Dating the Tempest
ignoto
the tempest):
Perhaps this is out of date? I found rather a lot of the parallels
rather dubious. As did I find the choice of authors somewhat deficient-
Eden, Erasmus... aren;t you forgetting someone Lynne? Well, aren;t you
forgetting *at least* a certain (very important) someone (and maybe
forgetting a few others too).
Remember- that "sweet witty soul" of Rome that was taught in every
elizabethan school. Remember Ceryx and Alcyone in Ch 11 of the
Metamorphoses? Strachey and Shakespeare have a common source- and where
do you think Erasmus got *his* description of the storm from?
(You see, Meres DID know what he was talking about)
Lynne Honey
ignoto wrote:
> Finally decided to check this out properly (Lynne and the Doc on dating
> the tempest):
>
> http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
>
> Perhaps this is out of date? I found rather a lot of the parallels
> rather dubious. As did I find the choice of authors somewhat deficient-
> Eden, Erasmus...
If we were doing it again, we would likely add Ariosto or even replace
Erasmus with him. He has more than just the cluster of storm parallels,
so he's maybe better than Erasmus. And the other day I found a detail
in Ariosto which up to that point I had thought only in Strachey and
therefore a real happening during the Tempest off Bermuda.
Interesting, but not paralleled by anything in Shakespeare's Tempest so
it wouldn't go into the table anyway.
But the table is just an exercise, which one traditionalist thought we
ought to do before we wrote our essays. No doubt I could find more and
closer parallels if I were to read Eden again, but it's heavy going as
the print in my copy is difficult to read, and at the moment I'm busy
with Ariosto. If anyone knows of a good edition online of Harington's
translation of Orlando F, by the way, I'd be grateful as I can't get
downtown to a library right now. I have most of the piece, but my
Harington is "selections" and excludes most of what I need, Cantos 18,
19, 40 and 41. The only Harington I can find online is very badly
organised, so that there is no way to get to Canto 18, for example,
without going through the first seventeen page by page.
>aren;t you forgetting someone Lynne? Well, aren;t you
> forgetting *at least* a certain (very important) someone (and maybe
> forgetting a few others too).
We absolutely aren't forgetting anyone, Ignoto, as our two essays will
show. We were just making an attempt at covering most of the parallels
using as few sources as possible, as the complaint in the past has been
that of course one can cover all the parallels if one uses a hundred
sources. Actually, at least three quarters of Gayley and Kathman's
parallels, perhaps more, can be covered by using
1. Shakespeare's own earlier work (Strachey only has a couple of poems
so it makes him look pretty poor by comparison) and
2. Eden (There are also at least forty or fifty other parallels between
Shakespeare's Tempest and Eden not even whispered at in Strachey. We
cover them in essay two, but not in the table).
>
> Remember- that "sweet witty soul" of Rome that was taught in every
> elizabethan school. Remember Ceryx and Alcyone in Ch 11 of the
> Metamorphoses? Strachey and Shakespeare have a common source- and where
> do you think Erasmus got *his* description of the storm from?
Absolutely. We mention all the earlier sources in essay two, although
we don't go into them in great detail. Ovid is a particularly important
source. But the point is mostly that although one or two scholars had
mentioned Erasmus before, no one to my knowledge had shown in detail
that all the major storm elements occur in a whole bundle of earlier
works in tight clusters. And although Kermode, for example, had spoken
of Eden, giving some parallels, he thought of the work mostly as a
complementary source to Strachey.
If you're saying that Strachey and Shakespeare had a common source in
Metamorphoses, by the way, you're beginning to argue that
A. Strachey's "travel narrative" was in fact for the most part derived
from literary sources, and that Shakespeare didn't need him to write
Tempest as the material was available to him also.
B. Shakespeare could get all his source material much earlier as the
major sources are all in place by 1555, with the possible exception of
the Montaigne, which looks anyhow to be derived from Eden.
>
> (You see, Meres DID know what he was talking about)
But he left a good deal out of his lists, not just Hamlet, by all
accounts.
Anyhow, have to rush.
Regards,
Lynne
ignoto
Which is my point, at least many, (probably all, I haven;t thoroughly
checked) allusions that you find between strachey and pre-tempest
shakespeare are from Ovid- a school boy text that was memorised by rote
and a very popular to boot (i.e. something strachey and shakespeare
would both have been very familar with).
O, and as to your comment on strachey, completely irrelevant (non
sequitur and ad hominem to boot).
> 2. Eden (There are also at least forty or fifty other parallels between
> Shakespeare's Tempest and Eden not even whispered at in Strachey. We
> cover them in essay two, but not in the table).
Are you saying that shakespeare could not have read the strachey letter
and then gone back to Eden to fill his thoughts out? (Numerous
construction of events could be hypothesized)
[Eden probably also has a classical source BTW; Ariosto *certainly*
relied on classical models]
> > Remember- that "sweet witty soul" of Rome that was taught in every
> > elizabethan school. Remember Ceryx and Alcyone in Ch 11 of the
> > Metamorphoses? Strachey and Shakespeare have a common source- and where
> > do you think Erasmus got *his* description of the storm from?
>
> Absolutely. We mention all the earlier sources in essay two, although
> we don't go into them in great detail. Ovid is a particularly important
> source. But the point is mostly that although one or two scholars had
> mentioned Erasmus before, no one to my knowledge had shown in detail
> that all the major storm elements occur in a whole bundle of earlier
> works in tight clusters. And although Kermode, for example, had spoken
> of Eden, giving some parallels, he thought of the work mostly as a
> complementary source to Strachey.
>
> If you're saying that Strachey and Shakespeare had a common source in
> Metamorphoses, by the way, you're beginning to argue that
> A. Strachey's "travel narrative" was in fact for the most part derived
> from literary sources, and that Shakespeare didn't need him to write
> Tempest as the material was available to him also.
The fact that strachey uses fictional accounts to render his travel
accounts more ornamental in no way detracts from them as travel
accounts. He was an Elizabethan, and that is how elizabethans wrote.
You seem to be expecting him to be using a writing a style acceptable
in the "lonely planet". IN any case Erasmus lifted his description of
the storm from Ovid (See Erasmus, On the Copia of Words and Ideas), so
he too is using a 'litrerary source'.
As for shakespeare not needing the strachey letter, proper respopnse
would include an analysis of the texts that I do not at present ahve
the time to complete. Suffice to note 1. I think many of your parallels
are dubious. 2. Even if you show that that shakespeare *could* have got
his materials from elsewhere it does not follow that he did not get
details from strachey and subsequently embellish those details with
other sources (perhaps using, inter alia, the same two sources as
strachey- Ovid and Eden) and (similary) 3. The claim that shakespeare
didn;t need strachey because earlier sources were avaliable to him
(used in A, above), is basically a claim that the earlier sources were
used because they were earlier. ie nonsense.
> B. Shakespeare could get all his source material much earlier as the
> major sources are all in place by 1555, with the possible exception of
> the Montaigne, which looks anyhow to be derived from Eden.
[This is basically the same point as made in the latter part of A
above.]
> >
> > (You see, Meres DID know what he was talking about)
>
> But he left a good deal out of his lists, not just Hamlet,
Nope. Quite simply because shakespeare didn;t write the early hamlet.
[ANd if you think silence denotes assent, then you are gravely
mistaken. I merely have more important things to do with my time than
mess around with trifles.]
> by all
> accounts.
Not 'all' - On dubious accounts Lynne, on dubious accounts.
Lynne Honey
Ok, you've lost me. If they're from Ovid then Shakespeare didn't need
to go to Strachey for them. Would also point out that Oxford's uncle
Golding translated Ovid, not at all something we deal with in our
essays.
>
> O, and as to your comment on strachey, completely irrelevant (non
> sequitur and ad hominem to boot).
Of course it's not irrelevant (Nor is it ad hominem, though why you're
defending Strachey, a gifted plagiarist who lifted everyone else's work
wholesale, is beyond my comprehension). David Kathman keeps admitting
previous usage into the argument by saying: "Shakespeare only used this
three times before--Shakespeare only used this once before." In fact,
Shakespeare had used many of the so-called "parallels" many, many times
before whilst Strachey had only ever used the words thunder and
lightning and I believe pines of ALL those parallels, in a poem said to
be derived from Shakespeare's King Lear. Shakespeare had a track record
for the language in the parallels, Strachey didn't. If Shakespeare had
already used the material in his earlier works, he wouldn't have gone
to Strachey for them. It doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> > 2. Eden (There are also at least forty or fifty other parallels between
> > Shakespeare's Tempest and Eden not even whispered at in Strachey. We
> > cover them in essay two, but not in the table).
>
> Are you saying that shakespeare could not have read the strachey letter
> and then gone back to Eden to fill his thoughts out? (Numerous
> construction of events could be hypothesized)
I'm saying that it was unlikely, given that many or most of the
parallels are elsewhere including in his own work.
I'm also at this point saying it was impossible, given all the material
we have found showing that
1. Tempest was almost certainly earlier than previously thought
2. Strachey was definitely later than previously thought.
>
> [Eden probably also has a classical source BTW; Ariosto *certainly*
> relied on classical models]
Yes, absolutely, but the more chains of sources going back into
antiquity you find, the less likely it is that Shakespeare needed
Strachey. You're destroying your own argument. In fact the storm was a
"set piece" by 1600, probably known to every literate person in
England.
>
> > > Remember- that "sweet witty soul" of Rome that was taught in every
> > > elizabethan school. Remember Ceryx and Alcyone in Ch 11 of the
> > > Metamorphoses? Strachey and Shakespeare have a common source- and where
> > > do you think Erasmus got *his* description of the storm from?
> >
> > Absolutely. We mention all the earlier sources in essay two, although
> > we don't go into them in great detail. Ovid is a particularly important
> > source. But the point is mostly that although one or two scholars had
> > mentioned Erasmus before, no one to my knowledge had shown in detail
> > that all the major storm elements occur in a whole bundle of earlier
> > works in tight clusters. And although Kermode, for example, had spoken
> > of Eden, giving some parallels, he thought of the work mostly as a
> > complementary source to Strachey.
> >
> > If you're saying that Strachey and Shakespeare had a common source in
> > Metamorphoses, by the way, you're beginning to argue that
>
> > A. Strachey's "travel narrative" was in fact for the most part derived
> > from literary sources, and that Shakespeare didn't need him to write
> > Tempest as the material was available to him also.
>
> The fact that strachey uses fictional accounts to render his travel
> accounts more ornamental in no way detracts from them as travel
> accounts. He was an Elizabethan, and that is how elizabethans wrote.
> You seem to be expecting him to be using a writing a style acceptable
> in the "lonely planet". IN any case Erasmus lifted his description of
> the storm from Ovid (See Erasmus, On the Copia of Words and Ideas), so
> he too is using a 'litrerary source'.
God, Ignoto, are you ever not getting it. Part of *our* argument is
that Strachey uses fictional accounts to render his travel accounts
more ornamental. As soon as you argue that, Strachey becomes irrelevant
to Shakespeare, because the earlier (and far more famous sources) were
available to him and he would certainly have seen them. In fact we know
he used them because of the echoes in his prior work. Of course Erasmus
lifted from somewhere, but he was writing a dialogue, not a
pretending-to-be-true travel narrative, and it's irrelevant anyway to
the argument. Further, much of the argument in the past has hinged on
the "fact" that Strachey was writing a "true" and "official" document
(neither is true), so he couldn't have taken from earlier sources
available to Shakespeare (or Shakespeare himself).
>
> As for shakespeare not needing the strachey letter, proper respopnse
> would include an analysis of the texts that I do not at present ahve
> the time to complete. Suffice to note 1. I think many of your parallels
> are dubious.
That's fine. Please apply the same critical faculties to many of Dave
Kathman's parallels, and also exclude them from the possibility of
earlier sources.
>2. Even if you show that that shakespeare *could* have got
> his materials from elsewhere it does not follow that he did not get
> details from strachey and subsequently embellish those details with
> other sources (perhaps using, inter alia, the same two sources as
> strachey- Ovid and Eden) and (similary)
That's ludicrous, given everything we've put forward in our essays.
It's much more likely that if there are still parallels left, Strachey
got them from Shakespeare. He got everything else from everyone else.
He was a copier of the first order.
>3. The claim that shakespeare
> didn;t need strachey because earlier sources were avaliable to him
> (used in A, above), is basically a claim that the earlier sources were
> used because they were earlier. ie nonsense.
Not when you twin it with the research we've done showing that the
Strachey letter was a literary document which did not return on Gates'
ship, and by Strachey's own testimony was still not completed or
presented to the members of the Virginia Company in 1612.
>
>
> > B. Shakespeare could get all his source material much earlier as the
> > major sources are all in place by 1555, with the possible exception of
> > the Montaigne, which looks anyhow to be derived from Eden.
>
> [This is basically the same point as made in the latter part of A
> above.]
>
> > >
> > > (You see, Meres DID know what he was talking about)
> >
> > But he left a good deal out of his lists, not just Hamlet,
>
> Nope. Quite simply because shakespeare didn;t write the early hamlet.
It must be wonderful to be omniscient. In contrast, I've spent months
and months having to research material, as I'm not gifted with the
knowledge of all things.
>
> [ANd if you think silence denotes assent, then you are gravely
> mistaken. I merely have more important things to do with my time than
> mess around with trifles.]
Since you think it a trifle, why do you keep posting on it?
Regards,
Lynne
ben-Jonson
If you're saying that Strachey and Shakespeare had a common source in
Metamorphoses, by the way, you're beginning to argue that
A. Strachey's "travel narrative" was in fact for the most part derived
from literary sources, and that Shakespeare didn't need him to write
Tempest as the material was available to him also.
B. Shakespeare could get all his source material much earlier as the
major sources are all in place by 1555, with the possible exception of
the Montaigne, which looks anyhow to be derived from Eden.
Ben:
Right. This seems like a futile direction, doesn't it?
ben-Jonson
Ignoto, have you checked *this* out:
http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2001/0650.html
Your really ought to.
Best wishes,
Ben
seaker
Lynne in the third person? A simple click shows the following
"ben-Jonson" <stritmatte...@hotmail.com>. Dr. Roger Stritmatter, do
you often refer to yourself in the third person? Perhaps, Mark
Anderson is just a front for you. Are you the real author of
Shakespeare By Another Name? Anderson By Another Name does have a nice
ring to it!
ben-Jonson
I'm sorry you've had a bad day. And congratulations on your sleuthing.
And yes, sometimes I do talk about myself in the thrid person. Some
say it can be a pathway to higher objectivity. You might want to try
it yourself someday, when you aren't feeling in such a nasty mood.
Tom Reedy
news:1134168441....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Further, much of the argument in the past has hinged on
> the "fact" that Strachey was writing a "true" and "official" document
> (neither is true), so he couldn't have taken from earlier sources
> available to Shakespeare (or Shakespeare himself).
To me the standard argument has been that The Tempest came out when a
similar incident was being talked about, and the parallels are all present
in one source, Stratchey. The fact that all the parallels can be found in
earlier works brings up the question of why The Tempest wasn't written
earlier, if that's where the parallels were from (which I guess is your
argument).
Occam demands economy. If a work appears contiguous in time or almost
contiguous to another work, and if allusions to one can be found in the
other, but also can be found in numerous previous sources, the probabilities
that one used the other as a source are greater than that they individually
used those previous numerous sources, which I guess is why you're trying to
date Strachey later to show that he used Shakespeare as a source. But to do
that, you'll have to show that Strachey was written after the publication of
the First Folio, because otherwise you'll have to use the connections
between Shakespeare and Strachey that you say Shakespeare didn't use.
<snip>
>>2. Even if you show that that shakespeare *could* have got
>> his materials from elsewhere it does not follow that he did not get
>> details from strachey and subsequently embellish those details with
>> other sources (perhaps using, inter alia, the same two sources as
>> strachey- Ovid and Eden) and (similary)
>
> That's ludicrous,
I agree, It is much more likely he cribbed them all from one source.
> given everything we've put forward in our essays.
> It's much more likely that if there are still parallels left, Strachey
> got them from Shakespeare. He got everything else from everyone else.
> He was a copier of the first order.
Shakespeare was a pretty good copier himself.
>
>>3. The claim that shakespeare
>> didn;t need strachey because earlier sources were avaliable to him
>> (used in A, above), is basically a claim that the earlier sources were
>> used because they were earlier. ie nonsense.
>
> Not when you twin it with the research we've done showing that the
> Strachey letter was a literary document which did not return on Gates'
> ship, and by Strachey's own testimony was still not completed or
> presented to the members of the Virginia Company in 1612.
We're all interested to see that testimony.
marika
Lynne Honey wrote:
>
> Ok, you've lost me. If they're from Ovid then Shakespeare didn't need
> to go to Strachey for them. Would also point out that Oxford's uncle
> Golding translated Ovid, not at all something we deal with in our
> essays.
>
>
have you guys seen "Good Night and Good Luck", the George Clooney
directed movie about Murrow.
There's this one part where Murrow impugns someone or other - and uses
Shakespeare to compare the oversight:
"the fault dear brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves"
totally out of of context.
That last little missing line about the underlings renders the whole
lesson Murrow was trying to convey STOOPIT.
Was Murrow as much of a retard as this movie made him out to be?
