2further questions on R & J
wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk
Jane Thompson is correct about the need to consumate the marriage. There
was a statutory time limit for this, apperaently, but how on earth they
verified the sealing of the bargain makes the mind boggle!
In answer to Susan's point about the geographical Verona / Mantua, perhaps
it's as well to add a warning: don't forget that it is very unlikely
indeed that Shakespeare had the REAL Verona / Mantua in mind: to the best
of our knowledge, he never visited Italy, and the closest he got to these
two cities was the cource of the play form which he was taking his
material - almost certainly Arthur Brookes' play 'The tragycall Historye
of Romeus and Juliet' published in 1562.
Verona is incidentally the site of one of the most magical outdoor opera
festivals in Europe, and attracts thousands of opera buffs every year to
the converted Roman Colosseum / theatre in the centre of the city.
Interesting that there isn't a mention of such a notable landmark in the
whole play! Shakespeare is, after all, depicting cities in the play as if
they were Elizabethan LONDON - hence the notion of the effect of the
plague which bars Friar L's message from reaching romeo in Mantua.
Theatres were frequently closed in London when endemic plague swept the
city. Theatres were a major source fo dissemination of contagious illness,
so it was in effect a public health measure. 1563-4 London lost 1,000 a
week for ten weeks, and in 1592-4 - more or less contemparaneous with the
writing of R and J- there was a massive epidemic, and very severe
restrictions on all places of public gathering were made by the
Corporation of London. Acting companies usually packed up and went on tour
in these circumstances.
Peter Wilson
In article <85292874...@manger.demon.co.uk>,
wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In answer to Susan's point about the geographical Verona / Mantua, perhaps
> it's as well to add a warning: don't forget that it is very unlikely
> indeed that Shakespeare had the REAL Verona / Mantua in mind: to the best
> of our knowledge, ** he never visited Italy **, and the closest he got
to these
> two cities was the cource of the play form which he was taking his
> material - almost certainly Arthur Brookes' play 'The tragycall Historye
> of Romeus and Juliet' published in 1562.
Are we so sure Shakespeare NEVER made it to Italy ?
Prof. C. Prouty, ("Shakespeares's Sources" Times Literary Supplement,
Sept.14/51) claims Shakespeare "read both Italian and French"
Neilson and Thorndike, ("Facts about Shakespeare", 57) claim "The class of
Italian literature with which Shakespeare shows the most acquaintance is
that of the novelle,"
A. Cairncross, (Shakespeare's reading of Orlando Furioso in Italian:
Shakespeare Quarterly, Aut.77) concluded Shakespeare's "knowledge and
use of Italian is established".
A. Nicoll writes: "When we approach the romances we catch curious glimpses
of extended explorations into source materials," "Sometimes, we may
suppose, the peculiar parallels between the plays and works by others
may be due to coincidence, to the intermediary of writings now lost
or to that of conversations with friends, but even when allowance has
been made for all such possibilities.... enough remains to warrant the
assumption that he was easily familiar with Latin, French, and Italian,"
(Nicoll, 69)
The great E.K. Chambers wrote "he <Shakespeare> seems to have been
remarkably successful in giving a local colouring and atmosphere to these
<the Italian plays> and even that he shows familiarity with some minute
points of local topography." (Chambers, I, 61)
Oxford Prof. Trevor-Roper wrote that Shakspeare's "knowledge of Italy
was extraordinary", (Trevor-Roper, 42)
Dr. E. Grillo, (Shakespeare and Italy, Shake. Author Review, #6, Aut.61)
says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
G. Greenwood asks, "And what are we to say of his accurate knowledge
of the towns of northern Italy - of Padua, Verona, Milan, Mantua and
especially of Venice ?"
Prof. K. Elze (The Supposed Travels of Shakespeare, Elze 271) clearly
believes Shakespeare travelled to Italy and cites numerous
examples in M.of Venice and Othello. He also contrasts Shakespeare's
knowledge of Italy with Ben Jonson's book-based learning.
Shakespeare's biographers can find no evidence of him ever leaving
England despite what E.K. Chambers describes as
"much research has been devoted to a conjecture that he spent some time
in Italy" (foreign travel was dangerous and expensive).
What are we to make of all this ?
Now let us examine for a moment the experience of another claimant to
the Shakespeare canon.... according to Tom Bethel, (The Atlantic Monthly;
October, 1991; "The Case for Oxford";
"When Edward de Vere set off for France in January
of 1575, he was accompanied by "two gentlemen, two grooms, one
payend, a harbinger, a housekeeper, and a trencherman," Lord
Burghley noted for his records."
"Oxford and party stayed six weeks or more in Paris and were
introduced to the French King, Henry III. It is possible that at
this time Oxford met Henry of Navarre (King of France 1589-1610),
whose brother-in-law, the Duke of Alencon, was then being
considered as a husband for Queen Elizabeth. Henry of Navarre and
Oxford were about the same age, and in many respects Henry seems
to have been a man after Oxford's own heart. We know, in any
event, that Oxford later kept in touch with the French ambassador
in London; and we know that Shakespeare was familiar with some
details of the Navarre court in 1578 (described in Love's Labours
Lost)."
"Oxford went to Strasbourg, and thence to Italy, arriving in Padua
in May. "For fear of the Inquisition I dare not pass by Milan, the
Bishop whereof exerciseth such tyranny," he wrote to Burghley.
From Padua he traveled to Genoa, later returning to Padua. In
September he was in Venice. Here he borrowed 500 crowns from one
Baptista Nigrone; then in December he received a further
remittance through a Pasquino Spinola. In The Taming of the Shrew
the rich gentleman of Padua whose shrewish daughter Petruchio will
tame is called Baptista Minola, and his "crowns" are repeatedly
mentioned."
"Oxford then traveled to Florence and Siena. He was also reported
to have been in Sicily, "a famous man of chivalry," who challenged
all comers to a contest with "all manner of weapons." In a book
published in Naples in 1699 he was described as participating in a
mock tournament staged by the Commedia dell' Arte; the account
implied that he was a familiar figure at these performances. In
1936 George Lyman Kittredge, of Harvard, pointed out that "the
influence of the Italian commedia dell' arte is visible
throughout" Love's Labour's Lost. "Several of the figures
correspond to standard figures of the Italian convention...."
..and so ends my journey to Italy with Shakespeare...
Cheers, Peter.
Thomas Larque
Peter Wilson suggested in his posting that the writer of Shakespeare's
plays must have visited Italy - and cited a lot of prominent scholarly
opinions to back this up.
Fair enough, we don't know that William Shakespeare (the man) went to
Italy, and it seems reasonably unlikely that he did. But on the other
hand, we don't know for a fact that he didn't go to Italy.
More importantly the "authentic knowledge" of Italy cited within the
plays is so vague and generalised that it could easily have come from
travel books, or from the Italian novels that often acted as
Shakespeare's sources.
The real problem with Peter's theory comes when he suggests that this
provides strong circumstantial evidence for the Earl of Oxford having
written Shakespeare's plays. The truth is that far too many
Elizabethans went to see Italy - the heart of European culture, history,
science and (Catholic) religion at the time - for Oxford's trip to be
anything particularly conclusive.
If we are comparing biographies, Oxford as Shakespeare has one very big
problem. He must have died (in 1604), and then carried on writing the
plays for some years from his tomb - see Schoenbaum's SHAKESPEARE'S
LIVES (p. 433). THE TEMPEST in particular is at least partially based
(according to most scholars) on pamphlets about a shipwreck in 1609.
Unless people are willing to claim that Shakespeare did not write THE
TEMPEST, then Oxford cannot have been Shakespeare.
If there is an Oxfordian counter-argument to this, or reasons for
believing THE TEMPEST not to be Shakespeare's work, I would (genuinely)
be very interested to hear about them.
THOMAS.
wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk
Q: suggestion is not actually proof! I'm rather with Chambers. But is it
not also a fact that there was a flood of material newly translated from
Italian in London at the time, that 'things Italian' were flavour of the
month, and that for the Elizabethans, Italy (and to a lesser extent Spain)
was the naughty south, where naughty deeds went fascinatingly on in dark,
sensual alleys, and exquisite killings were perfected by perfumed
villains? Almost all the major dramatists of the day undertook plays set
in parts of Italy: did they ALL visit Italy to get their topography right?
did Shakespeare visit Venice? Elsinore? Inverness? Glamis? The Bermoothes?
Travel literature was a rage in London, and Shak would have met through
court and city contacts most of the minor and not so minor diplomats,
traders, hangers-on of an increasingly cosmopolitan court city?
Accomplishment at languages was not all that uncommon, I believe. A
dramatist with an eye for the commercial main chance would know how to
turn gossip, reading, chat, personal reminiscence overheard, listened to,
provoked, into first hand dramatic experience to catch the temper of the
times, surely? Do we think that artists HVAE to visit to engage the sense
of place? Nowadays we expect movie-writers, novelists to spend months on
research, almost ot the point of overkill, but given travel problems in
S's day, and thus the need to live intensely in the mind, I really do
wonder if he would not have been able to create a very
convincing simulacrum of Verona / Mantua from material gleaned in London.
Peter Wilson
> Peter Wilson suggested in his posting that the writer of Shakespeare's
> plays must have visited Italy - and cited a lot of prominent scholarly
> opinions to back this up.
>
> Fair enough, we don't know that William Shakespeare (the man) went to
> Italy, and it seems reasonably unlikely that he did. But on the other
> hand, we don't know for a fact that he didn't go to Italy.
You are *conjecturing* here. The orthodox biographers of the Stratford
man can find absolutely NO evidence of him ever leaving England (or even
the Stratford/London area) despite what E.K. Chambers describes as
"much research has been devoted to a conjecture that he spent some time
in Italy"
> More importantly the "authentic knowledge" of Italy cited within the
> plays is so vague and generalised that it could easily have come from
> travel books, or from the Italian novels that often acted as
> Shakespeare's sources.
Certainly,"authentic knowledge" of Italy was available, and known to
men like Jonson, perhaps if a book or letter or note could have been
found in Shakespeare's home after his death, you supposition on
sources might hold water... it is a pity, but nothing of a literary
nature was found.
But "authentic knowledge" aside, it is the *topographical exactitude*
of certain scenes that convinced Else and Grillo amongest many,
that Shakespeare visited Italy.
> The real problem with Peter's theory comes when he suggests that this
> provides strong circumstantial evidence for the Earl of Oxford having
> written Shakespeare's plays. The truth is that far too many
> Elizabethans went to see Italy - the heart of European culture, history,
> science and (Catholic) religion at the time - for Oxford's trip to be
> anything particularly conclusive.
I guess the various coincidences between Oxford's trip and the canon
didn't strike you as odd. I'm sure a search of other travellers to
Italy will turn up some *coincidences* but, however, they are not candidates
for the authorship of the canon.
> If we are comparing biographies, Oxford as Shakespeare has one very big
> problem. He must have died (in 1604), and then carried on writing the
> plays for some years from his tomb - see Schoenbaum's SHAKESPEARE'S
> LIVES (p. 433). THE TEMPEST in particular is at least partially based
> (according to most scholars) on pamphlets about a shipwreck in 1609.
> Unless people are willing to claim that Shakespeare did not write THE
> TEMPEST, then Oxford cannot have been Shakespeare.
The "dating" argument is the most frequent argument used against
Oxford but it is surprisingly weak. There are several articles dealing
with this subject in some detail at: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/
Here are some details:
* Three of the plays, in fact, were never mentioned until their publication
seven years after the Stratford man died. Should we disqualify the
Stratford man on this basis ?
* Prof. Schoenbaum (Stratford's chief 20th c. biographer) in his normally
cautious way does NOT actually say when the plays were *written*.
* Prof. Bevington in his letter to Frontline: Stratfordian Update Apr.96
is careful to ONLY mention that certain plays were published AFTER
Oxford's death. No claims about WHEN they were actually *written*.
