Elizabeth, or Anyone, What do you think of this?
lackpurity
of Oxford's, and was subsequently hanged for the crime. Oxford's
confidante Henry Howard called it a contract murder for which Oxford
paid £100. In late Aug 1579 Oxford pulled rank on Sir Phillip Sidney
at the Greenwich tennis court. According to Fulke Greville's account
of the story, the young Earl appeared upon the court while Sidney was
at play and commanded him to leave. Sidney answered provokingly,
Greville says, whereupon Oxford grew angry and, before the onlooking
French marriage-commissioners, denounced him 'by the name of Puppy'.
Sidney asked him to repeat it, and he did, this time more loudly, upon
which Sidney gave him the lie direct. Then, after a moment's silence,
Sidney and his friends strode from the court. Having waited a day in
vain for Oxford's challenge, Sidney sent the Earl a reminder of
honour's obligations, and Oxford, thus jostled, responded in honour.
Queen Elizabeth placed Oxford under house arrest from 29 Jan to 11 Feb
1580 for sending Sidney a written challenge.
http://www.tudorrosecourt.org/oxford.html
MM:
IMO, Fulke Greville and Sir Philip Sidney were Masters. It seems that
the Earl couldn't get along with them. Obviously, to me, the author
of the canon was a Master. How can we reconcile such disrespect
coming from the Earl. Even Queen Elizabeth, who some say was his
mother as I understand, didn't approve of it.
Oxfordians are welcome to reply. :-)
Edward de Vere was 29 years of age, at the time of this incident.
Michael Martin
Ms. Mouse
I don't think Elizabeth was his mother; however, the tennis court
argument or one like it is mentioned in Hamlet:
Polonius:
He closes thus: 'I know the gentleman;
I saw him yesterday, or t' other day,
Or then, or then; with such, or such; and, as you say,
There was a' gaming; there o'ertook in's rouse;
There falling out at tennis:'
I find that rather interesting.
Mouse
lackpurity
MM:
I have no reason, as yet, to believe that she was his mother, either,
Ms. Mouse.
You have a good memory, Ms. Mouse. I looked up my comments on this,
in an earlier post:
From Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 1:
LORD POLONIUS
At 'closes in the consequence,' ay, marry;
He closes thus: 'I know the gentleman;
I saw him yesterday, or t' other day,
Or then, or then; with such, or such; and, as you say,
There was a' gaming; there o'ertook in's rouse;
There falling out at tennis:' or perchance,
'I saw him enter such a house of sale,'
Videlicet, a brothel, or so forth.
MM:
Again, Shakespeare says that after coming to the Master, it will be a
game to see if we can conquer the mind. Sometimes, we might fall,
and
Shakespeare even mentions going to a brothel. IOW, the Master knows
that when we come on the path, we won't become perfect instantly. He
knows there will be times, when we will revert to the old bad habit
of
sinning. He is patient, however, and he will not rest until the
disciple is cleansed of his sinful habits.
> Polonius:
>
> He closes thus: 'I know the gentleman;
> I saw him yesterday, or t' other day,
> Or then, or then; with such, or such; and, as you say,
> There was a' gaming; there o'ertook in's rouse;
> There falling out at tennis:'
>
> I find that rather interesting.
> Mouse
MM:
It's very interesting Ms. Mouse. Good work. Now, if we take the
Oxfordian POV, then Oxford is writing about his own iniquity? He's
writing about his own sins?Specifically, he's writing about his
argument with Sir Philip Sidney, with Master Greville as a witness?
That is one choice. The other choice is that William Shakespeare of
Stratford, a disciple of Fulke Greville, is discussing something which
Fulke Greville must have told him. Shakespeare would have been a
youth of 15, in 1579. The timeline is congruent. Let's remember that
Fulke Greville reportedly told people that he was "The Master of
Shakespeare." This theory would seem to indicate that Shakespeare
was going to write of sinful activities, such as going to a brothel,
and then the memory of the Sidney/de Vere feud popped in his mind. He
must have remembered that his Master told him about it, and later it
became well-known anyway, as the Queen had Edward de Vere confined for
a while.
So, this theory would indicate that the author of the canon put this
falling out at tennis on the same level as other despicable sins. Can
we reconcile this with installing Edward de Vere as the author of the
canon?
Michael Martin
> > Oxfordians are welcome to reply. �:-)
>
> > Edward de Vere was 29 years of age, at the time of this incident.
>
> > Michael Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
lackpurity
MM:
Hamlet is dated about 1600, so that would be 21 years after the feud.
That's a long time, yet it was still in the author's mind. Fulke
Greville was still alive, at this time, also. If the author were
Edward de Vere, do we think he would be referring to such an
embarassing event of his life? I don't think so. I think he, most
likely, would have liked to forget about it.
The REAL AUTHOR, William Shakespeare of Stratford, probably was very
offended by it, because it involved his Master, Fulke Greville. I
think this tennis feud is very supportive of Stratfordianism.
Oxfordians are welcome to comment.
Michael Martin
Ms. Mouse
There is also something else a little later in the passage. Polonius
says: "Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth." This is
rather reminiscent of Sidney giving Oxford "the lie direct."
I'm not saying this is strong evidence at all, MM, but I still find it
interesting. I think Oxford might well have transformed and reported
it in a play, though he would probably have thought all along that he
was in the right. But he was, after all, an iniquitous kind of guy--
as, imo, was Shakespeare--whoever he was--who wrote gory plays such as
Titus Andronicus. To portray Shakespeare--again, whoever he was--as a
saint misses the intriguing depth and contrasting facets of his
personality. In fact, even William Shakespeare of Stratford was bound
over to keep the peace, and Jonson was convicted of murder although he
got off by benefit of clergy. These men were not innocent little
lambs, by all accounts.
Mouse
lackpurity
MM:
Satan tempts us with falsehood, but the Master counters with the
truth. Then we know where we stand. Polonius, apparently, wanted
Reynaldo to test Laertes, to test his moral fiber. Reynaldo was just
a servant, but if we obey our Master, then we become like a son to
him. This is teaching Sat Guru Bhakti, as usual.
Ms. Mouse, you mention a "lie direct," I suppose claiming that Sidney
lied to Oxford, but Oxford had called him a puppy in front of others.
Was that a "lie direct?" It appears to be a shameful display of ego,
IMO.
MM:
I'll post it, with my earlier comments:
LORD POLONIUS continues:
See you now;
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out:
So by my former lecture and advice,
Shall you my son. You have me, have you not?
MM:
This is a very beautiful analogy, of the relationship between the
Master and God. The Master is guided by God, and if he needs to
knows
something, God will tell him. I've often explained that there is a
"Great Power," working behind a True Master.
> I'm not saying this is strong evidence at all, MM, but I still find it
> interesting. I think Oxford might well have transformed and reported
> it in a play,
MM:
It could definitely be possible, but how likely would it be?
> though he would probably have thought all along that he
> was in the right.
MM:
Calling Sidney a "puppy," in front of Fulke Greville and others? You
think he thought that was right all along? Fulke practically
worshipped Sidney, as you must know. If he (Oxford), indeed, thought
he was right all along, then I question his qualifications to write
the canon. I think, clearly, the author of the canon was above such
slander. But, transformation would have been possible, if not likely.
> But he was, after all, an iniquitous kind of guy--
> as, imo, was Shakespeare--whoever he was--who wrote gory plays such as
> Titus Andronicus.
MM:
Why would that mean that Shakespeare was iniquitous? He could have
been reporting on the sad state of the world.
> To portray Shakespeare--again, whoever he was--as a
> saint misses the intriguing depth and contrasting facets of his
> personality.
MM:
I don't think I'm missing any of those facets, Ms. Mouse. I just
think his Saintliness gave him power over all lower desires. Christ
said, "I can take it up (his soul) or lay it down." Similarly,
Marlowe and Shakespeare were perfect mystic adepts. Their mysticism
overruled everything else, not that nothing was there. I'm just
giving more attention to the positive.
> In fact, even William Shakespeare of Stratford was bound
> over to keep the peace,
MM:
I don't know the details. He could have been a victim of
circumstances, possibly? St. Paul, Jesus, and Socrates, were also
"bound over to keep the peace," I suppose you could say, but were they
really guilty of anything?
> and Jonson was convicted of murder although he
> got off by benefit of clergy.
MM:
Hmmm? I don't know the details, but he was presumed innocent?
> These men were not innocent little
> lambs, by all accounts.
>
> Mouse
MM:
There might have been some slacking, here and there, but the feud with
Sidney looks pretty ridiculous, IMO. It looks like it was based on
EGO or RANK. This is highly incongruent with the authorship of the
canon, IMO. I will admit, however, that one could become transformed
and repent. Thanks for discussing your viewpoint.
Michael Martin
Ms. Mouse
I'm very interested, MM, in whether you're interested in learning
anything here, or whether you're just interested in proselytising.
I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
but yours don't seem to change at all.
>
> Ms. Mouse, you mention a "lie direct," I suppose claiming that Sidney
> lied to Oxford, but Oxford had called him a puppy in front of others.
> Was that a "lie direct?" It appears to be a shameful display of ego,
> IMO.
I believe Sidney was accusing Oxford of lying, which could only be
answered by a challenge, something that was against the law.
>
> MM:
> I'll post it, with my earlier comments:
>
> LORD POLONIUS continues:
> See you now;
> Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
> And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
> With windlasses and with assays of bias,
> By indirections find directions out:
> So by my former lecture and advice,
> Shall you my son. You have me, have you not?
>
> MM:
> This is a very beautiful analogy, of the relationship between the
> Master and God. The Master is guided by God, and if he needs to
> knows
> something, God will tell him. I've often explained that there is a
> "Great Power," working behind a True Master.
>
> > I'm not saying this is strong evidence at all, MM, but I still find it
> > interesting. I think Oxford might well have transformed and reported
> > it in a play,
>
> MM:
> It could definitely be possible, but how likely would it be?
As a writer, I feel it would be very likely that another writer would
use his own experiences in his writing. I gave some of my own
experiences and my mother's to a young girl in one of my books.
>
> > though he would probably have thought all along that he
> > was in the right.
>
> MM:
> Calling Sidney a "puppy," in front of Fulke Greville and others? You
> think he thought that was right all along?
I think, since we all usually think we're right, that he might have
seen Sidney as the instigator, in which case he saw himself as goaded
into responding.
>Fulke practically
> worshipped Sidney, as you must know. If he (Oxford), indeed, thought
> he was right all along, then I question his qualifications to write
> the canon. I think, clearly, the author of the canon was above such
> slander. But, transformation would have been possible, if not likely.
I think the writer of the canon, although brilliant and educated, had
both good and bad in him, as most people do. The idea of "Gentle
Shakespeare" is given the lie by the canon itself.
>
> > But he was, after all, an iniquitous kind of guy--
> > as, imo, was Shakespeare--whoever he was--who wrote gory plays such as
> > Titus Andronicus.
>
> MM:
> Why would that mean that Shakespeare was iniquitous? He could have
> been reporting on the sad state of the world.
IMO, and it's just an opinion, Shakespeare was "inside" his
characters, both good and evil. He had a profound understanding of
both evil and of madness, for example.
>
> > To portray Shakespeare--again, whoever he was--as a
> > saint misses the intriguing depth and contrasting facets of his
> > personality.
>
> MM:
> I don't think I'm missing any of those facets, Ms. Mouse. I just
> think his Saintliness gave him power over all lower desires. Christ
> said, "I can take it up (his soul) or lay it down." Similarly,
> Marlowe and Shakespeare were perfect mystic adepts. Their mysticism
> overruled everything else, not that nothing was there. I'm just
> giving more attention to the positive.
But whoever he was, he didn't have power over his "lower" desires. The
sonnets, which are filled with bawdy, attest that he was having an
affair with a young woman, and possibly also a young man. As I posted
earlier, he committed at least one violent act. WS was bound over,
Oxford somehow managed to kill the undercook.
>
> > In fact, even William Shakespeare of Stratford was bound
> > over to keep the peace,
>
> MM:
> I don't know the details. He could have been a victim of
> circumstances, possibly? St. Paul, Jesus, and Socrates, were also
> "bound over to keep the peace," I suppose you could say, but were they
> really guilty of anything?
>
> > and Jonson was convicted of murder although he
> > got off by benefit of clergy.
>
> MM:
> Hmmm? I don't know the details, but he was presumed innocent?
No, he killed an actor, Gabriel Spencer, in a duel, and was found
guilty of murder. They were arguing over a play. I used the story of
their enmity in an early novel I wrote. To understand what "benefit of
clergy" means, look here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0806992.html
Instead of being strung up, Jonson's thumb was branded.
>
> > These men were not innocent little
> > lambs, by all accounts.
>
> > Mouse
>
> MM:
> There might have been some slacking, here and there, but the feud with
> Sidney looks pretty ridiculous, IMO. It looks like it was based on
> EGO or RANK.
Oh, I'm sure they both behaved like young pups. My guess is that
Oxford was casting aspersions on Sidney's mother.
>This is highly incongruent with the authorship of the
> canon, IMO. I will admit, however, that one could become transformed
> and repent. Thanks for discussing your viewpoint.
Thank you.
Mouse
lackpurity
MM:
I'm interested in learning or teaching, as the case may be. Your
charge of "proselytising," isn't quite fair, if I may say so.
Everybody on HLAS posts, hoping that someone will harmonize with the
post. I seriously doubt if anyone is just looking for a fight.
> I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
> but yours don't seem to change at all.
MM:
No, I'm still as Stratfordian as ever. You also appear to be as
Oxfordian as ever, or HAVE YOU CHANGED? :-)
> > Ms. Mouse, you mention a "lie direct," I suppose claiming that Sidney
> > lied to Oxford, but Oxford had called him a puppy in front of others.
> > Was that a "lie direct?" It appears to be a shameful display of ego,
> > IMO.
>
> I believe Sidney was accusing Oxford of lying, which could only be
> answered by a challenge, something that was against the law.
MM:
Why couldn't Oxford just wait his turn, wait for TWO HOLY MEN? That's
the question. He showed a lot of disrespect, IMO.
Do you think Sidney should have said, "Yeah, that's the truth
Oxenford, I'm just a puppy?"
> > MM:
> > I'll post it, with my earlier comments:
>
> > LORD POLONIUS continues:
> > See you now;
> > Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth:
> > And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
> > With windlasses and with assays of bias,
> > By indirections find directions out:
> > So by my former lecture and advice,
> > Shall you my son. You have me, have you not?
>
> > MM:
> > This is a very beautiful analogy, of the relationship between the
> > Master and God. The Master is guided by God, and if he needs to
> > knows
> > something, God will tell him. I've often explained that there is a
> > "Great Power," working behind a True Master.
>
> > > I'm not saying this is strong evidence at all, MM, but I still find it
> > > interesting. I think Oxford might well have transformed and reported
> > > it in a play,
>
> > MM:
> > It could definitely be possible, but how likely would it be?
>
> As a writer, I feel it would be very likely that another writer would
> use his own experiences in his writing. I gave some of my own
> experiences and my mother's to a young girl in one of my books.
MM:
This was not just an "experience," IMO. It was a gross impropriety
towards two Holy Men.
> > > though he would probably have thought all along that he
> > > was in the right.
>
> > MM:
> > Calling Sidney a "puppy," in front of Fulke Greville and others? You
> > think he thought that was right all along?
> I think, since we all usually think we're right, that he might have
> seen Sidney as the instigator, in which case he saw himself as goaded
> into responding.
MM:
Oxford wanted to throw Sidney off the tennis court, and you say that
Sidney was the instigator? Hmmmm. :-( In front of his dear friend,
Fulke Greville, also. Just an experience?
> >Fulke practically
> > worshipped Sidney, as you must know. If he (Oxford), indeed, thought
> > he was right all along, then I question his qualifications to write
> > the canon. I think, clearly, the author of the canon was above such
> > slander. But, transformation would have been possible, if not likely.
>
> I think the writer of the canon, although brilliant and educated, had
> both good and bad in him, as most people do.
MM:
Would the writer of the canon want to write something as egregious as
that, and compare it to going to a brothel? Come on, Ms. Mouse?
> The idea of "Gentle
> Shakespeare" is given the lie by the canon itself.
MM:
I've already commented on that. "The Rape of Lucrece," doesn't mean
that the author was a rapist. Of course not. Probably HALF of the
canon is about Satan and sinning. It's definitely not all sugar-
coated. Sometimes we have to learn the hard way.
> > > But he was, after all, an iniquitous kind of guy--
> > > as, imo, was Shakespeare--whoever he was--who wrote gory plays such as
> > > Titus Andronicus.
>
> > MM:
> > Why would that mean that Shakespeare was iniquitous? He could have
> > been reporting on the sad state of the world.
>
> IMO, and it's just an opinion, Shakespeare was "inside" his
> characters, both good and evil. He had a profound understanding of
> both evil and of madness, for example.
MM:
Yes, he had that understanding. All Master do, but that doesn't mean
that they are "iniquitous."
> > > To portray Shakespeare--again, whoever he was--as a
> > > saint misses the intriguing depth and contrasting facets of his
> > > personality.
>
> > MM:
> > I don't think I'm missing any of those facets, Ms. Mouse. I just
> > think his Saintliness gave him power over all lower desires. Christ
> > said, "I can take it up (his soul) or lay it down." Similarly,
> > Marlowe and Shakespeare were perfect mystic adepts. Their mysticism
> > overruled everything else, not that nothing was there. I'm just
> > giving more attention to the positive.
>
> But whoever he was, he didn't have power over his "lower" desires.
MM:
First thing is the timeline. He might have been a struggling disciple
in the beginning. Later on, I think you would have to prove that he
didn't have power over those lower desires.
> The
> sonnets, which are filled with bawdy, attest that he was having an
> affair with a young woman, and possibly also a young man.
MM:
The timeline?
> As I posted
> earlier, he committed at least one violent act.
MM:
Is this indisputable, or a misjudgment? Anyway, there could be a
timeline on that, too. I'm not saying that a sinner can't evolve into
a Saint. I even cut Oxenford some slack, so I don't know what your
point is?
The tennis feud just doesn't make any sense to me, Ms. Mouse. Here we
have a case of blatant disrespect to TWO, not just ONE, Holy Men.
Then, to claim that he wrote about it in his own writings? Hmmmm?
> WS was bound over,
> Oxford somehow managed to kill the undercook.
MM:
Is this an attempt to equalize them? I'll leave it to the sagacity of
the readers. Did you ever here of William Shakespeare treating HOLY
PEOPLE with disrespect?
> > > In fact, even William Shakespeare of Stratford was bound
> > > over to keep the peace,
>
> > MM:
> > I don't know the details. He could have been a victim of
> > circumstances, possibly? St. Paul, Jesus, and Socrates, were also
> > "bound over to keep the peace," I suppose you could say, but were they
> > really guilty of anything?
>
> > > and Jonson was convicted of murder although he
> > > got off by benefit of clergy.
>
> > MM:
> > Hmmm? I don't know the details, but he was presumed innocent?
>
> No, he killed an actor, Gabriel Spencer, in a duel, and was found
> guilty of murder. They were arguing over a play.
MM:
A duel was called a murder? This just raises more questions, to me.
Did Jonson get a fair shake? Maybe if the clergy helped him.
Michael Martin
Paul Crowley
news:4c9c815c-ebe1-4c5f...@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
> but yours don't seem to change at all.
Please tell us about some of the areas
where your ideas have changed.
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, this will respond to lackpurity at the same time.
I am less trusting of sources, whether they be Orthodox or Oxfordian.
After having my arguments, usually based on what an "expert" in either
camp said, pulled apart on various occasions by posters such as Terry
Ross, I'd rather do my own research than rely on what these so-called
"experts" have said. Very often when I do that, I find that things
I've taken to be facts are actually built on very shaky foundations. I
am much less sure in general of ideas I used to accept without
question, for example that the parallels between Strachey and
Shakespeare were so obvious that one of them must have been influenced
by the other. After researching the problem, I know that this is not
the case.
I now prefer to hear the opinions of people who disagree with my
theories--either in public posts or in private--rather than discuss
matters in a group where most people agree with me. I learn where the
weaknesses of my theory are, though sometimes it's hard to do that,
and try to change my pov and my work accordingly. My essays, written
with Roger, have changed because of the input of people such as Tom
Reedy and Tom Veal and others whose opinion I have sought--not changed
as much as they'd like, though, I'm sure. ;)
I've learned to mistrust the opinion of anyone who insists s/he has
the "answer" to the sonnets or something similar, as there's bound to
be someone else who's also found the answer, but it's the complete
opposite. I mean, look at you and lackpurity. You're both sure you
know absolutely what Shakespeare was talking about re the sonnets. imo
you're both wrong, or at least, you're both probably wrong, although
you're both perfectly welcome to your beliefs. At least one of you has
to be wrong, in fact. There are rarely simple answers to complex
problems.
I note that both Stratfordians and non-Strat scholars have both
strengths and weaknesses. Neither theory is either completely correct
or all wrong, imo. There are shaky areas in both. Whereas before I
would have said I'm completely sure that Oxford is the Bard, now I
would tend to say that imo he's still the best candidate.
I've learned tons on the sonnets, and changed my mind on some of them,
because of Robert's excellent posts, together with the posts of Peter
F, Gary, and others.
I've learned that people can change their posting personalities, often
for the better. That was my biggest surprise.
The most interesting thing I've learned is that one can argue hard
with someone who holds the opposite point of view, not necessarily
change one's mind, maybe get one's feelings roughed up in the process,
but still be very good friends with that person, because most people
here are clever and kind-hearted, and we most of us love Shakespeare,
whoever he was, after all.
Now go to it, Paul, do your worst.
Mouse
>
> Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
>>> but yours don't seem to change at all.
>>
>> Please tell us about some of the areas
>> where your ideas have changed.
> I am less trusting of sources, whether they be Orthodox or Oxfordian.
This is a lifetime experience for all of us
who are awake (e.g. not Strats). There
is very little that has any validity in the
'received wisdom' about Elizabethan or
Jacobean theatre (or literature).
[..]
> I now prefer to hear the opinions of people who disagree with my
> theories
I really wanted to hear about your theories
-- if any exist -- rather than about your
claims for greater scepticism or improved
methodologies.
[..]
> I've learned to mistrust the opinion of anyone who insists s/he has
> the "answer" to the sonnets or something similar, as there's bound to
> be someone else who's also found the answer,
This is, as such, plain silly -- and does not
derive from experience. Of course, there are
multiple theories on most things in dispute.
That does not give you the right to say that
they are all rubbish, and that none are worth
examining.
> but it's the complete
> opposite. I mean, look at you and lackpurity.
He's been in my killfile since about his second
post to this ng. I would not look at him in any
way.
> You're both sure you
> know absolutely what Shakespeare was talking about re the sonnets. imo
> you're both wrong, or at least, you're both probably wrong
If this is an example of your 'improved thinking'
and your 'new logic', it's time you went back to
primary school.
> , although
> you're both perfectly welcome to your beliefs. At least one of you has
> to be wrong, in fact.
If there are a thousand theories on the
Sonnets (and it would not be hard to list
them -- except in terms of tedium) then at
least 999 of them have to be wrong.
> There are rarely simple answers to complex problems.
Another silly point. Often the problems
seem complex only because you are missing
a vital element or the right perspective.
The basic problems of Chemistry seemed
hopelessly complex around 1600, but
generally (and eventually) found fairly
straightforward solutions.
> I note that both Stratfordians and non-Strat scholars have both
> strengths and weaknesses. Neither theory is either completely correct
> or all wrong, imo.
How to be half-witted. You apparently
think that the illiterate Stratford man
wrote some of the plays (or might have
written some of the plays). Or perhaps
some of the poems.
> There are shaky areas in both. Whereas before I
> would have said I'm completely sure that Oxford is the Bard, now I
> would tend to say that imo he's still the best candidate.
You always were a quasi-Strat.
> I've learned tons on the sonnets
Name ONE thing.
> and changed my mind on some of them,
> because of Robert's excellent posts, together with the posts of Peter
> F, Gary, and others.
State ONE ISSUE (of some slight
significance) on which you have
changed your mind.
> The most interesting thing I've learned is that one can argue hard
> with someone who holds the opposite point of view, not necessarily
> change one's mind, maybe get one's feelings roughed up in the process,
> but still be very good friends with that person, because most people
> here are clever and kind-hearted, and we most of us love Shakespeare,
> whoever he was, after all.
Yep. Definitely a quasi-Strat. You
would not say such a thing about
a comparable situation applying to
ANY other author. You simply don't
know what the issues are. Nothing is
going on in what you regard as your
mind. At some point, you just
happened to buy an Oxfordian T-shirt.