Poor Clooney, I know he was trying to avenge a family honor etc.
But, then he invests the movie with all this jazz music, which
unfortunately, lays down riffs from 1960's, whereas the movie was set
in 53.
I think the Patriot Act reference will be totally lost on the 20
somethings. But so what, they never got it.
Cute, too, was that little girl from MadTv, trying to be a serious
actress. Mrs. Swann I wanted to say, where is that damn ugly plaid
apron?
mk5000
"And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion'd thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar"--ws, to thine own self be true
seaker
sleuthing to figure out who ben-Jonson is. I have no problem with you
posting here to support your co-author; I do have a problem with you
trying to pass your post off as one written by a third party. And in
case you a wondering, it's okay with me, Roger, if you use ben-Jonson
when you post here. By the way, the hyphen in your name is a nice
touch. Is it an homage to Oxford?
Roger, Ben Jonson wrote plays for Public Theatres, Private Theatres and
masques that were performed only at Court. William Shakespeare wrote
plays for Public Theatres some of which were performed, by the acting
company he belonged to, for the Court. Shakespeare wrote two narrative
poems when the theatres were closed. Jonson and Shakepeare's plays
were published. Everyone knew who wrote the plays. Edward de Vere
appears to have written a few plays for and performed by members of the
Court. Meres mentions Oxford as a playwright, but doesn't bother to
list them. What a pity. Alas, no publisher thought Oxford's dramatic
works worthy of print. The publishers knew that Oxford wouldn't sell.
As for a pathway to higher objectivity, Bassanio, you are miles away
from the starting point.
dialector
> I have no problem with you
> posting here to support your co-author; I do have a problem with you
> trying to pass your post off as one written by a third party.
>
Let he who hath not posted as a third party cast the first stone.
Katharine
Lynne Honey
Let he who hath not posted as a third and fourth party cast the first
stone. The real irony here is that one of the "parties" Robert Leff
posted as was "ben jonson."
LynnE
Lynne Honey
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134168441....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Further, much of the argument in the past has hinged on
> > the "fact" that Strachey was writing a "true" and "official" document
> > (neither is true), so he couldn't have taken from earlier sources
> > available to Shakespeare (or Shakespeare himself).
>
> To me the standard argument has been that The Tempest came out when a
> similar incident was being talked about, and the parallels are all present
> in one source, Stratchey.
Yes, that's absolutely true with regard to secondary sources. I was
thinking of HLAS, actually, where in the past several people got hot
and bothered and righteous about travel narratives being the gospel
truth, saying that this one was an "official document" besides.
>The fact that all the parallels can be found in
> earlier works brings up the question of why The Tempest wasn't written
> earlier, if that's where the parallels were from (which I guess is your
> argument).
I believe it was written earlier and we have a lot of evidence to
suggest that's the case. But I also think there's a reason we see the
first recorded performance under the title Tempest soon after Jourdain
and True Declaration were published.
>
> Occam demands economy. If a work appears contiguous in time or almost
> contiguous to another work, and if allusions to one can be found in the
> other, but also can be found in numerous previous sources, the probabilities
> that one used the other as a source are greater than that they individually
> used those previous numerous sources, which I guess is why you're trying to
> date Strachey later to show that he used Shakespeare as a source.
Our argument has nothing to do with whether Strachey used Shakespeare
as a source, only whether Shakespeare used Strachey; however, if
Strachey was dated after 1612, and you still see parallels to
Shakespeare, it's possibly that he did. But he had plenty of other
sources he could go to.
> But to do
> that, you'll have to show that Strachey was written after the publication of
> the First Folio, because otherwise you'll have to use the connections
> between Shakespeare and Strachey that you say Shakespeare didn't use.
If Tempest was performed in 1611 or before, there had to be written
copies of it (This is the argument of Strachey in ms too. Only problem
is that Strachey in ms didn't go to the Virginia Company in 1610).
There were prompt copies, actors' roles, etc. If Tempest can be dated
prior to 1606, and we believe it can, Strachey might easily have seen
it as he was a sharer at Blackfriars. But it doesn't form part of our
argument.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>2. Even if you show that that shakespeare *could* have got
> >> his materials from elsewhere it does not follow that he did not get
> >> details from strachey and subsequently embellish those details with
> >> other sources (perhaps using, inter alia, the same two sources as
> >> strachey- Ovid and Eden) and (similary)
> >
> > That's ludicrous,
>
> I agree, It is much more likely he cribbed them all from one source.
Thanks.
>
> > given everything we've put forward in our essays.
> > It's much more likely that if there are still parallels left, Strachey
> > got them from Shakespeare. He got everything else from everyone else.
> > He was a copier of the first order.
>
> Shakespeare was a pretty good copier himself.
Absolutely. And he'd copied from both Eden and Ariosto often before, so
it gives him a history with these sources.
>
> >
> >>3. The claim that shakespeare
> >> didn;t need strachey because earlier sources were avaliable to him
> >> (used in A, above), is basically a claim that the earlier sources were
> >> used because they were earlier. ie nonsense.
> >
> > Not when you twin it with the research we've done showing that the
> > Strachey letter was a literary document which did not return on Gates'
> > ship, and by Strachey's own testimony was still not completed or
> > presented to the members of the Virginia Company in 1612.
>
> We're all interested to see that testimony.
It's easily findable. Not only that. A letter from Richard Martin,
secretary of the Virginia Company, to Strachey in Dec 1610, asks him to
write giving details on many specific aspects of life in Virginia,
aspects that are covered very thoroughly in True Repertory. We have a
table on it. If the document had already gone back to the company,
there would be no reason at all for Martin to be asking for that
information.
Regards,
Lynne
Tom Reedy
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1134168441....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Further, much of the argument in the past has hinged on
>> > the "fact" that Strachey was writing a "true" and "official" document
>> > (neither is true), so he couldn't have taken from earlier sources
>> > available to Shakespeare (or Shakespeare himself).
>>
>> To me the standard argument has been that The Tempest came out when a
>> similar incident was being talked about, and the parallels are all
>> present
>> in one source, Stratchey.
>
> Yes, that's absolutely true with regard to secondary sources. I was
> thinking of HLAS, actually, where in the past several people got hot
> and bothered and righteous about travel narratives being the gospel
> truth, saying that this one was an "official document" besides.
OK, so we're on the same page here as far as what the standard argument is.
Because I've seen all manner of true reports based upon literary models.
I've even done so myself to relieve the tedium of journalism.
>
>>The fact that all the parallels can be found in
>> earlier works brings up the question of why The Tempest wasn't written
>> earlier, if that's where the parallels were from (which I guess is your
>> argument).
>
> I believe it was written earlier and we have a lot of evidence to
> suggest that's the case.
Of course we'd all be interested in seeing that evidence, but for the sake
of your argument I hope that literary allusions to earlier works are not
part of it.
So the received wisdom is that Strachey's letter was one and the same as his
report to the company? (Forgive my ignorance here, but I've never been much
interested in this topic.)
> There were prompt copies, actors' roles, etc. If Tempest can be dated
> prior to 1606, and we believe it can, Strachey might easily have seen
> it as he was a sharer at Blackfriars. But it doesn't form part of our
> argument.
>
<snip>
>> > Not when you twin it with the research we've done showing that the
>> > Strachey letter was a literary document which did not return on Gates'
>> > ship, and by Strachey's own testimony was still not completed or
>> > presented to the members of the Virginia Company in 1612.
>>
>> We're all interested to see that testimony.
>
> It's easily findable.
If you've found it, why not tell us about it?
> Not only that. A letter from Richard Martin,
> secretary of the Virginia Company, to Strachey in Dec 1610, asks him to
> write giving details on many specific aspects of life in Virginia,
> aspects that are covered very thoroughly in True Repertory. We have a
> table on it.
I'm assuming the table also indicates which parallels from Strachey were
common to *Discovery* and *True Declaration*. As I said earlier, I've never
been much interested in this topic, so I haven't bothered to read all the
supposed sources.
> If the document had already gone back to the company,
> there would be no reason at all for Martin to be asking for that
> information.
So again, the received wisdom is that Strachey's letter was one and the same
as his report to the company?
TR
>
> Regards,
> Lynne
>
Lynne Honey
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134229891.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:1134168441....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > Further, much of the argument in the past has hinged on
> >> > the "fact" that Strachey was writing a "true" and "official" document
> >> > (neither is true), so he couldn't have taken from earlier sources
> >> > available to Shakespeare (or Shakespeare himself).
> >>
> >> To me the standard argument has been that The Tempest came out when a
> >> similar incident was being talked about, and the parallels are all
> >> present
> >> in one source, Stratchey.
> >
> > Yes, that's absolutely true with regard to secondary sources. I was
> > thinking of HLAS, actually, where in the past several people got hot
> > and bothered and righteous about travel narratives being the gospel
> > truth, saying that this one was an "official document" besides.
>
> OK, so we're on the same page here as far as what the standard argument is.
> Because I've seen all manner of true reports based upon literary models.
> I've even done so myself to relieve the tedium of journalism.
Really?
Although we're on the same page with this, I do find that most of the
secondary sources treat Strachey's "letter" as if it were real and
true; they certainly don't subject it to the same scrutiny they reserve
for his other works.
>
> >
> >>The fact that all the parallels can be found in
> >> earlier works brings up the question of why The Tempest wasn't written
> >> earlier, if that's where the parallels were from (which I guess is your
> >> argument).
> >
> > I believe it was written earlier and we have a lot of evidence to
> > suggest that's the case.
>
> Of course we'd all be interested in seeing that evidence, but for the sake
> of your argument I hope that literary allusions to earlier works are not
> part of it.
They are not. They are only discussed to show that he didn't need to go
to Strachey for the story of the storm or the conspiracies. And as
they're far richer--particularly Eden-- they have become an essay on
sources of The Tempest all by themselves.
Yes, and I've never understood that, because it is clearly addressed to
a lady. But it is through its going to the company, argue scholars,
that the chain began which supposedly ended with WS of Stratford (or in
Rubinstein's case, with Neville). For example, Dave K states:
"Shakespeare had many connections to members of the Virginia Company,
among whom Strachey's letter undoubtedly circulated, and any one of
them could have let him see it." Some scholars, such as Kinney, have
been sceptical, however.
>
> > There were prompt copies, actors' roles, etc. If Tempest can be dated
> > prior to 1606, and we believe it can, Strachey might easily have seen
> > it as he was a sharer at Blackfriars. But it doesn't form part of our
> > argument.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > Not when you twin it with the research we've done showing that the
> >> > Strachey letter was a literary document which did not return on Gates'
> >> > ship, and by Strachey's own testimony was still not completed or
> >> > presented to the members of the Virginia Company in 1612.
> >>
> >> We're all interested to see that testimony.
> >
> > It's easily findable.
>
> If you've found it, why not tell us about it?
I will in time. Too tired to discuss it right now.
>
> > Not only that. A letter from Richard Martin,
> > secretary of the Virginia Company, to Strachey in Dec 1610, asks him to
> > write giving details on many specific aspects of life in Virginia,
> > aspects that are covered very thoroughly in True Repertory. We have a
> > table on it.
>
> I'm assuming the table also indicates which parallels from Strachey were
> common to *Discovery* and *True Declaration*.
We have another table that does that (Riche included). It's quite
fascinating. Almost all the events of the storm reported ONLY by
Strachey are the ones that most closely match Shakespeare. You'd have
thought an unusual event like St. Elmo's Fire, for example, would have
imprinted itself on the memories of Jourdain and Riche and others. But
it apparently didn't; however, Erasmus, Ariosto, and Tomson all mention
it as part of the storm that *they're* describing.
>As I said earlier, I've never
> been much interested in this topic, so I haven't bothered to read all the
> supposed sources.
I wasn't either till I came across something by accident. Now I find it
fascinating, one of the most interesting things I've been involved
with. I'm not that interested in secondary sources, but the primary
sources are amazing.
>
> > If the document had already gone back to the company,
> > there would be no reason at all for Martin to be asking for that
> > information.
>
> So again, the received wisdom is that Strachey's letter was one and the same
> as his report to the company?
Yes. No one has ever suggested, if I remember correctly, that there was
a second document. Some have blurred the lines a little by saying it
was a letter to a lady which must in some way have been transmitted to
the company and thence to Shakespeare. There was never an official
report from Strachey that we know of. There is certainly nothing in the
company records. I've been through them.
L.
>
> TR
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lynne
> >
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Shakespeare's time, how were such texts as Strachey's letter, by which
I mean a description of travels, or scientific research, or a
philosophical investigation, ordinarly transmitted to an informal group
at that time? It would seem to me they might well be addressed to a
main member of the group with the understanding that the or she would
let others see it, or read it to them at some sort of gathering. I
find it hard to imagine how Shakespeare (if the poet) would not have
wanted to see or hear it or how he would not have been able to.
--Bob G.
Lynne Honey
seaker wrote:
> Roger - I had a good day thank you very much. It didn't take much
> sleuthing to figure out who ben-Jonson is. I have no problem with you
> posting here to support your co-author; I do have a problem with you
> trying to pass your post off as one written by a third party.
He didn't try to pass anything off. His email address was written
clearly at the top of the post. God knows what you're going on about.
Lynne
Philling Station
Lynne Honey wrote:
> seaker wrote:
> > Roger - I had a good day thank you very much. It didn't take much
> > sleuthing to figure out who ben-Jonson is. I have no problem with you
> > posting here to support your co-author; I do have a problem with you
> > trying to pass your post off as one written by a third party.
>
> He didn't try to pass anything off. His email address was written
> clearly at the top of the post. God knows what you're going on about.
I think I understand. Seeker thinks Dr. Stritmatter was pretending to
pose - and post - as someone who wasn't working with you on an
Oxfordian Tempest essay. (It's akin to an author using a nom-de-web for
posting glowing reviews about his own books on Amazon.) I agree with
you that Seeker's claim is absurd.
Lynne Honey
I don't know that answer to that, Bob. But in this case it's moot
anyway, because
a) important members of the VC hadn't seen the "letter" as 1610 drew to
a close, and
b) Much or most or all of it still wasn't written.
Lynne
ignoto
As I've pointed out before there is internal evidence in the strachey
letter that suggests it was sent back to England with Gates (SO the
letter proper is to be found in the first section of the strachey
letter as printed in Hakylut's printed papers I don't recall where it
breaks off).
As for the request for an official report- isn't it conceivable that
strachey never wrote an official report because he had already sent the
letter- and that after the request for the report was sent to the
company the letter that was sent to the most excellent lady was given
to the company (perhaps by the excellent lady at the request of
strachey)
ignoto
I'd be very careful before making these sorts of claims. You need to
check and cross check sources.
Lynne Honey
> Lynne Honey wrote:
>
> letter that suggests it was sent back to England with Gates
There is actually a tremendous amount of internal evidence in the
Strachey "letter" that proves it wasn't sent back with Gates. An
anaemic version may have been, but it would have been supplemented
later by much material copied from other sources. There's no point in
arguing this any longer, Ignoto. I'll show you our essay on Strachey
when we make decisions about publication.
>(SO the
> letter proper is to be found in the first section of the strachey
> letter as printed in Hakylut's printed papers
You have no idea what was in Hakluyt's papers, if anything. No one does
unless you have a new source I haven't seen. All we have is a note by
Purchas.
>I don't recall where it
> breaks off).
If you're going to argue reasonably, then you should at least have your
facts to hand. In any case, it's not so much where you think it breaks
off as where it's imbedded throughout with other material.
>
> As for the request for an official report- isn't it conceivable that
> strachey never wrote an official report because he had already sent the
> letter- and that after the request for the report was sent to the
> company the letter that was sent to the most excellent lady was given
> to the company (perhaps by the excellent lady at the request of
> strachey)
Yes, but it gets less and less likely. And besides that, there are
sources used in the letter that go as far forward as 1612. Even if that
weren't so, if the noble lady gave the letter to the company at the
request of Strachey (Gawd help us, how could she have done this before
1611 anyhow as Strachey himself says there are no other boats until
they come back in the spring of 1611) she didn't give it before 1611,
as Martin clearly has no knowledge of it at the end of 1610. The window
gets smaller and smaller for WS of Strat to have seen and copied
it--was he even in London during this period?--especially as WT, which
we know was performed in the spring of 1611, has much of the same storm
imagery.
Why are you working so hard to make sure Strachey remains Shakespeare's
source for The Tempest? You are having to jump through all kinds of
hoops at this point to make any kind of case at all, especially as it
was you who brought up the fact that both Shakespeare and Strachey were
influenced by Ovid.
Regards,
L.
ignoto
ignoto wrote:
> Finally decided to check this out properly (Lynne and the Doc on dating
> the tempest):
>
> http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
>
Also missed:
Pliny, Natural History 2, 101:
Of the starres called Castor and Pollux.
"I HAVE seene my selfe in the campe, from the souldiours sentinels in
the night watch, the resemblance of lightening to sticke fast upon the
speares and pikes set before the rampiat. They settle also upon the
crosse saile-yards, and other parts of the ship, as men doe saile in
the sea: making a kind of vocall sound, leaping too and fro, and
shifting their places as birds doe which flie from bough to bough.
