Well, of course, Shakespeare is referring to the poem as "the first heir of my invention," which is especially problematic to the view he originated the plays. This is 1593, and no one can deny many of the early English histories were already written--and so too, given conventional dating, were the early Italian comedies. Shakespeare doesn't consider these works as part of his invention because--as Groatsworth showed and many knew--he did not originate these plays.
Dennis, not sure I understand this response. I posed the question. "was the heir the poem or Wriothesley?" I think your comment is intended to signify that the poem was the invention which would make Southampton the heir, supporting the reading that it is Wriothesley who might prove deformed and so disappoint the author. The alternative reading, that it is the name Shakespeare which is the invention is also consistent with your comment, though I understand you to believe that Shakspere of Stratford was already connected with Burbage's company. I have not seen your take on Venus and Adonis (I think I saw your take on the poems is forthcoming), whether you assign it to North, or to Stratford.
Much as I would like to accept the long held view that Groatsworth's Upstart Crow is a reference to Shakespeare (it substitutes player for woman in the quote from Henry VI and thus would work neatly for Mary), it is now well established that the Crow is actually Ned Alleyn. See:
No, no, no. “Invention” obviously refers to the poet’s creativity or imagination. “The first heir of my invention” clearly refers to this first child of my imagination. Venus and Adonis is the first work he fathered. This is boilerplate. This is standard in Elizabethan dedications for writers to refer to their works as their child or babe or newborn— and I could list a dozen examples. (And no the crow is obviously not Ned Alleyn. The crow is indisputably an actor-playwright—not just an actor — and indisputably a plagiarizer of the “tiger’s heart” line, which is one of the stolen feathers.)
I gather then you intend to give Venus and Adonis to the Stratford man? Either you do not properly appreciate the poem or have a much higher opinion of his literary talent than I thought.
Have you read Bull? Holding on the the Shakespeare identification makes you either uninformed or not serious. Bombast is stuffing. The Crow is an actor who pads his lines and we have actually holograph examples of Alleyn doing exactly that.
(That's a sincere proposal about live zoom debate. I think people would be interested--and it would be friendly.) Anyway, it doesn't make sense to claim that the Groatswroth author was indignant that Ned Alleyn thought he could deliver a speech on stage better than the writers, Marlowe, Nashe, Greene. Of course, the insult is that Shake-Scene though he could *write* a speech better than them.
A little busy this week and plan to stream the Oxford Fellowship Conference next, but am free after that. Lets set a date.
You are still lost on the term bombast - as best I can determine the meaning of forceful delivery of oratory does not become established until centuries later when the word bomb for explosive is well established. In our period bombast is stuffiing see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bombast
This is not about the delivery of plays, but of stuffing them with added lines to enhance a player's role. Alleyn did publish several plays under his name (much as you claim Stratford did) see Bull's discussion of Fair Em.
1) I'm just telling you what the line indisputably means: "first heir of my invention" = "first child of my imagination" --and I don't force the plain meanings of sentences to conform to theories or wishes.
2) Want to debate on Groatsworth interpretation live over zoom? Anyway, the line says that Shake-Scene thinks he is well "able to bombast out a blank verse better as the best of you"--referencing the three gentleman-playwrights (Marlowe, Nashe, and the third). Those aren't three actors that the Groatsworth letter is addressed to. So "bombast out a blank verse as the best of" those three means create a bombastic, blank-verse speech as Marlowe, Nashe, etc . Jonson explicitly alludes to Groatsworth in Epicene--and again clearly references it in his ode to Shakespeare in the FF when he says "to hear thy buskin tread and Shake-a-Stage." That's Shake-Scene/ Shakespeare--who was also referred to as Roscius due to his thundering acting ability. The crow is someone who plagiarizes--and got credit for material by Marlowe, Nashe, and Greene-as we know Shakespeare did.