* Stratfordian scholars DO NOT agree on the dates the plays were written !
* Pelican Collected Works (1969) lists PRE-1604 dates for ALL plays except
The Tempest (1611) and Henry VIII (1613). Riverside lists 11 POST-1604!!
* Oxfordian scholars have in rebuttal provided plausible explanations for the
dating of works of greatest contention including Lear, Macbeth, Henry VIII
and the Tempest. (see http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/)
* The respected 20th c. Stratfordian scholar, Sir Edmund K. Chambers,
concedes that the *entire* dating process of Shakespearean composition is
"conjectural."... I will repeat "conjectural"
Simple *logic*, given the *uncertainty*, suggests that we CANNOT draw any
conclusions for or against the Oxford attribution based SOLELY on post-1604
dating arguments.
Thank you for your comments.
Cheers, Peter.
Peter Wilson
In article <85354712...@manger.demon.co.uk>,
wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Q: suggestion is not actually proof! I'm rather with Chambers. But is it
> not also a fact that there was a flood of material newly translated from
> Italian in London at the time, that 'things Italian' were flavour of the
> month, and that for the Elizabethans, Italy (and to a lesser extent Spain)
> was the naughty south, where naughty deeds went fascinatingly on in dark,
> sensual alleys, and exquisite killings were perfected by perfumed
> villains?
Did Italy become the "flavour of the month" before or after Shakespeare ?
> Almost all the major dramatists of the day undertook plays set in
> parts of Italy: did they ALL visit Italy to get their *topography right?*
Did ANY other writer but Shakespeare get the "topography right" ?
Dr. E. Grillo, (Shakespeare and Italy, Shake. Author Review, #6, Aut.61)
says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
I'm not sure if any of Spenser, Beaumont, Jonson, Greene, or Nashe ever
made it to Italy. I believe even Southhampton (Shakespeare's presumed
patron) made it only to Ireland and Northern France for a time, (with
the Queen's permission). Travel for Englishmen to much of Catholic
Europe was dangerous and expensive.
> Travel literature was a rage in London, and Shak would have met through
> court and city contacts most of the minor and not so minor diplomats,
> traders, hangers-on of an increasingly cosmopolitan court city?
> Accomplishment at languages was not all that uncommon, I believe. A
> dramatist with an eye for the commercial main chance would know how to
> turn gossip, reading, chat, personal reminiscence overheard, listened to,
> provoked, into first hand dramatic experience to catch the temper of the
> times, surely? Do we think that artists HVAE to visit to engage the sense
> of place?
Prof. K. Elze (The Supposed Travels of Shakespeare, Elze 271) clearly
believes Shakespeare travelled to Italy and cites numerous
examples in M.of Venice and Othello. He also contrasts Shakespeare's
knowledge of Italy with Ben Jonson's book-based learning:
<Shakespeare> "transfers us, without our being aware of it, into an
Italian atmosphere, and in the fifth act <of Merchant of Venice>
makes us enjoy the charms of an Italian night as they could scarcely
be felt more lively on the spot itself" contrast this with what he
says of Ben Jonson:
"the Mechant of Venice and B. Jonson's Volpone, the scene of which is
likewise laid in Venice, Jonson not only exhibits a profound knowledge
of the Italian language, but shows himself converssant with Venetian
institutions, customs, and localities; he, so to say, lays the local
colouring on inches thick; but it is everywhere the work of a book-worm.."
Perhaps Jonson read the "travel literature" ? : )
Regards, Peter.
Thomas Larque
OK. I have just re-read Peter Wilson's earlier mailing (using DejaNews)
and he has already stated the "coincidences" between Shakespeare's plays
and Oxford's visit to Italy. Sorry about forgetting them.
The problem is that they are not actually all that strong at all.
> It is possible that at this time Oxford met Henry of Navarre ...
> we know that Shakespeare was familiar with some details of the Navarre
> court in 1578 (described in Love's Labours Lost).
So in fact there is no evidence at all that Oxford met Henry of Navarre,
and apparently Oxford did not actually visit the Navarre court. It is
only "possible" (i.e - conjectured) that he MIGHT have. Not exactly
significant. Similarly *anybody* MIGHT have met Henry of Navarre.
Oxford wrote :
> "For fear of the Inquisition I dare not pass by Milan, the
> Bishop whereof exerciseth such tyranny"
So if all of Shakespeare's Italian references are based on Oxford's
actual experience - why make Prospero (a good ruler) the Duke of Milan?
And why no mention of Milan being ruled over by the diabolical
Inquisition and tyrannical Bishops? The writer of THE TEMPEST shows no
sign of sharing Oxford's fears or prejudices about Milan. Alternatively
even if Oxford wrote the plays, he obviously didn't base all his Italian
references on actual experience (having avoided Milan) - which undermines
the "Shakespeare must have been there" theory anyway. You can't have it
both ways.
Pandulph "of fair Milan Cardinal" in KING JOHN, was a historical figure -
and by no means a product of either Shakespeare's or Oxford's
imagination.
> Here [Oxford] borrowed 500 crowns from one Baptista Nigrone ... in The
> Taming of the Shrew the rich gentleman of Padua whose shrewish daughter
> Petruchio will tame is called Baptista Minola, and his "crowns" are > repeatedly mentioned."
Probably the most significant connection, but still hardly conclusive.
Baptista was a fairly standard Italian name, and the writer of
Shakespeare's plays (in HAMLET - Act 3, Scene 2) wrongly uses it as a
female name. Something that would have been rather less likely if he had
been to Italy and been intimately connected with an obviously male
Baptista.
> [Oxford] was described as participating in a mock tournament staged by
> the Commedia dell' Arte ... "the influence of the Italian commedia
> dell' arte is visible throughout" Love's Labour's Lost. "Several of the
> figures correspond to standard figures of the Italian convention...."
The Commedia dell' Arte was a very strong influence upon theatre
throughout Europe. The Cambridge Guide to Theatre says - "As modern
Europe's first fully fledged professional drama, the artistry of COMMEDIA
rapidly created a demand outside its homeland. The first evidence of a
professional touring company is from 1545 ... by 1577 Drusiano Martinelli
was probably in London. Before 1600 the troupes had infiltrated every
important European country."
So Shakespeare of Stratford could have been watching Commedia dell' Arte
in England - or absorbing its influence from France or other nearby
countries. And Commedia actors performed in England BEFORE any of
Shakespeare's plays were written. In which case, Oxford's visit to the
Italian Commedia proves nothing.
These "coincidences" all seem pretty insignificant, really. Were there
any others?
THOMAS.
Thomas Larque
I am going to respond to both of Peter Wilson's most recent postings at
the same time. In trying to rebut the Stratfordian argument, Peter
writes :
> Did Italy become the "flavour of the month" before or after Shakespeare ?
ANSWER : Unquestionably BEFORE. For instance the English sources for
Shakespeare's ROMEO AND JULIET - including Brooke's ROMEUS AND JULIET
(probably 1562, definitely 1587), and Painter's PALACE OF PLEAUSURE (with
Rhomeo and Julietta - 1567) were themselves satisfying an English
interest in Italian stories. Shakespeare followed the trend by
dramatising these stories, he did not start it. On stage DR. FAUSTUS,
THE JEW OF MALTA and THE SPANISH TRAGEDY show dramatists already firmly
setting plays in non-English countries. While Italian character names
and settings were already common-place - see ENDIMION (the
pre-Shakespearean comedy) for example.
> Did ANY other writer but Shakespeare get the "topography right" ?
>
> Dr. E. Grillo, (Shakespeare and Italy, Shake. Author Review, #6, Aut.61)
> says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
> even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
Could we have some firmer examples of what Shakespeare "got right" that
could not have been known from books? If we accepted every scholarly
opinion that Shakespeare MUST HAVE BEEN A SPECIALIST in something,
without real evidence, then we would have to accept that Shakespeare was
God. For example, a couple of quotes from BACON IS SHAKESPEARE by Edward
Durning Lawrence.
"The immortal plays ... contain a short summary of the wisdom of the
world from ancient times, and ... exhibit a extent and depth of knowledge
in every branch which has never been equalled at any period of the
world's history. In classic lore, as the late Mr. Churton Collins
recently pointed out, they evince the ripest scholarship. And this is
confirmed by classical scholars all the world over.
None but the profoundest lawyers can realise the extent of the knowledge
not only of the theory but of the practice of Law which is displayed ...
The late Mr. Crump, Q.C., editor of the LAW TIMES, who probably
possessed as much knowledge of law as any man in this country, declared
that to tell him the plays were not written by the greatest lawyer the
world has ever seen, or ever would see, was to tell him what he had
sufficient knowledge of the law to know to be nonsense."
So (with no factual basis, but with more authority than the quotes cited
by Peter, which - I think, open to correction - were from Literary
Scholars not Italian experts) Shakespeare must also be a professional
Lawyer and Classicist. Oxford was neither. It is strange that those who
want to prove Shakespeare did not write his own plays are rather more
prone to this sort of Bardolatory than anybody else.
> Travel for Englishmen to much of Catholic Europe was dangerous and expensive.
True enough - although the same was true of any travel - but this didn't
stop many of them from managing it. Loyal Catholics in particular often
travelled to Italy (in secret). There was even a special "English
College", training English-born Catholics and priests in Rome. Most then
went back as covert Jesuits or Priests. "By 1580 100 had arrived". If
Oxford travelled openly, then so could others. And (as far as I know)
trade between England and the Meditarranean states never stopped.
>> (Thomas) We don't know for a fact he didn't visit Italy
> (Peter) You are conjecturing here
No I wasn't. Read it again. "We don't know for a fact that he didn't
visit Italy". Well, we don't. We have no way of proving it either way.
In fact it is YOU who are conjecturing by saying that he definitely
didn't. How can you possibly know? Without access to records of the
type that were not current at the time (Customs records, passport
archives etc.) try finding documentary proof that I have been to
Yugoslavia. Even in this modern age - and with a living subject - you
won't be able to. I threw all the evidence out a long time ago, and it
is crushed in land-fill sites. Why should anybody keep such trivial
papers? - and there is no reason that Shakespeare should even have
bothered to write anything down. You are also conjecturing by suggesting
that the author of the plays actually has to have visited Italy.
>> (Thomas) the "authentic knowledge" of Italy cited within the
> > plays is so vague and generalised that it could easily have come from
> > ... Shakespeare's sources.
>
> (Peter) Certainly,"authentic knowledge" of Italy was available, and
> known to men like Jonson, perhaps if a book or letter or note could
> have been found in Shakespeare's home after his death, you supposition
> on sources might hold water..
Same problem as above. We have practically none of Shakespeare's papers
- nothing literary, but also very few business documents (which - as
important records - were rather more likely to survive). Just because we
haven't found something ... it doesn't mean that it never existed.
Incidentally - where are Oxford's first drafts of Shakespeare's plays?
Where are the letters that must have passed between him and the theatre,
Shakespeare, or others who knew of his secret? Oxford's high
social-standing means that his papers were much more likely to be kept -
but nothing. However, there is a lot of paper saying that Shakespeare
wrote Shakespeare's plays (from Jonson and others) and NOTHING saying the
same about Oxford. If you don't like conjecture, you would have to
accept that Shakespeare wrote the plays.
> I guess the various coincidences between Oxford's trip and the canon
> didn't strike you as odd. I'm sure a search of other travellers to
> Italy will turn up some *coincidences* but, however, they are not candidates
> for the authorship of the canon.
I haven't had a chance to check these "coincidences" yet, but as you
admit there are bound to be hundreds of other similar "coincidences". A
Baconian would certainly be able to offer far more "coincidences" between
Bacon's writing and Shakespeare's than come from Oxford's biography.
This tends to weaken any anti-Stratfordian case, by showing how far they
are ALL based on scholarly hindsight and hair-splitting. The
coincidences are almost certainly interesting but minor - and we could
dig up similar "coincidences" with almost any well-documented Elizabethan
figure, if we tried hard enough.