Daungerous they be and unluckie, when they come one by one without a
companion: and they drown those ships on which they light, and threaten
shipwrack, yea, and they set them on fire if haply they fall upon the
bottome of the Keele. But if they appeare two and two together, they
bring comfort with them, and foretell a prosperous course in the
voiage, as by whole comming, they say, that dreadfull, cursed, and
threatening Meteor called Helena, is chased and driven away. And
thereupon it is, that men assigne this mightie power to Castor and
Pollux, and invocate them at sea, no lesse than gods. Mens heads also
in the even-tide are seene many times to shine round about, and to be
of a light fire, which presageth some great matter. Of all these things
there is no certain reason to be given, but secret these be, hidden
with the majestie of Nature, and reserved within her Cabinet."
...I doubt though that any of the parallels (strachey, pliny, eden,
erasmus) are sufficiently compelling to be thought of as anything other
than descriptions of a similar natural phenomenon. (I don't have
strachey here right now, but it certainly seems to me that shakespeare
follows strachey more closely than any of the other sources)
Lynne Honey
know as you are intimating that you've read it. But the Pliny is
interesting too because of the bird imagery. You're showing again that
Shakespeare didn't have to take his description of Ariel as St. Elmo
from Strachey, as Strachey merely copied his description, part of it
virtually verbatim, from earlier sources. I think we've found and
studied them all.
More important than the description of St. Elmo's Fire in Pliny, I
believe, is the cluster of storm events found in The Tempest which
include St. Elmo. We see them all in Erasmus, Ariosto, and Tomson.
Doubtless they're also elsewhere.
L.
Lynne Honey
ignoto wrote:
> ignoto wrote:
> > Finally decided to check this out properly (Lynne and the Doc on dating
> > the tempest):
> >
> > http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
> >
>
> Also missed:
Pliny wasn't missed, ignoto. I said only yesterday that we were trying
to cover all the bases for the table using as few sources as possible.
Pliny was read and noted in our essay.
Sigh.
Lynne
ben-Jonson
Seaker, I admit that I assumed that everyone here knows who I am. As
you yourself said, all you had to do was to click on my handle and
find out my email address. I'm sorry you felt fooled. As Katherine
says, "Let he who hath not posted as a third party cast the first
stone." I have a feeling that if we apply that principle, you aren't in
any position to be lecturing other people.
ben-Jonson
>Also missed:
>Pliny, Natural History 2, 101:
>Of the starres called Castor and Pollux.
Ignoto, the point of my post had nothing to with a missed possible or
actual source for the Tempest. As Lynne hints below, our work includes
the most complete tabulation of possible sources for the St. Elmo's
motif that I have seen in any of the secondary literature, and we've
read everything we can get our hands on. The point was to gently
suggest to you that the assumption that orthodox scholars are going to
go to bat for Kathman's misconceptions is not a safe one.
Judging from the recent exchanges that Lynne and I have had with major
Tempest scholars, a significant number no longer believe that Strachey
is a significant source for the play. Lindley is merely the most
public of those. Notice that he says that Strachey is "not a necessary
source" for the play. At the time of this exchange with Kathman, he
did still believe it was a "possible" source. Whether it can remain a
possible source has not yet been determined. But it is not a necessary
source, as your own posts implicitly acknowledge.
-Ben
ignoto
> ignoto wrote:
>
> >
> > As I've pointed out before there is internal evidence in the strachey
> > letter that suggests it was sent back to England with Gates
>
Strachey in PHP Volume 4, at 1756
[Narrative here begins with troubles the settlers are having with the
natives]
"
...
Divers times indeed our men would make out either to gather
Strawberries, or to fetch fresh water, any one of which so straggled,
if they could with conveniencie, they would assault and charge with
their Bowes and Arrows, in which manner they killed many of our men:
two of which being Paspahesins, who were ever our deadliest enemies,
and not to be reconciled; at length being apprehended (and one of them
a notable villain, who had attempted, upon many in our Fort) the Lord
Governor caused them to be manacled, and convented before him and his
Counsel, where it was determined that he that had done to much mischief
should have his right hand strook off, fending him away withall, with a
message to Powhatan, that unlesse he would yet return such Englishmen
as he detained, together with all such their Arms (as before spoken of)
that not only the other (now Prisoner) should die, but all such of his
Savages (as the Lord Governor and Captain General, could by any means
surprise) should run the same course: as likewise' the Lord Governor
and Captain General would, fire all, his Neighbor Corn Fields, Towns,
and Villages, and that suddenly, if Powhatan sent not to contract with
him the sooner.
What this will work with him, we know not as yet for this was but the
day before our ships were now falling to Point Comfort, and so to set
sail for England: which ships riding be-fore Werofcoick to take in
their freight of Cedar, Clap-board, Black Wal-nut, and Iron Oare, took
Prisoners likewise the chief King of Werofcoick, called Safenticum,
with his Son Kain-ta, and one of his chief men. And the fifteenth day
of July, in the 'Bleffing Captain Adams brought them Point Comfort,
where at that time (as well to take his leave of the Lieutenant
Generall Sir Thomas Gates, now bound for England, as to dispatch the
ships) the Lord Go-vernor and Captain General had pitched his Tent in
Algernoone Fort.
The Kings Son Kainta the Lord Governor and Captain General, hath sent
now into England, until the ships arrive here again the next Spring,
dismissing the old Werowance, and the other with all terms of kindness,
and friendship, promising further designs to be effected by him, to
which he hath bound himself, by divers Savage Ceremonies, and
admirations.
And thus (right Noble Lady) once more this famous business, as
recreated, and dipped a new into life and spirit, hath raised it (I
hope) from infamy, and shall redeem the stains and losses under which
she hath suffered, since her first Conception: your Graces still
accompany the least appearance of her, and vouchsafe her to bee limmed
out, with the beauty which wee will beg, and borrow from the faire
lips: not fear you, that she will return blushes to your cheeks for
praising her, since (more then most excellent Lady) like your self
(were all tongues dumb and envious) she will praise her self in her
most silence: may she once bee but seen or but her shadow lively by a
skilful Workman let out indeed, which here (bungerly as l am) I have
presumed (though defacing it) in these Papers to present unto your
Ladyship.
After Sir Thomas Gates his arrival, a Book called A true Declaration of
Virginia, was published by the Company, out of which I have here
inserted this their public testimony of the causes of the former evils,
and Sir Thomas Gates his Report upon Oath of Virginia.
"The ground of all those miseries, was the permissiue prouidence of
God, who, in the fore-mentioned violent storme, seperated the head from
the bodie, all the vitall powers of regiment being exiled with Sir
Thomas Gates in those infortunate (yet fortunate) Ilands. The broken
remainder of those supplies made a greater shipwrack in the continent
of Virginia, by the tempest [etc quote begins on page 14 of A True
Declaration]"
1. In relation to the the troubles with the Indians Strachey breaks off
mid narrative.
2. The breaking off of the narrative coincides with Gates leaving for
England (the time when the letter is thought to have been sent).
3. The paragraph that begins "And thus (right Noble Lady) once " is
clearly a concluding paragraph wherein strachey signs off (ie the end
of the strachey letter proper).
4. The paragraph that begins "After Sir Thomas Gates his arrival"
appears to be a later addition to the original letter (on stylistic and
logical grounds).
Lynne Honey
We've been around the garden with this several times before, ignoto. I
suggest Roger looks up old posts to see my responses.
Regards,
Lynne
Tom Reedy
>
<snip>
>> 1. In relation to the the troubles with the Indians Strachey breaks off
>> mid narrative.
>> 2. The breaking off of the narrative coincides with Gates leaving for
>> England (the time when the letter is thought to have been sent).
>> 3. The paragraph that begins "And thus (right Noble Lady) once " is
>> clearly a concluding paragraph wherein strachey signs off (ie the end
>> of the strachey letter proper).
Question: Could the "right Noble Lady" be a term used for the Virginia
Company? Because I can't make much sense out of that graph.
>> 4. The paragraph that begins "After Sir Thomas Gates his arrival"
>> appears to be a later addition to the original letter (on stylistic and
>> logical grounds).
>
> We've been around the garden with this several times before, ignoto.
Here at hlas?
I
> suggest Roger looks up old posts to see my responses.
What were the approximate dates of the posts?
TR
>
> Regards,
> Lynne
>
Lynne Honey
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134324560.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> 1. In relation to the the troubles with the Indians Strachey breaks off
> >> mid narrative.
> >> 2. The breaking off of the narrative coincides with Gates leaving for
> >> England (the time when the letter is thought to have been sent).
> >> 3. The paragraph that begins "And thus (right Noble Lady) once " is
> >> clearly a concluding paragraph wherein strachey signs off (ie the end
> >> of the strachey letter proper).
>
> Question: Could the "right Noble Lady" be a term used for the Virginia
> Company? Because I can't make much sense out of that graph.
I don't think it possibly could be. He refers to her several times as
the "letter" progresses. If it were to the Virginia Company it would be
a pretty weird form of address, hardly acceptable, I imagine, from a
nobody to the "greats" of the Company. We came to the conclusion that
it was some kind of literary construct, but no one could possibly know
for sure. I grant you that it is very bizarre.
>
> >> 4. The paragraph that begins "After Sir Thomas Gates his arrival"
> >> appears to be a later addition to the original letter (on stylistic and
> >> logical grounds).
> >
> > We've been around the garden with this several times before, ignoto.
>
> Here at hlas?
Yes, sigh. My main points were, if I remember correctly, that
a) it is clear Gates' boat has left, although the letter is still being
written ("The Kings Son Kainta the Lord Governor and Captain General,
hath sent now into England, until the ships arrive here again the next
Spring...") and
a) even if the last bit was added later by Strachey or Purchas or
person unknown, it contaminates the text, especially as it's in the
first person, because we then have no idea how much else was added
after 1610, and
b) adding most of True Dec, published at the end of 1610 (which ignoto
has left out--there are pages of it) to the end is one thing, but there
are several parts of it redacted from the end that are distributed
throughout the text of True Repertory, along with much other material,
including something from 1612.
There are many more points, of course. But I imagine even seeing the
text that ignoto has quoted will be rather a shock to some people who
haven't read Strachey's "letter." It's not hard to begin to see the
inconsistencies.
L.
Lynne Honey
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> What were the approximate dates of the posts?
They had to be in the last couple of months, I think, but they were
very confusing (or at least, I was very confused), as ignoto chose to
use the terms "True Repertory" and "True Declaration," not for the
actual published documents, but for TR until the point where he
believes it breaks off before being finished by someone else, and TD
for the end of the TR document. I'm sure I'm confusing you now too. :(
Since ignoto didn't explain his own definitions until afterwards, I
sometimes had no idea what he was talking about but struggled manfully
(womanfully?) to keep up.
L.
>
> TR
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lynne
> >
ignoto
Yes, sigh, and your responses are hardly adequate.
> a) it is clear Gates' boat has left, although the letter is still being
> written ("The Kings Son Kainta the Lord Governor and Captain General,
> hath sent now into England, until the ships arrive here again the next
> Spring...") and
That passage does not entail that the ships have already left. Nor ahve
you explained why, if strachey was still writing after Gates left, he
did not complete the narrative (nor have you ever answered this
question).
> a) even if the last bit was added later by Strachey or Purchas or
> person unknown, it contaminates the text, especially as it's in the
> first person, because we then have no idea how much else was added
> after 1610, and
As above.
> b) adding most of True Dec, published at the end of 1610 (which ignoto
> has left out--there are pages of it) to the end is one thing, but there
> are several parts of it redacted from the end that are distributed
> throughout the text of True Repertory, along with much other material,
> including something from 1612.
Of course we might postulate a number of reasons for this, but trust
'oxfordian scholarship' to only look at the most convenient for their
own purposes.
> There are many more points, of course. But I imagine even seeing the
> text that ignoto has quoted will be rather a shock to some people who
> haven't read Strachey's "letter." It's not hard to begin to see the
> inconsistencies.
I see a letter with a document appended to it.
ignoto
Lynne Honey wrote:
> ignoto wrote:
> > ignoto wrote:
> > > Finally decided to check this out properly (Lynne and the Doc on dating
> > > the tempest):
> > >
> > > http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
> > >
> >
> > Also missed:
>
> Pliny wasn't missed, ignoto. I said only yesterday that we were trying
> to cover all the bases for the table using as few sources as possible.
> Pliny was read and noted in our essay.
So you say, but the fact that you attribute allusions to Ovid as
originating with shakespeare shows that your table is rather poorly
researched.
Pliny, like Ovid is an original source that would certainly have been
known to Erasmus, Eden, and, in all likelihood, Shakespeare and
Strachey.
You seem to think that if you find a source that resembles something
else then that must be where the thing originates (hence your
shakespeare/ovid gaffe).
ignoto
ben-Jonson wrote:
> >Finally decided to check this out properly....
>
> Ignoto, have you checked *this* out:
>
> http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2001/0650.html
>
>
> Your really ought to.
I've already seen it.
> Best wishes,
>
> Ben
Lynne Honey
ignoto wrote:
> Lynne Honey wrote:
> > ignoto wrote:
> > > ignoto wrote:
> > > > Finally decided to check this out properly (Lynne and the Doc on dating
> > > > the tempest):
> > > >
> > > > http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
> > > >
> > >
> > > Also missed:
> >
> > Pliny wasn't missed, ignoto. I said only yesterday that we were trying
> > to cover all the bases for the table using as few sources as possible.
> > Pliny was read and noted in our essay.
>
> So you say, but the fact that you attribute allusions to Ovid as
> originating with shakespeare shows that your table is rather poorly
> researched.
I attribute allusions to Ovid as originating with Shakespeare? I don't
think so. We may in the table, using shorthand, have shown they were in
Shakespeare's earlier work without going into detail as to where he
first found them, but no one knows better than an Oxfordian that
Shakespeare was heavily indebted to Ovid.
>
> Pliny, like Ovid is an original source that would certainly have been
> known to Erasmus, Eden, and, in all likelihood, Shakespeare and
> Strachey.
>
> You seem to think that if you find a source that resembles something
> else then that must be where the thing originates (hence your
> shakespeare/ovid gaffe).
I haven't made a gaffe. We know about all these sources, plus the
Aeneid, and Acts, which also have some of the events of the storm.
These sources are all mentioned in our essays. But with regard to the
table we were
a) trying to keep the sources down to two or three and Shakespeare's
own previous work (for the reasons I gave yesterday), and
b) Looking for the whole constellation of events of the storm in a
single source. I found them it in Erasmus and Ariosto and Tomson. I
couldn't find them in Ovid or the Aeneid or Acts or Pliny. If I missed
something, please let me know. No one is immune to mistakes.
And by the way, you're making our case for us very efficiently. Thanks
very much. ;)
Regards,
Lynne
ignoto
> Ok, you've lost me. If they're from Ovid then Shakespeare didn't need
> to go to Strachey for them.
Ovid's storm is held out by Erasmus in his De Copia as an excellent
example of description in copia of thought. Erasmus's De Copia was
populary used by ELizabethan schoolmasters. What odds then that *both*
strachey and shakespeare would have done schoolboy exercises on the
storm in Ch11 of the metamorphoses.
> Would also point out that Oxford's uncle
> Golding translated Ovid, not at all something we deal with in our
> essays.
And I would point out- so what.
Lynne Honey
Then wait for the essays, which are definitely adequate. If you'd
explained your terms from the get go, I might have done a better job.
>
> > a) it is clear Gates' boat has left, although the letter is still being
> > written ("The Kings Son Kainta the Lord Governor and Captain General,
> > hath sent now into England, until the ships arrive here again the next
> > Spring...") and
>
> That passage does not entail that the ships have already left.
OF COURSE the ships have already left. It's quite clear. But even if
they haven't, much still needs to be explained.
>Nor ahve
> you explained why, if strachey was still writing after Gates left, he
> did not complete the narrative (nor have you ever answered this
> question).
True Repertory, like Strachey's History of Travel, is a patchwork quilt
of different "borrowed" sources, sewn together with rather inadequate
thread. True Repertory, like Strachey's History of Travel, does not
reach a satisfactory conclusion. Both books end abruptly. We do not
know why. Perhaps he abandoned them. Perhaps Purchas attempted to
finish at least True Repertory before publishing it. There is simply no
way of telling.
>
> > a) even if the last bit was added later by Strachey or Purchas or
> > person unknown, it contaminates the text, especially as it's in the
> > first person, because we then have no idea how much else was added
> > after 1610, and
>
> As above.
No, not as above. You haven't spoken to the point that we don't know
who wrote what when with regard to the Strachey "letter."
>
> > b) adding most of True Dec, published at the end of 1610 (which ignoto
> > has left out--there are pages of it) to the end is one thing, but there
> > are several parts of it redacted from the end that are distributed
> > throughout the text of True Repertory, along with much other material,
> > including something from 1612.
>
> Of course we might postulate a number of reasons for this, but trust
> 'oxfordian scholarship' to only look at the most convenient for their
> own purposes.
No, ignoto. Much "Stratfordian" scholarship for many, many years
ignored all this material completely. We have made a real effort to
look for answers, sometimes making several suggestions, not all of them
helpful to the Oxfordian case. The top Tempest scholars in the world
have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
your statement biassed and unfair.
>
> > There are many more points, of course. But I imagine even seeing the
> > text that ignoto has quoted will be rather a shock to some people who
> > haven't read Strachey's "letter." It's not hard to begin to see the
> > inconsistencies.