Maybe you should think of supporting
another team.
Paul.
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c4ad93c-027f-4eba...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
> >>> but yours don't seem to change at all.
>
> >> Please tell us about some of the areas
> >> where your ideas have changed.
> > I am less trusting of sources, whether they be Orthodox or Oxfordian.
>
> This is a lifetime experience for all of us
MM:
What does "awake," mean to you? "Fantasize?" :-) Being content with
obvious evidence doesn't mean that you're asleep. Not at all. It
appears that Crowley wants to have a free reign to fantasize. That's
his prerogative. We can fantasize, or we can deal with evidence, with
facts. Whatever floats your boat.
> There
> is very little that has any validity in the
> 'received wisdom' about Elizabethan or
> Jacobean theatre (or literature).
MM:
That's your opinion.
> [..]
>
> > I now prefer to hear the opinions of people who disagree with my
> > theories
>
> I really wanted to hear about your theories
> -- if any exist -- rather than about your
> claims for greater scepticism or improved
> methodologies.
MM:
Well, we have to take her as she is. I like her new ideas.
> [..]
>
> > I've learned to mistrust the opinion of anyone who insists s/he has
> > the "answer" to the sonnets or something similar, as there's bound to
> > be someone else who's also found the answer,
>
> This is, as such, plain silly -- and does not
> derive from experience. �
MM:
I agree to some extent on this. The fact is that the world has been
groping in the dark for 400 years. We might as well deal with the
ugly truth.
> Of course, there are
> multiple theories on most things in dispute.
> That does not give you the right to say that
> they are all rubbish, and that none are worth
> examining.
MM:
I agree that we shouldn't automatically mistrust someone, just because
the world has been in darkness for 400 years.
> > but it's the complete
> > opposite. I mean, look at you and lackpurity.
>
> He's been in my killfile since about his second
> post to this ng. �I would not look at him in any
> way.
MM:
I can easily do without you, Greg Reynolds, and Tom Reedy. No
problem.
> > You're both sure you
> > know absolutely what Shakespeare was talking about re the sonnets. imo
> > you're both wrong, or at least, you're both probably wrong
MM:
Why, because you, an Oxfordian, says I'm wrong? Can you offer more
than just an allegation?
> If this is an example of your 'improved thinking'
> and your 'new logic', it's time you went back to
> primary school.
MM:
Just when I thought she was becoming more open-minded. Oh well.
> > , although
> > you're both perfectly welcome to your beliefs. At least one of you has
> > to be wrong, in fact.
>
> If there are a thousand theories on the
> Sonnets (and it would not be hard to list
> them -- except in terms of tedium) then at
> least 999 of them have to be wrong.
MM:
Yep.
> > There are rarely simple answers to complex problems.
MM:
Maybe rarely, but sometimes the truth does emerge. We shouldn't throw
out the baby with the bathwater. :-(
> Another silly point. �Often the problems
> seem complex only because you are missing
> a vital element or the right perspective.
> The basic problems of Chemistry seemed
> hopelessly complex around 1600, but
> generally (and eventually) found fairly
> straightforward solutions.
>
> > I note that both Stratfordians and non-Strat scholars have both
> > strengths and weaknesses. Neither theory is either completely correct
> > or all wrong, imo.
MM:
That is your opinion. I'd be careful about throwing the baby out with
the bathwater, however.
> How to be half-witted. �You apparently
> think that the illiterate Stratford man
> wrote some of the plays (or might have
> written some of the plays). �Or perhaps
> some of the poems.
MM:
Oh, my. Crowley, are you afraid of losing an Anti-Strat? LOL The
Strat Man was not illiterate.
> > There are shaky areas in both. Whereas before I
> > would have said I'm completely sure that Oxford is the Bard, now I
> > would tend to say that imo he's still the best candidate.
MM:
Ok, then, you're becoming like Christian Lanciai, sort of straddling
the fence. He (Oxford) sure doesn't look like the best candidate to
me, but that's your prerogative.
> You always were a quasi-Strat.
MM:
Come on Ms. Mouse. You will make a fine Strat! Just let go of Oxford
a teeny bit, and pull harder to the Strat Man. Once you get over the
hump, it's all downhill. LOL
> > I've learned tons on the sonnets
>
> Name ONE thing.
>
> > �and changed my mind on some of them,
> > because of Robert's excellent posts, together with the posts of Peter
> > F, Gary, and others.
>
> State ONE ISSUE (of some slight
> significance) on which you have
> changed your mind.
>
> > The most interesting thing I've learned is that one can argue hard
> > with someone who holds the opposite point of view, not necessarily
> > change one's mind, maybe get one's feelings roughed up in the process,
> > but still be very good friends with that person, because most people
> > here are clever and kind-hearted, and we most of us love Shakespeare,
> > whoever he was, after all.
>
> Yep. Definitely a quasi-Strat. �
MM:
Is she slipping and sliding away from Anti-Stratfordianism? LOL I
wonder if he'll read this post?
> You
> would not say such a thing about
> a comparable situation applying to
> ANY other author. �You simply don't
> know what the issues are. �Nothing is
> going on in what you regard as your
> mind. �At some point, you just
> happened to buy an Oxfordian T-shirt.
> Maybe you should think of supporting
> another team.
>
> Paul.
MM:
Oxford was a good member of the cult, eventually, after he learned not
to offend Holy Men, maybe? He didn't write the canon, but he was
okay. His writings include spiritual teachings. He did learn from
all that good company.
I'd say let her support Oxford, but be open-minded to the Strat Man.
I think that is her position, anyway, if I understand it correctly.
Michael Martin
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c4ad93c-027f-4eba...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
> >>> but yours don't seem to change at all.
>
> >> Please tell us about some of the areas
> >> where your ideas have changed.
> > I am less trusting of sources, whether they be Orthodox or Oxfordian.
>
> This is a lifetime experience for all of us
> who are awake (e.g. not Strats). There
> is very little that has any validity in the
> 'received wisdom' about Elizabethan or
> Jacobean theatre (or literature).
>
> [..]
>
> > I now prefer to hear the opinions of people who disagree with my
> > theories
>
> I really wanted to hear about your theories
> -- if any exist -- rather than about your
> claims for greater scepticism or improved
> methodologies.
> [..]
Why don't you shell out for the journals as they come out and read
them? Or visit a library. You do know what a library is, Paul, don't
you?
>
> > I've learned to mistrust the opinion of anyone who insists s/he has
> > the "answer" to the sonnets or something similar, as there's bound to
> > be someone else who's also found the answer,
>
> This is, as such, plain silly -- and does not
> derive from experience. Of course, there are
> multiple theories on most things in dispute.
> That does not give you the right to say that
> they are all rubbish, and that none are worth
> examining.
I haven't said that.
>
> > but it's the complete
> > opposite. I mean, look at you and lackpurity.
>
> He's been in my killfile since about his second
> post to this ng. I would not look at him in any
> way.
>
> > You're both sure you
> > know absolutely what Shakespeare was talking about re the sonnets. imo
> > you're both wrong, or at least, you're both probably wrong
>
> If this is an example of your 'improved thinking'
> and your 'new logic', it's time you went back to
> primary school.
As long as I'm in a higher grade than you. ;)
>
> > , although
> > you're both perfectly welcome to your beliefs. At least one of you has
> > to be wrong, in fact.
>
> If there are a thousand theories on the
> Sonnets (and it would not be hard to list
> them -- except in terms of tedium) then at
> least 999 of them have to be wrong.
So yours could be one of the wrong ones?
>
> > There are rarely simple answers to complex problems.
>
> Another silly point. Often the problems
> seem complex only because you are missing
> a vital element or the right perspective.
> The basic problems of Chemistry seemed
> hopelessly complex around 1600, but
> generally (and eventually) found fairly
> straightforward solutions.
>
> > I note that both Stratfordians and non-Strat scholars have both
> > strengths and weaknesses. Neither theory is either completely correct
> > or all wrong, imo.
>
> How to be half-witted. You apparently
> think that the illiterate Stratford man
> wrote some of the plays (or might have
> written some of the plays). Or perhaps
> some of the poems.
I do? Where did I say that?
>
> > There are shaky areas in both. Whereas before I
> > would have said I'm completely sure that Oxford is the Bard, now I
> > would tend to say that imo he's still the best candidate.
>
> You always were a quasi-Strat.
>
> > I've learned tons on the sonnets
>
> Name ONE thing.
I talked about them as we went.
>
> > and changed my mind on some of them,
> > because of Robert's excellent posts, together with the posts of Peter
> > F, Gary, and others.
>
> State ONE ISSUE (of some slight
> significance) on which you have
> changed your mind.
>
> > The most interesting thing I've learned is that one can argue hard
> > with someone who holds the opposite point of view, not necessarily
> > change one's mind, maybe get one's feelings roughed up in the process,
> > but still be very good friends with that person, because most people
> > here are clever and kind-hearted, and we most of us love Shakespeare,
> > whoever he was, after all.
>
> Yep. Definitely a quasi-Strat. You
> would not say such a thing about
> a comparable situation applying to
> ANY other author. You simply don't
> know what the issues are. Nothing is
> going on in what you regard as your
> mind. At some point, you just
> happened to buy an Oxfordian T-shirt.
> Maybe you should think of supporting
> another team.
Funny, that's what most Oxfordians say about you.
Mouse
>
> Paul.
Roundtable
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Well, isn't that stretching it a bit, it could be any old falling out
at
any old tennis game anytime between any people.
Just because we, 400 years later, know about this
special "falling out", doesn't mean it was the only one.
RT
lackpurity
MM:
Sure, but we're discussing the authorship of the canon, and the
character of the author, the character of the friends of the author,
etc., etc.. Why was this falling-out compared to going to a brothel?
So many questions, Roundtable.
Michael Martin
Paul Crowley
>>>>> I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
>>>>> but yours don't seem to change at all.
>>
>>>> Please tell us about some of the areas
>>>> where your ideas have changed.
> Why don't you shell out for the journals as they come out and read
> them? Or visit a library. You do know what a library is, Paul, don't
> you?
The classic arm-wave. The answer is
somewhere in some books. Oh Yeah.
You have not changed ANY of your ideas.
Although it would be more accurate to say
that since you have never had anything
that could be regarded as an idea, change
was never a possibility.
>>> I've learned to mistrust the opinion of anyone who insists s/he has
>>> the "answer" to the sonnets or something similar, as there's bound to
>>> be someone else who's also found the answer,
>>
>> This is, as such, plain silly -- and does not
>> derive from experience. Of course, there are
>> multiple theories on most things in dispute.
>> That does not give you the right to say that
>> they are all rubbish, and that none are worth
>> examining.
>
> I haven't said that.
You said nothing that made much sense
-- as usual. Others have to try to fill in
the gaps. But note how you don't deny
my reading.
>>> You're both sure you
>>> know absolutely what Shakespeare was talking about re the sonnets. imo
>>> you're both wrong, or at least, you're both probably wrong
>>
>> If this is an example of your 'improved thinking'
>> and your 'new logic', it's time you went back to
>> primary school.
>
> As long as I'm in a higher grade than you. ;)
You should be ashamed of yourself,
coming out with 'logic' of that nature.
>> If there are a thousand theories on the
>> Sonnets (and it would not be hard to list
>> them -- except in terms of tedium) then at
>> least 999 of them have to be wrong.
>
> So yours could be one of the wrong ones?
Duh. Galileo was one of thousands with
theories about cosmology. So he could
have been wrong. You'd have dismissed
him _on_those_grounds_ alone_. You'd
dismiss ALL ideas other than those backed
by the current generation of ghastly
academics, since that would save you the
trouble of thought -- almost your sole
criterion. Presumably you became an
Oxfordian on account of some Prince
Tudor type notion.
>>> I note that both Stratfordians and non-Strat scholars have both
>>> strengths and weaknesses. Neither theory is either completely correct
>>> or all wrong, imo.
>>
>> How to be half-witted. You apparently
>> think that the illiterate Stratford man
>> wrote some of the plays (or might have
>> written some of the plays). Or perhaps
>> some of the poems.
>
> I do? Where did I say that?
Same problem as above. What ARE you
saying? You don't know, so we have
to guess. Note again how you don't
deny my reading.
IF Strat scholars have strengths (as you
assert) their thinking must be based on
some reality. What reality is that?
>>> There are shaky areas in both. Whereas before I
>>> would have said I'm completely sure that Oxford is the Bard, now I
>>> would tend to say that imo he's still the best candidate.
>>
>> You always were a quasi-Strat.
>>
>>> I've learned tons on the sonnets
>>
>> Name ONE thing.
>
> I talked about them as we went.
Another arm-wave. You have not
learned ONE thing about the Sonnets.
>>> and changed my mind on some of them,
>>> because of Robert's excellent posts, together with the posts of Peter
>>> F, Gary, and others.
>>
>> State ONE ISSUE (of some slight
>> significance) on which you have
>> changed your mind.
No answer -- of course. You've
changed your mind on nothing.
>>> The most interesting thing I've learned is that one can argue hard
>>> with someone who holds the opposite point of view, not necessarily
>>> change one's mind, maybe get one's feelings roughed up in the process,
>>> but still be very good friends with that person, because most people
>>> here are clever and kind-hearted, and we most of us love Shakespeare,
>>> whoever he was, after all.
>>
>> Yep. Definitely a quasi-Strat. You
>> would not say such a thing about
>> a comparable situation applying to
>> ANY other author.
No substantive response -- of course.
To pretend that we can "love Shake-
speare" in any sensible manner, while
not knowing who he was, is an
abomination. You would not say that
of any other great or good artist.
>> You simply don't
>> know what the issues are. Nothing is
>> going on in what you regard as your
>> mind. At some point, you just
>> happened to buy an Oxfordian T-shirt.
>> Maybe you should think of supporting
>> another team.
>
> Funny, that's what most Oxfordians say about you.
Since most are either ghastly Prince
Tudor theorists OR vague quasi-Strats
of your ilk, OR both (as you?) that's to
be expected.
Paul.
John Andrews
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dear Mouse
Crowley provides a study in disingenuous argument. He has a monotonous
bag of tricks - rhetorical flummery - which he juggles with. Reversal
is one - accusing you of not having any ideas (which you clearly have,
although I disagree with them) whilst parading his alternately funny
and bizarre ideas on the sonnets. He dismisses the views of anyone who
has made proper study of history or literature - granting himself the
position of "expert" and also obviating the need to deal with the
evidence they present which makes a nonsense of his case. Take one
example - the fashion for sonnets began with Warton's sonnets
published in 1582 and reached its height in the mid 1590's. Pretty
unexceptional literary history, one would have thought. It doesn't fit
with Paul's view (can we call it a "view"?) that the sonnets refer to
events in the 1560-1580 period, so Paul invents a much earlier date
for the fashion of sonneteering. Easy. He doesn't need to prove
anything (all the manuscripts were kept private of course) and he can
dismiss any contrary evidence as Stratfordian nonsense. To argue in
this way is child's play - and childish too.
He is fond of citing Galileo (he sees himself as a kind of Renaissance
visionary who has heroically debunked the whole sordid and corrupt
Stratfordian conspiracy - to compare himself with Galileo is probably
enough to see him safely into care if anyone took him seriously) and
his struggle to have his heliocentric model accepted. The salient
point is that Galileo was right and his ideas were accepted - more
quickly in some parts than others, granted. We can rest assured that
Crowley's "ideas", his "intepretations" of the sonnets, for example,
will lie unnoticed long after Western Civilization has sunk into
obscurity. And how right that is.
To argue with Crowley is quite literally a waste of time. He's never
offered an insight into Shakespeare's works that isn't laughable. He
brings a threadbare knowledge of the period to the table and is
incapable of educating himself by reading. He's also abusive in a
wearisome way. All that said, I think Oxfordianism gets the adherents
it deserves. If you found a belief on an absence of evidence and, in
fact, one that flies in the face of evidence you have, you can only
expect nutters like Crowley to join the bandwagon.
(There's no reason why you should have, but you never responded to my
post outlining how easy and indeed likely it was for Shakespeare to
have had access to the damned Strachey account in the autumn of 1610 -
when Leonard Digges visited Thomas Russell at his house in Aldington
near Stratford. We know of Shakespeare's links to both men - close
links - and we know that Shakespeare was in Stratford at this time
from a London legal document. Was Stratford so full of events that
autumn that Shakespeare wouldn't have found time to talk with Digges
and look at the letter he had brought to show his stepfather? I know
it's inconvenient for your theory, but you could at least try to show
why it is unlikely to have occurred.)
Best wishes
John
Ms. Mouse
Hi John,
I thought I answered that post, sorry.
I think it is within the bounds of possibility that Digges took the ms
up to Stratford, but unlikely because the chain of custody is so
complex and precarious.
Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610. This theory is
weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
many fewer sources.
2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
there's no evidence to show that it did. There is evidence
controverting it, including
a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.
3. You have the further problem of how the ms got to Digges.
4. If the ms got to Digges, there are manifold problems with his
taking it up to Stratford. According to most Stratfordians, it was a
"secret" document, because it was often negative. You're suggesting
that Digges showed it to his stepfather?
5. It was addressed to the lady. You're saying that Digges took a
document addressed to someone else up to show his stepfather?
6. Clearly Digges could not have taken the original, as it didn't
belong to him. He would have had to copy out over 23,000 words to show
in Stratford. You think he had the time and inclination to do that?
7. You then have to explain how that secret document got to
Shakespeare. If all the other ducks were in a row, you could do this,
but they're not. There are already so many speculations, so many
maybes and perhapses, that the theory is sinking under the weight of
them.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Very soon our article will be out in the Shakespeare Yearbook
suggesting that from the sheer weight of the evidence, Tempest was a
Shrovetide and not a Hallowmas play. This would narrow Shakespeare's
opportunity to write it. The ship got in sometime in September.
According to you, Shakespeare was in Stratford and it couldn't have
reached him until November. He would have had to read it, write the
play, go to London, a journey of several days, have it copied, have it
rehearsed, have the set made for a Whitehall production, and get it on
the stage by February. No matter what others here say, I can't see
that happening.
Shortly after our Shrovetide article comes our dating article, which
dates the play to no later than 1603 and possibly earlier than that.
I'm not interested in discussing stylistic arguments at the moment,
because I think our evidence trumps it. I will be more than willing to
discuss them after our article is published. But suffice it to say we
have at least four texts that appear to be alluding to Tempest.
There's another very big problem. Shakespeare had used most of the
themes and plot elements before. Strachey had not. Shakespeare was
famous, Strachey was not. Strachey had written only a couple of poems
before True Reportory. At least one scholar has said one of them was
influenced by King Lear. Interestingly, we know that Strachey was
involved in Blackfriars as a sharer by at least 1605, before which we
believe Tempest was written. Strachey is known to have copied other
sources. He might well have copied from Tempest, though we don't make
a point of it.
This also brings up another point. Any parallels between Strachey and
Shakespeare were in much earlier and more famous works, all of them
available to Shakespeare by the 1590's, 1603 if one insists on his
using the English translation of Montaigne. He didn't need Strachey at
all to write Tempest. In fact looking at two or three these earlier
texts shows that Shakespeare almost certainly went to them rather than
Strachey, as they are much richer sources which are much closer to
Tempest.
Taking everything that I've said into consideration (and much more, as
we've done six articles with more to follow), your theory seems highly
unlikely to us.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> Best wishes
>
> John- Hide quoted text -
Greg Reynolds
Elizabeth, or Anyone, What do you think of this?
> Michael Martin
Whoever titled this thread sounds like he's being toilet trained and
wants praise from his nanny.
Paul Crowley
news:4a924499-ec38-4b49...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Crowley provides a study in disingenuous argument. He has a monotonous
> bag of tricks - rhetorical flummery - which he juggles with.
Andrews has one main trick -- ignore the
words of the person you are trying to
criticise. You can then distort freely, and
invent all manner of nonsense.
> Reversal is one
Reversal of what?
> - accusing you of not having any ideas (which you clearly have,
> although I disagree with them)
Lynne CLAIMED that she had changed her
ideas (in particular on the Sonnets) but was
unable to mention a single one.
> whilst parading his alternately funny
> and bizarre ideas on the sonnets. He dismisses the views of anyone who
> has made proper study of history or literature - granting himself the
> position of "expert" and also obviating the need to deal with the
> evidence they present which makes a nonsense of his case. Take one
> example - the fashion for sonnets began with Warton's sonnets
> published in 1582
What is the basis for this assertion?
Andrews's own authority?
> and reached its height in the mid 1590's. Pretty
> unexceptional literary history, one would have thought.
Stratfordian 'literary history' -- how sonnets
became popular among the masses -- the
common people, of whom the Stratman
was one. (Yep, that what Strats believe --
sonnets for the masses.)
> It doesn't fit
> with Paul's view (can we call it a "view"?) that the sonnets refer to
> events in the 1560-1580 period, so Paul invents a much earlier date
> for the fashion of sonneteering. Easy. He doesn't need to prove
> anything (all the manuscripts were kept private of course) and he can
> dismiss any contrary evidence as Stratfordian nonsense. To argue in
> this way is child's play - and childish too.
There are _hundreds_ of references to
sonnets before 1570 (let alone 1582). Of
course, that was (pretty much) only among
the aristocracy, so they would not count to
an ignorant Strat. Many (if not most)
aristocrats wrote poetry (often sonnets)
especially when young. Those of Mary
QS and her husband, Lord Darnley (killed
in 1567), are among the most famous.
<rest of drivel snipped>
Paul.
Ms. Mouse
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "John Andrews" <johnanti-s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4a924499-ec38-4b49...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Crowley provides a study in disingenuous argument. He has a monotonous
> > bag of tricks - rhetorical flummery - which he juggles with.
>
> Andrews has one main trick -- ignore the
> words of the person you are trying to
> criticise. You can then distort freely, and
> invent all manner of nonsense.
>
> > Reversal is one
>
> Reversal of what?
>
> > - accusing you of not having any ideas (which you clearly have,
> > although I disagree with them)
>
> Lynne CLAIMED that she had changed her
> ideas (in particular on the Sonnets) but was
> unable to mention a single one.
No, I was unwilling to, as I noted anything that I thought was novel
to me as we went through them, and I haven't the energy to go through
all over again right now, especially as it goes in one of your ears
and out the other without being processed in the middle.
L.
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> I think it is within the bounds of possibility that Digges took the ms
> up to Stratford, but unlikely because the chain of custody is so
> complex and precarious.
>
> Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
> Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
>
> 1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
> by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610.
There is in fact no evidence that it wasn't finished by that time and
much evidence that it was, including the date of the letter, the
obvious ending of the letter, and the fact that parts of it are quoted
and summarized by the Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A
True Declaration of the estate of the Colony in Virginia*, parts that
are found in no other accounts.
> This theory is
> weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
> to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
> many fewer sources.
The existance of one does not obviate the existance of the other, nor
does one suggest the chronology of the other except in the minds of
people who are accustomed to making leaps in logic.
> 2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
> there's no evidence to show that it did.
There is in fact much evidence that it did get to the company,
including the fact that parts of it are quoted and summarized by the
Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A True Declaration of the
estate of the Colony in Virginia*, and the fact that it was found in
the effects of Richard Hakulyt, a leading director of the company,
after he died.
> There is evidence
> controverting it, including
> a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
> b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
> very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.
The MS of which you speak Strachey refers to as the "full story" of
his experiences in Bermuda and Virginia. Since the letter ends just
before the ships sailed in mid-July, he could hardly have been
referring to the letter. In fact, most historians believe he was
referring to *The History of Travel in Virginia Brittania*, an
unfinished work which his biographers think he probably began in
Virginia.
But of course you know all this already.
TR
John Andrews
> > (There's no reason why you should have, but you never responded to m
>
> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
> I thought I answered that post, sorry.
>
> I think it is within the bounds of possibility that Digges took the ms
> up to Stratford, but unlikely because the chain of custody is so
> complex and precarious.
Do we know enough about the "chain of custody" to declare it to be
"complex and precarious"? I agree that it is certainly within the
bounds of possibility that Digges took a manuscript with him.
>
> Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
> Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
>
> 1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
> by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610.
We have the date on the letter - 15th July. Doubtless you have reasons
to discard this date, but it is at least "a little evidence" and not
incompatible with being a report of an event on the 24th June.
This theory is
> weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
> to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
> many fewer sources.
Why is it imporbable that Strachey wrote varying versions of the
letter for various audiences? No doubt he polished a "final" version
once he came within reach of a library. An earlier version neither
strengthens nor weakens the theory.
>
> 2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
> there's no evidence to show that it did. There is evidence
> controverting it, including
> a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
This isn't incontrovertible evidence. The "Lady" may either be a
literary device or Strachey's attempt at achieving some kind of
patronage, or the addressee of the version of the letter that was
later published. It's mysterious but can't be used as evidence one way
or the other.
