What do you think?
Rate this book
A notable discovery of coosnage, 1591. The second part of conny-catching, 1592. Edited by G.B. Harrison 1923 [Leather Bound]
Leather Binding on Spine and Corners with Golden Leaf Printing on round Spine (extra customization on request like complete leather, Golden Screen printing in Front, Color Leather, Colored book etc.) Reprinted in 2023 with the help of original edition published long back [1923]. This book is printed in black & white, sewing binding for longer life, printed on high quality Paper, re-sized as per Current standards, professionally processed without changing its contents. As these are old books, we processed each page manually and make them readable but in some cases some pages which are blur or missing or black spots. If it is multi volume set, then it is only single volume, if you wish to order a specific or all the volumes you may contact us. We expect that you will understand our compulsion in these books. We found this book important for the readers who want to know more about our old treasure so we brought it back to the shelves. Hope you will like it and give your comments and suggestions. - eng, Pages 152. EXTRA 10 DAYS APART FROM THE NORMAL SHIPPING PERIOD WILL BE REQUIRED FOR LEATHER BOUND BOOKS. COMPLETE LEATHER WILL COST YOU EXTRA US$ 25 APART FROM THE LEATHER BOUND BOOKS. {FOLIO EDITION IS ALSO AVAILABLE.} Complete A notable discovery of coosnage, 1591. The second part of conny-catching, 1592. Edited by G.B. Harrison 1923 Greene, Robert, ?-,Harrison, G. B. (George Bagshawe)
152 pages, Leather Bound
First published January 1, 1592
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 16, 2024
I love reading this, but in the past I've had moments where I've wondered if to some degree if my love for the language of the day needs to be acknowledged before my love for Greene's spin on it. There's a silly thing about reading the "Elizabethans" nowadays. Any writer who didn't completely shatter all expectations of their time and culture is neglected. I'm not talking at the level of Spencer's The Fairie Queene, but anything less than that level, let's say, is seen as a crank's hobby.
The truth is, Greene reads really well, and has a voice that speaks plainly but forcibly, and is a strong contender in his scene, if it just weren't for him being a contemporary of angels who tore apart heaven like feathers out of a screaming pillowcase; Greene is crude but urgently and sympathetically crude, and by "crude I don't mean offensive but plain-speaking, funny, the voice of someone who has drunk plenty and fought for himself in defense and probably also in undeserving offense. The whole notion of Elizabethan prose & poetry as "flowery" is a bit insulting to the poets and pamphleteers, dramatists and dilettantes who frequented London bars and cursed over their beer and threw rocks through windows and went around the filthy city streets laughing & singing.
I want to suggest a 16th century Karl Kraus but, no, that's bullshit. The truth is that Greene never suggests the possibility of pull & slinging as nearly a beautiful or finely knotted line as Marlowe or yes, Shakespeare, but that's such a ridiculous standard to hold him against without enjoying him for his own plain-speaking prose! And make no mistake, any reason to read Greene is in his prose only; to me his poetry is embarrassing. --It's no wonder he spent so many lines denigrating his peers.
This is a very entertaining piece. In this pamphlet Greene lays out his subject in its action, clearly delineating each cony-catcher's role, and presents live the con as it unfolds from the beginning. The voices are convincing on their own and could be presented as a short drama without the guide of the accompanying prose. You know who is predator and who is peasant.
The cons here are really simple and seem like the sort of thing children would fall for, and that is because peasants traveling through cities had never encountered strangers, at least not outside the context of their own home or being guest in another, for example visiting the farm of a cousin's cousin's friend, -- but that's an extreme example because how much traveling back then did a farmer do? What's depicted here is con men preying on country rubes as well as spoiled nobles, both whom for different reasons were utterly ignorant of their vulnerability.
The truth is, Greene reads really well, and has a voice that speaks plainly but forcibly, and is a strong contender in his scene, if it just weren't for him being a contemporary of angels who tore apart heaven like feathers out of a screaming pillowcase; Greene is crude but urgently and sympathetically crude, and by "crude I don't mean offensive but plain-speaking, funny, the voice of someone who has drunk plenty and fought for himself in defense and probably also in undeserving offense. The whole notion of Elizabethan prose & poetry as "flowery" is a bit insulting to the poets and pamphleteers, dramatists and dilettantes who frequented London bars and cursed over their beer and threw rocks through windows and went around the filthy city streets laughing & singing.
I want to suggest a 16th century Karl Kraus but, no, that's bullshit. The truth is that Greene never suggests the possibility of pull & slinging as nearly a beautiful or finely knotted line as Marlowe or yes, Shakespeare, but that's such a ridiculous standard to hold him against without enjoying him for his own plain-speaking prose! And make no mistake, any reason to read Greene is in his prose only; to me his poetry is embarrassing. --It's no wonder he spent so many lines denigrating his peers.
This is a very entertaining piece. In this pamphlet Greene lays out his subject in its action, clearly delineating each cony-catcher's role, and presents live the con as it unfolds from the beginning. The voices are convincing on their own and could be presented as a short drama without the guide of the accompanying prose. You know who is predator and who is peasant.
The cons here are really simple and seem like the sort of thing children would fall for, and that is because peasants traveling through cities had never encountered strangers, at least not outside the context of their own home or being guest in another, for example visiting the farm of a cousin's cousin's friend, -- but that's an extreme example because how much traveling back then did a farmer do? What's depicted here is con men preying on country rubes as well as spoiled nobles, both whom for different reasons were utterly ignorant of their vulnerability.
Displaying 1 of 1 review