuries,
To hear a thousand lies in one short day
Of his false wars at Portingale or Calls.
My freer spirit did lie in tedious woe
Whiles it applauded bragging Gullio
Applied my vein to sottish Gullio
Made WANTON lines to please lewd Gullio.
Attend henceforth on Gulls for me who list,
For Gullio’s sake I’ll prove a Satirist.
Since we know that Ingenioso is Nashe, what "wanton lines" did he
supply for Gullio, and what does that have to do with a correspondence
to the caricature of an actual person?
Well, we know that at some time in the early 1590’s Nashe produced an
erotic-bordering-on-pornographic poem that he himself described as
"wanton", 'The Choice of Valentines,' which he dedicated to:
The Right Honourable, the Lord S.
According to Wikipedia, this poem “describes the visit of a young man
named 'Tomalin' to the brothel where his girlfriend Frances
('Frankie') is employed. Having paid ten gold pieces for her favours,
Tomalin is embarrassed to find that merely lifting her skirts makes
him lose his erection. She perseveres in arousing him however and they
make love, but to her disappointment he has an orgasm before her.
Frankie then decides to take matters into her own hands: hence the
informal title by which the poem was known, "Nashe's Dildo". It was
sharply criticized for its obscenity by contemporary authors Joseph
Hall and John Davies of Hereford, though Nashe had tried to preempt
criticism by placing it in the tradition of classical erotica: "Yet
Ovid's WANTON muse did not offend".”
The work begins:
Pardon, sweet flower of matchless Poetry,
And fairest bud the red rose ever bare…
This is an obvious allusion to Southampton’s name being Wriothesley
[as Shakespeare also made use of this word play in his Sonnets,
referring to him as ‘my rose’]. The lewd lines penned by Nashe were
written to Southampton, not to Shakespeare, and so this is another
instance of a correspondence between Gullio and Southampton, and not
between Gullio and Shakespeare.
"It is a matter of history that Nash sought, and succeeded in
obtaining for a time, the patronage of the Earl of Southampton, one of
the most liberal men of his day, and a prominent figure in the
declining years of Elizabeth. "I once tasted," Nash writes in
1593,'the full spring of the Earl's liberality.' From internal
evidence it would seem that this poem was called forth by the Earl's
bounty to its author. "
My muse devorst from deeper (the Raw/. MS. reads deepest) care,
presents thee with a WANTON elegie ;" and further on, the dedication
promises "better lines" which should "ere long" be penned in "honour"
of his noble patron.
Nash, however, for some cause or other failed to retain the Earl's
interest; " indeed," says Mr. Sidney Lee,"he did not retain the favour
of any patron long."
-- from John S. Farmer's edition of the poem...
Dennis...what say you as to this correspondence? It describes
circumstances that actually existed between Nashe and Southampton that
correspond specifically to the relationship between Ingenioso and
Gullio in the play. Why should anyone reject such correspondences in
favor of your interpretations of fictional characters and the alleged
correspondences between your interpretations of characters?
51. Ingenioso says that Gullio only knows Lord Coulton. You take that
quite literally even though it is an obvious joke. In addition, it
couldn't even be applicable to William Shakespeare since we know that
he knew and associated with more than one aristocrat. As for the
statement by Ingenioso that Gullio knew no Countesses, I've already
explained that joke. As far as I know you have utterly failed to
even
address that explanation.
52. Are you unaware that Earls were knighted? Roger Manners, 5th
Earl of Rutland, was knighted by Essex in Ireland on May 30, 1599. It
was something of a battlefield honor, which fits in perfectly in the
Parnassus play as describing Southampton's recent experience in
Ireland [and the excessive granting of knighthoods there], but would
have no correspondence whatsoever to the life and experience of
William Shakespeare.
Bob Grumman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, a full deck of them! Thanks, Dominic. Up to you, now, Dennis.
Maybe just take them a few at a time. But please try to take them in
numerical order so followers can more easily follow (and one doesn't
accidentally forget one of the important items.
--Bob
neufer
Why is Gullio portrayed as having been abroad...
Art Neuendorffer
Dominic Hughes
Because he was bisexual.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
In the other thread, Dennis wrote as follows:
"Dominic, when Ingenioso says in an aside straight to the audience
that
Gullio was a liar and he has never been further than Flushing, was
Ingenioso telling the truth or not? Yes or no. Has Gullio been further
than Flushing?
And if not, what did Ingenioso mean by that statement? And if it's a
joke, explain it please."
Dennis, are you serious here?
Have you never heard before of hyperbole, a figure of speech that
involves a deliberate exaggeration for comic effect. These
extravagant statements are figurative language that are not to be
taken literally?
And as to caricature itself, it involves a literary representation of
a character in which the subject's distinctive features, or
peculiarities, or the events of his life are deliberately exaggerated
to produce a comic or grotesque effect. Caricature, by its very
definition, is an exaggerated distortion of the person being
satirized.
That is exactly what Ingenioso is doing in his comic asides. He is
employing a conventional rhetorical flourish that would be well-known
to his audience.
It is not literally true that Gullio made it no farther than Flushing,
came down with scurvy, and had to return to England. Ingenioso is
saying that Gullio's boasts as to his self-proclaimed exploits while
traveling in Europe are themselves exaggerated. There is no doubt,
from the play itself, that Gullio had been to Ireland, and [in
context] Ingenioso confirms that fact.
If you believe that Ingenioso's statement is literally and factually
true, and that the character Gullio is William Shakespeare, are you
prepared to show that Shakespeare traveled to Europe, made it only as
far as Flushing, got sick, and had to return home? Are you prepared
to show that Shakespeare was known for boasting specifically about his
military heroics while abroad? If not, then your alleged
correspondence evaporates.
You also need to show why all of the correspondences to Southampton
are, in your opinion, invalid.
There is no doubt that Nashe was frustrated in his attempts to seek
patronage from Southampton [apparently his pornographic poem dedicated
to Southampton did not do the trick]. There is also no doubt that
Nashe was quite bitter about Southampton's failure to act as his
patron.
In the address to the reader in 'Pierce Pennilesse', Nashe complains
at length about an unidentified patron, a Courtier who failed to pay
him after promises of patronage. 'Easy' says Nashe 'for a goodly tall
fellow that shines in his SILKS, to come and outface a poor simple
pedant in his THREADBARE CLOAK, and tell him his book is pretty, but
at this time he is not provided for him'. Nashe warns his fellow
scholars to be wary about who they choose as their patrons and to 'not
cast away so many months' labour on a clown that knows not how to use
a scholar: for what reason have I to bestow any wit on him, that will
bestow none of his wealth on me'."
Nashe sarcastically identifies the target of his bitterness as “that
wonder, the matchless image of Honor, and magnificent rewarder of
virtue, Jove's Eagle-borne Ganymede, thrice noble Amyntas”. Both
Ganymede and Amyntas were classical figures associated with homo-
eroticism...an obvious parallel to Southampton. Even more of a
correspondence is found in the reference to the target as "thrice-
noble". Southampton had three titles, Lord, Earl, and Baron. As a
matter of fact, in his sarcastic dedication to "The Unfortunate
Traveller,' [a dedication which echoed Shakespeare's dedication to
Venus & Adonis], Nashe had used the three noble titles:
To the Right Honourable Lord Henry Wriothesley
Earl of Southampton and Baron Titchfield.
The relationship between Ingenioso and Gullio is the same as that
between Nashe and Southampton[scholar seeking patronage from
courtier], and the events that transpire are more than similar to
those that took place between Southampton and Nashe.
This is one more correspondence that should, at the very least, cause
you to re-think your identification of Gullio with Shakespeare.
Please add this to the list of concerns that I have as to your
identification, and respond if you so choose.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
Here's another tidbit from Dennis in the other thread:
>> 1. Gullio is portrayed as a great admirer of "sweet Mr. Shakespeare"
>> and speaks of him in the third person.
> Dennis responds: al;sdfjl;asdjfasd whoops,
> my head hit the keyboard.
> Um, for the fifth time, and again
> I'm struggling not to hit "all
> caps," please read slowly:
Drama queen.
> Ingenioso...is...Nashe. And
> Ingenioso...refers...to...Nashe...in...
> the...third...person...and...talks....
> about...Nashe's...writings.
> Do you understand that's a
> self-referential joke?
No, actually, it isn't anything remotely like a joke, and it certainly
isn't a justification for your opinion that Gullio's references to
Shakespeare are taken as references to himself.
The mention of Nashe is an opportunity for the author of Parnassus to
eulogize Nashe who had recently passed away.
Ingenioso and Judicio discussing a long list of poets of the day,
including William Shakespeare [who is not identified as Gullio]:
[Benjamin Jonson]
Judicio: The wittiest fellow of a brick-layer in England.
Ingenioso: A meere Empyrick|one that gets what he hath by observation
and makes only nature privy to what he indites. So slow an inventor,
that he were better betake himselfe to his old trade of bricklaying. A
bold whorson|as con_dent now in making a booke, as he was in times
past in laying of a bricke. William Shakespeare.
Judicio:
Who loves [not] Adonis love, or Lucre's rape?
His sweeter verse containes hart-[throbbinge] life,
Could but a graver subject him content,
Without love's [lazy] foolish languishment.
Ingenioso: Thomas [Nash]. I, here is a fellow Judicio that carried
the deadly stocke in his pen, whose muse was armed with a gag tooth
and his pen possest with Hercules' furyes.
Judicio:
Let all his faults sleepe with his mournefull chest,
And [there] for ever with his ashes rest.
His stile was witty, though he had some gall,
Something he might have mended, so may all.
Yet this I say, that for a mother wit,
Few men have ever seene the like of it.
This passage reveals that Ingenioso and Judicio are praising the
recently deceased Nashe. It is not a joke, self-referential or
otherwise, but a tribute tothe author. The passage also reveals that
they consider William Shakespeare to be an excellent poet [not a fool
or a gull] who should direct his talents to more worthy subjects.
There is nothing in this passage or in the exchange between Gullio and
Ingenioso to show that Gullio is Shakespeare.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
Another excerpt from the other thread.
> Dom asks: "Did Shakespeare act as a patron, maintaining scholars and
> other poetical spirrits?"
> Dennis responds: So tempted to hit the "all caps."
Yes, you really are a drama queen. You probably should write in "all
caps" all of the time as it would be just one more indication that you
have no idea what you're talking about and are merely regurgitating
nonsense.
> Yes, of course he
> did -- and even if you want to squeeze your eyes shut and deny every
> other obvious allusion and deny that any other satirist ever parodied
> the great Shakespeare-- it is undeniable that various authors,
> including the authors of the Parnassus plays and Groatsworth made it
> clear that wealthy actors maintained scholars . This is repeated again
> and again and again.
Here, Dennis exhibits a lack of knowledge of the Elizabethan patronage
system so fundamental that it should cause anyone even remotely
familiar with the era to discount anything he says. Instead of
prattling on about how his interpretations prove his interpretations,
it would behoove Dennis to provide some actual evidence that "wealthy
actors" served as patrons to scholars, and specifically as to his
claim that Shakespeare acted as a patron to scholars.
> Here's the conceited, jack-of-all-trades, actor-
> dramatist from Groatsworth:
> Groatsworth:
> PLAYER: ...for men of my profession get by scholars their whole
> living…
> (later…)
> Parnassus 1:
> GULLIO: He loved a scholar, I maintain them, witness thyself now.
> ¶(later…)
> Another coincidence, right?
Are you serious? In the first excerpt, the player is saying that he
makes his living off of scholars...he buys their plays and performs
them for money. In the second, Gullio is stating that he serves as a
patron to scholars. He maintains them, feeds them, puts clothes on
their backs...they serve in his retinue. Read a book.
>Now, later in Groatsworth, when
> introducing the Shake-Scene passage, the third dramatist is upbraided
> because he "dependest on so mean a stay." Who is "the mean stay" the
> scholar dependest on? Shakespeare and his company.
That doesn't make it a patronage situation. How can you not
understand
this simple fact? The acting company buys plays from scholars...it
does not serve as a patron to them. Sigh...
> At the end of the Shake-Scene passage, it exhorts the scholars to
> "never more acquaint them with your admired inventions," that is, stop
> selling their creative works to Shakespeare and his company.
And still you don't seem to understand how selling their works to an
acting company is entirely different from the circumstances involving
courtier patrons and the scholars they patronized? Read a book.
> It
> continues "seeke you better Maisters; for it is pittie men of such
> rare wits, should be subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes.”
> Who are the "masters" of these scholars -- who maintain them by paying
> for their plays? That would be Shake-Scene and his company.
No, it wouldn't, and your reading of this is simply in error. In
fact, it appears that the scholars are being advised to seek out
wealthy patrons {"better Masters"} instead of simply selling their
works to the acting companies {"rude groomes", but certainly not
Masters}.
> And who is one of the three scholars addressed? That would be Nashe,
> himself.
> So not only did Shakespeare hire scholars and "get by scholars their
> whole living" -- he specifically did that for Nashe
Even you don't believe this stupidity, as your theory posits that
Shakespeare wrote plays himself. Your inability to read and
understand context is most ably demonstrated. Hiring scholars is not
the same thing as patronizing them...are you unaware of this quite
central fact?
> Indeed, the authors of the Parnassus plays make this exact same point
> in Studioso's speech in The Return from Parnassus, Part 2 (1601).
> "But is’t not strange these mimic apes [1] should prize Unhappy
> Scholars [2] at a hireling rate?"
That isn't patronage and has nothing to do with Gullio's relationship
to Ingenioso, however much you would like for that to be so.
Employing scholars "at a hireling rate" has nothing whatsoever to do
with the situation in which a wealthy courtier provided patronage to
an author. In fact, the Parnassus plays show Ingenioso coaching his
comrades, Furor and Phantasma, in how to seek out patronage from
courtiers, and, in the plays, Ingenioso never has anything whatsoever
to do with actors or acting companies, unlike his friends Studioso and
Philomusus.
I'm not sure how much longer I'll bother to point out the poverty of
your theory here. It is growing tiresome arguing with someone who
doesn't even understand the basic fact that Elizabethan courtiers
acted as patrons to scholars [and other artists] of the day, and that
acting companies did not, although they did hire such scholars to
write plays...two vastly different systems and situations. Sigh...
Dom
Dom
sasheargold
play his part - at least in spirit. I think we get another Nashean
joke here:
Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
shall I.....
Ingenioso is undoubtedly a homage to Thomas Nashe, and in Strange News
he mocks Harvey's Four Letters as 'going privily to victual the Low
Countries' - in other words, only fit to wipe your backside with after
defecating, 'Low Countries' being crude slang for buttocks. As Crowley
has often informed us, 'to die' is to have an orgasm.
Therefore Gullio is expecting to die literally and metaphorically
while engaging in anal sex, and certainly with a male lover, in light
of the countess reference.
SB.
Mark Steese
4284-8300-3...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Possibly, but not necessarily. In the manuscript the word 'countries' is
spelled without an 'o'; the pun may be the same as the one invoked by
Shakespeare in *Hamlet* -
Hamlet: Ladie, shall I lye in your Lap?
Ophelia: No my Lord.
Hamlet: I meane, my Head vpon your Lap?
Ophelia: I my Lord.
Hamlet: Do you thinke I meant Country matters?
The Countess reference in *Parnassus* could be taken to indicate that
Gullio is homosexual, but it could also be taken to indicate that such
women as Gullio is acquainted with occupy a much lower position than a
countess on the social scale.
--
Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms
of life. -David Lavender
Dominic Hughes
Most excellent...a very palpable hit. And it even has a whiff of
Crowleyan interest.
Great find. The correspondences keep piling up.
Dom
David L. Webb
<9b0fd0c9-e4fc-4bab...@s7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
neufer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Why is Gullio portrayed as having been abroad...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3socr4y
Did you mean "a broad" rather than "abroad," Art? If not, then what
on earth are you gibbering about here?
> Art Neuendorffer
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
Plays.
Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless." And it
is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after Nashe's
"Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart" in "Pierce
Penniless."
Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
was co-authored by Nashe) describes Shakespeare as an "upstart crow."
Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately, Nashe carefully
defines it:
In "The Nature of an Upstart," Nashe mocks the "the greasy son" of a
clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him some
wealth and status. This "Upstart" is Gullio's twin, falsely bragging
about exactly the same things (his martial abilities and military
exploits, the sonnets to his mistress, his travels), and in exactly
the same language: This Upstart thinks of himself as (or his father
is) a "squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio"..(Important
quote that). Nashe continues:
"He will be humorous, forsooth, and have a brood of fashions by
himself. Sometimes (because love commonly wears the livery of wit) he
will be an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise
of Lady Swine-Snout, his yellow-faced mistress, & wear a feather of
her rainbeaten fan for a favour, like a fore-horse. All Italianato is
his talk, & his spade-peak is as sharp as if he had been a pioneer
before the walls of Rouen. He will despise the barbarism of his own
country, & tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
Constantinople. If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse
he objects that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to
look back to every dog that barks. You shall see a dapper Jack, that
hath been but over at Dieppe, wring his face round about, as a man
would stir up a mustard-pot, & talk English through the teeth, like
Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap, when (poor
slave) he hath but dipped his bread in wild boar's grease and come
home again, or been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath
adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
with the young Guise hand to hand. "
(Later:)
"he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
soul, he lies in
brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;"
This "Upstart" is described as (or tries to pass himself off as )
1) a squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio
2) tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto Constantinople
3) a dapper Jack, that hath been but over at Dieppe
3) [having] been bitten by the shins by a wolf, ...saith he hath
adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
with the young Guise hand to hand.
4) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
Lady Swine-Snout, ..
5) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
6) If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
to every dog that barks.
7) talk English through the teeth, like Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or
Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap,
(....and a few paragraphs later in Pierce Penniless, we find a
reference to a prodigal son, who:)
8) he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
soul, he lies in
brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
Let's now add all the Gullio references to the above:
1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to be tam
Marti quam Mercurio;
2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere
this through every by-street,
3)But he "hath been but over at Dieppe"
"He was never any further than Flushing,
4) when he comes there, poor soul, he lies in brine in ballast, and
is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
"and then he came home sick of the scurveys. -
5) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
Lady Swine-Snout, ..
Gullio: ...it pleased mee to bestowe love, this pleasinge fire, upon
Lady Lesbia... And, for matters of wit, oft have I sonneted it in the
commendations of her squirrel... His Arcadia was pretty, so are my
sonnets... I'll repeat unto you an enthusiastical oration wherewith my
new mistress's ears were made happy.... Later his mistress responds: "
well, warne him that hee looke to his rheumeticke witt, that he
bespitt paper pages noe more to mee ;
6) All Italianato is his talk,
Pardon mee moy mittressa, ast am a gentleman
7) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
Gullio: I'le travell to Paris myselfe, and there commence for filius
nobilis, and converse noe more with anie of our base English witts,
8) "If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
to every dog that barks."
"Alexander did never strive with anie but kinges, and Gullio will
fight with none but gallants.
9) talk English through the teeth, like... Monsieur Mingo de
Mousetrap,
Ingenioso calls Gullio: "Monsieur Mingo"
The entire characters are the same: Both think of themselves as "tam
Marti quam Mercurio" -- made for both war and diplomacy/ trade. Both
lie about exotic military exploits --whether in Gournay-en-Bray and
Guingamp or in Cosmopolis, Cadiz, at Portingale, and Ireland. Both
make faux-aristocratic excuses to avoid fighting. The real extent of
the Upstart's travels -- Dieppe --is, like Flushing, just across the
channel. Both try to be Italianate in their speech, and write
numerous sonnets to their mistress, whether Lady Lesbia or Lady Swine-
Snout. Both are compared to "Monsieur Mingo," and you also find a
linked reference to a boastful young man, who instead of scotching the
Spaniards, gets "sick of the scurvies."
And this is found all in a passage from Pierce Penniless, written by
Nashe (the main character of the play) ,and which the authors of
"Parnassus" plays unambiguously reference in another scene.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
end discussion. But I wanted to include some responses here:
> On Aug 29, 6:57 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > Here now is a full response to all the concerns of Dominic ---
> I've answered this in your previous post. I have no idea why you
> decided to post it twice [once was more than enough].
> To put it bluntly, you have utterly failed to provide a full response
> to my concerns. To help you out, I've listed them below. I see that
> you have now attempted to answer some of them, and I've addressed
> those in the other post. If you do choose to respond again I would
> request that you leave my statements intact and respond directly to
> them rather than responding to what you think I am saying.
> 1. Gullio is portrayed as a great admirer of "sweet Mr. Shakespeare"
> and speaks of him in the third person.
Dennis responds: Ingenioso is Nashe. Ingenioso refers to Nashe and
speaks of him in the third person. This means the authors have no
qualms about having their characters refer to the person they are
parodying. What's great about the reference to Shakespeare in the
Gullio scene is that this allows the authors to call Gullio
Shakespeare on stage -- right after Gullio says "Thus I began" in his
recitation of "Venus and Adonis"
Here's the quote again:
Gullio
Thrice fairer than my self, thus I began,
The gods fair riches, sweet above compare,
Stain to all nymphs, more lovely than a man,
More white and red than doves and roses are:
Nature that made thee, with herself at strife,
Saith that the world hath ending with thy life.
Ingenioso : (rapturously, playing the mistress) Sweet Mr
Shakespeare!
Dennis responds: Gullio's six lines are almost a verbatim quote of the
second stanza of Venus and Adonis – except the first two lines of the
stanza are: “Thrice fairer than myself,' thus she began, 'The field's
chief flower, sweet above compare.” The rest is the same. Gullio’s
switch to “thus I began” shows him taking possession of the poem.
"Thus I began..."
Thus...I...began.
But it is Ingenioso's response that is most important. He is looking
at Gullio (and in Lamb's suggested stage direction) "rapturously,
playing the mistress," -- so he would be batting his eyes and
clutching his heart: "Sweet Mr Shakespeare!
You see, there's a really obvious reason why the scenes are all about
William Shakespeare, refer to him again and again and again, -- and
repeatedly spoof his poems and the plays of his theater troupe. A
really obvious reason. And there's a real obvious reason that the
authors of the Second part of the Return write this:
"But is’t not strange these mimic apes [1] should prize
Unhappy Scholars [2] at a hireling rate?
Vile world, that lifts them up to high degree,
And treads us down in groveling misery.
England affords those glorious vagabonds,
That carried erst their fardels on their backs [3],
Coursers to ride on through the gazing streets,
[Sweeping] it in their glaring Satin suits [4],
And Pages to attend their masterships:
With mouthing words that better wits have framed [5]
They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named…[6]
So merry fortune’s wont from rags to take
Some ragged groom [7], and him a gallant make."
(I.ii.1918-32)
[1] "...mimic apes ..."
From Groatsworth warning on Shakespeare: "…let those Apes imitate
your past excellence…"
[2] "...should prize /Unhappy Scholars at a hireling rate?"
In Groatsworth, the Player (Shakespeare) hires an unhappy scholar
(North): "On the other side of the hedge sat one that heard his
sorrow… ‘I suppose you are a scholar,’ [the Player said,] ‘and pity
it
is men of learning should live in lack…’"
[3] "those glorious vagabonds, /That carried erst their fardels on
their backs,"
The Player (Shakespeare) refers to the time "…when I was fain to
carry
my playing Fardle a footeback;"
[4] "[Sweeping] it in their glaring Satin suits,"
The Player (Shakespeare) dresses above his station. "A player...? I
took you rather for a Gentleman of great living, for if by outward
habit men should be censured, I tell you you would be taken for a
substantial man." Groatsworth does not refer specifically to a
"satin
suit" — but the later satirists did typically dress the Shakespeare
caricature in a "satin suit" (like Gullio and Jonson’s Sogliardo.)
[5] "...With mouthing words that better wits have framed ...."
In Groatsworth, Shakespeare and his fellow actors are decried as
"those Puppets (I mean) that speak from our mouths." Later, the
gentle-man-dramatists who speak through Shakespeare’s mouth are
referred to as "rare wits."
[6] "They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named…"
As is conventional, this is a hit on Shakespeare and his recent
purchase of lands and his climbing of status.
[7] "Some ragged groom, and him a gallant make. "
"Ragged groom" is another allusion to Groatsworth’s attack on
Shakespeare: ":.. for it is pity men of such rare wits, should be
subject to the pleasure of such rude grooms."
Clearly, the author of this complaint about wealthy actors in Re-turn
from Parnassus, Part II was using many of the same words, images, and
ideas — apes, fardels on backs, the hiring of a depressed scholar, a
reference to being a mouth for better wits, an allusion to rude or
ragged grooms – that had been used to target Shakespeare as the
Player
in Groatsworth. This and other obvious allusions to Shakespeare in
Studioso’s complaint — such as the fact that he had recently
purchased lands and a coat of arms and had become a gentleman — have
led most
scholars to accept that this passage was focused on the Lord
Chamberlain’s chief dramatist.
"That reads like a conflation of Robert Greene's condemnation of
Shakespeare in 1592 with the latter's inheritance, when his father
dies in September of 1601, of the title Shakespeare had bought for
him. -- Andrew Gurr, "The Shakespeare Company, 1594-1642," Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004, 58-9.
As Scott McCrea writes in "The Case for Shakespeare: the end of the
authorship question": "For a lowly actor to join the gentry was
bizarre at this time -- Shakespeare may have been the first... Others
followed. The social evolution did not go unnoticed at Cambridge,
where the authors of "The Return..." mock 'those glorious
vagabonds'..." McCrea than quotes the Poem. p. 40.
Researcher Ian Wilson notes that the
Parnassus passage reveals "the sheer spite felt in certain quarters
about Shakespeare and his fellows in their heyday, and also
represents
one of the best arguments against those who cannot accept that
Shakespeare could have been a mere low-born player who achieved
dramatic success through his and his fellows’ own efforts." J.B.
Leishman, a scholar who focuses on the Wars of the Theaters, also
marks the passage as a hit at Shakespeare and his fellow actors. And
Eric Sams, author of The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early
Yeras,
1564-1594, wrote,
"[A]ll this is surely aimed straight at Shakespeare himself. It
repeats Greene’s ancient accusations against him. By 1596, he had a
coat of arms and the title of ‘Gentleman’, and he purchased lands.
The reference to fardels is a deliberate echo of the lampoons already
published by Nashe and Greene."
Notice how the creator of Gullio sees Shakespeare? As a "ragged
groom" in "satin suit", a base social climber who has managed,
horrifyingly, to become a wealthy gentleman? Notice how Gullio is
described? A "base carle in a satin suit"? Also, upon first meeting
Gullio, Ingenioso asks himself "who could endure this post put into a
satin suit." Lesbia, the fair recipient of Gullio's poem (which
Ingenioso had been paid to write) asks "From what satin suit" did it
come ?
> 3. Where in Parnassus does it say explicitly that Gullio dresses “in
> a manner above his station.”
Dennis responds: When he is described as "a base carle in a satin
suit." That shows his clothes are above him. He is a base commoner,
wrapped in a "satin suit."
Hey, you know who else the author(s) of the plays thinks is a base
commoner in a satin suit? Shakespeare. That's what the
> 4. Birds of a feather flock together, but calling someone a gull is
> far different from calling someone a rook or a crow or a goose.
Dennis responds: It is painfully obvious that Sogliardo is the same
type of "satin" clad social-climber as "Gullio" -- and that when both
are introduced in the following way, it is the exact same insult.
EMOH:
[Cordatus warns the audience about the approaching "rook,"
Sogliardo:]
CORDATUS: Signor, note this gallant, I pray you.
MITIS: What is he?
CORDATUS: A tame rook. You'll take him presently. List.
[And Sogliardo enters bragging.]
Parnassus 1
[Ingenioso warns the audience about the approaching "gull," Gullio:]
INGENIOSO: Now, gentlemen, you may laugh if you will, for here comes
a gull.
[And Gullio enters bragging.]
Yes, they are different birds: One is being called a "rook," the
other a "gull" -- but they both are meant to represent fools. What is
more they are wealthy, social-climbing, bragging fools, who wear satin
and demand to be thought of as gentlemen.
sasheargold
> sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in news:f5302276-fa63-
> 4284-8300-391b91a34...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Since my countryman Paul Crowley appears to have gone AWOL, I must
> > play his part - at least in spirit. I think we get another Nashean
> > joke here:
>
> > Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
> > shall I.....
>
> > Ingenioso is undoubtedly a homage to Thomas Nashe, and in Strange News
> > he mocks Harvey's Four Letters as 'going privily to victual the Low
> > Countries' - in other words, only fit to wipe your backside with after
> > defecating, 'Low Countries' being crude slang for buttocks. As Crowley
> > has often informed us, 'to die' is to have an orgasm.
>
> > Therefore Gullio is expecting to die literally and metaphorically
> > while engaging in anal sex, and certainly with a male lover, in light
> > of the countess reference.
>
> Possibly, but not necessarily. In the manuscript the word 'countries' is
> spelled without an 'o'; the pun may be the same as the one invoked by
> Shakespeare in *Hamlet* -
Yes, but this was an age when spelling wasn't exact, and to an
audience listening, rather than reading, it would sound the same with
or without the 'o'. But I do take your point.
>
> Hamlet: Ladie, shall I lye in your Lap?
>
> Ophelia: No my Lord.
>
> Hamlet: I meane, my Head vpon your Lap?
>
> Ophelia: I my Lord.
>
> Hamlet: Do you thinke I meant Country matters?
>
> The Countess reference in *Parnassus* could be taken to indicate that
> Gullio is homosexual, but it could also be taken to indicate that such
> women as Gullio is acquainted with occupy a much lower position than a
> countess on the social scale.
And the two aren't mutually exclusive, of course. Gullio could be
bisexual - associating with men, but also women, possibly prostitutes,
as Shoreditch was home to brothels (although not all prostitutes were
women!)
So we get double entendre piled upon double entendre.
SB.
> --
> Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
> motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
> preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms
> of life. -David Lavender- Hide quoted text -
sasheargold
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
> Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
> from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> Plays.
> Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
> because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless." And it
> is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after Nashe's
> "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart" in "Pierce
> Penniless."
> Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> was co-authored by Nashe)
Well, that is only her opinion! I don't think Nashe wrote it, but he
may have known something of it before publication.
> describes Shakespeare as an "upstart crow."
> Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately, Nashe carefully
> defines it:
> In "The Nature of an Upstart," Nashe mocks the "the greasy son" of a
> clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him some
> wealth and status.
There is some thought that this might be referring to Anthony Munday,
who was a draper himself by trade.
> This "Upstart" is Gullio's twin, falsely bragging about exactly the same things (his martial abilities and military
> exploits, the sonnets to his mistress, his travels), and in exactly
> the same language: This Upstart thinks of himself as (or his father
> is) a "squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio"..(Important
> quote that).
This Upstart is likened to a decayed Earl - I wonder which one is
meant?!!
SB.
ignoto
>
> Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
> Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
> from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> Plays.
> Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
> because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless." And it
> is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after Nashe's
> "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart" in "Pierce
> Penniless."
> Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> was co-authored by Nashe)
IOW it's ok to deny the ascription of a title page when it suits your
sophistical agenda but in all other cases you must scream *COVER-UP!!!*,
*CONSPIRACY!!!*.
Ign.
> describes Shakespeare as an "upstart crow."
> Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately, Nashe carefully
> defines it:
> In "The Nature of an Upstart," Nashe mocks the "the greasy son" of a
> clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him some
> wealth and status. This "Upstart" is Gullio's twin, falsely bragging
> about exactly the same things (his martial abilities and military
> exploits, the sonnets to his mistress, his travels), and in exactly
> the same language: This Upstart thinks of himself as (or his father
> is) a "squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio"..(Important
> quote that). Nashe continues:
> "He will be humorous, forsooth, and have a brood of fashions by
> himself. Sometimes (because love commonly wears the livery of wit) he
> will be an inamorato poeta,& sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise
> of Lady Swine-Snout, his yellow-faced mistress,& wear a feather of
> her rainbeaten fan for a favour, like a fore-horse. All Italianato is
> his talk,& his spade-peak is as sharp as if he had been a pioneer
> before the walls of Rouen. He will despise the barbarism of his own
> country,& tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> Constantinople. If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse
> he objects that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to
> look back to every dog that barks. You shall see a dapper Jack, that
> hath been but over at Dieppe, wring his face round about, as a man
> would stir up a mustard-pot,& talk English through the teeth, like
> Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap, when (poor
> slave) he hath but dipped his bread in wild boar's grease and come
> home again, or been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath
> adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> with the young Guise hand to hand. "
> (Later:)
> "he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> soul, he lies in
> brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;"
>
> This "Upstart" is described as (or tries to pass himself off as )
> 1) a squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio
> 2) tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto Constantinople
> 3) a dapper Jack, that hath been but over at Dieppe
> 3) [having] been bitten by the shins by a wolf, ...saith he hath
> adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> with the young Guise hand to hand.
> 4) an inamorato poeta,& sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
> 5) an inamorato poeta,& sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> [...]
>
> Another excerpt from the other thread.
>
> > Dom asks: "Did Shakespeare act as a patron, maintaining scholars and
> > other poetical spirrits?"
> > Dennis responds: So tempted to hit the "all caps."
>
> Yes, you really are a drama queen. You probably should write in "all
> caps" all of the time as it would be just one more indication that you
> have no idea what you're talking about and are merely regurgitating
> nonsense.
>
> > Yes, of course he
> > did -- and even if you want to squeeze your eyes shut and deny every
> > other obvious allusion and deny that any other satirist ever parodied
> > the great Shakespeare-- it is undeniable that various authors,
> > including the authors of the Parnassus plays and Groatsworth made it
> > clear that wealthy actors maintained scholars . This is repeated again
> > and again and again.
>
> Here, Dennis exhibits a lack of knowledge of the Elizabethan patronage
> system so fundamental that it should cause anyone even remotely
> familiar with the era to discount anything he says. Instead of
> prattling on about how his interpretations prove his interpretations,
> it would behoove Dennis to provide some actual evidence that "wealthy
> actors" served as patrons to scholars, and specifically as to his
> claim that Shakespeare acted as a patron to scholars.
Dennis responds; Here's seven works in Google Scholar that refer to
the "Player-Patron" of "Groatsworth"
including D. A. Caroll's article: "The Player-Patron in" Greene's
Groatsworth of Wit (1592)"
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Player+Patron%22+Groatsworth&h...
Indeed, Mark Steese preferred using the phrase "player patron" over my
"actor dramatist."
Here's another reference: to the "Player-patrons" referred to at the
end of Groatsworth.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ruZHD6qYs8IC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=G...
Since the Player in Groatsworth, paid for everything of the
impoverished scholar and put him up in a "house of retail,' Steese,
Carroll, and others are quite right to think of the actors as
patrons.
> Here's the conceited, jack-of-all-trades, actor-
> dramatist from Groatsworth:
> Groatsworth:
> PLAYER: ...for men of my profession get by scholars their whole
> living…
> (later…)
> Parnassus 1:
> GULLIO: He loved a scholar, I maintain them, witness thyself now.
> ¶(later…)
> Another coincidence, right?
Dominic: Are you serious? In the first excerpt, the player is saying
that he
makes his living off of scholars..
Dennis responds: No. The full quote is:
"Roberto wondring to heare such good wordes, for that this iron age
affoordes few that esteeme of vertue; returned him thankfull
gratulations, and (vrgde by necessitie) vttered his present griefe,
beseeching his aduise how he might be imployed. Why, easily quoth hee,
and greatly to your benefite: for men of my profession gette by
schollers their whole liuing."
Roberto is wondering how he might be employed. And the Player
responds "easily...and greatly to your benefite: for men of my
profession get by schollers their whole liuing." Meaning, quite
obviously, that through men of the player's profession, scholars make
their whole living. If the Player was referring to his own living, he
would have used the word "my" or "our." And it wouldn't have made any
sense as he is telling Roberto how he's going to employ him.
Regardless, that is exactly what happens. Roberto becomes entirely
dependent on the Player for his whole living -- and is even put up by
the
Player.
> It
> continues "seeke you better Maisters; for it is pittie men of such
> rare wits, should be subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes.”
> Who are the "masters" of these scholars -- who maintain them by paying
> for their plays? That would be Shake-Scene and his company.
Dom responds: No, it wouldn't, and your reading of this is simply in
error. In
fact, it appears that the scholars are being advised to seek out
wealthy patrons {"better Masters"}
Dennis responds: And there we have it. They should seek "better
masters" than their current "masters" , who are the players
(Shakespeare and company.) And you just admitted "masters" refers to
"patrons."
> And who is one of the three scholars addressed? That would be Nashe,
> himself.
> So not only did Shakespeare hire scholars and "get by scholars their
> whole living" -- he specifically did that for Nashe
Dom writes: Even you don't believe this stupidity, as your theory
posits that
Shakespeare wrote plays himself.
Dennis responds: You should read the book you're denouncing. No it
doesn't. He definitely hired scholars to help -- and Nashe was one of
them.
Again, Shakespeare and company were one of Nashe's "masters." And one
of the points of Groatsworth was to implore the three gentleman
dramatists to seek "better masters."
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On 31/08/11 7:15 AM, den...@northofshakespeare.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
> > Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
> > from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> > Plays.
> > Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
> > because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> > often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless." And it
> > is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after Nashe's
> > "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> > can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart" in "Pierce
> > Penniless."
> > Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> > was co-authored by Nashe)
>
> IOW it's ok to deny the ascription of a title page when it suits your
> sophistical agenda but in all other cases you must scream *COVER-UP!!!*,
> *CONSPIRACY!!!*.
Dennis responds: No, it's okay to think Chettle (likely along with
Nashe) may have written the beginning and end of Groatsworth and
pawned it off on the recently deceased Robert Greene when
1) The printer Wright registers the work "on the peril of Henry
Chettle,"
2) Literary insiders and two of the dramatists specifically accuse
Chettle and Nashe of writing the work
3) Chettle actually admits that the whole work was in his
handwriting!
4) Harvey accuses Nashe of having a hand in Groatsworth.
5) The controversial beginning and end are in Nashe's style and
include many of his phrases, and make the same complaints about actors
as he did before.
In other words, it's okay to think such a thing about a single work
when there's actually a significant amount evidence for it -- and the
Groatsworth incident confirms how difficult it was to get away with
such an effort. But to believe that Shakespeare was framed for the
authorship of a dozen different plays over the course of 25 years by
16 different printers and publishers -- and no one ever said anything
about it and Shakespeare never once complained -- is considerably more
fantastic.
Mark Steese
news:24474718-4d34-4185...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
> Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
> from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> Plays.
Amazingly enough, "Dennis" is actually on to something here!
> Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
> because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless." And it
> is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after Nashe's
> "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart" in "Pierce
> Penniless."
>
> Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly
> argues was co-authored by Nashe) describes Shakespeare as an "upstart
> crow." Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately, Nashe
> carefully defines it:
>
> In "The Nature of an Upstart," Nashe mocks the "the greasy son"
> of a clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him
> some wealth and status.
>
> This "Upstart" is Gullio's twin, falsely bragging about exactly the
> same things (his martial abilities and military exploits, the sonnets
> to his mistress, his travels), and in exactly the same language: This
> Upstart thinks of himself as (or his father is) a "squire of low
> degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio".. (Important quote that).
So important it's worth quoting in full:
"All malcontent fits the greasie sonne of a Cloathier, and complaines
(like a decaied Earle) of the ruine of ancient houses: whereas, the
Weauers loomes first framed the web of his honour, and the locks of
wool, that bushes and brambles haue tooke for toule of insolent sheepe,
that would needs striue for the wall of a fir-bush, haue made him of the
tenths of their tarre, a Squier of low degree: and of the collections of
the scatterings, a Justice, *Tam Marti quam Mercurio*, of Peace and of
Coram."
It would be difficult to read that passage without thinking of the
phrase "a justice of the peace"; and by an odd coincidence, at the same
time Nashe published *Pierce Pennilesse*, one Thomas North's name
appeared on the roll of justices of the peace of Cambridge. By another
odd coincidence, this Thomas North's mother was the daughter of an
obscure character named Oliver Squier - a Squier of low degree, one
might say.
> Nashe continues:
> "He will be humorous, forsooth, and have a brood of fashions by
> himself. Sometimes (because love commonly wears the livery of wit) he
> will be an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise
> of Lady Swine-Snout, his yellow-faced mistress, & wear a feather of
> her rainbeaten fan for a favour, like a fore-horse. All Italianato is
> his talk, & his spade-peak is as sharp as if he had been a pioneer
> before the walls of Rouen. He will despise the barbarism of his own
> country, & tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> Constantinople. If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse
> he objects that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to
> look back to every dog that barks. You shall see a dapper Jack, that
> hath been but over at Dieppe, wring his face round about, as a man
> would stir up a mustard-pot, & talk English through the teeth, like
> Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap, when (poor
> slave) he hath but dipped his bread in wild boar's grease and come
> home again, or been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath
> adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> with the young Guise hand to hand. "
Hmm, a poseur who affects an Italianate style - sounds like the sort of
person who might translate a book by Anton Francesco Doni of Florence.