>
> I see a letter with a document appended to it.
You haven't studied the problem in depth, as this response
demonstrates. If you had studied the problem in depth, you would see
much more than that.
Regards,
Lynne
Lynne Honey
ignoto wrote:
> > Ok, you've lost me. If they're from Ovid then Shakespeare didn't need
> > to go to Strachey for them.
>
> Ovid's storm is held out by Erasmus in his De Copia as an excellent
> example of description in copia of thought. Erasmus's De Copia was
> populary used by ELizabethan schoolmasters. What odds then that *both*
> strachey and shakespeare would have done schoolboy exercises on the
> storm in Ch11 of the metamorphoses.
As I said, if they were in Ovid then Shakespeare didn't need to go to
Strachey for them. Thank you for reiterating your point, which
undermines your argument that Shakespeare needed Strachey.
But actually, although much of the Ovid storm seems to be repeated in
the later works we have noted, most markedly Ariosto, the whole
"cluster" of storm events does not occur in Metamorphoses Book 11.
>
> > Would also point out that Oxford's uncle
> > Golding translated Ovid, not at all something we deal with in our
> > essays.
>
> And I would point out- so what.
So we're not likely to miss the fact that Shakespeare is profoundly
influenced by Ovid. But this source has been noted before with regard
to Tempest, so we don't make heavy weather (haha) of it.
It's been very nice talking to you, but I really must do some work
today or Robert Leff, aka seaker, will be telling me to shut up again
in his truly polite fashion.
L.
ben-Jonson
ignoto
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134324560.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <snip>
>
> >> 1. In relation to the the troubles with the Indians Strachey breaks off
> >> mid narrative.
> >> 2. The breaking off of the narrative coincides with Gates leaving for
> >> England (the time when the letter is thought to have been sent).
> >> 3. The paragraph that begins "And thus (right Noble Lady) once " is
> >> clearly a concluding paragraph wherein strachey signs off (ie the end
> >> of the strachey letter proper).
>
> Question: Could the "right Noble Lady" be a term used for the Virginia
> Company? Because I can't make much sense out of that graph.
The letter is addresed to a private lady (as I recall the opeing
salutation is 'most excellent lady), the lady is repeatedly mentioned
throughout the letter.
ignoto
> > If Tempest was performed in 1611 or before, there had to be written
> > copies of it (This is the argument of Strachey in ms too. Only problem
> > is that Strachey in ms didn't go to the Virginia Company in 1610).
>
> report to the company? (Forgive my ignorance here, but I've never been much
> interested in this topic.)
>
In Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (1975), Bullough notes
that the strachey letter was sent to an "excellent lady". He goes on to
say:
"After describing in detail the shipwreck, this letter gave a vivid
account of the indiscipline, mutiny, and perils from savage indians
suffered by the colonists from June 1609 to July 1610. Its contents
were known to the author of A True Declaration, for the letter was
apparently shown to members of the Virginia Company after Gates got
back to England." (at 239)
Lynne Honey
Good Heavens. The usual business. How does he footnote this assertion?
And how does he know the contents were known to the author of True Dec?
At best we can say that True Dec was known to the author, or, if you
like, at least one of the authors, of Strachey's "letter," as it is
mentioned and partially reprinted, together with the information that
it has been published, in True Repertory.
L.
Tom Reedy
>
<snip>
> The top Tempest scholars in the world
> have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
> your statement biassed and unfair.
What is a "top Tempest scholar?" I didn't even know there was such a
discipline.
TR
Tom Veal
by (i) a laborious collection of parallels to passages in the play,
(ii) the S/K arguments for dismissing Strachey as a source or (iii) the
S/K theory that the work was written years earlier than anyone
previously supposed. Only the third is of great significance to the
study of Shakespeare. If correct, it would necessitate reconsideration
of his stylistic and artistic development, which wouldn't make
Oxenfordianism any more credible but would raise some interesting
issues.
Lynne Honey
You wouldn't have said that Furness or Gayley or Bullough were Tempest
scholars? If not, you can still get the general idea from my examples.
Regards,
Lynne
Lynne Honey
Tom Veal wrote:
> What we don't know is whether "the top Tempest scholars" are impressed
> by (i) a laborious collection of parallels to passages in the play,
> (ii) the S/K arguments for dismissing Strachey as a source
I would say these for now, Tom, as we haven't finished our essay on
redating. We have already promised it to someone for January.
or (iii) the
> S/K theory that the work was written years earlier than anyone
> previously supposed.
That's actually not our theory. It has been posited previously by
several people. But the destruction of Strachey as a viable source, the
demonstration that all the necessary sources predated 1600, the many
examples of early allusions to the play that we've gathered, plus a few
other odds and ends, should help redate Tempest.
>Only the third is of great significance to the
> study of Shakespeare. If correct, it would necessitate reconsideration
> of his stylistic and artistic development, which wouldn't make
> Oxenfordianism any more credible but would raise some interesting
> issues.
It will raise some interesting issues, you're right.
Regards,
Lynne
Elizabeth
> What we don't know is whether "the top Tempest scholars" are impressed
K/S's book will be the first study of parallelisms in
eighty years. The last ones were done by the Baconians to
no effect. Bacon has more than four thousand parallels to
lines in the Shakespeare works but he might have written none
because parallelisms don't have the weight of evidence, something
that Bacon would know but Baconians had to find out the
hard way. I could take the trouble to post one a day in HLAS for
the next ten years and it would make no difference. (Kathman's
thesis is secure because his verbal parallelisms are backed up
by historical parallels between the Virginia Company
documents and the plays -- it's kinda hard to argue with
historical documents == the Baconians didn't have any).
On the other hand, if the Baconians could get them all on
one page . . . nah, it still wouldn't stick.
> (ii) the S/K arguments for dismissing Strachey as a source or
I still don't understand the premise. Even if Strachey were a
plagiarist what difference would it make if the author of the
Shakespeare works, history's biggest plagiarist (after Bacon)
plagiarized from a plagiarizer? Every third line in the
Shakespeare works was stolen from some earlier writer.
Furthermore, there was no concept of authorial copyright
then. The printer held all the rights after he gave the
author a pound or two for the mansucript (if some broker
didn't fence the manuscript first).
The first litigation over authorial copyrights was brought
to court in the US in 1927 if that tells you anything.
> (iii) the
> S/K theory that the work was written years earlier than anyone
> previously supposed.
The later plays are so stuffed with topical allusions and
have so many sources printed after 1604 that the Oxfordians are
going to be very busy discrediting sources. Just to get a sense
of what's out there I looked up some of the sources and allusions
for Coriolanus. In an hour I found at least eight or ten that
Oxford could not have known. If I can find the list I'll post it.
There's so much proof against Oxfordian authorship I'm
surprised that Strats aren't more agressive. Just as
Baconians need a well-organized website devoted strictly
to evidence, the Strats need one website that refutes
Oxfordian evidence. All the Oxfordian sites beat up
on the playbroker so why not? I note that there's dead
silence on the question of Oxford's little cousin Francis.
Could it be because they were raised in the same family?
> Only the third is of great significance to the
> study of Shakespeare.
Don't worry about it. The plays undergo a big change after James I
takes succession. Elizabeth was easy to amuse -- have a clown fall
on his ass and she was happy -- but the Stuarts liked to see references
to
themselves, their royal relatives, their betrothal and marriages, their
royal
genealogy, turf battles in Europe (see The Tempest) their royal
favorites,
references to the Church and clerics , references to James' illustrious
intellect (cough).
I've just located the real Richard du Champ (he's even
'headless'). Oxford could not have known the reference but
the king would have found the reference to Richard du Champ
very amusing since he made a famous quip about that particular
Richard Field (not the printer).
It goes on and on. Cymbeline was written for the celebration
of the induction of Henry as Prince of Wales. Bacon built a
boat ramp at Milford Haven for Henry's royal tour of Wales
which took place just after Cymbeline was played. The whole
play is one big sop for the Stuart ego (I still like it).
> If correct, it would necessitate reconsideration
> of his stylistic and artistic development, which wouldn't make
> Oxenfordianism any more credible but would raise some interesting
> issues.
Some of the plays must have been earlier than 1588, the reason
that Furness? Fleay? Furnivall? one of those, simply handed
Loves Labor's Lost over to Bacon and the reason that a mature
play, Henry IV, emerges from Lord Strange's company in the same
year and the reason that some Strats believe that the future
playbroker arrived in London with the V & A in his pocket.
This author did not just stumble into London a full blown
playwright. Even a genius needs twenty-five years
of time on his hands to get up to speed to write history's
greatest literary works. It's not that easy to be Concealed
Man of the Milennium.
Elizabeth
There are post-colonialist studies. That's where
The Tempest is parked for the time being.
ignoto
Elizabeth wrote:
> Tom Veal wrote:
> > What we don't know is whether "the top Tempest scholars" are impressed
> > by (i) a laborious collection of parallels to passages in the play . . .
>
>
> K/S's book will be the first study of parallelisms in
> eighty years. The last ones were done by the Baconians to
> no effect. Bacon has more than four thousand parallels to
> lines in the Shakespeare works but he might have written none
> because parallelisms don't have the weight of evidence, something
> that Bacon would know but Baconians had to find out the
> hard way. I could take the trouble to post one a day in HLAS for
> the next ten years and it would make no difference. (Kathman's
> thesis is secure because his verbal parallelisms are backed up
> by historical parallels between the Virginia Company
> documents and the plays -- it's kinda hard to argue with
> historical documents == the Baconians didn't have any).
>
>
> On the other hand, if the Baconians could get them all on
> one page . . . nah, it still wouldn't stick.
>
>
> > (ii) the S/K arguments for dismissing Strachey as a source or
>
>
> I still don't understand the premise. Even if Strachey were a
> plagiarist what difference would it make if the author of the
> Shakespeare works, history's biggest plagiarist (after Bacon)
> plagiarized from a plagiarizer?
It makes no difference- unless one contends that the events described
in the strachey letter never took place. As it stands strachey has just
embellished events with his 'wit' (as the elizabethans called it)-
which was standard practice. I doubt you'd find an elizabethan text
that didn't lift lines and ideas.
> Every third line in the
> Shakespeare works was stolen from some earlier writer.
>
> Furthermore, there was no concept of authorial copyright
> then. The printer held all the rights after he gave the
> author a pound or two for the mansucript (if some broker
> didn't fence the manuscript first).
>
>
> The first litigation over authorial copyrights was brought
> to court in the US in 1927 if that tells you anything.
>
>
> > (iii) the
> > S/K theory that the work was written years earlier than anyone
> > previously supposed.
>
>
> The later plays are so stuffed with topical allusions and
> have so many sources printed after 1604 that the Oxfordians are
> going to be very busy discrediting sources. Just to get a sense
> of what's out there I looked up some of the sources and allusions
> for Coriolanus. In an hour I found at least eight or ten that
> Oxford could not have known. If I can find the list I'll post it.
Not to mention the fact that it plays havok with the development of
blank verse from Gorbuduc up through to Kyd, Greene, Marlowe and the
rest. Oxfordians, it seems, are desperate to rewrite history in the
shape of their fantasies.
ignoto
> > That passage does not entail that the ships have already left.
>
> OF COURSE the ships have already left. It's quite clear. But even if
> they haven't, much still needs to be explained.
It is not 'clear'. Strachey *nowhere* says that the ships have
departed. He says that Gates is 'bound for' (OED: Prepared or purposing
to go, starting, directing one's course, destined) and that the natives
have been 'sent' to England (If I post a letter I say it has been
'sent', although it be sitting at the bottom of the post box waiting to
be picked up by the postman; similary here someone can be sent to
England without having yet departed).
Neither of these phrases then entails the conclusion that the ships
have left.
Furthermore, my reading is *consistent* with the narrative and other
passages in the text, yours is not.
> >Nor ahve
> > you explained why, if strachey was still writing after Gates left, he
> > did not complete the narrative (nor have you ever answered this
> > question).
>
> True Repertory, like Strachey's History of Travel, is a patchwork quilt
> of different "borrowed" sources, sewn together with rather inadequate
> thread. True Repertory, like Strachey's History of Travel, does not
> reach a satisfactory conclusion. Both books end abruptly. We do not
d to> know why. Perhaps he abandoned them. Perhaps Purchas attempte
> finish at least True Repertory before publishing it. There is simply no
> way of telling.
The strachey letter ends abruptly because the ships were leaving. That
is the implication that is derived from the internal evidence of the
text. Your 'explanation' OTOH relies wholly on speculation and
accusations of plagiarism.
Frankly, if the letter was sent then plagiarism is by the by- it makes
no difference to shakespeare whether the letter was wholly original or
pieces of paper cut from a printed text strung together with chewing
gum.
> >
> > > a) even if the last bit was added later by Strachey or Purchas or
> > > person unknown, it contaminates the text, especially as it's in the
> > > first person, because we then have no idea how much else was added
> > > after 1610, and
> >
> > As above.
>
> No, not as above. You haven't spoken to the point that we don't know
> who wrote what when with regard to the Strachey "letter."
We have the strachey letter leaving with Gates (Your ''argument'': ''OF
COURSE the ships had left'', notwithstanding).
There are two courses to be followed: Either the strachey letter went
back to England with Gates, was delivered by the excellent lady to the
company and ATD produced, or Strachey saw a MS of ATD and used it to
write the letter. The first of these propositions is the one usually
favoured, but there is no need here to argue for either, for in either
case the strachey letter reached England.
> >
> > > b) adding most of True Dec, published at the end of 1610 (which ignoto
> > > has left out--there are pages of it) to the end is one thing, but there
> > > are several parts of it redacted from the end that are distributed
> > > throughout the text of True Repertory, along with much other material,
> > > including something from 1612.
> >
> > Of course we might postulate a number of reasons for this, but trust
> > 'oxfordian scholarship' to only look at the most convenient for their
> > own purposes.
>
> No, ignoto. Much "Stratfordian" scholarship for many, many years
> ignored all this material completely. We have made a real effort to
> look for answers, sometimes making several suggestions, not all of them
> helpful to the Oxfordian case. The top Tempest scholars in the world
> have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
> your statement biassed and unfair.
> >
> > > There are many more points, of course. But I imagine even seeing the
> > > text that ignoto has quoted will be rather a shock to some people who
> > > haven't read Strachey's "letter." It's not hard to begin to see the
> > > inconsistencies.
> >
> > I see a letter with a document appended to it.
>
> You haven't studied the problem in depth, as this response
> demonstrates. If you had studied the problem in depth, you would see
> much more than that.
Well, if you have studied the case in so much depth, and I am so wrong,
you should be able to easily refute my claims about the internal
evidence of the letter showing the ships had not sailed when the letter
was finished than with the exclamation: "OF COURSE the ships have
already left!"
As for stratfordian scholars 'ignoring' this, I am quite sure it is
because they saw nothing in it to pursue. Bullough, I am certain was
aware of the quotation of ATD at the end of strachey and reaches a
conclusion identical to mine.
Tom Reedy
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1134334184....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> <snip>
>>
>> > The top Tempest scholars in the world
>> > have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
>> > your statement biassed and unfair.
>>
>> What is a "top Tempest scholar?" I didn't even know there was such a
>> discipline.
>>
>> TR
>
> You wouldn't have said that Furness or Gayley or Bullough were Tempest
> scholars?
I don't know; as I said earlier, I've never been much interested in the
topic. Is The Tempest the only play they commented on?
TR
Lynne Honey
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134357913.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:1134334184....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > The top Tempest scholars in the world
> >> > have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
> >> > your statement biassed and unfair.
> >>
> >> What is a "top Tempest scholar?" I didn't even know there was such a
> >> discipline.
> >>
> >> TR
> >
> > You wouldn't have said that Furness or Gayley or Bullough were Tempest
> > scholars?
>
> I don't know; as I said earlier, I've never been much interested in the
> topic. Is The Tempest the only play they commented on?
I'm sorry, Tom. May they not be Tempest scholars if they commented on
other plays? If you're intent on splitting hairs, let's say, top
Shakespeare scholars who have done or are doing very significant work
on Tempest. Feel better now?
Regards,
L.
Tom Reedy
>
> Tom Veal wrote:
>> What we don't know is whether "the top Tempest scholars" are impressed
>> by (i) a laborious collection of parallels to passages in the play,
>> (ii) the S/K arguments for dismissing Strachey as a source
>
> I would say these for now, Tom, as we haven't finished our essay on
> redating. We have already promised it to someone for January.
>
> or (iii) the
>> S/K theory that the work was written years earlier than anyone
>> previously supposed.
>
> That's actually not our theory. It has been posited previously by
> several people. But the destruction of Strachey as a viable source, the
> demonstration that all the necessary sources predated 1600,
As I said earlier, Occam demands economy, so I wouldn't get my hopes up if I
were you (although I realize it is too late).
the many
> examples of early allusions to the play that we've gathered,
The viability of those allusions certainly depends on their context. I
wouldn't put too many eggs in that basket.
plus a few
> other odds and ends, should help redate Tempest.
To when?
>
>>Only the third is of great significance to the
>> study of Shakespeare. If correct, it would necessitate reconsideration
>> of his stylistic and artistic development, which wouldn't make
>> Oxenfordianism any more credible but would raise some interesting
>> issues.
>
> It will raise some interesting issues, you're right.