As for other people not being "candidates" - Why aren't they? Oxford
only became a candidate when a non-specialist amateur scholar (having
read very few Renaissance books) looked through a single-volume - and
therefore hugely limited - anthology of Renaissance verse and picked the
poem he thought sounded most like Shakespeare. I don't think you can get
much less reasonable than that. If William Shakespeare didn't write the
plays, does it occur to anybody that the man who did might have been
totally un-noteworthy, un-documented and untraceable?
> The "dating" argument is the most frequent argument used against
> Oxford but it is surprisingly weak.
>
> * Prof. Schoenbaum (Stratford's chief 20th c. biographer) in his normally
> cautious way does NOT actually say when the plays were *written*.
No - but he does say "Oxford ... was buried before" 10 of the major plays
"appeared on the stage". Since plays were normally performed almost
immediately after they were written, this is fairly conclusive. A couple
of posthumous plays is not impossible - but 10 (from a popular
dramatist, whose plays would always have been performed once available)
is pushing things a bit.
> * Stratfordian scholars DO NOT agree on the dates the plays were written !
> * Pelican Collected Works (1969) lists PRE-1604 dates for ALL plays except
> The Tempest (1611) and Henry VIII (1613). Riverside lists 11 POST-1604!!
So you accept that most scholars think THE TEMPEST was written many years
after Oxford's death, then. That was my point, and you haven't said
anything to challenge it.
>* The respected 20th c. Stratfordian scholar, Sir Edmund K. Chambers,
> concedes that the *entire* dating process of Shakespearean composition
> is "conjectural."... I will repeat "conjectural"
I accept that - but on the basis of everything that we know, THE TEMPEST
was still almost certainly written after 1609. Note that Stratfordian
scholars are unbiased on this (Shakespeare could have written the play
earlier with no problems) whilst Oxfordians have a point to prove. Most
unprejudiced scholars, and certainly most respected scholars, put it
after this date.
I also have to repeat again. Any anti-Stratfordian argument is based
purely on conjecture. On conjectures that:
1) Shakespeare of Stratford CANNOT have written these plays (unproven)
2) Somebody must have had a reason for writing the plays anonymously and
pretending to be Shakespeare (unproven)
3) This person (Bacon, Oxford, Elizabeth I - whoever) MUST be the real
author because of the following paralells and minor coincidences
(unproven).
There is always a chance that the anti-Stratfordians may be right, but
all the overt contemporary documents (which do not need to be interpreted
through conjecture) say that Shakespeare wrote the plays. Perhaps
conjecture (a useful academic tool) might lead to the truth, but without
conjecture your argument falls down completely. Don't abuse conjecture,
it is the only support that you have.
THOMAS.
P.S - Hope this isn't over-long. Apologies to anybody who thinks it is.
Peter Wilson
In article <32E2B2...@dial.pipex.com>, Thomas Larque
<thomas...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Peter wrote:
> > Did Italy become the "flavour of the month" before or after Shakespeare ?
>
> ANSWER : Unquestionably BEFORE. For instance the English sources for
> Shakespeare's ROMEO AND JULIET - including Brooke's ROMEUS AND JULIET
> (probably 1562, definitely 1587), and Painter's PALACE OF PLEAUSURE (with
> Rhomeo and Julietta - 1567) were themselves satisfying an English
> interest in Italian stories. Shakespeare followed the trend by
> dramatising these stories, he did not start it. On stage DR. FAUSTUS,
> THE JEW OF MALTA and THE SPANISH TRAGEDY show dramatists already firmly
> setting plays in non-English countries. While Italian character names
> and settings were already common-place - see ENDIMION (the
> pre-Shakespearean comedy) for example.
Thank you for your feedback on this question.
> > Peter wrote:
> > Did ANY other writer but Shakespeare get the "topography right" ?
> >
> > Dr. E. Grillo, (Shakespeare and Italy, Shake. Author Review, #6, Aut.61)
> > says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
> > even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
> Thomas wrote:
> Could we have some firmer examples of what Shakespeare "got right" that
> could not have been known from books?
Please refer to the articles in question for details. In summary: it is the
accurate topographical details in the canon which convinced these
orthodox scholars that Shakespeare made it to Italy. To claim "he might
have got it from books" is a *conjecture* unsupported by any evidence.
Consider:
The *Italian travel* problem is a problem only for the Stratford attribution.
Team A. Orthodox canonical scholars who claim he must have been to Italy VS
Team B. Orthodox biographers who claim he never left the Stratford/London
circuit.
Stratfordians must rely on conjecture or reject the evidence of Team A OR
Team B. Yes Thomas... Stratfordians from time to time are cannibals. : )
Anti-Stratfordians can chuckle and accept that BOTH Teams are correct.
Oxfordians have the additional advantage of having their man in Italy in the
right places, at the right times with *coincidental* evidence of his personal
experience and contacts appearing in the canon.
> If we accepted every scholarly
> opinion that Shakespeare MUST HAVE BEEN A SPECIALIST in something,
> without real evidence, then we would have to accept that Shakespeare was
> God. For example, a couple of quotes from BACON IS SHAKESPEARE by Edward
> Durning Lawrence.
... generous quotes re: Shakespeares classical knowledge and legal background
deleted for brevity...
You've quoted from an anti-Stratfordian source, I'm unfamilar with. You may
wish to lookup "Shakespeares England" a two-volume *orthodox* study
in which 30 specialists contributed. On the basis of this study, Shakespeare
was one of the best-educated people of the century. Classical, legal,
linguistic,
musical, medical, etc. Shakespeare was quite extraordinary... orthodox scholars
often use the word *genius* to describe him... but don't take my word for it.
> So (with no factual basis, but with more authority than the quotes cited
> by Peter, which - I think, open to correction - were from Literary
> Scholars not Italian experts) Shakespeare must also be a professional
> Lawyer and Classicist. Oxford was neither.
I'm not sure of the extent of Oxford's knowledge... however C. Ogburn (92)
writes: "At 9 yrs old, Edward (de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)
matriculated at St John's College, Cambridge, receiving a degree at 14.
At 16 he received another as Master of Arts from Oxford.. and went
on to acquire a legal education at Gray's Inn."... "He had the best tutors,
including his maternal uncle, Arthur Golding, a noted Latin scholar, at
the time when the latter was translating Ovid's Metamorphoses
(Shakespeare's 2nd most important source book, after the Geneva Bible,
which coincidentally Oxford also owned...)
Ogburn also writes:
"When Edward had just turned 14, Golding dedicated a work to him with
a reference to the: "desire your honor hath naturally grafted in you to
read, peruse, and communicate with others as well the histories of
ancient times, and things done long ago, as also the present estate of
things in our days."... gee.. I wonder if young Edward was a *genius* ?
...some lines deleted...
>
> >> (Thomas) We don't know for a fact he didn't visit Italy
> > (Peter) You are conjecturing here
>
> No I wasn't. Read it again. "We don't know for a fact that he didn't
> visit Italy". Well, we don't. We have no way of proving it either way.
> In fact it is YOU who are conjecturing by saying that he definitely
> didn't. How can you possibly know?
conjecture (ken-jčk´cher) noun
1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence;
guesswork.
2. A statement, an opinion, or a conclusion based on guesswork:
The American HeritageŽ Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
Thomas, I'm not *conjecturing* ... I'm just the messenger. It is the
orthodox canonical scholars who, based on topographical facts, claim the
author WENT to Italy and the orthodox biographers who, based on the
timeline and business records, claim the Stratford man NEVER WENT to Italy.
I just happen to agree with their claims. This is hardly *guesswork*.
...some lines deleted..
Thank you for your feedback.
Cheers, Peter.
Thomas Larque
Continuing the debate about Italy. For anybody who hasn't been following
the debate, I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays and Peter
thinks that Oxford did. Peter claims that Oxford's trip to Italy proves
that Oxford wrote Shakesperae's plays.
Reacting to the points that I made in my previous mailing, Peter Wilson
wrote:
> The *Italian travel* problem is a problem only for the Stratford > attribution.
No. Actually the Italian problem is only a problem for the Oxfordians
who haven't got any decent evidence for their man's authorship, and who
are therefore clutching at straws. Have a look at your own incredibly
weak list of supposed coincidences between Shakespeare's work and
Oxford's voyage if you want evidence of that one. Why haven't you either
defended any of those points (which I showed in my last mail to be so
minor as to be meaningless - "conjectures" using your terminology) or put
forward some better ones? - presuming that both my mailings have reached
you.
Most of the Stratfordians that you listed have no problem with the
Italian question - because it simply doesn't exist. Either Shakespeare
of Stratford went to Italy, and wrote his plays based on that experience
(which some scholars choose to believe) or (much more likely) he never
went to Italy, and the plays don't suggest he needed to have done so in
the first place. Neither of those views are inconsistent in themselves -
and either is far more likely than Oxford having written Shakespeare's
plays (see below).
Peter thinks that Stratfordians divide into :
> Team A. Orthodox canonical scholars who claim he must have been to Italy VS
> Team B. Orthodox biographers who claim he never left the > Stratford/London circuit.
>
> Stratfordians must rely on conjecture or reject the evidence of Team A
> OR Team B.
Yes. I accept that conjecture must be used to try to fill in the details
of Shakespeare's life. But I say again, how can you possibly suggest
that conjecture is always a negative thing? Do you think that all study
of Literature and History (both subjects based entirely on informed
conjecture to fill gaps in printed documents) are completely meaningless
subjects? Most people would disagree.
For a start, whatever anybody says, there are so many gaps in
Shakespeare's biography - especially in his younger days - that he could
certainly have gone over to Italy and come back without us being any the
wiser. Maybe he was serving in a great household which went? We don't
know what jobs he had before he went to London. But as you say this is
conjecture.
It is not however quite such a large conjecture as suggesting (with no
hard evidence)that Oxford - whose life was much more thouroughly
documented and observed - managed to write some of the most successful
plays in Renaissance London without anybody realising, and that William
Shakespeare (illiterate according to most Oxfordians) managed to convince
theatres packed with people that he was educated enough to have written
the plays. According to contemporary descriptions the most important
audience members came backstage to talk to the actors - including
Shakespeare - during every performance. And the entire audience heard
Shakespeare speak several authorial prologues and epilogues - which are
still attached to the plays. Apparently not even the most educated
members of the audience spotted the fact that this man was actually (from
an Oxfordian perspective) an illiterate village idiot. Hmm ... quite a
lot of conjecture there really.
More importantly, as I said when I first responded to Peter's argument,
personally I don't think that Shakespeare DID go to Italy - but I admit
that I may be wrong. I completely disagree with the rather bizarre
suggestion that he must have gone to Italy to write plays about Italians.
Shakespeare's Italians usually behave just like the English, and there
are no huge passages about the Italian countryside. Just basic details
that any fool with a few books could pick up. What is this mysterious
"accurate topography" that cannot have come from books? Peter doesn't
seem to want to say.
> Yes Thomas... Stratfordians from time to time are cannibals. : )
No. What you mean is that all academics disagree. Funnily enough,
Oxfordians do it as well. If Peter has ever read the first Oxfordian
theory he will find that its author (Looney) believed that THE TEMPEST
was written after Oxford's death, and therefore (to fit with Looney's
theory) could not possibly have been written by Shakespeare. Peter has
accepted this man's expertise by endorsing his personal theory. Does he
also endorse his dating, and denial that Shakespeare wrote the Tempest?
Obviously not. Oxfordians eat Oxfordians as well, and then pretend that
they haven't.
> Anti-Stratfordians can chuckle and accept that BOTH Teams are correct.
Yes - but then they all break into huge arguments about whether the
person who wrote the plays was REALLY Bacon, Oxford, Elizabeth I, James
VI, Christopher Marlowe or (getting really extreme) Cardinal Wolsey - who
had been dead for tens of years, and as Shakespeare apparently wrote a
play about his own death - or Daniel Defoe, who wasn't born until the
1700s. I assure you, Stratfordians have got much better reasons to
chuckle at the Anti-Stratfordians than vice versa.