> (Later:)
> "he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> soul, he lies in brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the
> scurvies;"
Again, the full quotation proves more instructive. "A young Heyre, or
Cockney, that is his Mothers Darling, if hee haue playde the waste-good
at the Innes of the Court [say, wasn't Thomas North a student at the
Inns of Court?], or about London, and that neither his Students
pension, nor his vnthriftes credite, will serue to maintaine his
Collidge of whores any longer, falles in a quarrelling humor with his
fortune, because she made him not King of the *Indies*, and sweares and
stares, after ten in the hundreth, that nere a such Pesant, as his
Father or brother, shall keepe him vnder [say, didn't Thomas North's
father leave money to his brother Roger but not to Tommy?]: hee will to
the sea, and teare the gold out of the Spaniards throats, but he will
haue it, byrladie: And when he comes there, poore soule, hee lyes in
brine, in Balist, and is lamentable sicke of the scurvies: his daintie
fare is turned to a hungry feast of Dogs and Cats, or Haberdine and
poore John, at the most, and which is lamentablest of all, that without
Mustard."
Not without Mustard, good Lord, not without Mustard!
> This "Upstart" is described as (or tries to pass himself off as )
> 1) a squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio
> 2) tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto Constantinople
> 3) a dapper Jack, that hath been but over at Dieppe
> 3) [having] been bitten by the shins by a wolf, ...saith he hath
> adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> with the young Guise hand to hand.
3a) a rare politician or statesman, a wise man and a brave one;
> 4) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
> Lady Swine-Snout, ..
> 5) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
> 6) If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
> that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
> to every dog that barks.
> 7) talk English through the teeth, like Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or
> Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap,
> (....and a few paragraphs later in Pierce Penniless, we find a
> reference to a prodigal son, who:)
7a) attended the Inns of Court;
7b) has no money;
7c) blames his father and brother for his misfortune;
> 8) he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> soul, he lies in
> brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
Except for the bit about being a poet, the Up-start bears a remarkable
resemblance to Thomas North. (But of course "Dennis" says North wrote
Shakespeare's sonnets, eliminating that objection.)
Yep. And neither the Up-Start nor Gullio is a caricature of Shakespeare.
--
Year after year you wrote up these stories, and they'd wind up archived
in a pile of cardboard boxes in the warehouse, flattening and drying
like pressed flowers under the weight of all the stories above them -
the unknown stratigraphy of your career. -Jordan Fisher Smith
Dominic Hughes
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
Dennis engages in behavior typical of the megalomaniac. He declares
himself the victor and proclaims that the discussion is over.
> Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
> from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> Plays.
No, this isn’t true beyond all question. All that is true is that the
author of Parnassus borrowed language from Nashe’s description of the
Upstart in Pierce Penniless when describing Gullio. For some reason
beyond comprehension, you seem to think [if that is even the
appropriate term] that the Elizabethan authors’ penchant for lifting
language from their fellow authors meant that the characters each
other described all had to be caricatures of the same person [and
differences to be summarily ignored]. Elizabethan authors plundered
their friends and rivals for images and language all the time, but it
doesn’t mean that they were always targeting the same person. Your
hobby horse is very small.
> Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
> because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless."
We know that Ingenioso is Nashe because his dealings with Gullio so
closely mirror Nashe’s dealings with Southampton, down to the fact
that neither was paid for their efforts and both wrote pornography for
their patrons.
> And it
> is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after Nashe's
> "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart" in "Pierce
> Penniless."
Seriously? That’s good, because the Upstart is a merchant/soldier who
is present at the Court [Dennis, you left this part out of the
description]:
O! But a far greater enormitie raigneth in the heart of the court.
Pride, the perverter of all virtue, sitteth appairalled in the
merchants spoyles, and ruine of yong citizens, and scorneth learning
that gave their up-start fathers titles of gentrie.
> Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> was co-authored by Nashe) describes Shakespeare as an "upstart crow."
It is always humorous when you engage in argument by authority
considering that none of those authorities would agree with your
notion that North wrote the Shakespeare works, or even that Gullio was
meant to represent Shakespeare. Just because Duncan-Jones argues
something doesn’t make it correct [thinking so is an error in logcic].
> Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately, Nashe carefully
> defines it:
> In "The Nature of an Upstart," Nashe mocks the "the greasy son" of a
> clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him some
> wealth and status. This "Upstart" is Gullio's twin,
No, he really isn’t, as the Upstart is a merchant as well as a
soldier. There is no indication that Gullio is a merchant. In
addition, there is nothing in Parnassus that Gullio is the greasy son
of a clothier/wool-dealer.
> falsely bragging
> about exactly the same things (his martial abilities and military
> exploits, the sonnets to his mistress, his travels),
> and in exactly the same language:
Not quite, and, shortly, I’ll provide the reason why this claim
backfires on you here, Dennis.
> This Upstart thinks of himself as (or his father
> is) a "squire of low degree....
> Tam Marti quam Mercurio"..(Important
> quote that).
Yes, it may very well be, but not for the reason that you think….but
I’ll get to that later.
For what it is worth, that quote has nothing to do with whether or not
the Upstart [or his father] is a squire of low degree.
> Nashe continues:
> "He will be humorous,
Then that isn’t Gullio, because he isn’t humorous at all…he is the
butt of humor.
> forsooth, and have a brood of fashions by
> himself. Sometimes (because love commonly wears the livery of wit) he
> will be an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise
> of Lady Swine-Snout, his yellow-faced mistress,
> & wear a feather of
> her rainbeaten fan for a favour, like a fore-horse. All Italianato is
> his talk, & his spade-peak is as sharp as if he had been a pioneer
> before the walls of Rouen. He will despise the barbarism of his own
> country, & tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> Constantinople. If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse
> he objects that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to
> look back to every dog that barks. You shall see a dapper Jack, that
> hath been but over at Dieppe, wring his face round about, as a man
> would stir up a mustard-pot, & talk English through the teeth, like
> Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap, when (poor
> slave) he hath but dipped his bread in wild boar's grease and come
> home again, or been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath
> adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> with the young Guise hand to hand. "
Similar language but not the same as that used to identify Gullio. In
fact, isn’t it amazing that the facts are changed so that the
circumstances correspond to Southampton’s travels, especially to his
recent trip to Ireland? Just another coincidence, I suppose.
> (Later:)
> "he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> soul, he lies in
> brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;"
This is quite disingenuous of you, Dennis. Here, you imply that this
passage [the braggart laid low by scurvy] is a part of the description
of the Upstart, but it is most definitely not. It is found in a
description of an entirely different character, known as the Prodigal
Young Master. However, it is good that you have included this
parallel pasage, for it demonstrates quite well that the author of
Parnassus was more than willing to take language from Nashe wherever
it appealed to him to do so, and he was not confining himself to the
description of the Upstart.
What personage at Elizabeth’s court would be seen as an upstart…
someone who was both soldier and merchant, someone who was identified
with the motto, “tam Marti quam Mercurio”?
Why, that could very well describe this fellow:
http://www.grosvenorprints.com/stock.php?engraver=Vaughan%2C+Robert&WADbSearch1=Submit
> This "Upstart" is described as (or tries to pass himself off as )
> 1) a squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio
Raleigh began life on a farm, and he was highly interested in the
restoration of the ancient home given him by the Queen. He was most
definitely viewed as an upstart. Coincidence?
> 2) tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto Constantinople
Raleigh published an exaggerated account of his experiences looking
for the City of Gold in a book that contributed to the legend of "El
Dorado".
> 3) a dapper Jack, that hath been but over at Dieppe
> 3) [having] been bitten by the shins by a wolf, ...saith he hath
> adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> with the young Guise hand to hand.
> 4) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
> Lady Swine-Snout, ..
> 5) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
> 6) If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
> that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
> to every dog that barks.
> 7) talk English through the teeth, like Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or
> Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap,
> (....and a few paragraphs later in Pierce Penniless, we find a
> reference to a prodigal son, who:)
> 8) he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> soul, he lies in
> brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
Good. I see that you have cleared up your previous failure to mention
this fact. Once again, this only serves to prove that you are
incorrect in contending that the Upstart is the same character as
Gullio. They are not twins, much less mirror twins.
By the way, my mention of Raleigh is not entirely serious…as your
claim that Gullio is Shakespeare should not be taken seriously.
> Let's now add all the Gullio references to the above:
> 1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
> Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to be tam
> Marti quam Mercurio;
Why do you think this quotation has something to do with being a
squire of low degree?
> 2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
> hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
> fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
>
> Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
> Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
> Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
> health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
> Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere
> this through every by-street,
Extremely interesting. The author of Parnassus took the general idea
from Nashe’s Pierce Penniless but appears to have intentionally
changed the specifics so that Gullio was bragging of his travels and
his exploits in Padua and, even more interesting, Cadiz…why would he
do such a thing? The answer is that he was caricaturing Southampton,
who, in 1596 and 1597, just happened to have accompanied Essex on his
expeditions to Cádiz. This is another specific and explicit
correspondence between Gullio and Southampton’s actual life [not a
spurious connection between two imagined caricatures]. It couldn’t
get any clearer than this. While Nashe may have had someone else in
mind for the Upstart figure, it is quite obvious that the author of
Parnassus was targeting Southampton. The more you go on about this,
Dennis, the more you prove my claim. Or are you going to contend that
this is just another coincidence?
> 3)But he "hath been but over at Dieppe"
>
> "He was never any further than Flushing,
>
> 4) when he comes there, poor soul, he lies in brine in ballast, and
> is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
>
> "and then he came home sick of the scurveys. –
There you go again, mixing up source material and implying that this
is from the description of the Upstart…but do feel free to engage in
such tactics. The fact that the Parnassus author borrowed from a
completely different section of Nashe’s work shows that Gullio and the
Upstart are not twins. Far from being the end of this discussion,
your post has served to further confirm that Southampton was the
caricature hidden in Gullio. The Parnassus author merely adapted
language from different sections of Pierce Penniless and changed it to
reflect the targeting of Southampton.
> 5) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
> Lady Swine-Snout, ..
>
> Gullio: ...it pleased mee to bestowe love, this pleasinge fire, upon
> Lady Lesbia... And, for matters of wit, oft have I sonneted it in the
> commendations of her squirrel... His Arcadia was pretty, so are my
> sonnets... I'll repeat unto you an enthusiastical oration wherewith my
> new mistress's ears were made happy.... Later his mistress responds: "
> well, warne him that hee looke to his rheumeticke witt, that he
> bespitt paper pages noe more to mee ;
>
> 6) All Italianato is his talk,
>
> Pardon mee moy mittressa, ast am a gentleman
>
> 7) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
>
> Gullio: I'le travell to Paris myselfe, and there commence for filius
> nobilis, and converse noe more with anie of our base English witts,
>
> 8) "If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
> that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
> to every dog that barks."
>
> "Alexander did never strive with anie but kinges, and Gullio will
> fight with none but gallants.
>
> 9) talk English through the teeth, like... Monsieur Mingo de
> Mousetrap,
>
> Ingenioso calls Gullio: "Monsieur Mingo"
>
> The entire characters are the same:
No, they most decidedly are not, as is shown above.
> Both think of themselves as "tam
> Marti quam Mercurio" -- made for both war and diplomacy/ trade. Both
> lie about exotic military exploits --whether in Gournay-en-Bray and
> Guingamp or in Cosmopolis, Cadiz, at Portingale, and Ireland.
Oops. Not so fast, Dennis. The changes made here by the Parnassus
author are quite intentional and specific, and they show [like a slap
in the face to anyone with any sense] that the subject who is being
caricatured in Gullio is Southampton [Cadiz, Ireland}. Thanks for
helping to make this so clear.
> Both
> make faux-aristocratic excuses to avoid fighting. The real extent of
> the Upstart's travels -- Dieppe --is, like Flushing, just across the
> channel. Both try to be Italianate in their speech, and write
> numerous sonnets to their mistress, whether Lady Lesbia or Lady Swine-
> Snout. Both are compared to "Monsieur Mingo," and you also find a
> linked reference to a boastful young man, who instead of scotching the
> Spaniards, gets "sick of the scurvies."
Which has nothing to do with the Upstart, but does serve to prove my
point that the Parnassus author was simply borrowing language from
Nashe to adapt and use for his own purposes.
> And this is found all in a passage from Pierce Penniless, written by
> Nashe (the main character of the play) ,and which the authors of
> "Parnassus" plays unambiguously reference in another scene.
Right. Ingenioso is Nashe, and the author of the Parnassus play
borrowed mightily form Nashe. Of course, that doesn’t serve to make
Gullio into Shakespeare. In fact, as you’ve helped me to demonstrate,
the specific changes made by the Parnassus author solidify the claim
that it is Southampton who is actuallybeing caricatured. That you
somehow think your post brings an end to the discussion is pretty
funny. In fact, you have only served to further seriously undermine
your claims. Thanks again.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 12:27 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [...]
>
> > Another excerpt from the other thread.
>
> > > Dom asks: "Did Shakespeare act as a patron, maintaining scholars and
Dennis demonstrates that his capacity for reading with anything
approaching comprehension is impaired by his maniacal devotion to his
pet theory. None of these citations provide "actual evidence" [which
is what I requested], as a factual matter, in real life, that wealthy
actors, and specifically Shakespeare, acted as patrons to scholars.
The Player-Patron of Groatsworth is a fictional character. I was
asking for real-world evidence...do you have any "actual evidence"?
> Here's another reference: to the "Player-patrons" referred to at the
> end of Groatsworth.http://books.google.com/books?id=ruZHD6qYs8IC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=G...
Which still has absolutely nothing to do with the question that I
asked of you.
In the fictional world, it also has nothing to do with the patronage
relationship that exists between Gullio and Ingenioso, unless you can
show that Gullio is an actor.
> Since the Player in Groatsworth, paid for everything of the
> impoverished scholar and put him up in a "house of retail,' Steese,
> Carroll, and others are quite right to think of the actors as
> patrons.
Still not relevant to the question that I asked you to answer.
He does, in fact. He says, essentially, "men of MY profession get
their whole living by [the works of] scholars."
> And it wouldn't have made any
> sense as he is telling Roberto how he's going to employ him.
Yes, he is going to employ him because actors make their living off of
scholars.
> Regardless, that is exactly what happens. Roberto becomes entirely
> dependent on the Player for his whole living -- and is even put up by
> the
> Player.
Which still doesn't answer my question as to actual evidence that
Shakespeare ever acted as a patron rather than as a member of a
company that hired people to write plays. By the way, where in
Parnassus is it shown that Gullio is an actor on the public stage?
> > It
> > continues "seeke you better Maisters; for it is pittie men of such
> > rare wits, should be subject to the pleasures of such rude groomes.”
> > Who are the "masters" of these scholars -- who maintain them by paying
> > for their plays? That would be Shake-Scene and his company.
>
> Dom responds: No, it wouldn't, and your reading of this is simply in
> error. In
> fact, it appears that the scholars are being advised to seek out
> wealthy patrons {"better Masters"}
>
> Dennis responds: And there we have it. They should seek "better
> masters" than their current "masters"
No, it doesn't say that at all. The people that the scholars are
currently writing for are not their Masters...in fact, they are "rude
groomes", the very opposite of Masters. And there we have it.
, who are the players
> (Shakespeare and company.) And you just admitted "masters" refers to
> "patrons."
Your attempts at logic are hilarious. The players are not the Masters
of the scholars. Instead they are "rude groomes" at the exact
opposite end of the spectrum. The "masters" that are being
recommended are aristocratic patrons.
Have you read any of the literature about the patronage system in
Elizabethan England, or in the Renaissance in Europe?
> > And who is one of the three scholars addressed? That would be Nashe,
> > himself.
> > So not only did Shakespeare hire scholars and "get by scholars their
> > whole living" -- he specifically did that for Nashe
Sorry, but that still isn't the "actual evidence" I was asking for.
> Dom writes: Even you don't believe this stupidity, as your theory
>
> posits that
> Shakespeare wrote plays himself.
>
> Dennis responds: You should read the book you're denouncing.
I wouldn't waste the money.
> No it
> doesn't. He definitely hired scholars to help -- and Nashe was one of
> them.
> Again, Shakespeare and company were one of Nashe's "masters." And one
> of the points of Groatsworth was to implore the three gentleman
> dramatists to seek "better masters."
So the title page for Yorkshire Tragedy is incorrect? I thought you
said it was accurate, and yet now you say Shakespeare didn't write it.
Finally, none of this has anything to do with the patronage
relationship that is found in the Parnassus play.
Dom
Dominic Hughes
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> The last post, showing that Gullio is based on Nashe's Upstart, should
> end discussion. But I wanted to include some responses here:
Dennis has spoken.
> > On Aug 29, 6:57 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
> > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > > Here now is a full response to all the concerns of Dominic ---
It wasn't any such thing.
> > I've answered this in your previous post. I have no idea why you
> > decided to post it twice [once was more than enough].
> > To put it bluntly, you have utterly failed to provide a full response
> > to my concerns. To help you out, I've listed them below. I see that
> > you have now attempted to answer some of them, and I've addressed
> > those in the other post. If you do choose to respond again I would
> > request that you leave my statements intact and respond directly to
> > them rather than responding to what you think I am saying.
> > 1. Gullio is portrayed as a great admirer of "sweet Mr. Shakespeare"
> > and speaks of him in the third person.
>
> Dennis responds: Ingenioso is Nashe. Ingenioso refers to Nashe and
> speaks of him in the third person. This means the authors have no
> qualms about having their characters refer to the person they are
> parodying.
I responded to this in a previous post in this thread, back when your
reasoning was that this was "a self-referential joke. Are you
abandoning that idotic claim.
> What's great about the reference to Shakespeare in the
> Gullio scene is that this allows the authors to call Gullio
> Shakespeare on stage --
This is frightening. The Parnassus author has a character who speaks
of his admiration for a third person, a poet, one William Shakespeare,
and yet, Dennis, born with the belief that he can divine the secret
intentions of authors dead some 400 years, can speak to the "fact"
that what the poet intended was for the character to be a caricature
of that third person, allowing him to have the character identified as
William Shakespeare on stage...even though that isn't what actually
happens at all. You are a lot like our other wacks here at HLAS.
> right after Gullio says "Thus I began" in his
> recitation of "Venus and Adonis"
> Here's the quote again:
> Gullio
> Thrice fairer than my self, thus I began,
> The gods fair riches, sweet above compare,
> Stain to all nymphs, more lovely than a man,
> More white and red than doves and roses are:
> Nature that made thee, with herself at strife,
> Saith that the world hath ending with thy life.
>
> Ingenioso : (rapturously, playing the mistress) Sweet Mr
> Shakespeare!
Exactly. Gullio states that he is going to repeat an oration he made
to his mistress. He does not mention the fact that he was quoting
Shakespeare's lines to her. Ingenioso guesses that it will be "pure
Shakespeare, and threads of poetry that he [Gullio] hath gathered at
the theatres.
Gullio begins his oration, reciting lines from Romeo & Juliet, and
then from Venus & Adonis, and, just as predicted, Ingenioso
immediately recognizes the lines as "Sweet Mr. Shakespeare". Then we
get other bits from Gullio, more "threads of poetry that he [Gullio]
hath gathered at the theatres. [Spanish Tragedy]" I kid you not.
There is absolutely nothing in the text or in the context that
suypports a reading that Gullio is being identified as Shakespeare.
In fact, the "Sweet Mr. Shakespeare" utterance references the lines of
poetry that immediate precede it.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time at your ridiculosu attempts
to channel the dead for some hidden meaning that you, and you alone,
contend you have divined was the author's intended message. The funny
thing is that you are unable to recognize the actual jokes in the
play, and then claim to find a joke where there isn't one. You are a
lot like our other resident wacks.
> Dennis responds: Gullio's six lines are almost a verbatim quote of the
> second stanza of Venus and Adonis – except the first two lines of the
> stanza are: “Thrice fairer than myself,' thus she began, 'The field's
> chief flower, sweet above compare.” The rest is the same. Gullio’s
> switch to “thus I began” shows him taking possession of the poem.
> "Thus I began..."
> Thus...I...began.
> But it is Ingenioso's response that is most important. He is looking
> at Gullio (and in Lamb's suggested stage direction) "rapturously,
> playing the mistress," -- so he would be batting his eyes and
> clutching his heart: "Sweet Mr Shakespeare!
> You see, there's a really obvious reason why the scenes are all about
> William Shakespeare, refer to him again and again and again, -- and
> repeatedly spoof his poems and the plays of his theater troupe. A
> really obvious reason. And there's a real obvious reason that the
> authors of the Second part of the Return write this:
Yes, and the obvious reason, the very obvious reason to anyone who has
reason, is that Southampton, who was known to be a foppish dolt
infatuated with Shakespeare, was being caricatured in the character of
Gullio. The evidence shows this to be true.
[repetitious boilerplate snipped]]
Dom
Mark Steese
news:007a18a7-ce9e-4657...@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 30, 7:13�pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> On 31/08/11 7:15 AM, den...@northofshakespeare.com wrote:
>>
>> > � �Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
>> > Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based on Nashe's "Upstart"
>> > from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the
>> > Parnassus Plays.
>> > � �Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso is Nashe is
>> > because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and
>> > is often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless."
>> > �And it is no surprise that the authors patterned Gullio after
>> > Nashe's "Upstart," described in that work. �And many of the
>> > characteristics can be found in Nashe's "The Nature of an Upstart"
>> > in "Pierce Penniless."
>> > Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
>> > was co-authored by Nashe)
>>
>> IOW it's ok to deny the ascription of a title page when it suits your
>> sophistical agenda but in all other cases you must scream
>> *COVER-UP!!!*, *CONSPIRACY!!!*.
>
> Dennis responds: No, it's okay to think Chettle (likely along with
> Nashe) may have written the beginning and end of Groatsworth and
> pawned it off on the recently deceased Robert Greene when
The phrase "Dennis" wants here is, of course, "palmed it off," not
"pawned it off." "Pawned it off" is what the scholars over a Language
Log call an eggcorn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
> 1) The printer Wright registers the work "on the peril of Henry
> Chettle,"
Yes, Henry Chettle guaranteed the work (i.e., he published it himself).
I wonder why "Dennis" would be suspicious of a writer who published a
work himself?
> 2) Literary insiders and two of the dramatists specifically accuse
> Chettle and Nashe of writing the work
> 3) Chettle actually admits that the whole work was in his
> handwriting!
That would seem to put the kibosh on the theory that any of it was
Nashe's work, unless one assumes that Nashe had temporarily forgotten
how to use a pen and Chettle had to take dictation from him.
> 4) Harvey accuses Nashe of having a hand in Groatsworth.
Harvey always was a pissant where Nashe was concerned.
> 5) The controversial beginning and end are in Nashe's style
This will be completely convincing to anyone who has never actually read
anything by either Nashe or Greene
> and include many of his phrases,
All six of the "incredibly peculiar" phrases Nashe used that are also
found in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* derive from Nashe's preface to
Robert Greene's *Menaphon*; it may be supposed that Greene was familiar
with this work. That variations on six terms used by Nashe in a preface
to a work by Greene surfaced in a later work attributed to Greene does
not seem inordinately strange.
(It would be remiss of me not to mention that "Dennis" mistakenly claims
that Nashe uses the words "who (mounted on the stage of arrogance) think
to outbrave better pens with the swelling bombast of bragging blank
verse" to characterize actors. Nashe is clearly referring to
playwrights: "But heerein I cannot so fully bequeath them [i.e., "vaine
glorious Tragedians"] to folly, as *their ideot Art-masters* [i.e.,
playwrights], that intrude themselues to our eares as the Alcumists of
eloquence, who (mounted on the stage of arrogance) thinke to out-braue
better pennes with the swelling bumbast of bragging blanke verse.
Indeede it may bee the ingrafted ouerflow of some kil-cow conceit, that
ouercloyeth their imagination with a more then drunken resolution, being
not extemporall in the inuention of any other meanes to vent their
manhoode, commits the disgestion of their cholericke incumbrances to the
spacious volubilitie of a drumming decasillabon. *Mongst this kind of
men that repose eternitie in the mouth of a Player, I can but ingrosse
some deep read Schoolemen or Grammarians...*" [Emphasis added.])
> and make the same complaints about actors as he did before.
"Dennis" never did get around to addressing the fact that the complaint
about Shake-scene in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* bears a striking
resemblance to the story about "Roscius" in *Francescos Fortunes*, which
I suspect even Katherine Duncan-Jones would agree was written by Robert
Greene. But perhaps he missed it, in which case, here it is again:
"It chanced that *Roscius* & he met at a dinner, both guests vnto
*Archias* the Poet, where the prowd Comedian dared to make comparison
with *Tully*: which insolence 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 those pratest in a Kings chamber: what sentence
thou vtterest on the stage, flowes from the censure of our wittes, and
what sentence or conceipte of the inuention the people applaud for
excellent, that comes from the secrets of our knowledge. I graunt your
action, though it be a kind of mechanical labour; yet wel done tis
worthie of praise: but you worthlesse, if for so small a toy you waxe
proud."
And just in case "Dennis" doesn't have the time to make a comparison
between the two passages, here's one:
*Francescos Fortunes*: "why *Roscius*, art thou proud with *Esops* Crow,
being pranct with the glorie of others feathers?"
*Greenes Groats-worth*: "there is an vpstart Crow, beautified with our
feathers"
*Francescos Fortunes*: "of thy selfe thou canst say nothing...your
action, though it be a kind of mechanical labour"
*Greenes Groats-worth*: "those Puppits (I meane) that speake from our
mouths"
*Francescos Fortunes*: "the inuention the people applaud for excellent"
*Greenes Groats-worth*: "your admired inuentions"
*Francescos Fortunes*: "the censure of our wittes"
*Greenes Groats-worth*: "men of such rare wits"
*Francescos Fortunes*: "the prowd comedian...why *Roscius*, are thou
proud"
*Greenes Groats-worth*: "is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in
a countrie"
That the two passages have a common author is difficult to doubt, though
I'm sure "Dennis" will find a way.
> In other words, it's okay to think such a thing about a single work
> when there's actually a significant amount evidence for it -- and the
> Groatsworth incident confirms how difficult it was to get away with
> such an effort. But to believe that Shakespeare was framed for the
> authorship of a dozen different plays over the course of 25 years by
> 16 different printers and publishers -- and no one ever said anything
> about it and Shakespeare never once complained -- is considerably more
> fantastic.
Especially compared to the story about the impoverished
lawyer/translator with a trunk full of moldering manuscripts who
encountered a young player from Stratford whose pockets were
inexplicably brimming with cash that he was inexplicably itching to
spend on a bunch of plays that were either too long and boring to be
staged without being massively edited (like *Hamlet*), or were already
being staged by rival companies (like *Titus and Vespasian*). Yet this
young player with more money than sense somehow managed to turn these
boring tracts into smash hits, not only recouping his initial investment
but earning so much additional money that he became one of the most
successful playwrights of his time, and even though everyone knew that
the impoverished lawyer was the true author of the plays, no publisher
ever put the lawyer's name on any of the plays and the lawyer never once
complained. Alas, that sort of thing happens all the time in the
literary world.
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On Aug 30, 6:53 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 12:27 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > Another excerpt from the other thread.
>
> > > > Dom asks: "Did Shakespeare act as a patron, maintaining scholars and
> > > > other poetical spirits?"
> > > > Dennis responds: So tempted to hit the "all caps."
>
> > > Yes, you really are a drama queen. You probably should write in "all
> > > caps" all of the time as it would be just one more indication that you
> > > have no idea what you're talking about and are merely regurgitating
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > > Yes, of course he
> > > > did -- and even if you want to squeeze your eyes shut and deny every
> > > > other obvious allusion and deny that any other satirist ever parodied
> > > > the great Shakespeare-- it is undeniable that various authors,
> > > > clear that wealthy actors maintained scholars . This is repeated again
> > > > and again and again.
>
> > > Here, Dennis exhibits a lack of knowledge of the Elizabethan patronage
> > > system so fundamental that it should cause anyone even remotely
> > > familiar with the era to discount anything he says. Instead of
> > > prattling on about how his interpretations prove his interpretations,
> > > it would behoove Dennis to provide some actual evidence that "wealthy
> > > actors" served as patrons to scholars, and specifically as to his
> > > claim that Shakespeare acted as a patron to scholars.
>
> > the "Player-Patron" of "Groatsworth"
> > including D. A. Caroll's article: "The Player-Patron in" Greene's
> > Groatsworth of Wit (1592)"
> > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Player+Patron%22+Groatsworth&h...
> > Indeed, Mark Steese preferred using the phrase "player patron" over my
> > "actor dramatist."
>
> Dennis demonstrates that his capacity for reading with anything
> approaching comprehension is impaired by his maniacal devotion to his
> pet theory. None of these citations provide "actual evidence" [which
> is what I requested], as a factual matter, in real life, that wealthy
> actors, and specifically Shakespeare, acted as patrons to scholars.
> The Player-Patron of Groatsworth is a fictional character. I was
> asking for real-world evidence...do you have any "actual evidence"?
Dennis responds: The "player-Patron" tale in the beginning has no real
world significance? Indulge me for a moment, but here's a fictional
conversation between Henry Chettle and Thomas Nashe as they write the
end of "Groatsworth."
(If you think Greene wrote the work and that it is a coincidence that
it was in Chettle's handwriting, then imagine this as dialogue in
Greene's head.)
Chettle: Hey, I just thought of something. You know how we're now
writing about Gentleman-Dramatists who write plays for a conceited,
jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse
-- you know, who sell plays to "Shake-Scene" and company?
Nashe: Yeah.
Chettle: Well, doesn't that sound familiar at all?
Nashe: Not sure what you're getting at.
Chettle: Well, the entire long beginning of "Groatsworth" that we just
finished writing and was penned over 7000 words, and takes up dozens
of pages, and serves as the introduction to this concluding letter, is
about the life of a gentleman-dramatist who ends up writing for a
conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
own verse.
Nashe: Yeah? Still not sure what you're getting at.
Chettle: Well, don't you see the connection?
Nashe: What?? What are you talking about? I made that introductory
story up out of thin air. That tale of a gentleman-dramatist who
writes for a "player-patron" is completely invented! Player-patrons
don't even exist! I invented them! And I suppose because I set parts
of this tale in and around the largest and most prosperous city on "an
Island," we are to imagine that's supposed to be London, too?! Give
me a break. I just thought that since we were framing Greene for this
work that this would be a good time to try to surreptitiously publish
my first fantasy-novella about a gentleman-dramatist writing for a
conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
own verse. Anyone who sees any connection between that long
fictional, 7000-word, introductory tale and this letter to real
gentleman-dramatists who write for pay for a real conceited, jack-of-
all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse is
clearly seeing things! I mean, really! Player-Patrons?! It is too
laugh!
As Mencken once wrote: Sometimes a good horse laugh is worth a
thousand syllogisms.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:007a18a7-ce9e-4657...@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 7:13 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> >> On 31/08/11 7:15 AM, den...@northofshakespeare.com wrote:
>
> >> > Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
> >> > from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the
> >> >Parnassus Plays.
> >> > Indeed, one of the many ways we know thatIngeniosoisNasheis
> >> > is often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless."
> >> > And it is no surprise that the authors patternedGullioafter
> >> >Nashe's "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the
> >> > in "Pierce Penniless."
> >> > Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> >> > was co-authored byNashe)
>
> >> IOW it's ok to deny the ascription of a title page when it suits your
> >> sophistical agenda but in all other cases you must scream
> >> *COVER-UP!!!*, *CONSPIRACY!!!*.
>
> > Dennis responds: No, it's okay to think Chettle (likely along with
> >Nashe) may have written the beginning and end of Groatsworth and
> > pawned it off on the recently deceased Robert Greene when
>
> The phrase "Dennis" wants here is, of course, "palmed it off," not
> "pawned it off." "Pawned it off" is what the scholars over a Language
> Log call an eggcorn:
Dennis responds: "Pawn off" means to dispose or get rid of something
deceptively:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawn
And now we continue with the quibbles on every fact:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
>
> > 1) The printer Wright registers the work "on the peril of Henry
> > Chettle,"
>
> Yes, Henry Chettle guaranteed the work (i.e., he published it himself).
> I wonder why "Dennis" would be suspicious of a writer who published a
> work himself?
Dennis responded: No. Other works were not registered "on the peril"
of someone.
Numerous scholars have underscored this point and have wondered in
their papers and books about what "peril" is being referred to.
>
> > 2) Literary insiders and two of the dramatists specifically accuse
> > Chettle andNasheof writing the work
> > 3) Chettle actually admits that the whole work was in his
> > handwriting!
>
> That would seem to put the kibosh on the theory that any of it was
> Nashe's work, unless one assumes thatNashehad temporarily forgotten
> how to use a pen and Chettle had to take dictation from him.
Dennis responds: No,it just means that Nashe and Chettle, co-authors,
decided it would be best that "Greene's" work were all in the same
hand.
This would be particularly true if, as I suspect, the middle part was
indeed an unpublished repentance piece by Greene.
But your view that Chettle really did not write the work -- and that
it was a coincidence that it was in his handwriting -- and that he
just apologized for it anyway -- is dully noted.
> > 4) Harvey accusesNasheof having a hand in Groatsworth.
>
> Harvey always was a pissant whereNashewas concerned.
>
> > 5) The controversial beginning and end are inNashe's style
>
> This will be completely convincing to anyone who has never actually read
> anything by eitherNasheor Greene
>
> > and include many of his phrases,
>
> All six of the "incredibly peculiar" phrasesNasheused that are also
> found in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* derive fromNashe's preface to
> Robert Greene's *Menaphon*; it may be supposed that Greene was familiar
> with this work.
Dennis responds: Ahh, so Greene accidentally copied a writer who would
later be accused of writing the work. Very clever.
And then he had the foresight to make sure the written copy sent to
printers was not in his handwriting! Very, very clever.
As for the resemblance between Greene's Roscius comment and the "Shake-
Scene" comment, I do not deny. Lots of authors would mock
actors as being glorified by the work of others. It would become a
standard jibe and I've referenced similar comments by other writers.
But if you want to believe Greene wrote the work, I don't mind at all.
But this is not what most orthodox scholars believe.
And its authorship has little to do with my thesis.
Dominic Hughes
The Roberto tale in the first part of Groatsworth does not identify
Shakespeare as the player/dramatist. In fact, the allusions therein
show that it is someone other than Shakespeare [a writer of morality
plays]. Therefore, its significance as real-world evidence for the
question that I posed to you is nil. If this is the best you can
provide, I take it you have none of the actual evidence that I
requested.
> Chettle: Hey, I just thought of something. You know how we're now
> writing about Gentleman-Dramatists who write plays for a conceited,
> jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse
> -- you know, who sell plays to "Shake-Scene" and company?
It is only in your imagination that Shakespeare is referenced in the
first part of Groatsworth.
> Nashe: Yeah.
There is no proof that Nashe had a part in writing Groatsworth, but
don't let that stop you from treating your speculations as fact.
> Chettle: Well, doesn't that sound familiar at all?
> Nashe: Not sure what you're getting at.
> Chettle: Well, the entire long beginning of "Groatsworth" that we just
> finished writing and was penned over 7000 words, and takes up dozens
> of pages, and serves as the introduction to this concluding letter, is
> about the life of a gentleman-dramatist who ends up writing for a
> conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
> own verse.
No, it isn't at all. The player in the "Roberto" portion of
Groatsworth is never referred to as an upstart, conceited, or a jack-
of-all-trades. He is primarily, at this point, merely a player, since
his only dramatic efforts were morality plays that were now long out
of fashion. Of course, none of this would have anything to do with
Shakespeare, but you apparently believe it is valid to simply make up
things that you think will serve to support your position.
> Nashe: Yeah? Still not sure what you're getting at.
> Chettle: Well, don't you see the connection?
There is no connection.
Shake-scene is not the same person as the player-writer of old
morality plays. If you have any evidence that Shakespeare wrote
morality plays now is the time to produce it.
By the way, since you refused to answer this direct question in this
post, I'll ask it again: where in Parnassus is it shown that Gullio
is an actor on the public stage?
> Nashe: What?? What are you talking about? I made that introductory
> story up out of thin air. That tale of a gentleman-dramatist who
> writes for a "player-patron" is completely invented! Player-patrons
> don't even exist! I invented them! And I suppose because I set parts
> of this tale in and around the largest and most prosperous city on "an
> Island," we are to imagine that's supposed to be London, too?! Give
> me a break. I just thought that since we were framing Greene for this
> work that this would be a good time to try to surreptitiously publish
> my first fantasy-novella about a gentleman-dramatist writing for a
> conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
> own verse. Anyone who sees any connection between that long
> fictional, 7000-word, introductory tale and this letter to real
> gentleman-dramatists who write for pay for a real conceited, jack-of-
> all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse is
> clearly seeing things! I mean, really! Player-Patrons?! It is too
> laugh!
You are wrong here, as well. The only thing that the player initially
does for Roberto is to put him up at a "house of retail," and the work
itself shows that Roberto moves to other lodgings afterward ["He had
shift of lodgings..."]. The story does not show that the player
maintained Roberto in the same manner that scholars were patronized by
aristocrats. If you think that this is at all the same as what
occurred between aristocratic patrons and the artists they patronized
you are more of an idiot than I have previously assumed.
> As Mencken once wrote: Sometimes a good horse laugh is worth a
> thousand syllogisms.- Hide quoted text -
Some more horse-related sayings that Dennis and his theory bring to
mind:
And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Every ass loves to hear himself bray.
Don't put the cart before the horse.
It's the same donkey, but with a new saddle.
Dom
Mark Steese
news:038171a5-fb1d-4711...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 31, 1:11 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
>> inn
> ews:007a18a7-ce9e-4657...@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Aug 30, 7:13 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
[snip]
>> >> IOW it's ok to deny the ascription of a title page when it suits
>> >> your sophistical agenda but in all other cases you must scream
>> >> *COVER-UP!!!*, *CONSPIRACY!!!*.
>>
>> > Dennis responds: No, it's okay to think Chettle (likely along with
>> > Nashe) may have written the beginning and end of Groatsworth and
>> > pawned it off on the recently deceased Robert Greene when
>>
>> The phrase "Dennis" wants here is, of course, "palmed it off," not
>> "pawned it off." "Pawned it off" is what the scholars over a Language
>> Log call an eggcorn:
>
> Dennis responds: "Pawn off" means to dispose or get rid of something
> deceptively:
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawn
That's what "palm off" means; "pawn off" is, as I already said, an
eggcorn.
http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21220
"Dennis's" use of "pawn off" is a very subtle piece of characterization:
it is, of course, a common variation on "palm off," and is also the
usage one would expect from someone who, like "Dennis," is deaf to what
words actually mean, and doesn't grasp the obvious connection between
the phrase "palm off" and a magician tricking a gull by surreptitiously
placing an object such as a playing-card on his person - "palming it off
on him." It would have been surprising if "Dennis" had used "palm off"
instead of a usage that sounds like it but makes no actual sense.
> And now we continue with the quibbles on every fact:
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
>>
>> > 1) The printer Wright registers the work "on the peril of Henry
>> > Chettle,"
>>
>> Yes, Henry Chettle guaranteed the work (i.e., he published it
>> himself). I wonder why "Dennis" would be suspicious of a writer who
>> published a work himself?
>
> Dennis responded: No. Other works were not registered "on the peril"
> of someone. Numerous scholars have underscored this point and have
> wondered in their papers and books about what "peril" is being
> referred to.
And here Dennis again displays his skill at impersonating an
anti-Stratfordian ignoramus. Professional printers in England in the
1590s typically bought a patent ("lycense") granting them, and only
them, the legal permission to print a particular work. If someone chose,
as Chettle did, to have a work printed without first obtaining a patent
for it, that person would have no legal defense should other printers
claim the work was rightfully theirs, or any legal recourse should other
printers pirate the work; he was thus printing it at his own peril,
i.e., taking the responsibility upon himself - and so it was entered in
the Stationers' Register.
A printer who had acquired the necessary permissions would typically be
entered on the Stationers Register under the form "[Printer] hath
lycense to prynte [name of work]"; payment for patents was recorded with
the printer's name, the phrase "Lycensed unto him," and a description of
the work. As we would expect, there is no record of Chettle paying for
the privilege to print *Greenes Groats-Worth of Wit*; Chettle *did*
obtain a patent to print *Kind-Harts Dreame*. If Chettle had written
*Greenes Groats-Worth of Wit*, it would be strange for him not to seek
legal protection for his own work.
>> > 2) Literary insiders and two of the dramatists specifically accuse
>> > Chettle andNasheof writing the work
>> > 3) Chettle actually admits that the whole work was in his
>> > handwriting!
>>
>> That would seem to put the kibosh on the theory that any of it was
>> Nashe's work, unless one assumes thatNashehad temporarily forgotten
>> how to use a pen and Chettle had to take dictation from him.
>
> Dennis responds: No,it just means that Nashe and Chettle, co-authors,
> decided it would be best that "Greene's" work were all in the same
> hand.
Here "Dennis" professes to think that Nashe and Chettle conspired to put
the entire work in Chettle's handwriting *to disguise their authorship*.
> This would be particularly true if, as I suspect, the middle part was
> indeed an unpublished repentance piece by Greene.
> But your view that Chettle really did not write the work -- and that
> it was a coincidence that it was in his handwriting -- and that he
> just apologized for it anyway -- is dully noted.
Many are the things that "Dennis" dully notes. Chettle, of course,
explicitly stated that he had copied over the work because "it was il
written, as sometime Greenes hand was none of the best" (hardly
surprising, given Greene's condition at the time of writing); "licensd
it must be, ere it could bee printed, which could neuer be if it might
not be read." (This is interesting: as we know, the work was not
actually "licensd." If Chettle is telling the truth here, it would seem
that he had planned to license it; and we may note that the work was
entered on the Stationers' Register only 17 days after Greene died. It
is possible that Chettle had prepared the work for publication as a
favor to Greene, thinking to patent it and print it while Greene was
still alive and the money it made could do him some good, but chose to
print it without patent following Greene's death, when the money would
no longer benefit him.)