> b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
> very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.
Again, this isn't incontrovertible evidence of anything - why
shouldn't he refer to an ms. in the process of being written if the ms
was being written?
>
> 3. You have the further problem of how the ms got to Digges.
Digges and his brother were members of the consortium who paid for the
failed expedition. It would have been incumbent on Strachey to
communicate to them what had happened. If a long account was written
of the storm, Digges and the other consortium members would have been
first in the queue to see it.
>
> 4. If the ms got to Digges, there are manifold problems with his
> taking it up to Stratford. According to most Stratfordians, it was a
> "secret" document, because it was often negative.
Why accord "Stratfordians" such deference here where you wouldn't
anywhere else? What evidence is there that it was ever intended as a
"secret"? It was a literary performance - a secret account would
surely have stuck to the facts alone. If was secret how did it fall
later into hands of those who published it? If it was secret why is it
addressed to a "Lady" (assuming this was a real addressee) who wasn't
part of the consortium? The evidence that it was a secret document
looks very weak to me.
You're suggesting
> that Digges showed it to his stepfather?
Why would he not? He'd lost money in the venture, the least he could
retrieve would be the sharing of the excitement of the account of the
storm and wreck.
> 5. It was addressed to the lady. You're saying that Digges took a
> document addressed to someone else up to show his stepfather?
We don't know the status of the addressee - it is easily conceivable
that this was an embellishment of a version of the letter. We can't be
certain that what was eventually published was word-for-word what
Strachey handed around the consortium. You've already identified
different versions yourself.
>
> 6. Clearly Digges could not have taken the original, as it didn't
> belong to him. He would have had to copy out over 23,000 words to show
> in Stratford. You think he had the time and inclination to do that?
You know as well as I do that copying was a thriving industry at this
date and it would have been relatively cheap and easy to have even
long documents copied. The inclination may have come from having to
account for the failure of the venture to those who paid for it.
>
> 7. You then have to explain how that secret document got to
> Shakespeare.
I haven't been persuaded that it was "secret" - internal evidence
suggests it wasn't ever intended to be secret - it was a literary
performance. The Digges-Russell-Shakespeare-Stratford part of the
issue is there in the historical record with every reason to suppose
that this very newsworthy account would provide a key forcus for a
stay at Russells Aldington house.
If all the other ducks were in a row, you could do this,
> but they're not. There are already so many speculations, so many
> maybes and perhapses, that the theory is sinking under the weight of
> them.
You'll agree that the maybes and perhapses lie on both sides. You are
too ready to accept the assumptions that accord with your theory and
too willing to reject those that don't. It proves (not that proof was
needed :)) that you are human.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
>
> Very soon our article will be out in the Shakespeare Yearbook
> suggesting that from the sheer weight of the evidence,
"sheer weight" worries me - what about the quality? We'll see.
Tempest was a
> Shrovetide and not a Hallowmas play. This would narrow Shakespeare's
> opportunity to write it.
If you can narrow it to less than a fortnight, you'll have me worried.
Shakespeare's whole career was a training in rapid composition - re-
using plots and scenarios, bulking out your scenes with borrowings -
he could have written a play like the Tempest in a very short space of
time. We have Jonson's comments on the quickness of Shakespeare's
writing and evidence from other playwrights of what would seem to us
very quick composition.
The ship got in sometime in September.
> According to you, Shakespeare was in Stratford and it couldn't have
> reached him until November. He would have had to read it, write the
> play, go to London, a journey of several days, have it copied, have it
> rehearsed, have the set made for a Whitehall production, and get it on
> the stage by February. No matter what others here say, I can't see
> that happening.
But that says more about what you want to believe than what would have
been the facts. We know how adaptable and quick these playwrights were
- able to perform at very short notice and compose plays on topical
stories with very quick turnarounds. You know the theatrical evidence
for this as well as I do - why assume it was so difficult in this
case?
>
> Shortly after our Shrovetide article comes our dating article, which
> dates the play to no later than 1603 and possibly earlier than that.
> I'm not interested in discussing stylistic arguments at the moment,
> because I think our evidence trumps it.
That's a surprise : )
I will be more than willing to
> discuss them after our article is published. But suffice it to say we
> have at least four texts that appear to be alluding to Tempest.
You've already done sterling work on establishing the commonality of
literary references. Establishing beyond doubt that the Tempest was a
sole or necessary source for anything is made well nigh impossible as
your own research shows.
>
> There's another very big problem. Shakespeare had used most of the
> themes and plot elements before.
Which makes a rapid writing of the play even more plausible.
Strachey had not. Shakespeare was
> famous, Strachey was not. Strachey had written only a couple of poems
> before True Reportory. At least one scholar has said one of them was
> influenced by King Lear. Interestingly, we know that Strachey was
> involved in Blackfriars as a sharer by at least 1605, before which we
> believe Tempest was written. Strachey is known to have copied other
> sources. He might well have copied from Tempest, though we don't make
> a point of it.
Are you trying to suggest that Strachey couldn't have written his
letter without first reading the Tempest?? Your own research will have
shown you how well nigh impossible it would be to establish a sequence
of influence.
>
> This also brings up another point. Any parallels between Strachey and
> Shakespeare were in much earlier and more famous works, all of them
> available to Shakespeare by the 1590's, 1603 if one insists on his
> using the English translation of Montaigne. He didn't need Strachey at
> all to write Tempest. In fact looking at two or three these earlier
> texts shows that Shakespeare almost certainly went to them rather than
> Strachey, as they are much richer sources which are much closer to
> Tempest.
You know that I don't agree with you here. You've amassed a huge
number of references and proved that both Shakespeare and Strachey
shared a centuries-old kitty of storm and wreck imagery. What I
haven't seen are references which taken together are closer to the
Tempest than Strachey. I know you disagree, but there we have it -
we'll have to agree to disagree. It is a matter of judgement rather
than "fact" and I find Strachey closer in overall feel to Shakespeare,
alongside some close verbal parallels. If it weren't for your
(invented, I think) obstacles to Digges' bringing the ms. to Aldington
even you would have to concede that there are some close parallels.
>
> Taking everything that I've said into consideration (and much more, as
> we've done six articles with more to follow), your theory seems highly
> unlikely to us.
And ditto - but I will wait to read the articles.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
John Andrews
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "John Andrews" <johnanti-s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
Ms. Mouse
> On Feb 15, 11:40 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think it is within the bounds of possibility that Digges took the ms
> > up to Stratford, but unlikely because the chain of custody is so
> > complex and precarious.
>
> > Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
> > Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
>
> > 1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
> > by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610.
Hi Tom,
I was expecting you to jump in right away. I'm afraid all my research
and the essays are on my old laptop, and my son has it for the moment,
but I'll have a go at answering you from memory.
>
> There is in fact no evidence that it wasn't finished by that time
Untrue. There may not be absolute proof (except with regard to the end
material from TD), but there's plenty of evidence.
>and
> much evidence that it was, including the date of the letter,
Strachey did not date the letter, as far as we know. Probably Purchas
did from an interior date in TR. In any case, the dating makes no
nevermind, as plenty of books, especially books that contain fictional
material, are dated not when they are actually written, but when their
authors or editors would like us to think they were written. As you
know, the Strachey letter appears to contain fictional material taken
from other writers. And in fact my new novel begins with a letter
dated November 1st 1611. I'm sure you'll agree that I didn't write it
then. In addition, there's extra material in True Reportory after the
date, including published material from True Declaration. As far as I
know, there is no way you can prove that this document went back in
July 1610. I urge you to look at the work of Ferdinand Columbus, whose
narratives about his father had to be written many years after he
suggested they were written as he has inserted himself into the story
although he was a small child when the events actually happened.
If you have proof that the letter went back in 1610 on one of Gates'
boats, since you are following the traditional theory and should have
proof, present it now. I remind you that TR was not published until
1625 in Purchas, and that is our first glimpse of it, together with
Purchas' note that he got it from Hakluyt's papers in around 1615. I
also have some other evidence, connected to the word "sent," and your
statement ages ago that sent didn't necessarily mean dispatched, which
I'll present to counter your theory, but I don't have it about me
right this second. I can probably dig it up in the next few days, but
I won't bother unless you present some proof.
> the
> obvious ending of the letter, and the fact that parts of it are quoted
> and summarized by the Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A
> True Declaration of the estate of the Colony in Virginia*, parts that
> are found in no other accounts.
First of all, you can't prove there weren't other written accounts,
since we're talking about 400 years ago Second, we have to believe
from True Declaration itself that Gates presented a report either oral
or written or both, and that De La Warre sent at least one other
letter/dispatch. We don't have those and so cannot be certain what
they said, though there are clues to what Gates said. Third, there is
material in TD that is not in Strachey or any other source that we
know of, therefore either TD used other sources or wrote some original
material. And fourth, even if there are parallels, you cannot tell
with any certainty the direction of influence. My feeling is that most
likely TD used what we believe was the first letter, and then Strachey
used TD as one of his many sources to write TR. Roger agrees. We do
have some evidence for this, particularly for the long excerpt that's
around page 83 in the Wright, where the TR passage is interspersed and
wrapped around with material similar to that in Eden, whereas TD shows
no trace of it, showing that it was likely written before the longer
Strachey passage. This is, by the way, Strachey's MO--to take the
material of someone and conflate it with something else, and I believe
I can show that too.
>
> > This theory is
> > weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
> > to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
> > many fewer sources.
>
> The existance of one does not obviate the existance of the other, nor
> does one suggest the chronology of the other except in the minds of
> people who are accustomed to making leaps in logic.
But you have suggested yourself that the first letter was earlier in
an email you sent me. It's pretty obvious it's earlier. It is much
shorter, it is missing many of the later incidents, it is missing many
of the verbal parallels to Tempest, and the language is much more
workmanlike, much less flowery. The pov is also different, and iirc
you yourself have suggested, following the writer of the paper on it,
that this is because Strachey did not yet know he was to be secretary
of the colony, and so he didn't tend to place himself in the middle of
things in the earlier document.
>
> > 2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
> > there's no evidence to show that it did.
>
> There is in fact much evidence that it did get to the company,
> including the fact that parts of it are quoted and summarized by the
> Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A True Declaration of the
> estate of the Colony in Virginia*, and the fact that it was found in
> the effects of Richard Hakulyt, a leading director of the company,
> after he died.
1. Richard Hakluyt bought material from all over as you well know. I
believe it is impossible to prove that he got it from the company, but
you have another problem, at least with regard to Tempest. If this was
"secret" material, which wasn't published by the company because it
was so damning, why would it be given to either Hakluyt or Shakespeare
by the company? One or both of them could be trusted to use it.
2. You absolutely cannot prove that TD copied from TR rather than the
other way around. It is rather more likely that the bits in TR that
resemble TD but are not in the "earlier" ms were put there later,
either by Strachey or Purchas, when the end material was added. When I
get the other computer back, I can easily demonstrate this with the
excerpt I'm talking about.
>
> > There is evidence
> > controverting it, including
> > a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
> > b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
> > very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.
>
> The MS of which you speak Strachey refers to as the "full story" of
> his experiences in Bermuda and Virginia. Since the letter ends just
> before the ships sailed in mid-July, he could hardly have been
> referring to the letter. In fact, most historians believe he was
> referring to *The History of Travel in Virginia Brittania*, an
> unfinished work which his biographers think he probably began in
> Virginia.
You do have a minor point here, but
1. Strachey had a habit of stopping things before they were finished.
In this case he might well have finished TR at a certain point after
he'd told the company it was the "full story," just as he'd finished
the "earlier" ms at an earlier point in the narrative, well before it
could have gone back on the boat. Also, look at HoT, which stopped
rather abruptly before it was done.
2. HoT doesn't so much as whisper about Bermuda. Of course, we could
put this down to his usual non- completion of projects, but it's still
interesting that it's not even mentioned in the front material iirc.
You're welcome to show some evidence that he did, if you have it. But
even the title--which was in this case written by Strachey--doesn't
mention Bermuda.
>
> But of course you know all this already.
I know a lot more too, Tom, as you very well know, such as the fact
that all the "parallels" were available to Shakespeare long before
Strachey happened along, and in fact he had to use Eden and either
Erasmus or Ariosto, as in addition to satisfying the so-called
"Strachey parallels" they both contain material that is not in any of
the Bermuda narratives
Mouse
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
"Within the bounds of possibility" is a long way from saying it's
either definite or probable that he did. I've listed some of the
problems with your theory, and I'd add it's within the bounds of
possibility that I'll get a grant of $12000 on Monday, but I have to
admit it's highly unlikely; however, you are the first that I know of,
other than me speculating, to show that Shakespeare was in Stratford
at the time, and I'm grateful for that. It makes the possibility of
Shakespeare getting it even less likely.
>
>
>
> > Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
> > Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
>
> > 1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
> > by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610.
>
> We have the date on the letter - 15th July. Doubtless you have reasons
> to discard this date, but it is at least "a little evidence" and not
> incompatible with being a report of an event on the 24th June.
I've responded to Tom on this. One of the problems is that the people
on the boat have already been "sent" into England, according to
Strachey, but the letter is still in the author's hands.
>
> This theory is
>
> > weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
> > to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
> > many fewer sources.
>
> Why is it imporbable that Strachey wrote varying versions of the
> letter for various audiences? No doubt he polished a "final" version
> once he came within reach of a library.
But isn't that what I've been saying all along, John? He polished the
final version, including a myriad of sources, when he had access to a
"library," the same library he used for History of Travel for the most
part. It's even in our first essay. Are you suggesting that this
library was in Virginia?
>An earlier version neither
> strengthens nor weakens the theory.
Well, I think it does, especially because in our first paper Roger and
I posited the possibility of an earlier letter, without knowing of its
existence. It made the most sense. I also think that it would have
been a hard road for Strachey to write TR, which (from memory) has
about 20 thousand more words than the earlier letter, in the four or
five weeks before Gates left. Impossible? No. Unlikely, in the middle
of a ruined wilderness? IMO, yes.
>
>
>
> > 2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
> > there's no evidence to show that it did. There is evidence
> > controverting it, including
> > a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
>
> This isn't incontrovertible evidence. The "Lady" may either be a
> literary device or Strachey's attempt at achieving some kind of
> patronage, or the addressee of the version of the letter that was
> later published. It's mysterious but can't be used as evidence one way
> or the other.
Yes, we have suggested both that the lady might have been a literary
device or Strachey's attempt at patronage. But why would he use the
literary device of writing to a lady if the material was going to the
company? It doesn't make much sense to me.
>
> > b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
> > very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.
>
> Again, this isn't incontrovertible evidence of anything - why
> shouldn't he refer to an ms. in the process of being written if the ms
> was being written?
Because that was in 1612, not 1610. For other reasons, see what I've
replied to Tom.
>
>
>
> > 3. You have the further problem of how the ms got to Digges.
>
> Digges and his brother were members of the consortium who paid for the
> failed expedition. It would have been incumbent on Strachey to
> communicate to them what had happened. If a long account was written
> of the storm, Digges and the other consortium members would have been
> first in the queue to see it.
Yes, I'd agree that that might well be the case, but if the document
was so dangerous, why would one of them be copying it and carrying it
up to Stratford for Shakespeare to write a play about? If it wasn't
dangerous, why wasn't the company publishing it?
>
>
>
> > 4. If the ms got to Digges, there are manifold problems with his
> > taking it up to Stratford. According to most Stratfordians, it was a
> > "secret" document, because it was often negative.
>
> Why accord "Stratfordians" such deference here where you wouldn't
> anywhere else? What evidence is there that it was ever intended as a
> "secret"? It was a literary performance - a secret account would
> surely have stuck to the facts alone. If was secret how did it fall
> later into hands of those who published it? If it was secret why is it
> addressed to a "Lady" (assuming this was a real addressee) who wasn't
> part of the consortium? The evidence that it was a secret document
> looks very weak to me.
But the problem is that most orthodox scholars believe it wasn't
published because it had to be kept secret, as it was so negative.
Otherwise, why would the company not have published it, or allowed it
to be published right away, along with TD and Jourdain?
>
> You're suggesting
>
> > that Digges showed it to his stepfather?
>
> Why would he not? He'd lost money in the venture, the least he could
> retrieve would be the sharing of the excitement of the account of the
> storm and wreck.
See above.
>
> > 5. It was addressed to the lady. You're saying that Digges took a
> > document addressed to someone else up to show his stepfather?
>
> We don't know the status of the addressee - it is easily conceivable
> that this was an embellishment of a version of the letter.
Aha, yes. I think it likely was. The problem with that is you're
saying material could have been added afterwards to embellish the
document, so you really can't say what, if anything of the
"parallels," arrived in Shakespeare's hands.
>We can't be
> certain that what was eventually published was word-for-word what
> Strachey handed around the consortium. You've already identified
> different versions yourself.
But John, this is the basis of our theory. You're simply agreeing with
it. The whole point for the Strachey theory is that TR had to go back
basically in its published form for us to know whether the material in
it parallels with Tempest. The earlier letter doesn't. It's missing
many, many of the verbal parallels. If TR didn't go back in its
published form, what did it go back as? The earlier document? Another
ms? Or perhaps it didn't go back at all?
>
>
>
> > 6. Clearly Digges could not have taken the original, as it didn't
> > belong to him. He would have had to copy out over 23,000 words to show
> > in Stratford. You think he had the time and inclination to do that?
>
> You know as well as I do that copying was a thriving industry at this
> date and it would have been relatively cheap and easy to have even
> long documents copied. The inclination may have come from having to
> account for the failure of the venture to those who paid for it.
I'm sorry, but that beggars the imagination. The document couldn't be
published because it was too dangerous to the Virginia effort, but it
could be copied ad infinitum, by any old scrivener, when anyone in
the company had the urge to do so, and passed around to any playwright
or whoever so that he could use it in a play? As you say it wasn't
secret, though, you have another problem. Why wasn't it published? Why
was it never mentioned by anyone as far as we know? It seems as if
the demand to know about Bermuda and Virginia was insatiable.
>
>
>
> > 7. You then have to explain how that secret document got to
> > Shakespeare.
>
> I haven't been persuaded that it was "secret" - internal evidence
> suggests it wasn't ever intended to be secret - it was a literary
> performance. The Digges-Russell-Shakespeare-Stratford part of the
> issue is there in the historical record with every reason to suppose
> that this very newsworthy account would provide a key forcus for a
> stay at Russells Aldington house.
>
> If all the other ducks were in a row, you could do this,
>
> > but they're not. There are already so many speculations, so many
> > maybes and perhapses, that the theory is sinking under the weight of
> > them.
>
> You'll agree that the maybes and perhapses lie on both sides. You are
> too ready to accept the assumptions that accord with your theory and
> too willing to reject those that don't. It proves (not that proof was
> needed :)) that you are human.
Oh, yes, I'd agree with you that the maybes and perhapses are on both
sides. The problem is that your side says that Shakespeare used
Strachey, and so the play had to be written in 1611. We are in the
middle of presenting a tremendous amount of material, complete with
all its maybes and perhapses, which casts doubt on the Strachey
theory. And after all, if we can show that all the necessary sources
were in place long before 1611 (and that wouldn't be a maybe or a
perhaps, but proof), why would Shakespeare have to wait for 1611 to
write the play?
>
>
>
> > Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
>
> > Very soon our article will be out in the Shakespeare Yearbook
> > suggesting that from the sheer weight of the evidence,
>
> "sheer weight" worries me - what about the quality? We'll see.
The quality has to be pretty good, I imagine, for two non-Orthodox
Shakespeareans to make it into orthodox journals. Once might be a
fluke, but several times? At the very least, we're presenting some new
and interesting material.
>
> Tempest was a
>
> > Shrovetide and not a Hallowmas play. This would narrow Shakespeare's
> > opportunity to write it.
>
> If you can narrow it to less than a fortnight, you'll have me worried.
> Shakespeare's whole career was a training in rapid composition - re-
> using plots and scenarios, bulking out your scenes with borrowings -
> he could have written a play like the Tempest in a very short space of
> time. We have Jonson's comments on the quickness of Shakespeare's
> writing and evidence from other playwrights of what would seem to us
> very quick composition.
I absolutely disagree. We have plenty of evidence that Shakespeare
worked hard on his plays, and kept refining them, sometimes over
years, judging by the different quartos. Tempest is a very complex
play that operates on many levels. But if you think the play could
have been produced in February 1611 from a document WS got in
November, that's fine. We'll see how you'll react to our evidence that
the play was actually written by 1603.
>
> The ship got in sometime in September.
>
> > According to you, Shakespeare was in Stratford and it couldn't have
> > reached him until November. He would have had to read it, write the
> > play, go to London, a journey of several days, have it copied, have it
> > rehearsed, have the set made for a Whitehall production, and get it on
> > the stage by February. No matter what others here say, I can't see
> > that happening.
>
> But that says more about what you want to believe than what would have
> been the facts. We know how adaptable and quick these playwrights were
> - able to perform at very short notice and compose plays on topical
> stories with very quick turnarounds. You know the theatrical evidence
> for this as well as I do - why assume it was so difficult in this
> case?
I guess because to me Shakespeare doesn't present in the same way as
someone such as Jonson. See what I wrote above. And Shakespeare
doesn't strike me as one of "these playwrights." He was totally
amazing. The idea that he tossed off a play in a month doesn't cut it
for me, but that's just my opinion, and not really important to our
theory.
>
>
>
> > Shortly after our Shrovetide article comes our dating article, which
> > dates the play to no later than 1603 and possibly earlier than that.
> > I'm not interested in discussing stylistic arguments at the moment,
> > because I think our evidence trumps it.
>
> That's a surprise : )
Well, the fact is that stylistic arguments don't specify a date. It's
not my area of expertise though, so I'll have to give a lot of time to
a response and consult others. Don't have time to do that right now.
>
> I will be more than willing to
>
> > discuss them after our article is published. But suffice it to say we
> > have at least four texts that appear to be alluding to Tempest.
>
> You've already done sterling work on establishing the commonality of
> literary references. Establishing beyond doubt that the Tempest was a
> sole or necessary source for anything is made well nigh impossible as
> your own research shows.
I think it absolutely *has* to have been a source for one of the plays
we mention, because this play is a send-up of the plays of Shakespeare
and others. But time will tell.
>
>
>
> > There's another very big problem. Shakespeare had used most of the
> > themes and plot elements before.
>
> Which makes a rapid writing of the play even more plausible.
>
> Strachey had not. Shakespeare was
>
> > famous, Strachey was not. Strachey had written only a couple of poems
> > before True Reportory. At least one scholar has said one of them was
> > influenced by King Lear. Interestingly, we know that Strachey was
> > involved in Blackfriars as a sharer by at least 1605, before which we
> > believe Tempest was written. Strachey is known to have copied other
> > sources. He might well have copied from Tempest, though we don't make
> > a point of it.
>
> Are you trying to suggest that Strachey couldn't have written his
> letter without first reading the Tempest?? Your own research will have
> shown you how well nigh impossible it would be to establish a sequence
> of influence.
Not at all. I'm suggesting that he might have consulted the Tempest,
as so much else, but there was no need for him to do so, as he clearly
consulted Eden, Erasmus or one of his copiers, and likely Ariosto. But
of course these sources were available to Shakespeare also. And we
know absolutely he used Eden. So what I'm really saying is that it
would be unlikely that Shakespeare would consult Strachey, and if
there is any parallel that is absolutely nowhere else--and I don't
think there is--it would be much less likely that Shakes copied from
Strachey than that Strachey copied from Shakes.
>
>
>
> > This also brings up another point. Any parallels between Strachey and
> > Shakespeare were in much earlier and more famous works, all of them
> > available to Shakespeare by the 1590's, 1603 if one insists on his
> > using the English translation of Montaigne. He didn't need Strachey at
> > all to write Tempest. In fact looking at two or three these earlier
> > texts shows that Shakespeare almost certainly went to them rather than
> > Strachey, as they are much richer sources which are much closer to
> > Tempest.
>
> You know that I don't agree with you here. You've amassed a huge
> number of references and proved that both Shakespeare and Strachey
> shared a centuries-old kitty of storm and wreck imagery. What I
> haven't seen are references which taken together are closer to the
> Tempest than Strachey.
Patience, John, you will see them soon enough. Only one of our essays
has been published as yet, although they're all accepted. Our essay on
Eden, for example, is coming out in an anthology, and will show that
Eden was a much richer influence than Strachey, and we know
Shakespeare used it. Even the orthodox scholars say that. All you've
seen so far is Tom and me duking it out over storm references. That's
just a tiny part of the whole. The Eden material is much stronger than
the storm material, as it happens, although we know Shakespeare had to
consult sources other than Strachey for it, because he mentions things
about the storm not in Strachey at all.