The Anti-Stratfordians dispute one another's (very similar) views just as
often as they attack the Stratfordians - because if Francis Bacon wrote
Shakespeare's plays then Oxford can't have. Etc. Etc.
> Oxfordians have the additional advantage of having their man in Italy in the
> right places, at the right times with *coincidental* evidence of his personal
> experience and contacts appearing in the canon.
I've dealt with these *coincidences* before. Incidentally how come your
rather weak *coincidences* (which do not in any way match your
description of them above) are somehow transformed into academic proof,
while every time that I point out we don't know that something hadn't
happened - you accuse me of "conjecture"? Double standards here. Your
*coincidences* ARE CONJECTURES !!! - and not very good ones.
Furthermore why put asterisks around the word? - since they are very
definitely coincidences (or "minor paralells" at best) and not hard
facts.
Add to this the Stratfordian "candidate" has the advantage of being in
the Globe Theatre in London (where the plays were being produced and
performed). He also has tens of people referring to him as the author -
usually making it very clear - especially in attacks and compliments -
that they consider him to be a real person and a playwright. Funnily
enough his experience in Stratford (of rural countryside, the voices of
the lower classes and labourers) and in court circles (he got his
patronage from nobles - like all Renaissance theatre companies) also
appear extensively in the plays. Compared to this the handful of Italian
references appear rather lame and insignificant.
> You've quoted from an anti-Stratfordian source, I'm unfamilar with. You may
> wish to lookup "Shakespeares England" a two-volume *orthodox* study
> in which 30 specialists contributed. On the basis of this study, Shakespeare
> was one of the best-educated people of the century. Classical, legal,
> linguistic,
> musical, medical, etc. Shakespeare was quite extraordinary... orthodox scholars
> often use the word *genius* to describe him... but don't take my word for it.
I don't. Personally I have been very interested by the fact that
Shakespeare was a dramatic recycling system. We can track in some detail
his borrowings from sources, and the constant reappearance of themes,
scenes and even characters within his plays. True, he was a genius at
turning these into beautiful plays - but they are all signs of a man
whose skills lay in making silk purses out of sow's ears, and doing it
very quickly. The constant recycling makes him sound much more like a
man of the theatre (working to deadlines for new material) than a
leisured and artistically pretentious Lord satisfying a hobby. It also
shows that Shakespeare was very good at making use of OTHER PEOPLE'S
creativity and knowledge.
The fact is that people are far too eager to set up Shakespeare as
omniscient. The all-knowing, all-seeing Bard. What they forget is that
he was actually a human being. Whoever he was, he quite simply CANNOT
have known everything that people say he did. Otherwise he would be the
best EVERYTHING the world has ever known. Genius like this would have
been commented on - but actually all those writing during his lifetime
and for the next 200 or so years, talked about how vulgar and unlearned
he was - comparing him (unfavourably) with the Classical brilliance of
Jonson.
Jonson could not have got away with his attacks on Shakespeare's "small
Latin and less Greek" if everybody KNEW that Shakespeare's plays showed
the mind of the age's most brilliant classical scholar, and all-round
genius (which you are claiming is obvious to modern scholars from the
play texts). You are working from the play texts ... the Elizabethans
watched the plays AND saw the man. Why should I believe you over them?
> > So (with no factual basis, but with more authority than the quotes cited
> > by Peter, which - I think, open to correction - were from Literary
> > Scholars not Italian experts) Shakespeare must also be a professional
> > Lawyer and Classicist. Oxford was neither.
>
> I'm not sure of the extent of Oxford's knowledge... however C. Ogburn (92)
> writes: "At 9 yrs old, Edward (de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)
> matriculated at St John's College, Cambridge, receiving a degree at 14.
> At 16 he received another as Master of Arts from Oxford.. and went
> on to acquire a legal education at Gray's Inn."... "He had the best tutors,
> including ... a noted Latin scholar
You have proved that Oxford studied Law and Classics. What you HAVE NOT
proved is that he was the best Lawyer and Classicist THAT EVER EXISTED.
My source said his works "exhibit an extent and depth of knowledge
in every branch which has never been equalled at any period of the
world's history" AND (quoting a prominent Lawyer) " the plays were ...
written by the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen, or ever would
see". Now are you telling me that any man so described could study at
Cambridge University without provoking any comment whatever? Or that he
would not be pressured into accepting some sort of career which made use
of his incredible abilities? Oddly enough, the Earl of Oxford spent much
of his life begging people to give him a job (see his letters). Not
something the greatest Legal and Classical mind that ever existed would
really need to do.
Peter writes that The Earl of Oxford was :
> translating Ovid's Metamorphoses
> (Shakespeare's 2nd most important source book, after the Geneva Bible,
> which coincidentally Oxford also owned...)
You don't say!!! So Oxford owned a popular Renaissance edition of the
Bible, and once translated one of the best known Latin books (a
Renaissance favourite) - and Shakespeare read them too!!! Anyone out
there got a copy of the King James Bible and Homer's Illiad? Hey! So
have I! Maybe we're the same person!!!
Ahem. Sorry about that. Couldn't resist. In more sober terms. Try
naming one reasonably educated (even to grammar school level) Renaissance
figure who had NOT read those two books. They were enormously popular
and widely, easily, available.
> Ogburn also writes:
>
> "When Edward had just turned 14, Golding dedicated a work to him with
> a reference to the: "desire your honor hath naturally grafted in you to
> read, peruse, and communicate with others as well the histories of
> ancient times, and things done long ago, as also the present estate of
> things in our days."... gee.. I wonder if young Edward was a *genius* ?
No. He clearly wasn't. Ogburn says he could read and talk, and knew
about times ancient and modern. In other words, Ogburn is saying nothing
particularly exciting or unusual at all. If he couldn't do these things
at 14 - when this was what he was being taught - Ogburn would have been a
really terrible tutor. And if this is the best compliment he can give
his pupil when he is COMPLIMENTING HIM (the entire point of a dedication
like this) he obviously didn't think he was an all-knowing genius and
child-prodigy, or he would have mentioned it.
>> >> (Thomas) We don't know for a fact he didn't visit Italy >> (Peter) You are conjecturing here
>>
> > (Thomas) No I wasn't. Read it again. "We don't know for a fact that he didn't
> > visit Italy". Well, we don't. We have no way of proving it either way.
> > In fact it is YOU who are conjecturing by saying that he definitely
> > didn't. How can you possibly know?
>
> (Peter) conjecture (ken-jčk´cher) noun
> 1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence;
> guesswork.
> 2. A statement, an opinion, or a conclusion based on guesswork:
>
Erm ... Yes. Sounds like a pretty good description of the Oxfordian
argument to me.
However, can you seriously suggest that this is a good description for a
paragraph that ran (paraphrased) - "Shakespeare probably didn't visit
Italy, but then again we don't know for sure. It is also possible that
he did, and we just haven't found it written down." In other words
Shakespeare either went to Italy or he didn't, and we don't have enough
factual evidence to confirm either view. This is not a conjecture. It
is not even a definite statement of opinion. It is a factual
description.
Everything that you have said about Oxford writing Shakespeare's plays
(usually stated as if it were fact, or at least hugely probable) is
academic conjecture of the most extreme and tenuous kind. If your
conjectures are right, you are unlucky to have so very few facts to
support your point of view.
I am quite willing to accept informed conjecture (the WHAT IF? or WAS IT?
technique) as a major academic tool. That is the only reason that I am
even bothering to respond to your postings - which are entirely based on
conjecture. You have not one solid fact to support your point of view,
but that doesn't mean that you are definitely wrong. Just that your
arguments are extremely weak.
"Conjecture" is all that you have, and if you think it has no academic
value then you have said nothing of value in any of your postings, and
should stop. Personally I think conjecture is a major part of any
academic discussion.
> I'm not *conjecturing* ... I'm just the messenger. It is the
> orthodox canonical scholars who, based on topographical facts, claim the
> author WENT to Italy and the orthodox biographers who, based on the
> timeline and business records, claim the Stratford man NEVER WENT to Italy.
> I just happen to agree with their claims. This is hardly *guesswork*.
But (if the sources that you quote are honest) they will all keep
repeating that they are putting forward only their opinions ... informed
conjectures ... intelligent and academic guesswork.
What you also conveniently forget is that most of the people you are
quoting are Stratfordians, and have obviously been able to show (to their
own satisfaction) that Shakespeare wrote the plays whether he went to
Italy or not. You are not agreeing with them at all, you are only
picking out the pieces of their work that suit you - and you are ignoring
the rest.
The conjectures about whether Shakespeare went to Italy or not, are one
thing. Your (factually unsupported) conjectures that the Earl of Oxford
must therefore have written Shakespeare's plays are another. These are
rejected by the vast majority of critics that you cite (except for those
whose only purpose in writing was to support the Oxfordian cause). That
is your conjecture, and it has very little scholarly support. All but a
tiny handful of the most respected scholars of past and present are
Stratfordian.
I look forward to seeing your reply, and hope that it will include some
sort of explanation for your continued belief in those *coincidences* of
yours which (as I hope I showed in my previous posting) do not stand up
to any sort of serious academic examination.
I'm enjoying the discussion, and I look forward to hearing from you
again.
THOMAS.
Will Ryan
wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Q: suggestion is not actually proof! I'm rather with Chambers. But is it
> not also a fact that there was a flood of material newly translated from
> Italian in London at the time, that 'things Italian' were flavour of the
> month, and that for the Elizabethans, Italy (and to a lesser extent Spain)
> was the naughty south, where naughty deeds went fascinatingly on in dark,
> sensual alleys, and exquisite killings were perfected by perfumed
Wizard:
Was there not also a significant minority population of Italians living
in London at the time? If I am not mistaken, Italian bankers and
merchants were there in force, hence the name "Lombard" (from Lombardy)
for Lombard Street in the London financial district.
Will
Will Ryan
wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> Jane Thompson is correct about the need to consumate the marriage. There
> was a statutory time limit for this, apperaently, but how on earth they
> verified the sealing of the bargain makes the mind boggle!
>
Wizard:
They advertized it. The nuptual sheets would be displayed out the
window or on a balcony, draped for public view, appropriately stained
with the blood of a surrendured maidenhead. (Many a bride came the to
marriage bed equipped with a vile of animal blood.) Not only was the
potency of the male confirmed, but also the purity of the bride.
Incidentally, a marriage unconsummated is still not a marriage in the
theology of most religions, and it is definitely grounds from a civil
divorce in the United States.
Will Ryan
david joseph kathman
Ah, Shakespeare and Italy. I see that Thomas Larque has been doing a fine
job of representing the side of reason against Peter Wilson's anti-
Stratfordian views. Nevertheless, I want to interject a few additional
comments.
Peter Wilson wrote:
>Are we so sure Shakespeare NEVER made it to Italy ?
[quotes from scholars about Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy snipped]
Now, people should realize that this is only one side of the story.
Peter has selected quotes only from people who thought Shakespeare must
have visited Italy, making it seem like this is a consensus. But in
fact, there is considerable disagreement on this point among Shakespeare
scholars, and nowadays only a small minority of scholars believe that
Shakespeare must have had first-hand knowledge of Italy. (Note that
many of Peter's quotes are from the 1800s or early 1900s.) Several recent
studies have dealt with this question in some detail, and have shown
how enamored the English were with all things Italian, how many sources
there were for a curious Englishman to find out anything he wanted about
Italy, and how Shakespeare got details wrong and sometimes lapsed into
English customs in his Italian plays. The most relevant recent books
include:
*Shakespeare's Italy: Functions of Italian locations in Renaissance
drama*, edited by Michele Marrapodi, A. J. Hoenselaars, Marcello Cappuzzo,
and L. Falzon Stantucci. Manchester University Press, 1993. (A collection
of articles dealing both with Shakespeare and other dramatists such
as Dekker and Middleton.)