>> > 4) Harvey accuses Nashe of having a hand in Groatsworth.
>>
>> Harvey always was a pissant whereNashewas concerned.
>>
>> > 5) The controversial beginning and end are in Nashe's style
>>
>> This will be completely convincing to anyone who has never actually
>> read anything by either Nashe or Greene
>>
>> > and include many of his phrases,
>>
>> All six of the "incredibly peculiar" phrases Nashe used that are also
>> found in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* derive from Nashe's preface to
>> Robert Greene's *Menaphon*; it may be supposed that Greene was
>> familiar with this work.
>
> Dennis responds: Ahh, so Greene accidentally copied a writer who would
> later be accused of writing the work.
"Dennis" has inserted the word "accidentally" in a pseudoclever attempt
to forestall the possibility that Nashe and Greene were intentionally
using a shared vocabulary, as friends often do.
> Very clever.
> And then he had the foresight to make sure the written copy sent to
> printers was not in his handwriting! Very, very clever.
> As for the resemblance between Greene's Roscius comment and the
> "Shake- Scene" comment, I do not deny. Lots of authors would mock
> actors as being glorified by the work of others.
Really, "Dennis"? So you're saying that lots of authors mocked actors by
comparing them to "Esops crow, being pranct with the glorie of others
feathers" - which is, according to you, a symbol for plagiarism used by
Thomas North himself? Wow! You're saying it's just a coincidence that
both Thomas North and Robert Greene attributed the story of the crow
"decked with the feathers of other beautifuler birds" to Aesop?
> It would become a standard jibe and I've referenced similar comments
> by other writers. But if you want to believe Greene wrote the work, I
> don't mind at all. But this is not what most orthodox scholars
> believe. And its authorship has little to do with my thesis.
Just as Nashe's use of the phrase "English Seneca" has little to do with
it, hm? I wonder how many other data points will prove to have "little
to do" with "Dennis's thesis" once Dennis decides to have "Dennis" stop
defending them. Any day now we may find that the soundly refuted notion
that Gullio represents Shakespeare has little to do with "Dennis's
thesis"!
--
At the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893, a very curious figure stood
in the California State Building: a medieval knight in armor, mounted on
a horse, composed entirely of prunes. -Douglas Sackman
Mark Steese
news:3917bd41-36a8-48bc...@h17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 31, 12:37 am, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
"Dennis" is once again flailing about amusingly in an attempt to deflect
attention from a ridiculous claim. The fact that the phrase "Player-
Patron" was coined by scholars writing centuries after the fact to
describe a fictional character in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* does not
provide evidence for the assertion that individual actors were providing
patronage to scholars in the same way that noblemen were. In fact (as
anyone with even a smattering of knowledge about the patronage system
already knows), companies of players were themselves dependent on
patronage. No doubt "Dennis" thinks it was a mere coincidence that
Shakespeare's company was known as "The Lord Chamberlain's Men," "Lord
Hunsdon's Men," and "the King's Men" at various times in its history.
The fact that the author or authors of *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit*
used a single player to represent the play-writing commissions that
saved 'Roberto' from financial ruin is no more representative of reality
than is the fact that 'Roberto's' impending financial ruin is
represented as the consequences of his usurer father's cutting him off
with only a groat to his name and the subsequent failure of his
conspiring with a whore to rob his wealthy but naïve younger brother.
"Dennis" is the sort of person who thinks *Volpone* is a documentary.
Smiley Blanton
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:038171a5-fb1d-4711...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 1:11 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn
[...]
Maybe it is just me, but I find some of Dennis' expressions to be
peculiar. For instance, does anyone believe that any printers would
have been conspiring to “falsely frame” and “abuse” Shakespeare by
placing his name on title pages of plays he did not write? The idea
that Elizabethan printers would make up evidence or contrive events
so
as to incriminate Shakespeare falsely as the writer of mediocre plays
is a ludicrous notion. I can see it now: “Shakespeare, pay up before
the cock crows, or we’re going to tell everyone you wrote that crappy
play, ‘Yorkshire Tragedy’.” Did Shakespeare simply fail to pay the
extortionists and so the plays were printed? It sounds like
something by the Python’s, like the Piranha Brothers skit.
I wonder too, does anyone have any information at hand as to whether
“Yorkshire Tragedy” or ‘London Prodigal’, or any of the other plays
that were attributed to W.S. [but that modern scholarly consensus
finds were not actually penned by Shakespeare], were deemed to be
inferior plays at the time that they were staged? Were they
considered mediocre then?
This whole notion of Shakespeare being framed by the printers, that
Dennis has dully noted, strikes me as a very strange locution.
Then there is his use of “nickname” to refer to his conception of
what
is meant by “English Seneca” or “English Homer”, etc. As if people
in
the street, happening to meet young Mr. Nashe would shout out, “Yo,
English Juvenal! How goes it?”
It almost seems at times that English is a foreign language to
Dennis.
//0
> }
//0
Presenter: At the age of fifteen Doug and Dinsdale started attending
the Ernest Pythagoras Primary School in Clerkenwell. When the
Piranhas
left school they were called up but were found by an Army Board to be
too unstable even for National Service. Denied the opportunity to use
their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate
what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and
then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection
money. Four months later they started another operation which they
called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another
victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One
month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the
victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him
up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point.
Tom Reedy
message
news:038171a5-fb1d-4711...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...<snip>
> > 1) The printer Wright registers the work "on the peril of Henry
> > Chettle,"
>
> Yes, Henry Chettle guaranteed the work (i.e., he published it himself).
> I wonder why "Dennis" would be suspicious of a writer who published a
> work himself?
> Dennis responded: No. Other works were not registered "on the peril"
of someone.
This is complete bullshit.
You really have no clue, do you? Works were registered "at the peril" of
other publishers since 1580.
> Numerous scholars have underscored this point and have wondered in
their papers and books about what "peril" is being referred to.
"Numerous", eh? Quote some.
<snip>
> > 4) Harvey accusesNasheof having a hand in Groatsworth.
>
> Harvey always was a pissant whereNashewas concerned.
>
> > 5) The controversial beginning and end are inNashe's style
Have you ever read anything at all by Nashe besides the *Menaphon* preface?
I doubt you'd get much out of doing so, your comprehension is so abysmal.
TR
Tom Reedy
"Mark Steese" <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9F51909D...@88.198.244.100...
> sasheargold <sashe...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in news:f5302276-fa63-
> 4284-8300-3...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Since my countryman Paul Crowley appears to have gone AWOL, I must
>> play his part - at least in spirit. I think we get another Nashean
>> joke here:
>>
>> Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
>> shall I.....
>>
>> Ingenioso is undoubtedly a homage to Thomas Nashe, and in Strange News
>> he mocks Harvey's Four Letters as 'going privily to victual the Low
>> Countries' - in other words, only fit to wipe your backside with after
>> defecating, 'Low Countries' being crude slang for buttocks. As Crowley
>> has often informed us, 'to die' is to have an orgasm.
>>
>> Therefore Gullio is expecting to die literally and metaphorically
>> while engaging in anal sex, and certainly with a male lover, in light
>> of the countess reference.
>
> Possibly, but not necessarily. In the manuscript the word 'countries' is
> spelled without an 'o'; the pun may be the same as the one invoked by
> Shakespeare in *Hamlet* -
>
> Hamlet: Ladie, shall I lye in your Lap?
>
> Ophelia: No my Lord.
>
> Hamlet: I meane, my Head vpon your Lap?
>
> Ophelia: I my Lord.
>
> Hamlet: Do you thinke I meant Country matters?
ANTIPHOLUS of S: Where stood Belgia,The Netherlands?
DROMIO of S: O sir, I did not look so low.
TR
Mark Steese
news:08f90ddf-6110-4923...@x2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 31, 3:07 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
>> inn
> ews:038171a5-fb1d-4711...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>> > Dennis responds: "Pawn off" means to dispose or get rid of
>> > something deceptively:
>> > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawn
>>
>> That's what "palm off" means; "pawn off" is, as I already said, an
>> eggcorn.
>>
>> http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21220
>>
>> "Dennis's" use of "pawn off" is a very subtle piece of
>> characterization: it is, of course, a common variation on "palm off,"
>> and is also the usage one would expect from someone who, like
>> "Dennis," is deaf to what words actually mean, and doesn't grasp the
>> obvious connection between the phrase "palm off" and a magician
>> tricking a gull by surreptitiously placing an object such as a
>> playing-card on his person - "palming it off on him." It would have
>> been surprising if "Dennis" had used "palm off" instead of a usage
>> that sounds like it but makes no actual sense.
> [...]
>
> Maybe it is just me, butI find some of Dennis' expressions to be
> peculiar. For instance, does anyone believe that any printers would
> have been conspiring to "falsely frame" and "abuse" Shakespeare by
> placing his name on title pages of plays he did not write? The idea
> that Elizabethan printers would make up evidence or contrive events so
> as to incriminate Shakespeare falsely as the writer of mediocre plays
> is a ludicrous notion. I can see it now: "Shakespeare, pay up before
> the cock crows, or we’re going to tell everyone you wrote that crappy
> play, ‘Yorkshire Tragedy’." Did Shakespeare simply fail to pay the
> extortionists and so the plays were printed? It sounds like
> something by the Python’s, like the Piranha Brothers skit.
It does indeed. And "Dennis" reiterates his belief that Shakespeare was
*not* framed throughout *North of Shakespeare* (the first point made in
Chapter Ten, "Summarizing the Evidence," is "There was no cabal of
conspirators trying to frame Shakespeare for inferior work"). Curiously,
he never gets around to citing any claims that there *was* such a cabal.
> I wonder too, does anyone have any information at hand as to whether
> "Yorkshire Tragedy" or ‘London Prodigal’, or any of the other plays
> that were attributed to W.S. [but that modern scholarly consensus
> finds were not actually penned by Shakespeare], were deemed to be
> inferior plays at the time that they were staged? Were they
> considered mediocre then?
I don't think *A Yorkshire Tragedy* has ever been considered mediocre:
it was accepted as an authentic Shakespearean work by the 18th-century
scholar George Steevens, and critics who disputed the attribution, such
as William Hazlitt, still recognized the play's merits (Hazlitt thought
it was probably Heywood's work; most modern scholars think Middleton
wrote it). *The London Prodigal* has been less favorably regarded, and
the only evidence we have for its original critical reception is the
fact that Nathaniel Butter printed it in quarto in 1605, which suggests
that it was popular enough to lead him to believe he could make money
selling the text.
> This whole notion of Shakespeare being framed by the printers strikes
> me as a very starnge locution.
>
> Then there is his use of "nickname" to refer to his conception of what
> is meant by "English Seneca" or "English Homer", etc. As if people in
> the street, happening to meet young Mr. Nashe would shout out, "Yo,
> English Juvenal! How goes it?"
Other words he doesn't quite grasp are "anonymous" and "pseudonym": in
*North of Shakespeare* he writes that *Greenes Groatsworth of Wit* is "a
scandalous and anonymously published pamphlet attack on a politically
powerful family using barely-disguised pseudonyms that fooled no one."
It would seem that in Dennisland publishing a book with the author's
name in the title counts as publishing it anonymously, and the names
Gorinius, Lucanio, and Roberto are "barely-disguised pseudonyms" of the
names Edward, Roger, and Thomas North, respectively.
>
> It almost seems at times that English is a foreign language to Dennis.
Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts. *North of
Shakespeare* has numerous instances of words that are similar to, and
yet are not, the word intended: e.g., "The story of the sonnets will be
explored in detail in the next installation." Sometimes the effect is
quite comical - "But the result of this continued conventional effort to
scatter the sources helps the orthodox at least imbue Shakespeare with
the craft of compilation." ("Dennis" likes this turn of phrase so much
he uses it again in the following paragraph: "Horace Howard Furness,
19th century editor of the New Variorum editions of Shakespeare, also
commented on this Stratfordian bias that imbues the dramatist with the
craft of compilation...")
Dominic Hughes
> Smiley Blanton <mhjohnsona...@gmail.com> wrote innews:08f90ddf-6110-4923...@x2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 3:07 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn
Such (unintentional) humor might normally cause me to reconsider my
vow not to buy Dennis' book, but I just can't see contributing to his
cause.
Dennis may have had one of his sock puppets ask a question today in
the webinar hosted by Stanley Wells and Paul Edmondson, mentioning his
name and his theory that North wrote the works. It received a
derisive chuckle [not a horselaugh], and Edmondson then commented on
the alchemical mind of Shakespeare that could take North's prose about
Cleopatra and the barge and transform it into such majestic
poetry...sadly, a process that Dennis, with his tin tongue, hands and
ears [not to mention his iron head], could never understand.
Dom
John W Kennedy
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
"Do you think you can rout a million armed dwarfs by being 'not
romantic'?" -- C. S. Lewis
--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"
Mark Steese
$607e...@cv.net:
> On 2011-09-01 09:42:27 +0000, Mark Steese said:
> Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
> but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
> conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
>
> "Do you think you can rout a million armed dwarfs by being 'not
> romantic'?" -- C. S. Lewis
?
--
The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the "lustrous,
pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt paintings, and,
the level of execution to one side, there are certain unsettling
similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:24474718-4d34-4185...@t5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
> > from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> > Plays.
>
> Amazingly enough, "Dennis" is actually on to something here!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Indeed, one of the many ways we know that Ingenioso isNasheis
> > because Ingenioso goes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> > often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless." And it
> > "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> > Penniless."
>
> > Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly
> > crow." Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately,Nashe
> > carefully defines it:
>
> > of a clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him
> > some wealth and status.
>
> > This "Upstart" is Gullio's twin, falsely bragging about exactly the
> > same things (his martial abilities and military exploits, the sonnets
> > to his mistress, his travels), and in exactly the same language: This
> > Upstart thinks of himself as (or his father is) a "squire of low
> > degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio".. (Important quote that).
>
> So important it's worth quoting in full:
>
> "All malcontent fits the greasie sonne of a Cloathier, and complaines
> (like a decaied Earle) of the ruine of ancient houses: whereas, the
> Weauers loomes first framed the web of his honour, and the locks of
> wool, that bushes and brambles haue tooke for toule of insolent sheepe,
> that would needs striue for the wall of a fir-bush, haue made him of the
> tenths of their tarre, a Squier of low degree: and of the collections of
> the scatterings, a Justice, *Tam Marti quam Mercurio*, of Peace and of
> Coram."
>
> It would be difficult to read that passage without thinking of the
> phrase "a justice of the peace"; and by an odd coincidence, at the same
Love it, Mark -- but that's not the "Upstart" but the "prodigal son."
I don't, however, understand what you mean with the last sentence.
> ...
>
> read more »
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On Aug 30, 10:12 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in news:f5302276-fa63-
> > 4284-8300-391b91a34...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > Since my countryman Paul Crowley appears to have gone AWOL, I must
> > > play his part - at least in spirit. I think we get another Nashean
> > > joke here:
>
> > > Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
> > > shall I.....
>
Sasheargold, if you like those double entendres, then you are going to
love this:
Why do you think Gullio -- this satin-clad fool who constantly recites
lines from "Venus and Adonis" and ends up purchasing a "Venus and
Adonis"-like poem from Ingenioso (Nashe) -- has a mistress named
"Lady Lesbia"? (This is not the only place that a satirist links
"Venus and Adonis" with "Lesbia.")
Similarly, why do you think Nashe' "Upstart" has a mistress named
"Lady Swine-Snout."
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> > end of "Groatsworth."
> > (If you think Greene wrote the work and that it is a coincidence that
> > it was in Chettle's handwriting, then imagine this as dialogue in
> > Greene's head.)
>
> The Roberto tale in the first part of Groatsworth does not identify
> Shakespeare as the player/dramatist.
Dennis responds: Yeah, you actually have to wait for three pages to
discover a player/dramatist -- who hires scholars and is an upstart,
jack-of-all-trades who loves his own verse -- is actually nicknamed
"Shake-Scene" and is linked with a line from 3 HVI (and "True
Tragedy").
In fact, the allusions therein
> show that it is someone other than Shakespeare [a writer of morality
> plays]. Therefore, its significance as real-world evidence for the
> question that I posed to you is nil. If this is the best you can
> provide, I take it you have none of the actual evidence that I
> requested.
>
> > Chettle: Hey, I just thought of something. You know how we're now
> > writing about Gentleman-Dramatists who write plays for a conceited,
> > jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse
> > -- you know, who sell plays to "Shake-Scene" and company?
>
> It is only in your imagination that Shakespeare is referenced in the
> first part of Groatsworth.
>
> >Nashe: Yeah.
>
> There is no proof thatNashehad a part in writing Groatsworth, but
> don't let that stop you from treating your speculations as fact.
>
> > Chettle: Well, doesn't that sound familiar at all?
> >Nashe: Not sure what you're getting at.
> > Chettle: Well, the entire long beginning of "Groatsworth" that we just
> > finished writing and was penned over 7000 words, and takes up dozens
> > of pages, and serves as the introduction to this concluding letter, is
> > about the life of a gentleman-dramatist who ends up writing for a
> > conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
> > own verse.
>
> No, it isn't at all. The player in the "Roberto" portion of
> Groatsworth is never referred to as an upstart, conceited, or a jack-
> of-all-trades.
Dennis responds: Yeah, the actor-dramatist is not really "conceited"
or a "jack of all trades" -- he just boasts (I am sorry, I mean,
"meekly admits") things like this:
1) "I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was
any of my time.
2) The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the
Stage,
3) played three Scenes of the Devil in the Highway to Heaven.
4) able at my proper cost to build a Windmill.
5) I can serve to make a pretty speech
6) I was a country author, passing at a Moral, for ‘twas I that penned
the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of Dives,
7) for seven years space was absolute Interpreter to the puppets
8) Was not this pretty for a plain rhyme extempore? If ye will ye
shall have more.
9) To him "you would be taken for a substantial man," his response:
"So am I where I dwell"
10) my very share in playing apparel will not be sold for two hundred
pounds
And this is not selectively taken from pages of dialogue. Practically
everything the actor-dramatist says is a boast -- typically about
another amazing ability he has.
I mean to deny that he's boastful or thinks himself a jack-of-all-
trades is not a little silly, isn't it?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> Then there is his use of “nickname” to refer to his conception of
> what
> is meant by “English Seneca” or “English Homer”, etc. As if people
> in
> English Juvenal! How goes it?”
"Young Juvenal: A nickname given to Thomas Nashe." -- Albert Frey,
"Sobriquets and Nicknames."
"Young Juvenal is indeed the sort of nickname no Elizabethan could
resist for a youthful-looking satirist who lacked a beard in 1596." --
J. Dover-Wilson, (ed), Love's Labour's Lost.
"...'young Juvenal' seems to have been Nashe's nickname among his
contemporaries." -- Francis Yates, "A Study of Love's Labour's
Lost."
> It almost seems at times that English is a foreign language to
> Dennis.
(...).
> Maybe it is just me, but I find some of Dennis' expressions to be
> peculiar. For instance, does anyone believe that any printers would
> have been conspiring to “falsely frame” and “abuse” Shakespeare by
> placing his name on title pages of plays he did not write? The idea
> that Elizabethan printers would make up evidence or contrive events
> so
> as to incriminate Shakespeare falsely as the writer of mediocre plays
> is a ludicrous notion. I can see it now: “Shakespeare, pay up before
> the cock crows, or we’re going to tell everyone you wrote that crappy
> play, ‘Yorkshire Tragedy’.” Did Shakespeare simply fail to pay the
> extortionists and so the plays were printed? It sounds like
> something by the Python’s, like thePiranha Brothersskit.
>
> I wonder too, does anyone have any information at hand as to whether
> “Yorkshire Tragedy” or ‘London Prodigal’, or any of the other plays
> that were attributed to W.S.
Dennis responds: No, no, no. London Prodigal and Yorkshire Tragedy
and Troublesome Raigne were all attributed to "Shakespeare" -- not
just initials "W.S."
[but that modern scholarly consensus
> finds were not actually penned by Shakespeare], were deemed to be
> inferior plays at the time that they were staged? Were they
> considered mediocre then?
>
> This whole notion of Shakespeare being framed by the printers, that
> Dennis has dully noted, strikes me as a very strange locution.
Well, you choose the term. In the view of the orothodox (and probably
in your view), supposedly the printers and publishers knew that
Shakespeare had not written London Prodigal, Yorkshire Tragedy,
Troublesome Raigne, The Contention, True Tragedy, etc., etc., - yet
they still put Shakespeare's name on the title page. "So they
were ............[fill in the blank]..... Shakespeare." They were
doing "what" to Shakespeare? "Conspiring to attribute plays falsely
to"? "foist other people's plays on"? "Pawn off the plays of
others"? "frame"?
Dominic Hughes
So what evidence do you have that Shakespeare wrote any morality
plays. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You're basing your
argument on the fact that a story and a missive to authors are three
pages apart? And yet you will ignore the fact that the player/
dramatist is described in terms that don't apply to Shake-scene.
Brilliant as usual. The player/dramatist wrote morality plays, is not
described as an upstart, or a crow, or a jack-of-all
trades...proximity in a pamphlet does not mean the fictional character
in the story and the real person, Shake-scene, in the missive are one
and the same. In fact, the details show that they are not.
The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation of how
Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the theater.
That would have been some time around 1587...so this actor/dramatist
couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
> In fact, the allusions therein
> > show that it is someone other than Shakespeare [a writer of morality
> > plays]. Therefore, its significance as real-world evidence for the
> > question that I posed to you is nil. If this is the best you can
> > provide, I take it you have none of the actual evidence that I
> > requested.
No answer.
> > > Chettle: Hey, I just thought of something. You know how we're now
> > > writing about Gentleman-Dramatists who write plays for a conceited,
> > > jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse
> > > -- you know, who sell plays to "Shake-Scene" and company?
>
> > It is only in your imagination that Shakespeare is referenced in the
> > first part of Groatsworth.
No answer.
> > >Nashe: Yeah.
>
> > There is no proof thatNashe had a part in writing Groatsworth, but
> > don't let that stop you from treating your speculations as fact.
No answer.
> > > Chettle: Well, doesn't that sound familiar at all?
> > >Nashe: Not sure what you're getting at.
> > > Chettle: Well, the entire long beginning of "Groatsworth" that we just
> > > finished writing and was penned over 7000 words, and takes up dozens
> > > of pages, and serves as the introduction to this concluding letter, is
> > > about the life of a gentleman-dramatist who ends up writing for a
> > > conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
> > > own verse.
>
> > No, it isn't at all. The player in the "Roberto" portion of
> > Groatsworth is never referred to as an upstart, conceited, or a jack-
> > of-all-trades.
>
> Dennis responds: Yeah, the actor-dramatist is not really "conceited"
> or a "jack of all trades" -- he just boasts (I am sorry, I mean,
> "meekly admits") things like this:
>
> 1) "I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was
> any of my time.
He's an actor, famous for playing certain roles. Did Shakespeare ever
play the part of Delphrigus? What play was this in?
> 2) The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the
> Stage,
Did Shakespeare ever act in The Twelve Labours of Hecules?
> 3) played three Scenes of the Devil in the Highway to Heaven.
What play is this and when did Shakespeare act in it?
> 4) able at my proper cost to build a Windmill.
What does this mean?
> 5) I can serve to make a pretty speech
How boastful...
> 6) I was a country author, passing at a Moral, for ‘twas I that penned
> the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of Dives,
Most likely morality plays...do you have any evidence that Shakespeare
wrote them? No..I didn't think so.
> 7) for seven years space was absolute Interpreter to the puppets
So if these events describe Greene's entry into the theatrical world,
around 1587, the actor/dramatist was serving as "Interpreter to the
puppets" in about 1580, when Shakespeare was 16 years old.
> 8) Was not this pretty for a plain rhyme extempore? If ye will ye
> shall have more.
How boastful...seems pretty tame to me. But it really doesn't make
any difference, and if this is the only quibble you can raise you
really have nothing -- especially since you are unable to counter the
details that refute your contentions.
> 9) To him "you would be taken for a substantial man," his response:
> "So am I where I dwell"
No boastful...just a statement of fact.
> 10) my very share in playing apparel will not be sold for two hundred
> pounds
Another statement of fact, but, who cares, I'll let you have your
quibble.
The whole thing could be read as the actor/dramatist merely explaining
his station in life. He may be proud or he may be conceited, but that
really doesn't have any effect on the fact that the actor/dramatist is
not identified with Shake-scene, and is, in fact, described in
different terms. If you have any evidence that Shakespeare wrote
morality plays it is time for you to produce it now. If not, it is
silly for you to continue to argue against the evidence.
As for being a jack-of-all-trades, or even a current dramatist, the
references you have supplied do not justify that interpretation. The
plays that he wrote are out of fashion. That is why the players need
to hire scholars.
> And this is not selectively taken from pages of dialogue. Practically
> everything the actor-dramatist says is a boast -- typically about
> another amazing ability he has.
> I mean to deny that he's boastful or thinks himself a jack-of-all-
> trades is not a little silly, isn't it?
To keep insisting, in the face of contrary evidence from the work
itself, that the actor/dramatist is Shake-scene is pretty silly.
Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the actor/dramatist is
conceited, there are still disqualifying characteristics [unless you
can show proof to the contrary]. You can't. In addition, it is
entirely silly to ignore the evidence that Gullio is a caricature of
Southampton, but you won't bother to even address that evidence.
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Dennis responds: I didn't say they provided in exactly the same way.
But the player-patron did hire the gentleman-scholar, did pay for
writings, and did put him up.
And Gullio hired Ingenioso to write a poem for him -- that Gullio
would then amend and pass of as his own. And Gullio once gave him a
suit of clothes (evidently from his "apparel" worth 200 pounds.)
Gullio did not have a large castle or manor that Ingenioso lived at.
He did not have an entourage that Ingenioso then joined.
To argue that what Gullio was doing and what the actor-dramatist was
doing was completely different reminds one of the claim that the
boastful, jack-of-all-trades actor-dramatist who loves his own verse
-- was not boastful or a jack-of-all trades.
Dominic Hughes
Have you ever heard of 'The Passionate Pilgrim'?
You appear to dismiss the conclusion that printers would attach
Shakespeare's name to a work for the reason that it was a selling
point, but that is exactly what occurred in the publishing of 'The
Passionate Pilgrim'. Putting his name on the title page of that work
was not done to “frame” Shakespeare, but was done to market and sell
the book.
In 1612 the third edition of The Passionate Pilgrim appeared, printed
by William Jaggard. It was attributed to W. Shakespeare, but only two
sonnets and three passages from Love's Labour's Lost contained therein
were the work of Shakespeare. The rest of the poems were works by
Marlowe, Barnfield, Raleigh, and, in the third edition, Heywood, taken
from his Troia Britannica. He complained bitterly and publicly in an
epistle he appended to his Apologie for Actors, printed later in 1612
by Nicholas Okes, in which he makes reference to Shakespeare's Sonnets
and also Shakespeare's reaction to Jaggard's using his name without
authorization.
THE | PASSIONATE | PILGRIME. | or | Certaine Amorous Sonnets, \
betweene Venus and Adonis, | newly corrected and aug- \ mented. | By
W. Shakespere. \ The third Edition. | Whereunto is newly ad- | ded two
Loue- Epistles, the first | from Paris to Hellen, and | Hellens
answere backe | againe to Paris. \ Printed by W. Iaggard. | 1612.
Heywood's response:
To my approved good Friend, MR. NICHOLAS OKES.
The infinite faults escaped in my booke of Britaines Troy by the
negligence of the printer, as the misquotations, mistaking the
sillables, misplacing halfe lines, coining of strange and never heard
of words, these being without number, when I would have taken a
particular account of the errata, the printer answered me, hee would
not publish his owne disworkemanship, but rather let his owne fault
lye upon the necke of the author. And being fearefull that others of
his quality had beene of the same nature and condition, and finding
you, on the contrary, so carefull and industrious, so serious and
laborious to doe the author all the rights of the presse, I could not
choose but gratulate your honest indeavours with this short
remembrance. Here, likewise, I must necessarily insert a manifest
injury done me in that worke, by taking the two epistles of Paris to
Helen, and Helen to Paris, and printing them in a lesse volume under
the name of another, which may put the world in opinion I might steale
them from him, and hee, to doe himselfe right, hath since published
them in his owne name; but as I must acknowledge my lines not worthy
his patronage under whom he hath publisht them, so the author, I know,
much offended with M. Jaggard (that altogether unknowne to him)
presumed to make so bold with his name. These and the like
dishonesties I knowe you to bee cleere of ; and I could wish but to
bee the happy author of so worthy a worke as I could willingly commit
to your care and workmanship.
Yours ever, THOMAS HEYWOOD
So, in addition to having direct evidence that Shakespeare's name was
used to market works, we also know that Shakespeare was offended by
the publication under his name, because Thomas Heywood wrote about
that very thing in 1612 [long after North was dead].
Dom
Dominic Hughes
He didn't maintain him in any way similar to the way the patronage
system worked. He put him up for a while in a flea-bag motel, and
then bought plays from him. Give it up already. Gullio is not the
player/dramatist, and Gullio is not Shakespeare.
> And Gullio hired Ingenioso to write a poem for him -- that Gullio
> would then amend and pass of as his own. And Gullio once gave him a
> suit of clothes (evidently from his "apparel" worth 200 pounds.)
Now you're just making things up.. Ingenioso himself [the character
you elsewhere take so literally] says that his suit was purchased from
an Irish soldier.
"Oh! it is a most lousy cast suit of his, that he before bought of an
Irish soldier."
Gullio was in Ireland. Do you have any evidence that William
Shakespeare was ever in Ireland, or that the Parnassus audience would
have any reason to believe Shakespeare was recently returned from
Ireland? Of course, they would make that connection with Southampton.
> Gullio did not have a large castle or manor that Ingenioso lived at.
> He did not have an entourage that Ingenioso then joined.
> To argue that what Gullio was doing and what the actor-dramatist was
> doing was completely different reminds one of the claim that the
> boastful, jack-of-all-trades actor-dramatist who loves his own verse
> -- was not boastful or a jack-of-all trades.
You're still flailing about. The player/dramatist was not a patron,
was not the same character as Gullio, and was not Shakespeare. The
evidence shows that the player/dramatist was a writer of morality
plays who hired Greene when he first started writing for the theater
(@ 1587). The evidence shows that there is no real similarity between
the player/dramatist and Gullio. The evidence shows that Gullio is a
caricature of Southampton. Why don't you specifically address that
evidence?
Dom
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> > Chettle,"
> Yes, Henry Chettle guaranteed the work (i.e., he published it himself).
> I wonder why "Dennis" would be suspicious of a writer who published a
> work himself?
> Dennis responded: No. Other works were not registered "on the peril" of someone.
You really have no clue, do you? Works were registered "at the peril"
of
other publishers since 1580.
Dennis responds: No, but very close, Tom. "Tolerated" was used in
1580 -- and there was an "at peril" in 1583. But you're right that I
should amend. Let me quote an authority and amend my statement thusly
(emphasis added:)
"That it was normal company policy to enter only copies which had
been approved by a reputable licensing authority is implied by
OCCASIONAL entries in the Stationer's Register indicating EXCEPTIONAL
AND GRUDGING registration: copies "tolerated unto" their owners and
those to be printed "at the peril" of the registrant.... The
REMARKABLE entry "at peril" dates from 1583." Joseph Loewenstein,
"Ben Jonson and Possessive Authorship," Cambridge UP, 2002, 5.
Lowenstein notes that these fearful entries were used right after two
stationers were "convicted of slander and sentenced to lose their
right hands: only one of the two was pardoned." Lowenstein also notes
a "similar scruple" of a work registered to Edward White -- quoting:
"Edward hathe undertaken to beare and discharge all troubles that maie
arise for the printing thereof."
In other words, at "the peril" was not just some normal registration
-- but denoted an "exceptional" registration, confirming that there
was something potentially dangerous or libelous about the work and
that Chettle was going to bear all "troubles" that may arise
therefrom. (Hard to believe such commotion was caused by calling an
actor-dramatist conceited, right?)
"snip"
Snip? What you snipped was the fact that the work was not in
Greene's handwriting but Chettle's; Nashe and Chettle were both
accused of writing it, Harvey named Nashe as author of the work, and
Chettle, while denying authorship, actually wrote an apology for it!
Tell me true, Tom, does that raise any red flags for you? And don't
you find it the least bit ironic that, given your belief that so many
Elizabethan-Jacobean title pages were fraudulent, with printers and
publishers working to...um.... foist (hey group, is it okay, if I use
the word, "foist"?) plays of other people on to Shakespeare, that the
Groatsworth title page is one of the title pages you are going to
stand by? Big wink and smile, Tom.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 3:07 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn
> > ews:038171a5-fb1d-4711-b2a9-f65e4d592...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
Dennis responds: As Frode asked (but was never answered):
If someone other than William Shakespeare writes a play called X, and
it is published with “William
Shakespeare” on the title page, why is this an instance of conspiracy
if X is “Hamlet” or “Othello”, but not if X is “A Yorkshire Tragedy”
or “The London Prodigal”?
That's a good question. Someone want to answer?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:038171a5-fb1d-4711...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 1:11 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn
> > decided it would be best that "Greene's" work were all in the same
> > hand.
>
> the entire work in Chettle's handwriting *to disguise their authorship*.
>
> > This would be particularly true if, as I suspect, the middle part was
> > indeed an unpublished repentance piece by Greene.
> > But your view that Chettle really did not write the work -- and that
> > it was a coincidence that it was in his handwriting -- and that he
> > just apologized for it anyway -- is dully noted.
>
> Many are the things that "Dennis" dully notes. Chettle, of course,
> explicitly stated that he had copied over the work because "it was il
> written, as sometime Greenes hand was none of the best" (hardly
> surprising, given Greene's condition at the time of writing); "licensd
> it must be, ere it could bee printed, which could neuer be if it might
> not be read." (This is interesting: as we know, the work was not
> actually "licensd." If Chettle is telling the truth here, it would seem
> that he had planned to license it; and we may note that the work was
> entered on the Stationers' Register only 17 days after Greene died. It
> is possible that Chettle had prepared the work for publication as a
> favor to Greene, thinking to patent it and print it while Greene was
> still alive and the money it made could do him some good, but chose to
> print it without patent following Greene's death, when the money would
> no longer benefit him.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Harvey always was a pissant whereNashewas concerned.
>
>
> >> This will be completely convincing to anyone who has never actually
>
> >> > and include many of his phrases,
>
> >> found in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* derive fromNashe's preface to
> >> Robert Greene's *Menaphon*; it may be supposed that Greene was
> >> familiar with this work.
>
> > Dennis responds: Ahh, so Greene accidentally copied a writer who would
> > later be accused of writing the work.
>
> "Dennis" has inserted the word "accidentally" in a pseudoclever attempt
> using a shared vocabulary, as friends often do.
>
> > Very clever.
> > And then he had the foresight to make sure the written copy sent to
> > printers was not in his handwriting! Very, very clever.
> > As for the resemblance between Greene's Roscius comment and the
> > "Shake- Scene" comment, I do not deny. Lots of authors would mock
> > actors as being glorified by the work of others.
>
> Really, "Dennis"? So you're saying that lots of authors mocked actors by
> comparing them to "Esops crow, being pranct with the glorie of others
> bothThomas Northand Robert Greene attributed the story of the crow
> "decked with the feathers of other beautifuler birds" to Aesop?
>
> > It would become a standard jibe and I've referenced similar comments
> > by other writers. But if you want to believe Greene wrote the work, I
> > don't mind at all. But this is not what most orthodox scholars
> > believe. And its authorship has little to do with my thesis.
>
> it, hm? I wonder how many other data points will prove to have "little
> to do" with "Dennis's thesis" once Dennis decides to have "Dennis" stop
> defending them.
Dennis resopnds; Well, I feel no need to defend a *conventional*
viewpoint that I've already proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
If you want to believe it's a coincidence that Groatsworth was in
Chettle's handwriting (!) (and then Chettle apologized for what it
said)-- please do so.
Believe it with all your might. But I don't need to reprove the same
point over and over.
"Any day now we may find that the soundly refuted notion
that Gullio represents Shakespeare has little to do with "Dennis's
thesis"!
Dennis: "Soundly refuted..." Hmm. Yes, Gullio is really an Earl,
right? Just like the Upstart in Pierce Penniless-- and the Player-
Patron in Groatsworth..;)
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:038171a5-fb1d-4711...@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 31, 1:11 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote
> >> inn
> > ews:007a18a7-ce9e-4657-b644-39ddd577c...@p19g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Aug 30, 7:13 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> >> >> IOW it's ok to deny the ascription of a title page when it suits
> >> >> your sophistical agenda but in all other cases you must scream
> >> >> *COVER-UP!!!*, *CONSPIRACY!!!*.
>
> >> > Dennis responds: No, it's okay to think Chettle (likely along with
> >> >Nashe) may have written the beginning and end of Groatsworth and
> >> > pawned it off on the recently deceased Robert Greene when
>
> >> The phrase "Dennis" wants here is, of course, "palmed it off," not
> >> "pawned it off." "Pawned it off" is what the scholars over a Language
> >> Log call aneggcorn:
>
> > Dennis responds: "Pawn off" means to dispose or get rid of something
> > deceptively:
> > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pawn
>
> That's what "palm off" means; "pawn off" is, as I already said, aneggcorn.
>
> http://www.wordwizard.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21220
>
> "Dennis's" use of "pawn off" is a very subtle piece of characterization:
> it is, of course, a common variation on "palm off," and is also the
> usage one would expect from someone who, like "Dennis," is deaf to what
> words actually mean, and doesn't grasp the obvious connection between
> the phrase "palm off" and a magician tricking a gull by surreptitiously
> placing an object such as a playing-card on his person - "palming it off
> on him." It would have been surprising if "Dennis" had used "palm off"
> instead of a usage that sounds like it but makes no actual sense.
Oxford English Dictionary: Pawn: II. To pass off by trickery or
misrepresentation.
Mark, I type these at a mile-a-second and I'm sure I'll make a number
of mistakes, grammatical and otherwise. But it is an obvious mark of
desperation when you try to grandstand on such a mistake. And it
becomes, well, not a little silly when you continue to do it when it
is not a mistake at all.
>
> > And now we continue with the quibbles on every fact:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
>
> >> > 1) The printer Wright registers the work "on the peril of Henry
> >> > Chettle,"
>
> >> Yes,Henry Chettleguaranteed the work (i.e., he published it
> > Dennis responds: No,it just means thatNasheand Chettle, co-authors,
> > decided it would be best that "Greene's" work were all in the same
> > hand.
>
> Here "Dennis" professes to think thatNasheand Chettle conspired to put
> the entire work in Chettle's handwriting *to disguise their authorship*.
>
> > This would be particularly true if, as I suspect, the middle part was
> > indeed an unpublished repentance piece by Greene.
> > But your view that Chettle really did not write the work -- and that
> > it was a coincidence that it was in his handwriting -- and that he
> > just apologized for it anyway -- is dully noted.
>
> Many are the things that "Dennis" dully notes. Chettle, of course,
> explicitly stated that he had copied over the work because "it was il
> written, as sometime Greenes hand was none of the best" (hardly
> surprising, given Greene's condition at the time of writing); "licensd
> it must be, ere it could bee printed, which could neuer be if it might
> not be read." (This is interesting: as we know, the work was not
> actually "licensd." If Chettle is telling the truth here, it would seem
> that he had planned to license it; and we may note that the work was
> entered on the Stationers' Register only 17 days after Greene died. It
> is possible that Chettle had prepared the work for publication as a
> favor to Greene, thinking to patent it and print it while Greene was
> still alive and the money it made could do him some good, but chose to
> print it without patent following Greene's death, when the money would
> no longer benefit him.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > 4) Harvey accusesNasheof having a hand in Groatsworth.
>
> >> Harvey always was a pissant whereNashewas concerned.
>
> >> > 5) The controversial beginning and end are inNashe's style
>
> >> This will be completely convincing to anyone who has never actually
> >> read anything by eitherNasheor Greene
>
> >> > and include many of his phrases,
>
> >> All six of the "incredibly peculiar" phrasesNasheused that are also
> >> found in *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* derive fromNashe's preface to
> >> Robert Greene's *Menaphon*; it may be supposed that Greene was
> >> familiar with this work.
>
> > Dennis responds: Ahh, so Greene accidentally copied a writer who would
> > later be accused of writing the work.
>
> "Dennis" has inserted the word "accidentally" in a pseudoclever attempt
> to forestall the possibility thatNasheand Greene were intentionally
> using a shared vocabulary, as friends often do.
>
> > Very clever.
> > And then he had the foresight to make sure the written copy sent to
> > printers was not in his handwriting! Very, very clever.
> > As for the resemblance between Greene's Roscius comment and the
> > "Shake- Scene" comment, I do not deny. Lots of authors would mock
> > actors as being glorified by the work of others.
>
> Really, "Dennis"? So you're saying that lots of authors mocked actors by
> comparing them to "Esops crow, being pranct with the glorie of others
> feathers" - which is, according to you, a symbol for plagiarism used byThomas Northhimself? Wow! You're saying it's just a coincidence that
> bothThomas Northand Robert Greene attributed the story of the crow
> "decked with the feathers of other beautifuler birds" to Aesop?
>
> > It would become a standard jibe and I've referenced similar comments
> > by other writers. But if you want to believe Greene wrote the work, I
> > don't mind at all. But this is not what most orthodox scholars
> > believe. And its authorship has little to do with my thesis.
