Fascinating stuff. I'm actually working on a large Shakespeare project at the moment and this apparent association is one of the more interesting theories I've come across.
The amount there was to say within your narrow focus on this particular satire was revelatory. I'm already a couple weeks out from my first reading of the work, but it seems to me you substantiated your interpretations of the various Groatsworth passages with numerous references to relevant contemporary context, while leaning hardly at all on the other satires you are working with. It turns out you didn't need them to persuasively sustain your case.
About the forthcoming paper, if it substantiates contemporary knowledge of a source play for Julius Caesar, that will by itself be a very significant reshaping of the battle space. Your argument about "Et tu, Brute" having had to have existed in a play prior to 1595 (given in Thomas North, 2022) is surely the most straightforward gloss on the facts, but some will still be able to argue that it merely shows that the line had become oral tradition by then, or even that Shakespeare might have taken the line from True Tragedy.
The problem that the existence of a source play for Julius Caesar will present is that the existing play so closely follows Plutarch's Lives. If Thomas North (or even some other playwright, for that matter) first adapted the play from Plutarch's Lives, and THEN Shakespeare adapted this earlier playwright's play into the current play, then Shakespeare's contribution could have been at best rather slight.
This is why, although they may sometimes acknowledge that Shakespeare frequently used source plays, conventional scholars will have great difficulty acknowledging such a possibility in the specific case of the Roman plays. If some can be brought around on this point, that could be huge.
“It chanced that Roscius & he met at a dinner, both guests unto Archias the Poet, where the prowd Comedian dared to make comparison with Tully: which insolencie made the learned Orator to growe into these termes: why Roscius, art proud with Esops Crow, being pranct with the glorie of others feathers? of thyself thou canst say nothing, and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say Ave Caesar, disdain not thy tutor because thou pratest in a Kings Chamber: what sentence or conceipte of the invention the people applaud for excellent, that comes from the secrets of our knowledge.”
Aesop's crow was used a lot in Elizabethan era--often to refer to a plagiarist. An upstart-actor dramatist, "Shake-scene," credited with the line "Tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide" is--as the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars, both Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian, agree--the actor-dramatist Shake-speare, who was credited with the line "Tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide." Hard to get more cut and dried.
Roughly 18 or 19 times on EEBO before Groatsworth including in Greene's Orpharion, dozens of times afterward. Here's Greene's Orpharion: "No, but if he knewe of thy daring presumtion, he would repay thy follie with such punishments, as thy aspiring thoughts doe merrit: hée woulde vnplume thée of all thy feathers: and like Esops Crowe turne thee naked to the worlde:"
Greene uses bird metaphors a lot and references Aesop a bunch. That wasn't the point of Peter bringing up Francesco's Fortune.
His point was not only Aesop's Crow is being leveled but it is literally leveled at Roscius the ACTOR--like The Player in GGW. Roscius is clearly a reference to Alleyn (called Roscius explicitly by Nashe, also implicitly by Marston, Guilpin)--who you think wrote GGW). He's not just haphazardly using an Aesop allusion. Also 18 or 19 is not "ALOT." 4486 is. 18 or 19 is not that common. That means it's used once every 6 years (EEBO begins in 1400s and GGW is 1592.)
Peter's point that Greene's accusation against Alleyn in Never Too Late/FF mirrors perfectly the accusation leveled in GGW still stands. You're EEBO point is meaningless.
"Shake-scene" is indeed capitalized as a proper noun as a point of emphasis. There is zero reason to connect it to Shakespeare in 1592--as he is completely undocumented.
Shake-scene is clearly calling back to The Player "thundering upon the stage" earlier in Roberto's Tale. Guilpin explictly links Alleyn in Skialetheia to thunder as he states that he had a "voice of thunder." The syntax of the Shake-scene line acutally renders your take meaningless (as well hundreds of years of orthodox take--orthodox can be wrong and has been wrong dozens of times before--also you should know or figure that using that argument by authority in the SAQ scene gets no points from anyone...It's honestly a little shmarmy of you.)
