Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brett Greatley-Hirsch, Professor of Renaissance Literature and Textual Studies, University of Leeds

London, September 1592. Robert Greene, a popular writer of romances, plays, and pamphlets – with an apparent predilection for pickled herring and Rhenish wine in prodigal excess – has died.

Three pamphlets are published soon afterwards, each purporting to be Greene’s autobiographical deathbed repentance. The first to appear, Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit, contains a letter addressed to “those gentlemen … that spend their wits in making plays”. They were most likely George Peele, Christopher Marlowe, and Thomas Nashe, three fellow playwrights who, like Greene, could boast a university education – and who are entreated to find “more profitable courses” for their wits.

After first rehashing (or parodying?) common Puritanical attitudes towards the theatres (idolatrous places where male actors dressed as women and audiences were not only distracted from their prayers but also frequently pickpocketed), our author then changes his focus.

He warns his fellow “university wits” against “an upstart crow beautified with our feathers that, with his tiger’s heart wrapped in a player’s hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you, and, being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country”.

This sentence appears to be the first reference to Shakespeare’s writing for the stage. That’s why it has assumed such importance and why the phrase “upstart crow” has become so well known.

Read more:
Upstart Crow: Shakespeare sitcom is really quite educational

It seems likely that the author of the letter was criticising Shakespeare. Perhaps they intended to denigrate him as a jack-of-all-trades player-turned-playwright who, as far as we know, never attended university and – worst of all – attempted to write above his station, when he should have stuck to acting. The thrust of the comment seems clear enough: but who actually wrote the insult?

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Readers at the time evidently had doubts about the authenticity of Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit and two prime suspects soon emerged. First, Henry Chettle, a printer and playwright who claimed to have acted as Greene’s literary executor. His role in the publishing trade may have given him the opportunity to intervene and slip in the attack.

The second was Thomas Nashe, a “university wit” like Greene. He was a poet, playwright and satirist who first rose to prominence as a polemical author employed, alongside Greene, to defend the bishops against a series of Puritanical tracts.

Both men, who seem to have been on friendly terms, were quick to deny any authorship of the Groatsworth. Nashe swore not “the least word or syllable … proceeded from my pen” and Chettle, while admitting he supplied the manuscript copy to the publisher, protested the work “was all Greene’s, not mine nor Master Nashe’s, as some unjustly have affirmed”.

Should we take these assertions at face value or, should we wonder whether they are duplicitous, instances of protesting too much, as Shakespeare would have it?

Our investigation

Some critics maintain the Groatsworth to be an authentic Greene piece. But a convincing case has been made that any Greene material was at least edited, if not forged outright, by Chettle. In her 2001 revisionist biography of Shakespeare, however, professor of literature Katherine Duncan-Jones, often an astute guide, argued that Nashe was “by far the stronger suspect, at least as far as the ‘upstart crow’ passage is concerned”.

Our new investigation, published in Shakespeare Quarterly, suggests that Duncan-Jones’s intuition was correct.

Using a variety of computational methods to analyse digitised samples of writing by Chettle, Greene, and Nashe, we were able to confirm her suspicions with quantitative evidence. We performed three tests, each employing different methods to analyse different linguistic features, thereby providing independent confirmation of our findings.

We first used Delta, a standard distance metric in authorship attribution study, to compare Chettle, Greene and Nashe in their typical use of “function” words (which serve primarily or exclusively grammatical functions) with the Groatsworth. The results showed Nashe to be a stylistically closer match for the letter containing the “upstart crow” insult. Chettle was a closer match for most of the remaining segments of the pamphlet.

Our second test employed Support Vector Machines, a machine learning technique commonly used for classification problems. We trained it to classify writing as Chettle’s, Greene’s, or Nashe’s using a selection of “middling” words, mostly lexical or “content” words, which are neither ubiquitous nor exclusive to any of our authors. When we introduced the Groatsworth segments to the classifier, the letter containing “upstart Crow” was predicted to be Nashe’s.

Finally, we used Zeta, another machine learning technique, to find syntactical patterns comprising three-word sequences that distinguish Nashe’s writing from Chettle’s and Greene’s combined. Again, the “upstart crow” letter was a closer match for Nashe. We have made our data available to allow others to test and validate our findings.

Why should Nashe have insulted Shakespeare in this way? Recent scholarship has shown Nashe to have been part of a group of playwrights responsible for co-authoring I Henry VI, a play that Shakespeare subsequently revised.

Did Nashe resent the “upstart crow” for having the gall to revise his work, assuming, as has been suggested, that Shakespeare was employed to adapt 1 Henry VI to turn his existing two-part play about Henry VI into a trilogy?

Was this an attack on what he saw as Shakespeare’s undeserved literary reputation? An attack he believed could be launched in relative safety by adopting the persona of his recently deceased friend and collaborator, Greene?

Or, as Nashe was frequently wont to do, was this simply too good an opportunity to generate controversy to pass up?

If we take the first option then Nashe was an angry, jealous critic, eager to defend his reputation and excoriate those who trespassed on his patch. If we assume the second, then Nashe may have had no particular animus against Shakespeare, but was merely playing the literary marketplace, realising that controversy generates readers.

As Nashe praises Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part One in his long pamphlet, Pierce Pennilesse, His Supplication to the Devil, published the same year as Groatsworth, perhaps we should assume that the second option is more plausible. Particularly as his forays into a different genres and subject matter under different pseudonyms suggest that cultivating a consistent literary reputation worth defending was not Nashe’s priority.

These new findings force us to reevaluate long-held assumptions about Shakespeare’s early literary reputation. And to reexamine the perceived enmity between him and Greene, and reconsider both authors’ relationships with Nashe. Our method also serves as a timely demonstration of the ways that computational techniques, combined with newly available digitised texts, can help shed light on long-standing literary questions.

Brett Greatley-Hirsch has received funding for this research from the AHRC and the British Academy/Jisc.

Andrew Hadfield and Rachel White do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Who called Shakespeare ‘upstart
crow’? Our study points to his co-author, Thomas Nashe – https://theconversation.com/who-called-shakespeare-upstart-crow-our-study-points-to-his-co-author-thomas-nashe-259713