>
> Just asNashe's use of the phrase "English Seneca" has little to do with
sasheargold
If you tell somebody they are going to 'love' something, you should be
explaining to them what it is, NOT asking THEM to explain it to YOU!
> Why do you think Gullio -- this satin-clad fool who constantly recites
> lines from "Venus and Adonis" and ends up purchasing a "Venus and
> Adonis"-like poem from Ingenioso (Nashe) -- has a mistress named
> "Lady Lesbia"? (This is not the only place that a satirist links
> "Venus and Adonis" with "Lesbia.")
> Similarly, why do you think Nashe' "Upstart" has a mistress named
> "Lady Swine-Snout."- Hide quoted text -
>
I'll await your reply with interest, and composed of statements, I
hope, not questions!
SB.
> - Show quoted text -
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts.
Dennis responds: I guess my writing style must have really dropped off
since "Here Be Dragons," huh? Or else a lot of reviewers were
fooled. ;)
Anyway, Steese now scans an 85,000 page work arguing North wrote the
masterpieces
-- not to pose powerful counter-arguments or contradict some
significant claim -- but in search of some semantic error.
Steese: Other words he doesn't quite grasp are "anonymous" and
"pseudonym": in
*North of Shakespeare* he writes that *Greenes Groatsworth of Wit* is
"a
scandalous and anonymously published pamphlet attack on a politically
powerful family using barely-disguised pseudonyms that fooled no one.
"It would seem that in Dennisland publishing a book with the author's
name in the title counts as publishing it anonymously,..."
You neglected the first part of the sentence: "These analyses have
now confirmed that Groatsworth of Wit (1592) was the Primary Colors of
its day – a scandalous and anonymously published pamphlet-attack on a
politically powerful family..." What I mean by that, as everyone
knows who reads that chapter, is that just as Joe Klein didn't put his
name on 'Primary Colors," Nashe and Chettle didn't put their names on
Groatsworth. "Anonymously" stays. However, your other point on
"pseudonyms" is well taken and I've changed it to "barely disguised
caricatures."
*North of
> Shakespeare* has numerous instances of words that are similar to, and
> yet are not, the word intended: e.g., "The story of the sonnets will be
> explored in detail in the next installation."
Yep, you got me. It's been changed to "Installment."
Sometimes the effect is
> quite comical - "But the result of this continued conventional effort to
> scatter the sources helps the orthodox at least imbue Shakespeare with
> the craft of compilation." ("Dennis" likes this turn of phrase so much
> he uses it again in the following paragraph: "Horace Howard Furness,
> 19th century editor of the New Variorum editions of Shakespeare, also
> commented on this Stratfordian bias that imbues the dramatist with the
> craft of compilation...")
Dennis responds: Not sure why you dislike the phrasing, but you're
right that the phrase shouldn't be in two paragraphs in a row. That's
obviously a slip -- and is due to interpolation of a paragraph from
somewhere else. I've changed it.
sasheargold
It might cause a commotion if a person mentioned had powerful friends,
e.g. Marlowe being called an atheist and having connections to the
Walsingham family.
>
> "snip"
> Snip? What you snipped was the fact that the work was not in
> Greene's handwriting but Chettle's;
How does that make Chettle the original author?
> Nashe and Chettle were both accused of writing it, Harvey named Nashe as author of the work,
Where did Harvey do that? I don't remember.
> and Chettle, while denying authorship, actually wrote an apology for it!
He explains why. How does that make him the original author?
> Tell me true, Tom, does that raise any red flags for you? And don't
> you find it the least bit ironic that, given your belief that so many
> Elizabethan-Jacobean title pages were fraudulent, with printers and
> publishers working to...um.... foist (hey group, is it okay, if I use
> the word, "foist"?) plays of other people on to Shakespeare, that the
> Groatsworth title page is one of the title pages you are going to
> stand by?
Why did they have to be 'foisted'? Maybe he was compliant.
SB.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> OnSep2, 8:27 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
Dennis responds; In summary, the first dozens of pages of Groatsworth
tells of how Gentleman-Scholar -- who was banished from the family
estates by his brother -- came to write for a conceited, boastful,
jack-of-all trades actor-dramatist who loves his own verse and hires
scholars -- only to conclude with a letter to gentleman-scholars
warning them about the boastful, jack-of-all-trades "Shake-Scene" who
loves his own verse and hires scholars. Dom here is trying to argue
the two have nothing to do with each other -- that it is just a
coincidence that the beginning of Groatsworth is about a scholar-
hiring actor-dramatist. Dom also mentions certain specifics about the
actor-dramatist -- like that he wrote morality plays -- and then
demands evidence that Shakespeare wrote morality plays. But as
everyone knows, we have no records whatsoever of what Shakespeare did
during the lost years (1585-1592), so any detail mentioned about what
he did during this time will have no evidence, whether for or
against.
> > 1) "I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was
> > any of my time.
>
> He's an actor, famous for playing certain roles.
Yeah, this meek, non-boaster claimed he is "as famous for" it as
anyone else of his time has ever been. But that's not a "boast,"
right?
Just a statement of fact?
Did Shakespeare ever
> play the part of Delphrigus? What play was this in?
>
> > 2) The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the
> > Stage,
>
> Did Shakespeare ever act in The Twelve Labours of Hecules?
>
> > 3) played three Scenes of the Devil in the Highway to Heaven.
>
> What play is this and when did Shakespeare act in it?
>
> > 4) able at my proper cost to build a Windmill.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> > 5) I can serve to make a pretty speech
>
> How boastful...
>
> > 6) I was a country author, passing at a Moral, for ‘twas I that penned
> > the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of Dives,
>
> Most likely morality plays...do you have any evidence that Shakespeare
> wrote them? No..I didn't think so.
>
> > 7) for seven years space was absolute Interpreter to the puppets
>
> So if these events describe Greene's entry into the theatrical world,
> around 1587, the actor/dramatist was serving as "Interpreter to the
> puppets" in about 1580, when Shakespeare was 16 years old.
>
> > 8) Was not this pretty for a plain rhyme extempore? If ye will ye
> > shall have more.
>
> How boastful...seems pretty tame to me.
Dennis responds: Um, Dom, he just recited verse out loud to this
person he just met -- and then asked him if to agree that his lines
were "pretty".
What exactly would he have to do for you to consider him conceited --
if not declare himself as famous as anyone of his time has ever been,
brag about all his abilities, and describe his own verse as pretty?
But it really doesn't make
> any difference, and if this is the only quibble you can raise you
> really have nothing -- especially since you are unable to counter the
> details that refute your contentions.
>
> > 9) To him "you would be taken for a substantial man," his response:
> > "So am I where I dwell"
>
> No boastful...just a statement of fact.
Dennis: Oh, yes, because self-complimentary statements of facts aren't
boastful.
>
> > 10) my very share in playing apparel will not be sold for two hundred
> > pounds
>
> Another statement of fact,
Dennis responds: Gullio says the same thing. That his "apparel" is
worth "two hundred pounds." EEBO shows that Groatsworth is the only
work in its database with such a comment.
And as you've admitted Gullio was boastful. And talking about his
astronomically (for that time) expensive "apparel" would be considered
one of those "boasts," would it not?
Dom: but, who cares, I'll let you have your
> quibble.
>
> The whole thing could be read as the actor/dramatist merely explaining
> his station in life. He may be proud or he may be conceited, but that
> really doesn't have any effect on the fact that the actor/dramatist is
> not identified with Shake-scene
Dennis responds; You mean other than when Shake-Scene is described as
a conceited, jack-of-all trades actor-dramatist who loves his own
verse and hires gentleman-scholars?
, and is, in fact, described in
> different terms.
Dennis resopnds: "different terms"? Shake-Scene is described as a
conceited, jack-of-all trades actor-dramatist who loves his own verse
and hires gentleman-scholars.
If you have any evidence that Shakespeare wrote
> morality plays it is time for you to produce it now. If not, it is
> silly for you to continue to argue against the evidence.
Dennis responds: Um, you take the fact that there is no evidence
whatsoever of what Shakespeare did between 1585 and 1592 as evidence
that he didn't write morality plays?
> As for being a jack-of-all-trades:
He declares that has 1) a great voice "The Twelve Labours of Hercules
have I terribly thundered on the Stage"
2) is a great actor, ("as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of
Fairies, as ever was any of my time. 3) can make a pretty speech,
4) was a country author of the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of
Dives, 5) produce "pretty" plain-rhyme extempore, 6) owns a wardrobe
for an acting company worth 200 pounds, 7) was for seven years space
was absolute Interpreter to the puppets and 8) is able at his "proper
cost to build a windmill." Essentially, every thing the Actor-
dramatist says is a boast about another ability.
But that's not really a jack-of-all trades? I'm pretty sure you denial
of this elementary fact comes not from an honest reading of the
player's words but really stems from the fact that Shake-Scene is
called a "johannes fac totum" -- and you are desperate to deny any
similarities.
the
> references you have supplied do not justify that interpretation. The
> plays that he wrote are out of fashion. That is why the players need
> to hire scholars.
Dennis responds: "The players"? Are you conflating this with the
letter of Groatsworth that does refer to the players and their hiring
of scholars?
And particularly one called "Shake-Scene?
sasheargold
And your taking it as evidence that he did.
>
> > As for being a jack-of-all-trades:
>
> He declares that has 1) a great voice "The Twelve Labours of Hercules
> have I terribly thundered on the Stage"
> 2) is a great actor, ("as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of
> Fairies, as ever was any of my time. 3) can make a pretty speech,
> 4) was a country author of the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of
> Dives, 5) produce "pretty" plain-rhyme extempore, 6) owns a wardrobe
> for an acting company worth 200 pounds, 7) was for seven years space
> was absolute Interpreter to the puppets and 8) is able at his "proper
> cost to build a windmill." Essentially, every thing the Actor-
> dramatist says is a boast about another ability.
We await your documentary evidence that the Stratman did any of these
things. or just one of them will do.
SB.
> But that's not really a jack-of-all trades? I'm pretty sure you denial
> of this elementary fact comes not from an honest reading of the
> player's words but really stems from the fact that Shake-Scene is
> called a "johannes fac totum" -- and you are desperate to deny any
> similarities.
>
> the
>
> > references you have supplied do not justify that interpretation. The
> > plays that he wrote are out of fashion. That is why the players need
> > to hire scholars.
>
> Dennis responds: "The players"? Are you conflating this with the
> letter of Groatsworth that does refer to the players and their hiring
> of scholars?
> And particularly one called "Shake-Scene?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
frode
Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation
of how
Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the theater.
That would have been some time around 1587...so this actor/dramatist
couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
Roberto?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> OnSep2, 12:23 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
>
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 30, 6:08 pm, sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 30, 10:12 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in news:f5302276-fa63-
> > > > 4284-8300-391b91a34...@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > Since my countryman Paul Crowley appears to have gone AWOL, I must
> > > > > play his part - at least in spirit. I think we get another Nashean
> > > > > joke here:
>
> > > > > Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
> > > > > shall I.....
>
> > "Lady Swine-Snout."- Hide quoted text -
>
> I'll await your reply with interest, and composed of statements, I
> hope, not questions!
You got it, SB: Lesbia was the name given to the wanton subject of a
number of sensual poems written by Catullus in 61 BC and is generally
thought to be a pseudonym for the notorious Clodia Metelli. Due to
Catullus's salacious writings and Cicero's detailed accusations of the
erotic exploits of Clodia, Lesbia would eventually become a classical
symbol for oral sex, both cunnilingus and fellatio. In Poem 79, for
example, Catullus indicated that Lesbius, the brother of Lesbia, would
often orally gratify her. "No acquaintance, we infer, will ever bring
himself to kiss Lesbius on the mouth," wrote Marilyn B. Skinner in an
article on the siblings "– for the man's foul breath indicates that he
practices cunnilingus, and upon his own sister at that." Lesbia also
became known as an expertise at oral sex herself. As referenced by
David Konstant and observed by the Catullus scholar N. Holzberg: "The
name Lesbius, like Lesbia, is chosen rather to suggest a penchant for
performing oral sex." Indeed, according to Holzberg's
interpretation, there are even more poems about oral sex among the
Catullus group than conventionally assumed. Even scholars who
conservatively question whether Lesbia really performed the acts
suggested by Catullus and Cicero still mention the reputation: "That
'Lesbia,' in addition to her many charms, was also a fellatrix cannot
be proved, though her reputation for stooping to the lowest acts may
partly derive from this activity."
So why did the author of The Return have Ingenioso (Nashe) write a
Venus-and-Adonis-like poem on behalf of "Lesbia," the very symbol of
cunnilingus and fellatio? The reason is simply that Venus and Adonis
was at that time – and continues to be to this day – the most famous
poem ever written that focuses to a great extent on oral sex.
Consider the transparency of the following passage in which Venus
implores Adonis to explore her with his mouth – to "Feed where thou
wilt:"
I'll be a park, and thou shalt be my deer;
Feed where thou wilt, on mountain or in dale:
Graze on my lips; and if those hills be dry,
Stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie.
Within this limit is relief enough,
Sweet bottom-grass and high delightful plain,
Round rising hillocks, brakes obscure and rough,
To shelter thee from tempest and from rain
Then be my deer, since I am such a park; (231-239)
In Shakespeare's Bawdy, Eric Partridge explained countless salacious
Shakespearean puns with a midwife's lack of squeamishness. But he
found the reference to the oral erotica alluded to in this particular
passage so blatant he did "not care to insult anybody's knowledge or
intelligence by offering a physiological paraphrase…"
Near the end of the poem, a boar kills Adonis in a most unusual
manner. Venus first sees the boar with blood covering its mouth –
"frothy mouth, bepainted all with red, / Like milk and blood being
mingled both together " – and later discovers that the boar has
accidentally killed Adonis while giving a "kiss" to his groin: "But
by a kiss thought to persuade him there; /And nuzzling in his flank,
the loving swine / Sheathed unaware the tusk in his soft groin."
Venus then suggests she has kissed Adonis like the boar has, and notes
"'Had I been toothed like him, I must confess, /With kissing him I
should have killed him first….With this, she falleth in the place she
stood, /And stains her face with his congealed blood."
The very last stanzas, referring to the phallic purple flower that
grows from Adonis's blood, also conjures imagery of fellatio. "A
purple flower sprung up, chequ'red with white, …/ She bows her head
the new-sprung flower to smell, / …She crops the stalk, and in the
breach appears /Green-dropping sap, …./ Sweet issue of a more sweet-
smelling sire …./There shall not be one minute in an hour / Wherein I
will not kiss my sweet love's flower.'"
It seems the author of The Return may have underscored Lesbia's oral
reputation when she is introduced into the play in the following
manner:
Gullio: …it pleased me to bestow love, this pleasing fire, upon Lady
Lesbia: many a health have I drunk to her upon my native knees, eating
that happy glass in honour of my mistress!
As noted by Eric Partridge in Shakespeare's Bawdy, the word "glass"
was an Elizabethan euphemism for "hymen." Partridge used a line from
Shakespeare's Pericles (4.5.142-144) to make the point: "'Boult, take
her away; use her at thy pleasure: crack the glass of her virginity,"
and Partridge notes that "glass" in this sense refers to "the membrane
constituting her maidenhead." Thus, Gullio, in order to "bestow
love, this pleasing fire, upon Lady Lesbia," he begins to drink "upon
my native knees, eating that happy glass." The lines, perhaps, read
more naturally as a reference to cunnilingus than they do as an
allusion to a toast.
Now, next up, why does Nashe (who, remember, was writing for
Shakespeare in 1592 at this time) refer to the "Upstart's" mistress as
"Lady Swine-Snout"?
sasheargold
Thanks Dennis, that's very interesting. Of course Gullio asks
Ingenioso to play the part of his mistress at one stage, again perhaps
a pointer to his bisexuality.
> Now, next up, why does Nashe (who, remember, was writing for
> Shakespeare in 1592 at this time) refer to the "Upstart's" mistress as
> "Lady Swine-Snout"?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wait to hear more.
SB.
Mark Steese
news:b81442d5-81c9-4b98...@n19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>> This whole notion of Shakespeare being framed by the printers, that
>> Dennis has dully noted, strikes me as a very strange locution.
>
> Well, you choose the term. In the view of the orothodox (and probably
> in your view), supposedly the printers and publishers knew that
> Shakespeare had not written London Prodigal, Yorkshire Tragedy,
> Troublesome Raigne, The Contention, True Tragedy, etc., etc., - yet
> they still put Shakespeare's name on the title page. "So they
> were ............[fill in the blank]..... Shakespeare." They were
> doing "what" to Shakespeare? "Conspiring to attribute plays falsely
> to"? "foist other people's plays on"? "Pawn off the plays of
> others"? "frame"?
"Dennis" once again makes an unsupported claim regarding "the view of
the orothodox" with regard to the printers and publishers of Shakey's
day. When there is an 'orothodox' view that really does coincide with
part of the Daffy North HypothesisŠ, e.g., the view that other authors
besides Robert Greene had a hand in writing *Greene's Groatsworth of
Wit*, "Dennis" has no problem finding quotations. Strangely enough, he
hasn't produced a single quotation from anyone, scholar or non-scholar,
expressing the view that Shakespeare must have been "framed" for
"inferior work."
Here's what Gary Taylor says in *William Shakespeare: A Textual
Companion* regarding the attribution of *A Yorkshire Tragedy*:
"The attribution to Shakespeare is probably, in this instance,
deliberately dishonest. However, the head title identifies the play as
'All's One, or, One of the foure Plaies in one, called a York-shire
Tragedy'; the brevity of the text supports this claim that it formed one
of several short dramatic entertainments presented on a single occasion,
a genre which survives in the titles of other extant and lost texts. If
so, Shakespeare might have written one of the other 'foure Plaies in
one' presented on that occasion; such a 'collaboration' with Middleton
in 1605 would not be surprising (see *Timon*, above), and would explain
how Shakespeare might have been honestly if mistakenly credited with *A
Yorkshire Tragedy*." (pp. 140-141)
The reader may infer that Taylor believes that *A Yorkshire Tragedy* is
not Shakespeare's work, and that Thomas Pavier knew it; but since Taylor
is an actual scholar, he acknowledges that he may be wrong. Taylor also
explains his reasons for believing that *A Yorkshire Tragedy* was not
written by Shakespeare and briefly discusses the hypothesis that it was
a collaboration between Middleton and Shakespeare. He also refrains from
speculating on Pavier's possible motives for the possibly dishonest
attribution.
With regard to *The London Prodigal*, Taylor writes only that "No
serious scholar has taken the attribution seriously; but no convincing
alternative has been offered." (p. 138) Among the scholars who have
expressed an opinion on what the publisher knew about the play's
authorship, Dieter Mehl wrote that "We shall never know whether the
first publisher thought of the ascription as a mere salesman's ploy or
whether he seriously believed that Shakespeare had a hand in the
composition, but the mere fact of the author's name appearing on the
title page and the light it throws on Elizabethan and Jacobean
conceptions of authorship make the play worthy of some attention" (see
Chapter 9, "*The London Prodigal* as Jacobean City Comedy," in *Plotting
Early Modern London: New Essays on Jacobean City Comedy*, Ashgate
Publishing, 2004).
In general, scholars who have both assumed some plays were deliberately
misattributed and speculated about the publishers' motives have
concluded, as Lukas Erne did in *Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist*,
that the misattributions are "evidence of further attempts to make money
with [Shakespeare's] name" (p. 69). Erne speculates that Francis Meres's
*Palladis Tamia* "turned 'Shakespeare' into a name with which publishers
expected to make money"; he points out that Shakespeare's name first
started appearing on title pages shortly after *Palladis Tamia* was
published, and that "the strategy would seem to have been successful"
for publications such as *The Passionate Pilgrim*, which went through
multiple editions in the space of a few years.
"Dennis" has repeatedly mocked the view that the publishers of
Shakespeare's day would have acted unscrupulously in order to make
money. In "Dennis's" view, Jacobean publishers were scrupulously honest.
The fact that the Lord Chamberlain issued an edict to the Stationers'
Company in June 1637 admonishing them for unfairly publishing plays,
noting that players had complained to him that "not only they themselves
had much prejudice, but the books much corruption, to the injury and
disgrace of the authors," only shows how far standards had fallen since
Shakespeare's death. As for Heminges and Condell's assertion that prior
to the publication of the First Folio readers "were abus'd with diuerse
stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and
stealthes of iniurious impostors, that expos'd them," that must apply
only to the 1622 quarto of *Othello*, since no other play printed prior
to 1623 was ever falsely attributed or printed from anything other than
a perfect copy.
--
One amateur theologian even swore that Death Valley was literally the
roof of the Biblical Hell and that he could hear the "wails of the
damned" crying out from the "Devil's Domain" below.
-Richard E. Lingenfelter
Dominic Hughes
No answer.
>or a crow,
No answer.
> or a jack-of-all
> > trades...
A pathetic attempt at an answer.
> proximity in a pamphlet does not mean the fictional character
> > in the story and the real person, Shake-scene, in the missive are one
> > and the same. In fact, the details show that they are not.
>
> > The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation of how
> > Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the theater.
> > That would have been some time around 1587...so this actor/dramatist
> > couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
No answer.
> > > In fact, the allusions therein
> > > > show that it is someone other than Shakespeare [a writer of morality
> > > > plays]. Therefore, its significance as real-world evidence for the
> > > > question that I posed to you is nil. If this is the best you can
> > > > provide, I take it you have none of the actual evidence that I
> > > > requested.
>
> > No answer.
Still no answer.
> > > > > Chettle: Hey, I just thought of something. You know how we're now
> > > > > writing about Gentleman-Dramatists who write plays for a conceited,
> > > > > jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his own verse
> > > > > -- you know, who sell plays to "Shake-Scene" and company?
>
> > > > It is only in your imagination that Shakespeare is referenced in the
> > > > first part of Groatsworth.
>
> > No answer.
>
> > > > >Nashe: Yeah.
>
> > > > There is no proof that Nashe had a part in writing Groatsworth, but
> > > > don't let that stop you from treating your speculations as fact.
>
> > No answer.
>
> > > > > Chettle: Well, doesn't that sound familiar at all?
> > > > >Nashe: Not sure what you're getting at.
> > > > > Chettle: Well, the entire long beginning of "Groatsworth" that we just
> > > > > finished writing and was penned over 7000 words, and takes up dozens
> > > > > of pages, and serves as the introduction to this concluding letter, is
> > > > > about the life of a gentleman-dramatist who ends up writing for a
> > > > > conceited, jack-of-all trades, upstart actor-dramatist, who loves his
> > > > > own verse.
>
> > > > No, it isn't at all. The player in the "Roberto" portion of
> > > > Groatsworth is never referred to as an upstart, conceited, or a jack-
> > > > of-all-trades.
>
> > > Dennis responds: Yeah, the actor-dramatist is not really "conceited"
> > > or a "jack of all trades" -- he just boasts (I am sorry, I mean,
> > > "meekly admits") things like this:
>
> Dennis responds; In summary, the first dozens of pages of Groatsworth
> tells of how Gentleman-Scholar -- who was banished from the family
> estates by his brother -- came to write for a conceited, boastful,
I've already said I'd give you these little quibbles. All they show
is that the author of Groats-worth thought that actors were conceited
and boastful. Wow...there's a big surprise.
> jack-of-all trades
No, he isn't shown as a jack-of-all-trades. In fact, at the time that
Roberto meets up with him, the type of play that he was able to write
is no longer in fashion, and hasn't been for a long time, so he is, at
this time, merely an actor. He is not writing for his company.
> actor-dramatist who loves his own verse and hires
> scholars -- only to conclude with a letter to gentleman-scholars
> warning them about the boastful, jack-of-all-trades "Shake-Scene" who
> loves his own verse and hires scholars. Dom here is trying to argue
> the two have nothing to do with each other -- that it is just a
> coincidence that the beginning of Groatsworth is about a scholar-
> hiring actor-dramatist.
I am arguing that they are different characters in different times,
actually, as the missive in Groats-worth is written about events at
the end of Greene's life, circa 1592 [whether he actually wrote the
work or not] and the opening part of Groats-worth concerns how he got
into the business of writing plays for the theater in the first place
[@ 1587].
> Dom also mentions certain specifics about the
> actor-dramatist -- like that he wrote morality plays -- and then
> demands evidence that Shakespeare wrote morality plays. But as
> everyone knows, we have no records whatsoever of what Shakespeare did
> during the lost years (1585-1592), so any detail mentioned about what
> he did during this time will have no evidence, whether for or
> against.
Correct, there is no evidence that Shakespeare wrote any morality
plays, as there are no references whatsoever to him ever having done
so. And yet you want to ignore that fact. Another fact you need to
ignore is that morality plays had already going out of fashion by the
1570's. You're also skipping that little detail about how the actor/
former dramatist had written plays for at least seven years going back
in time. That would not be applicable to Shakespeare unless you think
he was writing plays in his late teens.
Is your theory that Shakespeare was writing such plays in his late
teens?
Another difference is that the actor/former dramatist treats Roberto
well. Shake-scene does not treat him well.
> > > 1) "I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was
> > > any of my time.
>
> > He's an actor, famous for playing certain roles.
>
> Yeah, this meek, non-boaster claimed he is "as famous for" it as
> anyone else of his time has ever been. But that's not a "boast,"
> right?
> Just a statement of fact?
Sure. One thing you are ignoring here is that the author of the
letter portion of Groats-worth felt no compunction whatsoever about
identifying William Shakespeare as the person to be avoided [Shake-
scene and the line from 3HVI make this identification quite clear].
On the other hand, none of the works or roles mentioned in the story
of Roberto have any known correlation to William Shakespeare. None.
At all. Just some more of the details you would rather ignore, but if
the author of Groats-worth felt safe identifying Shakespeare in the
letter there is no reason to think he would have made all of these
allusions, in the story portion, to things that do not identify
William Shakespeare. In fact, it must be considered much more likely
that they refer to some other person entirely.
> Did Shakespeare ever
>
> > play the part of Delphrigus? What play was this in?
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 2) The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the
> > > Stage,
>
> > Did Shakespeare ever act in The Twelve Labours of Hecules?
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 3) played three Scenes of the Devil in the Highway to Heaven.
>
> > What play is this and when did Shakespeare act in it?
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 4) able at my proper cost to build a Windmill.
>
> > What does this mean?
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 5) I can serve to make a pretty speech
>
> > How boastful...
>
> > > 6) I was a country author, passing at a Moral, for ‘twas I that penned
> > > the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of Dives,
>
> > Most likely morality plays...do you have any evidence that Shakespeare
> > wrote them? No..I didn't think so.
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 7) for seven years space was absolute Interpreter to the puppets
>
> > So if these events describe Greene's entry into the theatrical world,
> > around 1587, the actor/dramatist was serving as "Interpreter to the
> > puppets" in about 1580, when Shakespeare was 16 years old.
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 8) Was not this pretty for a plain rhyme extempore? If ye will ye
> > > shall have more.
>
> > How boastful...seems pretty tame to me.
>
> Dennis responds: Um, Dom, he just recited verse out loud to this
> person he just met -- and then asked him if to agree that his lines
> were "pretty".
> What exactly would he have to do for you to consider him conceited --
> if not declare himself as famous as anyone of his time has ever been,
In a specific role...
> brag about all his abilities, and describe his own verse as pretty?
As I've said, this is a minor quibble that really does nothing to
advance your argument.
> But it really doesn't make
> > any difference, and if this is the only quibble you can raise you
> > really have nothing -- especially since you are unable to counter the
> > details that refute your contentions.
No answer.
> > > 9) To him "you would be taken for a substantial man," his response:
> > > "So am I where I dwell"
>
> > No boastful...just a statement of fact.
>
> Dennis: Oh, yes, because self-complimentary statements of facts aren't
> boastful.
Not necessarily. I suppose he could have dishonestly employed sock
puppets to boast about him.
> > > 10) my very share in playing apparel will not be sold for two hundred
> > > pounds
>
> > Another statement of fact,
>
> Dennis responds: Gullio says the same thing. That his "apparel" is
> worth "two hundred pounds." EEBO shows that Groatsworth is the only
> work in its database with such a comment.
You are being dishonest here again. Gullio does not say the same
thing as the player. Gullio has a personal wardrobe worth 200
pounds. The actor has costumes worth 200 pounds. You really should
stop making things up.
> And as you've admitted Gullio was boastful. And talking about his
> astronomically (for that time) expensive "apparel" would be considered
> one of those "boasts," would it not?
Yes, that would be boastful, but saying that the theater is doing so
well that you have costumes worth 200 pounds is not necessarily
boastful. The actor is explaining to Roberto that money can be made
in the theater business.
> Dom: but, who cares, I'll let you have your
> > quibble.
>
> > The whole thing could be read as the actor/dramatist merely explaining
> > his station in life. He may be proud or he may be conceited, but that
> > really doesn't have any effect on the fact that the actor/dramatist is
> > not identified with Shake-scene
>
> Dennis responds; You mean other than when Shake-Scene is described as
> a conceited, jack-of-all trades actor-dramatist who loves his own
> verse and hires gentleman-scholars?
Your interpretation, even stated repeatedly, does not make it so, but,
yes, even if Shake-scene is described the way that you say, it does
not make him the same character as the actor/former dramatist from the
story that begins Groats-worth.
> , and is, in fact, described in
>
> > different terms.
>
> Dennis resopnds: "different terms"? Shake-Scene is described as a
> conceited, jack-of-all trades actor-dramatist who loves his own verse
> and hires gentleman-scholars.
And the actor in the story is described as an actor who used to write
morality plays now long out of fashion, who had already been writing
plays for some seven years, is not at all a jack-of-all trades, thinks
his verse is pretty, and hired Roberto to write plays for his
company. Ignore the differences if you'd like.
> If you have any evidence that Shakespeare wrote
> > morality plays it is time for you to produce it now. If not, it is
> > silly for you to continue to argue against the evidence.
>
> Dennis responds: Um, you take the fact that there is no evidence
> whatsoever of what Shakespeare did between 1585 and 1592 as evidence
> that he didn't write morality plays?
Um? No, I do no such thing. I take the fact that morality plays were
already going out of fashion in the mid-1570's as evidence that
Shakespeare didn't write them [since he was born in 1564]. I take the
fact that there are no references by any of his contemporaries to him
having written any such morality plays as evidence that he did not
write them. I take the fact that he most likely wasn't writing plays
for the actors in @ 1580 [when he was 16 years old] as evidence for
the fact that Shakespeare wasn't writing morality plays [as is said of
the actor/former dramatist in Groats-worth who was writing plays at
least seven years before]. If you are going to make claims it is
incumbent upon you to deal with all these details. You cannot pick
and choose among the facts that are presented.
> > As for being a jack-of-all-trades:
>
> He declares that has 1) a great voice "The Twelve Labours of Hercules
> have I terribly thundered on the Stage"
He's an actor.
> 2) is a great actor, ("as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of
> Fairies, as ever was any of my time.
He's an actor.
3) can make a pretty speech,
He's an actor who can extemporise some verse.
> 4) was a country author of the Moral of Man’s Wit, The Dialogue of
> Dives,
The key-word being "was" -- he is not currently a jack-of-all-trades,
as the plays that he had written are long out of fashion. His
"Almanack is out of date," another detail you simply ignore.
More detail you ignored in snipping the quotation:
"...I was a country Author, passing at a Moral, for 'twas I that
penned the Moral of man's wit, the Dialogue of Dives ..."
He used to write Morality plays ["passing at a Moral"], but he no
longer writes.
5) produce "pretty" plain-rhyme extempore,
He's an actor.
6) owns a wardrobe
> for an acting company worth 200 pounds,
He's an actor.
7) was for seven years space
> was absolute Interpreter to the puppets and
This one works to your disadvantage, in addition to showing that he is
not a jack-of-all-trades when Roberto meets up with him.
8) is able at his "proper
> cost to build a windmill."
God knows what this means.
> Essentially, every thing the Actor-
> dramatist says is a boast about another ability.
No, it is pretty much all about him being an actor. He is no longer
an author.
#'s 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 all involve acting.
#'s 4 and 7 are about the fact that, some time ago, he was a writer of
morality plays.
# 8 is about the fact that he could build a windmill or that he could
pay to have one made, I'm not really sure which.
> But that's not really a jack-of-all trades?
No, it isn't as I've shown quite clearly,
#'s 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6 all involve acting.
#'s 4 and 7 are about the fact that, some time ago, he was a writer of
morality plays.
# 8 is about the fact that he could build a windmill or that he could
pay to have one made, I'm not really sure which.
> I'm pretty sure you denial
Me Tarzan, Dennis Jane.
> of this elementary fact comes not from an honest reading of the
> player's words but really stems from the fact that Shake-Scene is
> called a "johannes fac totum" -- and you are desperate to deny any
> similarities.
No, it is your dishonesty, or psychological infirmity, that compels
you to see similarity where none exists and to ignore differences
where they do exist.
> the
> > references you have supplied do not justify that interpretation. The
> > plays that he wrote are out of fashion.
No answer.
> That is why the players need
> > to hire scholars.
Yes, the players, represented by this one particular player who used
to write morality plays but now has to hire scholars to write plays
since morality plays are long out of fashion.
> Dennis responds: "The players"? Are you conflating this with the
> letter of Groatsworth that does refer to the players and their hiring
> of scholars?
No.
> And particularly one called "Shake-Scene?
No.
Dennis employs his customary tactic of dodging by asking a question.
Dom
Mark Steese
news:4f10719c-7073-4a64...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 2, 3:21 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation
> of how Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the
> theater. That would have been some time around 1587...so this
> actor/dramatist couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
>
> Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
> there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
> Roberto?
Besides the names? Well, there's the fact that Roberto "grew *A malo in
peius*, falling from one vice to another" due to "conuersing with bad
company" after "hauing found a vaine to finger crownes" by writing plays
and selling them. "Dennis" would have us believe that even though this
appears in the paragraph immediately following the one in which the
player-patron hires Roberto, that paragraph alludes to North but the one
I quoted alludes to Greene.
If one bothers to actually read *Greenes Groats-Worth of Wit*, one finds
no division between the beginning of Roberto's tale and the point at
which the writer says "Heere (Gentlemen) breake I off *Robertos* speech;
whose life in most parts agreeing with mine, found one selfe punishment
as I haue doone. Heereafter suppose me the said *Roberto*, and I will
goe on with that hee promised: *Greene* will send you now his
groatsworth of wit..." There is no basis for the claim that the Roberto
who, like Greene (and unlike North) becomes "famozed for an Arch-
plaimaking-poet" is in any way a different character from the Roberto
who drags his younger brother Lucanio to a whorehouse and conspires with
one of the whores to steal Lucanio's money. There is contemporary
evidence that Robert Greene, like Roberto, consorted with whores; there
is no evidence that Thomas North ever did so.
Moreover, Greene attended Cambridge, where he received a B.A. and an
M.A.; if North received a degree during his time at Cambridge, there is
no record of it.
In sum, we have a book attributed to Robert Greene, a scholar who became
a debauched playwright living among low company, which features a
character named Roberto, a scholar who becomes a debauched playwright
living among low company. It's not impossible (though it is, in my
opinion, highly unlikely) that the character was intended to represent
someone other than Robert Greene; but given the absence of evidence that
Thomas North wrote plays, and the flimsiness of the supposed
correlations with North's life, there is effectively no possibility that
Roberto represents Thomas North. There is evidence independent of
*Greenes Groats-Worth of Wit* that Robert Greene wrote plays; there is
no evidence that Thomas North did so.
According to *North of Shakespeare*, "North wanted these long, refined
dramas to be read, writing them more for the page than the stage, and he
circulated his manuscripts among small elite circles, particularly the
literati surrounding the Earl of Leicester." If that were true, one
might expect those literati to have made some note of the fact - and
since they were noblemen, much of their correspondence has survived. We
know that in 1579 Leicester wrote to Lord Burghley, commending Thomas
North as "a very honest gentleman and hath many good things in him,
which are drowned only by poverty," but if Leicester and his
acquaintances ever read a play or poem written by Thomas North, it seems
that none of them thought it worthy of note.
--
Year after year you wrote up these stories, and they'd wind up archived
in a pile of cardboard boxes in the warehouse, flattening and drying
like pressed flowers under the weight of all the stories above them -
the unknown stratigraphy of your career. -Jordan Fisher Smith
Dominic Hughes
Frode:
Mark Steese has already more than ably handled this. Do you still
have other questions as to the similarities between the story and that
of Greene, as well as the differences between the story and the
biography of North?
Dom
Paul Crowley
> On Aug 30, 2:35 pm, sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
>> shall I.....
>>
>> Ingenioso is undoubtedly a homage to Thomas Nashe, and in Strange News
>> he mocks Harvey's Four Letters as 'going privily to victual the Low
>> Countries' - in other words, only fit to wipe your backside with after
>> defecating, 'Low Countries' being crude slang for buttocks. As Crowley
>> has often informed us, 'to die' is to have an orgasm.
>>
>> Therefore Gullio is expecting to die literally and metaphorically
>> while engaging in anal sex, and certainly with a male lover, in light
>> of the countess reference.
>>
>> SB.
>
> Most excellent...a very palpable hit. And it even has a whiff of
> Crowleyan interest.
> Great find. The correspondences keep piling up.
Initially I rejected this, on the grounds that it would
have been going too far to associate the death of a
famous person with cheap bawdiness. It would be
a bit like having Benny Hill tell his dirty jokes at the
funeral of Lady Diana. Another factor was that
Dominic found it amusing -- and that generally proves
it isn't.
But -- on reflection -- I'm sure it works.
It could not have been Nashe's creation. He would
merely have been repeating a common joke -- one
circulating among ordinary Londoners -- and one that
_they_ had already extended to the death of Philip
Sidney. That would have been necessary to sufficiently
modify the sting of the 'breach of good taste'
So congratulations! Time to submit it to 'Notes and
Queries'.
But Janice, if you do go for publication, you'll have to
reveal your full name.
Paul.
neufer
> neufer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is Gullio portrayed as having been abroad...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/3socr4y
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Did you mean "a broad" rather than "abroad," Art?
Dah!
Art Neuendorffer
Smiley Blanton
This is an interesting angle. Maybe Shakespeare was getting a cut of
the action.
// 0
> }
// 0
Mark Steese
news:b2d41809-ced4-4f8a...@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>> Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts.
>
> Dennis responds: I guess my writing style must have really dropped off
> since "Here Be Dragons," huh? Or else a lot of reviewers were
> fooled. ;)
Now, now, we all know that the real Dennis wrote *Here Be Dragons*. And
since it was published by a real publisher, we may also suppose that an
editor and a proofreader glanced at it once or twice.
> Anyway, Steese now scans an 85,000 page work arguing North wrote the
> masterpieces
Wait a minute - *North of Shakespeare* has 85,000 pages? Wow, I scan
faster than I realized.
> -- not to pose powerful counter-arguments or contradict some
> significant claim
I've already provided lots of those. Still waiting for your response on
my arguments against a pre-1594 date for the Peacham Manuscript. Don't
hurry on my account, though - I can wait.
> -- but in search of some semantic error.
If that were all I was looking for, I wouldn't have had to scan the work
- the whole thing is a semantic error, an absurd confusion of the
meaning of Shakespeare's works with the meaning of Thomas North's.
> Steese: Other words he doesn't quite grasp are "anonymous" and
> "pseudonym": in *North of Shakespeare* he writes that *Greenes
> Groatsworth of Wit* is "a scandalous and anonymously published
> pamphlet attack on a politically powerful family using
> barely-disguised pseudonyms that fooled no one. "It would seem that in
> Dennisland publishing a book with the author's name in the title
> counts as publishing it anonymously,..."
>
> You neglected the first part of the sentence: "These analyses have
> now confirmed that Groatsworth of Wit (1592) was the Primary Colors of
> its day -- a scandalous and anonymously published pamphlet-attack on a
> politically powerful family..." What I mean by that, as everyone
> knows who reads that chapter, is that just as Joe Klein didn't put his
> name on 'Primary Colors," Nashe and Chettle didn't put their names on
> Groatsworth.
No, they put Robert Greene's name on it. *Primary Colors* was literally
attributed to "Anonymous"; Klein made no attempt to palm it off an any
known author. It is ridiculous, even by Daffy North HypothesisŠ
standards, to assert that the book *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* was
published anonymously. Not as ridiculous as the comparison of *Greenes
Groats-worth of Wit* with *Primary Colors*, but that is matter for
another thread.
(And "confirmed" is another one of those words "Dennis" hasn't quite
grasped.)
> "Anonymously" stays. However, your other point on "pseudonyms" is
> well taken and I've changed it to "barely disguised caricatures."
Which is still ridiculous - but that was the point, yes?
--
The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the
"lustrous, pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt
paintings, and, the level of execution to one side, there are certain
unsettling similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion
Dominic Hughes
Yes, soundly refuted. And yes, actually, Gullio is Southampton, as
the evidence that has been introduced here quite clearly demonstrates
[maybe, one day, you will respond to it]. And, no, Gullio is not like
the Upstart in Pierce
Penniless or the player/former dramatist in Groats-worth. Your
speculative identifications are not proof of your speculative
identifications, especially so long as you ignore the actual evidence
that has been provided.
Dom
sasheargold
> On 30/08/2011 22:05, Dominic Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 30, 2:35 pm, sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
> >> shall I.....
>
> >> Ingenioso is undoubtedly a homage to Thomas Nashe, and in Strange News
> >> he mocks Harvey's Four Letters as 'going privily to victual the Low
> >> Countries' - in other words, only fit to wipe your backside with after
> >> defecating, 'Low Countries' being crude slang for buttocks. As Crowley
> >> has often informed us, 'to die' is to have an orgasm.