>I know you disagree, but there we have it -
> we'll have to agree to disagree. It is a matter of judgement rather
> than "fact" and I find Strachey closer in overall feel to Shakespeare,
> alongside some close verbal parallels. If it weren't for your
> (invented, I think) obstacles to Digges' bringing the ms. to Aldington
> even you would have to concede that there are some close parallels.
I think you should hold your fire till you have an opportunity to read
all our essays. I'd be glad to show them to you, but most of them are
in edit at present.
>
>
>
> > Taking everything that I've said into consideration (and much more, as
> > we've done six articles with more to follow), your theory seems highly
> > unlikely to us.
>
> And ditto - but I will wait to read the articles.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
And thank you for the discussion.
Regards,
Mouse
Tom Reedy
> On Feb 15, 1:58 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:40 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > I think it is within the bounds of possibility that Digges took the ms
> > > up to Stratford, but unlikely because the chain of custody is so
> > > complex and precarious.
>
> > > Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
> > > Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
>
> > > 1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
> > > by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I was expecting you to jump in right away. I'm afraid all my research
> and the essays are on my old laptop, and my son has it for the moment,
> but I'll have a go at answering you from memory.
>
> > There is in fact no evidence that it wasn't finished by that time
>
> Untrue. There may not be absolute proof (except with regard to the end
> material from TD), but there's plenty of evidence.
I have yet to see any substantive evidence that holds up under
scrutiny.
> > and much evidence that it was, including the date of the letter,
>
> Strachey did not date the letter, as far as we know.
Conversely, Strachey did date the letter, as far as we know.
> Probably Purchas
> did from an interior date in TR. In any case, the dating makes no
> nevermind, as plenty of books, especially books that contain fictional
> material, are dated not when they are actually written, but when their
> authors or editors would like us to think they were written.
Do you have any examples of Purchas falsely dating any other material?
I thought not.
> As you
> know, the Strachey letter appears to contain fictional material taken
> from other writers.
No, I do not know that. The fact that Strachey described incidents
that others also wrote about in different contexts is not evidence
that he used "fictional material taken from other writers."
> And in fact my new novel begins with a letter dated November 1st
> 1611. I'm sure you'll agree that I didn't write it then.
Your comparison is ludicrous and has no relevance to the topic at
hand.
> In addition, there's extra material in True Reportory after the
> date, including published material from True Declaration.
There is no material attributed to Strachey after the date. Purchas
meticulously attributed the material to Gates and TD, both in the body
and the chapter headings, and he specifically delineated the material
provided by Strachey.
> As far as I know, there is no way you can prove that this document
> went back in July 1610.
As far as I know, there is no way you can prove it didn't. The fact
that parts found in no other accounts are quoted and summarized by the
Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A True Declaration of the
estate of the Colony in Virginia*, is strong evidence that it went
back in July 1610 and was used by the writer of TD. You claim that it
is evidence that Strachey, an eye witness to the events, copied it
from the publication.
> I urge you to look at the work of Ferdinand Columbus, whose
> narratives about his father had to be written many years after he
> suggested they were written as he has inserted himself into the story
> although he was a small child when the events actually happened.
Yes, and don't forget Little Red Riding Hood. Since we know that
didn't happen, we can, using your technique, prove that the events in
yesterday's paper didn't happen either.
> If you have proof that the letter went back in 1610 on one of Gates'
> boats, since you are following the traditional theory and should have
> proof, present it now. I remind you that TR was not published until
> 1625 in Purchas, and that is our first glimpse of it, together with
> Purchas' note that he got it from Hakluyt's papers in around 1615. I
> also have some other evidence, connected to the word "sent,"
It is not "sent," it is "hath sent now." I suggest you consult the OED
on all three of those words and that combination in particular.
> and your
> statement ages ago that sent didn't necessarily mean dispatched, which
> I'll present to counter your theory, but I don't have it about me
> right this second. I can probably dig it up in the next few days, but
> I won't bother unless you present some proof.
So in other words, your theory is correct, even though you have no
proof, yet my theory is wrong, because I have no proof.
> > the
> > obvious ending of the letter, and the fact that parts of it are quoted
> > and summarized by the Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A
> > True Declaration of the estate of the Colony in Virginia*, parts that
> > are found in no other accounts.
>
> First of all, you can't prove there weren't other written accounts,
> since we're talking about 400 years ago.
With those standards I hardly see any sense in you trying to prove or
disprove anything.
> Second, we have to believe
> from True Declaration itself that Gates presented a report either oral
> or written or both,
Show me where it says Gates presented a written report.
> and that De La Warre sent at least one other
> letter/dispatch.
We know he did. We have it, written to Cecil, who had strong ties to
the Virginia Co.
> We don't have those and so cannot be certain what
> they said, though there are clues to what Gates said. Third, there is
> material in TD that is not in Strachey or any other source that we
> know of,
And there is material in TD that is only in Strachey.
> therefore either TD used other sources or wrote some original
> material.
And therefore TD most likely used Strachey as a source.
> And fourth, even if there are parallels, you cannot tell
> with any certainty the direction of influence.
Then how can you tell Shakespeare did not use Strachey? By your own
words, you can't.
> My feeling is that most
> likely TD used what we believe was the first letter, and then Strachey
> used TD as one of his many sources to write TR.
So you're saying that Strachey, a known eye witness to the events,
used a source published long after the event to write his letter.
> Roger agrees.
Now there's an appeal to authority! >cough< >cough<
> We do
> have some evidence for this, particularly for the long excerpt that's
> around page 83 in the Wright, where the TR passage is interspersed and
> wrapped around with material similar to that in Eden, whereas TD shows
> no trace of it, showing that it was likely written before the longer
> Strachey passage. This is, by the way, Strachey's MO--to take the
> material of someone and conflate it with something else, and I believe
> I can show that too.
You have yet to do so.
> > > This theory is
> > > weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
> > > to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
> > > many fewer sources.
>
> > The existance of one does not obviate the existance of the other, nor
> > does one suggest the chronology of the other except in the minds of
> > people who are accustomed to making leaps in logic.
>
> But you have suggested yourself that the first letter was earlier in
> an email you sent me. It's pretty obvious it's earlier.
I think it is earlier, yes. It ends and does not include any events
from the arrival of the Bermuda survivors until the ships left for
England.
And why is that, I wonder?
The most likely answer is that Strachey put it aside and started
writing the longer, more literary version.
> It is much shorter, it is missing many of the later incidents,
Yes, that's what I said, and it's a way to date when Strachey ended
it.
> it is missing many
> of the verbal parallels to Tempest,
Yes, it is obviously not the one Shakespeare saw.
> and the language is much more
> workmanlike, much less flowery.
Yes, it is almost rough notes.
> The pov is also different, and iirc
> you yourself have suggested, following the writer of the paper on it,
> that this is because Strachey did not yet know he was to be secretary
> of the colony, and so he didn't tend to place himself in the middle of
> things in the earlier document.
That idea originated with Hume, and yes, it makes sense. Once he was
appointed secretary of the colony, he abandoned the earlier draft and
began writing the much more crafted letter, writing from a much more
important POV.
> > > 2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
> > > there's no evidence to show that it did.
>
> > There is in fact much evidence that it did get to the company,
> > including the fact that parts of it are quoted and summarized by the
> > Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A True Declaration of the
> > estate of the Colony in Virginia*, and the fact that it was found in
> > the effects of Richard Hakulyt, a leading director of the company,
> > after he died.
>
> 1. Richard Hakluyt bought material from all over as you well know. I
> believe it is impossible to prove that he got it from the company, but
> you have another problem, at least with regard to Tempest. If this was
> "secret" material, which wasn't published by the company because it
> was so damning, why would it be given to either Hakluyt or Shakespeare
> by the company?
Hakluyt WAS the company, Lynne. Nobody had to "give" it to him.
> One or both of them could be trusted to use it.
I don't follow you here.
> 2. You absolutely cannot prove that TD copied from TR rather than the
> other way around.
Well, that's your opinion, anyway. My opinion is that you cannot prove
Strachey copied from TD, and the evidence tends to weight my opinion
more than yours.
> It is rather more likely that the bits in TR that
> resemble TD but are not in the "earlier" ms were put there later,
> either by Strachey or Purchas, when the end material was added. When I
> get the other computer back, I can easily demonstrate this with the
> excerpt I'm talking about.
We'll wait. I just hope the computer didn't end up in the same place
as Stephanie Caruana's books and Roger Parisious's library.
> > > There is evidence
> > > controverting it, including
> > > a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
> > > b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
> > > very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.
>
> > The MS of which you speak Strachey refers to as the "full story" of
> > his experiences in Bermuda and Virginia. Since the letter ends just
> > before the ships sailed in mid-July, he could hardly have been
> > referring to the letter. In fact, most historians believe he was
> > referring to *The History of Travel in Virginia Brittania*, an
> > unfinished work which his biographers think he probably began in
> > Virginia.
>
> You do have a minor point here, but
>
> 1. Strachey had a habit of stopping things before they were finished.
How did you surmise this "habit?"
> In this case he might well have finished TR at a certain point after
> he'd told the company it was the "full story," just as he'd finished
> the "earlier" ms at an earlier point in the narrative, well before it
> could have gone back on the boat.
Do you realize that you are speculating without evidence 400 years
after the fact?
> Also, look at HoT, which stopped
> rather abruptly before it was done.
As far as I know, his only literary work that was unfinished.
> 2. HoT doesn't so much as whisper about Bermuda. Of course, we could
> put this down to his usual non- completion of projects, but it's still
> interesting that it's not even mentioned in the front material iirc.
Er, Lynne, have you not read the planned table of contents?
> You're welcome to show some evidence that he did, if you have it.
I suggest the Bermuda episode would have been found in Book III: De
restititione Coloniae, er redintigratione virium, quae cept sub
adventu Domini West Angli nobilis, ad majorem spem promoveri.
> But
> even the title--which was in this case written by Strachey--doesn't
> mention Bermuda.
>
> > But of course you know all this already.
>
> I know a lot more too, Tom, as you very well know, such as the fact
> that all the "parallels" were available to Shakespeare long before
> Strachey happened along, and in fact he had to use Eden and either
> Erasmus or Ariosto, as in addition to satisfying the so-called
> "Strachey parallels" they both contain material that is not in any of
> the Bermuda narratives
Ah, the things you "know!" Galileo surely must have had similar
feelings.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "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 numerous previous sources. . . ."
I also say that there are more parallels between Strachey and Tempest
than that of mere language.
TR
>
> Mouse
Peter Farey
> > > (There's no reason why you should have, but you never
> > > responded to my post outlining how easy and indeed likely
> > > it was for Shakespeare to have had access to the damned
> > > Strachey account in the autumn of 1610 - when Leonard
> > > Digges visited Thomas Russell at his house in Aldington
> > > near Stratford. We know of Shakespeare's links to both
> > > men - close links - and we know that Shakespeare was in
> > > Stratford at this time from a London legal document.
> > > Was Stratford so full of events that autumn that Shake-
> > > speare wouldn't have found time to talk with Digges and
> > > look at the letter he had brought to show his stepfather?
> > > I know it's inconvenient for your theory, but you could
> > > at least try to show why it is unlikely to have occurred.)
and
> Digges and his brother were members of the consortium
> who paid for the failed expedition. It would have been
> incumbent on Strachey to communicate to them what had
> happened. If a long account was written of the storm,
> Digges and the other consortium members would have been
> first in the queue to see it.
Whilst I don't accept Lynne's contention that *The
Tempest* was written in 1603 or thereabouts, I don't
accept these statements either.
I may be wrong, but there is as far as I know no record
of Leonard Digges having ever been connected with the
Virginia Company (which I take to be the consortium you
mention) whether as one of the 52 members of its Council
or even one of the 655 individuals listed as its members.
His elder brother Sir Dudley was a member of both groups,
but appears fourth from the end of the Council list, with
no fewer than 15 'Lords' and 33 other knights apparently
ahead of him in the pecking order. That he would have
been anywhere near first in the queue to see the document,
let alone have the opportunity to take a personal copy of
it for his brother's use, simply beggars belief.
I'll tell you who were listed as Virginia Company members,
by the way - 'John Andrews the elder' and 'John Andrews
the younger' of Cambridge.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Paul Crowley
>>> - accusing you of not having any ideas (which you clearly have,
>>> although I disagree with them)
>>
>> Lynne CLAIMED that she had changed her
>> ideas (in particular on the Sonnets) but was
>> unable to mention a single one.
>
> No, I was unwilling to, as I noted anything that I thought was novel
> to me as we went through them, and I haven't the energy to go through
> all over again right now, especially as it goes in one of your ears
> and out the other without being processed in the middle.
This all came from your statement (to
Michael Martin):
>|>|> > I've learned quite a lot on HLAS, and my ideas have changed somewhat,
>|>|> > but yours don't seem to change at all.
I wanted to know what you meant by
"my ideas have changed somewhat".
It seems that no substantive answer is
available. In other words, you were
bullshitting -- probably unconsciously/
You have learnt nothing. You are as
unchanged as 'Lackpurity'. The underlying
reasons are probably much the same.
Neither of you has a real interest in the
subject. He is into mysticism, etc., that
blocks all possibility of understanding.
You may also have some obstructing
ideology (e.g. PT stuff). Or maybe you
are just too shallow and too lazy. In any
case, neither of you have tried to engage
what each of you regards as your mind.)
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
sonnets is correct--besides the fact that it's YOUR interpretation--
or, more sophisticatedly, because YOUR method of evaluating your
interpretation says its right--to YOU. One way the sane have of
getting an idea of the value aof a given critic's interpretation of
one poet's work is to see how effective he is at interpretting another
poet's work. For example, I have some confidence in my ability to
interpret Shakespeare's poetry because I have written interpretations
of the work of other poets that have been considered worthy of
publication by others, and have been accepted (by a few, at any rate,
including the poets involved in some cases) as insightful if not
always completely valid. So, my old question, somewhat differently
phrased: what have you done as a critic of poetry not written by
Shakespeare that suggests you might be worth reading on Shakespeare's
sonnets?
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Although it would be more accurate to say
> that since you have never had anything
> that could be regarded as an idea, change
> was never a possibility.
Haw, I loves it when our resident Super-Genius absolutely destroys
some poor goof like our poor little Mousie! The really funny thing is
that she probly thinks she's winning!
Stanton Coblentz, Jr.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
wrote:
Ah, the big names would have seen the document first, not the brains?
Anyway, I think the letter went to a private party, and she had copies
made and distributed to her crowd.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Feb 15, 1:09 pm, "Paul Crowley"
>
>
>
>
>
> <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> > "John Andrews" <johnanti-s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:4a924499-ec38-4b49...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Crowley provides a study in disingenuous argument. He has a monotonous
> > > bag of tricks - rhetorical flummery - which he juggles with.
>
> > Andrews has one main trick -- ignore the
> > words of the person you are trying to
> > criticise. You can then distort freely, and
> > invent all manner of nonsense.
>
> > > Reversal is one
>
> > Reversal of what?
>
> > > - accusing you of not having any ideas (which you clearly have,
> > > although I disagree with them)
>
> > Lynne CLAIMED that she had changed her
> > ideas (in particular on the Sonnets) but was
> > unable to mention a single one.
>
> No, I was unwilling to, as I noted anything that I thought was novel
> to me as we went through them, and I haven't the energy to go through
> all over again right now, especially as it goes in one of your ears
> and out the other without being processed in the middle.
>
> L.
Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
he disagrees as either?
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
That is, if given a copying assignment, how many words a minute could
they write? Anyone know?
--Bob
Ms. Mouse
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tom, I'm not comfortable continuing this conversation here because
some of the material I'd like to mention isn't published yet. If you
wish me to respond, please email me with an idea of where.
L.
Paul Crowley
news:4e0966c6-9504-4625...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Paul, I'm always asking you why you think your interpretation of the
> sonnets is correct--besides the fact that it's YOUR interpretation--
> or, more sophisticatedly, because YOUR method of evaluating your
> interpretation says its right--to YOU.
You have fearsome problems about
this. I doubt if it applies in other fields.
If someone put forward a theory about
(say) the cause of dinosaur extinction,
assuming that you had read up on all
the facts and arguments, would you be
able to evaluate it?
The case I put forward is no different.
I say that, for example, Sonnet 18 is
about Queen Elizabeth, Mary QS, the
murder of Riccio, and so on. Why
can't you evaluate that claim in an
objective manner? You would list all
the pros and all the cons, and come
to a conclusion. Are you not capable
of that?
> One way the sane have of
> getting an idea of the value aof a given critic's interpretation of
> one poet's work is to see how effective he is at interpretting another
> poet's work.
Of on a tangent again. So, in the
case of the dinosaur theory, the
first thing you'd do is look at the
man's other work?
<snipped rest>
Paul.
Greg Reynolds
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> If someone put forward a theory about
> (say) the cause of dinosaur extinction,
> assuming that you had read up on all
> the facts and arguments, would you be
> able to evaluate it?
it was a c o n s p i r a c y
(one of the first)
John Andrews
wrote:
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Peter - I haven't looked at the original lists. In Hulme and Sherman's
"The Tempest and its Travels" (2000) it says that Dudley Digges was a
member of the Council of the Virginia Company along with his brother.
Digges was also a generous sponsor of a number of other exploratory
voyages such as Hudson's search for the northwest passage. Michael
Wood in his Shakespeare history also mentions the Digges brothers as
members of the Consortium. It appears that Digges was a leading and
influential sponsor of exploration in the period. Money talks - Digges
may not have been the noblest sponsor but perhaps he was a generous
and influential one.
The only evidence that the letter was secret was the fact that it
wasn't published at the time whereas other accounts were but we can
all think of good reasons for this other than the fact of the document
being secret. It may have not met with company approval as Mouse
suggests. There may have been too many other accounts for a publisher
to be interested. Its form as a letter may have been offputting... Any
number of good reasons occur. To ASSUME it was a secret document goes
against its very literary style - it isn't a dry factual report, as
you know. It was written as an entertainment.
No Fareys on the list then?
Best wishes
John
Tom Reedy
I don't think Strachey considered it a secret document, but I am sure
the Virginia company did once it read the story of the nearly-
successful mutiny on Bermuda and the blame put on the management for
the failure of the colony. In fact, it was only after the dissolution
of the Virginia Company in 1624 that the letter was published. Going
by Strachey's introduction to the 1612 *For the Colony in Virginia
Brittania: Laws Divine, Moral and Martial*, it appears he had been
censored, as he writes "since many impediments, as yet must detain
such my observations in the shadow of darkness, until I shall be able
to deliver them perfect unto your judgements."
Lynne and Roger interpret that to mean that Strachey's *True
Reportory* wasn't written yet. However, "perfect UNTO YOUR JUDGMENTS"
could mean any number of things, one of which would be "until you
change your mind" or "until I write it the way you want it written."
TR
> No Fareys on the list then?
>
> Best wishes
>
Ms. Mouse
I agree; however, you seem to be ignoring this bit:
"since many impediments, as yet must detain
such my observations in the shadow of darkness..."
which seems to be saying that even any "unperfected" observations
haven't been shown to them either.
>
>
>
> > No Fareys on the list then?
>
> > Best wishes
>
> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tom Reedy
It doesn't make any sense that they would not have received any kind
of report from the former secretary of the colony. I think Strachey is
here naming the company as one of the impediments.
TR
Tom Reedy
>
> - Show quoted text -
And can we quit now? I have a headache.
TR
Ms. Mouse
I would think that recording secretaries are not obliged to write
reports. The dispatch went back with DLW, which Strachey signed.
Anything else is pure conjecture.
>
> TR- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
Yes, I'll be glad to.
Lynne
Paul Crowley
news:013ce436-8e3b-4d8e...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
> person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
> and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
> he disagrees as either?
How come I am the sole poster to this
NG who gets this criticism?
Do you claim that other august posters
(such as your very self) are better in this
respect?
Paul.
Tom Reedy
I would think that ship's captains were not obliged to give any
reports, either, but here we are both of us thinking he did.
> The dispatch went back with DLW,
You mean Gates.
> which Strachey signed.
Strachey and DLW and Weinman and Gates.
> Anything else is pure conjecture.
I think that anybody in any position of authority at all was probably
obliged to report to the council.
TR
>
>
>
>
>
> > TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ignoto
> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:013ce436-8e3b-4d8e...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
>> person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
>> and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
>> he disagrees as either?
>
> How come I am the sole poster to this
> NG who gets this criticism?
Ah, Rosen surely had Crowley in mind when he wrote:
"Fair-mindedness and objectivity are (sometimes) the traits of scholars,
not of thinkers of the highest rank."
(Stanley Rosen, Plato's Statesman: The Web of Politics at 10)
book...@yahoo.com
<tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>> The only evidence that the letter was secret was the fact that it
>> wasn't published at the time whereas other accounts were but we can
>> all think of good reasons for this other than the fact of the document
>> being secret. It may have not met with company approval as Mouse
>> suggests. There may have been too many other accounts for a publisher
>> to be interested. Its form as a letter may have been offputting... Any
>> number of good reasons occur. To ASSUME it was a secret document goes
>> against its very literary style - it isn't a dry factual report, as
>> you know. It was written as an entertainment.
I can't pretend to be directly involved in the ongoing skirmishes
attending arguments about re-dating the Tempest. Don't know if Ms
Mouse is birthing a mountain or leading an ascent following old
trails, assuming it's there. So far, TR has been doing a stand-up job
marking her progress, noting pit-falls, dead-ends, and commenting on
methods, IMO. A year ago I think he said he was doing a study of his
own he might report on, so now maybe he's working himself up to his
own scholarly statement. It's been slow going, but then Darwin and
Wallace communicated for many years, sharing insights, before
publishing.
Peter Farey
John Andrews wrote:
> Peter - I haven't looked at the original lists.
I assumed not. The text of the The Second Virginia Charter,
including all of the names, is available at
<http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~tmetrvlr/hd4.html>
> In Hulme and Sherman's "The Tempest and its Travels" (2000)
> it says that Dudley Digges was a member of the Council of
> the Virginia Company along with his brother.
Then either they or the list given at the above URL are wrong.
I note that neither the old nor the new DNB entries for Leon-
ard suggest any such connection either. Dudley, on the other
hand, certainly has it mentioned in his entries.
> Digges was also a generous sponsor of a number of other
> exploratory voyages such as Hudson's search for the north-
> west passage.
That's Dudley again, not Leonard.
> Michael Wood in his Shakespeare history also mentions the
> Digges brothers as members of the Consortium.
Indeed he does, and was also probably wrong. However, if
Woods was the source of your "attractive speculation" (as
he put it) that Shakespeare saw the Strachey account via
the Digges's stepfather, Thomas Russell. then I think you
misread him. You said that it was Leonard who went up to
Aldington in the Autumn of 1610. Woods says it was Dudley.
I must say that I was a little surprised at your saying
it was Leonard, since everything I read about him seems to
have him overseas during most of this period.
> It appears that Digges was a leading and influential
> sponsor of exploration in the period. Money talks - Digges
> may not have been the noblest sponsor but perhaps he was
> a generous and influential one.
Dudley would certainly have been more likely than his
brother to have news of the Virginia Company doings, but
there's no particular reason to associate him with Shake-
speare in any way, and knowing what's going on is rather
different to having his own personal copy of the Strachey
account to share with all and sundry.
One other point. You say above that "we know that Shake-
speare was in Stratford at this time from a London legal
document." Presumably this is the 1610 appeal to the
Court of Common Pleas (in Westminster) concerning Shake-
speare's purchase of land in Old Stratford. I see that
Wood says that this "establishes his address as Stratford-
upon-Avon" not that he was actually there at the time.
Did you get this further information from somewhere else?
<snip>
> No Fareys on the list then?
'Fraid not. Salt-of-the-earth Northamptonshire labourers
we were, albeit with delusions of grandeur. I do see a
John Baker on the list, though!
Ms. Mouse
>
> You mean Gates.
Yes, sorry, was very tired. The DLW dispatch went back with Gates.
>
> > which Strachey signed.
>
> Strachey and DLW and Weinman and Gates.
>
> > Anything else is pure conjecture.
>
> I think that anybody in any position of authority at all was probably
> obliged to report to the council.
What you think, unfortunately, cannot be proven. Besides, if he was
obliged to report to the council, it could have been via the earlier
ms.
L.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> news:013ce436-8e3b-4d8e...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
> > person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
> > and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
> > he disagrees as either?
>
> How come I am the sole poster to this
> NG who gets this criticism?