It is clearly meaningless as we can all read: the Upstart Crow supposed himself the only Shake-Scene in the country. If that is a nick-name meant solely for Shakespeare--then he absolutely is the only Shake-Scene in the country and Greene (or Nashe since you subscribe to KDJ's stuff) is an idiot and absolutely horrible at his job. The joke makes no sense. Whereas, if we gloss Shake-scene into thundering actor, well makes all the sense in the world. Jonson's poem from 3 decades later is not at all relevant or helpful.
You continue to hold up 3H6 and/or True Tragedy of York as Shakespearean adaptations of a North original. But it is clear that 3H6/TToY is multi-handed. Riverside (edited by Taylor et al) has indeed included Marlowe as a co-writer. They are likely missing a few others. As soon as you understand 3H6 as it is performed in 1592 has NOTHING TO DO WITH Shakespeare--(i.e. Harey VI in Henslowe--literally played/included concurrently in their repertoire along with Tamar Cham.) Tamar Cham is literally the cause of the charge against Alleyn. Literally stealing from Greene, Marlowe, Peele and Nashe to make that play. Ditto with A Knack to Know Knave.
I know you can't and won't see that and doesn't bother me a bit that you don't. But I need other readers to see this in order to better understand the world--you seem to be doing the opposite in this particular arena--despite your own modus operandi.
It's an absolute shame that Shakespearean conspiracy theorists like you continue to obfuscate what is an incredibly simple situation into a labyrinth of catastrophe. You try to force Shakespeare into fitting the Upstart Crow, you end up saying all sorts of crazy stuff like Thomas North wrote H6 plays decades before plays could or would even look and sound like that. But this doesn't surprise me coming from a snake-oily book-hawker who thinks On Poet Ape is about Shakespeare.
What sorta absolutely seals the deal for me--HOW I KNOW YOU GOT ZILCH with North: you have zero command of the apocrypha. You just slap Shakespeare's name on it as if you were an Elizabethan book-seller, worse than any Pavier. For all your supposed ability to perform stylometric analysis you seem unimaginably unaware of the lack of cohesion in Shakespeare apocrypha. Not in a million years could or should one argue the apocrypha are penned by a single writer.
I know you will weasel out of that by saying Shakespeare is a poet ape who is "adapting" old plays. Which I've called you out on before and you've absolutely ducked the question everytime: what parts is he adapting? Is he even doing anything? Is he literally just putting his name on it? If he is doing something, show me his hand. Which places.
But, honestly, it is all so stupid isn't it? A middle-man of plays? It's not a thing. No one does that. Shakespeare makes so much more money with his Stratford stuff than any playwrights make--why in the Sam Hell would he do a thing like scrounge for old plays and then hire writers to adapt them? You might say, he doesn't, he adapts them himself--to which I'll point back to the impossibility of a singular shared hand among the apocrypha. If you say--well, not all apocrypha, but most, you've rendered your hypothesis null, which categorically relies on Shakespeare being the only one who can get his name on the title page. Which just leaves the idea that he is buying the old plays and not doing anything other than putting his name on it. To which I would say--why the hell wouldn't the original playowners just sell the play themselves?
I know you and June have zero inclination to try to resolve any of this adequately or any willingness to go outside your North nonsense, so won't hold my breath.
In doing all of this conspiracy crap about history lying to you about North--you've managed to lie to people about writers like Thomas Dekker, Robert Greene, Edward Alleyn, Chris Marlowe et al. I need people to read and care about Dekker and so many others so that we can better understand the era as whole and move from the KNOWN to UNKNOWN (and not vice versa as you so continually do) and you are doing everything you can to eschew him and others and act like they don't exist. Poet Ape is Dekker. Shakespeare giving Jonson the purge in Parnassus is absolutely about Dekker's Satiromastix. Which I'm sure you think Shakespeare wrote or something stupid like that. Same with Sir John Oldcastle. Even moreso with SJO. Stop doing this. Please.