We'll see. Each person is allowed one Great Shakespeare Discovery that the
world, alas, is too blind to appreciate.
TR
Tom Reedy
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1134357913.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>> >> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >> news:1134334184....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > The top Tempest scholars in the world
>> >> > have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
>> >> > your statement biassed and unfair.
>> >>
>> >> What is a "top Tempest scholar?" I didn't even know there was such a
>> >> discipline.
>
>
>> >>
>> >> TR
>> >
>> > You wouldn't have said that Furness or Gayley or Bullough were Tempest
>> > scholars?
>>
>> I don't know; as I said earlier, I've never been much interested in the
>> topic. Is The Tempest the only play they commented on?
>
> I'm sorry, Tom. May they not be Tempest scholars if they commented on
> other plays? If you're intent on splitting hairs,
I thought splitting hairs was the job of scholars. I should have known you'd
get frustrated with my question. Sorry.
let's say, top
> Shakespeare scholars who have done or are doing very significant work
> on Tempest. Feel better now?
I was just wondering who the top Hamlet scholars were, or the top Titus
scholars.
TR
Lynne Honey
Ignoto, I just spent a lot of time writing a very long reply to this
letter. Then I went to let the dogs out and somehow it disappeared,
unless it turns up on hlas. Very frustrating. But let me just reiterate
my last point in that lost post. You haven't responded to my request
for a footnote for Bullough's assertion. Your "certainty" about
Bullough doesn't do the trick, I'm afraid. In fact, we've looked at all
the secondary sources and the whole idea that the letter went back
either to the Company or to someone who gave it to the company, where
it was somehow seen by Shakespeare, is a total myth, completely
unfounded and unfootnoted. The "Strachey as a source" story was begun
by Furness, who made the egregious error of saying that Strachey was
published in 1612 and The Tempest wasn't performed until after that
date. Others have been concocting various stories to keep Furness's
myth in place since the 1890's, but the story has gigantic holes in it
and is showing its age.
You must forgive me now. I have so much work to do before Christmas
that I can't argue back and forth any further for the time being. Will
be glad to take it up with you at a later date.
L.
Lynne Honey
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134395249.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> news:1134357913.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >> >> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1134334184....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The top Tempest scholars in the world
> >> >> > have seen our essays and have been very impressed with them. I find
> >> >> > your statement biassed and unfair.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is a "top Tempest scholar?" I didn't even know there was such a
> >> >> discipline.
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> TR
> >> >
> >> > You wouldn't have said that Furness or Gayley or Bullough were Tempest
> >> > scholars?
> >>
> >> I don't know; as I said earlier, I've never been much interested in the
> >> topic. Is The Tempest the only play they commented on?
> >
> > I'm sorry, Tom. May they not be Tempest scholars if they commented on
> > other plays? If you're intent on splitting hairs,
>
> I thought splitting hairs was the job of scholars.
I have never claimed to be a scholar. Just as well, someone is bound to
say.
>I should have known you'd
> get frustrated with my question. Sorry.
Not frustrated, just a bit bemused.
>
> let's say, top
> > Shakespeare scholars who have done or are doing very significant work
> > on Tempest. Feel better now?
>
> I was just wondering who the top Hamlet scholars were, or the top Titus
> scholars.
Dunno. Have only studied Tempest so far.
:)L.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
completely to ignore everything that happened to him during a rather
dramatic storm at sea and, later, on a strange only slightly-known
island in writing what he claimed was a first-person account.
--Bob G.
seaker
by Furness, who made the egregious error of saying that Strachey was
published in 1612 and The Tempest wasn't performed until after that
date. Others have been concocting various stories to keep Furness's
myth in place since the 1890's, but the story has gigantic holes in it
and is showing its age.
Nope! In The New Cambridge Shakespeare's edition of The Tempest edited
by David Lindley writes that the "Strachey as a source" was begun by
Edmond Malone in An Account of Incidents, from which the Title and Part
of the Story of Shakespeare's Tempest Were Derived, 1808. (Lindley
30-31) Margreta de Grazia also writes that Malone was the first use
Strachey in her entry on Malone which appears in The Oxford Companion
to Shakespeare (p. 277)
Reputable scholars aren't shy about stating their disagreements with
other scholars. Other Oxfordians have been concocting various stories
to keep Looney's myth in place since the 1920s, but the story has
gigantic holes in it
and is showing its age.
Sigh!
ignoto
This is completely erroneous. The internal evidence of the letter
indicates it was sent back in July 1610. The author of ATD (publ Nov
1610) states that ATD is not original, but a compilation of sources.
Portions of the SL appear in ATD. There is, as far as I am aware,
scholary consensus that the SL was one of the documents used in ATD.
All the evidence points to the SL as source for ATDit- let me
reiterate- the date of the letter, ATD a compilation of sources and
portions of SL appearing in ATD.
Now, as I have stated elsewhere there is no direct evidence for this
chain of events, it is an inference based on the dating of documents
and the contents of those documents. As with most historical research
documents that are first in time are considered to be the original
documents. Those that are later in time are copies or reproductions.
Here the SL is first in time and ATD an admitted compilation.
Now, your claim that:
"the whole idea that the letter went back either to the Company or to
someone who gave it to the company, where it was somehow seen by
Shakespeare, is a total myth, completely unfounded and unfootnoted."
Is wrong. The chain of reasoning that I have explicated above is a good
ground for thinking that the letter went back to the company. It is not
direct evidence (like, say the first folio), but it is good evidence
(better than say trying to determine the authorship of plays and poems
by some bizzare subjective psychobiographical methodology). In other
words the claim that the strachey letter went back to the company is
not 'unfounded'.
Frankly, I don;lt know what kind of evidence you expect. Your claims
that the letter going back tot he company is unfounded and unfootnoted
reminds me greatly of standard oxfordian claims on shakespeare's
schooling- "there are no records of shakespeare's schooling therefore
we must conclude that shakespeare did not go to school"; here: "there
are no records that the SL reached the company therefore the strachey
letter did not reach the company". These 'arguments' are good examples
of bad logic.
[As for Bullough (I tend to read the NS in a haphazard fashion so I
might not have got to that post yet). As I recall I supplied the
citation as page 239 vol 8 of NADSOS:
"Ïts [the SL] contants were known to the author of ATD, for the letter
was apparently shown to members of the Virginia Company after Gates got
back to England"
This statement is consistent with the chain of reasoning I develop
above.
As for my certainty on Bullough, I am certain that in compiling the
termpest sources he would have seen the quotation appended to the rear
end of the SL and recognised it as being from ATD- how could he not he
cites ATD as a possible source and SL as a source- and having so seen
he makes nothing of it.]
> The "Strachey as a source" story was begun
> by Furness, who made the egregious error of saying that Strachey was
> published in 1612 and The Tempest wasn't performed until after that
> date. Others have been concocting various stories to keep Furness's
> myth in place since the 1890's, but the story has gigantic holes in it
> and is showing its age.
> You must forgive me now. I have so much work to do before Christmas
> that I can't argue back and forth any further for the time being. Will
> be glad to take it up with you at a later date.
Well Lynne, I think you are hopelessly mistaken, but there is no need
to apologise ;)
Lynne Honey
I have a moment and can't resist, responding very fast:
And the author of ATD says which sources they are: "Wherein he
professeth, that he will relate nothing (concerning Virginia) but what
he hath from the secrets of the judiciall councell of Virginia, from
the letters of the Lord La Ware, from the mouth of Sir Thomas Gates,
whose wisdomes (he conceiveth) are not so shallow, as easily to be
deceived of others, nor consciences so wretched, as by pretences to
deceive others."
I don't see anything about a letter to a lady there.
> Portions of the SL appear in ATD. There is, as far as I am aware,
> scholary consensus that the SL was one of the documents used in ATD.
First, you are incorrect. There is no scholarly consensus on this
matter. Second, as I said above, the scholarly material about Strachey
is founded on an egregious error--that the document was published in
1612 and The Tempest was not performed till after that date. Scholars
have been playing catch up ever since. In order to keep to the 1610
date of Strachey's letter, scholars HAVE to say that SL was one of the
documents used in ATD. If they don't, they have no way to keep the date
of the "letter" as is, because there are paragraphs, even pages, common
to both, and ATD wasn't entered in Stationers' until Nov 1610.
Unfortunately for scholars, almost all of the paragraphs in the body of
the text of SL are redacted from the long excerpt of ATD at the end,
which someone writing part of the SL says is already published. So
there seems to be a definite attempt to take bits of ATD out of the end
and insert them into the middle of SL. This in itself is only one of
many, many problems anyone looking carefully can see with SL.
> All the evidence points to the SL as source for ATDit- let me
> reiterate- the date of the letter, ATD a compilation of sources and
> portions of SL appearing in ATD.
>
> Now, as I have stated elsewhere there is no direct evidence for this
> chain of events, it is an inference based on the dating of documents
> and the contents of those documents. As with most historical research
> documents that are first in time are considered to be the original
> documents.
We have absolutely no evidence that SL was first in time, since there
is no record of it until 1625.
>Those that are later in time are copies or reproductions.
> Here the SL is first in time and ATD an admitted compilation.
The ATD is first in time if you are considering date of publication.
Despite what you say, we have no idea when SL was written or when or if
it ever went back to the company. My guess is that it didn't. It would
have looked very strange because it contains almost all of De La
Warre's letter almost verbatim. This DID go back to the company in July
1610.
>
> Now, your claim that:
>
> "the whole idea that the letter went back either to the Company or to
> someone who gave it to the company, where it was somehow seen by
> Shakespeare, is a total myth, completely unfounded and unfootnoted."
>
> Is wrong. The chain of reasoning that I have explicated above is a good
> ground for thinking that the letter went back to the company. It is not
> direct evidence (like, say the first folio), but it is good evidence
> (better than say trying to determine the authorship of plays and poems
> by some bizzare subjective psychobiographical methodology). In other
> words the claim that the strachey letter went back to the company is
> not 'unfounded'.
It's awful "evidence." It is unfounded. It's not even addressed to the
company, as you yourself have noted. It purports to be a private
letter. It mimics material that went to the company FOR SURE, even if
you exclude ATD. It has material in it from 1612. There is no evidence
whatsoever that would assure us that it either went to the company or
out to Shakespeare of Stratford. Where was he, by the way, during this
period? I thought he was in Stratford, but may be mistaken.
>
> Frankly, I don;lt know what kind of evidence you expect. Your claims
> that the letter going back tot he company is unfounded and unfootnoted
> reminds me greatly of standard oxfordian claims on shakespeare's
> schooling- "there are no records of shakespeare's schooling therefore
> we must conclude that shakespeare did not go to school";
I have never said that. I probably have said, "We don't know if WS of
Stratford attended school," which in fact is the case.
>here: "there
> are no records that the SL reached the company therefore the strachey
> letter did not reach the company". These 'arguments' are good examples
> of bad logic.
I have never said that. I have said that we know the letter in its
entirety could not have gone back to England in July 1610, as some
parts of it were published by others, to whom Strachey would have had
no access, as late as 1612. I have also said that it is unfounded and
unfootnoted to say that Strachey either went to the company or out to
WS in 1610, and it is.
>
> [As for Bullough (I tend to read the NS in a haphazard fashion so I
> might not have got to that post yet). As I recall I supplied the
> citation as page 239 vol 8 of NADSOS:
>
> "Ïts [the SL] contants were known to the author of ATD, for the letter
> was apparently shown to members of the Virginia Company after Gates got
> back to England"
Apparently? That's evidence? And look at this. You are suggesting that
the private letter to a noble lady was taken back to London by Sir
Thomas Gates, who instead of giving it to that noble lady, opened it
and showed it around the company (but not to Martin, the company
secretary, because he had not seen it as of Dec 1610). Barret or
whoever used it to write ATD. But Strachey or someone else appended a
large part of ATD to SL, so there was some kind of circular movement
where ATD borrowed from SL and then SL borrowed back from ATD.
Meanwhile, the SL went from the company not to the noble lady, but out
to WS, who then made incredible haste in writing a play, not from the
available sources he had long used, but sources in this private letter
of about 24,000 words. Ludicrous. Especially as according to Purchas,
the letter ended up in Hakuyt's papers.
The most economical solution is that no letter or a small version of
the letter went back to England in July 1610. The letter was for the
most part written in England in 1612 or later, as it shares many many
sources with Strachey's History of Travel--which we know WAS written in
England--including Eden, Hakluyt, Acosta, Ariosto, Smith, and others.
Strachey himself in 1612 in England says that his eyewitness account of
his adventures in Bermuda and Virginia is neither finished nor has been
shown to the company and remains in the shadow of darkness. But, jeez,
why listen to him? He's only the author, after all.
Strachey apparently had a bad name for some reason--perhaps because he
stole so much of the work of others--and he had terrible trouble
getting published. So just as he hawked H of T around to at least three
people without success, he hawked True Repertory to Hakluyt and perhaps
others. Purchas got it from Hakluyt's estate, and published it, along
with much else, in Pilgrimes in 1625, as a partial response to Smith's
work, published in 1624.
>
> This statement is consistent with the chain of reasoning I develop
> above.
I wouldn't call it reasoning. ;) But hey, at least you're in step with
Bullough, Gayley, Cawley and Kathman.
>
> As for my certainty on Bullough, I am certain that in compiling the
> termpest sources he would have seen the quotation appended to the rear
> end of the SL and recognised it as being from ATD- how could he not he
> cites ATD as a possible source and SL as a source- and having so seen
> he makes nothing of it.]
>
> > The "Strachey as a source" story was begun
> > by Furness, who made the egregious error of saying that Strachey was
> > published in 1612 and The Tempest wasn't performed until after that
> > date. Others have been concocting various stories to keep Furness's
> > myth in place since the 1890's, but the story has gigantic holes in it
> > and is showing its age.
>
> > You must forgive me now. I have so much work to do before Christmas
> > that I can't argue back and forth any further for the time being. Will
> > be glad to take it up with you at a later date.
>
> Well Lynne, I think you are hopelessly mistaken, but there is no need
> to apologise ;)
You neither, ig. ;)
L.
Lynne Honey
seaker wrote:
> The "Strachey as a source" story was begun
> by Furness, who made the egregious error of saying that Strachey was
> published in 1612 and The Tempest wasn't performed until after that
> date. Others have been concocting various stories to keep Furness's
> myth in place since the 1890's, but the story has gigantic holes in it
> and is showing its age.
>
> Nope!
Sorry, but you're wrong.
In The New Cambridge Shakespeare's edition of The Tempest edited
> by David Lindley writes that the "Strachey as a source" was begun by
> Edmond Malone in An Account of Incidents, from which the Title and Part
> of the Story of Shakespeare's Tempest Were Derived, 1808. (Lindley
> 30-31) Margreta de Grazia also writes that Malone was the first use
> Strachey in her entry on Malone which appears in The Oxford Companion
> to Shakespeare (p. 277)
David Lindley, whom I respect. is correct, but you're not. You have
misread, if I remember correctly. Malone's theory was that Jourdain's
narrative was the source for The Tempest. We have read it so we know.
This was shown to be too general, and so Furness floated Strachey in
the late 1800s, believing that it was published much earlier than was
the case. I also think if you read a bit further, you'll find that DL
has suggested there is virtually nothing in Strachey or the other
Bermuda pamphlets that make them a necessary source.
>
> Reputable scholars aren't shy about stating their disagreements with
> other scholars.
Actually, we agree with Lindley. And I expect he agrees with us.
>Other Oxfordians have been concocting various stories
> to keep Looney's myth in place since the 1920s, but the story has
> gigantic holes in it
> and is showing its age.
>
> Sigh!
Yep, you should be sighing, Robert. If you're going to argue, at least
get your facts straight.
Regards,
Lynne
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
the other recent fake-names belong to. Do you know Seaker to be a
Robert, Lynne? I'm curious because I'm 98% certain he's not Robert
Stonehouse, and 97% certain he's not me, and I can't think of any other
Roberts around HLAS, at the moment.
Why, by the way, do you keep harping on the fact that Shakespeare
didn't need Strachey to have written THE TEMPEST? Isn't everyone
agreed on that?
--Bob G.
Lynne Honey
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> To be truthful, I haven't tried to figure out who Seaker and some of
> the other recent fake-names belong to. Do you know Seaker to be a
> Robert, Lynne? I'm curious because I'm 98% certain he's not Robert
> Stonehouse, and 97% certain he's not me, and I can't think of any other
> Roberts around HLAS, at the moment.
He is another Robert. He's not a bit like you, Bob. I wouldn't confuse
the two of you, or him and Robert Stonehouse either.
>
> Why, by the way, do you keep harping on the fact that Shakespeare
> didn't need Strachey to have written THE TEMPEST? Isn't everyone
> agreed on that?
That Shakespeare didn't need Strachey? Really? So why are people
arguing so hard?
L.
>
> --Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Shakespeare used Strachey, not about whether or not he needed
Strachey's letter, which is irrelevant. I think you have never
understood this. although you and I discussed it more than once.
--Bob
Lynne Honey
We will show that Shakespeare did not use Strachey, because Tempest was
certainly written earlier than 1611.
However, the reason you think I never understood what you were saying
is this: if Shakespeare simply did not need Strachey but the timing was
still correct, there would be no way to prove whether or not he used
him. In other words, it would become a futile argument.
