Our English Terence
Bob Grumman
to Shakespeare. A tedious chore, and I have more to do,
I guess. I'm fading rapidly.
(4) Seven years later Davies said in a poem that had
"Shake-speare . . . not played some kingly parts in sport"
he "would have been a companion for a King."
To Our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare
Some say (good Will). which I, in sport, do sing,
Hadst thou not played some Kingly parts in sport,
Thou hadst been a companion for a King;
And been a King among the meaner sort.
Some others rail; but, rail as they think fit,
Thou hast no railing, but, a reigning Wit:
And honesty thou sowst, which they do reap;
So, to increase their stock which they do keep.
To start with, it is clear that Davies considers
Shakespeare a dramatist, as Terence was. Then, in
line two of his poem, he says that Shakespeare had
played some "Kingly parts in sport." To "play a
part" is, of course, what actors do. He did this
"in sport," as Davies writes his poem "in sport,"
which surely indicates that he played the "Kingly parts"
as an artist--that is, his playing the parts in sport
emphasizes his actions as those of an actor.
Strongly supporting this is another of Davies's
"epigrams." It is to the actor Robert Armin
who acted in Shakespeare's company, and is believed
to have played the fools in Shakespeare's plays
after 1599.
Bio-Expert DAVE K., anything more on this??? (When
you have time.)
In it Davies says of Armin that
he "in sport . . . wisely play(s) the fool."
Elsewhere in the Davies makes it unambiguous
that he considers Armin a player.
Ogburn accepts that Davies was testifying that
Shakespeare, the writer, acted, which is
all I am claiming. He goes further, though, and
finds evidence that Davies also testified
that Shakespeare was a nobleman. How? Why,
only a noble could be "a companion
for a king," the word, "companion" derving
from the Latin word, "comes," which
(approximately) means "count." Another Oxfordian
attempt to distract (what else could it be?)
centers on Davies's referring to Shakespeare,
a great tragedian, as "our English Terence,"
rather than as "our English Euriptophanes,"
or the like. Point a Shakespeare-denier at
evidence and he'll always find something missing.
Well, the probability, as Matus theorizes, is
that Davies was merely complimenting Shakespeare for
his gift with words, Terence having been most esteemed
by the Elizabethans for his "command of words," which
is what Cicero commended him for. Not that Davies's
choice of an epithet needs explanation: he thought
it fit, so used it, period. So what?
Carrying on for Ogburn, Diana Price suggests that
Davies described Shakespeare as a Terence because
Terence was a front man, a Batillus, for aristocrats,
as none other than famed literary historian Michel
de Montaigne held. He thought the usual nonsense about
only aristocrats being refined enough to write elegantly.
Terence was an African slave. Not only that, but the
two poems in Davies's book after his poem to Shakespeare
are, respectively, to "No-body" and to "Some-body."
But Davies gives Shakespeare a "reigning Wit," and
he praises him for the "honesty" he sows, which others
who only rail (as Shakespeare is said to be too wise to)
reap, and use to increase their stock (or, for me,
wisdom). Ergo, he is clearly praising, not belittling,
him (as a fake playwright or anything else)--and his
praise, in a poem about a writer, is unequivocably
literary, in spite of Price's contention to the contrary.
Price, by the way, also finds a few Shakespearean
scholars unable to follow the poem to support her
characterization of it as "cryptic." But it is
quite straight-forward for such a poem from
such a time: "Some say, as I in the sport or game
of poetry say, that if you, Will, had not been
an actor (in the sport or game of the drama) and
played the role of kings on the public
stage, you'd have become a companion of King James,
and ruled over lesser men. Some others rail
(probably at this notion) but they only rail
the way they think they ought to (because, I
consider it implied, social opinion is
against acting). You, on the other hand, don't
stoop to railing, but have a dominant
wisdom: you distribute honesty which your
belittlers store up." I won't say I've got it
exactly, but I do think I've gotten it as close
as one can get any such poem from that far
back. I am certain I've shown that the poem
is not cryptic (although anyone can force
mystery into it, or any poem, if sufficiently
driven to by a need to damage it).
Price, with an idiosyncratic program to put
in place, makes a big deal out of demonstrating
that Davies's poem shows no personal knowledge
of Shakespeare on Davies's part, as if
that's particularly important. She shows
that eight poems in Davies's book before or after
his one to Shakespeare Davies entitled, "To my
friend, whomever," or the like; the one to
Shakespeare, however, he impersonally entitled,
"To our English Terence Mr. Will: Shake-speare."