You're definitely doing it with Alleyn pretty hard here--Edward Alleyn, who is oh so closely associated with Dekker--for what? So you can sell wild wacky conspiracy books to unsuspecting readers? Dante's got a hidden circle for this kinda behavior.
Respond to this if you want or delete this if you want.
I'll be making a video soon on my YT channel with my 1K+ followers covering all your dogcrap and I'll make sure to let people know to let other folks know to never buy your book. If they just gotta gotta see it, then they have to go to the library or just steal a copy from the used bookstore. But that they should never stoop so low as to support nonsensical conspiratorial bullcrap meant to trick people into giving away their money and saying stupid things.
Alleyn wasn't a dramatist. We have umpteen records from him and a personal diary. Shakespeare was called a Roscius; also called a thundering actor; was said to "Shake a Stage," was credited with 3 Henry VI; was spoofed in other works that referenced Groatsworth; responded to Nashe's attack in LLL; and used a hyphen in his name Shake-speare for Shake-scene (which was capitalized, no less.) More, Shakespeare ended up getting credit for plays of other people--and also accused of plagiarism by Jonson and called a jackdaw (crow.)
Well, Groatsworth (the one that counts) doesn't. Instead, it connects the crow to Shake-scene and 3 Henry VI. Jonson also calls Asotus-Shakespeare a crow (a jack-daw) after he plagiarizes on stage. He also notes how he can "Shake a stage" (like Shake-scene)
Fascinating stuff. I'm actually working on a large Shakespeare project at the moment and this apparent association is one of the more interesting theories I've come across.
The amount there was to say within your narrow focus on this particular satire was revelatory. I'm already a couple weeks out from my first reading of the work, but it seems to me you substantiated your interpretations of the various Groatsworth passages with numerous references to relevant contemporary context, while leaning hardly at all on the other satires you are working with. It turns out you didn't need them to persuasively sustain your case.
About the forthcoming paper, if it substantiates contemporary knowledge of a source play for Julius Caesar, that will by itself be a very significant reshaping of the battle space. Your argument about "Et tu, Brute" having had to have existed in a play prior to 1595 (given in Thomas North, 2022) is surely the most straightforward gloss on the facts, but some will still be able to argue that it merely shows that the line had become oral tradition by then, or even that Shakespeare might have taken the line from True Tragedy.
The problem that the existence of a source play for Julius Caesar will present is that the existing play so closely follows Plutarch's Lives. If Thomas North (or even some other playwright, for that matter) first adapted the play from Plutarch's Lives, and THEN Shakespeare adapted this earlier playwright's play into the current play, then Shakespeare's contribution could have been at best rather slight.
This is why, although they may sometimes acknowledge that Shakespeare frequently used source plays, conventional scholars will have great difficulty acknowledging such a possibility in the specific case of the Roman plays. If some can be brought around on this point, that could be huge.
https://open.substack.com/pub/egretlane/p/inspiration-to-end-your-week-friday-a0c?r=5ezmlv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
This is great news. Please see the email I just sent you about this post.
Dennis, how get hold via UK?
There are lots of UK purchasers—whether PayPal, Stripe, etc
“It chanced that Roscius & he met at a dinner, both guests unto Archias the Poet, where the prowd Comedian dared to make comparison with Tully: which insolencie made the learned Orator to growe into these termes: why Roscius, art proud with Esops Crow, being pranct with the glorie of others feathers? of thyself thou canst say nothing, and if the Cobler hath taught thee to say Ave Caesar, disdain not thy tutor because thou pratest in a Kings Chamber: what sentence or conceipte of the invention the people applaud for excellent, that comes from the secrets of our knowledge.”
Francescos Fortunes, Robert Green, 1590
I think you might like the book
Maybe you should read mine.
