Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: February ::
Re: Upstart Crow
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0227  Wednesday, 10 February 1999.

[1]     From:   Kevin J. Donovan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 09:13:42 -0600 (CST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

[2]     From:   Richard Nathan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 16:53:24 +0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

[3]     From:   John Jowett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 16:59:18 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

[4]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Feb 1999 11:23:16 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kevin J. Donovan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 09:13:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

In reply to Stephanie Hughes's assertion that "nobody is ever referred
to by name" in satirical pamphlets like Greene's Groatsworth, how is the
transparent disguise of Shakespeare's name as "Shake-scene" different
from Nashe's reference to "the Kidde in Aesop" in the epistle "To the
Gentlemen Students..."?  Or Greene's gibe at "such mad and scoffing
poets that have prophetical spirits as bred of Merlin's race"?

Kevin Donovan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
English Department, Middle Tennessee State University

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Richard Nathan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 16:53:24 +0000
Subject: 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

Fascinating.

We've got Stephanie Hughes, who argues that the "upstart crowe" couldn't
possibly refer to "the author, who would not have been known to the
public at that time," and on the other hand we have Richard Kennedy, who
argues that "this could not be Shakespeare, this "upstart", for he had
already written some half dozen or more plays which gained him a
substantial position amongst the playwrights."

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Jowett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Feb 1999 16:59:18 GMT
Subject: 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

Stephanie Hughes suggests that Chettle's apology in the epistle to
Kind-Heart's Dream is offered to the actor Alleyn, not to Shakespeare.
However, Chettle refers to the person's 'facetious grace in writting,
that approues his Art'.  I think that the skilled writer associated with
the 'tiger's heart' line is probably Shakespeare.

John Jowett

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Feb 1999 11:23:16 -0800
Subject: 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0216 Re: Upstart Crow

>The "tiger's heart" quote was included, not to mark the author, who
>would not have been known to the public at that time (as with the
>screenwriters of today, playwrights were not publicized; or at least,
>not until their plays were published, often decades after production),
>but the actor who made the role a success, namely Alleyn.

You seem to be acknowledging, even presenting, proof that Shakespeare
was active in theatre by 1592, since his play is being paraphrased.

That he's the man in question here I'll leave to the finer minds who've
already defended the proposition.  At the risk of flogging a dead crow,
I'd just like to observe that the rareness of references to names in the
various pamphlet wars makes this particular reference all the more
singular, and therefore convincing.  If you're right, then we have more
to link Shakespeare to this attack than anybody else to any other attack
in the period.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.