(She notices the hyphen, needless to say, but says
nothing about the equally eccentric colon.)
[note: I treat the hyphen in Chapter Three of my book.]
However, as Terry Ross pointed out in a post to
HLAS, Davies also thou'd the object of his praise
in this poem, something he did not do in the other
poems--that is, he directly addressed Shakespeare,
as if he knew him.
Price marches on to bring in a 1610 lawsuit against the
Blackfriars shareholders that does not name Shakespeare.
ANYONE HAVE MORE DETAILS ABOUT THIS???
>From this, she splashes back to the Davies poem,
to retitle it, "To our own Battillus, Master Will:
Shake-speare" and paraphrase it as follows:
Scuttlebutt has it, my good man Will (which I,
just for fun, put in verse), that had you not
behaved arrogantly, as though you were the
king of the troupe, you would still be a member
of the King's Men, and a king among those lowly
actors and shareholders.
Some of the King's Men criticize you, as they
believe you crossed them. But you don't get abusive.
You keep your condescending sense of humor. And
you have inspired the King's Men to value honesty,
because now they take more care to hold on to their
"Stock" of playbooks ("which they do keep").
They do not want them sold out from under them by
someone dishonest like you. So now they will
guard their assets ("increase their stock"),
and it will be more difficult for you to get
your hands on them, since you are no longer a
partner in the operation.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide who has
a better grip on the poem, Price or I. I do
want to point out, however, that Davies almost
certainly twice writes favorably of Richard
Burbage, one of the King's Men, which goes
against Price's read of the latter as lowly, in
Davies's opinion. I would add, too, that all
the other poems in this group treat their
subjects with straight-forward courtesy and respect--
and, mostly, admiration.
--Bob G.
--
Posted from nut-n-but.net [205.161.239.5]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
MakBane
thick! Slow down and SAVOR that $40 book a spell.
You write that Davies wrote that Shakespeare had played some parts "in sport"
and that Davies, himself, was writing to "Our English Terence" "in sport," too.
That's a lot of sportiveness! Don't they just mean "in jest" or "whimsically"?
In other words, Davies' poem is full of crap, albeit honestly.
As for what a "companion for a king" means, I think I must agree with you that
the Ogburnian take on it (i.e., that companion is cognate with the French for a
count) is a stretch. However, a Stratfordian would seemingly be obligated to
assume the burden that this places on Shakspere's shoulders: it's one more
"reason" to believe that Shakspere must have had some special contact with the
Court; ergo, some further degree of likelihood that, HAD HE HAD such a
relationship, some evidence of it would MORE LIKELY have survived. But we know
how that supposition ends.
So, "companion for a king" DOES sound suspiciously noble, right?
Anyway, Matus' opinion that Davies was just paying Shakespeare a compliment on
his way with words is no stronger than the possibility that Davies was calling
Shakespeare a Terence because of the latter's reputation for being Scipio's
frontman. Of course, if that reputation was unknown to Elizabethans, then you
and Matus would be correct. But if it were common knowledge in Shakespeare's
time that Terence was suspected of this role, then the point goes to the
Oxfordians (or whoever's still around).
Incidentally, to which Elizabethans was Terence's command of words renowned?
Are non-Latin speakers in a position to say? You must mean that Terence was
known for his language with a relatively small portion of the Elizabethan
reading public.
Your interpretation of Davies' poem is problematic. How else would Shakspere
have been able to "play" the "role of kings on the public stage?" Do you mean
"going into politics"? Uh.... For what else might Shakspere have achieved such
renown? He was a minor actor and a shareholder in the theater. Isn't Davies
saying that, by those two facts alone, Shakspere was essentially barred from
higher esteem? Or, does he know something about "Will: Shake-speare" that we do
not?
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
and SAVOR that $40 book a spell."
You're right, Toby--but I've had four days off (today,
alas, being the last, and have been trying to get on
with my Shakespeare book. Most of my posts are just
reports on and excerpts from that book). I hope to be
enjoying a proper read of the book while at school this
week during off periods and quiet periods.
Toby brings up Davies's being "in sport." My answer to
what he writes is covered by what I said about Davies's poem
about Armin acting "in sport."