To passersby: Peter's right. Dennis is wrong. Alleyn long called Aesop's Crow by 1592.
Dennis's lack of worthwhile response (instead advertising his book) should be enough to show that.
Aesop's crow was used a lot in Elizabethan era--often to refer to a plagiarist. An upstart-actor dramatist, "Shake-scene," credited with the line "Tiger's heart wrapped in a player's hide" is--as the vast majority of Shakespeare scholars, both Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian, agree--the actor-dramatist Shake-speare, who was credited with the line "Tiger's heart wrapped in a woman's hide." Hard to get more cut and dried.
Define "a lot".
Roughly 18 or 19 times on EEBO before Groatsworth including in Greene's Orpharion, dozens of times afterward. Here's Greene's Orpharion: "No, but if he knewe of thy daring presumtion, he would repay thy follie with such punishments, as thy aspiring thoughts doe merrit: hée woulde vnplume thée of all thy feathers: and like Esops Crowe turne thee naked to the worlde:"
Peter's letting you wriggle out of this one...
Greene uses bird metaphors a lot and references Aesop a bunch. That wasn't the point of Peter bringing up Francesco's Fortune.
His point was not only Aesop's Crow is being leveled but it is literally leveled at Roscius the ACTOR--like The Player in GGW. Roscius is clearly a reference to Alleyn (called Roscius explicitly by Nashe, also implicitly by Marston, Guilpin)--who you think wrote GGW). He's not just haphazardly using an Aesop allusion. Also 18 or 19 is not "ALOT." 4486 is. 18 or 19 is not that common. That means it's used once every 6 years (EEBO begins in 1400s and GGW is 1592.)
Peter's point that Greene's accusation against Alleyn in Never Too Late/FF mirrors perfectly the accusation leveled in GGW still stands. You're EEBO point is meaningless.
"Shake-scene" is indeed capitalized as a proper noun as a point of emphasis. There is zero reason to connect it to Shakespeare in 1592--as he is completely undocumented.
Shake-scene is clearly calling back to The Player "thundering upon the stage" earlier in Roberto's Tale. Guilpin explictly links Alleyn in Skialetheia to thunder as he states that he had a "voice of thunder." The syntax of the Shake-scene line acutally renders your take meaningless (as well hundreds of years of orthodox take--orthodox can be wrong and has been wrong dozens of times before--also you should know or figure that using that argument by authority in the SAQ scene gets no points from anyone...It's honestly a little shmarmy of you.)
It is clearly meaningless as we can all read: the Upstart Crow supposed himself the only Shake-Scene in the country. If that is a nick-name meant solely for Shakespeare--then he absolutely is the only Shake-Scene in the country and Greene (or Nashe since you subscribe to KDJ's stuff) is an idiot and absolutely horrible at his job. The joke makes no sense. Whereas, if we gloss Shake-scene into thundering actor, well makes all the sense in the world. Jonson's poem from 3 decades later is not at all relevant or helpful.
You continue to hold up 3H6 and/or True Tragedy of York as Shakespearean adaptations of a North original. But it is clear that 3H6/TToY is multi-handed. Riverside (edited by Taylor et al) has indeed included Marlowe as a co-writer. They are likely missing a few others. As soon as you understand 3H6 as it is performed in 1592 has NOTHING TO DO WITH Shakespeare--(i.e. Harey VI in Henslowe--literally played/included concurrently in their repertoire along with Tamar Cham.) Tamar Cham is literally the cause of the charge against Alleyn. Literally stealing from Greene, Marlowe, Peele and Nashe to make that play. Ditto with A Knack to Know Knave.
I know you can't and won't see that and doesn't bother me a bit that you don't. But I need other readers to see this in order to better understand the world--you seem to be doing the opposite in this particular arena--despite your own modus operandi.