>
> >> Therefore Gullio is expecting to die literally and metaphorically
> >> while engaging in anal sex, and certainly with a male lover, in light
> >> of the countess reference.
>
> >> SB.
>
> > Most excellent...a very palpable hit. And it even has a whiff of
> > Crowleyan interest.
> > Great find. The correspondences keep piling up.
>
> Initially I rejected this, on the grounds that it would
> have been going too far to associate the death of a
> famous person with cheap bawdiness. It would be
> a bit like having Benny Hill tell his dirty jokes at the
> funeral of Lady Diana.
He'd have had a job - he'd been dead five years.
> Another factor was that Dominic found it amusing -- and that generally proves
> it isn't.
Nay, nay, and thrice nay. Dominic has a great sense of humour and
makes me laugh all the time - just as you do, actually.
>
> But -- on reflection -- I'm sure it works.
Ta muchly! I do take it as a great compliment that you approve. We're
talking about bawdy on this thread, so you can come and join in.
>
> It could not have been Nashe's creation. He would
> merely have been repeating a common joke -- one
> circulating among ordinary Londoners -- and one that
> _they_ had already extended to the death of Philip
> Sidney. That would have been necessary to sufficiently
> modify the sting of the 'breach of good taste'
>
> So congratulations! Time to submit it to 'Notes and
> Queries'.
>
> But Janice, if you do go for publication, you'll have to
> reveal your full name.
I couldn't possibly, I'm only one step ahead of them as it is, but
because I'm so happy I will let you call me Janice - for a little
while, anyway.
BTW, you seem full of beans - I bet you've been away for the recent
Bank Holiday, right?
SB.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
Dominic Hughes
> On Sep 2, 9:48 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 30/08/2011 22:05, Dominic Hughes wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 30, 2:35 pm, sasheargold <sashearg...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Gullio: he [Philip Sidney] died in the Low Countries, and so I think
> > >> shall I.....
>
> > >> Ingenioso is undoubtedly a homage to Thomas Nashe, and in Strange News
> > >> he mocks Harvey's Four Letters as 'going privily to victual the Low
> > >> Countries' - in other words, only fit to wipe your backside with after
> > >> defecating, 'Low Countries' being crude slang for buttocks. As Crowley
> > >> has often informed us, 'to die' is to have an orgasm.
>
> > >> Therefore Gullio is expecting to die literally and metaphorically
> > >> while engaging in anal sex, and certainly with a male lover, in light
> > >> of the countess reference.
>
> > >> SB.
>
> > > Most excellent...a very palpable hit. And it even has a whiff of
> > > Crowleyan interest.
> > > Great find. The correspondences keep piling up.
>
> > Initially I rejected this, on the grounds that it would
> > have been going too far to associate the death of a
> > famous person with cheap bawdiness. It would be
> > a bit like having Benny Hill tell his dirty jokes at the
> > funeral of Lady Diana.
>
> He'd have had a job - he'd been dead five years.
That hasn't stopped Oxenfordians before.
> > Another factor was that Dominic found it amusing -- and that generally proves
> > it isn't.
>
> Nay, nay, and thrice nay. Dominic has a great sense of humour and
> makes me laugh all the time - just as you do, actually.
I can only hope that I do not amuse you and make you laugh in
precisely the same way that Crowley does.
> > But -- on reflection -- I'm sure it works.
>
> Ta muchly! I do take it as a great compliment that you approve. We're
> talking about bawdy on this thread, so you can come and join in.
Yes, and the bawdy that's been discussed in these threads seems to be
actually present, unlike the crapping contests and Mary QS' wind-blown
breasts as imagined by Mr. Crowley.
> > It could not have been Nashe's creation. He would
> > merely have been repeating a common joke -- one
> > circulating among ordinary Londoners -- and one that
> > _they_ had already extended to the death of Philip
> > Sidney.
It probably wasn't Nashe's creation, as he most likely did not write
the Parnassus play in which the joke is found. It may have been a
common joke but that is not a certainty. It may very well be that
Southampton did compare himself to Sidney.
> That would have been necessary to sufficiently
> > modify the sting of the 'breach of good taste'
> > So congratulations! Time to submit it to 'Notes and
> > Queries'.
Quite magnanimous of Mr. Crowley. Credit where credit is due.
> > But Janice, if you do go for publication, you'll have to
> > reveal your full name.
Here we go with the Janice nonsense again.
> I couldn't possibly, I'm only one step ahead of them as it is, but
> because I'm so happy I will let you call me Janice - for a little
> while, anyway.
>
> BTW, you seem full of beans - I bet you've been away for the recent
> Bank Holiday, right?
How can you tell a difference...he is always full of something.
Dom
John W Kennedy
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in news:4e5fddff$0$326
> $607e...@cv.net:
>
>> On 2011-09-01 09:42:27 +0000, Mark Steese said:
>> Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
>> but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
>> conversation. -Rebecca Solnit
>>
>> "Do you think you can rout a million armed dwarfs by being 'not
>> romantic'?" -- C. S. Lewis
>
> ?
It just seems to follow logically.
--
John W Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
ignoto
This is like watching a grape be pulverized by a ten tonne wrecking ball.
Ign.
Dominic Hughes
> standards, to assert that the book *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* was
> published anonymously. Not as ridiculous as the comparison of *Greenes
> Groats-worth of Wit* with *Primary Colors*, but that is matter for
> another thread.
>
> (And "confirmed" is another one of those words "Dennis" hasn't quite
> grasped.)
>
> > "Anonymously" stays. However, your other point on "pseudonyms" is
> > well taken and I've changed it to "barely disguised caricatures."
>
> Which is still ridiculous - but that was the point, yes?
> --
> The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the
> "lustrous, pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt
> paintings, and, the level of execution to one side, there are certain
> unsettling similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion
I'm beginning to wonder if Dennis thinks that Shakespeare is
characterized as being "conceited" in the Groats-worth passage for the
reason that the word "conceit" is used therein.
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:b81442d5-81c9-4b98...@n19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> [snip]
>
> >> This whole notion of Shakespeare being framed by the printers, that
> >> Dennis has dully noted, strikes me as a very strange locution.
>
> > Well, you choose the term. In the view of the orothodox (and probably
> > in your view), supposedly the printers and publishers knew that
> > Shakespeare had not written London Prodigal, Yorkshire Tragedy,
> > Troublesome Raigne, The Contention, True Tragedy, etc., etc., - yet
> > they still put Shakespeare's name on the title page. "So they
> > were ............[fill in the blank]..... Shakespeare." They were
> > doing "what" to Shakespeare? "Conspiring to attribute plays falsely
> > to"? "foist other people's plays on"? "Pawn off the plays of
> > others"? "frame"?
>
> "Dennis" once again makes an unsupported claim regarding "the view of
> the orothodox" with regard to the printers and publishers of Shakey's
> day. When there is an 'orothodox' view that really does coincide with
> besides Robert Greene had a hand in writing *Greene's Groatsworth of
> Wit*, "Dennis" has no problem finding quotations. Strangely enough, he
> hasn't produced a single quotation from anyone, scholar or non-scholar,
> expressing the view that Shakespeare must have been "framed" for
> "inferior work."
Dennis responds: To paraphrase Frode:
If someone other than William Shakespeare writes a play called X, and
it is published with “William Shakespeare” on the title page, why is
this an instance of conspiracy if X is “Merchant of Venice” or "Love's
Labour's Lost”, but not if X is “A Yorkshire Tragedy” or “The London
Prodigal”?
That's a good question. Want to answer?
Or how about this one: Can you name one example in history in which a
printer or publisher purposefully and "dishonestly misattributed" a
single, stand-alone work --- whether a play, novel, or tome -- to a
living author in order to boost sales (or for any reason?)
Of course, the orthodox don't label their theory a "conspiracy
theory" or use the word "frame." Likewise, the Oxfordians also don't
describe their theory as a "wide ranging conspiracy theory with no
documented evidence." Instead, like the orthodox, Oxfordians try to
characterize their behind-the-scenes schemes of crediting one person's
works to another with the most neutral language possible -- as if
schemes to misattribute authorship was the most natural thing in the
world and happened to countless writers.
Still, facts are stubborn things: Scholars suppose the printers and
publishers were dishonestly getting plays from some actor (or some
other insider) of Shakespeare's company, and then were purposefully
fooling the public by placing his name on the works. As Karl Elze
wrote: "It cannot be ascertained how far the dishonest speculations
of booksellers may have intentionally concealed or perverted the true
state of matters. The name of Thomas Pavier...is enough to raise a
feeling of distrust... Pavier published editions that were obviously
pirated and distorted." "Written by W.Sh." where it seems certain
that a dishonest but cautious bookseller meant the public to construe
'W.Sh.' as 'William Shakespeare.' --
Here is Oxford English Dictionary on the word "frame":
Frame...to devise a scheme or plot with regard to; to make the victim
of a ‘frame-up’. slang (orig. U.S.).
Frame -up: "to pre-arrange (an event) surreptitiously and with
sinister intent; to plan in secret; to fake the result of (a contest,
etc.)."
What is more, scholars have to assume this "frame"ing of Shakespeare
for other people's plays happened again and again and again and again
-- with London Prodigal, Troublesome Raigne, Yorkshire Tragedy, The
Contention, Thomas Lord Cromwell," etc., etc.
It's an incredible notion -- and no amount of semantic quibbles will
hide this elementary fact.
> Here's what Gary Taylor says in *William Shakespeare: A Textual
> Companion* regarding the attribution of *A Yorkshire Tragedy*:
>
> "The attribution to Shakespeare is probably, in this instance,
> deliberately dishonest. However, the head title identifies the play as
> 'All's One, or, One of the foure Plaies in one, called a York-shire
> Tragedy'; the brevity of the text supports this claim that it formed one
> of several short dramatic entertainments presented on a single occasion,
> a genre which survives in the titles of other extant and lost texts. If
> so, Shakespeare might have written one of the other 'foure Plaies in
> one' presented on that occasion; such a 'collaboration' with Middleton
> in 1605 would not be surprising (see *Timon*, above), and would explain
> how Shakespeare might have been honestly if mistakenly credited with *A
> Yorkshire Tragedy*." (pp. 140-141)
>
> The reader may infer that Taylor believes that *A Yorkshire Tragedy* is
> not Shakespeare's work, and thatThomas Pavierknew it; but since Taylor
> is an actual scholar, he acknowledges that he may be wrong. Taylor also
> explains his reasons for believing that *A Yorkshire Tragedy* was not
> written by Shakespeare and briefly discusses the hypothesis that it was
> a collaboration between Middleton and Shakespeare. He also refrains from
> speculating on Pavier's possible motives for the possibly dishonest
> attribution.
Dennis responds: It is irrelevant what the motivation is. The
elephant-in-the-living-room -- the impassible mountain on your path --
is that scholars must argue that a dozen plays printed during
Shakespeare's lifetime -- by 16 different printers and publishers and
all performed by the theater company he was with at the time and all
attributed to him via title pages prior to 1620 -- were all falsely
misattributed. It doesn't matter if you want to assume a dozen
incredible mistakes in a row or assume 16 different printers and
publishers "have intentionally concealed or perverted the true state
of matters." It doesn't what specific fantastic assumption that you
want to suppose. The simple fact is, you can't name a single example
in history of a printer or publisher purposefully misattributing a
single play or novel to a living author in order to boost sales (or
for any other reason.) And you have to assume this occurred with
Shakespeare a dozen different times involving schemes that lasted 25
years. It's absurd. And other people who are not emotionally invested
in Shakespeare will also understand this basic fact.
>
> "Dennis" has repeatedly mocked the view that the publishers of
> Shakespeare's day would have acted unscrupulously in order to make
> money. In "Dennis's" view, Jacobean publishers were scrupulously honest.
Dennis responds: Well, I just find the notion that 16 different
publishers and printers would all falsely attribute incorrect plays to
the same man, for whatever imagined reason, to be absolutely
incredible. Notice such a thing has never happened to anyone else.
>Steese: The fact that the Lord Chamberlain issued an edict to the Stationers'
> Company in June 1637 admonishing them for unfairly publishing plays,
> noting that players had complained to him that "not only they themselves
> had much prejudice, but the books much corruption, to the injury and
> disgrace of the authors," only shows how far standards had fallen since
> Shakespeare's death. As for Heminges and Condell's assertion that prior
> to the publication of the First Folio readers "were abus'd with diuerse
> stolne and surreptitious copies, maimed and deformed by the frauds and
> stealthes of iniurious impostors, that expos'd them," that must apply
> only to the 1622 quarto of *Othello*, since no other play printed prior
> to 1623 was ever falsely attributed or printed from anything other than
> a perfect copy.
Dennis responds: 1) No, Richard III was printed by Matthew Law in
1622 -- and evidence indicates that both Law and Walkley (the printer
of Othello) were arguing with the Folio syndicate over copyright of
these plays. Heminges and Condell were most obviously not referring
to the plays that the Jaggards printed in 1619 -- as Jaggards were the
printers of the Folio.
2) Heminges and Condell's comment was not that uncommon -- and in no
way refers to completely rewritten or misattributed works: In 1657,
William Rawley, the personal secretary to Francis Bacon, published a
collection of his essays, making the exact same declaration about
"surreptitious copies" and "sundry corrupt and mangled editions:"
"But now, for that, through the loose keeping, of his Lordships
Papers, whilest he lived, divers Surreptitious Copies have been taken;
which have since, employed the Presse, with sundry Corrupt, and
Mangled, Editions... I thought my self, in a sort, tied, to vindicate
these Injuries, and wrongs, done to the Monuments, of his Lord|ships
Penne; And at once, by setting forth, the true, and Genuine, writings
themselves, to prevent the like Invasions, for the time to come."
So what does this mean? Does it mean that people were penning essays
themselves and foisting it on Bacon's name? Does it mean printers
were trying to misattribute works to Bacon? Does it mean that people
were using "memorial reconstruction" to create new essays based on
Bacon's work? No, of course not.
In the era before copy machines, all reproductions of essays, poems,
plays, etc., had to be produced by hand. This, of course, was an
error prone process, often resulting in wrong words, missing lines,
and other sorts of confusions. At times, in order to create numerous
copies at once, someone would dictate the manuscript to a number of
scribes. And this added the potential mistakes of mishearing words.
With each new copy of a copy, the original text would continue to be
degraded.
Sometimes, someone who got hold of one of these handwritten
reproductions -- whether it was of a nobleman's essay or some old play
or some posthumous poet's work -- would register it at the Stationer's
Company of London (an early form of copyright) and then sell it to
printers. And then it would be published anonymously or with proper
attribution to the original author. This could frustrate the original
writers or their heirs when they discovered published versions of
degraded copies of works they may not have wanted published or they
may have planned to sell to printers themselves. Various seventeenth
century prefaces, particularly collections of an author's works, would
note that previous, corrupt copies of the works had already been
published without permission, purposefully boasting that this
collection, in contrast, was printed straight from the original
manuscripts and so cured of all the blemishes that marred previous
copied editions.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the incredible claim of serial
misattribution.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> OnSep2, 1:10 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
>
>
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > > described as an upstart,
>
> No answer.
Dennis responds: ? Of course the player-dramatist who was once
poor, who "though the world once went hard with me" and was "fain to
carry my playing Fardel-a-footeback " and who now appears as a
"gentleman of great living" who "at proper cost can build a windmill"
and has apparel worth 200 pounds is an "upstart"! That's the
definition of an "upstart," someone who has suddenly risen in wealth
and influence. And notice Shake-Scene is an "upstart." So
essentially every description of Shake-Scene -- "upstart," "johannes
fact totum" "supposes he is as well able to bombast out blank verse as
the best of you" and "is in his own conceit the only Shake-Scene in a
country" -- is reproduced by the Player, who by the way is also an
actor-dramatist who hires scholars to write plays for him to boot.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't completely accidental and that the authors
had no idea that's what they were doing.
Dom: > >or a crow,
Dennis respondsd: First let it be clear, you claim Gullio is
Southampton yet he's never referred to as an Earl or described as
married to a Countess, or that he was born in Sussex, or that he was a
ward of Lord Burghley or [insert 100 other things about the life of
Southampton not mentioned in Parnassus, etc., etc. ] Now, is that
really evidence that Southampton is not Gullio? No, of course not.
That's a preposterous use of "absence of particular evidence" in a
situation that would demand abundant absence of particular evidence.
Since all dramas and romans a clef are extremely brief relative to the
lives and other allusions there are always going to be an inordinate
number of particulars that are not mentioned in such satires. What
matters is what is written -- not what is not written. Arguing
otherwise reminds one of creationists demanding fossil evidence of
every interim form while ignoring all the fossils of interim forms
that exist.
Now, here's the positive evidence that The Player is Shakespeare:
The entire, long 7000-word story is about a how a gentleman dramatist
came to write plays for a conceited, upstart, jack-of-all-
trades ,actor-dramatist who loves his own verse. This pamphlet is
then concluded with a warning to gentleman-dramatists to stop writing
plays for "Shake-Scene," who is described as a conceited, upstart,
jack-of-all-trades ,actor-dramatist who loves his own verse. Now, I'm
not sure that the author(s) of Groatsworth penned that long 7000 word
story about a conceited, upstart, jack-of-all-trades ,actor-dramatist
who loves his own verse -- only to end the story with a warning about
some other conceited, upstart, jack-of-all-trades ,actor-dramatist who
loves his own verse. Here's the passage on Shakespeare:
“Yes, trust them not, for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with
our feathers, that with his “tiger’s heart wrap’t in a Player’s hide,’
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best
of you, and being an absolute Johannes factotum is in his own conceit
the only Shake-scene in a country.”
1) "Upstart"
Though the Player, the actor-dramatist, was once poor ("though the
world once went hard with me" and he was "fain to carry my playing
Fardel-a-footeback ") he now appears as a "gentleman of great living"
"at proper cost can build a windmill" and has apparel worth 200
pounds. The actor-dramatist, like Shakespeare, is an "upstart".
2) " supposes he is as well able to bombast out blank verse as the
best of you"
"I can serve to make a pretty speech.... Was not this pretty for a
plain rhyme extempore?" The Actor-dramatist, like Shakespeare, thinks
he can write wonderful verse.
3) "johannes fact totum"
Though it is a relatively brief passage practically every statement
from the Player is about himself -- and is a boast about a different
trait or ability: including his great voice, his abilities as an
actor, his ability to make a pretty speech, his authorship of certain
plays, his ability "at proper cost" to build a windmill, his ability
to produce "pretty rhyme extempore," his work as a puppeteer and his
work has tireman, owning all the apparel for an acting troupe.
4) "is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country."
"why, I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever
was any of my time. The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly
thundered on the Stage,"
5) The Player, like Shakespeare, is one of the few who was an actor-
dramatist:
"For Shakespeare had the advantage, shared by few dramatic poets, of
being intimately concerned with every aspect of the theater; as
shareholder, actor, dramatist"
6) The Player, like Shakespeare, hired gentleman-scholars to write
plays
And that's not all:
7 -13) The Poem in Parnassus 3 which criticizes upstart actors like
Shakespeare clearly alludes to Groatsworth and the Player Scene:
“But is’t not strange these mimic apes [7] should prize
Unhappy Scholars [8] at a hireling rate?
Vile world, that lifts them up to high degree,
And treads us down in groveling misery.
England affords those glorious vagabonds,
That carried erst their fardels on their backs [9],
Coursers to ride on through the gazing streets,
[Sweeping] it in their glaring Satin suits [10],
And Pages to attend their masterships:
With mouthing words that better wits have framed [11]
They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named…[12]
So merry fortune’s wont from rags to take
Some ragged groom [13], and him a gallant make.”
(I.ii.1918-32)
[7] “...mimic apes ...”
From Groatsworth warning on Shakespeare: “…let those Apes imitate
your past excellence…”
[8] “...should prize /Unhappy Scholars at a hireling rate?”
In Groatsworth, the Player (Shakespeare) hires an unhappy scholar
(North): “On the other side of the hedge sat one that heard his
sorrow… ‘I suppose you are a scholar,’ [the Player said,] ‘and pity it
is men of learning should live in lack…’“ They both hire "unhappy
scholars"
[9] “those glorious vagabonds, /That carried erst their fardels on
their backs,”
The Player (Shakespeare) refers to the time “…when I was fain to carry
my playing Fardle a footeback;”
[10] “[Sweeping] it in their glaring Satin suits,”
The Player (Shakespeare) dresses above his station. “A player...? I
took you rather for a Gentleman of great living, for if by outward
habit men should be censured, I tell you you would be taken for a
substantial man.” Gullio and Sogliardo are explicitly described in
"satin suits."
[11] “...With mouthing words that better wits have framed ....”
In Groatsworth, Shakespeare and his fellow actors are decried as
“those Puppets (I mean) that speak from our mouths.” Later, the
gentleman-dramatists who speak through Shakespeare’s mouth are
referred to as “rare wits.”
[12] “They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named…”
As is conventional, this is a hit on Shakespeare and his recent
purchase of lands and his climbing of status.
[13] “Some ragged groom, and him a gallant make. “
“Ragged groom” is another allusion to Groatsworth’s attack on
Shakespeare: “:.. for it is pity men of such rare wits, should be
subject to the pleasure of such rude grooms.”
And that's not all. The Player shares numerous other characteristics
with Sogliardo, Gullio, and Asotus -- who also are clearly
representatives of Shakespeare:
14. He is an Upstart: Having started out poor and base-born, he has
become a man of wealth and influence and a wanna-be gentleman:
(Conventionally accepted description of Shakespeare’s reputation): The
Player/Shake-Scene; Sogliardo; Gullio; Asotus
15. Dresses extravagantly and in a manner above his station . This is
stated explicitly: The Player/Shake-Scene; Sogliardo; Gullio; Asotus
16. Flamboyantly (mis)uses foreign phrases: The Player/Shake-Scene;
Sogliardo; Gullio; Asotus
17. Described as or compared to a puppeteer: The Player/Shake-Scene;
Sogliardo
18. Recites verse when meeting someone, annoying the listener: The
Player/Shake-Scene; Gullio; Asotus
19. Associated with the North caricature: The Player/Shake-Scene;
Sogliardo; Asotus
20. Hires poor scholars to help him write plays/poetry or craft
dialogue (it is conventional that Shakespeare hired poor-scholars to
help him write): The Player/Shake-Scene; Gullio; Asotus
21. Has apparel worth exactly “200 pounds”: The Player/Shake-Scene;
Gullio
Now, prior to this, I asked Steese to give an example of the evidence
that indicates any character in the war of the theaters was meant to
represent some writer. He chose "Chrisoganus" in Histriomastix as
Jonson -- for which he supplied two reasons. 1) Chrisoganus was a
condescending playwright who sneered at players (and he believes that
Jonson could be described as that) and 2) there was a poem called
"Chrisgoanus" and it referred to its subject as having a "bad face"
and somewhere (that Steese didn't specify) Jonson also was described
as being not too handsome. Now, Chrisoganus in "Histriomastix" is not
described as a bad-face, but still Steese believes those two aspects
alone are enough to make a positive identification.
I just provided 21 above -- in which some of the hits like having
"apparel" worth "200 pounds," having "fardel a footbacke," being an
actor-dramatist who hires scholars, etc., etc. are incredibly
peculiar.
Mark Steese
news:5881b3be-afba-4580...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com:
> Labour's Lost," but not if X is "A Yorkshire Tragedy" or "The London
> Prodigal"?
> That's a good question. Want to answer?
As Dennis is well aware, "Dennis's" question is built upon a false
premise. If someone other than William Shakespeare writes a play called
X, and X is published with Shakespeare's name on the title page, that is
not in and of itself evidence of conspiracy, regardless of whether
modern scholars accept the attribution. Even if the phrase "Written by
William Shakespeare" on the title page of the 1600 quarto *The most
excellent Historie of the Merchant of Venice* is inaccurate, where is
there evidence that anyone involved in the production of the quarto knew
that Shakespeare didn't write it? And the same is true of the 1608
quarto of *A Yorkshire Tragedy*. There is no evidence to suggest that
Thomas Heyes thought Shakespeare didn't write *The Merchant of Venice*,
and none to suggest that Thomas Pavier thought Shakespeare didn't write
*A Yorkshire Tragedy*.
Here's a better question: If someone argues that a play was necessarily
written by Shakespeare if it was "attributed to Shakespeare by the title
while he was alive," Shakespeare never disputed the attribution, and the
play was "performed by Shakespeare's theater company," on what basis
does that person claim that *The Merchant of Venice* is just a crappy
rehash of a Tommy North masterpiece, given that the title page of the
1600 quarto of *The most excellent Historie of the Merchant of Venice*,
"As it hath beene diuers times acted by the Lord Chamberlaine his
Seruants," bears the unambiguous attribution "Written by William
Shakespeare," which was never disputed by Shakespeare? If the phrasing
"Newly corrected and augmented" on the 1598 quarto of *Love's Labours
Lost* indicates that Shakey rehashed a Northian work, doesn't the
absence of such phrasing on the 1600 *Merchant of Venice* indicate that
it's an original work of Shakespeare's?
And the same applies to the 1600 quarto *Much adoe about Nothing*, "As
it hath been sundrie times publikely acted by the right honourable, the
Lord Chamberlaine his seruants," and "Written by William Shakespeare."
If we use the same standards of evidence by which "Dennis" claims *A
Yorkshire Tragedy* is "A Shakespeare play written with the hired help of
Thomas Middleton," there is no basis for the claim that *Much Ado* is
"Shakespeare's adaptation of North's source-drama."
And the 1600 quarto *A Midsommer nights dreame*, "As it hath been sundry
times publickely acted, by the Right honourable, the Lord Chamberlaine
his seruants," with the unambiguous and never-disputed phrase "Written
by William Shakespeare" on the title-page, cannot be "A Shakespearean
adaptation of another personal satire by Thomas North."
The Daffy North Hypothesis© holds that the language "Newly imprinted and
enlarged to almost as much againe as it was, according to the true and
perfect Coppie," on the Q2 version of *Hamlet*, shows its Northian
roots; but where is that language on the 1608 Quarto of "M. William
Shake-speare, HIS True Chronicle History of the life and death of King
*Lear*, and his *three Daughters*," which was "plaid" "By his Maiesties
Seruants, playing vsually at the *Globe* on the *Banck-side*"? "Dennis"
asserts that Nathaniel Butter honestly attributed *The London Prodigall*
to Shakespeare in 1605, but *King Lear* - published by Butter in 1608 -
is merely an "extremely faithful Shakespearean adaptation of North's
*King Lear*."
> Or how about this one: Can you name one example in history in which a
> printer or publisher purposefully and "dishonestly misattributed" a
> single, stand-alone work --- whether a play, novel, or tome -- to a
> living author in order to boost sales (or for any reason?)
Sure: the 1600 quarto of *Merchant of Venice*, which must have been
purposefully and dishonestly misattributed; otherwise, "Dennis" would
have accepted it as a work as authentically Shakespearean as *A
Yorkshire Tragedy* and *The London Prodigal*.
> Of course, the orthodox don't label their theory a "conspiracy
> theory" or use the word "frame."
And "Dennis" claims that his view "is the only non-conspiracy theory
about Shakespeare's authorship." The attribution of *The Merchant of
Venice* and *Much Ado about Nothing* to Shakespeare under precisely the
same terms as the attribution of *A Yorkshire Tragedy* and *The London
Prodigal* must just be an odd coincidence, eh?
> Still, facts are stubborn things: Scholars suppose the printers
> and publishers were dishonestly getting plays from some actor (or some
> other insider) of Shakespeare's company, and then were purposefully
> fooling the public by placing his name on the works.
There is, of course, abundant evidence that men who published plays in
quarto were not excessively concerned with quality. The 1604 quarto of
Marlowe's *Doctor Faustus* is a notorious example of that lack of
concern. Marlowe (*pace* the Marlovians) was dead in 1604, but George
Chapman was decidedly alive when the "mangled, incomplete, and unusually
short" quarto of *The Blind Beggar of Alexandria* appeared in 1598.
Regrettably, no one bothered to produce a complete edition, though
Thomas Heywood was moved to provide one for the first part of his play
*If You Know Not Me, You Know Nobody*, having been annoyed by the
corrupt editions previously produced - as he put it in "A Prologue to
the Play of Queene *Elizabeth*, as it was last revived at the
*Cock-pit*, in which the Author taxeth the most corrupted copy now
imprinted, which was published without his consent":
"...some by Stenography drew/The plot: put it in print: (scarce one word
trew:)/And in that lamenesse it hath limp't so long,/The Author now to
vindicate that wrong/Hath tooke the paines, upright upon its feete/To
teach it walke, so please you sit, and see't."
This prologue first saw print in 1637; the first known quarto edition of
the play was published in 1605. If it took Heywood that long to get
around to complaining about the way his plays were treated, it hardly
seems fair to criticize Shakespeare for not doing so in the shorter span
of time he had available.
> As Karl Elze wrote: "It cannot be ascertained how far the dishonest
> speculations of booksellers may have intentionally concealed or
> perverted the true state of matters. The name of Thomas Pavier...is
> enough to raise a feeling of distrust... Pavier published editions
> that were obviously pirated and distorted." "Written by W.Sh." where
> it seems certain that a dishonest but cautious bookseller meant the
> public to construe 'W.Sh.' as 'William Shakespeare.'
The strategic ellipsis is another thing that is enough to raise a
feeling of distrust. Here's a less-truncated quotation from Elze: I will
leave the question of the extent to which "Dennis" misrepresents Elze as
an exercise for the reader.
"It is distinctly evident here how much depends upon external evidence,
for in the case of these doubtful plays, where the decision rests solely
upon style and metrical peculiarities, differences of opinion have
arisen that are scarcely likely to be satisfactorily settled; the less
so, as it cannot be ascertained how far the dishonest speculations of
booksellers may have intentionally concealed or perverted the true state
of matters. The name of Thomas Pavier, which recurs over and over again
in connection with this question, is enough to raise a feeling of
distrust at every step, for his name is not met with upon any one of
Shakespeare's undoubted works, with the exception of 'Henry V.' and the
Two Parts of 'Henry VI.,' of which plays Pavier published editions that
were obviously pirated and distorted." (*William Shakespeare: A literary
biography*, p. 359.)
Pavier's 'Shakespearean' texts are not the only ones scholars have
criticized: one of the quartos described as "wretchedly and carelessly
printed" by Thomas Pavier is the 1605 edition of *The Faire Maide of
Bristow*, which no one has ever attributed to Shakespeare.
"Dennis" evidently composed his response in great haste, as he has
neglected to indicate that the last item he quoted above is actually a
distortion of Tucker Brooke's work, not Elze's:
"In 1611, moreoever, the early play of *The Troublesome Reign of King
John* was republished with the new claim: 'Written by W. Sh.', where it
seems certain that a dishonest but cautious bookseller meant the public
to construe 'W. Sh.' as 'William Shakespeare'." (*The Shakespeare
Apocrypha*, p. xvi.)
It would of course be invidious to point out that since Elze's book was
published in 1888 and Brooke's in 1908, to the extent that they
represent orthodox opinion, they represent it as it was more than a
century ago.
--
> Here is Oxford English Dictionary on the word "frame":
> Frame...to devise a scheme or plot with regard to; to make the victim
> of a ‘frame-up’. slang (orig. U.S.).
> Frame -up: "to pre-arrange (an event) surreptitiously and with
> sinister intent; to plan in secret; to fake the result of (a contest,
> etc.)."
> What is more, scholars have to assume this "frame"ing of
> Shakespeare for other people's plays happened again and again and
> again and again -- with London Prodigal, Troublesome Raigne, Yorkshire
> Tragedy, The Contention, Thomas Lord Cromwell," etc., etc.
> It's an incredible notion -- and no amount of semantic quibbles
> will hide this elementary fact.
It's not an incredible notion, and no amount of assertion will make it
one. Why shouldn't a handful of plays have been falsely attributed to
Shakespeare during his lifetime? As Dennis knows quite well, plays
published anonymously during Shakespeare's lifetime were incorrectly
attributed to him after his death. *Mucedorus* was first incorrectly
attributed to Shakespeare in 1656; *Fair Em* has the distinction of
having been incorrectly posthumously attributed to both Shakespeare and
Robert Greene. And these misattributions have continued to the present
day: few scholars accept Eric Sams's claims that *Edmund Ironside* and
*The Raigne of King Edward the third* are Shakespeare's works. (Northian
theory dictates that Eric Sams must be engaged in a conspiracy to frame
Shakespeare for inferior works.)
>> Here's what Gary Taylor says in *William Shakespeare: A Textual
>> Companion* regarding the attribution of *A Yorkshire Tragedy*:
>>
>> "The attribution to Shakespeare is probably, in this instance,
>> deliberately dishonest. However, the head title identifies the play
>> as 'All's One, or, One of the foure Plaies in one, called a
>> York-shire Tragedy'; the brevity of the text supports this claim that
>> it formed one of several short dramatic entertainments presented on a
>> single occasion, a genre which survives in the titles of other extant
>> and lost texts. If so, Shakespeare might have written one of the
>> other 'foure Plaies in one' presented on that occasion; such a
>> 'collaboration' with Middleton in 1605 would not be surprising (see
>> *Timon*, above), and would explain how Shakespeare might have been
>> honestly if mistakenly credited with *A Yorkshire Tragedy*." (pp.
>> 140-141)
>>
>> The reader may infer that Taylor believes that *A Yorkshire Tragedy*
>> is not Shakespeare's work, and that Thomas Pavier knew it; but since
>> Taylor is an actual scholar, he acknowledges that he may be wrong.
>> Taylor also explains his reasons for believing that *A Yorkshire
>> Tragedy* was not written by Shakespeare and briefly discusses the
>> hypothesis that it was a collaboration between Middleton and
>> Shakespeare. He also refrains from speculating on Pavier's possible
>> motives for the possibly dishonest attribution.
>
> Dennis responds: It is irrelevant what the motivation is.
"Dennis" once again demonstrates his delightful antischolarship.
> The elephant-in-the-living-room -- the impassible mountain on your
> path -- is that scholars must argue that a dozen plays printed during
> Shakespeare's lifetime -- by 16 different printers and publishers and
> all performed by the theater company he was with at the time and all
> attributed to him via title pages prior to 1620 -- were all falsely
> misattributed.
Facts are, indeed, stubborn things: despite "Dennis's" claims, no
scholar must argue, and no scholar ever has argued, that a dozen plays
printed during Shakespeare's lifetime were inaccurately attributed to
him.
> It doesn't matter if you want to assume a dozen incredible mistakes in
> a row or assume 16 different printers and publishers "have
> intentionally concealed or perverted the true state of matters." It
> doesn't what specific fantastic assumption that you want to suppose.
It also doesn't matter how often "Dennis" deploys the adjectives
"incredible" and "fantastic"; he can never make anything incredible or
fantastic merely by saying so.
> The simple fact is, you can't name a single example in history of a
> printer or publisher purposefully misattributing a single play or
> novel to a living author in order to boost sales (or for any other
> reason.)
The simple fact is that no one can name a single example in history of a
scholar writing a single closet-drama and later selling it to the actor
under whose name it was published.
> And you have to assume this occurred with Shakespeare a dozen
> different times involving schemes that lasted 25 years. It's absurd.
> And other people who are not emotionally invested in Shakespeare will
> also understand this basic fact.
And Northians have to assume that some thirty-odd closet-dramas were
written and later sold to the actor under whose name they were
published. It's absurd. And people who are not emotionally invested in
North already understand this fact.
>>
>> "Dennis" has repeatedly mocked the view that the publishers of
>> Shakespeare's day would have acted unscrupulously in order to make
>> money. In "Dennis's" view, Jacobean publishers were scrupulously
>> honest.
>
> Dennis responds: Well, I just find the notion that 16 different
> publishers and printers would all falsely attribute incorrect plays to
> the same man, for whatever imagined reason, to be absolutely
> incredible. Notice such a thing has never happened to anyone else.
Everyone but 'frode' and "Dennis" finds the notion that a competent
translator of prose who never published a hint of blank verse or drama
under his own name would write thirty-odd masterpieces of blank-verse
drama (of which no record of his authorship was ever made) and sell them
to a player under whose name they would all be published, and whose
authorship of them would be accepted for centuries, to be as incredible
as 'frode' and "Dennis" supposedly find the hypothesis that publishers
falsely attributed a few works to a popular playwright. The fact that no
other playwright in history has incorrectly been credited with producing
works that he only edited after a genius-scholar sold them to him does
not seem to strike either 'frode' or "Dennis" as a fatal objection to
the Northian hypothesis, yet both of them seem to get irritated by the
credulity they perceive in others. In just such a manner do those who
accept without question the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead on
the Day of Judgment scoff at those who accept without question the
doctrine of transmigration of souls.
--
The Alps are grand in their beauty, Mount Shasta is sublime in its
desolation. -William H. Brewer
Dominic Hughes
> > > > described as an upstart,
>
> > No answer.
> Dennis responds: ?
Dennis is confused as usual. He is also going to ignore the fact that
the player wrote morality plays some time in the past and is no longer
a dramatist at the time he meets up with Roberto.
>Of course
Of course, Dennis will engage in circular reasoning and argument by
assertion, as that appears to be the only method with which he is
familiar.
> the player-dramatist who was once
> poor, who "though the world once went hard with me" and was "fain to
> carry my playing Fardel-a-footeback " and who now appears as a
> "gentleman of great living" who "at proper cost can build a windmill"
> and has apparel worth 200 pounds
This, of course, is a lie. The player, the one who used to write
morality plays but is no longer a dramatist, has theater costumes that
are worth 200 pounds.
> is an "upstart"! That's the
> definition of an "upstart,"
> someone who has suddenly risen in wealth
> and influence. And notice Shake-Scene is an "upstart."
No, he is an "upstart crow", but absolutely nothing is said in that
passage to show that he has acquired any wealth whatsoever. In fact,
it only describes him as someone who is writing plays and putting the
scholars out of work.
> So
> essentially every description of Shake-Scene -- "upstart," "johannes
> fact totum" "supposes he is as well able to bombast out blank verse as
> the best of you" and "is in his own conceit the only Shake-Scene in a
> country" -- is reproduced by the Player,
I've already shown that this isn't true. You appear to believe that
repetition will prove your point. In addition, you have failed, quite
dishonestly in fact, to address the differences between the player and
Shake-scene.
>who by the way is also an
> actor-dramatist who hires scholars to write plays for him to boot.
When are you going to address the fact that Shakespeare was too young
to be the player/former dramatist, that the player was no longer a
dramatist, that morality plays went out of fashion in the mid-1570's,
that the player was a writer of morality plays, that the player
treated Roberto well, and there is no word of ill-treatment on his
part [which is a more recent development with Shake-scene and others],
that the Roberto story is about the beginnings of Greene's career in
writing for the theaters, etc.?
It is readily apparent that you have no interest in debating these
questions, as you simply [and I mean that to also have the connotation
that you are simple] ignore, and fail to address, so many of the facts
which are produced in rebuttal of your claims. All you are doing here
is preaching, although the only choir you have is made up of sock-
puppets. As you are not an honest debater here, I now christen you
Den-hiss, for you speak with a forked tongue and have crawled from
some den of inanity.
As an aside to Mr. Crowley, here is some hyphenated word-play on a
real person's actual name, but it is not aq pseudonym.
> I'm pretty sure that wasn't completely accidental and that the authors
> had no idea that's what they were doing.
I'm pretty sure that the authors were not doing what you think they
were doing as there are substantial differences between Shake-scene/
Shakespeare and the player/former writer of morality plays in the
Roberto story...differenes that you choose not to address.
> Dom: > >or a crow,
>
> Dennis respondsd: First let it be clear, you claim Gullio is
> Southampton yet he's never referred to as an Earl or described as
> married to a Countess, or that he was born in Sussex, or that he was a
> ward of Lord Burghley or [insert 100 other things about the life of
> Southampton not mentioned in Parnassus, etc., etc. ]
Do you think the authors of Parnassus were so stupid as to not have
plausible deniability? Are you ever going to address all of the
correspondences that have been discussed here between Gullio and the
real-life events and character of Southampton, or do you choose to
ignore those because they conflict with your maniacal belief that you
are the only high priest with the knowledge of the Shakespeare truth?
> Now, is that
> really evidence that Southampton is not Gullio? No, of course not.
> That's a preposterous use of "absence of particular evidence" in a
> situation that would demand abundant absence of particular evidence.
Nobody here is arguing that the absence of evidence means anything
[well, you are arguing that we don't know whether or not Shakespeare
wrote morality plays, so he could have written morality plays -- even
though there are no references to him having done so and even though
the historical time-frame for those plays makes it extremely
improbable that he did so]. What I am arguing is that the probability
that Shakespeare actually wrote morality plays [as did the player in
the Roberto tale] is zero. In addition, the player in the Roberto
tale is no longer a dramatist. These are factors, along with others,
which show that he is not Shake-scene. While the player/former
dramatist and Shake-scene may share some characteristics, those are
characteristics that the author of Groats-worth finds present in all
actors [vanity, bragging, etc.]. The author of Groats-worth is a
scholar, considers himself better than mere players [and players who
are turning their hands to writing plays], treats actors with
contempt, and is bitter that he is being replaced.
In fact, abundant textual evidence from the works under discussion has
been supplied in the two threads dealing with this subject, and the
textual references have been linked to actual, historical events which
quite definitively show that Gullio was meant as a caricature of
Southampton. Sasheargold has just come up with another real-life
correspondence between the life of Southampton and the satirical
portrayal of the Gullio character. SB's reading of the text, and
others that have been set forth in the recent threads, are much more
in line with how the literature of the day was composed than are your
spurious readings.