McPherson, David C., *Shakespeare, Jonson, and the myth of Venice*.
University of Delaware Press, 1990. (A short but valuable comparison
of Shakespeare's and Jonson's use of Venice as a location, concentrating
on the popular English image of Venice as the richest, most cosmopolitan,
most hedonistic city in the world. A very valuable opening chapter
summarizes the many sources, both written and oral, that Shakespeare and
Jonson could have used to get their information about Venice and Italy.)
Levith, Murray J., *Shakespeare's Italian settings and plays*.
St. Martin's Press, 1989. (Another short book which looks at
Shakespeare's use of Italian settings. The final chapter concludes that
Shakespeare's use of Italian local color was inconsistent and did not
necessarily reflect first hand knowledge.)
>Shakespeare's biographers can find no evidence of him ever leaving
>England despite what E.K. Chambers describes as
>"much research has been devoted to a conjecture that he spent some time
>in Italy" (foreign travel was dangerous and expensive).
Despite its danger and expense, quite a few Englishmen in Shakespeare's
day managed to go to Italy anyway; this included not only noblemen
like Oxford but writers like Thomas Coryat. Few if any people believe
that Shakespeare went to Italy by himself; rather, the more likely
scenario is that he may have gone in the entourage of some person who
could afford the trip, such as the Earl of Southampton. We know that
John Fletcher's brother Nathaniel went to Venice in the entourage of
Sir Henry Wotton, and Anthony Munday went to Italy in his mid-20s as
part of the Elizabethan Secret Service, and also toured the Continent
as an actor. Several of Shakespeare's fellow Chamberlain's Men (such
as Will Kempe) are also known to have toured Europe as part of an
acting company. While I don't think it's likely or necessary that
Shakespeare went to Italy in order to write his plays, it's certainly
within the realm of possibility.
[Thomas Larque wrote:]
>> The real problem with Peter's theory comes when he suggests that this
>> provides strong circumstantial evidence for the Earl of Oxford having
>> written Shakespeare's plays. The truth is that far too many
>> Elizabethans went to see Italy - the heart of European culture, history,
>> science and (Catholic) religion at the time - for Oxford's trip to be
>> anything particularly conclusive.
>
[Peter Wilson wrote:]
>I guess the various coincidences between Oxford's trip and the canon
>didn't strike you as odd. I'm sure a search of other travellers to
>Italy will turn up some *coincidences* but, however, they are not
>candidates for the authorship of the canon.
Huh? What are you talking about? The Earls of Derby and Rutland have
both been proposed as candidates for the authorship of Shakespeare,
they both went to Italy, and their proponents have pointed out many
*coincidences* of the same type as those proposed by Oxfordians.
Moreover, some of these *coincidences* eliminate Oxford. For example,
a painting referred to in the induction of *The Taming of the Shrew* was
on display in Milan only between 1585 and 1600 -- too late for Oxford to
have seen it, but just right for Derby and Rutland.
>> If we are comparing biographies, Oxford as Shakespeare has one very big
>> problem. He must have died (in 1604), and then carried on writing the
>> plays for some years from his tomb - see Schoenbaum's SHAKESPEARE'S
>> LIVES (p. 433). THE TEMPEST in particular is at least partially based
>> (according to most scholars) on pamphlets about a shipwreck in 1609.
>> Unless people are willing to claim that Shakespeare did not write THE
>> TEMPEST, then Oxford cannot have been Shakespeare.
>
>The "dating" argument is the most frequent argument used against
>Oxford but it is surprisingly weak. There are several articles dealing
>with this subject in some detail at: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/
>
>Here are some details:
>
>* Three of the plays, in fact, were never mentioned until their publication
> seven years after the Stratford man died. Should we disqualify the
> Stratford man on this basis ?
No, of course not. External evidence such as publication or allusions
is only one type of evidence for dating plays.
>* Prof. Schoenbaum (Stratford's chief 20th c. biographer) in his normally
> cautious way does NOT actually say when the plays were *written*.
>* Prof. Bevington in his letter to Frontline: Stratfordian Update Apr.96
> is careful to ONLY mention that certain plays were published AFTER
> Oxford's death. No claims about WHEN they were actually *written*.
Well, I know for a fact that David Bevington believes that many of the
plays were written after Oxford's death.
>* Stratfordian scholars DO NOT agree on the dates the plays were written!
Technically true, but most of the disagreement involved relatively minor
periods of a few years. There is some disagreement over whether *Macbeth*
or *King Lear* was written first, but there is essentially unanimous
agreement that they were both written after 1604. I know of no
Shakespeare scholar who believes that *The Winter's Tale* was written
before 1609, though there are those who believe it was written in 1609,
1610, or 1611. *The Tempest* is universally agreed to have been written
no earlier than 1610, and with very good reason (as I have shown in
considerable detail). And so on. There is a close consensus among
Shakespeare scholars on the dating of nearly all of Shakespeare's plays
(especially the middle and late ones), with differences mostly being
minor ones of a year or two.
>* Pelican Collected Works (1969) lists PRE-1604 dates for ALL plays
except
> The Tempest (1611) and Henry VIII (1613). Riverside lists 11
POST-1604!!
You're being disingenuous. The Pelican chart gives dates later than
1604 for 10 plays, from *King Lear* to *Henry VIII*, contrary to what
you say. What I take it you're referring to is the span of dates given
in parentheses in the Pelican chart, which is "the span of years in which
we would place the play if we relied solely upon a strict interpretation
of the external evidence". But nobody relies solely on external
evidence in dating the plays (least of all Oxfordians), and these dates
are not meant to indicate when the plays were written. Implying that
they are is not particularly honest. And yes, the Riverside does date
11 plays post-1604 -- these are the same 10 plays the Pelican lists
as 1605 or later, plus *The Two Noble Kinsmen*, which was not included
in the Pelican. This illustrates the consensus on dating the later
plays, contrary to Peter's implication above.
>* Oxfordian scholars have in rebuttal provided plausible explanations for
> the dating of works of greatest contention including Lear, Macbeth,
> Henry VIII and the Tempest. (see http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/)
The explanations I have seen have been pretty weak; in particular,
those for *The Tempest* and *Henry VIII* on the Oxfordian web page
completely fail to address the evidence and are wildly inaccurate on
basic factual issues. And I note that Oxfordians have nothing
remotely close to the consensus on dating that orthodox scholars do;
they just argue vaguely that the late plays could have been written
earlier than 1604, without producing an alternative chronology.
>* The respected 20th c. Stratfordian scholar, Sir Edmund K. Chambers,
> concedes that the *entire* dating process of Shakespearean composition
> is "conjectural."... I will repeat "conjectural"
See above.
There is more that could be said about all this, but I need to stop now
and get some sleep.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Peter Wilson
In article <32E5D2...@dial.pipex.com>, Thomas Larque
<thomas...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Continuing the debate about Italy. For anybody who hasn't been following
> the debate, I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's plays and Peter
> thinks that Oxford did. Peter claims that Oxford's trip to Italy *proves*
> that Oxford wrote Shakesperae's plays.
Sorry, but I think you have misinterpreted my original posting. I made no
such claim of *proof*. Certainly, more *evidence* would be required to
prove Oxford was the author than the canonical links to his journey. I was
merely responding to the assertation (perhaps reasonable drawn from
Stratford's biographers) that wiz...@manger.demon.co.uk made, when he
wrote: "to the best of our knowledge, ** he never visited Italy **"
Please re-read my original post, and follow-ups.
> > Peter wrote:
> > The *Italian travel* problem is a problem only for the Stratford
attribution.
>
> No. Actually the Italian problem is only a problem for the Oxfordians
> who haven't got any decent evidence for their man's authorship, and who
> are therefore clutching at straws.
I beg to differ. Although Dave Kathman has provided some additional
sources which he claims challenge "The Shakespeare must have visited Italy"
position of some orthodox canonical scholars... (thanks Dave)... I still stand
by my assertation, the Italian problem remains a *problem* ONLY for the
Stratford attribution.
> Have a look at your own incredibly
> weak list of supposed coincidences between Shakespeare's work and
> Oxford's voyage if you want evidence of that one. Why haven't you either
> defended any of those points (which I showed in my last mail to be so
> minor as to be meaningless - "conjectures" using your terminology) or put
> forward some better ones? - presuming that both my mailings have reached
> you.
You can dispute the relative importance of Tom Bethell's Oxford-links-to-the
-canon... ie. they may be weak, strong, definitive, inconclusive, coincidental,
or minor etc. but they are not "conjectures".
conjecture (ken-jčk´cher) noun
1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence;
guesswork.
2. A statement, an opinion, or a conclusion based on guesswork:
> Most of the Stratfordians that you listed have no problem with the
> Italian question - because it simply doesn't exist.
Re-read the original post. They ALL had some concern or issue with
the question.. as each took the time to write and publish about the
Italian question.
..some lines deleted..
> Peter thinks that Stratfordians divide into :
>
> > Team A. Orthodox canonical scholars who claim he must have been to Italy VS
> > Team B. Orthodox biographers who claim he never left the >
Stratford/London circuit.
> >
> > Stratfordians must rely on conjecture or reject the evidence of Team A
> > OR Team B.
>
> Yes. I accept that conjecture must be used to try to fill in the details
> of Shakespeare's life. But I say again, how can you possibly suggest
> that conjecture is always a negative thing ?
Certainly... conjecture (guesswork) is fun and interesting.. but I regard it
as a barrier to understanding and the heavy use of it in many of the
biographies of the Stratford man (he could have, he must have, he might have)
as further *evidence* of the weakness of the Stratford attribution.
..some lines deleted..
> For a start, whatever anybody says, there are so many gaps in
> Shakespeare's biography - especially in his younger days - that he could
> certainly have gone over to Italy and come back without us being any the
> wiser. Maybe he was serving in a great household which went? We don't
> know what jobs he had before he went to London. But as you say this is
> conjecture.
..yep.. guesswork...
> It is not however quite such a large conjecture as suggesting (with no
> hard evidence)that Oxford - whose life was much more thouroughly
> documented and observed - managed to write some of the most successful
> plays in Renaissance London without anybody realising,
You might want to read Ogburn's book "The Mysterious William Shakespeare"
an extraordinary analysis of orthodox scholarship, the authorship problem,
evidence for and against the two leading claimants to the authorship of the
canon.
> and that William
> Shakespeare (illiterate according to most Oxfordians) managed to convince
> theatres packed with people that he was educated enough to have written
> the plays. According to contemporary descriptions the most important
> audience members came backstage to talk to the actors - *including
> Shakespeare* - during every performance. And the entire audience heard
> Shakespeare speak several authorial prologues and epilogues - which are
> still attached to the plays.
Really ? are any such personal encounters OR speechs recorded ? Please
post them for our collective review.
> Apparently not even the most educated
> members of the audience spotted the fact that this man was actually (from
> an Oxfordian perspective) an *illiterate village idiot*. Hmm ... quite a
> lot of *conjecture* there really.
The Stratford man's biographers have concluded the following chronology:
* grandparents illiterate
* parents illiterate
* wife illiterate
* greatest writer in the English language; (contributed some 3200 new
words according to the Oxford English Dictionary)
* children illiterate (although one daughter was able to write her name
clearly.. this I think from Schoenbaum's Lives)
Stratford was a village of approx. 1700 (I seem to remember reading)
*illiterate village idiot* <- your words -> Conjecture ? or hypothesis ?
> More importantly, as I said when I first responded to Peter's argument,
> personally I don't think that Shakespeare DID go to Italy - but I admit
> that I may be wrong. I completely disagree with the rather bizarre
> suggestion that he must have gone to Italy to write plays about Italians.