You are the only one I know of here who claims that no one presents
evidence or ideas or arguments against his position. I have never
made that claim. I now state that you have presented ideas, evidence
and arguments against my position, and so have many other wacks. I am
also not the sole judge of the validity of my arguments, but try to
find back-up in the records, and in the opinions of others published
or not published.
> Do you claim that other august posters
> (such as your very self) are better in this
> respect?
>
> Paul.
See above. Another difference between you and me is that you are
unwilling to suggest any way of evaluating your ideas other than via
your ownb judgement. I often suggest ways one can evaluate mine. For
instance, you can get some idea of whether or not my take on the
sonnets is reasonable or not by noting that I'm an experienced,
published writer on many poets besides Shakespeare. You on the other
hand, are an unpublished bullshitter on Shakespeare and no one else.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
No, Paul, but if--after looking at his theory and deciding I disagreed
with it, I would recognize that maybe I was nonetheless wrong, and see
how he did in other fields. That is, if I found him to believe in
alien abduction, anti-Stratfordianism, faked moon landing, squaring
the circle, etc., I would feel sure I was right. You see, you and I
are to the point were I say I'm right, and you say I'm not. You say
you have persuasive objective reasons for saying I'm wrong, I say you
don't. How do we determine who is more likely right--especially about
a question of poetry explication, which is realtively a subjective
undertaking? I say we consider how each explicator does in other
poems. You don't, because you have no experience with other poems.
You want your word that your are using the right methods correctly and
are right to be the sole determinant of validity. That is, you are a
crank.
It's really more like having two people give you contradictory
directions for finding someone's house. The best way to choose
between them is find out what their backgrounds are. If one has made
published maps, the other no maps whatever, I know which one I'd
choose.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On 12 Feb., 21:24, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 3:09 pm, lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In Jul 1577 William Weekes murdered William Sankey, a former servant
> > > of Oxford's, and was subsequently hanged for the crime. Oxford's
> > > confidante Henry Howard called it a contract murder for which Oxford
> > > paid £100. In late Aug 1579 Oxford pulled rank on Sir Phillip Sidney
> > > at the Greenwich tennis court. According to Fulke Greville's account
> > > of the story, the young Earl appeared upon the court while Sidney was
> > > at play and commanded him to leave. Sidney answered provokingly,
> > > Greville says, whereupon Oxford grew angry and, before the onlooking
> > > French marriage-commissioners, denounced him 'by the name of Puppy'.
> > > Sidney asked him to repeat it, and he did, this time more loudly, upon
> > > which Sidney gave him the lie direct. Then, after a moment's silence,
> > > Sidney and his friends strode from the court. Having waited a day in
> > > vain for Oxford's challenge, Sidney sent the Earl a reminder of
> > > honour's obligations, and Oxford, thus jostled, responded in honour.
> > > Queen Elizabeth placed Oxford under house arrest from 29 Jan to 11 Feb
> > > 1580 for sending Sidney a written challenge.
>
> > >http://www.tudorrosecourt.org/oxford.html
>
> > > MM:
> > > IMO, Fulke Greville and Sir Philip Sidney were Masters. It seems that
> > > the Earl couldn't get along with them. Obviously, to me, the author
> > > of the canon was a Master. How can we reconcile such disrespect
> > > coming from the Earl. Even Queen Elizabeth, who some say was his
> > > mother as I understand, didn't approve of it.
>
> > I don't think Elizabeth was his mother; however, the tennis court
> > argument or one like it is mentioned in Hamlet:
>
> > Polonius:
>
> > He closes thus: 'I know the gentleman;
> > I saw him yesterday, or t' other day,
> > Or then, or then; with such, or such; and, as you say,
> > There was a' gaming; there o'ertook in's rouse;
> > There falling out at tennis:'
>
> > I find that rather interesting.
> > Mouse
>
> > > Oxfordians are welcome to reply. :-)
>
> > > Edward de Vere was 29 years of age, at the time of this incident.
>
> > > Michael Martin- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> > - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>
> Well, isn't that stretching it a bit, it could be any old falling out
> at
> any old tennis game anytime between any people.
> Just because we, 400 years later, know about this
> special "falling out", doesn't mean it was the only one.
> RT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On the other hand, it was probably a very well-known one--that any
playwright of the time might have slipped into a play.
--Sir B
Ms. Mouse
You can be sure that if TR has an article published, we will be right
on his tail and will respond either in a journal or on the web. To my
mind the real weaknesses of his argument are as follows:
1. He can show that some of TR might have gone back with Gates, but I
don't believe he can prove either that it was complete or that it
did.
2. He knows that there were many earlier texts available to
Shakespeare (and Strachey) as sources, and that there is proof they
both made use of them. This destroys Strachey as a necessary source.
3. In his responses here and elsewhere, he doesn't seem to be dealing
with how the material got to Shakespeare. Without the Shakespeare
link, Strachey is of little importance, in a literary sense, anyhow,
especially as quite a bit of his ms is a conflation of other sources.
I may be wrong. If Tom is bent on publishing, he might be addressing
these problems, which imo are very important.
L.
Ms. Mouse
but.net> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:54 pm, "Paul Crowley"
>
> <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> > <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:013ce436-8e3b-4d8e...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
> > > person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
> > > and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
> > > he disagrees as either?
>
> > How come I am the sole poster to this
> > NG who gets this criticism?
>
> You are the only one I know of here who claims that no one presents
> evidence or ideas or arguments against his position. I have never
> made that claim. I now state that you have presented ideas, evidence
> and arguments against my position, and so have many other wacks.
If you are referring to me also as a wack, Bob, please don't. On the
other hand, I have no objection to your calling yourself one, as you
appear to have done. ;)
Mouse
Ms. Mouse
And Percy, iirc. I can sort of see his sig in front of me. DLW first,
followed by the others on two lines. Lovely bold sigs, except for
Strachey's little tiddly thing on the very end.
Paul Crowley
news:f39f6e9b-65c3-4157...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> The case I put forward is no different.
>> I say that, for example, Sonnet 18 is
>> about Queen Elizabeth, Mary QS, the
>> murder of Riccio, and so on. Why
>> can't you evaluate that claim in an
>> objective manner? You would list all
>> the pros and all the cons, and come
>> to a conclusion. Are you not capable
>> of that?
>
> No, Paul, but if--after looking at his theory and deciding I disagreed
> with it,
My point is that you skip this stage with
me. You have never provided the slightest
evidence that you have seriously looked at
any of my work.
> You see, you and I
> are to the point were I say I'm right, and you say I'm not.
This has been your 'point' from the very
start. If I were to post an exegeses of a
new sonnet today, that would be your
'point' before I posted it, and after I
posted it. You would not feel the need
to read it to know your 'point'.
> You say you have persuasive objective reasons for saying
> I'm wrong, I say you don't.
You have no basis whatever for this
'argument'. You would need to have
taken a few of my exegeses and applied
it to each paragraph and sentence of
them. You have never made the slightest
effort in this regard.
> How do we determine who is more likely right--especially about
> a question of poetry explication, which is realtively a subjective
> undertaking?
It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
(under you ideology) to assert that they
don't. You should therefore be able to point
out that either (A) there is no correspondence
between the words of the Sonnet and the
historical circumstances (as would be seen
by our poet in London a few weeks after the
events) OR
(B) show how any apparent correspondence
is purely the result of chance.
According to your ideology, the words of
Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
child's play for you to demonstrate that.
How come you so carefully avoid trying?
You have never made the slightest such
attempt.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Feb 18, 8:20 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
>
>
>
>
> but.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 5:54 pm, "Paul Crowley"
>
> > <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> > > <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:013ce436-8e3b-4d8e...@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Besides, what's the point of listing one's Ideas, or arguments, to a
> > > > person who considers himself the sole judge of what these things are,
> > > > and has never accepted any set of words presented at HLAS with which
> > > > he disagrees as either?
>
> > > How come I am the sole poster to this
> > > NG who gets this criticism?
>
> > You are the only one I know of here who claims that no one presents
> > evidence or ideas or arguments against his position. I have never
> > made that claim. I now state that you have presented ideas, evidence
> > and arguments against my position, and so have many other wacks.
>
> If you are referring to me also as a wack, Bob, please don't. On the
> other hand, I have no objection to your calling yourself one, as you
> appear to have done. ;)
>
> Mouse
Yep, "many other wacks" explicitly refers to me, implicitly refers to
Paul, and suggests others unnamed, Mouse. But you really need to get
over your hypersensitivity to names.
--Robbit
Ms. Mouse
You really have to get over your name-calling, wabbit. ;)
Mouse
>
> --Robbit- Hide quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f39f6e9b-65c3-4157...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> The case I put forward is no different.
> >> I say that, for example, Sonnet 18 is
> >> about Queen Elizabeth, Mary QS, the
> >> murder of Riccio, and so on. Why
> >> can't you evaluate that claim in an
> >> objective manner? You would list all
> >> the pros and all the cons, and come
> >> to a conclusion. Are you not capable
> >> of that?
>
> > No, Paul, but if--after looking at his theory and deciding I disagreed
> > with it,
>
> My point is that you skip this stage with
> me. You have never provided the slightest
> evidence that you have seriously looked at
> any of my work.
So you say, moron. But I say I did. Now, how do we decide who is
right? Why, you challenge me to was time once again showing you where
I provided "the slightest evidence." Then you announce that it isn't
evidence. So what's the point? Why do you not see that we need some
way besides leaving you as sole judge in the matter to determine who
is right?
> > You see, you and I
> > are to the point were I say I'm right, and you say I'm not.
>
> This has been your 'point' from the very
> start. If I were to post an exegeses of a
> new sonnet today, that would be your
> 'point' before I posted it, and after I
> posted it. You would not feel the need
> to read it to know your 'point'.
That's because I've already posted enough on your insane
interpretations only to be told I've presented no evidence and no
arguments. I'm sure you don't believe I've presented any ideas,
either, but don't remember your telling me that. So, I now tell you
that you have not presented any exegeses of the sonnet, only
nonsense. Where do we go from there? You either ignore me or say I'm
wrong. But I'm more likely right in the matter because I am a
published specialist in the interpretation of poetry (and a published
poet) and you are neither, and--in fact--have never been able to name
a single poet whose work you have given serious attention to but
Shakespeare.
> > You say you have persuasive objective reasons for saying
> > I'm wrong, I say you don't.
>
> You have no basis whatever for this
> 'argument'. You would need to have
> taken a few of my exegeses and applied
> it to each paragraph and sentence of
> them. You have never made the slightest
> effort in this regard.
Yeah, yeah. The problem with that is that I have a different method
of interpreting poetry than you do--the method used by those who
publish interpretations of poetry, not the method you use, which is to
make up a life for Oxford, and match it to a made up wishlexical
reading of the Sonnets that ignores what poets do, treating them like
some kind of bizarre combination of gossip and politicking--or
whatever you think they are.
> > How do we determine who is more likely right--especially about
> > a question of poetry explication, which is relatively a subjective
> > undertaking?
>
> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
> Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
> (under you ideology) to assert that they
> don't. You should therefore be able to point
> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
> between the words of the Sonnet and the
> historical circumstances (as would be seen
> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
> events) OR
> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
> is purely the result of chance.
Easy job, Paul. But that's not how you interpret poems. You consider
what aesthetic reasons there are for various words. You ignore
possible connections to real world people unless they are explicity
there. If the poem works as a poem without external references, you
assume you have it right enough.
As for your correspondences, who is to judge whether they are there or
not? You say they are, I say almost none are (one or two may be
there). I don't say I'm right, I say let's find a way of deciding.
You merely reiterate your claim to being right, because you judge
yourself to have used the correct methods correctly, and yours is the
sole authoritative judgement of the matter.
> According to your ideology, the words of
> Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
> 1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
> or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
> child's play for you to demonstrate that.
How, if you grab any possible reference in it to Scotland? All I can
do is show that it is a standard love poem much like many such poems
by others, although better than most (but not all), and that poets for
centuries have been content to write such poems without underlaying
them with moronic court gossip that distracts from and sometimes
contradicts what they say as love poems, and that readers have taken
to consider a "mere" love poem for centuries with great satisfaction.
Now, if you had external evidence, like a private letter of Oxford's
in which he refers to his 18th sonnet as one with two meanings, one
about a summer's day comparison for intellectual retards and one about
whatever you think it's about, you'd have something, You have nothing
close to that. And you have evidence that contradicts it,
Shakespeare's name on the title page and elsewhere.
> How come you so carefully avoid trying?
>
> You have never made the slightest such
> attempt.
>
> Paul.
Right. Because you have never made an exegesis of the sonnets.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:45e9a844-4fe0-457d...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> The case I put forward is no different.
>>>> I say that, for example, Sonnet 18 is
>>>> about Queen Elizabeth, Mary QS, the
>>>> murder of Riccio, and so on. Why
>>>> can't you evaluate that claim in an
>>>> objective manner? You would list all
>>>> the pros and all the cons, and come
>>>> to a conclusion. Are you not capable
>>>> of that?
>>
>>> No, Paul, but if--after looking at his theory and deciding I disagreed
>>> with it,
>>
>> My point is that you skip this stage with
>> me. You have never provided the slightest
>> evidence that you have seriously looked at
>> any of my work.
>
> So you say, moron. But I say I did. Now, how do we decide who is
> right?
In this case we have the archives. IF you
had ever done a serious criticism of my
work (say) on Sonnet 18, you could locate
it and re-post. But, of course, you can't --
because you never have. Nor have you
done a serious criticism of ANY other part
of my work. (You may regard your name-
calling as 'serious criticism' -- but even
you will have the sense not to re-post it.)
>> You would not feel the need
>> to read it to know your 'point'.
>
> That's because I've already posted enough on your insane
> interpretations only to be told I've presented no evidence and no
> arguments.
Name-calling is not an argument.
[..]
>> You have no basis whatever for this
>> 'argument'. You would need to have
>> taken a few of my exegeses and applied
>> it to each paragraph and sentence of
>> them. You have never made the slightest
>> effort in this regard.
>
> Yeah, yeah. The problem with that is that I have a different method
> of interpreting poetry than you do
Yep -- you don't read the words.
HOWEVER -- you have to take your
opponent's arguments in the way they
are intended. You can't ignore them
by saying you do a different thing.
What you do has no relevance.
There is, of course, nothing new in this.
You cannot bear to contemplate a defeat
of your stance, so you adopt all manner
of devices. Those who oppose Evolution,
want to see a statement of God about it
in the Bible. They don't do science; they
read the Bible. To them, that's the only
evidence that can count. You are no
different -- except that you are much
more confused.
> --the method used by those who
> publish interpretations of poetry, not the method you use, which is to
> make up a life for Oxford, and match it to a made up wishlexical
> reading of the Sonnets that ignores what poets do, treating them like
> some kind of bizarre combination of gossip and politicking--or
> whatever you think they are.
So what? It either works or it doesn't.
Merely claiming -- that it's not what you
like to do -- is not an argument.
>>> How do we determine who is more likely right--especially about
>>> a question of poetry explication, which is relatively a subjective
>>> undertaking?
>>
>> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
>> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
>> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
>> Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
>> (under you ideology) to assert that they
>> don't. You should therefore be able to point
>> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
>> between the words of the Sonnet and the
>> historical circumstances (as would be seen
>> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
>> events) OR
>> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
>> is purely the result of chance.
>
> Easy job, Paul.
Except that you never make a start on it.
> But that's not how you interpret poems.
So you legislate. A highly impressive
'argument'.
> You consider
> what aesthetic reasons there are for various words. You ignore
> possible connections to real world people unless they are explicity
> there. If the poem works as a poem without external references, you
> assume you have it right enough.
>
> As for your correspondences, who is to judge whether they are there or
> not?
You could attempt to demolish them.
But you don't -- because you know
that you will fail -- and your failure
will be very obvious, even to you.
> You say they are, I say almost none are (one or two may be
> there).
So attempt to demolish my arguments.
You never try, for very obvious reasons.
[..]
>> According to your ideology, the words of
>> Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
>> 1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
>> or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
>> child's play for you to demonstrate that.
>
> How, if you grab any possible reference in it to Scotland?
If it has NO connection, that will be
very obvious. Can you relate Sonnet
18 to the Sinking of the Titanic?
> All I can
> do is show that it is a standard love poem much like many such poems
> by others,
I agree. That's ALL you can do. You
simply cannot cope with my argument.
I'm half-surprised you don't seek
confirmation from the Bible.
[..]
> Now, if you had external evidence, like a private letter of Oxford's
> in which he refers to his 18th sonnet as one with two meanings,
This is desperate. You simply cannot
deal with my arguments as they stand.
You have to use a dodge like this!
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Ah, but I enjoy calling people names, plus its a way of being
informative, whereas you don't enjoy being called names, or even
thinking you may be called a name! (I would also point out that if
everyone were super-polite and I could only call Paul Crowley an
extremely mistaken person, "extremely mistaken person" would soon
become a "name." Hence, we would have to, in a ladies' utopia, never
say anything negative about anyone. The problem there is that if I
then say, positively, that Terry Ross is super-rational, my then
calling Paul Crowley merely "rational" will become an insult. So,
finally, we'll have to call each other nothing but "person.")
--Mr. Badwabbit
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> me. You have never provided the slightest
> >> evidence that you have seriously looked at
> >> any of my work.
>
> > So you say, moron. But I say I did. Now, how do we decide who is
> > right?
>
> In this case we have the archives. IF you
> had ever done a serious criticism of my
> work (say) on Sonnet 18, you could locate
> it and re-post. But, of course, you can't --
> because you never have. Nor have you
> done a serious criticism of ANY other part
> of my work. (You may regard your name-
> calling as 'serious criticism' -- but even
> you will have the sense not to re-post it.)
We're at the same old impasse. How gets to decide whether anything I
re-post is a "serious criticism?" Only you. Even you should be able
to see the unfairness of that.
> >> You would not feel the need
> >> to read it to know your 'point'.
>
> > That's because I've already posted enough on your insane
> > interpretations only to be told I've presented no evidence and no
> > arguments.
>
> Name-calling is not an argument.
True. The argument here is that it's a waste of time presenting
counters to you arguments that you write off as "not evidence" or "not
arguments" or not serious or significant, etc.
> [..]
>
> >> You have no basis whatever for this
> >> 'argument'. You would need to have
> >> taken a few of my exegeses and applied
> >> it to each paragraph and sentence of
> >> them. You have never made the slightest
> >> effort in this regard.
>
> > Yeah, yeah. The problem with that is that I have a different method
> > of interpreting poetry than you do
>
> Yep -- you don't read the words.
Ah, so the words I thought I read in Sonnet 18,"summers day," aren't
there? Or ARE there but I prove I could read them by interpreting
them to have do with a 24-hour period in a particular season? Whereas
you read them conreectly as being about Scotland or some damned thing.
> HOWEVER -- you have to take your
> opponent's arguments in the way they
> are intended. You can't ignore them
> by saying you do a different thing.
> What you do has no relevance.
>
> There is, of course, nothing new in this.
> You cannot bear to contemplate a defeat
> of your stance, so you adopt all manner
> of devices. Those who oppose Evolution,
> want to see a statement of God about it
> in the Bible. They don't do science; they
> read the Bible. To them, that's the only
> evidence that can count. You are no
> different -- except that you are much
> more confused.
> > --the method used by those who
> > publish interpretations of poetry, not the method you use, which is to
> > make up a life for Oxford, and match it to a made up wishlexical
> > reading of the Sonnets that ignores what poets do, treating them like
> > some kind of bizarre combination of gossip and politicking--or
> > whatever you think they are.
>
> So what? It either works or it doesn't.
> Merely claiming -- that it's not what you
> like to do -- is not an argument.
Yes, but WHO is to say whether it works or not???
> >>> How do we determine who is more likely right--especially about
> >>> a question of poetry explication, which is relatively a subjective
> >>> undertaking?
>
> >> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
> >> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
> >> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
> >> Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
> >> (under you ideology) to assert that they
> >> don't. You should therefore be able to point
> >> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
> >> between the words of the Sonnet and the
> >> historical circumstances (as would be seen
> >> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
> >> events) OR
> >> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
> >> is purely the result of chance.
>
> > Easy job, Paul.
>
> Except that you never make a start on it.
>
> > But that's not how you interpret poems.
>
> So you legislate. A highly impressive
> 'argument'.
I refer you to I A Richards.
> > You consider
> > what aesthetic reasons there are for various words. You ignore
> > possible connections to real world people unless they are explicity
> > there. If the poem works as a poem without external references, you
> > assume you have it right enough.
>
> > As for your correspondences, who is to judge whether they are there or
> > not?
>
> You could attempt to demolish them.
> But you don't -- because you know
> that you will fail -- and your failure
> will be very obvious, even to you.
But how am to tell whether or not I've demolished them if all I have
to go by is the judgement of someone who is insanely sure they're
right? Good grief, even when I and others have pointed out to you
that the addressee of the sonnent who is told about the maidens who
would love to be impregnated by the addressee cannot be Queen
Elizabeth as you contend, because women cannot impregnate women, you
don't credit us with demolishing your contention. In fact, you don't
even credit us with mounting a serious argument against it?
> > You say they are, I say almost none are (one or two may be
> > there).
>
> So attempt to demolish my arguments.
> You never try, for very obvious reasons.
Right, the argument in the paragraph above about maidens would would
love to be impregnated, which I advanced ten or more times, is not
even so much as a try!
> [..]
>
> >> According to your ideology, the words of
> >> Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
> >> 1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
> >> or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
> >> child's play for you to demonstrate that.
>
> > How, if you grab any possible reference in it to Scotland?
>
> If it has NO connection, that will be
> very obvious. Can you relate Sonnet
> 18 to the Sinking of the Titanic?
Of course. "Summer's day" is an obvious irony for the "cold night" on
which the titanic went down, taking all those darling buds of May.
Etc. But, no, you say, that's nonsense. No more than your wishlexic
interpretations, Paul.
> > All I can
> > do is show that it is a standard love poem much like many such poems
> > by others,
>
> I agree. That's ALL you can do. You
> simply cannot cope with my argument.
> I'm half-surprised you don't seek
> confirmation from the Bible.
What other famous poems do what you say these do, Paul?
> [..]
>
> > Now, if you had external evidence, like a private letter of Oxford's
> > in which he refers to his 18th sonnet as one with two meanings,
>
> This is desperate. You simply cannot
> deal with my arguments as they stand.
> You have to use a dodge like this!
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
Oops, you're right, Paul No need for external evidence of something
you know to be factual.
--Desperate Bob
Gary
><slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
SNIP
>> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
>> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
>> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
>> Riccio, etc., or they don't. =A0 You are obliged
>> (under you ideology) to assert that they
>> don't. =A0You should therefore be able to point
>> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
>> between the words of the Sonnet and the
>> historical circumstances (as would be seen
>> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
>> events) OR
>> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
>> is purely the result of chance.
Refresh my memory Paul: have you ever explicated those poems
which most people today actually attribute to Oxford? Do they also
contain the political allusions which you find in Shakespeare's poems?
- Gary
Ms. Mouse
but.net> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2:59 pm, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 2:50 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> > but.net> wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 9:45 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You really have to get over your name-calling, wabbit. ;)
> So,
> finally, we'll have to call each other nothing but "person.")
>
Good idea, radbabbit.
Mouse
Greg Reynolds
> Refresh my memory Paul: have you ever explicated those poems
> which most people today actually attribute to Oxford? Do they also
> contain the political allusions which you find in Shakespeare's poems?
>
> - Gary
Just playing around this week, I found some wordiness ratios.
In just two poems, Oxford uses "thrall" twice.
In thirty seven plays, Shakespeare uses it but six times.
In just two poems, Oxford uses "salve" twice.
In thirty seven plays, Shakespeare uses it but ten times.
Either Oxford did not write Shakespeare and/or Shakespare did not
write Oxford or the other way around.
Greg Reynolds
Walter
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
"Name-calling is not an argument."
There goes nine-tenths of your arguments, then.
Clive
Paul Crowley
news:49ae78b1-fa64-4ffd...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> In this case we have the archives. IF you
>> had ever done a serious criticism of my
>> work (say) on Sonnet 18, you could locate
>> it and re-post. But, of course, you can't --
>> because you never have. Nor have you
>> done a serious criticism of ANY other part
>> of my work. (You may regard your name-
>> calling as 'serious criticism' -- but even
>> you will have the sense not to re-post it.)
>
> We're at the same old impasse. How gets to decide whether anything I
> re-post is a "serious criticism?"
That's not a problem. You don't re-
post. You know that you have
nothing in the archives that would
count as 'serious criticism' -- even
to your own goodself.