> Since all dramas and romans a clef are extremely brief relative to the
> lives and other allusions there are always going to be an inordinate
> number of particulars that are not mentioned in such satires. What
> matters is what is written -- not what is not written.
Eggs-actly...and what has been specifically written about Gullio in
Parnassus has specific true real-life equivalents in the life of
Southampton contemporaneous to the writing of the play. In addition,
what has been specifically written about the player/former dramatist
in Groats-worth is specifically different from the real-life
Shakespeare and Shake-scene.
> Arguing
> otherwise reminds one of creationists demanding fossil evidence of
> every interim form while ignoring all the fossils of interim forms
> that exist.
Nobody is doing anything like that here except for you. You're the
one who can't bring himself to deal with the real-life correspondences
in Parnassus, or with the differences between the player/former
dramatist and Shake-scene in Groats-worth.
> Now, here's the positive evidence that The Player is Shakespeare:
Den-hiss will now sety out his religious dogma, ignoring the factual,
textual evidence that rebuts it.
> The entire, long 7000-word story is about a how a gentleman dramatist
> came to write plays for a conceited, upstart, jack-of-all-
> trades ,actor-dramatist who loves his own verse.
Saying this over and over again does not make it true. The actor is
not a jack-of-all-trades [which I demonstrated in the post to which
you are here responding, and which you dishonestly snipped without
indication that you had done so] and he has not been a dramatist for
some time, unlike Shake-scene who is now just trying his hand at
writing plays.
> This pamphlet is
> then concluded with a warning to gentleman-dramatists to stop writing
> plays for "Shake-Scene," who is described as a conceited, upstart,
> jack-of-all-trades ,actor-dramatist who loves his own verse.
I would take issue with the use of the word "conceited" but otherwise
this is close enough.
> Now, I'm
> not sure that the author(s) of Groatsworth penned that long 7000 word
> story about a conceited, upstart, jack-of-all-trades ,actor-dramatist
> who loves his own verse --
Except that isn't exactly what the Roberto story is about, the story
and the letter concern different times, and there are substantial,
relevant differences between the player/former dramatist [who treated
Roberto well] and Shake-scene the newly-created dramatist [who has not
treated Greene well].
> only to end the story with a warning about
> some other conceited, upstart, jack-of-all-trades ,actor-dramatist who
> loves his own verse.
What matters is what is written -- and what is written shows
conclusively that the player/former dramatist [who treated Roberto
well and wrote morality plays that grew out of fashion long ago] and
Shake-scene the newly-created dramatist [who has not treated Greene
well, who we can be 99.00 % sure didn't write mortality plays, who has
no connection whatsoever to the referenced works cited for the former
dramatist, and who is now penning plays that are in vogue] are not one
and the same.
> Here's the passage on Shakespeare:
>
> “Yes, trust them not, for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with
> our feathers, that with his “tiger’s heart wrap’t in a Player’s hide,’
> supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best
> of you, and being an absolute Johannes factotum is in his own conceit
> the only Shake-scene in a country.”
>
> 1) "Upstart"
> Though the Player, the actor-dramatist, was once poor ("though the
> world once went hard with me" and he was "fain to carry my playing
> Fardel-a-footeback ") he now appears as a "gentleman of great living"
> "at proper cost can build a windmill" and has apparel worth 200
> pounds. The actor-dramatist, like Shakespeare, is an "upstart".
Yes, that author of Groats-worth doesn't like actors, and especially
doesn't like those who are competing with Greene and driving him out
of business. Now, care to explain all of the differences between
Shake-scene and the player/former dramatist?
> 2) " supposes he is as well able to bombast out blank verse as the
> best of you"
> "I can serve to make a pretty speech.... Was not this pretty for a
> plain rhyme extempore?" The Actor-dramatist, like Shakespeare, thinks
> he can write wonderful verse.
The actor/former/dramatist is no longer writing plays [he wrote some
morality plays, none of which have any connection to Shakespeare],
while Shake-scene is writing plays and taking business away from
Greene.. Whoever wrote Groats-worth is contemptuous of actors who
think they are as able as scholars to write plays. Now, care to
explain all of the differences between Shake-scene and the player/
former dramatist?
> 3) "johannes fact totum"
> Though it is a relatively brief passage practically every statement
> from the Player is about himself -- and is a boast about a different
> trait or ability: including his great voice,
This is in reaction to an insulting comment from Roberto.
> his abilities as an
> actor,
Yes, in answer to Roberto's insult, he boasts that he has acted some
famous roles, but he is not a dramatist. As it is written:
"What is your profession, sayd Roberto? Truly, sir, saide he, I am a
player."
> his ability to make a pretty speech,
Right...two rhyming lines about how his "Almanacke is out of date":
The people make no estimation,
Of Morrals teaching education.
He was a writer of morality plays but he isn't a dramatist anymore.
Unlike Shake-scene. Now, care to explain this difference between
Shake-scene and the player/former dramatist?
> his authorship of certain plays,
Right...morality plays that he wrote at least seven years ago, and
none of which have any known correspondence to the life of William
Shakespeare.
>his ability "at proper cost" to build a windmill,
Whatever the hell this means.
> his ability
> to produce "pretty rhyme extempore,"
Already addressed.
> his work as a puppeteer and his
You think Shakespeare did Punch and Judy shows?
> work has [sic] tireman, owning all the apparel for an acting troupe.
Where is this in Groats-worth? Are you now saying that the costumes
for the whole company are worth 200 pounds?
> 4) "is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country."
This is about writing plays at the time of Greene's death.
> "why, I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever
> was any of my time. The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly
> thundered on the Stage,"
This is about an actor's roles and has nothing to do with being a
Shake-scene [a dramatist bombasting out verse].
> 5) The Player, like Shakespeare, is one of the few who was an actor-
> dramatist:
> "For Shakespeare had the advantage, shared by few dramatic poets, of
> being intimately concerned with every aspect of the theater; as
> shareholder, actor, dramatist"
You finally come close to recognizing one of the many problems with
your identification. The player in the Roberto tale was a dramatist
who wrote morality plays but he stopped writing such plays years back
when they went out of fashion. He gave up being a dramatist and just
worked as an actor. This is completely different from the story of
Shake-scene, who started out as an actor, became an actor/dramatist,
and is still a dramatist at the time Groats-worth is written.
> 6) The Player, like Shakespeare, hired gentleman-scholars to write
> plays
This is not alluded to in the letter section of Groats-worth. In
fact, just the opposite point is the one that is being made.
Shakespeare, and his company, are not hiring scholars to write plays.
What you are saying here is the exact opposite of what is written.
> And that's not all:
If only it were, but your religious faith in your own status as high
priest of the Northern sect runs away with you.
> 7 -13) The Poem in Parnassus 3 which criticizes upstart actors like
> Shakespeare clearly alludes to Groatsworth and the Player Scene:
> “But is’t not strange these mimic apes [7] should prize
> Unhappy Scholars [8] at a hireling rate?
> Vile world, that lifts them up to high degree,
> And treads us down in groveling misery.
> England affords those glorious vagabonds,
> That carried erst their fardels on their backs [9],
> Coursers to ride on through the gazing streets,
> [Sweeping] it in their glaring Satin suits [10],
> And Pages to attend their masterships:
> With mouthing words that better wits have framed [11]
> They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named…[12]
> So merry fortune’s wont from rags to take
> Some ragged groom [13], and him a gallant make.”
> (I.ii.1918-32)
"like Shakespeare", yes, but not specific to Shakespeare.
> [7] “...mimic apes ...”
> From Groatsworth warning on Shakespeare: “…let those Apes imitate
> your past excellence…”
This is not specific to Shakespeare. You are now just making things
up. That doesn't help your credibility, Den-hiss.
Even if it were specific to Shakespeare, so what? That doesn't make
Gullio into Shakespeare, and it doesn't transform the player/former
dramatist into Shake-scene. There are many instances in which
literature of the day reflects other literature of the day
[Shakespeare imitated many of Marlowe's lines]. All this would show
is that the scholars looked down on actors...that isn't news to anyone
familiar with the literature of the period. I think you've shown
definitively that the language in Parnassus imitates the language in
Nashe's Pierce Penniless [of course, I've also shown conclusively that
the Parnassus author altered that language intentionally to reflect
the life of Southampton], but that doesn't make the Upstart the same
person as Gullio or Shake-scene [especially considering the many
differences that exist among them]. I don't know why you think that
borrowed terms mean that all of the targets of the various works must,
in fact, be the exact same person. This just isn't so.
> [8] “...should prize /Unhappy Scholars at a hireling rate?”
> In Groatsworth, the Player (Shakespeare) hires an unhappy scholar
Yes, and he treats him well. Roberto has no complaints about the
player. He does have complaints about Shake-scene.
> (North)
What does North have to do with any of this. He isn't Roberto.
> : “On the other side of the hedge sat one that heard his
> sorrow… ‘I suppose you are a scholar,’ [the Player said,] ‘and pity it
> is men of learning should live in lack…’“ They both hire "unhappy
> scholars"
No, there is no indication whatsoever in Groats-worth that Shake-scene
hires any "unhappy scholars". What matters is what is written -- not
what is not written. What is written is that Shake-scene is taking
jobs away from scholars...it is not written that he has hired any
"unhappy scholars". You need to stop making things up, Den-hiss.
> [9] “those glorious vagabonds, /That carried erst their fardels on
> their backs,”
> The Player (Shakespeare)
Do you not realize that this is circular reasoning? Are you that
unfamiliar with logic? You are supposed to be trying to prove that
the player is Shakespeare, but, here, you are assuming that which you
are attempting to prove. Nowhere in Groats-worth is Shakespeare
referred to as carrying a fardle.
> refers to the time “…when I was fain to carry
> my playing Fardle a footeback;”
A foot in the back might do you some good.
> [10] “[Sweeping] it in their glaring Satin suits,”
> The Player (Shakespeare) dresses above his station.
More circular reasoning and an outright falsehood. The player [the
one you are trying and failing to prove is Shake-scene] does not dress
above his station, at least as far as the text of the work is
concerned. He has costumes for the stage that are worth a lot of
money, but there is nothing that shows that he dresses above his
station.
> “A player...? I
> took you rather for a Gentleman of great living, for if by outward
> habit men should be censured, I tell you you would be taken for a
> substantial man.”
This doesn't show that he is dressing above his station.
> Gullio and Sogliardo are explicitly described in
> "satin suits."
The player is not, and Gullio is not Shakespeare, as has been shown in
these threads [pun intended].
> [11] “...With mouthing words that better wits have framed ....”
> In Groatsworth, Shakespeare and his fellow actors are decried as
> “those Puppets (I mean) that speak from our mouths.” Later, the
> gentleman-dramatists who speak through Shakespeare’s mouth are
> referred to as “rare wits.”
So? Explain why this means, as a logical necessity, that Shake-scene
is the player, or is Gullio, or is any other character.
> [12] “They purchase lands, and now Esquires are named…”
> As is conventional, this is a hit on Shakespeare and his recent
> purchase of lands and his climbing of status.
Shakespeare was not considered an Esquire. He was a gentleman.
When Edmund Howes made a list of modern poets in 1615, he scrupulously
listed them according to social rank (knight, esquire, gentleman, or
none of the above), and Shakespeare was listed as a gentleman, which
in fact Shakespeare of Stratford was.
Spenser and Drayton were both Esquires. This could be a hit at
Shakespeare, but not alone. Other actors received coats of arms.
Even assuming all of this to be true, so what? The scholars who had
been writing plays did not like the actors who were no longer hiring
them for a pittance and were bitter about how wealthy and successful
some of those actors had become. This is not news, nor does it
establish that Shake-scene is the player [and certainly not Gullio,
the Upstart, or some other character].
> [13] “Some ragged groom, and him a gallant make. “
> “Ragged groom” is another allusion to Groatsworth’s attack on
> Shakespeare: “:.. for it is pity men of such rare wits, should be
> subject to the pleasure of such rude grooms.”
This is not specific to Shakespeare. You are now just making things
up. That doesn't help your credibility, Den-hiss.
> And that's not all. The Player shares numerous other characteristics
> with Sogliardo, Gullio, and Asotus -- who also are clearly
> representatives of Shakespeare:
More circular reasoning. Your speculations do not prove your
speculations. I don't know why I'm bothering to discuss this with you
when this quite obvious point seems to be beyond your understanding.
Why don't you address the differences between the characters. In
fact, why don't you address my argument about Sogliardo, and then
address the many correspondences that have been pointed out between
Southampton and Gullio?
> 14. He is an Upstart: Having started out poor and base-born, he has
> become a man of wealth and influence and a wanna-be gentleman:
> (Conventionally accepted description of Shakespeare’s reputation):
No, he is an actual Gentleman [at least according to William Camden].
> The
> Player/Shake-Scene; Sogliardo; Gullio; Asotus
There is nothing in Groats-worth that says specifically that
Shakespeare has become a man of wealth and influence, or a wanna-be
gentleman. Gullio is Southampton, and, if you contend that he is
not, it is incumbent upon you to provide a rebuttal of all of the
evidence, textual and historical, that reveals the correspondences
between Gullio and the actual life of Southampton. So far, you have
managed, dishonestly, to dodge the evidence.
> 15. Dresses extravagantly and in a manner above his station . This is
> stated explicitly: The Player/Shake-Scene; Sogliardo; Gullio; Asotus
Already addressed numerous times.
> 16. Flamboyantly (mis)uses foreign phrases: The Player/Shake-Scene;
> Sogliardo; Gullio; Asotus
Seriously? Every character that uses foreign phrases in Elizabethan/
Jacobean literature might be Shakespeare?
Where does Shake-scene use or misuse foreign phrases? You're making
things up again, Den-hiss.
> 17. Described as or compared to a puppeteer: The Player/Shake-Scene;
> Sogliardo
Shake-scene is not described as, or compared to, a puppeteer. You're
making things up again, Den-hiss. This is another difference between
Shake-scene and the player/former dramatist.
> 18. Recites verse when meeting someone, annoying the listener: The
> Player/Shake-Scene; Gullio; Asotus
Shake-scene is not shown to recite any verse, annoying someone. The
player/former dramatist is not shown annoying anyone by reciting
verse. You're making things up again, Den-hiss. Does your religion
require you to lie?
> 19. Associated with the North caricature: The Player/Shake-Scene;
> Sogliardo; Asotus
This is too damn funny. You take circular reasoning to new lows.
> 20. Hires poor scholars to help him write plays/poetry or craft
> dialogue
(it is conventional that Shakespeare hired poor-scholars to
> help him write)
This isn't anywhere close to being conventional thinking on the
subject. He didn't need help writing, although he did collaborate
with other authors.
> : The Player/Shake-Scene; Gullio; Asotus
What matters is what is written -- not what is not written.
This is not true of the player/former dramatist [he hires a scholar to
write plays but not to help him write plays]. This is also not true of
Shake-scene. This is also not true of Gullio, who acted as a patron to
Ingenioso, requested that he write some poetry for him to pass off as
his own, and then failed to pay him any reward when the poetry did not
have the desired effect. I'm not as familiar with Cynthia's Revels as
I should be but I doubt that you have Asotus right as well, if your
track record is any guide.
> 21. Has apparel worth exactly “200 pounds”: The Player/Shake-Scene;
> Gullio
Another lie. Nothing is said about Shake-scene's apparel and the
player has stage costumes that are worth that amount. Of course,
Gullio is not Shakespeare, but you won't address the evidence that
shows he is a caricature of Southampton.
> Now, prior to this, I asked Steese to give an example of the evidence
> that indicates any character in the war of the theaters was meant to
> represent some writer. He chose "Chrisoganus" in Histriomastix as
> Jonson -- for which he supplied two reasons. 1) Chrisoganus was a
> condescending playwright who sneered at players (and he believes that
> Jonson could be described as that) and 2) there was a poem called
> "Chrisgoanus" and it referred to its subject as having a "bad face"
> and somewhere (that Steese didn't specify) Jonson also was described
> as being not too handsome. Now, Chrisoganus in "Histriomastix" is not
> described as a bad-face, but still Steese believes those two aspects
> alone are enough to make a positive identification.
> I just provided 21 above -- in which some of the hits like having
> "apparel" worth "200 pounds," having "fardel a footbacke," being an
> actor-dramatist who hires scholars, etc., etc. are incredibly
> peculiar.
They are peculiar, but only in the sense that the characters and the
alleged correspondences are not as you portray them, they are not
correspondences between the characters and actual events or people [as
are those provided for Gullio as Southampton], and they are outweighed
by the differences among the various characters. Just as Nashe's
upstart is not Shakespeare, the player and Gullio are not Shakespeare.
* * * * * * * * * *
The following is just some of what Den-hiss snipped from my post:
> > The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation of how
> > Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the theater.
> > That would have been some time around 1587...so this actor/dramatist
> > couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
No answer.
> > > In fact, the allusions therein
> > > > show that it is someone other than Shakespeare [a writer of morality
> > > > plays]. Therefore, its significance as real-world evidence for the
> > > > question that I posed to you is nil. If this is the best you can
> > > > provide, I take it you have none of the actual evidence that I
> > > > requested.
> > No answer.
Still no answer.
[...]
> jack-of-all trades
> > > 1) "I am as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of Fairies, as ever was
> > > any of my time.
> > He's an actor, famous for playing certain roles.
> Yeah, this meek, non-boaster claimed he is "as famous for" it as
> anyone else of his time has ever been. But that's not a "boast,"
> right?
> Just a statement of fact?
Sure. One thing you are ignoring here is that the author of the
letter portion of Groats-worth felt no compunction whatsoever about
identifying William Shakespeare as the person to be avoided [Shake-
scene and the line from 3HVI make this identification quite clear].
On the other hand, none of the works or roles mentioned in the story
of Roberto have any known correlation to William Shakespeare. None.
At all. Just some more of the details you would rather ignore, but if
the author of Groats-worth felt safe identifying Shakespeare in the
letter there is no reason to think he would have made all of these
allusions, in the story portion, to things that do not identify
William Shakespeare. In fact, it must be considered much more likely
that they refer to some other person entirely.
> Did Shakespeare ever
> > play the part of Delphrigus? What play was this in?
No answer...just some more details to ignore. See above, as
well...these are not identifiers of Shakespeare, such as those the
author employed in the letter portion of Groats-worth. Dennis, care
to explain the different treatment?
> > > 2) The Twelve Labours of Hercules have I terribly thundered on the
> > > Stage,
> > Did Shakespeare ever act in The Twelve Labours of Hecules?
[...]
> > > 9) To him "you would be taken for a substantial man," his response:
> > > "So am I where I dwell"
> > Not boastful...just a statement of fact.
[What matters is what is written -- not what is not written. Isn't
that right, Den-hiss?]
> > As for being a jack-of-all-trades:
> He declares that has 1) a great voice "The Twelve Labours of Hercules
> have I terribly thundered on the Stage"
He's an actor.
> 2) is a great actor, ("as famous for Delphrigus, & the King of
> Fairies, as ever was any of my time.
He's an actor.
He's an actor.
He's an actor.
Me Tarzan, Dennis Jane.
No answer.
[...]
Den-hiss, I know you are probably busy [selling snake-oil is time-
consuming], so let's narrow it down to one subject [the subject of
this thread, actually]. Why don't you show why all of the
correspondences between the character of Gullio and the real-life
events of Southampton's life don't actually support the claim that
Gullio is a caricature of Southampton?
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4f10719c-7073-4a64...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > OnSep2, 3:21 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation
> > of how Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the
> > theater. That would have been some time around 1587...so this
> > actor/dramatist couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
>
> > Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
> > there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
> > Roberto?
>
> Besides the names? Well, there's the fact that Roberto "grew *A malo in
> peius*, falling from one vice to another" due to "conuersing with bad
> company" after "hauing found a vaine to finger crownes" by writing plays
> and selling them.
Dennis responds: Yes, that's *obviously* Greene -- and is exactly like
his other repentance pieces. And Steese here refers to an obvious
identification of Greene in a 34 page biography of his entire life
history that occurs on page 35. Yes, after the scholar's tale is told
and he meets the actor-dramatist -- and just when the author writes a
few paragraphs stating "Hereafter consider me the said Roberto" --
then it becomes a standard tale about Greene. But let's now actually
consider the 34 page life history, let's take it passage by passage:
"IN an Island bounded with the Ocean there was sometime a City
situated, made rich by Merchandise, and populous by long peace:"
[The story is told in a fable-form, in which the characters themselves
then tell fables to each other. One of the fables is a beast fable
--- about a badger, fox and ewe. The other fable, told by "Roberto"
is a fable of a bed-trick. There's only one work in history, as far
as I am aware, in which fable-characters themselves tell fables
themselves (and especially beast fables and wife-lover fables) and
that's North's Moral Philosophy of Doni. In contrast, Greene's actual
last autobiographical tale of repentance --"The Repentance of Robert
Greene -- is told in the first person and the autobiography has
nothing to do the fable of Groatsworth. "Repentance" is true story
about his modest and virtuous parents and his growing up in
Norwich. ]
[The rich, populous city on the Island is London. That's where Edward
North rose to power. Greene's parents and his family were from
Norwich, and all evidence confirms his father was a modest saddler.
See: Arata Ide, "Robert Greene Nordovicensis, the Saddler's Son,"
"Notes and Queries" (2006), 53(40: 432-436.]
"An old new-made Gentleman herein dwelt, of no small credit, exceeding
wealth, "
Edward North became an extremely wealthy new-made gentleman in
London. Greene's father did not become wealthy or a new-made
gentleman. And he lived in Norwich..
"he had gathered from many to bestow upon one, for though he had two
sons he esteemed but one,"
Thomas North had just one brother, and this brother did inherit all
the estates and nearly all the family fortune, while Thomas got
essentially nothing and eventually lived in poverty. Greene had no
brother who inherited a fabulous fortune. And in fact Greene's father
was still alive at the penning of Groatsworth. He didn't die till
1599.
"but was not the father altogether unlettered, for he had good
experience in a Noverint, and by the universal terms therein
contained, had driven many a young Gentleman to seek unknown
countries, "
Noverint refers to legal deeds and those experienced with it can
either be lawyers of scriveners. I have here posted numerous examples
of "Noverint" being used to refer to lawyers. And this is obviously
the usage here because the notion that Gorinius became an extremely
powerful and wealthy scrivener, who was able to cause mass evictions
through being a scrivener, is one of those peculiar notions that you
can only really find defended on this newsgroup and only truly believe
if you try really, really hard or are emotionally involved in a
debate. Anyway, Gorinius, here, is identified as being experienced in
some sort of legal work, perhaps involving deeds, that had displaced
many a young man. This is certainly a pointed reference to something,
and it is not easy to imagine what it could be other than the infamous
series of mass evictions resulting from the dissolution of
monasteries. The apparent reference to legal documents of the
monastic take-over would necessarily target the Chancellor of the
Court of Augmentations specifically, which was Edward North’s
office.
One of the many estates seized during the dissolution – the grand
Charterhouse – ended up in the possession of Edward North, himself.
Here is how one nineteenth century writer described the displacement
caused by Edward North’s confiscation of the Charterhouse:
“The monks remaining refractory, four were sent off to the farthest
part of the realm, eight more were sent to Sion… but ten monks would
not dissemble, and they were laid in prison… In the year 1539, all the
monks who had been left in the house were driven out, and the king’s
tents and ammunition were laid in the church. The house was given to
Sir Edward North, who there built himself a fair dwelling…. “
Edward’s takeover of the Charterhouse via the trade of Noverint,
which caused monks to be “sent off to the farthest part of the realm”
certainly mirrors Gorinius’s use of the trade of Noverint to drive
“many a young Gentleman to seek unknown countries.”
Edward was in charge of all such possessions, leading to this massive
nationwide displacement.
This comment, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with Greene's
modest father living in Norwich.
"wise he was, for he bore office in his parish"
[At his manor in the parish of Kirtling, North was High Sheriff of the
Counties of Cambridge and Huntingdon, Knight of the Shire for
Cambridge-shire, and Chancellor of Augmentations, .Greene's father of
course bore no office in a parish].
"and sat as formally in his fox-furred gown,"
[Gorinius also is noted for his fondness for gold. In two of his
portraits at Peterhouse in Cambridge, Edward North has large gold
chains around his neck and is posing, formally, in a furr'd gown
(probably fox-furr'd.) Greene's father?]
" as if he had been a very upright dealing Burgess: he was religious
too, never without a book at his belt, and a bolt in his mouth, ready
to shoot through his sinful neighbour."
[Edward North was on the commission for the suppression of heresy.
Greene's father? ]
"And Latin he had somewhere learned, which though it were but little,
yet was it profitable, for he had this Philosophy written in a ring,
Tu tibi cura," which precept he curiously observed"
[This is one of many references to the Machiavellian attitude of
Roberto's extremely wealthy father. Greene actually described his
real, poor father in his real autobiographical pamphlet as virtuous
and honest. ]
"But as all mortal things are momentary, and no certainty can be found
in this uncertain world: so Gorinius, (for that shall be this Usurer's
name) after many a gouty pang that had pinched his exterior parts,
many a curse of the people that mounted into heaven's presence, was at
last with his last summons, by a deadly disease arrested, where-
against when he had long contended, and was by Physicians given over,
he called his two sons before him: and willing to perform the old
proverb Qualis vita finis Ita, he thus prepared himself, and
admonished them. My sons (for so your mother said ye were) and so I
assure myself one of you is, and of the other I will make no doubt."
[Greene's father, the saddler, was not dead at the penning of
"Groatsworth." The only other possible for Greene's father had died
just the year before -- at the very end of Greene's playwriting career
and long after Greene had starting writing plays for the public
theater and had wasted his wife's money. North's father in contrast
did die long before, did have a major will, did leave essentially all
of considerable possessions to one son and not the scholarly son.]
"You see the time is come, which I thought would never have approached
and we must now be separated, I fear never to meet again. This sixteen
years daily have I lived vexed with disease: and might I live sixteen
more, how ever miserably, I should think it happy. But death is
relentless, and will not be entreated witless: and knows not what good
my gold might do him: senseless & hath no pleasure in the delightful
places I would offer him."
"I tell thee my son: when I came first to this City my whole wardrobe
was only a suit of white sheep skins, my wealth an old groat, my
wooning, the wide world. At this instant (O grief to part with it) I
have in ready coin threescore thousand pound, in plate and jewels xv.
thousand; in Bonds and specialties as much, in land nine hundred pound
by the year: "
Gorinius's ascendancy in London to a man of great wealth describes
Edward North not Greene's father. "
"all which, Lucanio I bequeath to thee, only I reserve for Roberto thy
well read brother an old groat, (being ye stock I first began with)"
[Edward North left essentially all of his estates and wealth to Roger
North, and Thomas North got essentially nothing and ended up living
much of his later life in poverty. Greene? ]
"wherewith I wish him to buy a groats-worth of wit: for he in my life
hath reproved my manner of life, and therefore at my death, shall not
be contaminated with corrupt gain. Here by the way Gentlemen must I
digress to show the reason of Gorinius' present speech: Roberto being
come from the Academy, to visit his father, there was a great feast
provided: where for table talk, Roberto knowing his father and most of
the company to be execrable usurers, inveighed mightily against the
abhorred vice,"
[Incredibly, the notion that Thomas North did indeed condemn his
wealthy father for his corrupt manner of obtaining wealth was recorded
by Dudley North, Edwards great-grandson who wrote a brief biography of
the First Lord North. According to Dudley, North's office of
overseeing the dissolution of the monasteries, which led to the mass
evictions of all the monks and families that had resided there,
"exposed him to the censure of some of his own posterity...," who
argued that some misfortune that had befallen the "house which he had
raised" was the result of North's ill gotten goods. His office and
profit had led to the "destruction of so many families... and would be
the Catastrophe of his." Edward North only had four children and the
"posterity" who criticized Edward's role in the dissolution of the
monasteries could only be Thomas -- who was the last person mentioned
in the Will and received essentially nothing from his father. Dudley
North actually mentions Edward's dissatisfaction with Thomas in
relation to the Will: "Neither had Edward Lord North any greater hopes
of Sir Thomas North his other Son, who though a man of courage, a man
learned (as appears by divers translations of his,) and indued with
very good parts otherwise, yet never had a steadiness comparable to
his Brother, which made the Father to settle his Estate by way of
Entail..." ]
"This was Roberto's offence: now return, we to sick Gorinius, who
after he had thus unequally distributed his goods and possessions,
began to ask his sons how they liked his bequests: either seemed
agreed, and Roberto urged him with nothing more than repentance of his
sin: Look to thine own said he, fond boy, & come my Lucanio, let me
give thee good counsel before my death..."
[Dudley North mentions that Edward North did counsel Roger in the
Will: "as he failed not to admonish his Son in the said Will with very
great reflexions upon him, as to his prudence..."]
"...as for you sir, your books are your counsellors, and therefore to
them I bequeath you."
[The notion of a scholarly brother getting left with nothing but books
while the older brother takes over all the power and wealth of the
family is repeated again in North's autobiographical tale, "The
Tempest." We also know Thomas wanted in everything but books – and
only through writing did he try to escape poverty. In a side note in
his personal copy of The Dial of Princes, Thomas North would write:
“Want of money maketh a good scholar, and makes him fall to his
book.”
And on and on, page after page, it exclusively describes THomas North
-- and has nothing to do with Robert Greene. And there's more:
And there's more: the scholar's brother is given a knotted, silk band,
is described as "prodigal son," wastes money foolishly, giving great
jewels and purposefully losing at gambling to a woman he wanted to
impress. All this describes known facts of Roger, Lord North.
Also, the following comes from the Groatsworth scholar’s complaint
about Lamilia, in which Nashe is clearly giving an indication of the
scholar's style:
Gentleman-Scholar:
“So soon kills not the Basilisk with sight,
The Viper’s tooth is not so venomous,
The Adder’s tongue not half so dangerous…”
While the fable-within-fable structure parodies North’s Moral
Philosophy of Doni, this is, beyond all dispute, a satire on North’s
overuse of such repetitive, over-the-top beast-comparisons in general
and his Dial of Princes specifically. The Dial was a very popular
book of the Elizabethan era, and in the early 1590’s North was
revising the text for a 4th edition. Anyone familiar with it who
read this passage in Groatsworth would have immediately recognized it
as a parody of similar comments found all throughout North’s book.
The Dial overflows with such animal similes, particularly comparing
women to reptiles. So when you search Early English Books Online for
any works written at any time that place Basilisk, Viper (or Vipers),
and tongue within 15 words of each other, you only end up with one
other work in history that duplicates it: North’s Dial of Princes.
The corresponding quote from North's Dial is as follows:
“ …there is no Basilisk
nor Viper that carryeth such poison in her tail,
as she will spit with her tongue. “
Notice also that this is not just a verbal echo in which a few of the
same words are placed in proximity, but a clear duplication of style
and meaning. Both quotes are attacking duplicitous women, comparing
them to poisonous serpents and doing so with a specific accent on
negative similes, such as a “viper’s tooth is NOT so venomous.”
This cannot be dismissed as coincidence. Obviously, the satirists
were using the verse of the Scholar to underscore some writer’s style,
and no writer other than North has ever grouped those words together.
The Scholar’s verse cannot be imitating the style of anyone else.
Thomas North, Thomas North, Thomas North, etc. Hard to get more
obvious.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:b2d41809-ced4-4f8a...@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts.
>
> > since "Here Be Dragons," huh? Or else a lot of reviewers were
> > fooled. ;)
>
> Now, now, we all know that the real Dennis wrote *Here Be Dragons*. And
> since it was published by a real publisher, we may also suppose that an
> editor and a proofreader glanced at it once or twice.
Dennis responds; Whew. Given your claims that the gentleman-scholar
was not really manor-born, that the Player was not really a boastful
jack-of-all-trades, that Asotus's unattributed recitation of lines by
Davies -- in which he is immediately labeled a "jack daw" -- is
supposed to be an example of plagiarism, I thought you might here try
to claim the reviews were not that good. ;) But yes, the editors at
Oxford do deserve much credit.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> OnSep2, 10:04 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
Dennis responds: "Another is found in the relations of Ingenioso to
Gullio, a vainglorious pseudo-patron of letters, modeled in part on
Nashe's portrait of "an upstart" in his "Pierce Penilesse." -- The
Cambridge History of English Literature, Sir Adolphus William Ward,
Alfred Rayney Waller (editors), 1910, 311
Now, who are we to believe? Dom or our lying eyes? Here are the
features shared by the Upstart and Gullio:
1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to
be tam
Marti quam Mercurio;
2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere
this through every by-street,
3)But he "hath been but over at Dieppe"
"He was never any further than Flushing,
4) when he comes there, poor soul, he lies in brine in
ballast, and
is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
"and then he came home sick of the scurveys. -
5) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
Lady Swine-Snout, ..
Gullio: ...it pleased mee to bestowe love, this pleasinge fire, upon
Lady Lesbia... And, for matters of wit, oft have I sonneted it in the
commendations of her squirrel... His Arcadia was pretty, so are my
sonnets... I'll repeat unto you an enthusiastical oration wherewith my
new mistress's ears were made happy.... Later his mistress responds: "
well, warne him that hee looke to his rheumeticke witt, that he
bespitt paper pages noe more to mee ;
6) All Italianato is his talk,
Pardon mee moy mittressa, ast am a gentleman
7) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
Gullio: I'le travell to Paris myselfe, and there commence for filius
nobilis, and converse noe more with anie of our base English witts,
8) "If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
to every dog that barks."
"Alexander did never strive with anie but kinges, and Gullio will
fight with none but gallants.
9) talk English through the teeth, like... Monsieur Mingo de
Mousetrap,
Ingenioso calls Gullio: "Monsieur Mingo"
The entire characters are the same: Both think of themselves as "tam
Marti quam Mercurio" -- made for both war and diplomacy/ trade. Both
lie about exotic military exploits --whether in Gournay-en-Bray and
Guingamp or in Cosmopolis, Cadiz, at Portingale, and Ireland. Both
make faux-aristocratic excuses to avoid fighting. The real extent of
the Upstart's travels -- Dieppe --is, like Flushing, just across the
channel. Both try to be Italianate in their speech, and write
numerous sonnets to their mistress, whether Lady Lesbia or Lady Swine-
Snout. Both are compared to "Monsieur Mingo," and you also find a
linked reference to a boastful young man, who instead of scotching the
Spaniards, gets "sick of the scurvies."
And this is found all in a passage from Pierce Penniless, written by
Nashe (the main character of the play) ,and which the authors of
"Parnassus" plays unambiguously reference in another scene.
Hard to get more obvious, isn't it?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On 3/09/11 7:02 AM, Dominic Hughes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I guess Dom is also pulverizing "The Cambridge History of English
Literature," the authors of which note the rather obvious connection
between Gullio and Nashe's Upstart: "Another is found in the
relations of Ingenioso to Gullio, a vainglorious pseudo-patron of
letters, modeled in part on Nashe's portrait of "an upstart" in his
"Pierce Penilesse." -- The Cambridge History of English Literature,
Sir Adolphus William Ward, Alfred Rayney Waller (editors), 1910, 311
Now, Ignato, are you really going to deny the following features
shared by the Upstart and Gullio? Are you really just going to shut
your eyes and refuse to admit the connection?
I mean, I understand, Ign, when some of the people here get caught in
a debate they find it difficult to admit any point of their
counterpart, but denying that Gullio is modeled in part after the
Upstart in Pierce Penniless is taking it to a bizarre level, don't you
think?
Dominic Hughes
You really are dishonest, Den-hiss. I've already stated that the
author of the Parnassus play borrows language from Nashe's description
of the Upstart in Pierce Peniless to describe Gullio. Of course, I've
also demonstrated, conclusively, how the author of the Parnassus play
alters that language so that it is specifically applicable to
Southampton. You also fail to address the differences between the
Upstart and Gullio that show, conclusively, that you are wrong when
you state that "the entire characters are the same." It is hard to
get more obvious than that, but you appear unwilling to even address
those subjects, like the dishonest debater you are.
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> OnSep2, 5:05 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:b2d41809-ced4-4f8a...@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts.
>
> > > since "Here Be Dragons," huh? Or else a lot of reviewers were
> > > fooled. ;)
>
> > Now, now, we all know that the real Dennis wrote *Here Be Dragons*. And
> > since it was published by a real publisher, we may also suppose that an
> > editor and a proofreader glanced at it once or twice.
>
> > > Anyway, Steese now scans an 85,000 page work arguing North wrote the
> > > masterpieces
>
> > Wait a minute - *North of Shakespeare* has 85,000 pages? Wow, I scan
> > faster than I realized.
>
> > > -- not to pose powerful counter-arguments or contradict some
> > > significant claim
>
> > I've already provided lots of those. Still waiting for your response on
> > my arguments against a pre-1594 date for the Peacham Manuscript. Don't
> > hurry on my account, though - I can wait.
>
> > > -- but in search of some semantic error.
>
> > If that were all I was looking for, I wouldn't have had to scan the work
> > - the whole thing is a semantic error, an absurd confusion of the
>
> > > Steese: Other words he doesn't quite grasp are "anonymous" and
> > > "pseudonym": in *North of Shakespeare* he writes that *Greenes
> > > Groatsworth of Wit* is "a scandalous and anonymously published
> > > pamphlet attack on a politically powerful family using
> > > barely-disguised pseudonyms that fooled no one. "It would seem that in
> > > counts as publishing it anonymously,..."
>
> > > You neglected the first part of the sentence: "These analyses have
> > > now confirmed that Groatsworth of Wit (1592) was the Primary Colors of
> > > its day -- a scandalous and anonymously published pamphlet-attack on a
> > > politically powerful family..." What I mean by that, as everyone
> > > knows who reads that chapter, is that just as Joe Klein didn't put his
> > > Groatsworth.
>
> > No, they put Robert Greene's name on it. *Primary Colors* was literally
> > attributed to "Anonymous"; Klein made no attempt to palm it off an any
> > known author. It is ridiculous, even by Daffy North Hypothesis©
> > standards, to assert that the book *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* was
> > published anonymously. Not as ridiculous as the comparison of *Greenes
> > Groats-worth of Wit* with *Primary Colors*, but that is matter for
> > another thread.
>
> > (And "confirmed" is another one of those words "Dennis" hasn't quite
> > grasped.)
>
> > > "Anonymously" stays. However, your other point on "pseudonyms" is
> > > well taken and I've changed it to "barely disguised caricatures."
>
> > Which is still ridiculous - but that was the point, yes?
> > --
> > The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the
> > "lustrous, pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt
> > paintings, and, the level of execution to one side, there are certain
> > unsettling similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if Dennis thinks that Shakespeare is
> characterized as being "conceited" in the Groats-worth passage for the
> reason that the word "conceit" is used therein.
Dennis responds: Nope, because he is an "upstart" who
supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best
of you: and being an absolute Iohannes fac totum, is in his own
conceit the only Shake-scene in a country."
See? He thinks he can write verse as well as the best of the gentleman
dramatists. And
"in his own conceit" means in his own imagination, according to his
own conception of himself, is the "only Shake-Scene in a country."
Hey, you know who loves his own verse? And "is in his own conceit" a
great scene-shaking actor-dramatist? Why the actor-dramatist who was
Dominic Hughes
You are lying again, Den-hiss. The player in the Roberto story is a
former dramatist who used to write morality plays long ago, but, since
they have long gone out of fashion, he is now merely an actor. This
couldn't possibly be a reference to Shake-scene since Shake-scene is
just beginning to write scene-shaking plays.
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:4f10719c-7073-4a64...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> > Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation
> > of how Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the
> > theater. That would have been some time around 1587...so this
> > actor/dramatist couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
>
> > Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
> > there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
> > Roberto?
>
> Besides the names? Well, there's the fact that Roberto "grew *A malo in
> peius*, falling from one vice to another" due to "conuersing with bad
> company" after "hauing found a vaine to finger crownes" by writing plays
> and selling them. "Dennis" would have us believe that even though this
> appears in the paragraph immediately following the one in which the
> player-patron hires Roberto, that paragraph alludes to North but the one
> I quoted alludes to Greene.
>
> If one bothers to actually read *Greenes Groats-Worth of Wit*, one finds
> no division between the beginning of Roberto's tale and the point at
> which the writer says "Heere (Gentlemen) breake I off *Robertos* speech;
Dennis responds: Yes, there's a rather obvious break. After spending
7000 words on the entire life history of the manor-born gentleman
scholar (which has nothing whatsoever to do with Greene's actual first-
person autobiography described in "The Repentance"), with just one
brother who inherited all the families wealth and who then exiled his
scholarly brother from the estates, after the gentleman-scholar gives
us an example of his writing style (and the passage links to a passage
in North's "Dial of Princes" to the exclusion of all other works in
EEBO database), after the detailed description of the scholar's
father, who used the trade of noverint to cause mass evictions, after
the detailed description of the scholar's wealthy prodigal, powerful
brother, after the entire life history is told (with beast-fables told
within fables in the unique style of North's Moral Philosophy of
Doni,) we find this:
"Was not this prettie for a plaine rime extempore? if ye will ye
shall haue more. Nay its enough, said Roberto, but how meane you to
vse mee? Why sir, in making Playes, said the other, for which you
shall be well paid, if you will take the paines.
Roberto perceiuing no remedie, thought best to respect of his
present necessitie, to trie his wit, & went with him willingly: who
lodgd him at the Townes end in a house of retayle, where what happened
our Poet, you shall after heare."