I discuss the works as children motif several times in this series of essays. it seems to have its origin (in this context) in the dedication of Sidney's Arcadia to his sister, the usurpation of which is the reason for her conflict with Nashe. I am confused however by your comments. In the first you emphasize that Venus and Adonis is not Shakespeare's first work, so I understood your "plain meaning" to be unavailable. In any event there is lots of wordplay going on in the dedication, if you insist on taking it at face value I am afraid there is little to be gained from discussing it. As for forcing the meaning, you are building an entire career for the Stratford Man as a play broker and writer of the apocryphal works out of this line (or vice versa). whilst I am simply noting the ambiguities that lend the dedication its sense of playfulness.
Shaking things is a much more common expression in period that you seem to realize. If they are all references to Shakespeare we have some work to do. There is simply no evidence that Shakespeare was recognized as an actor in 1592, let alone a Roscius who was shaking stages. As Bull establishes at great length, that was Alleyn. The bombast out blank verse line comes from Nashe's introduction to Greene;s Menaphon where is it certainly not a reference to Shakespeare.
Great. How about we debate October 5th, Sunday, 5 PM EST on Zoom. Or Substack. I'll try to host.
You write: "I am confused however by your comments. In the first you emphasize that Venus and Adonis is not Shakespeare's first work."
Dennis responds: Actually, I am emphasizing that conventional scholars believe that Shakespeare was the original author of plays on the early English histories and early Italian comedies, which were necessarily written BEFORE the 1593 publication of "Venus and Adonis." But it is clear that Shakespeare does NOT think those works are truly children of his invention--as he claims "Venus and Adonis" is the first. This is consistent with the fact that the first title pages of plays claimed they were "corrected" or "augmented" by Shakespeare--not "written by." And all this is also consistent with the fact that many others also slammed Shakespeare for being an adapter of plays.
So far so good. It does seem to me that you are leaving out significant parts of the story, Hero and Leander, for instance. And the first seventeen sonnets. As for making the case that Burghley wanted help convincing Southampton to marry his granddaughter, that's well documented. I definitely agree that Shaksper had nothing to do with it. But someone did.
Well, of course, Shakespeare is referring to the poem as "the first heir of my invention," which is especially problematic to the view he originated the plays. This is 1593, and no one can deny many of the early English histories were already written--and so too, given conventional dating, were the early Italian comedies. Shakespeare doesn't consider these works as part of his invention because--as Groatsworth showed and many knew--he did not originate these plays.
Dennis, not sure I understand this response. I posed the question. "was the heir the poem or Wriothesley?" I think your comment is intended to signify that the poem was the invention which would make Southampton the heir, supporting the reading that it is Wriothesley who might prove deformed and so disappoint the author. The alternative reading, that it is the name Shakespeare which is the invention is also consistent with your comment, though I understand you to believe that Shakspere of Stratford was already connected with Burbage's company. I have not seen your take on Venus and Adonis (I think I saw your take on the poems is forthcoming), whether you assign it to North, or to Stratford.
Much as I would like to accept the long held view that Groatsworth's Upstart Crow is a reference to Shakespeare (it substitutes player for woman in the quote from Henry VI and thus would work neatly for Mary), it is now well established that the Crow is actually Ned Alleyn. See:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0013838X.2020.1717829?scroll=top&needAccess=true
No, no, no. “Invention” obviously refers to the poet’s creativity or imagination. “The first heir of my invention” clearly refers to this first child of my imagination. Venus and Adonis is the first work he fathered. This is boilerplate. This is standard in Elizabethan dedications for writers to refer to their works as their child or babe or newborn— and I could list a dozen examples. (And no the crow is obviously not Ned Alleyn. The crow is indisputably an actor-playwright—not just an actor — and indisputably a plagiarizer of the “tiger’s heart” line, which is one of the stolen feathers.)
I gather then you intend to give Venus and Adonis to the Stratford man? Either you do not properly appreciate the poem or have a much higher opinion of his literary talent than I thought.
Have you read Bull? Holding on the the Shakespeare identification makes you either uninformed or not serious. Bombast is stuffing. The Crow is an actor who pads his lines and we have actually holograph examples of Alleyn doing exactly that.