Loivke,
LynnE
Art Neuendorffer
> Stratfordians are (I certainly hope) arguing about whether
> or not Shakespeare used Strachey, not about whether
> or not he needed Strachey's letter, which is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------
*STRACHEY*
__ {anagram}
*YACHTERS*
----------------------------------------------------------------
*BEDLAM YACHT*
____ {anagram}
*LADY MACBETH*
---------------------------------------------------------------
YACHT, n. [D. jagt, jacht; OHG. g[=a]hi QUICK, sudden]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Romance of YACHTing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baym/essays/delia_bacon.htm
<<[The first person to argue in print against Shakespeare's authorship
of the plays] seems to have been a [New York lawyer], Colonel Joseph
C. Hart, who claimed in his Romance of YACHTing: Voyage the First
(New York: Harper & Bros., 1848) that the plays were collaboratively
authored by diverse hands, the best parts written by Ben Jonson and the
stage-manager Shakespeare's occasional contributions identifiable by
their vulgarity. Shakespeare 'purchased or obtained surreptitiously'
other men's plays which he then 'spiced with obscenity,
blackguardism and impurities'.>>
"What the DEUCE does it mean?" - Herman Melville review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
>
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>> Stratfordians are (I certainly hope) arguing about whether or not
>> Shakespeare used Strachey, not about whether or not he needed
>> Strachey's letter, which is irrelevant. I think you have never
>> understood this. although you and I discussed it more than once.
>>
>> --Bob
>
> We will show that Shakespeare did not use Strachey, because Tempest was
> certainly written earlier than 1611.
So your argument is not about Strachey, then? Because if you have strong
evidence that "Tempest was certainly written earlier than 1611," I don't
know why you're even bothering to investigate Strachey's letter. Just trot
out the evidence.
TR
Art Neuendorffer
> >> Stratfordians are (I certainly hope) arguing about whether or not
> >> Shakespeare used Strachey, not about whether or not he needed
> >> Strachey's letter, which is irrelevant. I think you have never
> >> understood this. although you and I discussed it more than once.
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > We will show that Shakespeare did not use Strachey,
> > because Tempest was certainly written earlier than 1611.
Tom Reedy wrote:
> So your argument is not about Strachey, then? Because if you have strong
> evidence that "Tempest was certainly written earlier than 1611," I don't
> know why you're even bothering to investigate Strachey's letter. Just trot
> out the evidence.
Lynne's argument is all about
the author of the Tempest having died in 1604...
WHICH IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN RIDICULOUS!!!
Art Neuendorffer
Lynne Honey
Tom Reedy wrote:
> "Lynne Honey" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1134524527.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> Stratfordians are (I certainly hope) arguing about whether or not
> >> Shakespeare used Strachey, not about whether or not he needed
> >> Strachey's letter, which is irrelevant. I think you have never
> >> understood this. although you and I discussed it more than once.
> >>
> >> --Bob
> >
> > We will show that Shakespeare did not use Strachey, because Tempest was
> > certainly written earlier than 1611.
>
> So your argument is not about Strachey, then?
The first essay is about Strachey. The second essay is about Eden and
Erasmus/Ariosto as alternative sources--together with a list of other
earlier sources (saying that for ignoto's benefit). We're attacking the
problem from all sides.
>Because if you have strong
> evidence that "Tempest was certainly written earlier than 1611," I don't
> know why you're even bothering to investigate Strachey's letter. Just trot
> out the evidence.
We're doing that in essay 3, which will be ready after Christmas. It
has to be. Someone is waiting for it. But it's a case of, you don't
like this? How about that? You don't like that? How about the other? If
all the evidence is put together, I believe that it's overwhelming. But
I'm not ready to trot out all of it just yet as this is a public
newsgroup, after all.
Regards,
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
> >Because if you have strong evidence
> > that "Tempest was certainly written earlier than 1611,"
> > I don't know why you're even bothering to investigate
> > Strachey's letter. Just trot out the evidence.
Lynne Honey wrote:
> We're doing that in essay 3, which will be ready after Christmas. It
> has to be. Someone is waiting for it. But it's a case of, you don't
> like this? How about that? You don't like that? How about the other?
> If all the evidence is put together, I believe that it's overwhelming.
> But I'm not ready to trot out all of it just yet
> as this is a public newsgroup, after all.
If you're not ready to trot out all of it just yet at
a public newsgroup perhaps you shouldn't say anything at all
...since I'm having trouble "bridging" the chat gap:
This month's top posters
108 lynnekosit...@sympatico.ca
54 aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net
52 spamsc...@yahoo.com
52 ignot...@yahoo.com.au
46 inn...@verizon.net
43 gunnar.tomas...@verizon.net
26 doc...@proaxis.com
25 tomv...@ix.netcom.com
19 g...@vcn.bc.ca
18 slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com
Art N.
Lynne Honey
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > >Because if you have strong evidence
> > > that "Tempest was certainly written earlier than 1611,"
> > > I don't know why you're even bothering to investigate
> > > Strachey's letter. Just trot out the evidence.
>
> Lynne Honey wrote:
>
> > We're doing that in essay 3, which will be ready after Christmas. It
> > has to be. Someone is waiting for it. But it's a case of, you don't
> > like this? How about that? You don't like that? How about the other?
> > If all the evidence is put together, I believe that it's overwhelming.
> > But I'm not ready to trot out all of it just yet
> > as this is a public newsgroup, after all.
>
> If you're not ready to trot out all of it just yet at
> a public newsgroup perhaps you shouldn't say anything at all
> ...since I'm having trouble "bridging" the chat gap:
Right, I thought that was why you kept responding to posts with one
liners.
:) Lynne
P.S. Don't think I've ever been top poster before. Sure you'll catch
up.
Tom Veal
judgement, the statement quoted below suggests that you believe that
conventional scholars have ulterior motives for "concocting various
stories to keep Funess's myth in place". Does that make any sense? The
reason why the Strachey Letter is widely accepted as a source of "The
Tempest" is that it (i) describes events that, in outline and sans the
fantasy elements, closely parallel those in the play and (ii) also
contains many verbal parallels to Shakespeare. If these connections are
not a coincidence, Strachey must be the predecessor, unless one
supposes that the author of "The Tempest" foretold real occurrences or
that Strachey's work is fiction.
Maybe that chain of reasoning is mistaken, but it is not implausible,
nor can it be refuted on the basis of arguments that assume, as yours
seem to, that the text printed by Purchas in 1625 is identical to
Strachey's first draft. Given Strachey's literary aspirations and the
fact that his letter is in a form suitable for publication (albeit it
didn't quickly find an interested publisher), a good deal of revision
is not unlikely. That possibility of course weakens the evidentiary
weight of verbal parallels (Strachey could have seen the play while he
was revising) but doesn't affect the parallel events.
Lynne Honey
> Though I will wait for the appearance of your essays before passing
> judgement,
Thank you, Tom.
> the statement quoted below suggests that you believe that
> conventional scholars have ulterior motives for "concocting various
> stories to keep Funess's myth in place".
Actually I don't. Poor phrasing on my part. I just feel that it was a
lovely possible source, and when the dates according to Furness got
knocked out, an improbable story and a rather bizarre chain of custody
had to be added to keep the source alive and kicking. I do, however,
think after 1920 it might have become much more important to several
scholars to stick with it, as it knocked Oxford out of the running. If
you doubt this, have a look at certain modern secondary sources, which
say, nyah, nyah, Tempest was based on Strachey, Oxford was dead. QED.
>Does that make any sense? The
> reason why the Strachey Letter is widely accepted as a source of "The
> Tempest" is that it (i) describes events that, in outline and sans the
> fantasy elements, closely parallel those in the play and (ii) also
> contains many verbal parallels to Shakespeare. If these connections are
> not a coincidence, Strachey must be the predecessor, unless one
> supposes that the author of "The Tempest" foretold real occurrences or
> that Strachey's work is fiction.
I've agreed that there are parallels, but we have shown they can be
found elsewhere. I don't understand why you think that Strachey must be
the predecessor either, even if Tempest was first performed in 1611.
There is actually no date on the letter. Purchas took July 15,1610 from
a late incident within the text. And in any case, virtually nothing in
the letter may be true (other than probably what is corroborated in
Jourdain); it may almost all be fiction, as you've just admitted above
that Strachey was into fantasy, something I've never seen anyone admit
on hlas before.
>
> Maybe that chain of reasoning is mistaken, but it is not implausible,
> nor can it be refuted on the basis of arguments that assume, as yours
> seem to, that the text printed by Purchas in 1625 is identical to
> Strachey's first draft.
I don't think you've been paying very close attention, Tom. We have
never assumed that. In fact I have said over and over that an early
version of the "letter" *might* have gone back on Gates' boat.
>Given Strachey's literary aspirations and the
> fact that his letter is in a form suitable for publication (albeit it
> didn't quickly find an interested publisher), a good deal of revision
> is not unlikely.
Right. That is why we feel it is in its published state a literary
construction; however, the fact remains that there is no evidence for
the Strachey *letter* at all before 1625, so it may not have gone back
in 1610 in any form. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder lately whether
Jourdain's published narrative, which did go back in 1610, might be the
main source for Strachey's "letter." That Strachey took it, embroidered
it with Erasmus/Ariosto, Eden, Acosta, Horace, Hakluyt, De La Warre,
Smith, True Dec, possibly Shakespeare, and submitted it for publishing.
That's his MO with History of Travel and Lawes, so it's not too
improbable. Just a thought.
>That possibility of course weakens the evidentiary
> weight of verbal parallels (Strachey could have seen the play while he
> was revising) but doesn't affect the parallel events.
I agree; however, since the parallel events of the storm can be found
in great part in the Aeneid, in Ovid, in Gilbert, in De Ulloa, Eden,
and others, and complete in at least Ariosto, Erasmus, and Tomson, and
are actually called a "set piece" by David Lindley, the significance of
their being in both Shakespeare and Strachey is significantly weakened.
They are weakened further by the fact that Shakespeare had used almost
all of the storm parallels before in prior work. The "conspiracies"
also are much closer to Shakespeare's own earlier work than to
Strachey, much closer to Hakluyt, and much closer to Eden. In general
in any case, Eden is a far superior source to Strachey. Not only that,
we KNOW Shakespeare used it.
Regards,
Lynne
Tom Veal
I wrote that Strachey's letter "describes events that, in outline and
sans the fantasy elements, closely parallel those in the play", I meant
that the play, not the letter, has fantasy elements. Strachey's bare
sequence of events can scarcely be fiction, because it is confirmed by
other sources, such as Jourdain.
Lynne Honey
Tom Veal wrote:
> I'll comment further later, but let me clear up a misapprehension. When
> I wrote that Strachey's letter "describes events that, in outline and
> sans the fantasy elements, closely parallel those in the play", I meant
> that the play, not the letter, has fantasy elements. Strachey's bare
> sequence of events can scarcely be fiction, because it is confirmed by
> other sources, such as Jourdain.
Thank you for clearing that up; however, there is little question that
Strachey contains fantasy elements, as he took the details of the storm
not present in True Declaration, Jourdain or Riche from Ariosto's poem
or Erasmus' dialogue, both obviously fiction.
I would also disagree that the events in Strachey's letter, with the
exception of the storm itself, "closely parallel those in the play."
The main themes and events of the play are almost all missing in
Strachey. Remember, there is not a soul on the island that Strachey is
cast away on, whereas there are prior shipwreckees and island "natives"
in Tempest. The castaways in Strachey are all English, whereas they're
clearly Spanish/Italian in The Tempest. There's also not a whisper of
magic in Strachey and there is very little correspondence between the
"conspiracies" in Strachey and those in Tempest. The similarities
between Strachey and Tempest have been way overstated imo, and a good
deal of reaching has gone on to show how similar the two works are.
Anyhow, have to go out.
ignoto
"secrets of the judicial counsel" is a term with a wide ambit;
> > Portions of the SL appear in ATD. There is, as far as I am aware,
> > scholary consensus that the SL was one of the documents used in ATD.
>
> First, you are incorrect. There is no scholarly consensus on this
> matter. Second, as I said above, the scholarly material about Strachey
> is founded on an egregious error--that the document was published in
> 1612 and The Tempest was not performed till after that date.
Frankly I find this irrelevant tot he matter at and and misleading. You
seem to want to say that furness' mistake invalidates all future
scholarship that places the tempest as a source for the tempest. That
is false. Furness' scholarship about the SL and the tempest may have
been based on an 'egregious error'; it does not follow that modern
scholarship that has corrected his error is also fallacious.
> Scholars
> have been playing catch up ever since. In order to keep to the 1610
> date of Strachey's letter, scholars HAVE to say that SL was one of the
> documents used in ATD.
1. The strachey letter is dated 1610. 2. The internal evidence of the
strachey letter suggests it was sent in 1610.
That is evidence *independent* of ATD for the date of the SL. So your
claim that scholars use ATD to keep the date of the SL is not correct.
There is indpendent evidence as to the date of the SL. This
indepoendent evidence meshes with the SL as a source document for ATD.
Your accusation of ('strat') bias falls flat on its face.
> If they don't, they have no way to keep the date
> of the "letter" as is, because there are paragraphs, even pages, common
> to both, and ATD wasn't entered in Stationers' until Nov 1610.
Which is perfectly consistent with SL as a source for ATD.
> Unfortunately for scholars, almost all of the paragraphs in the body of
> the text of SL are redacted from the long excerpt of ATD at the end,
> which someone writing part of the SL says is already published. So
> there seems to be a definite attempt to take bits of ATD out of the end
> and insert them into the middle of SL. This in itself is only one of
> many, many problems anyone looking carefully can see with SL.
I have dealt with these argument numerous times. The internal evidence
of the SL is consistent with its date. Parts of the ATD were appended
to the letter (possibly by Purchas or Hakylut or another member of the
company). The material appended to the SL plainly comes after the end
of the letter. I'm not going to restate them all now. Productive debate
requires one side to deal with the otehrs arguments. If you have no
answer to the problems I have posed for your interpretation, then
merely restating your case is not sufficient to prove your case.
> > All the evidence points to the SL as source for ATDit- let me
> > reiterate- the date of the letter, ATD a compilation of sources and
> > portions of SL appearing in ATD.
> >
> > Now, as I have stated elsewhere there is no direct evidence for this
> > chain of events, it is an inference based on the dating of documents
> > and the contents of those documents. As with most historical research
> > documents that are first in time are considered to be the original
> > documents.
>
> We have absolutely no evidence that SL was first in time, since there
> is no record of it until 1625.
Again, I have dealt with this argument previously. It does not follow
from the fact that we have no record of it prior to 1625, that it did
not exist prior to 1625. The date of the letter, the internal evidence
as to the letters date and the appearance of parts of the SL in ATD are
all strong indications that the SL existed prior to 1625. Your claim
that we have 'no evidence that it existed prior to 1625' is what we
here would call a pile of steaming bullshit.
> >Those that are later in time are copies or reproductions.
> > Here the SL is first in time and ATD an admitted compilation.
>
>
> The ATD is first in time if you are considering date of publication.
Well, I'm not arbitrarily considering *dates of publication*, I'm
considering *the evidence*.
> Despite what you say,
IOW ignoring all my arguments so you can reassert your own baseless
conclusions.
>we have no idea when SL was written or when or if
> it ever went back to the company.
Again, you ignore the internal dating of SL, the date on SL, and the
fact that ATD was an admittedly compiled from other documents (Perhaps
you can produce a document other than the SL that has the relevant
passages in ATD, if not then it is almost certain that SL was the
source of ATD).
> My guess is that it didn't.
So, we've gone from your certainty that it didn;t go back to your
'guess'- a wholly more accurate statement.
>It would
> have looked very strange because it contains almost all of De La
> Warre's letter almost verbatim. This DID go back to the company in July
> 1610.
So what? 'looking strange' is hardly an argument against some factual
occurence. I can think of good reasons why strachey's letter would
resmeble la warres (i.e. strachey was the company secretary).
> >
> > Now, your claim that:
> >
> > "the whole idea that the letter went back either to the Company or to
> > someone who gave it to the company, where it was somehow seen by
> > Shakespeare, is a total myth, completely unfounded and unfootnoted."
> >
> > Is wrong. The chain of reasoning that I have explicated above is a good
> > ground for thinking that the letter went back to the company. It is not
> > direct evidence (like, say the first folio), but it is good evidence
> > (better than say trying to determine the authorship of plays and poems
> > by some bizzare subjective psychobiographical methodology). In other
> > words the claim that the strachey letter went back to the company is
> > not 'unfounded'.
>
> It's awful "evidence." It is unfounded. It's not even addressed to the
> company, as you yourself have noted. It purports to be a private
> letter.
It is not 'awful', nor is it 'unfounded'. It is evidence based on the
*dates* and *contents* of the materials that we have.
> It mimics material that went to the company FOR SURE,
This is just an assumption. An assumption that you have not yet
justified.
> even if
> you exclude ATD. It has material in it from 1612.
Which is consistent with it beign a *source* document.
> There is no evidence
> whatsoever that would assure us that it either went to the company or
> out to Shakespeare of Stratford.
I am not going to answer this because it goes far afield from what we
are discussing, suffice to say trhat once again we see the anti-strat
argument: There's no specific recorded evidence for it, therefore it
didn;t happen.