Toby: "In other words, Davies' poem is full of crap,
albeit honestly."
No, the tone is amused but serious.
Toby thinks Davies's suggesting Shakespeare COULD have been
a king's companion makes him sound "suspiciously noble."
Not to me, because the suggesiton happens in a poem and
is likely a bit hyperbolic. On the other hand, it could
be close to 100% factual if interpreted to mean that
Shakespeare was bright enough to have been tapped for
the king's inner council if he hadn't blown it by becoming
an actor. At the same time, it rather suggests that he
was NOT a noble since a noble, especially Oxford (who,
remember, would have been allowed to rebel against the
crown), would likely have been able to become a companion
to a king even after having dabbled in acting. Especially
if he did it anonymously, as some think Oxford may have.
The bottom line, though, is that Davies is saying someone
named Shakespeare, a playwright like Terence, could not now
be a companion to a king because he was tainted by his
acting. In other words, Shakespeare the writer was
Shakespeare the actor, which is what my chapter is arguing.
> Incidentally, to which Elizabethans was Terence's command of words renowned?
> Are non-Latin speakers in a position to say? You must mean that Terence was
> known for his language with a relatively small portion of the Elizabethan
> reading public.
Actually, Toby, I can't argue everything down to the final
dot in my book. Although, now that you bring it up, I can
add the following from Matus: "(Terence) was in the curriculum of
Westminster School, one of the great schools of the day, 'for
the better learning (of) the pure Roman style." And, sure,
only the kind of people who would be reading Davies's epigrams
would be aware that Cicero and others considered Terence a
paragon of Latin style. The only one who needed to think that
was Davies, though, and his poetry verifies that he would have
known enough to think it.
Toby then wants to know how Shakespeare could have
played the roles of kings. I don't know what he's
talking about. Davies says Shakespeare "played
some kingly roles in sport." This means, "acted
the roles of kings of stage"--with the further
pun that they were King's Men roles.
AGHARDING
publication 'An Half-penny worth of Wit in a Penny-worth of Paper' by a certain
'Humphrey King' (the name taken from the 'Lusty Humphrey' character in an
earlier Skelton poem). In this the author defends himself against accusations
of usury, dishonesty and flattering his way to the top. He takes a swipe at
scholars who 'quote Aesop' and says 'sure, I'm no scholar and I don't pretend
to be' - this is the Humphrey that Nashe ironically addresses in the dedication
to his last work 'Lenten Stuff' - the main content, an artfully artless poem
called 'The Hermit's Tale' was published by Thomas Thorpe for Edward Blount.
Only the third impression survives in the archive as far as I can tell, (that
dated 1613) and it's a curious thing to have run to three impressions. On the
face of it, it doesn't look at all like Shakespeare, but then maybe it's not
meant to.. at any rate, it's worth a closer look.
cheers,
Giulia H.
john_baker
I think Toby Petzold is right Bob. "Our English Terence" suggests
that Willy was a front for someone else....as Terece was suspected to
have been...mainly because he wrote far better Latin than any other
non native. Particularly a Carthagian slave or ex-slave.
j
>
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
Erik Nielsen
john, baker wrote:
>
> On 19 Feb 2001 05:59:44 GMT, mak...@aol.com (MakBane) wrote:
>
> I think Toby Petzold is right Bob. "Our English Terence" suggests
> that Willy was a front for someone else....as Terece was suspected to
> have been...mainly because he wrote far better Latin than any other
> non native. Particularly a Carthagian slave or ex-slave.
>
Would you people stop tossing straws to John? The guy just can't keep
his hands off them...
MakBane
students of Latin as a "paragon" of its best usage, full of concision and
balance. Do you suppose that THAT was what Davies meant to say of Shakespeare?
I bow deeply to the genius of Shakespeare's pithiness, but I am prone before
the elaborateness of his metaphors and word-movies. Shakespeare seems quite
inventive and iconoclastic with his language. I don't think these terms
characterize what I know of Terence. And so to bed.
Toby Petzold
p.s. You wrote that Shakespeare was bright enough that he might "have been
tapped for the king's inner council if he hadn't blown it by becoming an
actor." I find this bit of Stratfordian fantasizing almost incredible.
Bob Grumman
of the English playwrights of his time for clarity and
ELEGANCE. Almost every contemporary writer commenting
on Shakespeare's style praised its mellifluousness or
the like. And most of what Shakespeare WAS quite
clear.