Everything up to his point was about the life of Thomas North. At this
point, the tale quite obviously becomes standard Greene repentance
piece -- on page 35. Nothing before it. The author even says on this
page: "Heereafter suppose me the said *Roberto*," That's "Hereafter."
Not before. Here-after.
> whose life in most parts agreeing with mine, found one selfe punishment
> as I haue doone. Heereafter suppose me the said *Roberto*,
Exactly. The opening tale is about someone else "whose life in most
parts agreeing with mine" -- someone else. But now, at this point, we
are to consider Roberto to be Robert Greene. From this point forward
"Hereafter" -- not before -- not during that entire 7000 word life
history -- Hereafter, Roberto should be taken for Robert Greene.
Dominic Hughes
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, soundly refuted. And yes, actually, Gullio is Southampton, as
> > the evidence that has been introduced here quite clearly demonstrates
> > [maybe, one day, you will respond to it].
I guess you won't ever respond.
> And, no, Gullio is not like
> > theUpstart in Pierce
> > Penniless
>
> Dennis responds: "Another is found in the relations of Ingenioso to
> Gullio, a vainglorious pseudo-patron of letters, modeled in part onNashe'sportrait of "anupstart" in his "Pierce Penilesse." -- The
> Cambridge History of English Literature, Sir Adolphus William Ward,
> Alfred Rayney Waller (editors), 1910, 311
>
> Now, who are we to believe? Dom or our lying eyes?
Your eyes do deceive you, but that is no excuse for you to try to
deceive us. I've already answered all of this in a previous post.
Instead of just repeating your nonsense as if it were religious dogma,
why don't you actually respond to the refutation that I've previously
posted? To make it easy for you, as you seem unable to find any
arguments which rebut your beliefs, click here:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/e859badef1d15a4d?hl=en&dmode=source
> Here are the
> features shared by theUpstartand Gullio:
>
> 1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
> Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to
> be tam
> Marti quam Mercurio;
>
> 2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
> hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
> fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
>
> Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
> Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
> Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
> health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
> Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere
> this through every by-street,
Perfect. Just keep repeating this while ignoring [or is it that you
are in denial] the evidence that shows, conclusively, that the
Parnassus author intentionally changed this language so that it would
reflect events in Southampton's life.
> 3)But he "hath been but over at Dieppe"
>
> "He was never any further than Flushing,
>
> 4) when he comes there, poor soul, he lies in brine in
> ballast, and
> is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
>
> "and then he came home sick of the scurveys. -
[...]
You are lying again here as well, Den-hiss. This is not in Nashe's
description of the Upstart in Pierce Peniless, as I've pointed out to
you before [but you dishonestly repeat it anyway as if that is where
it is found]. The passage here is found in a description of an
entirely different character, known as the Prodigal Young Master.
However, it is good that you have included this parallel passage, for
it demonstrates quite well that the author of Parnassus was more than
willing to take language from Nashe, wherever it appealed to him to do
so, in coming up with his description of the different character of
Gullio, and he was not confining himself to the description of the
Upstart in writing that character in the play.
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> OnSep2, 5:05 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:b2d41809-ced4-4f8a...@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts.
>
> > > Dennis responds: I guess mywriting stylemust have really dropped off
> > > since "Here Be Dragons," huh? Or else a lot of reviewers were
> > > fooled. ;)
>
> > Now, now, we all know that the real Dennis wrote *Here Be Dragons*. And
> > since it was published by a real publisher, we may also suppose that an
> > editor and a proofreader glanced at it once or twice.
>
> Dennis responds; Whew. Given your claims that the gentleman-scholar
> was not really manor-born, that the Player was not really a boastful
> jack-of-all-trades, that Asotus's unattributed recitation of lines by
> supposed to be an example of plagiarism, I thought you might here try
> to claim the reviews were not that good. ;) But yes, the editors at
> Oxford do deserve much credit.
> "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote innews:b2d41809-ced4-4f8a...@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> >> Nor is the infelicitous style confined to newsgroup posts.
> > Dennis responds: I guess mywriting stylemust have really dropped off
> > since "Here Be Dragons," huh? Or else a lot of reviewers were
> > fooled. ;)
> Now, now, we all know that the real Dennis wrote *Here Be Dragons*. And
> since it was published by a real publisher, we may also suppose that an
> editor and a proofreader glanced at it once or twice.
That should read:
Dennis responds; Whew. Given your claims that the gentleman-scholar
was not really manor-born, that the Player was not really a boastful
jack-of-all-trades, that Asotus's unattributed recitation of lines by
Davies -- in which he is immediately labeled a "jack daw" -- is not
Mark Steese
news:4bc7884d-314e-4dba...@e9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 5, 12:56 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
>> OnSep2, 5:05 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "den...@northofshakespeare.com" <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com>
>> > wrote i
> nnews:b2d41809-ced4-4f8a-bebb-a02cf7e57870
@er4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> :
I wonder why "Dennis" thought I would follow three true statements with
a false one.
--
Experts insist that the reason these switches go bad is because they're
hardly ever used. In other words, the less wear a switch gets the
quicker it wears out. That's difficult to believe, but so are a lot of
things. -Dereck Williamson
Mark Steese
news:6300efe8-16e0-48ca...@a12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 2, 4:37 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:4f10719c-7073-4a64-a08b-dbea0dc8
> 78...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > OnSep2, 3:21 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a
>> > representation of how Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing
>> > plays for the theater. That would have been some time around
>> > 1587...so this actor/dramatist couldn't possibly be William
>> > Shakespeare.
>>
>> > Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
>> > there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
>> > Roberto?
>>
>> Besides the names? Well, there's the fact that Roberto "grew *A malo
>> in peius*, falling from one vice to another" due to "conuersing with
>> bad company" after "hauing found a vaine to finger crownes" by
>> writing plays and selling them.
>
> Dennis responds: Yes, that's *obviously* Greene -- and is exactly like
> his other repentance pieces. And Steese here refers to an obvious
> identification of Greene in a 34 page biography of his entire life
> history that occurs on page 35. Yes, after the scholar's tale is told
> and he meets the actor-dramatist -- and just when the author writes a
> few paragraphs stating "Hereafter consider me the said Roberto" --
> then it becomes a standard tale about Greene.
"Dennis" continues to pretend that the scholar 'Roberto' is not as
obviously Greene before meeting the player-patron as he is immediately
after meeting the player-patron.
> But let's now actually consider the 34 page life history, let's take
> it passage by passage: "IN an Island bounded with the Ocean there was
> sometime a City situated, made rich by Merchandise, and populous by
> long peace:"
>
> [The story is told in a fable-form, in which the characters themselves
> then tell fables to each other.
If the framing story is "told in a fable-form," then the moral comes at
the point where even "Dennis" acknowledges that Roberto is Greene.
The characters themselves don't start telling fables to each other until
the 17th page of this "34-page life history."
> One of the fables is a beast fable --- about a badger, fox and ewe.
> The other fable, told by "Roberto" is a fable of a bed-trick. There's
> only one work in history, as far as I am aware, in which
> fable-characters themselves tell fables themselves (and especially
> beast fables and wife-lover fables) and that's North's Moral
> Philosophy of Doni.
"Dennis," having not established that Roberto, Lucanio, and Lamilia are
"fable-characters," now moves on to not establishing that *Greenes
Groats-Worth* imitates the structure of North's translation of Doni's
translation of Bidpai.
For those unfamiliar with *The Morall Philosophie of Doni*, I will note
the actual structure of that work: it begins with a Prologue, addressed
to the reader, explaining the purpose of the book and the proper way to
read it ("The discrete Reader that shall looke in this booke must giue
attentiue eare, and note eche thing perticulerly he readeth, diligently
marking the secret lessons. For alwayes the worke of these safe Fathers
carieth two senses withall. The first, knowne and manifest. The second,
hidden and secret," etc.), and including a sample fable, "Of a
Husbandeman, and of the treasure he founde."
This Prologue is followed by "The Argument of the Booke," in which the
reader is told, at great length, about a King who commanded his
councilor Berozias to discover the truth of a story that proved to be
untrue; disappointed at having to bring this news back to the king,
Berozias was happily given a copy of Bidpai's fables to take back with
him, and the king "thankefully receyued the Booke esteeming it aboue any
other present."
The Argument is followed by "The First Part of the Morall Philosophie of
the auncient Sages," which is presented as a first-person account of
"the great and learned Philosopher Sendebar." After five pages of
philosophizing, Sendebar finally gets around to reciting a fable, whose
meaning he carefully sets out in advance ("Here you may see how light
beliefe bringeth damage"). The fable concerns a wealthy man and his wife
who trick some thieves who have broken into their house. After making
sure the readers understand the point, Sendebar presents "A tale of a
Louer and a Gentilwoman," which is just what it says on the tin. Next
follows the tale "Of a Jeweller that forgot his profit, and gaue
himselfe to pleasure," several more pages of philosophizing, and then "A
Parable of the Worlde," about a "certayne lusty yong man trauelling
throughe desert countrie" - a version of a famous Buddhist tale about a
man who, fleeing a tiger, jumps off a cliff and finds himself trapped
between that tiger and another, clinging to a vine that two mice are
gnawing through: as he hangs there, pondering his impending death, he
sees a ripe strawberry, plucks it, and eats it. This is the closest
thing to a beast-fable in the first part of the book, and it's not very
close - none of the beasts acts like a person.
The First Part is followed, reasonably enough, by the Second Part,
"shewing the wonderfull abuses of this wretched Worlde," which begings
with an unnamed narrator telling of how a "noble Romaine" told the
people a "pretie tale," a variation on the fable of the belly. Then the
narrator tells us that another Roman told another story about a Horse
and a Hart - and finally, we get an actual beast-fable. Then the
narrator tells that reader that "Aesope recyteth also many of these
pretie fables, being verie pleasant, learned, sharpe, profitable, and
full of Moralitie," and goes on to tell of how the philosopher Sendabar
told King Distes a story about a Lion, a Bull, and a "Moyle" (i.e, a
Mule). And we *finally* get to the bit where characters in a fable tell
fables.
The Second Part is followed by "The thirde parte of Morall Philosophie
describing the great treasons of the Court of this Worlde," which begins
with the unnamed narrator somewhat desperately begging readers to
continue ("I can not too muche exhort you (good Readers) to take some
paine to continue the reading of this Treatyse") - and proceeds to the
further adventures of the talking Moyle.
Next comes "The fourth partie of Morall Philosophie, shewing the ende of
the treasons and miseries of the Court of this Worlde." Finally, on page
257, we come to the blesséd word "Finis" - but it's not quite over:
fearing that readers might have trouble understanding that the book has
ended, the narrator goes on to say "Here endeth the Treatise of the
Royall Philosophie of *Sendebar*: In which is layd open many infinite
examples for the health and life of reasonable men shadowed vnder tales
and similitudes of brute beastes without reason."
If one were bound and determined to find some connection between
*Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* and something - anything - written by
Thomas North, and if one were to squint just right, one might fancy that
one saw a resemblance between the structures of *The Morall Philosophie
of Doni* and *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit*; but one would have to be
very determined indeed. The interlude in *Groats-worth*, in which the
human characters tell each other stories, is more like the scenes in the
Decameron and the Canterbury Tales in which human characters tell each
other stories than the scenes in which beasts recount beast-fables in
the *Morall Philosophie*. (Note that, like Lamilia in the Groats-worth,
the Nun's Priest in the Canterbury Tales recounts a beast-fable
involving a fox.)
> In contrast, Greene's actual last autobiographical tale of repentance
> --"The Repentance of Robert Greene -- is told in the first person and
> the autobiography has nothing to do the fable of Groatsworth.
> "Repentance" is true story about his modest and virtuous parents and
> his growing up in Norwich. ]
>
> [The rich, populous city on the Island is London. That's where Edward
> North rose to power. Greene's parents and his family were from
> Norwich, and all evidence confirms his father was a modest saddler.
> See: Arata Ide, "Robert Greene Nordovicensis, the Saddler's Son,"
> "Notes and Queries" (2006), 53(40: 432-436.]
No one has claimed that the story of Gorinius, Roberto, and Lucanio
exactly parallels the life of Robert Greene; it nevertheless remains a
fact that 'Roberto' has demonstrably more in common with Greene than
with Thomas North.
> "An old new-made Gentleman herein dwelt, of no small credit, exceeding
> wealth, "
>
> Edward North became an extremely wealthy new-made gentleman in
> London.
Edward North became a baron. It would be very strange if anyone in 1592
London mistook a nobleman and member of the privy council for a mere
gentleman.
[snip]
> "but was not the father altogether unlettered, for he had good
> experience in a Noverint, and by the universal terms therein
> contained, had driven many a young Gentleman to seek unknown
> countries, "
>
> Noverint refers to legal deeds and those experienced with it can
> either be lawyers of scriveners. I have here posted numerous examples
> of "Noverint" being used to refer to lawyers.
"Dennis" has, of course, done nothing of the sort.
> And this is obviously the usage here because the notion that Gorinius
> became an extremely powerful and wealthy scrivener, who was able to
> cause mass evictions through being a scrivener, is one of those
> peculiar notions that you can only really find defended on this
> newsgroup and only truly believe if you try really, really hard or are
> emotionally involved in a debate.
Whereas the correct interpretation, viz., that Gorinius was a wealthy
usurer who made good use of the legal terms he picked up during his time
as a scrivener, is not a peculiar notion at all, which explains why
"Dennis" has erected a straw man in its stead.
A genuinely peculiar notion is that which insists that Gorinius, who is
repeatedly identified in the text as a usurer, was actually a lawyer. It
is difficult to imagine how someone who came to the text of
*Groats-worth* without the preconceived notion that it concerns the
North family could possibly come away from it believing that Gorinius is
a caricature of the lawyer-cum-nobleman Sir Edward North.
> Anyway, Gorinius, here, is identified as being experienced in
> some sort of legal work, perhaps involving deeds, that had displaced
> many a young man. This is certainly a pointed reference to something,
> and it is not easy to imagine what it could be other than the infamous
> series of mass evictions resulting from the dissolution of
> monasteries.
Presumably "Dennis" thinks it was common for people in 1592 London to
characterize a Roman Catholic monk as "a yoong Gentleman." And no doubt
"Dennis" thinks it makes sense for the notorious Papists Thomas Nashe
and Henry Chettle to condemn Edward North's role in the Dissolution of
the Monasteries.
> The apparent reference to legal documents of the monastic take-over
> would necessarily target the Chancellor of the Court of Augmentations
> specifically, which was Edward North’s office.
The Court of Augmentations was a royal court, created by Henry VIII
himself. How curious that Nashe and Chettle fail to mention such a court
anywhere in *Groats-worth*.
I have already pointed out the numerous other aspects of the lives and
careers of Sir Edward North, Sir Roger North, and Thomas North that are
curiously absent from the story of Gorinius, Lucanio, and Roberto. That
story is clearly not meant to be read as a factual autobiography of
Robert Greene; it is even more clearly not intended to be a factual, or
even fanciful, biography of Thomas North.
--
frode
> On Sep 2, 1:55 pm, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 2, 3:21 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 2, 8:27 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
> > > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 31, 9:49 am, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 31, 9:09 am, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
> > > > > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 31, 12:37 am, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > trades...proximity in a pamphlet does not mean the fictional character
> > > in the story and the real person, Shake-scene, in the missive are one
> > > and the same. In fact, the details show that they are not.
> > Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a representation
> > of how
> > Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing plays for the theater.
> > That would have been some time around 1587...so this actor/dramatist
> > couldn't possibly be William Shakespeare.
> > Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
> > there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
> > Roberto?
> Frode:
> Mark Steese has already more than ably handled this. Do you still
> have other questions as to the similarities between the story and that
> of Greene, as well as the differences between the story and the
> biography of North?
> Dom
I would have to say that the similarities Dennis has pointed out
between Roberto and Thomas North is a bit more impressive than the
similarities Mark Steese mentions. I am not convinced that Roberto in
the first part of GoW is meant to represent Greene.
Frode
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> Perfect. Just keep repeating this while ignoring [or is it that you
> are in denial] the evidence ...
<snip>
Why would you expect him to be any different than any other anti-
Stratfordian? Although I must admit most anti-Strats are much more
knowledgeable about Early Modern theatre and literature than he is.
TR
Mark Steese
news:d9898ab7-f634-4756...@t9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 2, 4:37 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> innews:4f10719c-7073-4a64-a08b-dbea0dc8
> 78...@d18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > OnSep2, 3:21 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Dom: The story at the beginning of Groats-worth is a
>> > representation of how Robert Greene [Roberto] got his start writing
>> > plays for the theater. That would have been some time around
>> > 1587...so this actor/dramatist couldn't possibly be William
>> > Shakespeare.
>>
>> > Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
>> > there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
>> > Roberto?
>>
>> Besides the names? Well, there's the fact that Roberto "grew *A malo
>> in peius*, falling from one vice to another" due to "conuersing with
>> bad company" after "hauing found a vaine to finger crownes" by
>> writing plays and selling them. "Dennis" would have us believe that
>> even though this appears in the paragraph immediately following the
>> one in which the player-patron hires Roberto, that paragraph alludes
>> to North but the one I quoted alludes to Greene.
>>
>> If one bothers to actually read *Greenes Groats-Worth of Wit*, one
>> finds no division between the beginning of Roberto's tale and the
>> point at which the writer says "Heere (Gentlemen) breake I off
>> *Robertos* speech;
>
> Dennis responds: Yes, there's a rather obvious break.
No, there isn't.
> After spending 7000 words on the entire life history of the manor-born
City-born
> gentleman scholar (which has nothing whatsoever to do with Greene's
> actual first- person autobiography described in "The Repentance"),
> with just one brother who inherited all the families wealth
Unlike Roger North, who had to share the North family's wealth with his
stepmother Margaret, who received "jewels, Ł500, and leases in Chertsey,
London and Southwark," and Queen Elizabeth, who received "a third of
[Edward North's] property in Cambridge and Huntingdonshire, Middlesex
and Suffolk." Nor did Roger inherit the Charterhouse, which Edward
ordered sold "to pay for his funeral expenses and Roger's debts."
> and who then exiled his scholarly brother from the estates,
Unlike Roger North, who made his scholarly brother "a present of 'a
lease of a house and household stuff.'"
> after the gentleman-scholar gives us an example of his writing style
> (and the passage links to a passage in North's "Dial of Princes" to
> the exclusion of all other works in EEBO database),
"Dennis" fancies that the verse Roberto recites in Groats-worth, viz.:
"What meant the Poets in inuective verse,
To sing Medeas shame, and Scillas pride,
Calipsoes charmes, by which so many dyde?
Onely for this their vices they rehearse,
That curious wits which in this world conuerse,
May shun the dangers and enticing shoes,
Of such false Syrens, those home-breeding foes,
That from the eyes their venim do disperse.
So soone kils not the Basiliske with sight,
The Vipers tooth is not so venemous,
The Adders tung not halfe so dangerous,
As they that beare the shadow of delight,
Who chaine blind youths in tramels of their haire,
Till wast bring woe, and sorrow hast despaire"
is "linked" to the following lines from the Dial of Princes:
"He that would now command his wife to tarry at home and let her of her
vagaries into the town, shall perceive that there is no Basilisk nor
Viper that carrieth such poison in her tail, as she will spit with her
tongue."
Per "Dennis," these are the only two passages in the EEBO "that place
Basilisk, Viper (or Vipers), and tongue within 15 words of each other."
Evidently "Dennis" thinks that Nashe and Chettle had a copy of the Dial
of Princes in front of them, and carefully counted the number of words
separating those three words, while inexplicably making no reference to
North's glaring blunder about a basilisk carrying poison in its tail. We
can only marvel at Nashe's unwillingness to mock such an obvious
solecism.
It would certainly be impossible to find any comparable correspondence
of terms in any work known to be by Robert Greene, such as *Francescos
Fortunes*, in which the following passage does not appear:
"The sight of Infida was pleasing in the eyes of Francesco, and almost
as deadly as the basilisk: that had hee not had about him Moly as
Vlisses, he had been inchaunted by the charmes of that wylie Circes..."
Nope, there certainly is no passage in Greene in which one finds the
words "sight," "eyes," "Basilisk," and "charmes" in such close
proximity, much less a passage in which a young man with an Italianate
name is at odds with a courtesan. And if there were such a passage, it
would certainly not appear just a few paragraphs after a passage in
which an actor was compared to "Esops Crow, being pranct with the glorie
of others feathers"; and neither of those passages would appear in the
same book in which a courtesan whose sight was "almost as deadly as the
basilisk" was characterized as "that Syren" and "a Calipso."
--
Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms
of life. -David Lavender
ignoto
Apparently the grape has now reconstituted itself into a whine.
the authors of which note the rather obvious connection
> between Gullio and Nashe's Upstart: "Another is found in the
> relations of Ingenioso to Gullio, a vainglorious pseudo-patron of
> letters, modeled in part on Nashe's portrait of "an upstart" in his
> "Pierce Penilesse." -- The Cambridge History of English Literature,
> Sir Adolphus William Ward, Alfred Rayney Waller (editors), 1910, 311
Sir Adolphus and Alfred Waller do not help your case: they talk of
Guillo being modeled *in part* on Nashe's portrait of an upstart. Which
is just as Dom says: 'the author of the Parnassus play borrows language
from Nashe's description of the Upstart in Pierce Peniless to describe
Gullio.'
Ign.
>
> Now, Ignato, are you really going to deny the following features
> shared by the Upstart and Gullio? Are you really just going to shut
> your eyes and refuse to admit the connection?
>
> 1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
> Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to
> be tam
> Marti quam Mercurio;
>
> 2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
> hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
> fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
>
> Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
> Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
> Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
> health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
> Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere
> this through every by-street,
>
> 3)But he "hath been but over at Dieppe"
>
> "He was never any further than Flushing,
>
> 4) when he comes there, poor soul, he lies in brine in
> ballast, and
> is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
>
> "and then he came home sick of the scurveys. -
>
> 5) an inamorato poeta,& sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
Mark Steese
news:a4e3e268-c3bc-4c0a...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 2, 10:44 pm, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 2, 1:55 pm, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> > Frode: You seem rather certain about this. Which similarities are
>> > there between the biography of Robert Greene and the story about
>> > Roberto?
>
>> Frode:
>
>> Mark Steese has already more than ably handled this. Do you still
>> have other questions as to the similarities between the story and
>> that of Greene, as well as the differences between the story and the
>> biography of North?
>
>> Dom
>
> I would have to say that the similarities Dennis has pointed out
> between Roberto and Thomas North is a bit more impressive than the
> similarities Mark Steese mentions. I am not convinced that Roberto in
> the first part of GoW is meant to represent Greene.
Roberto is, of course, an allegorical figure, like Francesco, the young
man who runs afoul of the courtesan Infida in the works *Greenes Neuer
Too Late* and *Francescos Fortunes*. The characters of Roberto and
Lamilia bear a close resemblance to the characters of Francesco and
Infida, who are unquestionably Greene's creations. Moreover, the
language of *Greenes Groats-worth of Wit* bears a clear resemblance to
the language of Robert Greene:
Francescos Fortunes: "why Roscius, art thou proud with Esops Crow, being
pranct with the glorie of others feathers?"
Greenes Groats-worth: "for there is an vpstart Crow, beautified with our
feathers..."
If Roberto were intended to display similarities to Thomas North, how
curious it is that Roberto is not portrayed as a lawyer, a soldier, or a
translator, even though these are the only three occupations Thomas
North is known to have pursued. How doubly curious that Roberto's father
is not a nobleman or a king's counselor, as Edward North was. And yet
Gorinius is clearly portrayed as a usurer, with Edward North was not:
"Some comfort yet is it vnto me, to see how many gallants sprung of
noble parents have croucht to Gorinius to have sight of his gold: O
gold, desired, golde, admired golde! and haue lost their patrimonies to
Gorinius, because they haue not returned by their day that adored
creature!"
"Dennis" pretends that the allusion to Gorinius having "driuen many a
yoong Gentleman to seeke vnknowen countries" has something to do with
the displacement of monks, but it is clearly of a piece with Gorinius's
gloating over the gallants who lost their patrimonies because they
failed to pay back the money Gorinius lent them. He even uses the term
"yoong Gentlemen" when advising Lucanio to follow in his footsteps:
"...aboue al vse the conuersation of yoong Gentlemen, who are so wedded
to prodigalitie, that once in a quarter necissitie knocks at their
chamber doores: profer them kindnesse to relieue their wants, but be
sure of good assurance: giue faire wordes till dayes of paiment come, &
then vse my course, spare none..."
"Dennis" considers it evidence against Greene that his father was still
alive when Groats-Worth was published, but he does not consider it
evidence against Thomas North that he was Edward North's younger son,
(and thus would not be expected to inherit his father's title or lands),
while Roberto is Gorinius's older son, and would normally be his
father's principal heir, a point underscored by Gorinius himself
("Besides, thou hast an instance by the threedbare brother here, who
willing to do no wrong, hath lost his childes right").
Any detail that doesn't coincide precisely with the known facts of
Greene's life is seized upon by "Dennis" as a fatal objection: every
detail that "Dennis" can't twist into a Northian parallel is ignored.
Gorinius: "How manye Schollers haue written rymes in Gorinius praise,
and receiued (after long capping and reuerence) a sixpeny reward in
signe of my superficial liberality."
How many scholars wrote rhymes in Edward North's praise? Not one.
Gorinius is not Edward North.
Gorinius: "Lucanio, thou are yet a Bacheler, and soe keepe thee till
thou meete with one that is they equal, I meane in wealth..."
Was Roger North "yet a Bacheler" when Edward North died? He was not; he
was married and had fathered four children, the eldest of whom was
already enrolled at Cambridge. Lucanio is not Roger North.
Lucanio is described thus: "The youth was of condition simple, shamfast,
& flexible to any counsaile..."
At the time of his father's death, Roger North was 34 years old; he had
been educated at Cambridge. He was neither simple nor a youth. Lucanio
is not Roger North.
Roberto, seeing that Lucanio is "flexible to any counsaile," "and
pondering howe little as lefte to him, grew into an inward contempt of
his fathers vnequall legacie, and determinate resolution to work Lucanio
al possible iniurie, herevpon thus conuerting the sweetnes of his
studdye to the sharpe thirst of reuenge, he (as Enuie is seldome idle)
sought out fit companions to effect his vnbrotherly resolution..."
Did Thomas North ever conspire with others to work Roger North all
possible injury? He did not. Roberto is not Thomas North.
It is perfectly true that Robert Greene was not the older of two
brothers whose usurer father robbed him of his birthright, provoking him
to conspire with a courtesan to rob his younger brother. And neither was
Thomas North.
Dominic Hughes
I don't expect him to be any different...and he doesn't disappoint me
in the slightest.
Dom
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On Aug 30, 5:15 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
>
> Dennis engages in behavior typical of the megalomaniac. He declares
> himself the victor and proclaims that the discussion is over.
>
> >Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based onNashe's "Upstart"
> > from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> > Plays.
>
> No, this isn’t true beyond all question. All that is true is that the
> author of Parnassus borrowed language fromNashe’s description of theUpstartin Pierce Penniless when describingGullio.
Dennis responds: No, Gullio also claims the same false experiences as
the Upstart. And even if you think that the authors of Parnassus just
"borrowed language" from Nashe's passage on The Upstart," then what
reason do you imagine that they did this? Why on Earth would they
borrow language from this particular passage -- again and again --
unless they were labeling Gullio an Upstart?
Dom: For some reason
> beyond comprehension, you seem to think [if that is even the
> appropriate term] that the Elizabethan authors’ penchant for lifting
> language from their fellow authors
Dennis responds: The editors of the Cambridge History of English
Literature apparently have this same peculiar tendency:
"Another is found in the relations of Ingenioso to Gullio, a
vainglorious pseudo-patron of letters, modeled in part on Nashe's
portrait of "an upstart" in his "Pierce Penilesse." -- The
Cambridge History of English Literature, Sir Adolphus William Ward,
Alfred Rayney Waller (editors), 1910, 311
You see, authors of Parnassus didn't just throw darts at old
pamphlets, then look at the passage that was pierced and say, "Hey,
I've got a great idea! When we are discussing Gullio, I think we
should imitate the language in this passage here -- and I think we
should give him the same experiences too!
> > Indeed, one of the many ways we know thatIngeniosoisNasheis
> > becauseIngeniosogoes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> > often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless."
>
> We know that Ingeniosois Nashe because his dealings with Gullio so
> closely mirror Nashe’s dealings with Southampton,
Dennis responds: No, Nashe is one of the dramatists at the end of
Groatsworth who is identified as selling his "admired inventions" to
the "UPSTART" Shake-Scene.
down to the fact
> that neither was paid for their efforts and both wrote pornography for
> their patrons.
Dennis responds: That "pornography" in Parnassus being positively and
beyond all doubt identified as "Venus and Adonis" -- and Gullio was
going to correct it, add to it and pass it off as his own.
Shakespeare is the one who passed off his adapted poem, Venus and
Adonis, as his own.
>
> > And it
> > is no surprise that the authors patterned GullioafterNashe's
> > "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> > can be found inNashe's "The Nature of anUpstart" in "Pierce
> > Penniless."
>
> Seriously? That’s good, because the Upstart is a merchant/soldier who
> is present at the Court
Dennis responds: It is remarkable how often you take seriously the
obviously false claims of a foolish boaster -- even when the author
himself is telling you they are all lies. The Upstart's military
experiences, like Gullio's are...lies.
"been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath adventured
upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought with the
young Guise hand to hand."
The Upstart got his wound from a wolf -- and claims it's a war-wound
he got when "he adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or
Guingamp, and fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
You see, The Upstart did not really fight "the young Guise hand to
hand" or adventure "upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp."
That's a lie. The Upstart has actually never been further than Dieppe
-- and his wounds are from a wolf.
And you see, Gullio never killed a "Pollonian, a German and a
Dutchman",..or had "exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale
voyage," See? Those are the kinds of lies that boasting Upstarts tell.
And we know Gullio's claims are lies because Ingenioso tells the
audience again and again and again that Gullio's boasts are lies. And
Ingenioso notes Gullio has never been further than Flushing, just as
the Upstart has never been further than Dieppe, both right across the
Channel. Do you know why Gullio refers to "Cosmopolis"? As Leishman,
the editor of the plays says: "[Cosmopolis] "I can only assume that
this is Gullio's ignorant substitution for Constantinople: cf Nashe's
description of the Upstart in Pierce Penniless." -- Leishman, The
Three Parnassus Plays.... Also in the Gull's Hornbook, Dekker advises
Gulls (Gullo is a gull) who were ever soldiers to also lie about their
experiences In The Gull's Hornbook, Dekker advises the Gull (Gullio
was a gull )to tell these same lies at the ordinary: "If you be a
soldier, talk how often you have been in action; as the Portingale
voyage, Cales voyage, the Island voyage; besides some eight or nine
employments in Ireland. " That's "Portingale Voyage," "Cales [Cadiz]
voyage" and Ireland. All lies.
[Dennis, you left this part out of the
> description]:
>
> O! But a far greater enormitie raigneth in the heart of the court.
> Pride, the perverter of all virtue, sitteth appairalled in the
> merchants spoyles, and ruine of yong citizens, and scorneth learning
> that gave their up-start fathers titles of gentrie.
Dennis responds: As with "Greediness," "Pride" is something found in
the "heart of the court." The Upstart who's the " greasy son of a
clothier" and wool-dealer is one of Nashe's many examples of Pride.
"Artificers" and "Merchant's wives" were other examples of "Pride."
And Nashe also discussed the "Pride of the Spaniard" and "Pride of the
Italian" and "Pride of the learned." It doesn't mean Merchant's
wives, Spaniards of Upstarts were prominent court figures.
>
> > Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> > was co-authored byNashe) describes Shakespeare as an "upstartcrow."
>
Dom: It is always humorous when you engage in argument by authority
Dennis: I never, ever suggest anyone accept some notion because of an
authority figure. I showed precisely why I and others like Katherine
Duncan-Jones have concluded Nashe was involved.
And I showed that he was accused of writing, that it contains numerous
peculiar phrases of his, and that Gabriel Harvey named him as an
author of Groatsworth. I reference Jones just as an example of a
person who has come to the same conclusion, so that I don't give the
impression I came up this idea myself.
Regardless, Nashe figures prominently in "Groatsworth" and since he
referred to "Groatsworth" earlier in "Pierce Penniless" and was
friends with Greene, he knows that Shake-Scene was called an "Upstart"
-- like Nashe's Upstart who was the model for Gullio,
> > Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately,Nashecarefully
> > defines it:
> > In "The Nature of anUpstart,"Nashemocks the "the greasy son" of a
> > clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him some
> > wealth and status. This "Upstart" isGullio'stwin,
>
> No, he really isn’t, as theUpstartis a merchant as well as a
> soldier.
Dennis responds: Again, Gullio and the Upstart are both lying about
their military experiences.
There is no indication thatGulliois a merchant. In
> addition, there is nothing in Parnassus thatGulliois the greasy son
> of a clothier/wool-dealer.
Dennis responds; Quite obviously, satirists can never possibly
include absolutely, every single conceivable feature or allusion in
creating a parody. Gullio's not referred to as an Earl, or as
married, or as born in Sussex or any one of hundreds of other
biographical aspects of Southampton. Your constant reliance on
absence of some potential comment -- when facing overwhelming positive
evidence for the identification -- is a mark of desperation.
> > falsely bragging
> > about exactly the same things (his martial abilities and military
> > exploits, the sonnets to his mistress, his travels),
> > and in exactly the same language:
>
> Not quite, and, shortly, I’ll provide the reason why this claim
> backfires on you here, Dennis.
Dennis responds: Yes, quite. "Tam Marti quam Mercurio," "Monsieur
Mingo," "sick of the scurvies," "Cosmopolis/Constantinople."
>
> > ThisUpstartthinks of himself as (or his father
> > is) a "squire of low degree....
> > Tam Marti quam Mercurio"..(Important
> > quote that).
>
> Yes, it may very well be, but not for the reason that you think….
Dennis: You mean, not because of the obvious fact that Gullio is the
Upstart? Instead, maybe it's a false series of precise clues one
after the other?
but
> I’ll get to that later.
> For what it is worth, that quote has nothing to do with whether or not
> theUpstart[or his father] is a squire of low degree.
Dennis responds; It means as much for Mars as for Mercury -- as
skilled at war as diplomacy.
> >Nashecontinues:
> > "He will be humorous,
>
> Then that isn’tGullio, because he isn’t humorous at all…he is the
> butt of humor.
That refers to the bodily humors for controlling mood. The
definitions for humorous in OED include: fanciful, fantastic, odd, and
moody. So instead of being a difference, this is another spot-on
description of Gullio.
> > forsooth, and have a brood of fashions by
> > himself. Sometimes (because love commonly wears the livery of wit) he
> > will be an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise
> > of Lady Swine-Snout,
Dennis responds: Why "Lady Swine-Snout"? And why is Gullio's mistress
named Lady Lesbia. I'll be coming to that.
his yellow-faced mistress,
> > & wear a feather of
> > her rainbeaten fan for a favour, like a fore-horse. All Italianato is
> > his talk, & his spade-peak is as sharp as if he had been a pioneer
> > before the walls of Rouen. He will despise the barbarism of his own
> > country, & tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> > Constantinople. If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse
> > he objects that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to
> > look back to every dog that barks. You shall see a dapper Jack, that
> > hath been but over at Dieppe, wring his face round about, as a man
> > would stir up a mustard-pot, & talk English through the teeth, like
> > Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap, when (poor
> > slave) he hath but dipped his bread in wild boar's grease and come
> > home again, or been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath
> > adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> > with the young Guise hand to hand. "
>
> Similar language but not the same as that used to identify Gullio.
Dennis responds: They both do exactly the same things and boast about
the same false experiences.
Dom: In
> fact, isn’t it amazing that the facts are changed so that the
> circumstances correspond to Southampton’s travels, especially to his
> recent trip to Ireland?
Dennis responds: No, because that was the current war. (And
Southampton didn't go to Cosmopolis/Constantinople or the Portingale
Voyage.) Anyway, it would have been absurd, in 1600, for Gullio to
claim he just got back from the civil in-fighting in France of the
early 1590's. So the authors just updated. These are all the famous,
well known battles that a bragging lying soldier-for-a-moment or wanna-
be-soldier would tell. As Dekker tells about the lies of a Gull. "If
you be a soldier, talk how often you have been in action; as the
Portingale voyage, Cales voyage, the Island voyage; besides some eight
or nine employments in Ireland. " That's "Portingale Voyage," "Cales
[Cadiz] voyage" and Ireland. All lies. No coincidence. These are the
well known English battles.
And even if we were to just foolishly accept as true the ridiculous
boasts of Gullio -- even as the main character is looking straight to
the audience and telling them they are lies; even if we just blindly
accept that Gullio was an Earl and in fact acquainted with numerous
Lords and Countesses -- even despite Ingenioso's flat out denial of
this claim; could there be anything less helpful in denoting a
particular nobleman than to refer to his having been in Ireland? What
nobleman hadn't been to Ireland?
Dom: Just another coincidence, I suppose.
Dennis responds: No, updating the war is a necessary change. And you
have yet to name a single coincidence. Here's what is a coincidence:
Gullio is based on Nashe's Upstart, who is a son of a wealthy wool-
dealer, just like Shakespeare -- and Shakes-Scene is described as an
Upstart. The boastful Gullio like the boastful Player both have
apparel worth 200 pounds. Both are described as being over-dressed
for their station. Gullio like Sogliardo and Asotus all woo their
mistresses while stumbling over Latin (and Latin languages). Both
Gullio and Asotus practice their wooing on a male scholar. Gullio
like the Player actually recites his verse aloud -- and loves it. And
the very authors, in the second part of this play, write a long speech
about actors --and especially one who has just purchased lands and has
been made a gentleman -- who wears a "satin Suit" (just like Gullio),
hires an unhappy scholar for meager pay (just like Gullio and the
Player) and who had once carried their fardels on their backs (just
like the Player) -- and uses numerous phrases from Groatsworth.
Now, those are a conspiracy of coincidences.
>
> > (Later:)
> > "he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> > throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> > soul, he lies in
> > brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;"
>
> This is quite disingenuous of you, Dennis. Here, you imply that this
> passage [the braggart laid low by scurvy] is a part of the description
> of theUpstart,
Dennis responds: No, I don't. In my specific description of that
line, I explain it is from Nashe's description of the Prodigal a few
paragraphs later.
but it is most definitely not. It is found in a
> description of an entirely different character, known as the Prodigal
> Young Master. However, it is good that you have included this
> parallel pasage, for it demonstrates quite well that the author of
> Parnassus was more than willing to take language fromNashewherever
> it appealed to him to do so, and he was not confining himself to the
> description of theUpstart.
Dennis responds: Nope, that's the only line (and a Prodigal does match
Shakespeare). The rest are all crammed into the description of the
Upstart. Your belief that they are just borrowing language from
Nashe's work is belied by the fact that all of the commonalities
(except "sick of the scurvies") comes from a single paragraph.
>
> What personage at Elizabeth’s court would be seen as anupstart…
Dennis responds: I don't think you know the definition of an "Upstart"
as it refers to a social climber -- one who has risen from a low
station to become a man of wealth and power. The Earl of Southampton
was an Earl from time he was an 8 year old child.
> someone who was both soldier and merchant, someone who was identified
> with the motto, “tam Marti quam Mercurio”?
Dennis: You mean one who wasn't really a soldier and lied about his
exploits and was the son of a wool-dealer?
> > This "Upstart" is described as (or tries to pass himself off as )
> > 1) a squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
Ralegh> Raleigh began life on a farm, and he was highly interested in
the
> restoration of the ancient home given him by the Queen. He was most
> definitely viewed as anupstart. Coincidence?
>
> > 2) tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto Constantinople
>
> Raleigh published an exaggerated account of his experiences looking
> for the City of Gold in a book that contributed to the legend of "El
> Dorado".
Dennis responds: Raeligh's trip occurred in 1595, three years after
Pierce Penniless.
>
> > 3) a dapper Jack, that hath been but over at Dieppe
> > 3) [having] been bitten by the shins by a wolf, ...saith he hath
> > adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> > with the young Guise hand to hand.
> > 4) an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise of
> > Lady Swine-Snout, ..
> > 5) He will despise the barbarism of his own country,
> > 6) If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse he objects
> > that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to look back
> > to every dog that barks.
> > 7) talk English through the teeth, like Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or
> > Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap,
> > (....and a few paragraphs later in Pierce Penniless, we find a
> > reference to a prodigal son, who:)
> > 8) he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> > throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> > soul, he lies in
> > brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;
>
Dom: > Good. I see that you have cleared up your previous failure to
mention
> this fact. Once again, this only serves to prove that you are
> incorrect in contending that theUpstartis the same character asGullio.
Dennis: The fact that one of the phrases was taken, a few paragraphs
later, from a description of the Prodigal (which would be an effective
description of Shakespeare) does not magically make the 7 dead-on
pointed resemblances between "The Upstart" and Gullio disappear.
> > Let's now add all theGullioreferences to the above:
> > 1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
> > Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to be tam
> > Marti quam Mercurio;
>
> Why do you think this quotation has something to do with being a
> squire of low degree?
Dennis resoponds: Gullio and others constantly refer to him as a
"gentleman." This is also why Shakespeare is carefully and repeatedly
mocked, practically every time, as "MR. Shakespeare," underscoring
his, in their view, unearned status as a gentleman, which is the
lowest of all ranks. Monsier Mingo is also a "Mister" -- and wishes
to be "Knight Domingo," just like Gullio. The reference in the
Upstart above to a squire of low degree is to Shakespeare and his
father, the latter of whom had earned some sort of low title, had been
referred to as "Mister," had been a justice of the peace.