> Shakespeare's Italians usually behave just like the English, and there
> are no huge passages about the Italian countryside. Just basic details
> that any fool with a few books could pick up. What is this mysterious
> "accurate topography" that cannot have come from books? Peter doesn't
> seem to want to say.
Dave Kathman and I have both posted many sources which you can read
at your lesiure.
Enough for now.
Cheers, Peter.
George T Amis
In article <peterw-1801...@47.214.113.61>,
Peter Wilson <pet...@nortel.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>Did ANY other writer but Shakespeare get the "topography right" ?
>
>says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
>even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
>
Ernesto Grillo (1877-1946) is not generally regarded as an
important scholar of S. (His book on S. was first publishied in
English in 1949, according to my information.)
<snip>
>Prof. K. Elze (The Supposed Travels of Shakespeare, Elze 271) clearly
>believes Shakespeare travelled to Italy and cites numerous
>examples in M.of Venice and Othello. He also contrasts Shakespeare's
>knowledge of Italy with Ben Jonson's book-based learning:
>
Again, Karl Elze (1821-1889) is not generally regarded as a
first-rank scholar of S., even for his period. Some of his work
has been reprinted in this century, however.
><Shakespeare> "transfers us, without our being aware of it, into an
>Italian atmosphere, and in the fifth act <of Merchant of Venice>
>makes us enjoy the charms of an Italian night as they could scarcely
>be felt more lively on the spot itself"
This, of course, is not proof of anything except Karl Eltze's
opinions, which seem to me typical of a particular sort of late
19th century impressionistic commentary.
>contrast this with what he
>says of Ben Jonson:
>
>"the Mechant of Venice and B. Jonson's Volpone, the scene of which is
>likewise laid in Venice, Jonson not only exhibits a profound knowledge
>of the Italian language, but shows himself converssant with Venetian
>institutions, customs, and localities; he, so to say, lays the local
>colouring on inches thick; but it is everywhere the work of a book-worm.."
>
>Perhaps Jonson read the "travel literature" ? : )
Or perhaps Eltze had a particular interest in praising S. and
putting down Jonson? Or perhaps S. was better at what the late
19th century regarded as 'atmosphere'? Or perhaps BJ wasn't
interested in that sort of thing in Volpone, which is, pretty
obviously, not at all the same sort of play as Merchant? (In
fact, as Eltze tacitly recognizes, it's much more obviously
'Italian' than Merchant.
In any case, Peter Wilson brings forward two rather dubious
experts ('expert' here can mean not much more than 'someone who
has written a book on S.') to support a notion which even they
(apparently) don't really support.
I suggest, to Peter Wilson and to his readers, that they take to
heart the great dictum of Thomas Aquinas: "The argument from
authority is the weakest." <sigh>
With respect,
GTA
Peter Wilson
In article <5cejj9$c...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, am...@cats.ucsc.edu (George T
Amis) wrote:
> Peter Wilson <pet...@nortel.ca> wrote:
> >Did ANY other writer but Shakespeare get the "topography right" ?
> >
> >Dr. E. Grillo, (Shakespeare and Italy, Shake. Author Review, #6, Aut.61)
> >says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
> >even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
> Perhaps the readers of Peter Wilson's post would like to know that
> Ernesto Grillo (1877-1946) is not generally regarded as an
> important scholar of S. (His book on S. was first publishied in
> English in 1949, according to my information.)
> >Prof. K. Elze (The Supposed Travels of Shakespeare, Elze 271) clearly
> >believes Shakespeare travelled to Italy and cites numerous
> >examples in M.of Venice and Othello. He also contrasts Shakespeare's
> >knowledge of Italy with Ben Jonson's book-based learning:
> Again, Karl Elze (1821-1889) is not generally regarded as a
> first-rank scholar of S., even for his period. Some of his work
> has been reprinted in this century, however.
What does 1st-rank scholar mean ? 20th c. ? or member of the Folger
Library ? Did these men break ranks so-too-speak with the orthodox
biographers (who are certain Shakespeare never left England) and hence
become "dubious experts" to you ?
Dave Kathman posted 3 more recent pieces on Shakespeare and Italy
which suggest alternate literary sources where Shakespeare might have
gotten his Italian *exposure*:
* Shakespeare's Italy: Functions of Italian locations in Renaissance
drama*, edited by Michele Marrapodi, A. J. Hoenselaars, Marcello
Cappuzzo, and L. Falzon Stantucci. Manchester University Press, 1993.
* McPherson, David C., *Shakespeare, Jonson, and the myth of Venice*.
University of Delaware Press, 1990.
* Levith, Murray J., *Shakespeare's Italian settings and plays*.
St. Martin's Press, 1989.
I might note however 3 items for your consideration when comparing all the
Italian scholarship:
1. Grillo and Elze's strongest evidence seems to be the *topographical*
exactitude apparent in Shakespeare.
2. Both also were a century and a century and a half closer to
Shakespeare's Italy. Dare I suggest the topography of northern
Italy may have changed somewhat ? ... making it harder for modern
scholars to be topographically aware ?
3. You decided to ignore the collaborative opinion/assessment by
EK Chambers, Prof. Trevor-Roper, and G. Greenwood. In your mind
are these scholars also "dubious" ?
>> The great E.K. Chambers wrote "he <Shakespeare> seems to have been
>> remarkably successful in giving a local colouring and atmosphere to these
>> <the Italian plays> and even that he shows familiarity with some minute
>> points of local topography." (Chambers, I, 61)
>> Oxford Prof. Trevor-Roper wrote that Shakspeare's "knowledge of Italy
>> was extraordinary", (Trevor-Roper, 42)
>> G. Greenwood asks, "And what are we to say of his accurate knowledge
>> of the towns of northern Italy - of Padua, Verona, Milan, Mantua and
>> especially of Venice ?"
... many lines deleted..
> I suggest, to Peter Wilson and to his readers, that they take to
> heart the great dictum of Thomas Aquinas: "The argument from
> authority is the weakest." <sigh>
I agree completely!! : ) ... Afterall, I am one of those who
are most skeptical of the many *beliefs* of the mainstream academics.
Regards, Peter.
Peter Wilson
In article <32E5D2...@dial.pipex.com>, Thomas Larque
<thomas...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> > Peter worte:
> > Yes Thomas... Stratfordians from time to time are cannibals. : )
>
> No. What you mean is that all academics disagree. Funnily enough,
> Oxfordians do it as well. If Peter has ever read the first Oxfordian
> theory he will find that its author (Looney) believed that THE TEMPEST
> was written after Oxford's death, and therefore (to fit with Looney's
> theory) could not possibly have been written by Shakespeare. Peter has
> accepted this man's expertise by endorsing his personal theory. Does he
> also endorse his dating, and denial that Shakespeare wrote the Tempest?
> Obviously not. Oxfordians eat Oxfordians as well, and then pretend that
> they haven't.
Looney's acceptance of orthodox dating of the Tempest, one out of 34 or 36
plays is but a minor part of his Theory. The dating of a single
play is hardly comparable to his overall work re: his identification of
Edward de Vere as author, and the authorship problem etc.
Since the "dating argument" remains of interest to you and Dave K. I will
start a new thread on the subject with additional input "gleaned" from
orthodox and Oxfordian sources.
> > Anti-Stratfordians can chuckle and accept that BOTH Teams are correct.
>
> Yes - but then they all break into huge arguments about whether the
> person who wrote the plays was REALLY Bacon, Oxford, Elizabeth I, James
> VI, Christopher Marlowe or (getting really extreme) Cardinal Wolsey - who
> had been dead for tens of years, and as Shakespeare apparently wrote a
> play about his own death - or Daniel Defoe, who wasn't born until the
> 1700s. I assure you, Stratfordians have got much better reasons to
> chuckle at the Anti-Stratfordians than vice versa.
Rather than chuckle at the numerous alternate candidates proposed by the
Anti-Stratfordians, perhaps you should ask why is this so ?
Why do so many people over two centuries continue to look elsewhere than
the Stratford man for the author of the canon ? Is it because of
what the chief 20th c. Stratfordian biographer Prof. Schoenbaum writes:
"the overwhelming problem posed by the *meagreness* of the personal
records <of the Stratford man>." (91,193) and "the vertiginous *expanse*
between the sublimity of the subject <the plays> and the mundane
inconsequence of the documentary record <of the Stratford man>" (91,568) ?
> > Oxfordians have the additional advantage of having their man in Italy in the
> > right places, at the right times with *coincidental* evidence of his
personal
> > experience and contacts appearing in the canon.
>
> I've dealt with these *coincidences* before. Incidentally how come your
> rather weak *coincidences* (which do not in any way match your
> description of them above) are somehow transformed into academic proof,
> while every time that I point out we don't know that something hadn't
> happened - you accuse me of "conjecture"? Double standards here. Your
> *coincidences* ARE CONJECTURES !!! - and not very good ones.
tsk tsk... time for a dictionary lookup... I think... : )
...claims about evidence linking the Stratfordian candidate to the plays
deleted.
Perhaps we can start a new thread or two on Stratfordian evidence.. the Folio
ambiguities ? the Stratford monument (grain sack replaced with pen & paper
mid-1700s ?) Contemporary commentary ? Will's business-like will ? etc.
> > Peter wrote:
> > You've quoted from an anti-Stratfordian source, I'm unfamilar with. You may
> > wish to lookup "Shakespeares England" a two-volume *orthodox* study
> > in which 30 specialists contributed. On the basis of this study, Shakespeare
> > was one of the best-educated people of the century. Classical, legal,
> > linguistic,
> > musical, medical, etc. Shakespeare was quite extraordinary... orthodox
scholars
> > often use the word *genius* to describe him... but don't take my word
for it.
>
> I don't. Personally I have been very interested by the fact that
> Shakespeare was a *dramatic recycling system*. We can track in some detail
> his borrowings from sources, and the constant reappearance of themes,
> scenes and even characters within his plays.
Curiously, this identification of Shakespeare as a *dramatic recycling system*
is subject to *collapse* if the Oxfordian thesis re: earlier dates for the plays
becomes established. Date the plays according to the Oxford Theory
and Shakespeare becomes the *source* for much of Elizabethean drama. But I'll
touch more on this theme in my follow-up post on dating.
> True, he was a genius at
> turning these into beautiful plays - but they are all signs of a man
> whose skills lay in making silk purses out of sow's ears, and doing it
> very quickly. The constant recycling makes him sound much more like a
> man of the theatre (working to deadlines for new material) than a
> leisured and artistically pretentious Lord satisfying a hobby. It also
> shows that Shakespeare was very good at making use of OTHER PEOPLE'S
> creativity and knowledge.
Interesting hypothesis... Can I presume you don't agree Shakespeare was
"one of the best-educated people of the century" as I've posted previously ?
> The fact is that people are far too eager to set up Shakespeare as
> omniscient. The all-knowing, all-seeing Bard. What they forget is that
> he was actually a human being. Whoever he was, he quite simply CANNOT
> have known everything that people say he did. Otherwise he would be the
> best EVERYTHING the world has ever known. Genius like this would have
> been commented on - but actually all those writing during his lifetime
> and for the next 200 or so years, talked about how vulgar and unlearned
> he was - comparing him (unfavourably) with the Classical brilliance of
> Jonson.
Ah.. the "dumming-down" of the Bard ! I suppose all those 30 specialists
were just Shakespeare worshippers who forgot to consider his "humble"
origins and Grammer school diploma... ? : ) : )
> Jonson could not have got away with his attacks on Shakespeare's "small
> Latin and less Greek" if everybody KNEW that Shakespeare's plays showed
> the mind of the age's most brilliant classical scholar, and all-round
> genius (which you are claiming is obvious to modern scholars from the
> play texts). You are working from the play texts ... the Elizabethans
> watched the plays AND saw the man. Why should I believe you over them ?