(That's a sincere proposal about live zoom debate. I think people would be interested--and it would be friendly.) Anyway, it doesn't make sense to claim that the Groatswroth author was indignant that Ned Alleyn thought he could deliver a speech on stage better than the writers, Marlowe, Nashe, Greene. Of course, the insult is that Shake-Scene though he could *write* a speech better than them.
A little busy this week and plan to stream the Oxford Fellowship Conference next, but am free after that. Lets set a date.
You are still lost on the term bombast - as best I can determine the meaning of forceful delivery of oratory does not become established until centuries later when the word bomb for explosive is well established. In our period bombast is stuffiing see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bombast
This is not about the delivery of plays, but of stuffing them with added lines to enhance a player's role. Alleyn did publish several plays under his name (much as you claim Stratford did) see Bull's discussion of Fair Em.
1) I'm just telling you what the line indisputably means: "first heir of my invention" = "first child of my imagination" --and I don't force the plain meanings of sentences to conform to theories or wishes.
2) Want to debate on Groatsworth interpretation live over zoom? Anyway, the line says that Shake-Scene thinks he is well "able to bombast out a blank verse better as the best of you"--referencing the three gentleman-playwrights (Marlowe, Nashe, and the third). Those aren't three actors that the Groatsworth letter is addressed to. So "bombast out a blank verse as the best of" those three means create a bombastic, blank-verse speech as Marlowe, Nashe, etc . Jonson explicitly alludes to Groatsworth in Epicene--and again clearly references it in his ode to Shakespeare in the FF when he says "to hear thy buskin tread and Shake-a-Stage." That's Shake-Scene/ Shakespeare--who was also referred to as Roscius due to his thundering acting ability. The crow is someone who plagiarizes--and got credit for material by Marlowe, Nashe, and Greene-as we know Shakespeare did.
Sure I'll debate you on Zoom.
I discuss the works as children motif several times in this series of essays. it seems to have its origin (in this context) in the dedication of Sidney's Arcadia to his sister, the usurpation of which is the reason for her conflict with Nashe. I am confused however by your comments. In the first you emphasize that Venus and Adonis is not Shakespeare's first work, so I understood your "plain meaning" to be unavailable. In any event there is lots of wordplay going on in the dedication, if you insist on taking it at face value I am afraid there is little to be gained from discussing it. As for forcing the meaning, you are building an entire career for the Stratford Man as a play broker and writer of the apocryphal works out of this line (or vice versa). whilst I am simply noting the ambiguities that lend the dedication its sense of playfulness.
Shaking things is a much more common expression in period that you seem to realize. If they are all references to Shakespeare we have some work to do. There is simply no evidence that Shakespeare was recognized as an actor in 1592, let alone a Roscius who was shaking stages. As Bull establishes at great length, that was Alleyn. The bombast out blank verse line comes from Nashe's introduction to Greene;s Menaphon where is it certainly not a reference to Shakespeare.
Great. How about we debate October 5th, Sunday, 5 PM EST on Zoom. Or Substack. I'll try to host.
You write: "I am confused however by your comments. In the first you emphasize that Venus and Adonis is not Shakespeare's first work."
Dennis responds: Actually, I am emphasizing that conventional scholars believe that Shakespeare was the original author of plays on the early English histories and early Italian comedies, which were necessarily written BEFORE the 1593 publication of "Venus and Adonis." But it is clear that Shakespeare does NOT think those works are truly children of his invention--as he claims "Venus and Adonis" is the first. This is consistent with the fact that the first title pages of plays claimed they were "corrected" or "augmented" by Shakespeare--not "written by." And all this is also consistent with the fact that many others also slammed Shakespeare for being an adapter of plays.
So far so good. It does seem to me that you are leaving out significant parts of the story, Hero and Leander, for instance. And the first seventeen sonnets. As for making the case that Burghley wanted help convincing Southampton to marry his granddaughter, that's well documented. I definitely agree that Shaksper had nothing to do with it. But someone did.