"Liam Too" wrote in message
ups.com...
The Historian wrote:
If they are of use to the article writer, yes. Would you leave the
"Upstart crow" remarks out of the Shakespeare article because they are
uncomplimentary?

This is interesting, I didn't knoe that Sam knows Shakespeare. I wonder
if he is Oxfordian?

Of course, Robert Greene was the very first writer who said that
William Shakespeare was an "upstart crow" in Greene's book, Groatsworth
of Wit (1592).

He literally 'did not say' that Lance, it is rather that this is the
inference we now receive. One of the writers of the following text wrote
with an investigator [Schoenbaum] on the subject before his death.

Its rather like those much quoted Latin authorities, who were far from
accurate and given to more than a little invention, progressively lying
about greater and greater things, to the extent of reporting completely
unattended events and plagiarising other, even less reliable, opinion. Not
to mention commentaries on Greats and the opposite sex, an orientation of
attention scarecely visited in their own lives.

These following snippets are far from conclusive to any point of certainty -
but they do abolish the unthinking and received worth of what we should
understand - and this is as chronic a condition in literary history as it is
is chess

Cordially, Phil Innes

" Here is part of S. Schoenbaum's answer to the question:

"With Greene we cannot always separate fact from fiction in the
fantasias he composed on autobiographical themes, or the legend made of
him by his contemporaries. The pattern of his career - necessarily
pieced together from the testimony of biased witnesses - assumes the
lineaments of archetype. [...]

"But Greene's career holds more than an exemplary interest. In the
_Groatsworth of Wit_ he makes the first unmistakable reference we have
to Shakespeare in London."

Comment.

Through correspondence with him in the last two or three years before
his death, I was left with an impression of Schoenbaum as a Shakespeare
scholar who, as it were, didn't love Shakspere less, but loved Truth
more.

Witness his above comments on Greene.

"Fiction"?

"Fantasias"?

"Legend"?

"Archetype"?

Why on earth do Schoenbaum's peers construe Robert Greene's comments on
the "upstart crow" as to-be-taken-at-face-value gospel truth with
respect to the Stratfordian - a "fiction", a "fantasia", a "legend", an
"archtype."

In my view, the brief answer is this:

IF the Stratfordian of record is cut from the same cloth as Greene,
THEN Schoenbaum's peers are clueless as to how "he" should be
construed.

And, rather than admit it, they fake understanding which isn't there."


Where can I read Sam's article?

Lance