> Where was he, by the way, during this
> period? I thought he was in Stratford, but may be mistaken.
>
> >
> > Frankly, I don;lt know what kind of evidence you expect. Your claims
> > that the letter going back tot he company is unfounded and unfootnoted
> > reminds me greatly of standard oxfordian claims on shakespeare's
> > schooling- "there are no records of shakespeare's schooling therefore
> > we must conclude that shakespeare did not go to school";
>
> I have never said that.
I never specifically attributed it to you.
> I probably have said, "We don't know if WS of
> Stratford attended school," which in fact is the case.
Actually that is not the case. We don;t know for sure that he attended
school, but we have very good reason to think that he did so (there are
two ways to prove this- I'll leave it to you to figure it out).
> >here: "there
> > are no records that the SL reached the company therefore the strachey
> > letter did not reach the company". These 'arguments' are good examples
> > of bad logic.
>
> I have never said that.
As good as
> I have said that we know the letter in its
> entirety could not have gone back to England in July 1610, as some
> parts of it were published by others, to whom Strachey would have had
> no access, as late as 1612.
So you know that the letter could not have been sent back to england in
1610, because parts of it were published in 1612.
> I have also said that it is unfounded and
> unfootnoted to say that Strachey either went to the company or out to
> WS in 1610, and it is.
It is not unfounded. I have just provided the chain of reasoning for
the conclusion that it went back, which you have, conveniently,
ignored.
> >
> > [As for Bullough (I tend to read the NS in a haphazard fashion so I
> > might not have got to that post yet). As I recall I supplied the
> > citation as page 239 vol 8 of NADSOS:
> >
> > "Ïts [the SL] contants were known to the author of ATD, for the letter
> > was apparently shown to members of the Virginia Company after Gates got
> > back to England"
>
> Apparently? That's evidence? And look at this. You are suggesting that
> the private letter to a noble lady was taken back to London by Sir
> Thomas Gates,
I am not suggesting that at all. Nor does Bullough say that.
> who instead of giving it to that noble lady, opened it
> and showed it around the company
I am not suggesting that at all. Nor does Bullough say that.
> (but not to Martin, the company
> secretary, because he had not seen it as of Dec 1610).
It wouldn;t be the first time that one part of a company has no other
idea what the other was doing. But as I haven;t seen the letter I will
refrain from judgment.
> Barret or
> whoever used it to write ATD. But Strachey or someone else appended a
> large part of ATD to SL, so there was some kind of circular movement
> where ATD borrowed from SL and then SL borrowed back from ATD.
>
> Meanwhile, the SL went from the company not to the noble lady, but out
> to WS, who then made incredible haste in writing a play, not from the
> available sources he had long used, but sources in this private letter
> of about 24,000 words. Ludicrous. Especially as according to Purchas,
> the letter ended up in Hakuyt's papers.
1. if the letter was circulated in MS it was likely to have been a copy
not the original 2. You cannot discount shakespeare's use of strachey
merely because he may have had a previous familiarity some similar
accounts.
>
> The most economical solution is that no letter or a small version of
> the letter went back to England in July 1610
Well Lynne, this is plainly going nowhere. I don;t think you've
addressed my arguments- for the most part all you've done is restate
your own whilst ignoring the points i am making. So I'm going to break
it off here until after I see the essay.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Historical proof of anything is impossible, but it would certainly be
possible to show beyond reasonable doubt that Shakespeare read
Strachey. I believe Dave Kathman did this. You don't. I don't want
to get into that again (though I did say I'd read and comment on yours
and Roger's paper when it is officially done, and I will try to do
that; I suspect I'll not find much to say that Ignoto hasn't already
said).
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
fact that they speak English, not Spanish or Italian.
--Bob G.
seaker
fact that they speak English, not Spanish or Italian.
Bob, is the above your attempt at humor? It makes about as much sense
as doing a English language production of Hedda Gabler with Norwegian
accents.
Lynne Honey
That's just as well, ignoto. I don't respond further to someone who
states from behind a mask--because he doesn't have the courage to back
up his arguments with his name-- that what I say is a pile of steaming
b*llsh*t.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Tom Veal
summarized by Bullough (8 Narrative and Dramatic Sources of
Shakespeare, pp.237ff. (1975)), is that the play "was prompted to
some extent by the excitement caused by the disappearance at sea in
1609 of Sir Thomas Gates, his return safely from Virginia in the autumn
of 1610, and the subsequent publication of pamphlets describing his
shipwreck in the Bermudas and the state of the Virginia settlement",
to which "'The Tempest' owed many details of the storm and
shipwreck, the nature of the island, and the behavior of those on
it".
The pertinent pamphlets include the "True Declaration", survivor
Silvester Jourdain's "Discovery of the Bermudas" and Strachey's
"True Reportory". Bullough believes, like most Shakespeareans, that
the last was the most significant inspiration for "The Tempest",
but the important point for dating the play is not that some phrases
came from Strachey but that the action has a grounding in real events
that occurred in 1609 and 1610. If that is the case, the date of
writing cannot be earlier earlier than late 1610, unless the playwright
had precognition.
David Kathman's essay
(http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/tempest.html) details the
historical parallels. If I may epitomize -
In the real world, the fleet led by Sir Thomas Gates, newly appointed
governor of Virginia, was separated by a storm. While the rest of the
ships regrouped and continued to their destination, the flagship
disappeared and was presumed sunk. Happily, it fetched up on an island
without loss of life. Though inaccessible and of ill repute (called
"the Isle of Devils"), the place proved to have a temperate climate
and abundant useful vegetation. Also fortunately, a fair proportion of
the ship's stores were recovered. The castaways split into rival
factions that quarreled bitterly, one denying Gates' authority and
plotting to kill him. Of happier note was a marriage between two of the
party. Eventually, Sir Thomas constructed a boat that took him to
Virginia, where he took up his governorship of the colony.
In the play, the ship carrying King Alonso is separated from the rest
of his fleet by a storm. The other ships proceed to their destination,
but Alonso is presumed drowned. Instead, he and all of his companions
make safe landfall on an uncharted island. Though inhabited by
devil-like creatures, the place is pleasant and fruitful, and the
survivors' stock of garments has been preserved. They divide into
inimical groups, and a conspiracy is hatched to murder Alonso. The
action ends with a marriage and the expectation that the king will
return to his homeland, as will Prospero, the marooned Duke of Milan.
A comparison suggests that Shakespeare took the real sequence of events
and overlaid it with fantasy. If he wrote before Sir Thomas Gates'
misfortune, either (i) he was a prophet or (ii) the similarities just
noted (plus various others) are mere coincidence. I presume that not
even the most worshipful bardolator believes that the author of "The
Tempest" possessed oracular powers. What about coincidence? All of
the incidents cited could have been invented by the author, but it is
strange that, given the innumerable possible permutations of things
that happen during and after shipwrecks, a fictional and a factual
account should bear so many points of resemblance, unless the former
was based on the latter. The peculiarity is especially striking when
the real events took place within a few years either before (the
conventional wisdom) or after (your theory) the composition of the
fiction.
Since Oxenfordians are impressed by far weaker parallels (e. g.,
Oxenford's and Hamlet's captures by pirates in an era when piracy
was commonplace), their skepticism about these is remarkable, albeit
not the least bit surprising. Yours appears to be based largely on the
fact that the author added elements from his imagination (such as a
magician and various magical creatures). Of course he did; that's why
"The Tempest" isn't an historical drama about Sir Thomas Gates.
The additions and alterations do not, however, mitigate the degree of
coincidence that you are compelled to assume.
Paul Crowley
news:1134598195....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Historical proof of anything is impossible, but it would certainly be
> possible to show beyond reasonable doubt that Shakespeare read
> Strachey.
He didn't just read him; he thought Strachey
was great and copied whole chunks verbatim.
And why not? Shakespeare was a weak
writer, always lost for words. What else but
go for a better man, and use his?
Stratfordianism always makes so much sense.
Paul.
Peter Farey
Lynne Kositsky wrote:
>
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> >
> > To be truthful, I haven't tried to figure out who Seaker
> > and some of the other recent fake-names belong to. Do
> > you know Seaker to be a Robert, Lynne? I'm curious
> > because I'm 98% certain he's not Robert Stonehouse, and
> > 97% certain he's not me, and I can't think of any other
> > Roberts around HLAS, at the moment.
>
> He is another Robert. He's not a bit like you, Bob. I
> house either.
Lynne has in fact already posted both the surname and other
details of who she thinks "seaker" is, and, if she is right,
I don't ever recall his posting here under that name.
> > Why, by the way, do you keep harping on the fact that
> > Shakespeare didn't need Strachey to have written THE
> > TEMPEST? Isn't everyone agreed on that?
>
> That Shakespeare didn't need Strachey? Really? So why are
> people arguing so hard?
It is of course a *sine qua non* (get that one Gary?) of the
Oxfordian theory that all of Shakespeare's works, including
*The Tempest*, must have been written before De Vere's death
in 1604. Unfortunately, most orthodox dating (a reasonable
summary of which was recently provided by Mark Cipra) has
this and several other plays written after that date. It is
therefore incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate that any
argument placing such dates after 1604 are flawed.
For me, however, even if it turns out to have been possible
for *The Tempest* to have been written entirely without
recourse to any document written after 1604, I still would
take it to have been written not long before *Henry VIII*,
which is dated fairly certainly as 1613.
If we take the orthodox dating as even vaguely correct, then
it is perfectly clear that Shakespeare's use of run-on lines
and feminine endings gradually increased over the years.
The following table simply adds to Mark's dates how many of
these features (per hundred lines of verse) occurred on
average in each play included in the First Folio.
TGV, 1590, 28.39
2H6, 1591, 23.71
3H6, 1591, 22.61
1H6, 1591, 17.12
Tit, 1592, 20.02
CoE, 1592, 25.90
LLL, 1592, 19.49
ToS, 1593, 26.31
R3, 1593, 31.02
MND, 1595, 16.77
R&J, 1595, 20.53
R2, 1595, 29.34
KJ, 1596, 23.85
MoV, 1596, 38.02
1H4, 1597, 28.46
2H4, 1597, 35.79
MWW, 1598, 42.50
Ado, 1598, 39.03
H5, 1599, 43.47
JC, 1599, 36.94
AYL, 1600, 37.10
Ham, 1600, 43.47
TN, 1601, 32.73
T&C, 1602, 47.53
Oth, 1603, 45.80
AW, 1604, 51.48
MfM, 1604, 45.62
KL, 1605, 53.10
Tim, 1606, 52.96
Mac, 1606, 60.33
A&C, 1607, 66.99
Cor, 1608, 73.54
WT, 1610, 69.16
Cym, 1610, 75.27
Tem, 1611, 73.23
H8, 1613, 71.21
I think it is of interest to note that every single play
given a date later than 1601 has a figure in excess of 45
per 100, whereas every other play has less than this.
Note that only two plays (*Coriolanus* and *Cymbeline*)
have a figure higher than *The Tempest*.
This is a very clear and distinct trend, as can be seen
in the chart I have posted as a 'Word' document at
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/trend.doc>, so I am really
interested in knowing what the result would be if dates
according to the Oxfordian theory were used, and whether
Roger and Lynne have any comment to make upon this either
now or in their promised third essay.
The second chart, whilst not strictly relevant to this
discussion, adds just for interest the equivalent data
for Marlowe's plays, using dates proposed by Park
Honan in his new biography.
Dido, 1586, 8.47
1Tam, 1587, 16.68
2Tam, 1588, 15.70
DrF, 1589, 8.69
JoM, 1590, 10.29
MaP, 1591, 14.61
E2, 1592, 13.31
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
> It is of course a *sine qua non* (get that one Gary?) of the
> Oxfordian theory that all of Shakespeare's works, including
> *The Tempest*, must have been written before De Vere's death
> in 1604. Unfortunately, most orthodox dating (a reasonable
> summary of which was recently provided by Mark Cipra) has
> this and several other plays written after that date. It is
> therefore incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate that any
> argument placing such dates after 1604 are flawed.
It is no more incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate
that any argument placing such dates after 1604 are
flawed than it is for Marlovians to demonstrate that
any argument placing such dates after 1593 are flawed.
(Oxfordian are just to stubborn to recognize that fact.)
There is far far more evidence that
MAR-LOWE (LOWE = grave) died in 1593
than there is that Oxford died in 1604!
Peter Farey wrote:
> For me, however, even if it turns out to have been possible
> for *The Tempest* to have been written entirely without
> recourse to any document written after 1604, I still would
> take it to have been written not long before *Henry VIII*,
> which is dated fairly certainly as 1613.
_All is TRUE_ was probably originally written
during Elizabeth's reign.
Peter Farey wrote:
Surprise, surprise...MAR-LO was Lord Oxford's early pseudonym.
Art Neuendorffer
Mark Cipra
Thanks for this, Peter. Fascinating stuff.
--
Mark Cipra
The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the
bigot in certainty without proof - Ashley Montague
(Play Indiana Jones! Hike the "ark" in my address to reply by e-mail)
John W. Kennedy
Actually, I don't. Shakespeare could have written /a/ /Tempest/ sans
Strachey, but I believe the possibility of coincidence is too vastly
unlikely. Unless you're willing to believe that desperate hypothesis
that Strachey plagiarized Shakespeare, you pretty much have to accept
that Shakespeare (as was, God knows, his habit) used Strachey as a source.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Lynne Honey
Tom Veal wrote:
> The conventional view of the sources of "The Tempest", as
> summarized by Bullough (8 Narrative and Dramatic Sources of
> Shakespeare, pp.237ff. (1975)), is that the play "was prompted to
> some extent by the excitement caused by the disappearance at sea in
> 1609 of Sir Thomas Gates, his return safely from Virginia in the autumn
> of 1610, and the subsequent publication of pamphlets describing his
> shipwreck in the Bermudas and the state of the Virginia settlement",
> to which "'The Tempest' owed many details of the storm and
> shipwreck, the nature of the island, and the behavior of those on
> it".
Bullough was incorrect. The play is much earlier and so couldn't have
been prompted by the Bermuda narratives, in particular Strachey's. In
addition the play owes the details of the storm etc. to earlier
sources, which clearly Strachey also used.
>
> The pertinent pamphlets include the "True Declaration", survivor
> Silvester Jourdain's "Discovery of the Bermudas" and Strachey's
> "True Reportory". Bullough believes, like most Shakespeareans, that
> the last was the most significant inspiration for "The Tempest",
> but the important point for dating the play is not that some phrases
> came from Strachey but that the action has a grounding in real events
> that occurred in 1609 and 1610. If that is the case, the date of
> writing cannot be earlier earlier than late 1610, unless the playwright
> had precognition.
This is incorrect. There are other much earlier and richer sources that
could provide the framework for Shakespeare to hang his play upon.
>
> David Kathman's essay
> (http://www.shakespeareauthorship.com/tempest.html) details the
> historical parallels. If I may epitomize -
>
> In the real world, the fleet led by Sir Thomas Gates, newly appointed
> governor of Virginia, was separated by a storm. While the rest of the
> ships regrouped and continued to their destination, the flagship
> disappeared and was presumed sunk. Happily, it fetched up on an island
> without loss of life. Though inaccessible and of ill repute (called
> "the Isle of Devils"), the place proved to have a temperate climate
> and abundant useful vegetation. Also fortunately, a fair proportion of
> the ship's stores were recovered. The castaways split into rival
> factions that quarreled bitterly, one denying Gates' authority and
> plotting to kill him. Of happier note was a marriage between two of the
> party. Eventually, Sir Thomas constructed a boat that took him to
> Virginia, where he took up his governorship of the colony.
You are correct in your summation--except possibly about the plot to
kill Gates being "in the real world" as it occurs only in Strachey and
is not repeated by anyone else before 1624--but incorrect if you think
that this chain of events in the Bermuda literature was necessary to
write The Tempest. Taking Eden, for example, which is just one source:
Many fleets were separated in storms
The wording of Tempest follows a description in Eden almost verbatim of
ships dispersed by a storm.
Eden talks about "drowning tokens" or marks--which Strachey doesn't
have at all.
Eden has a description of St. Elmo much closer to Tempest than
Strachey. It even talks of some folks thinking that St. Elmo's Fire is
caused by spirits.
Lots of sailors ended up on islands (but much closer to Tempest because
they are inhabited by often unruly or conspiratorial natives)
Stores are often recovered
Castaways often split into factions
Numerous plots to kill leaders by both natives and other Spaniards, at
least one "in their sleep."
Mention of a royal wedding between two Spanish houses to unite Spain.
The groom is Ferdinand, King of Naples and Aragon.
Many stories of ships setting sail back to their original countries
after storms
Eden has an extended description of Bermuda, but that's not crucial,
because we know for sure that Tempest takes place anywhere BUT Bermuda
Eden has much other material--much on the supernatural for
example--that Strachey doesn't touch. Some of the descriptions of
"zemes" match characters such as Sycorax to a T. "Setebos" is in Eden.
And by the way, Bermuda had been called the Isle of Devils for years.
In fact The Tempest much more closely parallels Eden with regard to
devils. Ferdinand says: "Hell is empty and all the devils are here."
Eden has the following: "A man would thinke them to bee devylles
incarnate newly broke owte of hell..." I could go on like this for
hours, but will spare you.