>>> --the method used by those who
>>> publish interpretations of poetry, not the method you use, which is to
>>> make up a life for Oxford, and match it to a made up wishlexical
>>> reading of the Sonnets that ignores what poets do, treating them like
>>> some kind of bizarre combination of gossip and politicking--or
>>> whatever you think they are.
>>
>> So what? It either works or it doesn't.
>> Merely claiming -- that it's not what you
>> like to do -- is not an argument.
>
> Yes, but WHO is to say whether it works or not???
Again, not a problem. You have never
asserted that my readings don't work -- at
any detailed level. For example, I say that
'Summers day' can be read as "Darnley's
fuck". You don't deny it, nor does anyone
else. And so on, for all the other words
and phrases in the Sonnet.
Nor do you claim that such meanings
could be present by chance. You can
only do one thing -- ignore it, pretend
that it does not exist. You are identical
to the Papal astronomers who refused
to look in Galileo's telescope.
>>>> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
>>>> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
>>>> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
>>>> Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
>>>> (under you ideology) to assert that they
>>>> don't. You should therefore be able to point
>>>> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
>>>> between the words of the Sonnet and the
>>>> historical circumstances (as would be seen
>>>> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
>>>> events) OR
>>>> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
>>>> is purely the result of chance.
>>
>>> Easy job, Paul.
>>
>> Except that you never make a start on it.
Not denied.
>>> But that's not how you interpret poems.
>>
>> So you legislate. A highly impressive
>> 'argument'.
>
> I refer you to I A Richards.
Why not to Aristotle? Or to the Fathers
of the Church? Or to Saint Augustine?
If this were 1630, you'd be relying on them
to show how wrong that idiot Galileo had
to be.
>>> As for your correspondences, who is to judge whether they are there or
>>> not?
>>
>> You could attempt to demolish them.
>> But you don't -- because you know
>> that you will fail -- and your failure
>> will be very obvious, even to you.
>
> But how am to tell whether or not I've demolished them
The question is academic. The point
is that you never try. That's a very
objective fact.
>>> You say they are, I say almost none are (one or two may be
>>> there).
>>
>> So attempt to demolish my arguments.
>> You never try, for very obvious reasons.
>
> Right, the argument in the paragraph above about maidens would would
> love to be impregnated, which I advanced ten or more times, is not
> even so much as a try!
Note (a) how you don't deal with my
arguments, and
(b) how you recite the same ancient
pathetically-literal reading of another
sonnet -- to which I have responded
dozens of times. (Your other hackneyed
pathetically-literal reading is of "prickt
out" in Sonnet 20).
This is exactly like some bible-thumper
endlessly quoting the same passages
out of Genesis to disprove Galileo or
Darwin or whoever.
>> [..]
>>
>>>> According to your ideology, the words of
>>>> Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
>>>> 1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
>>>> or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
>>>> child's play for you to demonstrate that.
>>
>>> How, if you grab any possible reference in it to Scotland?
>>
>> If it has NO connection, that will be
>> very obvious. Can you relate Sonnet
>> 18 to the Sinking of the Titanic?
>
> Of course. "Summer's day" is an obvious irony for the "cold night" on
> which the titanic went down, taking all those darling buds of May.
> Etc. But, no, you say, that's nonsense. No more than your wishlexic
> interpretations, Paul.
Of course it's nonsense. There is no
sense whatever as to why anyone would
have encoded such a meaning at any time.
In any case, you have to sustain the
'reading' for every quatrain, every line,
every phrase and every word (or almost
every word -- we'll allow you a small
amount of latitude).
>>> All I can
>>> do is show that it is a standard love poem much like many such poems
>>> by others,
>>
>> I agree. That's ALL you can do. You
>> simply cannot cope with my argument.
>> I'm half-surprised you don't seek
>> confirmation from the Bible.
>
> What other famous poems do what you say these do, Paul?
And where is this method outlined
in Aristotle? Why did neither Galen
nor Paracelsus give a detailed
description of it?
Paul.
Tom Reedy
Your comparisons are invalid. You're comparing only positives of one
corpus with both positives and negatives of the other.
A valid comparison would be, "In just two poems, Oxford uses 'salve'
twice. In seven plays, Shakespeare used it 12 (not 10) times."
Or you could say, "In about 50 poems (depending on how you count
them), Oxford uses 'salve' twice. In 37 plays, Shakespeare uses it 12
times.
What that would prove, I have no idea. But it wouldn't prove Oxford
didn't write Shakespeare.
TR
Ms. Mouse
> On Feb 17, 2:20 pm, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:15 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 1:53 pm, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 1:12 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 11:38 am, John Andrews <johnanti-
>
> > > > > s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > On 16 Feb, 07:55, "Peter Farey" <Peter.Fa...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > John Andrews wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > (There's no reason why you should have, but you never
> > > > > > > > > > responded to my post outlining how easy and indeed likely
> > > > > > > > > > it was for Shakespeare to have had access to the damned
> > > > > > > > > > Digges visited Thomas Russell at his house in Aldington
> > > > > > > > > > near Stratford. We know of Shakespeare's links to both
> > > > > > > > > > men - close links - and we know that Shakespeare was in
> > > > > > > > > > Stratford at this time from a London legal document.
> > > > > > > > > > Was Stratford so full of events that autumn that Shake-
> > > > > > > > > > speare wouldn't have found time to talk with Digges and
> > > > > > > > > > look at the letter he had brought to show his stepfather?
> > > > > > > > > > I know it's inconvenient for your theory, but you could
> > > > > > > > > > at least try to show why it is unlikely to have occurred.)
>
> > > > > > > and
>
> > > > > > > > Digges and his brother were members of the consortium
> > > > > > > > who paid for the failed expedition. It would have been
> > > > > the Virginia company did once it read the story of the nearly-
> > > > > successful mutiny on Bermuda and the blame put on the management for
> > > > > the failure of the colony. In fact, it was only after the dissolution
> > > > > of the Virginia Company in 1624 that the letter was published. Going
> > > > > Brittania: Laws Divine, Moral and Martial*, it appears he had been
> > > > > censored, as he writes "since many impediments, as yet must detain
> > > > > such my observations in the shadow of darkness, until I shall be able
> > > > > to deliver them perfect unto your judgements."
>
> > > > > Lynne and Roger interpret that to mean thatStrachey's*True
> > > > > Reportory* wasn't written yet. However, "perfect UNTO YOUR JUDGMENTS"
> > > > > could mean any number of things, one of which would be "until you
> > > > > change your mind" or "until I write it the way you want it written."
>
> > > > > TR
>
> > > > I agree; however, you seem to be ignoring this bit:
>
> > > > "since many impediments, as yet must detain
> > > > such my observations in the shadow of darkness..."
>
> > > > which seems to be saying that even any "unperfected" observations
> > > > haven't been shown to them either.
>
> > > It doesn't make any sense that they would not have received any kind
> > > of report from the former secretary of the colony. I thinkStracheyis
> > > here naming the company as one of the impediments.
>
> > I would think that recording secretaries are not obliged to write
> > reports.
>
> I would think that ship's captains were not obliged to give any
> reports, either, but here we are both of us thinking he did.
>
> > The dispatch went back with DLW,
>
> You mean Gates.
>
> > whichStracheysigned.
>
>
> > Anything else is pure conjecture.
>
> I think that anybody in any position of authority at all was probably
> obliged to report to the council.
>
> TR
I have come back to this, Tom. You are saying that anyone in any
position of authority at all was probably obliged to report to the
council?
Here is a list of the people who would therefore definitely be
involved in the reportage, according to Strachey's list of the
council:
De la Warre
Gates
Somers
Percy
Wainman
Newport
Strachey himself.
This omits the lower dignitaries, but possibly since they are in minor
positions of authority, you would include them also. There are at
least eleven of them.
But to go back to the first seven:
1. Yes, we have a dispatch from DLW, but there's at least one more
that's missing, according to TD.
2. No, we do not have Gates' report, either oral or written or both,
although we know he gave some kind of report and have clues to what he
said.
3. I can't remember offhand, but I think Somers' letter was private,
which means we may not have his report to council. You could put me
right on that if I'm wrong.
4. No, we don't have a report from Percy, though according to you he
probably made one other than to his brother.
5. No we don't have Wainman's report, although according to you he
would have made one.
6. No we don't have Newport's report, although we know from a letter
from an ambassador that he made one.
7.We possibly have Strachey's report; either the B or part of the P
letter as published or there might be another report altogether.
So you have two choices:
Either you're wrong and all those in positions of authority, including
Strachey, didn't have to submit a report,
or you're correct, which means that there are so many missing reports
we can't possibly determine what Strachey's contribution was.
Mouse
Tom Reedy
<snip>
Well, we have reports from Gabriel Archer, John Radcliff, William
Brewster, Robert Tindall, George Percy, Francis Perkins, Edward Maria
wingfield, Peter Winne, John Smith, Alexander Whitaker, Samuel Argall,
Ralph Hamor and John Rolfe.
Yet you're saying the secretary of the colony wouldn't make a report.
I think the extant evidence tends to be contradictory to your notion.
> There are at
> least eleven of them.
>
> But to go back to the first seven:
>
> 1. Yes, we have a dispatch from DLW, but there's at least one more
> that's missing, according to TD.
There are two reports from DLW that the council would have read. Given
that the returning ship was DLW's first opportunity to report back to
the council, those two could have been all that they received. But I
think he probably did make other reports, although a report on what
happened in Bermuda would not be among them, being that he wasn't
there.
> 2. No, we do not have Gates' report, either oral or written or both,
> although we know he gave some kind of report and have clues to what he
> said.
Very good clues, given that the November, 1610, publication outlined
what he told them.
> 3. I can't remember offhand, but I think Somers' letter was private,
> which means we may not have his report to council. You could put me
> right on that if I'm wrong.
Although the letter was addressed to Cecil and not the council, the
same way DLW's second letter was, there is no good reason to think the
council didn't read it.
> 4. No, we don't have a report from Percy, though according to you he
> probably made one other than to his brother.
We have several reports from Percy. Whether he sent one on this
occasion is doubtful, because he signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
> 5. No we don't have Wainman's report, although according to you he
> would have made one.
He signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
> 6. No we don't have Newport's report, although we know from a letter
> from an ambassador that he made one.
Could you fill me in on this?
> 7.We possibly have Strachey's report; either the B or part of the P
> letter as published or there might be another report altogether.
Why, yes, that's what I've been saying. So you agree with me?
> So you have two choices:
>
> Either you're wrong and all those in positions of authority, including
> Strachey, didn't have to submit a report,
They all signed the one signed by DLW, and some of them made other
reports.
> or you're correct, which means that there are so many missing reports
> we can't possibly determine what Strachey's contribution was.
So you've invalidated both our positions? mine being we can tell what
Strachey's contribution was by reading his letter, and yours being
that you can definitely say that Strachey's letter was not received by
the council in September 1610.
Seems to me you've invalidated your own thesis.
TR
> Mouse
Ms. Mouse
Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales
against either scale. We're talking about September/October of 1610.
Or at least, I assume we are. If you're talking about any old time,
Strachey's could have been given to the council at any old time also.
Then the passage in Lawes could come into play.
>
> Yet you're saying the secretary of the colony wouldn't make a report.
> I think the extant evidence tends to be contradictory to your notion.
No, I didn't say that at all. I wasn't discussing my position. I said
if you think everyone was obliged to put in a report at that time--
which is what you suggested--then he would have had to also. But how
could one possibly figure out what it was and what it influenced, if
anything, in TD, with all those other reports floating around? On the
other hand, if everyone didn't have to make a report, as you say
below, he didn't either.
> > There are at
> > least eleven of them.
>
> > But to go back to the first seven:
>
> > 1. Yes, we have a dispatch from DLW, but there's at least one more
> > that's missing, according to TD.
>
> There are two reports from DLW that the council would have read. Given
> that the returning ship was DLW's first opportunity to report back to
> the council, those two could have been all that they received. But I
> think he probably did make other reports, although a report on what
> happened in Bermuda would not be among them, being that he wasn't
> there.
There was one that we have to the council. Wasn't the other a private
letter?
>
> > 2. No, we do not have Gates' report, either oral or written or both,
> > although we know he gave some kind of report and have clues to what he
> > said.
>
> Very good clues, given that the November, 1610, publication outlined
> what he told them.
It's wrong in places though, so it may be wrong in others. He may have
said much more, also, than what appear in the document to be his
thoughts on the matter.
>
> > 3. I can't remember offhand, but I think Somers' letter was private,
> > which means we may not have his report to council. You could put me
> > right on that if I'm wrong.
>
> Although the letter was addressed to Cecil and not the council, the
> same way DLW's second letter was, there is no good reason to think the
> council didn't read it.
There's no absolute reason to think that they did. But it's possible.
>
> > 4. No, we don't have a report from Percy, though according to you he
> > probably made one other than to his brother.
>
> We have several reports from Percy. Whether he sent one on this
> occasion is doubtful, because he signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
Good God, isn't that just what I said about Strachey? That imo he
didn't need to send a separate report because he signed the DLW?
>
> > 5. No we don't have Wainman's report, although according to you he
> > would have made one.
>
> He signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
So did Strachey. You've now done a complete turnaround.
>
> > 6. No we don't have Newport's report, although we know from a letter
> > from an ambassador that he made one.
>
> Could you fill me in on this?
He made two, in fact, one private and one public:
When Captain Christopher Newport, who brought the first colony to
Jamestown, returned to England with the two small vessels, the
Blessing and the Hercules, in 1610, Velasco wrote to Philip III that
Newport
... has secretly reported the misery suffered by those who remain
there [Virginia] and said that if Lord de la "Warca" [Warre] who
recently went there as Governor, had delayed three days longer, the
island would have been abandoned by the 300 persons who had remained
alive out of 700, who had been sent out. In order to encourage the
merchants, at whose expense this expedition is undertaken, so that
they may persevere in it, he has publicly given out great hopes, and
thus they have formed several Companies by which men will be sent out
in assistance, and they have determined, that at the end of January of
the coming year, three ships shall sail, with men, women and ministers
of their religion, and with a full supply of arms and ammunition for
all. Thus I have been told by "Guillermo Monco" [Sir William Monson]
whom I consider a trustworthy and very intelligent man, who knows all
about this business, as some of the sailors who came over in those
small vessels, were servants of his and all the others intimate
friends and dependents of his; and the same I have heard from other
sources, all of which agree in this. I think this plan might be
brought to nought with great facility, if Y. M. [Your Majesty] were
pleased to command that a few ships should be sent to that part of the
world, which would drive out the few people that have remained there,
and are so threatened by the Indians that they dare not leave the fort
they have erected....
(from a deciphered letter of Don Alonso de Velasco to
the King of Spain, dated London, 30 September 1610;
qtd. in Brown, i:418-9)
>
> > 7.We possibly have Strachey's report; either the B or part of the P
> > letter as published or there might be another report altogether.
>
> Why, yes, that's what I've been saying. So you agree with me?
Roger and I always felt that there might be an earlier report that
went back. All we've said is that the P letter could not have gone
back in its entirety, in our opinion. But actually, I was just in that
post adopting your stance--that everyone in any position of
responsibility had to make a report--and seeing what that meant. But
now you've completely changed your position.
>
> > So you have two choices:
>
> > Either you're wrong and all those in positions of authority, including
> > Strachey, didn't have to submit a report,
>
> They all signed the one signed by DLW, and some of them made other
> reports.
Wow. See your previous post, in which you write that anyone in a
position of authority probably had to send a report.
>
> > or you're correct, which means that there are so many missing reports
> > we can't possibly determine what Strachey's contribution was.
>
> So you've invalidated both our positions? mine being we can tell what
> Strachey's contribution was by reading his letter,
I've certainly invalidated yours. We cannot say that, just as we
cannot say what his contribution was to Tempest by reading his letter.
There's a matter of when the "letter" was finished, and also the
question of other sources. We've seen over and over again that
material thought to be taken by Shakes from Strachey was in fact
available in other earlier texts that Strachey had copied.
>and yours being
> that you can definitely say that Strachey's letter was not received by
> the council in September 1610.
I cannot definitely say that some part of TR did not get to the
council. Our position when we wrote the essay was that because of a
multitude of other factors, we think the complete TR could not have
gone back on Gates' boat. We mentioned the possibility of an earlier
letter--which we now know about--meaning an early version of TR, which
is in fact the earlier letter. I haven't changed my position at all.
I'm simply saying that if everyone had to submit a report, we cannot
know from that what, if any, of the influence came from Strachey. You
invalidated your own position, but now you appear to have done an
about turn.
>
> Seems to me you've invalidated your own thesis.
No, not at all. You've totally invalidated your own by saying
1. Everyone in a position of authority had to submit a report (and so
Strachey had to). This would mean so much info is not available to us
that we have no idea what he sent that was reported in TD.
and then you changed your stance to
2. Everyone didn't have to submit a report as they signed the DLW
letter, which meant that Strachey, who likewise didn't have to submit
a report, may not have sent material back on Gates' ship at all.
Sigh,
Mouse
>
> TR
>
>
>
> > Mouse- Hide quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I meant people in general, not mice, Mouse.
--brad apple
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >> had ever done a serious criticism of my
> >> work (say) on Sonnet 18, you could locate
> >> it and re-post. But, of course, you can't --
> >> because you never have. Nor have you
> >> done a serious criticism of ANY other part
> >> of my work. (You may regard your name-
> >> calling as 'serious criticism' -- but even
> >> you will have the sense not to re-post it.)
>
> > re-post is a "serious criticism?"
>
> That's not a problem. You don't re-
> post. You know that you have
> nothing in the archives that would
> count as 'serious criticism' -- even
> to your own goodself.
Same old impasse. Who gets to decide whether I repost anything?
> >>> --the method used by those who
> >>> publish interpretations of poetry, not the method you use, which is to
> >>> make up a life for Oxford, and match it to a made up wishlexical
> >>> reading of the Sonnets that ignores what poets do, treating them like
> >>> some kind of bizarre combination of gossip and politicking--or
> >>> whatever you think they are.
>
> >> So what? It either works or it doesn't.
> >> Merely claiming -- that it's not what you
> >> like to do -- is not an argument.
>
> > Yes, but WHO is to say whether it works or not???
>
> Again, not a problem. You have never
> asserted that my readings don't work -- at
> any detailed level. For example, I say that
> 'Summers day' can be read as "Darnley's
> fuck". You don't deny it, nor does anyone
> else. And so on, for all the other words
> and phrases in the Sonnet.
Refutation: "summers" is a different word from "Darnley." "Day" does
not mean "fuck." "Summers day" makes perfect sense in the explicit
context (a love sonnet); "Darnley's fuck" would break the decorum of
the line that's in, which is something poets avoid doing, as you would
know if you read any poetry besides Shakespeare's, and read his as a
reader of poetry rather than as a crank looking for secret messages
supporting your incredible rigidniplex.
There, that's a response to your argument. I will cut and paste it
into my Crowley file, and re-post it every time you say I don't offer
any argument against your nonsense. Yes, you will say it's not an
argument. Which puts us at the impasse I mentioned before: the fact
that you say your right but refuse to offer any means of making sure
of that other than your judgement.
> Nor do you claim that such meanings
> could be present by chance. You can
> only do one thing -- ignore it, pretend
> that it does not exist. You are identical
> to the Papal astronomers who refused
> to look in Galileo's telescope.
Stupid analogy. I have looked through your telescope and seen
"summers day," not "Darnley's fuck." No one but you sees what you
see, Paul, whereas many looked through Galileo's telescope and saw
what he saw.
> >>>> It is NOT a relatively subjective matter.
> >>>> Either the words of Sonnet 18 (for example)
> >>>> apply to Elizabeth, Mary QS, Darnley,
> >>>> Riccio, etc., or they don't. You are obliged
> >>>> (under you ideology) to assert that they
> >>>> don't. You should therefore be able to point
> >>>> out that either (A) there is no correspondence
> >>>> between the words of the Sonnet and the
> >>>> historical circumstances (as would be seen
> >>>> by our poet in London a few weeks after the
> >>>> events) OR
> >>>> (B) show how any apparent correspondence
> >>>> is purely the result of chance.
>
> >>> Easy job, Paul.
>
> >> Except that you never make a start on it.
>
> Not denied.
I show what the sane interpretation of the sonnet is, and that that
interpretation is incompatible with your insane interpretation. That
is all I need to do. But it'd be a waste of time trying to do what
you want done, anyway, because you would, as sole judge of the matter,
reject anything I point out\ as evidence against your stand. So why
should I?
> >>> But that's not how you interpret poems.
>
> >> So you legislate. A highly impressive
> >> 'argument'.
>
> > I refer you to I A Richards.
Richards is just one critic who would agree that my method of poetry
interpretation is valid, yours not, which disproves your contention
that I am "legislating."
> Why not to Aristotle? Or to the Fathers
> of the Church? Or to Saint Augustine?
> If this were 1630, you'd be relying on them
> to show how wrong that idiot Galileo had
> to be.
No, Paul. In 1630, I would be on Galileo's side, but saving my skin
by keeping quiet. In 1670, I would be having this kind of argument
with you, except trying to convince you that just because you said
that the Pope wrote the works of Galileo was not enough to make it so.
> >>> As for your correspondences, who is to judge whether they are there or
> >>> not?
>
> >> You could attempt to demolish them.
> >> But you don't -- because you know
> >> that you will fail -- and your failure
> >> will be very obvious, even to you.
>
> > But how am to tell whether or not I've demolished them
>
> The question is academic. The point
> is that you never try. That's a very
> objective fact.
I've tried in this post. I've tried many times before, but you simple
decline to rate the attempts as attempts.
> >>> You say they are, I say almost none are (one or two may be
> >>> there).
>
> >> So attempt to demolish my arguments.
> >> You never try, for very obvious reasons.
>
> > Right, the argument in the paragraph above about maidens would would
> > love to be impregnated, which I advanced ten or more times, is not
> > even so much as a try!
Hey, you snipped that! This time without even your three little
dots! You really are a con artist, aren't you! I didn't think you
were; I thought you were a crank but a sincere one.
>
> Note (a) how you don't deal with my
> arguments, and
> (b) how you recite the same ancient
> pathetically-literal reading of another
> sonnet -- to which I have responded
> dozens of times. (Your other hackneyed
> pathetically-literal reading is of "prickt
> out" in Sonnet 20).
Ah, so I HAVE dealt with them. But you just write off what I've said
as not arguments--because you have so judged them.
> This is exactly like some bible-thumper
> endlessly quoting the same passages
> out of Genesis to disprove Galileo or
> Darwin or whoever.
Again, your analogy is pathetic. Sure, I'm quoting the Bible--but you
are, too. I'm saying the Bible says God created light when he said,
"Let there be light." You're saying the Bible says God said,
"letthere (leather) blight (the letter b plus 'light')," and he was
calling upon the Jews to start a strike in the leather industry. He
was also saying let there be light, but that was an obvious cliche,
intended only to confuse the rubes. The real message had social
significant of vast proportions.
>
>
>
> >> [..]
>
> >>>> According to your ideology, the words of
> >>>> Sonnet 18 no more relate to Scotland or to
> >>>> 1566 than they do to the Sinking of the Titanic,
> >>>> or the Siege of the Alamo. So it should be
> >>>> child's play for you to demonstrate that.
>
> >>> How, if you grab any possible reference in it to Scotland?
>
> >> If it has NO connection, that will be
> >> very obvious. Can you relate Sonnet
> >> 18 to the Sinking of the Titanic?
>
> > Of course. "Summer's day" is an obvious irony for the "cold night" on
> > which the titanic went down, taking all those darling buds of May.
> > Etc. But, no, you say, that's nonsense. No more than your wishlexic
> > interpretations, Paul.
>
> Of course it's nonsense. There is no
> sense whatever as to why anyone would
> have encoded such a meaning at any time.
> In any case, you have to sustain the
> 'reading' for every quatrain, every line,
> every phrase and every word (or almost
> every word -- we'll allow you a small
> amount of latitude).
Exactly. And there is no sense whatever in someone's making so many
polished sonnets to encode the idiotic messages in them that you find.
> >>> All I can
> >>> do is show that it is a standard love poem much like many such poems
> >>> by others,
>
> >> I agree. That's ALL you can do. You
> >> simply cannot cope with my argument.
> >> I'm half-surprised you don't seek
> >> confirmation from the Bible.
>
> > What other famous poems do what you say these do, Paul?
>
> And where is this method outlined
> in Aristotle? Why did neither Galen
> nor Paracelsus give a detailed
> description of it?
Can you answer my question?
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> > > > I think that anybody in any position of authority at all was probably
> > > > obliged to report to the council.
