Dennis, how do you reconcile the idea that North wrote source plays that Shakespeare adapted vs the statement by Captain Thomas Goulding (that you quote elsewhere) that Shakespeare had an historian in his employ who provided the historical details. In Goulding's account, it seems like Shakespeare was indeed the actual playwright and literary genius. Goulding's description seems to reinforce all the various references to Shakespeare being mellifluous and honey-tongued.
[Captain Thomas Goulding] "I will give you a short account of Mr. Shakespeare’s proceeding, and that I had from one of his intimate acquaintance. His being imperfect in some things was owing to his not being a Scholar, which obliged him to have one of those chuckle-pated historians for his particular associate, that could scarce speak a word but upon that subject; and he maintained him [the historian] or he might have starved upon his history. And when he wanted anything in his [the historian’s] way, as his plays were all historical, he sent to him, and took down the heads of what was for his purpose in characters, which were thirty times as quick as running to the books to read for it. Then with his natural flowing wit, he [Shakespeare] worked it into all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed. The other put it into grammar; and instead of reading, he [Shakespeare] stuck close to writing and study without book. ... [Shakespeare] was no scholar, no grammarian, no historian…"
I'm not sure how you can read that as Shakespeare was the literary, genius, playwright, when Goulding reports that he "was no scholar, no grammarian, no historian, and in all probability could not write English." That would suggest he didn't write anything. And at the time that Goulding was writing, Shakespeare's reputation as a natural genius was the dominant perspective--and so accepting that-- Goulding assumed that Shakespeare expertly shaped the play the historian gave him: "worked it into all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed." Again, this is decades later. And as with Edward Ravenscroft's comment (and many others), I believe the truly relevant aspect of these recountings is that they clearly out Shakespeare as an adapter of another's works--not their lip service to "master touches" or "beautiful thoughts."
The statement that Shakespeare "in all probability could not write English" wasn't in your original quote from where I grabbed it. That seems to be from a different part of Goulding's account. So that certainly does change things.
On the other hand, Goulding says using the historians was "thirty times as quick as running to the books to read for it" which implies he could do it himself. And then he says that Shakespeare "stuck close to WRITING and study without book". That all implies Shakespeare was able to write, but chose to farm out the historical research to others. So I don't know how Goulding could say that and also say that Shakespeare "in all probability could not write English". Maybe he meant "physically write" and that Shakespeare, instead, dictated to others to put it into written form. Just trying to make sense of it.
Also, Shakespeare's "natural flowing wit" and transforming the historian's research into "all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed" points towards his creative and literary genius. It sounds a lot like what the Bard writes in MND "And as imagination bodies forth / The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen / Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing / A local habitation and a name".
Anyway, maybe Goulding's account is infused with the general perception of Shakespeare as the honey tongued literary genius decades later. But that's an uncertain assumption given that he provides those various concrete details about Shakespeare's writing process.
This is an "off the top of my head" comment, but: Based on the temporal release of various Shakespeare plays on the market (both good and so-called "bad" quartos, and both canonical and apocryphal plays) it feels to me that Shakespeare did more "writing" (or at least editing) in his early days...but by the end of his career, he was more prone to just appropriating most of the text (almost word for word) from North's original works.
Is that, in your opinion, a correct impression by me, Dennis?
Dennis, how do you reconcile the idea that North wrote source plays that Shakespeare adapted vs the statement by Captain Thomas Goulding (that you quote elsewhere) that Shakespeare had an historian in his employ who provided the historical details. In Goulding's account, it seems like Shakespeare was indeed the actual playwright and literary genius. Goulding's description seems to reinforce all the various references to Shakespeare being mellifluous and honey-tongued.
[Captain Thomas Goulding] "I will give you a short account of Mr. Shakespeare’s proceeding, and that I had from one of his intimate acquaintance. His being imperfect in some things was owing to his not being a Scholar, which obliged him to have one of those chuckle-pated historians for his particular associate, that could scarce speak a word but upon that subject; and he maintained him [the historian] or he might have starved upon his history. And when he wanted anything in his [the historian’s] way, as his plays were all historical, he sent to him, and took down the heads of what was for his purpose in characters, which were thirty times as quick as running to the books to read for it. Then with his natural flowing wit, he [Shakespeare] worked it into all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed. The other put it into grammar; and instead of reading, he [Shakespeare] stuck close to writing and study without book. ... [Shakespeare] was no scholar, no grammarian, no historian…"
I'm not sure how you can read that as Shakespeare was the literary, genius, playwright, when Goulding reports that he "was no scholar, no grammarian, no historian, and in all probability could not write English." That would suggest he didn't write anything. And at the time that Goulding was writing, Shakespeare's reputation as a natural genius was the dominant perspective--and so accepting that-- Goulding assumed that Shakespeare expertly shaped the play the historian gave him: "worked it into all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed." Again, this is decades later. And as with Edward Ravenscroft's comment (and many others), I believe the truly relevant aspect of these recountings is that they clearly out Shakespeare as an adapter of another's works--not their lip service to "master touches" or "beautiful thoughts."
The statement that Shakespeare "in all probability could not write English" wasn't in your original quote from where I grabbed it. That seems to be from a different part of Goulding's account. So that certainly does change things.
On the other hand, Goulding says using the historians was "thirty times as quick as running to the books to read for it" which implies he could do it himself. And then he says that Shakespeare "stuck close to WRITING and study without book". That all implies Shakespeare was able to write, but chose to farm out the historical research to others. So I don't know how Goulding could say that and also say that Shakespeare "in all probability could not write English". Maybe he meant "physically write" and that Shakespeare, instead, dictated to others to put it into written form. Just trying to make sense of it.
Also, Shakespeare's "natural flowing wit" and transforming the historian's research into "all shapes and forms, as his beautiful thoughts directed" points towards his creative and literary genius. It sounds a lot like what the Bard writes in MND "And as imagination bodies forth / The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen / Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing / A local habitation and a name".
Anyway, maybe Goulding's account is infused with the general perception of Shakespeare as the honey tongued literary genius decades later. But that's an uncertain assumption given that he provides those various concrete details about Shakespeare's writing process.
This is an "off the top of my head" comment, but: Based on the temporal release of various Shakespeare plays on the market (both good and so-called "bad" quartos, and both canonical and apocryphal plays) it feels to me that Shakespeare did more "writing" (or at least editing) in his early days...but by the end of his career, he was more prone to just appropriating most of the text (almost word for word) from North's original works.
Is that, in your opinion, a correct impression by me, Dennis?
I’m looking forward to hearing about Shakespeare’s sonnets!
Seconding Donna's statement... ;-)
It's coming, Donna! All will be revealed!
Amazing! Thank you for your hard work and insight, Dennis!!!