The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0227 Monday, 27 March 2006
[1] From: Marcus Dahl <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Mar 2006 09:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0216 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
[2] From: Jeffrey Jordan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Mar 2006 22:09:37 -0600
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0216 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marcus Dahl <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Mar 2006 09:09:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 17.0216 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0216 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Dear All,
Yes I fear I may have mis-read Gerald's argument there - apologies.
Can we separate out the strands here again?
Which are the sections in GGW directed to which poets according to your
reading?
re: 1HVI - the tygers hart line indeed comes from 3HVI/True Trag but in
order for the author of GGW to have seen (or heard or read) 3HVI by 1592
(when it was published) and for Nashe to have seen Talbot onstage (1HVI)
and for the 'harey VI' in Henslowe to refer to the Folio 1HVI we must
allow for some serious rushing through of production of the three plays.
Taylor and others thus date 1HVI later than 3HVI etc. Yet the first of
the 5 texts to be published is Contention in 1594 - 2 years after GGW
and Greene's death.
All best,
Marcus
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Jordan <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 24 Mar 2006 22:09:37 -0600
Subject: 17.0216 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0216 Chettle, Greene, Shake-scene
Responding to Bob Grumman.
>Moreover, as I have shown
(http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/chettle),
>it is near-certain that Chettle was speaking of Shakespeare.
The main argument against Chettle's apology - in Kind-hearts - having
anything to do with Shakespeare is the fact that Chettle never revealed
what he was apologizing for. Chettle left the issue he was writing
about unmentioned, only calling it a "private cause." A writer's, or
actor's, public reputation is not a "private cause." Public reputation
is a public matter. If Chettle had been apologizing to Shakespeare
about the "Shake-scene" remarks he would have been overt about it.
There was no reason not to be, if that were the case. And indeed,
Shakespeare would have wanted an overt correction, as anybody would,
when public reputation was at issue. But Kind-hearts contains no such
thing.
The reason why Chettle, in Kind-hearts, left the issue undisclosed, as a
"private cause," was because it was something he couldn't mention
expressly in print without creating more trouble. It was the issue of
Marlowe's atheism. Groatsworth contained the implicit revelation that
Marlowe was an atheist, and had advocated atheism. Even worse, it was
in the form of a "deathbed confession" by Greene. Marlowe's name wasn't
used, but anybody who knew Greene's friends and associates could figure
it out, as scholars over the years have done. Greene "outed" Marlowe as
an atheist, in a society which had an official state religion, of which
the Queen was the head. That's trouble.
For anybody who doesn't think it's a serious matter, a published
accusation of atheism in England at that time, that is, look at what
happened to Thomas Kyd. He was arrested in 1593, was apparently
tortured, and it was the end of his career. Marlowe was also arrested
and appeared before the Privy Council, which put him on probation (he
was on that probation when he was killed.) That all happened within a
couple years of the publication of Groats-worth.
This is why Chettle left the issue he was apologizing about unmentioned,
in Kind-hearts. He couldn't expressly mention Marlowe's atheism in
print. He could only call it a "private cause."
Marlowe was the ill-tempered fellow who visited Chettle. That's clear
enough.
The other fellow who visited Chettle was John Lyly. Look at exactly
what Chettle says about the second person. Chettle wrote of the "grace"
of the second fellow's writing. "Euphues" is from the Greek for
"graceful." Chettle mentions "diverse persons of worship." Lyly had
been appointed esquire to the body for Queen Elizabeth, for one thing.
That was as "worshipful" as one could get in England at that time. Lyly
also dedicated one of his Euphues writings to Lord Burghley, and
apparently had some patronage from Burghley. During the 1580s Lyly was
probably the most celebrated author in England. Of course Chettle knew
of him, and was duly impressed. Lyly was also a member of Parliament at
the time. Lyly visited Chettle because of the political trouble he
foresaw, and the potential personal trouble for Marlowe.
But in 1592, when Groats-worth appeared in print, there was nothing at
all in print with the name "Shakespeare" on it. Venus and Adonis hadn't
even been published yet. Those who argue for the second person, who
visited Chettle, being Shakespeare, are arguing an anachronism.
Shakespeare wasn't in print yet. He was not the big deal at that time,
that he later became. He was just another working stiff at the theater,
just becoming successful.
Shakespeare ignored Groats-worth. Why would he bother with it? He
wasn't a "scholar" (which is one of the great ironies of history) and he
wasn't one of Greene's friends or associates, so it meant nothing to
him. So, Greene didn't like it that an actor could also write plays.
So what? Greene was dead, and Shakespeare was busy.