>
> > > > TR
>
> > > I have come back to this, Tom. You are saying that anyone in any
> > > position of authority at all was probably obliged to report to the
> > > council?
>
> > > Here is a list of the people who would therefore definitely be
> > > involved in the reportage, according to Strachey's list of the
> > > council:
>
> > > De la Warre
> > > Gates
> > > Somers
> > > Percy
> > > Wainman
> > > Newport
> > > Strachey himself.
>
> > > This omits the lower dignitaries, but possibly since they are in minor
> > > positions of authority, you would include them also.
>
> > Well, we have reports from Gabriel Archer, John Radcliff, William
> > Brewster, Robert Tindall, George Percy, Francis Perkins, Edward Maria
> > wingfield, Peter Winne, John Smith, Alexander Whitaker, Samuel Argall,
> > Ralph Hamor and John Rolfe.
>
> Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales
> against either scale. We're talking about September/October of 1610.
I was giving you examples of the people who made reports to illustrate
the various degrees of authority they did or did not have.
> Or at least, I assume we are. If you're talking about any old time,
> Strachey's could have been given to the council at any old time also.
> Then the passage in Lawes could come into play.
>
>
>
> > Yet you're saying the secretary of the colony wouldn't make a report.
> > I think the extant evidence tends to be contradictory to your notion.
>
> No, I didn't say that at all. I wasn't discussing my position. I said
> if you think everyone was obliged to put in a report at that time--
Where did I say that? I thought I said "I think that anybody in any
position of authority at all was probably obliged to report to the
council." and I said that in response to your suggestion that
"recording secretaries are not obliged to write reports."
In any case, I think a report from Strachey would have been welcomed,
and I daresay his personality was such that he would be eager to send
one. and I venture furhter to say that he would make sure that his
report was a good effort and stood out as an outstanding example, IOW,
much like the letter that we have.
> which is what you suggested--then he would have had to also. But how
> could one possibly figure out what it was and what it influenced, if
> anything, in TD, with all those other reports floating around? On the
> other hand, if everyone didn't have to make a report, as you say
> below, he didn't either.
>
> > > There are at
> > > least eleven of them.
>
> > > But to go back to the first seven:
>
> > > 1. Yes, we have a dispatch from DLW, but there's at least one more
> > > that's missing, according to TD.
>
> > There are two reports from DLW that the council would have read. Given
> > that the returning ship was DLW's first opportunity to report back to
> > the council, those two could have been all that they received. But I
> > think he probably did make other reports, although a report on what
> > happened in Bermuda would not be among them, being that he wasn't
> > there.
>
> There was one that we have to the council. Wasn't the other a private
> letter?
To Cecil, who had strong ties to the Virginia company and had great
influence. Otherwise why would anyone send him a report? Yet both DLW
and Somers do in this instance, and DLW, Dale, Newport and Ratcliff do
on other occasions.
> > > 2. No, we do not have Gates' report, either oral or written or both,
> > > although we know he gave some kind of report and have clues to what he
> > > said.
>
> > Very good clues, given that the November, 1610, publication outlined
> > what he told them.
>
> It's wrong in places though, so it may be wrong in others. He may have
> said much more, also, than what appear in the document to be his
> thoughts on the matter.
>
> > > 3. I can't remember offhand, but I think Somers' letter was private,
> > > which means we may not have his report to council. You could put me
> > > right on that if I'm wrong.
>
> > Although the letter was addressed to Cecil and not the council, the
> > same way DLW's second letter was, there is no good reason to think the
> > council didn't read it.
>
> There's no absolute reason to think that they did. But it's possible.
The fact that he had strong influence and ties to the company lends
weight to the idea that they did.
> > > 4. No, we don't have a report from Percy, though according to you he
> > > probably made one other than to his brother.
>
> > We have several reports from Percy. Whether he sent one on this
> > occasion is doubtful, because he signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
>
> Good God, isn't that just what I said about Strachey? That imo he
> didn't need to send a separate report because he signed the DLW?
>
>
>
> > > 5. No we don't have Wainman's report, although according to you he
> > > would have made one.
>
> > He signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
>
> So did Strachey. You've now done a complete turnaround.
Apparently there are several factors at work in these communications.
There is, first, what I intend to write. Then there is what I actually
wrote, then there is what I think I wrote. And then there is what you
think I wrote, and then what I think you wrote in responding to what
you thought I wrote.
If you think I have done a complete turnaround I suggest either you
don't completely understand what I wrote or you are imposing your own
idea of what I wrote into what I actually wrote.
Is that clear?
Hmm. I don't have my Brown here; I wonder why Haile left that out of
his compilation.
> > > 7.We possibly have Strachey's report; either the B or part of the P
> > > letter as published or there might be another report altogether.
>
> > Why, yes, that's what I've been saying. So you agree with me?
>
> Roger and I always felt that there might be an earlier report that
> went back. All we've said is that the P letter could not have gone
> back in its entirety, in our opinion. But actually, I was just in that
> post adopting your stance--that everyone in any position of
> responsibility had to make a report--and seeing what that meant. But
> now you've completely changed your position.
>
>
>
> > > So you have two choices:
>
> > > Either you're wrong and all those in positions of authority, including
> > > Strachey, didn't have to submit a report,
>
> > They all signed the one signed by DLW, and some of them made other
> > reports.
>
> Wow. See your previous post, in which you write that anyone in a
> position of authority probably had to send a report.
I still think it probable, although that is immaterial to the fact of
whether Strachey sent the letter on the July, 1610, ship.
> > > or you're correct, which means that there are so many missing reports
> > > we can't possibly determine what Strachey's contribution was.
>
> > So you've invalidated both our positions? mine being we can tell what
> > Strachey's contribution was by reading his letter,
>
> I've certainly invalidated yours. We cannot say that, just as we
> cannot say what his contribution was to Tempest by reading his letter.
> There's a matter of when the "letter" was finished, and also the
> question of other sources. We've seen over and over again that
> material thought to be taken by Shakes from Strachey was in fact
> available in other earlier texts that Strachey had copied.
All that is immaterial to whether Strachey's letter was sent on the
July, 1610, ship.
> >and yours being
> > that you can definitely say that Strachey's letter was not received by
> > the council in September 1610.
>
> I cannot definitely say that some part of TR did not get to the
> council.
Then you cannot definitely say that all of it didn't.
> Our position when we wrote the essay was that because of a
> multitude of other factors, we think the complete TR could not have
> gone back on Gates' boat.
All of those factors have been discussed and none of them hold up
under scrutiny. In fact, the extant evidence suggests it did go back
on Gates' boat.
> We mentioned the possibility of an earlier
> letter--which we now know about--meaning an early version of TR, which
> is in fact the earlier letter. I haven't changed my position at all.
> I'm simply saying that if everyone had to submit a report, we cannot
> know from that what, if any, of the influence came from Strachey. You
> invalidated your own position, but now you appear to have done an
> about turn.
>
>
>
> > Seems to me you've invalidated your own thesis.
>
> No, not at all.
When you admit there is no certainty in any interpretation of the
record, you invalidate all interpretations, including your own. You
don't seem to understand this. You seem to think that casting doubt on
ANY interpretation only affects my position and leaves yours still
standing.
> You've totally invalidated your own by saying
>
> 1. Everyone in a position of authority had to submit a report (and so
> Strachey had to). This would mean so much info is not available to us
> that we have no idea what he sent that was reported in TD.
>
> and then you changed your stance to
>
> 2. Everyone didn't have to submit a report as they signed the DLW
> letter, which meant that Strachey, who likewise didn't have to submit
> a report, may not have sent material back on Gates' ship at all.
Whether they had to send a report or not is immaterial to whether
Strachey's letter went on the July, 1610, ship, so all this is just a
red herring to drag across the trail.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
He doesn't have to.
> 2. He knows that there were many earlier texts available to
> Shakespeare (and Strachey) as sources, and that there is proof they
> both made use of them. This destroys Strachey as a necessary source.
But the point being argued is whather or not it was a probable source.
> 3. In his responses here and elsewhere, he doesn't seem to be dealing
> with how the material got to Shakespeare. Without the Shakespeare
> link, Strachey is of little importance, in a literary sense, anyhow,
> especially as quite a bit of his ms is a conflation of other sources.
No problem for Tom here unless it can be shown that Shakespeare could
not have gotten a look at the letter, or a draft or some kind of copy
of it.
> I may be wrong. If Tom is bent on publishing, he might be addressing
> these problems, which imo are very important.
They don't seem so to me, Mouse. Sorry, but the parallels and the
first recorded date of a performance of the Tempest remain to me about
all that count. But yours and his back&forth has been educational
about Virginia, and english colonization in general, so of value.
--Bob G.
Ms. Mouse
And I venture you're venturing one supposition on top of another, and
are doing so in almost every response in this post, which is why I'm
not bothering to answer most of what you've written. You've already
turned yourself inside out several times.
It's clear that you're obfuscating, if that's what you're asking.
Yes, I remember it took me by surprise when I read it. Could it be a
mistake of some kind?
>
> > > > 7.We possibly have Strachey's report; either the B or part of the P
> > > > letter as published or there might be another report altogether.
>
> > > Why, yes, that's what I've been saying. So you agree with me?
>
> > Roger and I always felt that there might be an earlier report that
> > went back. All we've said is that the P letter could not have gone
> > back in its entirety, in our opinion. But actually, I was just in that
> > post adopting your stance--that everyone in any position of
> > responsibility had to make a report--and seeing what that meant. But
> > now you've completely changed your position.
>
> > > > So you have two choices:
>
> > > > Either you're wrong and all those in positions of authority, including
> > > > Strachey, didn't have to submit a report,
>
> > > They all signed the one signed by DLW, and some of them made other
> > > reports.
>
> > Wow. See your previous post, in which you write that anyone in a
> > position of authority probably had to send a report.
>
> I still think it probable, although that is immaterial to the fact of
> whether Strachey sent the letter on the July, 1610, ship.
No, of course it's not. It's one of your reasons for why the ms had to
have gone back at that time.
>
> > > > or you're correct, which means that there are so many missing reports
> > > > we can't possibly determine what Strachey's contribution was.
>
> > > So you've invalidated both our positions? mine being we can tell what
> > > Strachey's contribution was by reading his letter,
>
> > I've certainly invalidated yours. We cannot say that, just as we
> > cannot say what his contribution was to Tempest by reading his letter.
> > There's a matter of when the "letter" was finished, and also the
> > question of other sources. We've seen over and over again that
> > material thought to be taken by Shakes from Strachey was in fact
> > available in other earlier texts that Strachey had copied.
>
> All that is immaterial to whether Strachey's letter was sent on the
> July, 1610, ship.
No actually, it's not. It's almost an exact parallel for whether the
author of TD had to get material from Strachey.
>
> > >and yours being
> > > that you can definitely say that Strachey's letter was not received by
> > > the council in September 1610.
>
> > I cannot definitely say that some part of TR did not get to the
> > council.
>
> Then you cannot definitely say that all of it didn't.
>
> > Our position when we wrote the essay was that because of a
> > multitude of other factors, we think the complete TR could not have
> > gone back on Gates' boat.
>
> All of those factors have been discussed and none of them hold up
> under scrutiny. In fact, the extant evidence suggests it did go back
> on Gates' boat.
Perhaps none of them hold up under your scrutiny. Apparently some
others feel differently.
>
> > We mentioned the possibility of an earlier
> > letter--which we now know about--meaning an early version of TR, which
> > is in fact the earlier letter. I haven't changed my position at all.
> > I'm simply saying that if everyone had to submit a report, we cannot
> > know from that what, if any, of the influence came from Strachey. You
> > invalidated your own position, but now you appear to have done an
> > about turn.
>
> > > Seems to me you've invalidated your own thesis.
>
> > No, not at all.
>
> When you admit there is no certainty in any interpretation of the
> record, you invalidate all interpretations, including your own. You
> don't seem to understand this. You seem to think that casting doubt on
> ANY interpretation only affects my position and leaves yours still
> standing.
What you don't seem to understand, Tom, is that it's become your
theory, so it's your job to present new evidence as the old stuff is
looking rather limp. So far it's been one speculation after another.
We didn't expect in that one paper to absolutely disprove the theory.
We try to do that by other means in other essays. It was our intention
to show that there were many other possible interpretations of the
evidence, such as it was, to remove the Strachey manuscript from the
list of certain Shakespeare sources to that of extremely doubtful
Shakespeare sources. We have lots of other essays that suggest what
more likely happened with regard to Shakespeare's play.
>
> > You've totally invalidated your own by saying
>
> > 1. Everyone in a position of authority had to submit a report (and so
> > Strachey had to). This would mean so much info is not available to us
> > that we have no idea what he sent that was reported in TD.
>
> > and then you changed your stance to
>
> > 2. Everyone didn't have to submit a report as they signed the DLW
> > letter, which meant that Strachey, who likewise didn't have to submit
> > a report, may not have sent material back on Gates' ship at all.
>
> Whether they had to send a report or not is immaterial to whether
> Strachey's letter went on the July, 1610, ship, so all this is just a
> red herring to drag across the trail.
Oy.
Mouse
Tom Reedy
You cannot and have not shown that it didn't. Until you do so, the
generally-accepted scenario--that it did go back on the July, 1610,
ship with Gates--is still in place.
> 2. He knows that there were many earlier texts available to
> Shakespeare (and Strachey) as sources, and that there is proof they
> both made use of them. This destroys Strachey as a necessary source.
As Bob said, it does not destroy Strachey as a probable source.
> 3. In his responses here and elsewhere, he doesn't seem to be dealing
> with how the material got to Shakespeare. Without the Shakespeare
> link, Strachey is of little importance, in a literary sense, anyhow,
> especially as quite a bit of his ms is a conflation of other sources.
Well, according to you, that link has never been proven anyway, yet
somehow Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans.
Or at least I am not aware of any seismic shift in the general
consensus.
> I may be wrong. If Tom is bent on publishing, he might be addressing
> these problems, which imo are very important.
I think your above three points are probably the conditions that you
feel should be met to rebut your essay. However, your essay has only
been published, not accepted as proven yet by anyone--as far as I
know--besides yourself and the fellows at the Fellowship.
TR
>
> L.- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
I'm afraid the theory in toto is "generally accepted" no longer, at
least by scholars, as several important Tempest scholars had turned
away from the idea that Strachey was a necessary source (with all its
various speculations) even before we'd published. So even if you could
somehow prove that the entire manuscript went back on Gates' ship--
something I find close to impossible to believe--you'd still be stuck
with showing that it got to the company in its completed state,
although addressed to a noble lady, that the other more famous and
richer texts weren't in play, and that it got to Shakespeare in time
for him to write the play. I would say at this point that's
impossible. I think you'll find that the question of whether TR went
back on the ship matters less and less as time goes on.
>
> > 2. He knows that there were many earlier texts available to
> > Shakespeare (and Strachey) as sources, and that there is proof they
> > both made use of them. This destroys Strachey as a necessary source.
>
> As Bob said, it does not destroy Strachey as a probable source.
Is this your appeal to authority? Shakespeare used the sources we
name over and over again. We know he used them in Tempest. There's
absolute proof that he used Eden in the play and either Ariosto or
Erasmus for the storm scene as they contain parallel material not in
Strachey or anywhere else. When you stack the thematic and linguistic
parallels of these texts up against an ms by an unknown which wasn't
even necessarily in place at the time the play was written, it
suddenly doesn't look even probable that it was used, whatever Bob
thinks.
>
> > 3. In his responses here and elsewhere, he doesn't seem to be dealing
> > with how the material got to Shakespeare. Without the Shakespeare
> > link, Strachey is of little importance, in a literary sense, anyhow,
> > especially as quite a bit of his ms is a conflation of other sources.
>
> Well, according to you, that link has never been proven anyway, yet
> somehow Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans.
> Or at least I am not aware of any seismic shift in the general
> consensus.
A shift is actually going on, although of course it takes time to
filter through, and there's resistance to it for obvious reasons. That
"Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans,"
frankly my dear, means nothing at all to me. I'm not interested in
what most Shakespeareans--whoever they are--think, I don't have to
have, like some here, a defensive posture. I'm simply interested in
getting at the truth.
>
> > I may be wrong. If Tom is bent on publishing, he might be addressing
> > these problems, which imo are very important.
>
> I think your above three points are probably the conditions that you
> feel should be met to rebut your essay. However, your essay has only
> been published, not accepted as proven yet by anyone--as far as I
> know--besides yourself and the fellows at the Fellowship.
I'm afraid you're mistaken.
L.
>
> TR
>
>
>
>
>
> > L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tom Reedy
No major ones that I know of.
> So even if you could
> somehow prove that the entire manuscript went back on Gates' ship--
> something I find close to impossible to believe--
What you really find it impossible to believe is that there are maor
weaknesses in your theory, your "proof," and your essay. You have no
balanced judgment on the issue. In your mind, you've proven it didn't
go back, so that's all you need to know. But as I said, you have not
proven it to anybody else. Can you name any responses, published or
otherwise, from Shakespeare scholars who have embraced the conclusions
of your first paper?
> you'd still be stuck
> with showing that it got to the company in its completed state,
> although addressed to a noble lady, that the other more famous and
> richer texts weren't in play, and that it got to Shakespeare in time
> for him to write the play. I would say at this point that's
> impossible.
I would expect no less from you.
> I think you'll find that the question of whether TR went
> back on the ship matters less and less as time goes on.
Dream on.
> > > 2. He knows that there were many earlier texts available to
> > > Shakespeare (and Strachey) as sources, and that there is proof they
> > > both made use of them. This destroys Strachey as a necessary source.
>
> > As Bob said, it does not destroy Strachey as a probable source.
>
> Is this your appeal to authority?
Is that what you consider to be an appeal to authority? If so, your
misapprehension is on display.
> Shakespeare used the sources we
> name over and over again. We know he used them in Tempest. There's
> absolute proof that he used Eden in the play and either Ariosto or
> Erasmus for the storm scene as they contain parallel material not in
> Strachey or anywhere else. When you stack the thematic and linguistic
> parallels of these texts up against an ms by an unknown which wasn't
> even necessarily in place at the time the play was written, it
> suddenly doesn't look even probable that it was used, whatever Bob
> thinks.
You are building castles in air. There are obvious linguistic, plot
and thematic parallels with Strachey and obvious echoes of the
colonial zeitgeist of the times in the Tempest. By stylistic issues
alone, you will never date the play early enought to give it to
Oxford.
> > > 3. In his responses here and elsewhere, he doesn't seem to be dealing
> > > with how the material got to Shakespeare. Without the Shakespeare
> > > link, Strachey is of little importance, in a literary sense, anyhow,
> > > especially as quite a bit of his ms is a conflation of other sources.
>
> > Well, according to you, that link has never been proven anyway, yet
> > somehow Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans.
> > Or at least I am not aware of any seismic shift in the general
> > consensus.
>
> A shift is actually going on, although of course it takes time to
> filter through, and there's resistance to it for obvious reasons.
Yes, Crowley has been warning of us this for years now.
> That
> "Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans,"
> frankly my dear, means nothing at all to me. I'm not interested in
> what most Shakespeareans--whoever they are--think, I don't have to
> have, like some here, a defensive posture. I'm simply interested in
> getting at the truth.
I daresay you're more interested in promoting Oxfordism, which is what
this entire exercise has been about since Day One.
TR
Ms. Mouse
You are mistaken.
>
> > So even if you could
> > somehow prove that the entire manuscript went back on Gates' ship--
> > something I find close to impossible to believe--
>
> What you really find it impossible to believe is that there are maor
> weaknesses in your theory, your "proof," and your essay. You have no
> balanced judgment on the issue. In your mind, you've proven it didn't
> go back, so that's all you need to know.
Again, you are mistaken. We said in the essay that an earlier version
of the ms might have gone back on Gates' boat. I now think it likely
did.
>But as I said, you have not
> proven it to anybody else.
As I've told you many many times now, Tom, it is only the first essay
of six, with one more to come. We didn't set out in our first essay to
prove it. We set out to give other suggestions, basically to show how
the evidence, such as it is, can be interpreted differently, and so
the dating of the play doesn't necessarily hinge on it. Several Strats
have written to us to say the first essay was interesting, but the
second, on Eden, is the killer to the Strachey theory. Someone with a
high profile thought another essay "superb." It will be out soon.I
doubt you'll agree, of course.
>Can you name any responses, published or
> otherwise, from Shakespeare scholars who have embraced the conclusions
> of your first paper?
I can tell you that we've had very positive responses, yes. I don't
wish to name these people as their positive feedback was in private
communications. We also apparently made someone very angry, because he
stated he didn't like his work used by Oxfordians to make their case,
which he ironically had agreed with. And one organisation has stopped
me speaking at least twice, possibly three times. Shows what we're up
against.
>
> > you'd still be stuck
> > with showing that it got to the company in its completed state,
> > although addressed to a noble lady, that the other more famous and
> > richer texts weren't in play, and that it got to Shakespeare in time
> > for him to write the play. I would say at this point that's
> > impossible.
>
> I would expect no less from you.
Well, if it's not, set it out. I'm always willing to change my mind.
>
> > I think you'll find that the question of whether TR went
> > back on the ship matters less and less as time goes on.
>
> Dream on.
What a pathetic response.
>
> > > > 2. He knows that there were many earlier texts available to
> > > > Shakespeare (and Strachey) as sources, and that there is proof they
> > > > both made use of them. This destroys Strachey as a necessary source.
>
> > > As Bob said, it does not destroy Strachey as a probable source.
>
> > Is this your appeal to authority?
>
> Is that what you consider to be an appeal to authority? If so, your
> misapprehension is on display.
I was joking. You apparently were not when you used Bob as a
confirmation of your own position. I do notice, by the way, that
you'll discuss with me here, with almost everyone on side, but not on
the Fellowship boards. Interesting.
>
> > Shakespeare used the sources we
> > name over and over again. We know he used them in Tempest. There's
> > absolute proof that he used Eden in the play and either Ariosto or
> > Erasmus for the storm scene as they contain parallel material not in
> > Strachey or anywhere else. When you stack the thematic and linguistic
> > parallels of these texts up against an ms by an unknown which wasn't
> > even necessarily in place at the time the play was written, it
> > suddenly doesn't look even probable that it was used, whatever Bob
> > thinks.
>
> You are building castles in air. There are obvious linguistic, plot
> and thematic parallels with Strachey.
We've argued this before, if you look back. By the way, talking of
castles in the air, they always remind me of Prospero's speech in
Tempest:
These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind.
Could you show me a possibe source in Strachey or any of the other
Bermuda materials for
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself.... ?
Thanks, because
1. The linguistic, thematic and plot parallels are not nearly as
strong in Strachey as in other works, including at times Shakespeare's
own.
2. Strachey used earlier sources in his narrative that were also
available to Shakespeare. And unlike with Strachey's TR, we know that
Shakespeare repeatedly used them, in Tempest and other earlier
works.
>and obvious echoes of the
> colonial zeitgeist of the times in the Tempest.
You need to look at Adams, which shows in detail that what you call
the colonial zeitgeist was in place much earlier, as early as the
1580s, in fact. There's loads of evidence to show that's the case.
Not only that, but the Tempest is much closer to the idea of Spanish,
rather than English, expansionism, and there was great interest in
that subject in England during and after 1598, when Philip of Spain
died.
>By stylistic issues
> alone, you will never date the play early enought to give it to
> Oxford.
What was it you said further up? Dream on? Perhaps you should take
your own advice. Stylistics, which by the way only for the most part
measure trends, have to give way when stronger evidence is presented.
We will present that evidence in journals over the next six months or
so, and we're also on the trail of demonstrating that another play of
Shakespeare's was likely earlier than its accepted Jacobean date.
>
> > > > 3. In his responses here and elsewhere, he doesn't seem to be dealing
> > > > with how the material got to Shakespeare. Without the Shakespeare
> > > > link, Strachey is of little importance, in a literary sense, anyhow,
> > > > especially as quite a bit of his ms is a conflation of other sources.
>
> > > Well, according to you, that link has never been proven anyway, yet
> > > somehow Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans.
> > > Or at least I am not aware of any seismic shift in the general
> > > consensus.
>
> > A shift is actually going on, although of course it takes time to
> > filter through, and there's resistance to it for obvious reasons.
>
> Yes, Crowley has been warning of us this for years now.
So he was right for once.
>
> > That
> > "Strachey is still considered a source by most Shakespeareans,"
> > frankly my dear, means nothing at all to me. I'm not interested in
> > what most Shakespeareans--whoever they are--think, I don't have to
> > have, like some here, a defensive posture. I'm simply interested in
> > getting at the truth.
>
> I daresay you're more interested in promoting Oxfordism, which is what
> this entire exercise has been about since Day One.