> p.s. You wrote that Shakespeare was bright enough
> that he might "have been tapped for the king's inner
> council if he hadn't blown it by becoming an
> actor." I find this bit of Stratfordian fantasizing
> almost incredible.
I think I wrote that Davies suggested this in a poem.
Since others had risen from the ranks of commoners
to become close advisors of kings, it is not far-fetched.
Erik Nielsen
MakBane wrote:
>
> Bob, just a quick note before I go to bed. You say that Terence was known among
> students of Latin as a "paragon" of its best usage, full of concision and
> balance. Do you suppose that THAT was what Davies meant to say of Shakespeare?
> I bow deeply to the genius of Shakespeare's pithiness, but I am prone before
> the elaborateness of his metaphors and word-movies. Shakespeare seems quite
> inventive and iconoclastic with his language. I don't think these terms
> characterize what I know of Terence. And so to bed.
>
You ever read "Euphues", Toby?
John W. Kennedy
> I think Toby Petzold is right Bob. "Our English Terence" suggests
> that Willy was a front for someone else....as Terece was suspected to
> have been...mainly because he wrote far better Latin than any other
> non native. Particularly a Carthagian slave or ex-slave.
(Sigh!)
In Roman times, being a slave had virtually no bearing on literacy.
Teachers were slaves.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Bob Grumman
see how Davies poem about a playwright who acts the roles
of kings would have anything to do with it. I suspect
Diana Price could connect the two, though.
Bob Grumman
Davies was revealing that Shakespeare was a
front, just the way some thought Terence was.
Unfortunately, it you READ the poem, you will
see that Davies, with no hint whatever of irony,
is saying that Shakespeare was an actor who
could have been a companion of the king had
he not been an actor. It also says he sows
honesty (which Diana Price reads to mean that
he sows DISHONESTY--which makes those who reap
it value their own honesty more, or something
like that). To a non-zealot, it is clear that
Davies is complimenting Shakespeare. It would
be ridiculous against sane poetic decorum for
his title to disparage him; hence, we must assume
that he considered Terence a great dramatist, as
did almost everyone of his time, and meant to
praise Shakespeare by referring to him as a Terence.
I write this merely to try to get my expression of
my argument right. I know you won't understand it.
MakBane
guy who worked for the guy who didn't write the Canon, yes? But Euphues is
referenced so much that I would be remiss if I never acquainted myself with it.
I hope to soon. Maybe you can hip me to a good e-text site for it.
So, why do you ask?
Toby Petzold
Erik Nielsen
Because of the style named after it -- "euphuism". Very popular around
the time Shakespeare was breaking into writing. Also very ornate and
affected. Shakespeare would have seemed like Ernest Hemingway compared
to it.
--nielsen
John W. Kennedy
> Because of the style named after it -- "euphuism". Very popular around
> the time Shakespeare was breaking into writing. Also very ornate and
> affected. Shakespeare would have seemed like Ernest Hemingway compared
> to it.
Indeed, Shakespeare's style is very clean (subject to variations of
character and circumstance). He seems prettified by our standards, but
the prevailing style of the present day is at an extreme of artificial
unartfulness.
Geralyn Horton
me much less ornate than w.s., while still poetic.
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> Indeed, Shakespeare's style is very clean (subject to variations of
> character and circumstance). He seems prettified by our standards,
--
Geralyn Horton, Playwright
Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>
John W. Kennedy
>
> John Ford-- or whoever did write "Tis Pity" -- seems to
> me much less ornate than w.s., while still poetic.
And so is much of Jonson's stage work -- but Jonson wrote them as low
plays, while Shakespeare wrote only the odd low character.
I don't know "'Tis Pity" -- I'd need to know about its setting,
characters, prose-to-verse ratio, etc., before I could sanely agree or
disagree.
Of course, what really matters is that any reasonably literate person,
even today, gets the joke about Osric. One would hate to see what Lyly
would have made of him....
> "John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> > Indeed, Shakespeare's style is very clean (subject to variations of
> > character and circumstance). He seems prettified by our standards,
> --
> Geralyn Horton, Playwright
> Newton, Mass. 02460
> <http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>
--
Geralyn Horton
in it! Read it and give yourself a treat.
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> I don't know "'Tis Pity" -- I'd need to know