Yes, I do. There are lots of strands to the argument. It amounts to:
Shakespeare was a Dudley/Sidney 'servant'. Penny.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 30 September 2006 19:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: willam
So I'm right in thinking that Penny thinks that Shakespeare wrote some of
SC? Just checking that I'm reading the bit on "Will" correctly. Precocious
of him, if he was born in 1564, but then Spenser was also writing when he
was a kid. In any case, whatever the "anti-theatricality" that Jeff Dolven
and others have seen in Spenser, we do of course have that tantalizing
reference by Harvey to Spenser's "Nine Comedies." It is not clear what
this means, of course, and in any case I never know how much to believe of
what Harvey says about anything, although I've come to like the guy better
than I used to if only because Nashe was so cruel to him, telling Spenser
that the only blot on his glory was his liking for this "boil on the brow
of the university." But we don't know for certain that these were *not*
plays, or playlets, if only of an academic fit-for-Pembroke College or
perhaps the closet-of the-Countess-of-Pembroke sort.
Evidence for or against Spenser's interest in the theater (we know
he could imagine a masque) is ambiguous and complicated by his
living away from London. We just have no idea what he was thinking
in 1579, even if we know that as he got older he did not write plays
like Shakespare, Marlowe, Daniel, or Drayton. "Buskins" in an early
modern context, with its chic suggestion of ancient Greece and Rome,
might also sound more like so-called closet drama, although that's
also a complicated matter. In any case, in 1579 references to
"buskins" may not mean much concerning the still emerging popular
stage for which "Will" would work, although it is true that Milton
used this sort of language for Shakespeare and Jonson. Or is the
idea that in 1579 Will would be interested in academic and
buskin/sock-worthy plays because of his travels or reading? In any
case, I just don't see how we can base assumptions about Spenser's
ambitions in 1579, one way or another, on passing references to the
stage. He mentions bagpipes, too, but I doubt he had ambitions to be
a piper. In Spenser's day--and ours--you could be interested in and
moved by drama without wanting to write a play yourself. I do wish
we had those "nine comedies," though. It sure doesn't sound like the
Teares of the [nine] Muses--or are they funnier than I think? Anne
P.
> Thank you for the questions. I'm not sure I have much to say coming from
> the
> Chaucer angle. Spenser loved Chaucer; Harvey covered his Chaucer with
> marginal notes; Philip Sidney alluded to Chaucer and Sir Thopas in A&S 37
> (which was not in Q1 or Q2, by the way); and Shakespeare writes Troilus
> and
> Criseyde. I guess Philip put all the others onto Chaucer, but who can
> tell?
>
> My Willam argument is tortuous, and hardly summarizable without writing
> chunks of the book out. But do look at the gloss on 'Queint' in October;
> and
> consider that Cuddy wants to rear the Muse on stately stage. Patrick
> Cheney
> remarks that 'Tragedy here has a distinctly epic cast', because he wants
> the
> ambition to be Spenser's. But the lines are about the stage and buskins:
> the
> ambition is to write drama. Spenser had no such ambition: Willam did.
>
> Best wishes, Penny.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Kevin Farnham
> Sent: 30 September 2006 06:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: willam
>
>
>
> Penny -- what you suggest is very interesting. We know that Spenser adores
> Chaucer, and the Calender begins with an invocation wherein the author
> tells
> the little booke to goe and present itself to the world. On line 1786 of
> Book 5 of Chaucer's "Troilus and Criseyde" we also see "Go, litel bok,
> go".
>
> Might you be willing to share with us your view of the possible
>%2
|