And what are you promoting, Tom? As it happens I'm not promoting
Oxfordiana, I'm just interested in what really happened, and have
changed my mind in the past about many issues that affect authorship,
both in Oxford's favour and against it. But even if the "entire
excercise" had been about Oxford since Day One, as you state, what
does that matter? Would that nullify our research? Does your hope to
rescue Strachey to confirm Stratfordian thinking nullify yours? Do you
feel, like the scholar I mentioned above, that scholarly research
should be prohibited to Oxfordians? You and I and Roger have all
uncovered some exceptional material in our investigations. Isn't that
what research should really be about?
We can rest there, if you like. Or we could go on. Could I put some of
this on the public boards of the Fellowship?
L.
Tom Reedy
Of course not. It's just that I've seen precious little that qualifies
as such. Even your and Roger's essay is rife with error and
misquotation, along with unsupported assumptions and leaps of logic.
> You and I and Roger have all
> uncovered some exceptional material in our investigations. Isn't that
> what research should really be about?
>
> We can rest there, if you like. Or we could go on. Could I put some of
> this on the public boards of the Fellowship?
I thought we were going to abandon this several posts ago. And no, I
don't want to argue on the Fellowship, although you can put it up if
you want, sans my participation.
TR
Ms. Mouse
>
> > And what are you promoting, Tom? As it happens I'm not promoting
> > Oxfordiana, I'm just interested in what really happened, and have
> > changed my mind in the past about many issues that affect authorship,
> > both in Oxford's favour and against it. But even if the "entire
> > excercise" had been about Oxford since Day One, as you state, what
> > does that matter? Would that nullify our research? Does your hope to
> > rescue Strachey to confirm Stratfordian thinking nullify yours? Do you
> > feel, like the scholar I mentioned above, that scholarly research
> > should be prohibited to Oxfordians?
>
> Of course not. It's just that I've seen precious little that qualifies
> as such. Even your and Roger's essay is rife with error and
> misquotation, along with unsupported assumptions and leaps of logic.
I was attempting to be generous just now. You seem not to have any
generosity to spare. But the truth is, Tom, if we have leaps of logic
you have them +++ in your responses, here and elsewhere, as well as
great galumphing gaps, such as an unwillingness to discuss the
importance of earlier sources or a chain of custody to Shakespeare.
Not only that, you've changed your position on certain matters several
times as we've gone along, without saying that you're doing so.
>
> > You and I and Roger have all
> > uncovered some exceptional material in our investigations. Isn't that
> > what research should really be about?
>
> > We can rest there, if you like. Or we could go on. Could I put some of
> > this on the public boards of the Fellowship?
>
> I thought we were going to abandon this several posts ago.
I thought so too. In fact, you didn't even have to begin. I was
answering a query of John's.
>And no, I
> don't want to argue on the Fellowship, although you can put it up if
> you want, sans my participation.
You won't participate? Interesting. I thought it would be fun to be in
my neck of the woods for a change.
Best wishes,
Mouse
Elizabeth
> On Feb 12, 3:09 pm, lackpurity <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In Jul 1577 William Weekes murdered William Sankey, a former servant
> > of Oxford's, and was subsequently hanged for the crime. Oxford's
> > confidante Henry Howard called it a contract murder for which Oxford
> > paid £100. In late Aug 1579 Oxford pulled rank on Sir Phillip Sidney
> > at the Greenwich tennis court. According to Fulke Greville's account
> > of the story, the young Earl appeared upon the court while Sidney was
> > at play and commanded him to leave. Sidney answered provokingly,
> > Greville says, whereupon Oxford grew angry and, before the onlooking
> > French marriage-commissioners, denounced him 'by the name of Puppy'.
> > Sidney asked him to repeat it, and he did, this time more loudly, upon
> > which Sidney gave him the lie direct. Then, after a moment's silence,
> > Sidney and his friends strode from the court. Having waited a day in
> > vain for Oxford's challenge, Sidney sent the Earl a reminder of
> > honour's obligations, and Oxford, thus jostled, responded in honour.
> > Queen Elizabeth placed Oxford under house arrest from 29 Jan to 11 Feb
> > 1580 for sending Sidney a written challenge.
>
> >http://www.tudorrosecourt.org/oxford.html
>
> > MM:
> > IMO, Fulke Greville and Sir Philip Sidney were Masters. It seems that
> > the Earl couldn't get along with them. Obviously, to me, the author
> > of the canon was a Master. How can we reconcile such disrespect
> > coming from the Earl. Even Queen Elizabeth, who some say was his
> > mother as I understand, didn't approve of it.
>
> I don't think Elizabeth was his mother; however, the tennis court
> argument or one like it is mentioned in Hamlet:
>
> Polonius:
>
> He closes thus: 'I know the gentleman;
> I saw him yesterday, or t' other day,
> Or then, or then; with such, or such; and, as you say,
> There was a' gaming; there o'ertook in's rouse;
> There falling out at tennis:'
>
> I find that rather interesting.
> Mouse
I stumbled on to George Russell French's
'Sidney Is Hamlet' theory. Everything works.
I think the line above, which is hysterically
funny in context, was written ironically since
Sidney won the day, it made him a national
hero. .
Sidney had precisely the same problem as
Hamlet. Succession. Sidney had much
royal blood, his mother was the daughter
of the Duke of Northumberland, if Leicester
(Mary Dudley's brother) had managed to
marry Elizabeth (and the DNB says she did)
then Sidney would have been Leicester's
heir presumptive.
Arundel and Howard (Suffolk) and their little
cousin terminated that hope.
Sidney went through the same depressions,
he didn't have a chance to marry Ophelia,
there are literally hundreds of parallels
to Sidney, literary and historical, small
and large, in the play.
His life, however, wasn't a failure, his
challenge to Oxford on the tennis court
galvanized England and Parliament, even
the Queen conceded to Sidney's argument
that her father, Henry VIII, believed that the
English gentry was a bastion against the
abuses of the nobility.
Henry VIII's insight was apt, the unique
three-tier English class system has proved
to be the most stable because the gentry
isn't intimidated by the nobility, it's married
to it.
John Seldon was later inspired to write
a book in which he was of the opinion
that any man had the right to defend himself
if 'injured' by an aristocrat. Seldon was a
huge influence on the Founders and Framers.
Some nineteenth century British historians
seem to think that the clash of classes on
the tennis court that afternoon was a turning
point in the history of human rights.
Tom Reedy
> [snip--don't think I've missed anything. Let me know if I have.]
>
>
>
> > > And what are you promoting, Tom? As it happens I'm not promoting
> > > Oxfordiana, I'm just interested in what really happened, and have
> > > changed my mind in the past about many issues that affect authorship,
> > > both in Oxford's favour and against it. But even if the "entire
> > > excercise" had been about Oxford since Day One, as you state, what
> > > does that matter? Would that nullify our research? Does your hope to
> > > rescue Strachey to confirm Stratfordian thinking nullify yours? Do you
> > > feel, like the scholar I mentioned above, that scholarly research
> > > should be prohibited to Oxfordians?
>
> > Of course not. It's just that I've seen precious little that qualifies
> > as such. Even your and Roger's essay is rife with error and
> > misquotation, along with unsupported assumptions and leaps of logic.
>
> I was attempting to be generous just now. You seem not to have any
> generosity to spare.
Yes, I see I'm getting snippy. Sorry. Got a lot on my mind at the
moment, so let's just call it off for a while.
TR
> > > > > > > L.- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
> On Feb 20, 11:36 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [snip--don't think I've missed anything. Let me know if I have.]
>
> > > > And what are you promoting, Tom? As it happens I'm not promoting
> > > > Oxfordiana, I'm just interested in what really happened, and have
> > > > changed my mind in the past about many issues that affect authorship,
> > > > both in Oxford's favour and against it. But even if the "entire
> > > > excercise" had been about Oxford since Day One, as you state, what
> > > > does that matter? Would that nullify our research? Does your hope to
> > > > rescue Strachey to confirm Stratfordian thinking nullify yours? Do you
> > > > feel, like the scholar I mentioned above, that scholarly research
> > > > should be prohibited to Oxfordians?
>
> > > Of course not. It's just that I've seen precious little that qualifies
> > > as such. Even your and Roger's essay is rife with error and
> > > misquotation, along with unsupported assumptions and leaps of logic.
>
> > I was attempting to be generous just now. You seem not to have any
> > generosity to spare.
>
> Yes, I see I'm getting snippy. Sorry. Got a lot on my mind at the
> moment, so let's just call it off for a while.
>
> TR
Gladly. Thank you for being so gracious.
L.
Paul Crowley
news:b6378652-478a-4c39...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>> We're at the same old impasse. WHO gets to decide whether anything I
>>> re-post is a "serious criticism?"
>>
>> That's not a problem. You don't re-
>> post. You know that you have
>> nothing in the archives that would
>> count as 'serious criticism' -- even
>> to your own goodself.
>
> Same old impasse. Who gets to decide whether I repost anything?
You've lost it altogether. A re-post
is a repost. Anyone can see it.
You never repost, AFAIR, in any
circumstances. You claim to have
made certain posts in the past (e.g.
on Sonnet 18) -- but you can't find
them, or you don't look. Those
facts are undeniable.
>>> Yes, but WHO is to say whether it works or not???
>>
>> Again, not a problem. You have never
>> asserted that my readings don't work -- at
>> any detailed level. For example, I say that
>> 'Summers day' can be read as "Darnley's
>> fuck". You don't deny it, nor does anyone
>> else. And so on, for all the other words
>> and phrases in the Sonnet.
>
> Refutation: "summers" is a different word from "Darnley."
Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
> "Day" does not mean "fuck."
But it can. In London Cockney, 'day'
is pronounced 'die', and 'die' can
mean 'orgasm'. All this has been
explained to you. Your 'denials' or
'refutations' amount to nothing --
as is plain to all, even you.
> "Summers day" makes perfect sense in the explicit
> context (a love sonnet); "Darnley's fuck" would break the decorum of
> the line that's in, which is something poets avoid doing, as you would
> know if you read any poetry besides Shakespeare's,
And this is 'a refutation'?
> There, that's a response to your argument. I will cut and paste it
> into my Crowley file, and re-post it every time you say I don't offer
> any argument against your nonsense. Yes, you will say it's not an
> argument. Which puts us at the impasse I mentioned before: the fact
> that you say your right but refuse to offer any means of making sure
> of that other than your judgement.
You are WORSE than the Papal astronomers.
They did not have descend to nonsensical
self-contradictory assertions.
>> Nor do you claim that such meanings
>> could be present by chance. You can
>> only do one thing -- ignore it, pretend
>> that it does not exist. You are identical
>> to the Papal astronomers who refused
>> to look in Galileo's telescope.
>
> Stupid analogy. I have looked through your telescope and seen
> "summers day," not "Darnley's fuck."
It's so bad, it's pathetic.
There is a distinct possibility that you
will add a word to the English language
-- not one you will like. A 'grumman'
will be an utterly stupid person, who has
lost an argument, and reverts to empty
noise. Future generations won't have to
call up terms like 'Papal astronomers' --
they will simply accuse those they think
of as being stupid "You are a grumman'.
>>>>> But that's not how you interpret poems.
>>
>>>> So you legislate. A highly impressive
>>>> 'argument'.
>>
>>> I refer you to I A Richards.
>
> Richards is just one critic who would agree that my method of poetry
> interpretation is valid, yours not, which disproves your contention
> that I am "legislating."
Richards would not have asserted that
there was only one way of interpreting
poems -- which is, it seems, your claim.
>> The question is academic. The point
>> is that you never try. That's a very
>> objective fact.
>
> I've tried in this post. I've tried many times before, but you simple
> decline to rate the attempts as attempts.
You make the redneck assertion:
"Ambiguity is impossible" -- but
then you never defend that stance.
Such a pathetic 'effort' cannot count
as being serious.
[..]
Paul.
lackpurity
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
MM:
The canon and sonnets are ambiguous and cryptic, of course. There are
many interpretations of them. Your interpretation of "Summers day,"
is very far-fetched, IMO. You are not taking him seriously,
apparently, but how many take you seriously? I think you tend to go
overboard with bawdy, punning interpretations. I would tend to agree
with Bob Grumman on the interpretation of "Summers Day."
Michael Martin
Roundtable
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
You say potaytoes I say potahtoes, let's call the
whole thing off!
I'll be Ginger if you'll be Fred.
book...@yahoo.com
<lancelo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 21 Feb., 04:55, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 11:36 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > [snip--don't think I've missed anything. Let me know if I have.]
>>
>> > > > And what are you promoting, Tom? As it happens I'm not promoting
>> > > > Oxfordiana, I'm just interested in what really happened, and have
>> > > > changed my mind in the past about many issues that affect authorship,
>> > > > both in Oxford's favour and against it. But even if the "entire
>> > > > excercise" had been about Oxford since Day One, as you state, what
>> > > > does that matter? Would that nullify our research? Does your hope to
>> > > > rescue Strachey to confirm Stratfordian thinking nullify yours? Do you
>> > > > feel, like the scholar I mentioned above, that scholarly research
>> > > > should be prohibited to Oxfordians?
>>
>> > > Of course not. It's just that I've seen precious little that qualifies
>> > > as such. Even your and Roger's essay is rife with error and
>> > > misquotation, along with unsupported assumptions and leaps of logic.
I've been wondering whether to compare Tempest to Bermuda, Gillian's
Island, Gulliver's Island, The Island of Dr. Moreau, or Devil's
Island. Here, TR gives us search clues that the island has 1) rife
error, 2) misquotation, 3) unsupported assumptions, and 4) leaps of
logic. I imagine this might describe a moral allegory like Pilgrim's
Progress, where Scholar (Ms Mouse) gets to solve Tempest re dating
puzzle by surmounting each of these obstacles, probably represented by
tempters, villains, and wild animals. I'm working on a mental picture
of how logic looks leaping, etc..
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b6378652-478a-4c39...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> We're at the same old impasse. WHO gets to decide whether anything I
> >>> re-post is a "serious criticism?"
>
> >> That's not a problem. You don't re-
> >> post. You know that you have
> >> nothing in the archives that would
> >> count as 'serious criticism' -- even
> >> to your own goodself.
Here are two posts I consider serious criticism. The first repeats
other posts of mine about the absurdity of saying a sonnet telling the
person it addresses that many maidens would love to bear the children
of that addressee was addressed to a woman, Queen Elizabeth. The
second argues that sonnets are not given two layers of meanings, one
of which goes against the tone of the other, and is not signalled,
etc.
18 June 2002
> I'm sure you found nursery rhymes entirely
> effective as a child. Your parents would not
> have told you (assuming they knew) that
> many had a political origin and message.
I won't argue specific sonnets with you anymore, Paul--at least
for a while--but I wanted to respond to the above bit of
mislikenry. In just what way are narrative jingles like
lyrical poetry? If you knew anything about poetry,
you would know that it's easy to create a story in verse that
makes fun of or seriously castigates some political
figure or party or cause, etc., and allegorizes it: you just
write the story, then disguise the various personages and acts.
You end with an egg named Humpty having a great fall--and some
political figure (I suppose--I don't know the details) having
something bad happen to him. The fore-burden works for children,
the allegorical under-burden (presumably) for adults in the know.
Neither breaks the tone of the other. And the fore-burden involved
has little poetics or feeling invested in it, so is expendable--that
is, no one will care much if the allegory does break tone with the
rest of the poem.
But forcing some allegory or other under-story or series of jokes
into
a Shakespearean sonnet makes about as much sense as doing that with
The Declaration of Independence. The sonnets come across for the
over-whelming majority of people familiar with them as richly serious
and focused artworks. Sure, there are puns in them--but SIGNALED,
very clear puns like "hate a way," not like "po verty," and the puns
are narratively appropriate, not disunifying clevernesses. And,
sure,
it is probable that they allude to real people and events sometimes,
but--again--only as added factuality unnecessary but entertaining to
those who know who and what are meant, and not so overtly as to
make a theme potentially universal pull up lame in a bramble of
excessive localness.
In other words, your idea that the sonnets' author is on one
level writing to his queen as shown by occasional allusions you
find is only worthless because almost no one else finds the same
allusions you do, and many find the story told by the sonnets to
contradict your story; but the other little stories you discover in
the sonnets below their surface stories are a level of magnitude less
sane.
--Bob G.
You will say these present no serious arguments, but they ARE proof
that I have posted attempts at arguments, and have no fear of their
being seen as worthless by anyone but you.
> > Same old impasse. Who gets to decide whether I repost anything?
>
> You've lost it altogether. A re-post
> is a repost. Anyone can see it.
> You never repost, AFAIR, in any
> circumstances. You claim to have
> made certain posts in the past (e.g.
> on Sonnet 18) -- but you can't find
> them, or you don't look. Those
> facts are undeniable.
I don't bother vainly to spend any appreciable time trying to find old
posts that I've previously re-post at least half a dozen times. Or
I'm a liar for saying I've re-posted twenty times or more against your
crap. A stupid liar, in fact, since if I haven't done that, the
record will show it.
> >>> Yes, but WHO is to say whether it works or not???
>
> >> Again, not a problem. You have never
> >> asserted that my readings don't work -- at
> >> any detailed level. For example, I say that
> >> 'Summers day' can be read as "Darnley's
> >> fuck". You don't deny it, nor does anyone
> >> else. And so on, for all the other words
> >> and phrases in the Sonnet.
>
> > Refutation: "summers" is a different word from "Darnley."
>
> Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
>
> > "Day" does not mean "fuck."
>
> But it can. In London Cockney, 'day'
> is pronounced 'die', and 'die' can
> mean 'orgasm'. All this has been
> explained to you. Your 'denials' or
> 'refutations' amount to nothing --
> as is plain to all, even you.
Ah, Oxford was a London Cockney. Aside from that, any crank can
explain his ridiculously strained interpretations the way you do. But
your secondary meanings are hogwash for the reasons given in my two re-
postings above.
> > "Summers day" makes perfect sense in the explicit
> > context (a love sonnet); "Darnley's fuck" would break the decorum of
> > the line that's in, which is something poets avoid doing, as you would
> > know if you read any poetry besides Shakespeare's,
>
> And this is 'a refutation'?
It was not meant to be. It is only an argument against your
interpretation--one of many that do, however, add up to a refutation.
> > There, that's a response to your argument. I will cut and paste it
> > into my Crowley file, and re-post it every time you say I don't offer
> > any argument against your nonsense. Yes, you will say it's not an
> > argument. Which puts us at the impasse I mentioned before: the fact
> > that you say your right but refuse to offer any means of making sure
> > of that other than your judgement.
>
> You are WORSE than the Papal astronomers.
> They did not have descend to nonsensical
> self-contradictory assertions.
Irrelevant, worthless assertion
> >> Nor do you claim that such meanings
> >> could be present by chance. You can
> >> only do one thing -- ignore it, pretend
> >> that it does not exist. You are identical
> >> to the Papal astronomers who refused
> >> to look in Galileo's telescope.
>
> > Stupid analogy. I have looked through your telescope and seen
> > "summers day," not "Darnley's fuck."
>
> It's so bad, it's pathetic.
> There is a distinct possibility that you
> will add a word to the English language
> -- not one you will like. A 'grumman'
> will be an utterly stupid person, who has
> lost an argument, and reverts to empty
> noise. Future generations won't have to
> call up terms like 'Papal astronomers' --
> they will simply accuse those they think
> of as being stupid "You are a grumman'.
Irrelevant, worthless assertion
> >>>>> But that's not how you interpret poems.
>
> >>>> So you legislate. A highly impressive
> >>>> 'argument'.
>
> >>> I refer you to I A Richards.
>
> > Richards is just one critic who would agree that my method of poetry
> > interpretation is valid, yours not, which disproves your contention
> > that I am "legislating."
>
> Richards would not have asserted that
> there was only one way of interpreting
> poems -- which is, it seems, your claim.
Richards most certainly advanced my method for interpreting
Shakespeare's sonnets as the only correct procedure for interpreting
poetry.
> >> The question is academic. The point
> >> is that you never try. That's a very
> >> objective fact.
>
> > I've tried in this post. I've tried many times before, but you simply
> > decline to rate the attempts as attempts.
As here, and as you will if you reply to this post.
> You make the redneck assertion:
> "Ambiguity is impossible" -- but
> then you never defend that stance.
> Such a pathetic 'effort' cannot count
> as being serious.
> [..]
If I ever said that, it made sense in the context you neglect (of
course) to provide. In any case, that I may not have defended one of
my arguments against your position does not prove I never defended any
of my arguments.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
news:5e9f3d57-81f3-4b38...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> We're at the same old impasse. WHO gets to decide whether anything I
>>>>> re-post is a "serious criticism?"
>>
>>>> That's not a problem. You don't re-
>>>> post. You know that you have
>>>> nothing in the archives that would
>>>> count as 'serious criticism' -- even
>>>> to your own goodself.
>
> Here are two posts I consider serious criticism.
You don't mark them clearly. I can't tell
what (in your view) is old and what is new.
> The first repeats
> other posts of mine about the absurdity of saying a sonnet telling the
> person it addresses that many maidens would love to bear the children
> of that addressee was addressed to a woman, Queen Elizabeth. The
> second argues that sonnets are not given two layers of meanings, one
> of which goes against the tone of the other, and is not signalled,
> etc.
This is the same old hackneyed stuff --
the equivalent of a bible-thumpers
repeated quotes of the same passages
in the Bible 'disproving' Galileo or
Darwin or whoever. In any case, both
are, in themselves, quite worthless,
and I have answered them numerous
times. But (like bible-thumpers) you
never deal with the answers, merely
reciting the same old mantras.
> 18 June 2002
>
>> I'm sure you found nursery rhymes entirely
>> effective as a child. Your parents would not
>> have told you (assuming they knew) that
>> many had a political origin and message.
>
>
> I won't argue specific sonnets with you anymore, Paul--at least
> for a while
You never have and never do.
[..]
>>> Refutation: "summers" is a different word from "Darnley."
>>
>> Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?
>>
>>> "Day" does not mean "fuck."
>>
>> But it can. In London Cockney, 'day'
>> is pronounced 'die', and 'die' can
>> mean 'orgasm'. All this has been
>> explained to you. Your 'denials' or
>> 'refutations' amount to nothing --
>> as is plain to all, even you.
>
> Ah, Oxford was a London Cockney.
Note the B/S 'objection'. Oxford was,
in effect, a Londoner and, like all other
courtiers, often heard Cockney speech.
> Aside from that, any crank can
> explain his ridiculously strained interpretations the way you do.
But no Stratfordian has ever done it for
the Sonnets -- except for the ludicrous
'hate away' = 'Hathaway'. Nothing I have
ever proposed is as bad as that,
>>> "Summers day" makes perfect sense in the explicit
>>> context (a love sonnet); "Darnley's fuck" would break the decorum of
>>> the line that's in, which is something poets avoid doing, as you would
>>> know if you read any poetry besides Shakespeare's,
>>
>> And this is 'a refutation'?
>
> It was not meant to be. It is only an argument against your
> interpretation--one of many that do, however, add up to a refutation.
Unfortunately (for you) it is NOT 'one
of many'. Your pathetic repetition of
the same few 'criticisms' again and
again shows that only too well.
[..]
>>>>>>> But that's not how you interpret poems.
>>
>>>>>> So you legislate. A highly impressive
>>>>>> 'argument'.
>>
>>>>> I refer you to I A Richards.
>>
>>> Richards is just one critic who would agree that my method of poetry
>>> interpretation is valid, yours not, which disproves your contention
>>> that I am "legislating."
>>
>> Richards would not have asserted that
>> there was only one way of interpreting
>> poems -- which is, it seems, your claim.
>
> Richards most certainly advanced my method for interpreting
> Shakespeare's sonnets as the only correct procedure for interpreting
> poetry.
Utter nonsense. Even if he was a
Strat, he would have disowned you.
[..]
>> You make the redneck assertion:
>> "Ambiguity is impossible" -- but
>> then you never defend that stance.
>> Such a pathetic 'effort' cannot count
>> as being serious.
>> [..]
>
> If I ever said that,
You say it, in effect, in every post.
Your claim to a 'breaking of the tone'
is one instance. That is almost classic
'grummanian' or 'Papal astronomer'.
God would not have put mountains on
the moon -- it would have 'broken the
tone' of his principle of perfection in
the heavens. Nor would he have cast
a shadow on Venus. Who would ever
think of such a thing?
And the notion that God would have
allowed Mankind to descend from apes !
What a 'breaking of the tone' was that?
Every challenge to an old order must
seem to present a 'breaking of the tone'.
Yet you regard it as a valid criticism.
Paul.