It's an absolute shame that Shakespearean conspiracy theorists like you continue to obfuscate what is an incredibly simple situation into a labyrinth of catastrophe. You try to force Shakespeare into fitting the Upstart Crow, you end up saying all sorts of crazy stuff like Thomas North wrote H6 plays decades before plays could or would even look and sound like that. But this doesn't surprise me coming from a snake-oily book-hawker who thinks On Poet Ape is about Shakespeare.
What sorta absolutely seals the deal for me--HOW I KNOW YOU GOT ZILCH with North: you have zero command of the apocrypha. You just slap Shakespeare's name on it as if you were an Elizabethan book-seller, worse than any Pavier. For all your supposed ability to perform stylometric analysis you seem unimaginably unaware of the lack of cohesion in Shakespeare apocrypha. Not in a million years could or should one argue the apocrypha are penned by a single writer.
I know you will weasel out of that by saying Shakespeare is a poet ape who is "adapting" old plays. Which I've called you out on before and you've absolutely ducked the question everytime: what parts is he adapting? Is he even doing anything? Is he literally just putting his name on it? If he is doing something, show me his hand. Which places.
But, honestly, it is all so stupid isn't it? A middle-man of plays? It's not a thing. No one does that. Shakespeare makes so much more money with his Stratford stuff than any playwrights make--why in the Sam Hell would he do a thing like scrounge for old plays and then hire writers to adapt them? You might say, he doesn't, he adapts them himself--to which I'll point back to the impossibility of a singular shared hand among the apocrypha. If you say--well, not all apocrypha, but most, you've rendered your hypothesis null, which categorically relies on Shakespeare being the only one who can get his name on the title page. Which just leaves the idea that he is buying the old plays and not doing anything other than putting his name on it. To which I would say--why the hell wouldn't the original playowners just sell the play themselves?
I know you and June have zero inclination to try to resolve any of this adequately or any willingness to go outside your North nonsense, so won't hold my breath.
In doing all of this conspiracy crap about history lying to you about North--you've managed to lie to people about writers like Thomas Dekker, Robert Greene, Edward Alleyn, Chris Marlowe et al. I need people to read and care about Dekker and so many others so that we can better understand the era as whole and move from the KNOWN to UNKNOWN (and not vice versa as you so continually do) and you are doing everything you can to eschew him and others and act like they don't exist. Poet Ape is Dekker. Shakespeare giving Jonson the purge in Parnassus is absolutely about Dekker's Satiromastix. Which I'm sure you think Shakespeare wrote or something stupid like that. Same with Sir John Oldcastle. Even moreso with SJO. Stop doing this. Please.
You're definitely doing it with Alleyn pretty hard here--Edward Alleyn, who is oh so closely associated with Dekker--for what? So you can sell wild wacky conspiracy books to unsuspecting readers? Dante's got a hidden circle for this kinda behavior.
Respond to this if you want or delete this if you want.
I'll be making a video soon on my YT channel with my 1K+ followers covering all your dogcrap and I'll make sure to let people know to let other folks know to never buy your book. If they just gotta gotta see it, then they have to go to the library or just steal a copy from the used bookstore. But that they should never stoop so low as to support nonsensical conspiratorial bullcrap meant to trick people into giving away their money and saying stupid things.
Alleyn wasn't a dramatist. We have umpteen records from him and a personal diary. Shakespeare was called a Roscius; also called a thundering actor; was said to "Shake a Stage," was credited with 3 Henry VI; was spoofed in other works that referenced Groatsworth; responded to Nashe's attack in LLL; and used a hyphen in his name Shake-speare for Shake-scene (which was capitalized, no less.) More, Shakespeare ended up getting credit for plays of other people--and also accused of plagiarism by Jonson and called a jackdaw (crow.)
And how many of these made the connection between the cobbler and the crow?
Well, Groatsworth (the one that counts) doesn't. Instead, it connects the crow to Shake-scene and 3 Henry VI. Jonson also calls Asotus-Shakespeare a crow (a jack-daw) after he plagiarizes on stage. He also notes how he can "Shake a stage" (like Shake-scene)