I'm just the messenger... but you obviously *believe* the Elizabethean
audience understood something different than the canonical scholars who
study his classical knowledge today...consider what Tom Bethel wrote
in "The Atlantic Monthly; October, 1991; "The Case for Oxford":
"Shakespeare's learning, worn so unostentatiously, didn't become apparent
until much later <after 17th c.>. The eighteenth-century editor George
Steevens said of a portion of Titus Andronicus: "This passage alone would
sufficiently convince me that the play before us was the work of one who
was conversant with the Greek tragedies in their original language. We have
here a plain allusion to the Ajax of Sophocles, of which no translation
was extant in the time of Shakespeare." Gilbert Highet, of
Columbia University, said that "we can be sure" that Shakespeare
"had not read Aeschylus." (He meant that Shakspere (of Stratford) had not.)
"Yet what can we say when we find some of Aeschylus' thoughts appearing
in Shakespeare's plays?"
"The Comedy of Errors was taken from a play by Plautus before it
had been published in English translation. The Rape of Lucrece is
derived from the Fasti of Ovid, of which there appears to have
been no English version, according to John Churton Collins, the
author of Studies in Shakespeare (1904). Collins also found in the
plays "portions of Caesar, Sallust, Cicero and Livy."
> > > So (with no factual basis, but with more authority than the quotes cited
> > > by Peter, which - I think, open to correction - were from Literary
> > > Scholars not Italian experts) Shakespeare must also be a professional
> > > Lawyer and Classicist. Oxford was neither.
> >
> > I'm not sure of the extent of Oxford's knowledge... however C. Ogburn (92)
> > writes: "At 9 yrs old, Edward (de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford)
> > matriculated at St John's College, Cambridge, receiving a degree at 14.
> > At 16 he received another as Master of Arts from Oxford.. and went
> > on to acquire a legal education at Gray's Inn."... "He had the best tutors,
> > including ... a noted Latin scholar
>
> You have proved that Oxford studied Law and Classics. What you HAVE NOT
> proved is that he was the best Lawyer and Classicist THAT EVER EXISTED.
Wait a minute... above you say " that people are far too eager to set up
Shakespeare as omniscient." Now you say that I must prove Oxford to be
"the best Lawyer and Classicist THAT EVER EXISTED". Which position
do you support ?
> My source said his works "exhibit an extent and depth of knowledge
> in every branch which has never been equalled at any period of the
> world's history" AND (quoting a prominent Lawyer) " the plays were ...
> written by the greatest lawyer the world has ever seen, or ever would
> see". Now are you telling me that any man so described could study at
> Cambridge University without provoking any comment whatever?
Some contemporary commentary (thanks to the SOS web site)
"Edward de Vere was praised by the author of the Arte of
English Poesie (1589) "for Comedy and Enterlude"; by William Webbe,
A Discourse of English Poetry (1586): "...the right honourable Earl of
Oxford may challenge to himself the title of the most excellent among
the rest"; and by Francis Meres, Palladis Tamia (1598): "The best for
comedy among us be Edward Earl of Oxford,...(and others)"
None of Oxford's Comedies or Enterludes (court plays? ) remain under
his name.. even the titles are lost... strange but true... could they exist
under another authors name ? <hint hint>
> Peter writes that The Earl of Oxford was :
>
> > translating Ovid's Metamorphoses
Sorry.. you misunderstood me...
Arthur Golding, his tutor and Uncle was translating Ovid's Metamorphoses
into English at the time...
... although the lurid passages MAY have been translated by Edward himself.
Perhaps this is conjecture but... Golding was a Puritan and warned the young
Edward in writing about the need to follow Puritan ways. Would Golding have
translated the lurid passages or censured them ? Also another commentary
on Golding's later translations says something to the effect that they did not
have the youthful exuberence of his Metamorphoses translation. <hint hint>
> > (Shakespeare's 2nd most important source book, after the Geneva Bible,
> > which coincidentally Oxford also owned...)
>
> You don't say!!! So Oxford owned a popular Renaissance edition of the
> Bible, and once translated one of the best known Latin books (a
> Renaissance favourite) - and Shakespeare read them too!!!
I previously posted (yes friends, I'll try to be brief... : )
"Although Shakespeare's language apparently drew from many translations of
the Bible including French Rheims Bible (1582), Coverdale Psalms (1535),
Bishops's Bible (1568), Tyndale (1526) ... scholars (Milward 73, Shaheen 87,
Stritmatter 93) agree that Shakespeare's most standard Biblical reference
was THE Geneva Bible.
"Professor Shaheen (1987) found, in the tragedies, 14 passages where
Shakespeare prefers the Geneva language vs 9 drawn from all other
English translations combined. In his words, "it is only natural to assume
that he (Shakespeare) owned a copy."
Where is Shakespeare's copy ? Coincidentally, a Geneva Bible, heavily-
annotated with perhaps 250+ links to the Shakespeare canon was
discovered in 1991 at the Folger Shakespeare Library... the crest on the
cover, and the holograph (handwriting inside) are that of Edward de Vere.
..some lines deleted...
> Everything that you have said about Oxford writing Shakespeare's plays
> (usually stated as if it were fact, or at least hugely probable) is
> academic conjecture of the most extreme and tenuous kind. If your
> conjectures are right, you are unlucky to have so very few facts to
> support your point of view.
Check out some details at: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/
..some more lines deleted..
> I'm enjoying the discussion, and I look forward to hearing from you
> again.
>
> THOMAS.
As am I.
Cheers, Peter.
Merilee D. Karr
> >Dr. E. Grillo, (Shakespeare and Italy, Shake. Author Review, #6, Aut.61)
> >says, "the topography is so precise and accurate that it must convince
> >even the most superficial reader that the poet visited the country."
> >
> Perhaps the readers of Peter Wilson's post would like to know that
> Ernesto Grillo (1877-1946) is not generally regarded as an
> important scholar of S.
>
> >Prof. K. Elze (The Supposed Travels of Shakespeare, Elze 271) clearly
> >believes Shakespeare travelled to Italy and cites numerous
> >examples in M.of Venice and Othello.
> >
> Again, Karl Elze (1821-1889) is not generally regarded as a
> first-rank scholar of S., even for his period.
>
> In any case, Peter Wilson brings forward two rather dubious
> experts ('expert' here can mean not much more than 'someone who
> has written a book on S.') to support a notion which even they
> (apparently) don't really support.
>
> I suggest, to Peter Wilson and to his readers, that they take to
> heart the great dictum of Thomas Aquinas: "The argument from
> authority is the weakest." <sigh>
>
> With respect,
>
> GTA
Dear George,
On what authority do you deny their authority? You are playing the same game.
Merilee D. Karr
Portland, Oregon
Thomas Larque
The problem is not with the authors cited, just that Peter Wilson hasn't
actually provided any of the evidence they used to support their
reasoning. On this basis, the only argument is "these people said it, so
it must be true" - which is hardly academic.
If Peter provides us with the arguments that these people put forward to
support their theories we might be able to decide whether their arguments
are sensible or not.
Peter apparently doesn't want to tell us.
THOMAS.
Terry Ross
Peter Wilson wrote:
> Looney's acceptance of orthodox dating of the Tempest, one out of 34 or 36
> plays is but a minor part of his Theory. The dating of a single
> play is hardly comparable to his overall work re: his identification of
> Edward de Vere as author, and the authorship problem etc.
>[snip snip here, snip snip there, and a couple of la-di-da's]
Contrary to what Peter says, the argument that *The Tempest* was not
written by the author of Shakespeare's plays was extremely important to
Looney. He knew that some people had tried to claim that the work was
early enough for Oxford to have written it, but he said, "we make it
clear that we do not rest upon these earlier date theories, and that the
rejection of *The Tempest* must in our view be incorporated ultimately
into the general argument." It wasn't that Looney accepted the
orthodox dating of the play and saw rejecting it as the only way to save
his theory; he positively despised *The Tempest* and found it
inconceivable that the author of *Hamlet* could have written such a
wretched and disappointing work. Of course, Looney's arguments are
inconvenient for most Oxfordians, which is probably why his work has
been so heavily censored by his admirers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross tr...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html
Peter Wilson
In article <32EF87...@dial.pipex.com>, Thomas Larque
<thomas...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> The problem is not with the authors cited, just that Peter Wilson hasn't
> actually provided any of the evidence they used to support their
> reasoning. On this basis, the only argument is "these people said it, so
> it must be true" - which is hardly academic.
>
> If Peter provides us with the arguments that these people put forward to
> support their theories we might be able to decide whether their arguments
> are sensible or not.
>
> Peter apparently doesn't want to tell us.
>
> THOMAS.
Thomas,
I've provided source information, a summary of their argument (ie. the
topographical evidence) and their conclusion re: Shakespeare must have
travelled to Italy. What more do you want ?
Am I required to type-up several pages or more of
their evidence into a newsgroup posting for your pleasure ? If we did this
for every source or authority cited, we'd likely be violating someone's
publishing rights and certainly overwhelm our readers.
If I could find an online copy of their work I'd point you to it but
bottom-line,
I do have a life !! Frankly, as there is no consensus on did he or didn't he,
such an effort on my part is hardly likely to convince you.
Dave Kathman and I have both posted many sources which you can read
at your lesiure should you have access to a University library. Please feel
free to follow-up this issue if you wish. I would prefer us to move on to
other aspects of Shakespeare.
Regards, Peter.
Chris
On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 16:15:38 -0500, pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson)
wrote:
LOTS OF EVIDENCE THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE WAS IN ITALY.
NOTICE THE SOURCES OF OTHELLO WERE IN ITALIAN. FOR EXAMPLE OTHELLO
AKS FOR THE "OCCULAR PROOF' THE ONLY TIME SK USES 'OCCULAR' SAME AS
THE ITALIAN WORD IN CENTHO'S TEXT. THE FRENCH TRANSLATION USED
VISUAL PROOF. ETC., ETC.
'TRAMJECT' IS THE NAME OF THE LOCAL FERRY BOAT, HE KNEW IT.
ETC., ETC.
OF COURSE THE ACTOR NEVER TRAVELED OUTSIDE ENGLAND.
BAKER
Thomas Larque
> In article <32EF87...@dial.pipex.com>, Thomas Larque
> <thomas...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> > If Peter provides us with the arguments that these people put forward to
> > support their theories we might be able to decide whether their arguments
> > are sensible or not.
> >
> > Peter apparently doesn't want to tell us.
> >
> > THOMAS.
>
> Thomas,
>
> I've provided source information, a summary of their argument (ie. the
> topographical evidence)
(Thomas replies) :
The only evidence of this kind that you have provided is the word
"topographical". Hardly comprehensive.
(Back to Peter's posting) :
> and their conclusion re: Shakespeare must have
> travelled to Italy. What more do you want ?
Some meaningful evidence rather than just "A bunch of outdated scholars
once thought it, so it must be true".
> Am I required to type-up several pages or more of
> their evidence into a newsgroup posting for your pleasure ? If we did this
> for every source or authority cited, we'd likely be violating someone's
> publishing rights and certainly overwhelm our readers.
> I would prefer us to move on to
> other aspects of Shakespeare.
>
> Regards, Peter.
All that I'm asking for are two or three of the sections in Shakespeare's
plays that these books suggest cannot have been written without visiting
Italy. I would be willing to bet that given these sources we will find
it fairly easy to locate popular Renaissance or Classical books (of the
kind which Shakespeare - and every other "candidate" for authorship of
his plays - had access to) which contain exactly this information. You
can take these examples from whichever one of the books that you have to
hand, or the one which you felt made the strongest case. You can even
quote them from memory if you want to.
The point that I'm making is that it is entirely impossible to argue
against somebody who doesn't give grounds for their beliefs. "The world
is flat". Now convince me I'm wrong, without knowing what it is that
makes me think so - but remember I have some of the greatest philosophers
and scientists of all time on my side. I'm not going to say what they
actually said, because then you could prove them wrong. And virtually
every one of them wrote before the Renaissance (a handful wrote during
it) but I carefully won't mention that either.