The historical documentation on Shakespeare is so sparse, in terms of
what people would like to know, that scholars have gone overboard with
Kind-hearts. People are grasping at straws. But the second person, who
visited Chettle, is far more credibly Lyly than Shakespeare.
Sure, the Groats-worth remarks about "Shake-scene" are about
Shakespeare. But that doesn't mean Chettle was writing about Shakespeare
in Kind-hearts. Chettle was writing about, and apologizing for, allowing
an implicit revelation of Marlowe's atheism to appear in print. That's
the reasonable conclusion.
Lyly is mentioned, implicitly, in Groats-worth. He's one of the "two
more." The letter in Groats-worth is actually to five playwrights, three
of whom were mentioned in personal remarks, and then the two more
mentioned in passing. Lodge was not in England, and Lyly was not
writing for the public stage.
The reason Marlowe and Lyly approached Chettle, and apparently
approached Nashe as well, is because they were looking for somebody who
would claim authorship of Groats-worth, so that they'd have a living
author who could print a correction. A living author could write that,
no, he didn't mean Marlowe, and he didn't really mean anybody advocating
atheism, and so on. That's what they were hoping for, but Greene was dead.
As to Chettle being the author of Groats-worth, why would Chettle,
himself, implicitly "out" Marlowe as an atheist?" Really, why would he
do that? I would like to hear somebody make a serious effort to answer
that very basic question. What actual documentary evidence is there
that Chettle knew Marlowe, before Groats-worth, or had anything against him?
Of course Groats-worth displays some of Chettle's style. Chettle,
himself, in Kind-hearts says he rewrote Groatsworth. But that doesn't
make Chettle the "author" of Groats-worth, it makes him the
editor/compositor, which is exactly what he said he was.
>4. Downs thinks "Erne effectively argues that Shakespeare is not
>likely to be referred to as 'scholar.'" I don't. Chettle's letter is
>clearly rushed. ...
There's no reason to think Chettle's prefatory comments in Kind-hearts
are "rushed." Look at what it actually says.
"... hath beene a custome Gentle men (in my mind commendable) among
former Authors (whose workes are no lesse beautified with eloquente
phrase, than garnished with excellent example) to begin an exordium to
the Readers of their time, much more conuenient I take it, should the
writers in these daies (wherein that grauitie of enditing by the elder
exercised, is not obseru'd, nor that modest decorum kept, which they
continued) submit their labours to the fauourable censures of their
learned ouerseers. For seeing nothing can be said, that hath not been
before said..."
And so on. Nobody who's rushed writes all that out by hand. Your
characterization can't be correct.
>According to Downs, however, "The strong prima facie case for
>Chettle's forgery was effectively told by Chauncey Sanders in the
>thirties, but the facts almost speak for themselves. The copy was in
>Chettle's hand. The book was entered at his 'peril.' Most importantly
>to my mind, the very friends addressed in GGW pegged it for a
>forgery. They were in a better position to judge, in every way."
>
>This doesn't mean much to me. ...
You are "right on" there, Bob. It doesn't mean much to me, either. G-W
could hardly have been entered at Greene's peril, because Greene was
dead. And as mentioned, Chettle, himself, said he rewrote Groats-worth,
so of course it was in his hand. And you're right that nobody called it
a "forgery."
The supposed "evidence" of Chettle authoring G-W is a style analysis
from the 1930s, and a "computer study" from, good heavens, 1969.
Really, now. Hasn't the Funeral Elegy fiasco taught us anything about
these "style analyses" and "computer analyses" for determining
authorship? It doesn't work, at least not with current technology.
Maybe in another 50 or 100 years technology will get to that point, but
we're not there yet, and the analytic technology was certainly not
available in the 1930s or in 1969. The earlier studies are worthless on
this point -- and especially with Chettle saying outright that he
rewrote G-W. All that's been proven about the authorship of G-W is
simply that Chettle was telling the truth, that Greene was the author,
but that Chettle rewrote it.
Or, if scholars want to try to argue "style" as opposed to the old
reliable name-on-the-title-page, then what are you going to do about the
eccentrics who claim they've proven Marlowe wrote the works of
Shakespeare, based on some "style" analysis? Hasn't anybody thought
about that? I am not talking "authorship," I'm talking scholarly
integrity. Mr. Cook would like to focus on scholarship, and
Groats-worth/Kind-hearts is a great case in point, I think. For G-W,
it's name-on-the-page versus "style analysis." Style analysis, at this
time, with current technology, is a personal judgment call.
Name-on-the-page is documentary evidence. Are people really willing to
allow personal judgment to overcome documentary evidence, and is that
good scholarship? I don't think it is.
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