The kicker, though, of course, is that some of the similarities that
Dave quotes as Strachey's parallels to Tempest are taken by Strachey
FROM Eden. We know Strachey used Eden as one of his sources because he
says so and because a couple of his "borrowings" are verbatim. And in a
couple of cases Dave is drawing on material that Strachey has actually
told us is in Eden. (!!!!!)
>
> In the play, the ship carrying King Alonso is separated from the rest
> of his fleet by a storm. The other ships proceed to their destination,
> but Alonso is presumed drowned. Instead, he and all of his companions
> make safe landfall on an uncharted island. Though inhabited by
> devil-like creatures, the place is pleasant and fruitful, and the
> survivors' stock of garments has been preserved. They divide into
> inimical groups, and a conspiracy is hatched to murder Alonso. The
> action ends with a marriage and the expectation that the king will
> return to his homeland, as will Prospero, the marooned Duke of Milan.
Again, I won't bore you, but all these parallels are in Eden with the
added distinction that Eden, like Tempest, is about Spaniards. There is
also a parallel to the "glistering apparel" in Eden, as worn by
Spaniards attending a wedding feast.
>
> A comparison suggests that Shakespeare took the real sequence of events
> and overlaid it with fantasy. If he wrote before Sir Thomas Gates'
> misfortune, either (i) he was a prophet or (ii) the similarities just
> noted (plus various others) are mere coincidence.
They are elsewhere over and over again in travel literature. In
addition all the storm elements were a "set piece." I haven't even
touched on Ariosto, which has a hermit living on an island in a cell,
much magic, a strange creature down by the water reminiscent of
Caliban, and every single major storm element found in The Tempest.
>I presume that not
> even the most worshipful bardolator believes that the author of "The
> Tempest" possessed oracular powers. What about coincidence? All of
> the incidents cited could have been invented by the author, but it is
> strange that, given the innumerable possible permutations of things
> that happen during and after shipwrecks, a fictional and a factual
> account should bear so many points of resemblance, unless the former
> was based on the latter. The peculiarity is especially striking when
> the real events took place within a few years either before (the
> conventional wisdom) or after (your theory) the composition of the
> fiction.
Strachey's narrative used many popular sources of the day. In some
cases he even tells us what they are. Those sources were available to
Shakespeare much earlier. We believe he wrote the play much earlier and
there is in fact what looks to be a travesty of Tempest in another play
from 1605. That play too shows incredible parallels to the Bermuda
literature but is too early of course to have copied from it.
Ironically, Strachey was a sharer at Blackfriars at the time it was
performed. If you persist in seeing parallels that are only in
Strachey, my suggestion is that Strachey took from Shakespeare and/or
the play that parodies Shakespeare.
>
> Since Oxenfordians are impressed by far weaker parallels (e. g.,
> Oxenford's and Hamlet's captures by pirates in an era when piracy
> was commonplace),
These are nothing to do with the parallels we give, which in fact are
much closer to Tempest than anything in the Bermuda narratives.
>their skepticism about these is remarkable, albeit
> not the least bit surprising. Yours appears to be based largely on the
> fact that the author added elements from his imagination (such as a
> magician and various magical creatures). Of course he did; that's why
> "The Tempest" isn't an historical drama about Sir Thomas Gates.
> The additions and alterations do not, however, mitigate the degree of
> coincidence that you are compelled to assume.
I see there is a coincidence.
I can see the parallels exist in earlier literature that both
Shakespeare and Strachey had access to. In fact we know that Strachey
used some of them. We know Shakespeare used them because they are in
his earlier work.
Shakespeare has a history of using these "parallels." Strachey doesn't.
Strachey had been influenced by Shakespeare before, in his very scant
store of prior work.
Signing off from this dialogue now because we have the same old, same
old where everyone is piling on, and I have work to do; however, I'd be
pleased to hear from Dave Kathman when he comes aboard. And we'll be
glad to show him our three essays before he responds.
Written in haste.
Lynne Honey
Peter Farey
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > It is of course a *sine qua non* (get that one Gary?) of the
> > Oxfordian theory that all of Shakespeare's works, including
> > *The Tempest*, must have been written before De Vere's death
> > in 1604. Unfortunately, most orthodox dating (a reasonable
> > summary of which was recently provided by Mark Cipra) has
> > this and several other plays written after that date. It is
> > therefore incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate that any
> > argument placing such dates after 1604 are flawed.
>
> It is no more incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate
> that any argument placing such dates after 1604 are
> flawed than it is for Marlovians to demonstrate that
> any argument placing such dates after 1593 are flawed.
>
> (Oxfordian are just to stubborn to recognize that fact.)
>
> There is far far more evidence that
> MAR-LOWE (LOWE = grave) died in 1593
> than there is that Oxford died in 1604!
Where then is the Oxfordian equivalent of my essay "Marlowe's
Sudden and Fearful End", which argues that the most probable
reason for those people to have met at Deptford on 30 May 1593
was to fake Marlowe's death? I know of no agreement among
Oxfordians (as there is among Marlovians) that Oxford's death
was faked.
> > For me, however, even if it turns out to have been possible
> > for *The Tempest* to have been written entirely without
> > recourse to any document written after 1604, I still would
> > take it to have been written not long before *Henry VIII*,
> > which is dated fairly certainly as 1613.
>
> _All is TRUE_ was probably originally written
> during Elizabeth's reign.
Some *evidence* to support this statement would be welcome.
It had been performed no more than two or three times when
the Globe burned down in June 1613 - 10 years after James's
succession - according to a letter dated the 4th of July that
year.
> > 2Tam,1588, 15.70
> > DrF, 1589, 8.69
> > JoM, 1590, 10.29
> > MaP, 1591, 14.61
> > E2, 1592, 13.31
>
> Surprise, surprise...MAR-LO was Lord Oxford's early
> pseudonym.
So you say, Art. So you say. But I doubt that either Roger
or Lynne will be happy to leave this (or whatever equally
useful contribution Paul might make) as the last Oxfordian
word on the subject.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > It is of course a *sine qua non* (get that one Gary?) of the
> > > Oxfordian theory that all of Shakespeare's works, including
> > > *The Tempest*, must have been written before De Vere's death
> > > in 1604. Unfortunately, most orthodox dating (a reasonable
> > > summary of which was recently provided by Mark Cipra) has
> > > this and several other plays written after that date. It is
> > > therefore incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate that any
> > > argument placing such dates after 1604 are flawed.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > It is no more incumbent upon Oxfordians to demonstrate
> > that any argument placing such dates after 1604 are
> > flawed than it is for Marlovians to demonstrate that
> > any argument placing such dates after 1593 are flawed.
> >
> > (Oxfordian are just to stubborn to recognize that fact.)
> >
> > There is far far more evidence that
> > MAR-LOWE (LOWE = grave) died in 1593
> > than there is that Oxford died in 1604!
Peter Farey wrote:
> Where then is the Oxfordian equivalent of my essay "Marlowe's
> Sudden and Fearful End", which argues that the most probable
> reason for those people to have met at Deptford on 30 May 1593
> was to fake Marlowe's death?
And what, pray tell, is the most probable reason
for Edward de Vere's "burial" record to read:
------------------------------------------------------------
July 6th 1604 - *Edward VeARE* earl of oxford (burial)
at the church of St. AUGUSTINE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Shak. born on St. AUGUSTINE's day May 26, 1583
__ Susan Vere born on St. AUGUSTINE's day May 26, 1587
----------------------------------------------------
VÆRE : (Danish) : TO BE
.............................................................
Hamlet(Danish) : TO BE, or NOT TO BE,
-------------------------------------------------------------
*VARE* : A wand or *STAFF* of authority or justice.
...........................................................
PROSPERO: This airy charm is for, I'll break my *STAFF*
Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
And deeper than did *EVER* plummet sound
I'll drown my book.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saint PROSPER (Also known as PROSPERO)
Memorial: 25 June (day after Oxford's official death!)
Feast day: 7 July (day after Oxford's official burial!)
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintp35.htm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061581
Saint PROSPER of Aquitaine
born c. 390, Lemovices, Aquitania
died c. 463, probably Rome; feast day July 7
(day after Oxford's burial at the church of St. AUGUSTINE!)
Before 428, PROSPER moved to Marseille, where he lived as a monk.
Reacting to the rise of Semi-Pelagianism, he wrote (428) an appeal for
help to AUGUSTINE, who replied with De praedestinatione sanctorum
('Concerning the Predestination of the Saints') and De dono
perseverantiae ('Concerning the Gift of Perseverance'). In response to
continuing Semi-Pelagian attacks, PROSPER single-handedly rose to
AUGUSTINE's defense.
In his writings he opposed one of the most revered monks of the era,
Abbot John Cassian of Saint-Victor, as well as Vincent of Lérins.
He also wrote a reply to the general attack on AUGUSTINE,
Ad objectiones Gallorum calumniantium
('To the Objections of the Gallic Calumniators').
After AUGUSTINE's death (430) in Hippo,
PROSPER went to Rome in 431 to enlist the aid of Pope
Celestine I, who wrote a letter praising AUGUSTINE
PROSPER then returned to France, but by 435
he had established himself at Rome
as secretary to Pope Leo I the Great.
Before his death he composed a collection of Augustinian propositions
called Liber sententiarum Sancti AUGUSTINI ('The Book of the Sentences
of St. AUGUSTINE'), which was used in the decrees of the
second Council of Orange in 529 refuting Semi-Pelagianism.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Farey wrote:
> I know of no agreement among Oxfordians
> (as there is among Marlovians) that Oxford's death was faked.
Primarily, that's because
it's not quite as necessary for Oxfordians to do so.
Besides...there is an enormous amount of Oxfordian time & reputation
spent showing that the plays were all written before 1604; Oxfordians
are as resistant to admitting mistakes as Stratfordians & Marlovians.
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > > For me, however, even if it turns out to have been possible
> > > for *The Tempest* to have been written entirely without
> > > recourse to any document written after 1604, I still would
> > > take it to have been written not long before *Henry VIII*,
> > > which is dated fairly certainly as 1613.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > _All is TRUE_ was probably originally written during Elizabeth's reign.
Peter Farey wrote:
> Some *evidence* to support this statement would be welcome
It really makes no sense to honor Elizabeth 9 years after she died.
Peter Farey wrote:
> It had been performed no more than two or three times when
> the Globe burned down in June 1613 - 10 years after James's
> succession - according to a letter dated the 4th of July that
> year.
Actually there were TWO PHONEY "TRIEWE" Globe letters:
------------------------------------------------------------
Letter from Henry Bluett to Richard Weeks, July 4, 1613:
"On tewsday last there was acted at the GLOBE a new play called
all is TRIEWE wch had been acted not passinge 2 or 3 times
before. there came many people to see it in so much that
ye howse was VERy full and as the play was almost ended
the HOUSE was FIREd wth shooting off a Chamber wch
was stopt wth towe wch was blown up into the THETCH
of the HOUSE and so burnt downe to the ground."
----------------------------------------------------------
"VERy full" thatch HOUSE burnt to the "VERy grounds."
"a new play called all is TRIEWE"
"a new play, called All is TRUE"
----------------------------------------------------------
Letter from Sir Henry WOttON (former spy for Essex)
to Edmund Bacon on July 2, 1613:
The King's players had a new play, called All is TRUE,
representing some principal pieces of the reign of
Henry VIII, which was set FORTH with many extraordinary
circumstances of pomp and majesty....Now, King Henry making
a masque at the Cardinal Wolsey's HOUSE, and certain
chambers being shot off at his entry, some of the paper, or
other stuff, wherewith one of them was stopped, did light
on the THATCH, where being at first but an idle SMOKE, and
their eyes more attentive to the show, it kindled inwardly,
and ran around like a train, consuming within less
than an hour the whole HOUSE to the VERy grounds.
----------------------------------------------------------
Who was copying from whom? Why should we believe either?
How come of the thousands of Londoners who attended the Globe each week
these are *THE ONLY* letters in english that survive about a Globe
performance?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Surprise, surprise...MAR-LO was Lord Oxford's early pseudonym.
Peter Farey wrote:
> So you say, Art. So you say.
We both know the evidence that connects Marlowe with
early Shakespeare but only I seem to pay attention to
the long mythological tradition of "Wise Cobblers":
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Here Hans Sachs, the cobbler poet, laureate of the gentle craft,
Wisest of the Twelve Wise Masters, in huge folios sang & laughed."
-- Longfellow: Nuremberg, stanza 19. >>
-------------------------------------------------------
<<The tale goes that a cobbler detected a fault in the shoe-latchet
of one of Apelles' paintings, and the artist rectified the fault.
The cobbler, thinking himself very wise, next ventured to
criticise the legs; but Apelles answered, "Keep to your trade"
- you understand about shoes, but not about anatomy.
"Let not the cobbler overstep his last"
"(Ne sutor ultra crepidam)."
"Let no one presume to interfere in matters of which he is ignorant."
---------------------------------------------------------------
>From Brazil's List of the Printed Dedications to Edward de Vere:
Hekatompathia Thomas WATSON 1582
Thomas WATSON's sonnet cycle, Hecatompathia, printed two years
before Pandora, was influential, is experimental (the sonnets
have 18 lines) and ornate, and is dedicated to Oxford.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Life of Christopher Marlowe
http://swc2.hccs.cc.tx.us/HTMLS/ROWHTML/faust/marlowe.htm
<<In 1587, Marlowe received his M.A. and moved to London, where he
spent most of the rest of his life. The history of Marlowe's remaining
six years of his life traces a series of violent clashes with the law.
By 1589 he was living in Norton Folgate, near the theaters, close to
Thomas WATSON, the poet. In September, Marlowe & William Bradley fell
to fighting in HOG Lane, where upon WATSON came to Marlowe's rescue. In
the ensuring brawl WATSON fatally stabbed Bradley. Though Marlowe fled
the scene, both he and WATSON were imprisoned in Newgate, Marlowe for
two weeks and WATSON for a longer time. On December 3, 1589 Marlowe
& WATSON appeared for trial & discharged with a warning to keep the
peace. This he failed to do, for three years later he was summoned
to appear at the Middlesex sessions for assaulting two shoreditch
constables in Holleywell Street. The constables said that
they went in fear of their lives because of him. There is no
evidence that Marlowe ever answered this particular charge.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Oxford read WATSON's Hekatompathia
while it was still in manuscript.>>
-- Professor Steven May
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Farey wrote:
> But I doubt that either Roger
> or Lynne will be happy to leave this (or whatever equally
> useful contribution Paul might make) as the last Oxfordian
> word on the subject.
Ne sutor ultra crepidam
Roger & Lynne have spent an enormous amount of time &
reputation showing that the plays were all written before 1604.
Should we really expect them
to be any less pig headed than Stratfordians or Marlovians?
Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:dnrebo$ft4$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> I think it is of interest to note that every single play
> given a date later than 1601 has a figure in excess of 45
> per 100, whereas every other play has less than this.
> Note that only two plays (*Coriolanus* and *Cymbeline*)
> have a figure higher than *The Tempest*.
>
> This is a very clear and distinct trend
Only a complete half-wit would assume that Shake-
speare was did not know what run-on lines or
feminine endings were, or that he did not have his
use of them under his full control.
To suggest that these form a 'trend' is to IMPLY
that the poet was not aware of what he was doing.
No remotely similar 'trend' is ever suggested for
any other author, in any other language in any
other era.
What is special about Shakespeare in this respect?
Answer: his works are studied and analysed by
mindless dolts who can find nothing better to say.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> bobgr...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > To be truthful, I haven't tried to figure out who Seaker and some of
> > the other recent fake-names belong to. Do you know Seaker to be a
> > Robert, Lynne? I'm curious because I'm 98% certain he's not Robert
> > Stonehouse, and 97% certain he's not me, and I can't think of any other
> > Roberts around HLAS, at the moment.
> >
> > Why, by the way, do you keep harping on the fact that Shakespeare
> > didn't need Strachey to have written THE TEMPEST? Isn't everyone
> > agreed on that?
>
> Actually, I don't. Shakespeare could have written /a/ /Tempest/ sans
> Strachey, but I believe the possibility of coincidence is too vastly
> unlikely. Unless you're willing to believe that desperate hypothesis
> that Strachey plagiarized Shakespeare, you pretty much have to accept
> that Shakespeare (as was, God knows, his habit) used Strachey as a source.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
I agree that Shakespeare used Strachey; I'm just saying he need not
have, however absurd it would have been for him not to have. The same
way whoever wrote the book of WESTSIDE STORY could have done it using
ROMEUS AND JULIET.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
It was in part a barb at what I took to be LynnE's silly remark about
THE TEMPEST situation being unlike the Strachey situation, in part,
because the play was about non-Enlgishment whereas the Strachey
situation concerned Englsihmen. But, like most of my barbs, it had
logic (how better to identify a person than by his language) and
truth--since the people in Shakespeare's play were undoubtedly
Englishmen--or do you think Bottom was an ancient Greek?
--Bob G.
Lynne Honey
There is a very big difference, Bob. Romeus and Juliet is a minor,
little-known source, Romeo and Juliet a major source, whereas Strachey
was a minor source that might not even have been available, Eden and
Erasmus major, major sources read by almost every literate person of
the time.
>
> --Bob G.