> > 2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> > Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
> > hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
> > fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
>
> >Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
> > Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
> > Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
> > health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
> > Portingale voyage, and now very lately in Ireland had been jetting ere
> > this through every by-street,
>
> Extremely interesting. The author of Parnassus tookthe generalidea
> fromNashe’s Pierce Penniless but appears to have intentionally
> changed the specifics so that Gullio was bragging of his travels and
> his exploits in Padua and, even more interesting, Cadiz…why would he
> do such a thing? The answer is that he was caricaturing Southampton,
> who, in 1596 and 1597, just happened to have accompanied Essex on his
> expeditions to Cádiz. This is another specific and explicit
> correspondence betweenGullioand Southampton’s ...
Dennis responds: First, Cosmopolis is Gullio's confusion for
Constantinople -- which is where the Upstrat lied about too (and
Southampton never went.) And Southampton was never on the Portingale
Voyage. I again repeat, these are all obviously lies. Padua is
perfect as the references to Padua in Shakespeare's plays -- MoV,
MAAN, and of course Shrew -- suggest Shakespeare's false familiarity
with the town. The others are standard bragging places for the lying
soldier -- Cales (or Cadiz), Portingale Voyage, Ireland. In The
Gull's Hornbook, Dekker advises the Gull (Gullio was a gull )to tell
these same lies at the ordinary: "If you be a soldier, talk how often
you have been in action; as the Portingale voyage, Cales voyage, the
Island voyage; besides some eight or nine employments in Ireland. "
That's "Portingale Voyage," "Cales [Cadiz] voyage" and Ireland. All
lies.
Dominic Hughes
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 12:10 am, Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 30, 5:15 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>
> > <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > > Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
>
> > Dennis engages in behavior typical of the megalomaniac. He declares
> > himself the victor and proclaims that the discussion is over.
>
> > >Gullio, in fact, is beyond all question, based onNashe's "Upstart"
> > > from "Pierce Penniless," which is a source pamphlet for the Parnassus
> > > Plays.
>
> > No, this isn’t true beyond all question. All that is true is that the
>
> Dennis responds: No, Gullio also claims the same false experiences as
> the Upstart.
But you have said that the very definition of an upstart has to do
with gaining wealth and status and flaunting such. Military exploits
have nothing to do with that. And, no, Gullio does not claim the same
experiences as the Upstart in Pierce Penniless. They are different
experiences and you should stop lying about this...if only to
yourself.
> And even if you think that the authors of Parnassus just
> "borrowed language" from Nashe's passage on The Upstart," then what
> reason do you imagine that they did this? Why on Earth would they
> borrow language from this particular passage -- again and again --
> unless they were labeling Gullio an Upstart?
Because they liked the language and could turn it into a caricature of
Southampton. Maybe because they wanted to signify to the audience
that Ingenioso was patterned on Nashe.Your insistent belief that the
borrowing of language from one work of literature to another must mean
that the different authors were making the exact same point, or
describing the exact same person, is idiotic.
> Dom: For some reason
> > beyond comprehension, you seem to think [if that is even the
> > appropriate term] that the Elizabethan authors’ penchant for lifting
> > language from their fellow authors
>
> Dennis responds: The editors of the Cambridge History of English
> Literature apparently have this same peculiar tendency:
> "Another is found in the relations of Ingenioso to Gullio, a
> vainglorious pseudo-patron of letters, modeled in part on Nashe's
> portrait of "an upstart" in his "Pierce Penilesse." -- The
> Cambridge History of English Literature, Sir Adolphus William Ward,
> Alfred Rayney Waller (editors), 1910, 311
They are not saying that Gullio and the Upstart are the exact same
character, which is your idiotic argument.
Ignoto has answered this elsewhere:
"Sir Adolphus and Alfred Waller do not help your case: they talk of
Guillo being modeled *in part* on Nashe's portrait of an upstart.
Which is just as Dom says: 'the author of the Parnassus play borrows
language from Nashe's description of the Upstart in Pierce Peniless to
describe Gullio.'" -- Ign.
The Authors of Parnassus borrowed some language from Nashe, but that
fact doesn't make Gullio the Upstart, or make him the player/former
dramatist, or make him Shake-scene, etc. Your argument is like that
which a child would make. "They called him some of the same words so
he must be the same person." Seriously? and, of course, you continue
to ignore all the differences between the characters.
By the way, here is the complete text of what I said, part of which
you snipped and did not answer:
For some reason beyond comprehension, you seem to think [if that is
even the appropriate term] that the Elizabethan authors’ penchant for
lifting language from their fellow authors meant that the characters
each other described all had to be caricatures of the same person [and
differences to be summarily ignored]. Elizabethan authors plundered
their friends and rivals for images and language all the time, but it
doesn’t mean that they were always targeting the same person.
You are still ignoring the differences.
> You see, authors of Parnassus didn't just throw darts at old
> pamphlets, then look at the passage that was pierced and say, "Hey,
> I've got a great idea! When we are discussing Gullio, I think we
> should imitate the language in this passage here -- and I think we
> should give him the same experiences too!
More stupidity. Stop making straw men to argue against. Nobody has
made this idiotic claim. One of the reasons that The author of
Parnassus may have chosen to use language similar to portions of
Pierce Penniless [altered to fit Southampton, of course] is to clue
the audience in to the fact that Ingenioso is a representation of
Nashe. This would make sense. And please, for the love of all that
is holy, stop lying by claiming that Gullio's experiences are the same
as the Upstart's experiences.
> > > Indeed, one of the many ways we know thatIngeniosoisNasheis
> > > becauseIngeniosogoes into a long rant that always paraphrases and is
> > > often a verbatim quote of a passage from "Pierce Penniless."
> > We know that Ingenioso is Nashe because his dealings with Gullio so
> > closely mirror Nashe’s dealings with Southampton,
>
> Dennis responds: No, Nashe is one of the dramatists at the end of
> Groatsworth who is identified as selling his "admired inventions" to
> the "UPSTART" Shake-Scene.
No, he isn't, and this is a total non sequitur, which says absolutely
nothing in relevaqnt response to the statement that Ingenioso's
dealings with Gullio so closely mirror Nashe's dealings with
Southampton [down to writing pornography for their patrons and not
getting rewarded monetarily]. If this is the best argument that you
can make you should quit now.
> down to the fact
> > that neither was paid for their efforts and both wrote pornography for
> > their patrons.
>
> Dennis responds: That "pornography" in Parnassus being positively and
> beyond all doubt identified as "Venus and Adonis" -- and Gullio was
> going to correct it, add to it and pass it off as his own.
Are you drinking? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are
now in the bizarre position of arguing that Ingenioso/Nashe wrote
'Venus and Adonis' for Gullio/Shakespeare to pass off as his own. Is
that really your argument? I thought that your theory was that Thomas
North wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare. Of course, the
Parnassus play do not "positively and beyond all doubt" as the
pornography written for Gullio by Nashe...Ingenioso is to write poetry
in the vein of Mr. Shakespeare, similar to Venus and Adonis, a work
that the play makes clear has already been written and was written by
Mr. Shakespeare [who you contend is Gullio]. Ingenioso makes one
reference to the porno he wrote for Gullio and it is not identified as
'Venus and Adonis' -- your theory is so confused as to be ridiculous.
You are tying yourself in knots.
The fact is that Nashe wrote a pornographic work for Southampton
[Nashe's Dildo]. Southampton did not reward Nashe for his work and
chose not to act as a patron to the poet, frustrating and embittering
Nashe against Southampton. These are all facts -- as opposed to your
strange speculations about Nashe writing 'Venus and Adonis'.
> Shakespeare is the one who passed off his adapted poem, Venus and
> Adonis, as his own.
So your theory is that Nashe wrote 'Venus and Adonis' -- ridiculous.
> > > And it
> > > is no surprise that the authors patterned GullioafterNashe's
> > > "Upstart," described in that work. And many of the characteristics
> > > can be found inNashe's "The Nature of anUpstart" in "Pierce
> > > Penniless."
>
> > Seriously? That’s good, because the Upstart is a merchant/soldier who
> > is present at the Court
>
> Dennis responds: It is remarkable how often you take seriously the
> obviously false claims of a foolish boaster -- even when the author
> himself is telling you they are all lies. The Upstart's military
> experiences, like Gullio's are...lies.
No...they are boastful exaggerations. It is remarkable that you don't
seem to understand what an exaggeration is and how it is used for
comic effect. It is also remarkable how you take some claims
literally and treat other claims differently, all in the service of
your idiotic theory. As for Gullio, even Ingenioso does not question
the fact that he is recently returned from Ireland. It is in the text
for anyone, but you, to see. He was there as part of the military
expedition of Essex, but, like Southampton, he did not see action, was
not knighted, and carried on a relationship with a captain whose sword
was at his service every morning. Even if we assume, for the sake of
argument, that the Upstart has not served overseas, he is still
definitely a merchant at court. Gullio is not a merchant and,
according to you, he is not at court. Gullio is also not the greasy
son of a clothier/wool-dealer. And Gullio is not humorous at all, as
is the Upstart.
> "been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath adventured
> upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought with the
> young Guise hand to hand."
> The Upstart got his wound from a wolf -- and claims it's a war-wound
> he got when "he adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or
> Guingamp, and fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
> You see, The Upstart did not really fight "the young Guise hand to
> hand" or adventure "upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp."
> That's a lie. The Upstart has actually never been further than Dieppe
You take this literally [it is exaggeration for comic effect so should
not be taken literally].
> -- and his wounds are from a wolf.
You don't take this literally [it is exaggeration for comic effect so
should not be taken literally].
Good god, but you are an idiot. The fact that the Upstart is
exaggerating his experiences does not mean he was actually not present
or in military service. You really don't know anything about
exaggeration for comic effect, hyperbole, etc., do you? Did you ever
read any fiction before turning to this hobby horse of yours?
> And you see, Gullio never killed a "Pollonian, a German and a
> Dutchman",..or had "exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale
> voyage," See? Those are the kinds of lies that boasting Upstarts tell.
Yes, Gullio exaggerates his exploits but that doesn't mean that he
wasn't in military service abroad. Comic effect...hyperbole...a
literary figure of speech to which you are deaf, blind, and most
assuredly dumb.
.
> And we know Gullio's claims are lies because Ingenioso tells the
> audience again and again and again that Gullio's boasts are lies. And
> Ingenioso notes Gullio has never been further than Flushing, just as
> the Upstart has never been further than Dieppe, both right across the
> Channel.
You take this literally [it is exaggeration for comic effect so should
not be taken literally].
It is also untrue that Ingenioso tells the audience that Gulliuo has
not been to Ireland. In fact, he confirms that Gullio has been
there. It is in the text for anyone, but you, to read [even his suit
was purchased from an Irish soldier].
> Do you know why Gullio refers to "Cosmopolis"? As Leishman,
> the editor of the plays says: "[Cosmopolis] "I can only assume that
> this is Gullio's ignorant substitution for Constantinople: cf Nashe's
> description of the Upstart in Pierce Penniless." -- Leishman, The
> Three Parnassus Plays.... Also in the Gull's Hornbook, Dekker advises
> Gulls (Gullo is a gull) who were ever soldiers to also lie about their
> experiences
Exactly. They were soldiers but they boastfully exaggerate their
exploits, just as I've been saying. They are not lying about having
served -- they are exaggerating the extent of their service.
> In The Gull's Hornbook, Dekker advises the Gull (Gullio
> was a gull )to tell these same lies at the ordinary: "If you be a
> soldier, talk how often you have been in action; as the Portingale
> voyage, Cales voyage, the Island voyage; besides some eight or nine
> employments in Ireland. " That's "Portingale Voyage," "Cales [Cadiz]
> voyage" and Ireland. All lies.
I believe that 'The Gull's Hornbook' was first published in 1609, so,
just as I was explaining before, authors borrowed language from other
authors with impunity and it didn't mean that they were identifying
the same person or that the characters described were the exact same
person. It appears here that Dekker borrowed from Nashe or from the
Parnassus author or from both.
> [Dennis, you left this part out of the
>
> > description]:
>
> > O! But a far greater enormitie raigneth in the heart of the court.
> > Pride, the perverter of all virtue, sitteth appairalled in the
> > merchants spoyles, and ruine of yong citizens, and scorneth learning
> > that gave their up-start fathers titles of gentrie.
>
> Dennis responds: As with "Greediness," "Pride" is something found in
> the "heart of the court." The Upstart who's the " greasy son of a
> clothier" and wool-dealer is one of Nashe's many examples of Pride.
> "Artificers" and "Merchant's wives" were other examples of "Pride."
> And Nashe also discussed the "Pride of the Spaniard" and "Pride of the
> Italian" and "Pride of the learned." It doesn't mean Merchant's
> wives, Spaniards of Upstarts were prominent court figures.
Who said they were? But Nashe does say that the Upstart was a type of
Pride who was found in the heart of the court. The text is what
matters.
> > > Recall that Groatsworth (which as K. Duncan-Jones correctly argues
> > > was co-authored byNashe) describes Shakespeare as an "upstartcrow."
>
> Dom: It is always humorous when you engage in argument by authority
>
> Dennis: I never, ever suggest anyone accept some notion because of an
> authority figure.
No, you just argue that what the authority has contended is correct.
Sounds like argument by authority to me.
> I showed precisely why I and others like Katherine
> Duncan-Jones have concluded Nashe was involved.
Which does not make it a fact.
> And I showed that he was accused of writing,
Which he denied.
> that it contains numerous
> peculiar phrases of his,
Which could be more proof of the fact that authors borrowed from each
other all of the time, as I've stated.
> and that Gabriel Harvey named him as an
> author of Groatsworth.
Which he denied.
> I reference Jones just as an example of a
> person who has come to the same conclusion, so that I don't give the
> impression I came up this idea myself.
God forbid.
> Regardless, Nashe figures prominently in "Groatsworth" and since he
> referred to "Groatsworth" earlier in "Pierce Penniless" and was
> friends with Greene, he knows that Shake-Scene was called an "Upstart"
> -- like Nashe's Upstart who was the model for Gullio,
No, some of Nashe's language was used, and some was altered, in
describing Gullio, but that doesn't mean that Gullio was modeled on
the Upstart [especially when the differences between them are
considered].
> > > Just what exactly is an "upstart"? Fortunately,Nashecarefully
> > > defines it:
> > > In "The Nature of anUpstart,"Nashemocks the "the greasy son" of a
> > > clothier/wool-dealer whose business success in wool has given him some
> > > wealth and status. This "Upstart" isGullio'stwin,
>
> > No, he really isn’t, as theUpstartis a merchant as well as a
> > soldier.
>
> Dennis responds: Again, Gullio and the Upstart are both lying about
> their military experiences.
Yes, like the men who actually were soldiers in 'The Gull's Hornbook',
they are exaggerating their military service.
> There is no indication thatGulliois a merchant. In
>
> > addition, there is nothing in Parnassus thatGulliois the greasy son
> > of a clothier/wool-dealer.
>
> Dennis responds; Quite obviously, satirists can never possibly
> include absolutely, every single conceivable feature or allusion in
> creating a parody.
Right, but if there are substantial differences in the characters, as
there are here, then they are not the same exact characters.
> Gullio's not referred to as an Earl, or as
> married, or as born in Sussex or any one of hundreds of other
> biographical aspects of Southampton.
Plenty of biographical aspects of Southampton's life have been shown
in the character of Gullio. You are desperate to avoid discussing
them.
> Your constant reliance on
> absence of some potential comment -- when facing overwhelming positive
> evidence for the identification -- is a mark of desperation.
There is no overwhelming positive evidence for the identifications
that you make, as has been repeatedly shown to you. In fact, to take
one example, many of the positive references in the description of the
player in Roberto's tale are not facts which can possibly identify
Shakespeare, but you are desperate to avoid discussing those.
No, the desperation is discovered in your avoidance of discussion of
the differences between the characters [which means that they are not
the exact same characters] and your avoidance of all of the evidence
that Gullio is Southampton.
> > > falsely bragging
> > > about exactly the same things (his martial abilities and military
> > > exploits, the sonnets to his mistress, his travels),
> > > and in exactly the same language:
>
> > Not quite, and, shortly, I’ll provide the reason why this claim
> > backfires on you here, Dennis.
>
> Dennis responds: Yes, quite. "Tam Marti quam Mercurio," "Monsieur
> Mingo," "sick of the scurvies," "Cosmopolis/Constantinople."
There you go lying again...sick of the scurvies has nothing to do with
the Upstart. Please stop, as this has now been pointed out to you a
number of times. Here, you imply that this passage [the braggart laid
low by scurvy] is a part of the description of the Upstart, but it is
most definitely not. It is found in a description of an entirely
different character, known as the Prodigal Young Master. However, it
is good that you have included this parallel pasage, for it
demonstrates quite well that the author of Parnassus was more than
willing to take language from Nashe wherever it appealed to him to do
so, and he was not confining himself to the description of the
Upstart.
Your constant reliance on the presence of some borrowed language --
when facing overwhelming positive evidence showing that the characters
are different and that there is no common identification -- is a mark
of desperation.
> > > ThisUpstartthinks of himself as (or his father
> > > is) a "squire of low degree....
> > > Tam Marti quam Mercurio"..(Important
> > > quote that).
>
> > Yes, it mayverywell be, but not for the reason that you think….
>
> Dennis: You mean, not because of the obvious fact that Gullio is the
> Upstart?
Gullio is not the Upstart, unless and until you can explain all of the
differences between their characters. It is only some borrowed
language, and language that is altered at that, which is employed to
describe a different character who may share some of the same traits
with another character but is not the exact same character.
> Instead, maybe it's a false series of precise clues one
> after the other?
No, it isn't a clue at all. The clues are actually discovered in the
changes in the language from Nashe's Upstart to Gullio. The language
is borrowed, but then modified to make it correspond directly to the
biographical facts which comport with the life of Southampton. I have
no idea who the Upstart may actually be said to represent, if it is
even any one particular person, but he is not the same character as
Gullio, based on differences, and other positive evidence, in the
texts themselves.
> but
>
> > I’ll get to that later.
> > For what it is worth, that quote has nothing to do with whether or not
> > theUpstart[or his father] is a squire of low degree.
>
> Dennis responds; It means as much for Mars as for Mercury -- as
> skilled at war as diplomacy.
Right...which has nothing to do with being a squire of low degree.
> > >Nashecontinues:
> > > "He will be humorous,
>
> > Then that isn’tGullio, because he isn’t humorous at all…he is the
> > butt of humor.
>
> That refers to the bodily humors for controlling mood. The
> definitions for humorous in OED include: fanciful, fantastic, odd, and
> moody. So instead of being a difference, this is another spot-on
> description of Gullio.
No, it really isn't...which one of the humors do the characters share?
Actually, the four humors were "choleric", "sanguine", "phlegmatic"
and "melancholy"...so which would describe both the Upstart and
Gullio?
> > > forsooth, and have a brood of fashions by
> > > himself. Sometimes (because love commonly wears the livery of wit) he
> > > will be an inamorato poeta, & sonnet a whole quire of paper in praise
> > > of Lady Swine-Snout,
>
> Dennis responds: Why "Lady Swine-Snout"? And why is Gullio's mistress
> named Lady Lesbia. I'll be coming to that.
One can hardly wait for your ridiculous interpretation.
> his yellow-faced mistress,
>
> > > & wear a feather of
> > > her rainbeaten fan for a favour, like a fore-horse. All Italianato is
> > > his talk, & his spade-peak is as sharp as if he had been a pioneer
> > > before the walls of Rouen. He will despise the barbarism of his own
> > > country, & tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> > > Constantinople. If he be challenged to fight, for his dilatory excuse
> > > he objects that it is not the custom of the Spaniard or the German to
> > > look back to every dog that barks. You shall see a dapper Jack, that
> > > hath been but over at Dieppe, wring his face round about, as a man
> > > would stir up a mustard-pot, & talk English through the teeth, like
> > > Jacques Scabbed-Hams, or Monsieur Mingo de Mousetrap, when (poor
> > > slave) he hath but dipped his bread in wild boar's grease and come
> > > home again, or been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he hath
> > > adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and fought
> > > with the young Guise hand to hand. "
>
> > Similar language but not the same as that used to identify Gullio.
>
> Dennis responds: They both do exactly the same things and boast about
> the same false experiences.
No, they don't actually. As I've shown already, the language borrowed
from Nashe is altered by the Paranssus author to specifically,
intentionally refer to events and more recent occurrences in the life
of Southampton. Even if they did do exactly the same things and boast
about the same things [as they most assuredly do not, your continued
lying to the contrary] that would not mean they are the same
character. They are differnet characters in different works, and some
phrases have been borrowed form other authors and other characters.
Nothing more.
> Dom: In
> > fact, isn’t it amazing that the facts are changed so that the
> > circumstances correspond to Southampton’s travels, especially to his
> > recent trip to Ireland?
>
> Dennis responds: No, because that was the current war. (And
> Southampton didn't go to Cosmopolis/Constantinople or the Portingale
> Voyage.) Anyway, it would have been absurd, in 1600, for Gullio to
> claim he just got back from the civil in-fighting in France of the
> early 1590's. So the authors just updated. These are all the famous,
> well known battles that a bragging lying soldier-for-a-moment or wanna-
> be-soldier would tell.
That's your answer...seriously? At least you admit that the
experiences described were different, if merely "updated". Specific
correspondences have been shown between the life of Southampton and
the campaign in Ireland. Your desperation does not permit you to
actually argue against these, or even to consider them.
> As Dekker tells about the lies of a Gull. "If
> you be a soldier, talk how often you have been in action; as the
> Portingale voyage, Cales voyage, the Island voyage; besides some eight
> or nine employments in Ireland. " That's "Portingale Voyage," "Cales
> [Cadiz] voyage" and Ireland. All lies. No coincidence. These are the
> well known English battles.
Right...no coincidence, except that Southampton, who was the dedicatee
of two of Shakespeare's works, who was known to be enamored of
Shakespeare, who stiffed Ingenioso as a patron, who had porno written
for him by Nashe, etc.] did serve in Cadiz and was recently returned
from service in Ireland at the time of the writing of Parnassus. For
you to continue to deny that these are real-life, actual
correspondences to Southampton demonstrates the depth of your
monomania. It really is quite pathetic.
> And even if we were to just foolishly accept as true the ridiculous
> boasts of Gullio --
Stop creating straw men.
Nobody accepts these lines as literally true, you moron...they are
recognized as boasts by everyone here. Your problem is that you don't
also realize that Ingenioso's replies are not literal truth but are
exaggerations for comic effect, a common literary figure of speech
called hyperbole...one that was well-known to Elizabethans, but not to
you quite obviously.
> even as the main character is looking straight to
> the audience and telling them they are lies;
Which isn't what he is doing, which you would know if you had any
understanding of literary figures of speech or the employment of
exaggeration for comic effect.
> even if we just blindly
> accept that Gullio was an Earl and in fact acquainted with numerous
> Lords and Countesses -- even despite Ingenioso's flat out denial of
> this claim;
Can you get any less informed?
> could there be anything less helpful in denoting a
> particular nobleman than to refer to his having been in Ireland? What
> nobleman hadn't been to Ireland?
Idiot. Those noblemen fought in Ireland. Southampton was the only
one ordered to sit in camp. He was the only one who carried on a
fling with a captain there. Just more coincidences for you to ignore.
> Dom: Just another coincidence, I suppose.
>
> Dennis responds: No, updating the war is a necessary change. And you
> have yet to name a single coincidence.
You are either a liar or you have not read the posts here which
identify specific correspondences. Either way, whether you are lying
or whether you are too lazy to have read the posts that have been made
here that identify Southampton [and not just his experiences in
Ireland], you argument by fiat is not credible and does not serve as a
rebuttal of the correspondences that have been noted. If this is the
best that you can do, and I'm quite sure it is, it would be better for
you to take a few days and actually read all of the responses that
include specific correspondences. Unlike your idiotic identification
of Gullio as Shakespeare.
I won't waste my time citing all of those correspondences for you. I
compiled a list for you before, you took a brief, half-hearted stab at
it, and then avoided any more discussion of it. To say that not a
single coincidence has been cited is factually incorrect, and only
shows you for the idiot you are.
> Here's what is a coincidence:
> Gullio is based on Nashe's Upstart,
No, he isn't at all and your speculation in this regard does not make
it so. Is Gullio based on the Nashe's Prodigal as well? All that has
occurred is that the Parnassus author has borrowed some phrases from
Nashe, but it is quite apparent that the characters are different --
at least to anyone who can actually read with comprehension.
> who is a son of a wealthy wool-
> dealer, just like Shakespeare --
Brilliant logic...Gullio is based on the Upstart character, and the
Upstart's father was a wealthy wool-dealer. Shakespeare's father was
a wealthy wool-dealer [which isn't exactly true, as he made some money
and then went into decline] so Gullio must be Shakespeare. Do you
really fail to understand how tendentious and ridiculous this argument
actually is? Your logic is that of a child, and a not very bright one
at that.
> and Shakes-Scene is described as an
> Upstart.
More brilliant logic. Pathetic. Shake-scene is described as an
upstart so he must be the same character as any other character
described as an upstart. and since Gullio is the same as the Upstart,
Gullio must be Shake-scene. This is truly laughable. I mean it...I
am really laughing right now.
> The boastful Gullio like the boastful Player both have
> apparel worth 200 pounds.
Another lie, but even if true, it would have no real-life
correspondence to William Shakespeare.
> Both are described as being over-dressed
> for their station.
Another lie, but even if true, it would have no real-life
correspondence to William Shakespeare [unlike the correspondences
between Gullio and Southampton].
> Gullio like Sogliardo and Asotus all woo their
> mistresses while stumbling over Latin (and Latin languages).
Did Shakespeare stumble over Latin while wooing his mistress? Do you
have any information to establish this as a real-life correspondence
to William Shakespeare. No, I didn't think so.
> Both
> Gullio and Asotus practice their wooing on a male scholar. Gullio
> like the Player actually recites his verse aloud -- and loves it.
Oh my...the relevance and the probative value of these facts
is...zero. There is no real-life correspondence to the life of
William Shakespeare. What you are actually doing is confirming that
these phrases and descriptions became literary tropes that were used
to define certain types of characters -- not that they were all the
same character [especially when the differences between them are noted
and addressed, something you will not do].
> And
> theveryauthors, in the second part of this play, write a long speech
> about actors --and especially one who has just purchased lands and has
> been made a gentleman -- who wears a "satin Suit" (just like Gullio),
Which could apply to many actors, but does not specifically apply to
an actor/dramatist like Shakespeare.
> hires an unhappy scholar for meager pay (just like Gullio
Gullio didn't pay and he didn't hire Ingenioso. Stop lying.
> and the
> Player)
There is nothing that says that the player in the Robgerto play did
not pay well. In fact, Roberto talks about how he was, many times,
well off.
> and who had once carried their fardels on their backs (just
> like the Player) -- and uses numerous phrases from Groatsworth.
Wow. You actually think that is probative of something?
> Now, those are a conspiracy of coincidences.
No, there is no conspiracy, and the coincidences are trivial,
especially when considered in light of the differences that you won't
permit yourself to consider.
> > > (Later:)
> > > "he will to the sea, and tear the gold out of the Spaniards'
> > > throats, but he will have it, byrlady. And when he comes there, poor
> > > soul, he lies in
> > > brine in ballast, and is lamentable sick of the scurvies;"
>
> > This is quite disingenuous of you, Dennis. Here, you imply that this
> > passage [the braggart laid low by scurvy] is a part of the description
> > of theUpstart,
>
> Dennis responds: No, I don't. In my specific description of that
> line, I explain it is from Nashe's description of the Prodigal a few
> paragraphs later.
>
> but it is most definitely not. It is found in a
>
> > description of an entirely different character, known as the Prodigal
> > Young Master. However, it is good that you have included this
> > parallel pasage, for it demonstrates quite well that the author of
> > Parnassus was more than willing to take language fromNashewherever
> > it appealed to him to do so, and he was not confining himself to the
> > description of theUpstart.
>
> Dennis responds: Nope, that's the only line (and a Prodigal does match
> Shakespeare).
No, it really doesn't. There is no evidence that Shakespeare sailed
to Europe, got scurvy, and came home.
> The rest are all crammed into the description of the
> Upstart. Your belief that they are just borrowing language from
> Nashe's work is belied by the fact that all of the commonalities
> (except "sick of the scurvies") comes from a single paragraph.
This doesn't even make any sense. Your argument is that the Parnassus
author can't be borrowing language from Nashe's work because what is
borrowed all comes from a single paragraph? That's your argument
against the fact that the language is merely borrowed from Nashe? If
so, I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that your monomania had progressed
to the point that you can't even formulate a logical argument and you
think a response like this actually means something intelligent.
> > What personage at Elizabeth’s court would be seen as anupstart…
>
> Dennis responds: I don't think you know thedefinitionof an "Upstart"
> as it refers to a social climber -- one who has risen from a low
> station to become a man of wealth and power. The Earl of Southampton
> was an Earl from time he was an 8 year old child.
I wasn't speaking of the Earl of Southampton. Are you drinking? I
was talking about Raleigh.
> > someone who was both soldier and merchant, someone who was identified
> > with the motto, “tam Marti quam Mercurio”?
>
> Dennis: You mean one who wasn't really a soldier and lied about his
> exploits and was the son of a wool-dealer?
No, I mean the social climber known as Raleigh, who started out on a
farm and was a social climber.
> > > This "Upstart" is described as (or tries to pass himself off as )
> > > 1) a squire of low degree.... Tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
> Ralegh> Raleigh began life on a farm, and he was highly interested in
> the
> > restoration of the ancient home given him by the Queen. He was most
> > definitely viewed as anupstart. Coincidence?
>
> > > 2) tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto Constantinople
>
> > Raleigh published an exaggerated account of his experiences looking
> > for the City of Gold in a book that contributed to the legend of "El
> > Dorado".
>
> Dennis responds: Raeligh's trip occurred in 1595, three years after
> Pierce Penniless.
So that means he wasn't a serial liar and an Upstart before that?
Care to explain?
>does not magically make the 7 dead-on
> pointed resemblances between "The Upstart" and Gullio disappear.
And they don't make either of those characters into Shakespeare
either...have another drink.
It shows that the Parnassus author was merely borrowing language from
Nashe and altering it to fit his own needs.
> > Let's now add all theGullioreferences to the above:
> > > 1) a squire of low degree.... tam Marti quam Mercurio
>
> > > Gullio:" That was my care, to prove a complete gentleman, to be tam
> > > Marti quam Mercurio;
>
> > Why do you think this quotation has something to do with being a
> > squire of low degree?
>
> Dennis resoponds:
So that is what you are doing. I knew you were not responding.
>Gullio and others constantly refer to him as a
> "gentleman."
Well, that seals it...not.
> This is also why Shakespeare is carefully and repeatedly
> mocked, practically every time, as "MR. Shakespeare," underscoring
> his, in their view, unearned status as a gentleman, which is the
> lowest of all ranks.
Um, no, that isn't the lowest of ranks. It is quite certain that the
Parnassus author thought highly of Shakespeare's ability, but did not
appreciate the topics to which he devoted himself. The author also
disliked actors who had achieved status above what he though they
deserved. The references to Mr. Shakespeare may be indications of
that but they do nothing to indicate that Gullio is Shakespeare. It
is also interesting to note that Shakespeare is not ridiculed with his
fellows, Kempe and Burbadge, which the author could very well have
done if he so chose.
> Monsier Mingo is also a "Mister" -- and wishes
> to be "Knight Domingo," just like Gullio.
Um, no, actually. Gullio doesn't care about being knighted [thanks
for bringing up one of the specific references to the campaign in
Ireland and the fact that, while Rutland was knighted there,
Southampton was not].
> The reference in the
> Upstart above to a squire of low degree is to Shakespeare and his
> father, the latter of whom had earned some sort of low title, had been
> referred to as "Mister," had been a justice of the peace.
Seriously...? Shakespeare was as quire of low degree who was a
merchant at court? Your resopondses [sic] grow more desperate and
pathetic the more you blather on.
> > > 2) "tell a whole legend of lies of his travels unto
> > > Constantinople.... been bitten by the shins by a wolf, and saith he
> > > hath adventured upon the barricadoes of Gournay or Guingamp, and
> > > fought with the young Guise hand to hand."
>
> > >Gullio: This rapier I bought when I sojourned in the University of
> > > Padua. By the heavens, it's a pure toledo. It was the death of a
> > > Pollonian, a German and a Dutchman, because they would not pledge the
> > > health of England... my exploits at Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at
> > > Portingale voyage, and nowverylately in Ireland had been jetting ere
> > > this through every by-street,
>
> > Extremely interesting. The author of Parnassus tookthe generalidea
> > fromNashe’s Pierce Penniless but appears to have intentionally
> > changed the specifics so that Gullio was bragging of his travels and
> > his exploits in Padua and, even more interesting, Cadiz…why would he
> > do such a thing? The answer is that he was caricaturing Southampton,
> > who, in 1596 and 1597, just happened to have accompanied Essex on his
> > expeditions to Cádiz. This is another specific and explicit
> > correspondence betweenGullioand Southampton’s ...
>
> Dennis responds: First, Cosmopolis is Gullio's confusion for
> Constantinople -- which is where the Upstrat lied about too (and
> Southampton never went.)
> And Southampton was never on the Portingale
> Voyage.
Dennis illustrates his double standard here. These differences mean
that Gullio can't possibly be Southampton, but other differences, the
type of differences that are contrary to Dennis' theory, are to be
ignored as meaningless. Do you even realize how sloppy and illogical
your method of analysis actually is?
> I again repeat, these are all obviously lies.
Only when you want them to be. Otherwise, they are the truth for you.
>Padua is
> perfect as the references to Padua in Shakespeare's plays -- MoV,
> MAAN, and of course Shrew -- suggest Shakespeare's false familiarity
> with the town.
So this is the joke you think the author of Parnassus is making, a
joke that would be recognized by the audience. You actually think the
audience would hear a reference to Padua, think about two plays that
were five or six years old, and one that was a couple of years old,
consider that those plays made reference to Padua, and, therefore, the
reference in the Partnassus play is to Shakespeare's [supposed] false
familiarity with that town? That's really the argument you want to go
with here? Pathetic.
> The others are standard bragging places for the lying
> soldier -- Cales (or Cadiz), Portingale Voyage, Ireland.
Except that Southampton had been to Cadiz and was recently returned
from Ireland...along with all of the other correspondences that you
have failed to addres.
> In The
> Gull's Hornbook, Dekker advises the Gull (Gullio was a gull )to tell
> these same lies at the ordinary: "If you be a soldier, talk how often
> you have been in action; as the Portingale voyage, Cales voyage, the
> Island voyage; besides some eight or nine employments in Ireland. "
> That's "Portingale Voyage," "Cales [Cadiz] voyage" and Ireland. All
> lies.
That was published in 1609, so has no relevance to our present
discussion, except to show that Dekker also borrowed language from
other authors, just as I have argued.
The author of Parnassus took the general idea from Nashe’s Pierce
Penniless but appears to have intentionally
changed the specifics so that Gullio was bragging of his travels and
his exploits in Padua and, even more interesting, Cadiz [not to
mention his recent return from Ireland]…why would he do such a thing?
The answer is that he was caricaturing Southampton, who, in 1596 and
1597, just happened to have accompanied Essex on his expeditions to
Cádiz. This is another specific and explicit
correspondence between Gullio and Southampton’s actual life [not a
spurious connection between two imagined caricatures]. It couldn’t
get any clearer than this. While Nashe may have had someone else in
mind for the Upstart figure, it is quite obvious that the author of
Parnassus was targeting Southampton. The more you go on about this,
Dennis, the more you prove my claim.
If this is the best you can do, I'm not sure I'll bother with you much
anymore.
Dom
ignoto
> On Aug 31, 12:10 am, Dominic Hughes<mah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 30, 5:15 pm, "den...@northofshakespeare.com"
>>
>> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
>>> Don't want to get into this too much... but just to end things:
[snip]
>
> Dennis responds: That "pornography" in Parnassus being positively and
> beyond all doubt identified as "Venus and Adonis" -- and Gullio was
> going to correct it, add to it and pass it off as his own.
> Shakespeare is the one who passed off his adapted poem, Venus and
> Adonis, as his own.
So, which parts of Venus and Adonis did Shakespeare 'correct' and 'add
to' prior to 'passing it off'?
Ign.
[snip]
Dominic Hughes
Mark Steese has stepped "once more unto the breach" and has answered
you again, but, if that is not sufficient, consider the following.
While Dennis speculates about similarities, he does not explain the
differences. For instance, how at all does Thomas North fit into the
following passage?
But Roberto, now famozed for an Arch-playmaking-poet, his purse like
the sea sometime swelled; anon like the same sea fell to a low ebb;
yet seldom he wanted, his labours were so well esteemed. Marry this
rule he kept, whatever he fingered afore hand was the certain means to
unbind a bargain, and being asked why he so slightly dealt with them
that did him good? It becomes me, saith he, to be contrary to the
world, for commonly when vulgar men receive earnest, they do perform,
when I am paid anything afore-hand I break my promise. He had shift of
lodgings, where in every place his Hostess writ up the woeful
remembrance of him, his laundress, and his boy; for they were ever in
his household, beside retainers in sundry other places. His company
were lightly the lewdest persons in the land, apt for pilfery,
perjury, forgery, or any villainy. Of these he knew the casts to cog
at Cards, cozen at Dice: by these he learned the legerdemains of nips,
foists, coney-catchers, cross-biters, lifts, high Lawyers, and all the
rabble of that unclean generation of vipers: and pithily could he
paint out their whole courses of craft: So cunning he was in all
crafts, as nothing rested in him almost but craftiness. How often the
Gentlewoman his Wife laboured vainly to recall him, is lamentable to
note: but as one given over to all lewdness, he communicated her
sorrowful lines among his loose trulls, that jested at her bootless
laments. If he could any way get credit on scores, he would then brag
his creditors carried stones, comparing every round circle to a
groaning O, procured by a painful burden. The shameful end of sundry
his consorts, deservedly punished for their amiss, wrought no
compunction in his heart: of which one, brother to a Brothel he kept,
was trust under a tree as round as a Ball.
Of course, this passage does bear a striking similarity to the
biography of Robert Greene, who did lead just such a debauched life.
Dennis practices a double standard. Only his alleged correspondences
are to be considered, and any differences are to be ignored.
In addition, he denies the quite obvious correspondences that are
found in the works, such as those in the Parnassus play linking
Southampton to Gullio, because to acknowledge that Gullio is not
Shakespeare would break his illogical chain between the various
characters [if one character is described in a particular way, and is
a caricature of a particular person, then another character in another
work by another author who is described in similar terms must also be
a caricature of that same person]. Dennis' religious faith in his own
interpretations prevents him from engaging in any serious
consideration or discussion of the actual correspondences that are
shown to exist. As I believe you have acknowledged elsewhere, his
interpretation that Gullio is a caricature of Shakespeare is
unwarranted in light of all of the evidence that shows, conclusively
for anyone who is not prejudging the matter [as Dennis is doing], that
Gullio is a satirical treatment of Southampton.
Finally, Dennis does not make any connections between what we actually
know of Shakespeare's real life and the characters in the works.
Instead, he takes some similarities between different characters in
different works by different authors and argues that, because one of
them may be a caricature of Shakespeare, they must all be caricatures
of Shakespeare.
His method and his argument are deficient.
Dom
frode
Wriothesley in The Return from Parnassus. I don’t think your argument
about Wriothesley not being knighted in Ireland holds. The reason is
that Wriothesley already had been knighted by Essex in 1596 for his
military courage. In light of that, the lines below don’t make much
sense, if Gullio is to represent Wriothesley:
Ingenioso I dare swear your worship escaped knighting very hardly.
Gullio: (tetchily) That's but a petty requital to good deserts. He
that esteems me of less worth than a knight is a peasant, and a gull!
Actually, Wriothesley achieved a more prestigious honor in Ireland
than being knighted, by being made general of the horse.
In your reading of Parnassus, Gullio is exaggerating his military
exploits. It is my impression Wriothesley was well known for his
courageous and brave efforts in war. Here are a few quotes:
“Of the English earls, none had more experience in war than
Southampton.” (Akgrigg)
“Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, though only remembered now as
the friend of Shakespeare, was in his own day, we are told, as famous
for his valour in war as for his love of literature” (Elizabeth Lee)
“his personal courage [was] almost proverbial” (Lodge)
The question is therefore in what way Gullio is exaggerating his
military exploits. And if he isn’t, what are we to make of Ingenioso’s
comment when he says:
“Now had I rather live in poverty
Than be tormented with the tedious tales
Of Gullio’s wench and of his luxuries,
To hear a thousand lies in one short day
Of his false wars at Portingale or Calls”
An answer could be that Gullio has been to Ireland and Cadiz, but not
Portingale or Cosmopolis, but that would not be a very fun joke.
Given Wriothesley reputation as a warrior, it is also hard to make
sense of the lines below if Gullio is taken to represent Wriothesley:
Gullio: […] Had I cared for that prating Echo, fame, my exploits at
Cosmopolis, at Cadiz, at Portingale voyage, and now very lately in
Ireland had been jetting ere this through every by-street, and talked
of as well at the wheel of a country maid as the tilts and tournaments
of the court.