(I don't actually believe the world is flat, so I don't expect anybody to
send serious answers to this one).
"Edward de Vere was lecherous, treacherous, homosexual and homicidal",
not to mention, "a profligate, a spendthrift, a fop, a seducer, a
cuckold, an adulterer, a sodomite, a liar, a drunkard, a blasphemer, ...
an informer, a bully, a feudalist, a would be assasin and ... a legendary
flatulator". I'm quoting a fairly respectable source, who himself claims
to be quoting "what contemporaries did in fact say about Oxford". How
much of that is true? Neither Peter nor myself can possibly even start
to work it out until we find out where the accusations came from, and
what the sources quoted actually said. As a result I wouldn't use these
sources as the sole support for any argument that I made without going
into more detail.
It might help Peter to know that the source I'm quoting referred to most
of these as probably being slanders, but if I'm not actually quoting the
sources properly there's no reason why I should have mentioned that.
I know that many anti-Stratfordians are quite a lot like members of the
"Flat Earth Society" (i.e - "There may be pictures taken of Earth from
the outside which prove it is a sphere, but this is a confidence trick.
The moon landing was staged in a television studio" - sounds quite a lot
like - "There may be many records saying that William Shakespeare wrote
his own plays, but these were all part of a huge conspiracy dating over
at least two generations which involved the vast majority of the
important members of Elizabethan and Jacobean England.") but I had
thought that Peter was at least willing to argue his case rationally.
Unlike the various postings saying "Bacon was Shakespeare! It is the
truth!" or "Marlowe wrote the plays!! Common sense proves it!!", or even
(perhaps the most irritating from my point of view) "Of course William
Shakespeare wrote the plays, anyone who doesn't think so is an idiot, but
if anybody actually answers this posting I'm having nothing to do with
any further discussion". Well, fine - but if you can't stand the heat,
stay out of the kitchen. Do not make an academic argument on an academic
News Group, and then say that you aren't interested in anybody else's
point of view. In that case, why should we be interested in yours? And
if I stuck up a posting saying "WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE WROTE THE PLAYS - THE
TRUTH!!!" I would expect to be laughed at.
Peter has actually presented an argument - and for this he has my
respect. To present an argument, and then refuse to discuss the evidence
on which it is based, however, is dangerously similar to the postings
mentioned above. Compared to something like "Only a person who had been
in Italy could know that the Colloseum had a chip out of its main
structure as Shakespeare suggests in his play I JUST MADE THIS ONE UP" or
whatever, "Shakespeare must have been to Italy - a Victorian scholar said
so" is rather weak. Give the reason, not just the opinion, or your
argument is pointless (and most importantly) untestable. Anything that
can't be tested is just a conjecture. Peter doesn't like them.
Two more things.
1) Copyright - There are no copyright problems with small quotations -
you are legally allowed to make "reasonable quotations" from a book when
reviewing or discussing it. As most newspaper reviews show this can be
up to four or five hefty chunks per paragraph. You might get into
problems with whole chapters, scanned pages, or a public posting of the
entire book - but nobody (especially not academics) are going to sue you
for citing a few sentences. If they tried, they would almost certainly
lose. We all do it - including them. Anyway, if you paraphrase
somebody's argument (put it into your own words), no copyright
regulations apply - you can't patent a literary theory.
And anyway many of the authors that you cite have been out of copyright
for decades - which rather knocks that one on the head. Plus what I'm
really asking for is a list of the parts of Shakespeare's plays which
they quote as evidence for their theories (this bit PROVES he must have
been to Italy etc.) - and there certainly isn't any copyright on those.
2) I don't have access to a University Library. My University is in
Lancaster. Due to the health problems mentioned before, I am in Kent.
There is little chance of me getting back to Lancaster within the life of
this discussion. When I say I don't have access to these books, I am
quite serious.
Hope this gives you a good enough reason to point out at least one part
of the plays that these authors use to prove their point. Or if you
really can't be bothered to look anything up - how about putting forward
a couple of places in the plays which YOU think provide firm evidence
that the author of Shakespeare's plays visited Italy. That shouldn't
take you any time at all, if you really have read any of these books.
I'm starting to wonder if you didn't get your quotes from an Oxfordian
article, and haven't actually touched the books at all. Could this be
why you don't want to talk about them? *Evil Grin*
If you want to prove me wrong - put forward some genuine examples (from
the sources you mention, or from the top of your head) of what
Shakespeare knows about Italy that can't have come from books. Then we
will have a chance to prove you wrong.
Good Luck.
THOMAS.
Thomas Larque
Peter Wilson wrote:
> > > Yes Thomas... Stratfordians from time to time are cannibals. : )
> >
> > (Thomas)No. What you mean is that all academics disagree. Funnily
> > enough,
> > Oxfordians do it as well. If Peter has ever read the first Oxfordian
> > theory he will find that its author (Looney) believed that THE
> > TEMPEST
> > was written after Oxford's death, and therefore (to fit with Looney's
> > theory) could not possibly have been written by Shakespeare. Peter
> > has
> > accepted this man's expertise by endorsing his personal theory. Does he
> > also endorse his dating, and denial that Shakespeare wrote the Tempest?
> > Obviously not. Oxfordians eat Oxfordians as well, and then pretend that
> > they haven't.
>
> (Peter) Looney's acceptance of orthodox dating of the Tempest, one out of 34 or 36
> plays is but a minor part of his Theory. The dating of a single
> play is hardly comparable to his overall work re: his identification of
> Edward de Vere as author, and the authorship problem etc.
>
So, in other words, Peter does "cannibalise" Looney. Takes only the bits
of his argument that he agrees with, and rejects the rest. As I said,
Oxfordians eat other Oxfordians and then PRETEND that they haven't. Not
a very convincing pretence, either.
Small point, Peter - but all those Stratfordian scholars who you claim
support your point of view mention Italy as only a small part of their
understanding of Shakespeare. This is hardly comparable to their overall
work re: the identification of Shakespeare of Stratford as author of the
plays written by Shakespeare.
But then Peter is using his usual method of unblinkingly testing
Stratfordian evidence and theories by methods which his own theories
cannot stand up against - and then conveniently forgetting to apply the
same tests to himself. Anti-Stratfordians are very good at this. It
makes their arguments look very silly.
> > > (Peter) Anti-Stratfordians can chuckle and accept that BOTH Teams are correct.
> >
> > (Thomas) Yes - but then they all break into huge arguments about whether the
> > person who wrote the plays was REALLY Bacon, Oxford, Elizabeth I, James
> > VI, Christopher Marlowe or (getting really extreme) Cardinal Wolsey - who
> > had been dead for tens of years, and as Shakespeare apparently wrote a
> > play about his own death - or Daniel Defoe, who wasn't born until the
> > 1700s. I assure you, Stratfordians have got much better reasons to
> > chuckle at the Anti-Stratfordians than vice versa.
>
> (Peter) Rather than chuckle at the numerous alternate candidates proposed by the
> Anti-Stratfordians, perhaps you should ask why is this so ?
>
> Why do so many people over two centuries continue to look elsewhere than
> the Stratford man for the author of the canon ? Is it because of
> what the chief 20th c. Stratfordian biographer Prof. Schoenbaum writes:
> "the overwhelming problem posed by the *meagreness* of the personal
> records <of the Stratford man>." (91,193) and "the vertiginous *expanse*
> between the sublimity of the subject <the plays> and the mundane
> inconsequence of the documentary record <of the Stratford man>" (91,568) ?
>
Or is it because many people are willing to believe anything, and it is
much more impressive to believe something that hasn't already been known
for hundreds of years? As somebody said in this group recently "Oxford
is the cool candidate" - for the moment. Not too long ago it was Bacon,
soon it could be Marlowe or whoever else somebody chooses to drag into
this. Peter might like to ask himself why (if the arguments for Oxford's
authorship are so strong) so many Anti-Stratfordians believe in
completely different candidates.
Let's imagine 50 people are trying to find their way home. 40 of them
think they came from the North, 3 think they came from the South and the
rest are all pointing in completely different (and random) directions.
Peter says that on this evidence the 40 who want to go North should be
seriously worried about whether or not they are right. And that the
sensible direction to travel in would be South. Pretty twisted logic
really.
> > > (Peter) Oxfordians have the additional advantage of having their man in Italy in the
> > > right places, at the right times with *coincidental* evidence of his
> personal
> > > experience and contacts appearing in the canon.
> >
> > (Thomas) I've dealt with these *coincidences* before. Incidentally how come your
> > rather weak *coincidences* (which do not in any way match your
> > description of them above) are somehow transformed into academic proof,
> > while every time that I point out we don't know that something hadn't
> > happened - you accuse me of "conjecture"? Double standards here. Your
> > *coincidences* ARE CONJECTURES !!! - and not very good ones.
>
> (Peter) tsk tsk... time for a dictionary lookup... I think... : )
Yes Peter. I think you should try looking the word up in a dictionary.
But this time read the entry instead of just typing it in. You
could also try reading the various dictionary entries I sent you to show
that you didn't understand the words "Conjecture", "Theory" or
"Hypothesis", or the fact that the three words mean almost exactly the
same thing. Oh, and try reading the detailed description in my last
posting of why these so-called coincidences are CONJECTURES - according
to your own dictionary definition (which you quote without actually
seeming to believe). I know dictionaries every bit as well as you do,
and - from your use of this word - almost certainly rather better.
Guess what. Not only has Peter ignored all the evidence that proves him
wrong, but he has conveniently managed to avoid answering my attack on
his *coincidences* - YET AGAIN!!! Can we consider this a white flag?
If you want a selection of other entries from various dictionaries,
theasauruses and other reference books supporting the accepted
interpretation of these words, just ask - and I will E-Mail them to you.
Somehow I don't think everybody else will want (or need) to read them
again.
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > You've quoted from an anti-Stratfordian source, I'm unfamilar with. You may
> > > wish to lookup "Shakespeares England" a two-volume *orthodox* study
> > > in which 30 specialists contributed. On the basis of this study, Shakespeare
> > > was one of the best-educated people of the century. Classical, legal,
> > > linguistic,
> > > musical, medical, etc. Shakespeare was quite extraordinary... orthodox
> scholars
> > > often use the word *genius* to describe him... but don't take my word
> for it.
> >
> > (Thomas) I don't. Personally I have been very interested by the fact that
> > Shakespeare was a *dramatic recycling system*. We can track in some detail
> > his borrowings from sources, and the constant reappearance of themes,
> > scenes and even characters within his plays.
>
> (Peter) Curiously, this identification of Shakespeare as a *dramatic recycling system*
> is subject to *collapse* if the Oxfordian thesis re: earlier dates for the plays
> becomes established.
Which it can't, because it is entirely based on rather desperate
conjecture. Not even the Oxfordians agree on the dates that they give to
these plays between themselves.
Besides the sources Shakespeare copied were not usually other Renaissance
dramas (sometimes - but very rarely). He used books like Ovid's
Metamorphosis, Plutarch's Lives, Brooke's Romeo and Juliet, Renaissance
History books, his own earlier plays. Etc. Etc. How can the plays have
predated and inspired all of these?
Besides, plays like KING LEIR (a dramatised version of the Lear story
which was performed before Shakespeare's version, and subsequently
printed to cash in on the popularity of the - very different -
Shakespearean KING LEAR) would have been a great deal better if they had
imitated or been inspired by Shakespeare's play. If you read KING LEIR -
which I have, and Peter probably hasn't - you will find that it is very
poorly written, lumbering, old-fashioned stuff. Anybody copying
Shakespeare's play would have stolen his best ideas - the Fool, Poor Tom,
Gloucester, Edmund - none of these appear in KING LEIR.
On the (much larger) non-dramatic sources, Oxford hadn't been born by the
time many of these stories were already being told, or these books were
written. I somehow doubt that Brooke's translation of an Italian story
was actually based on a play by William Shakespeare rather than the other
way around. Are you suggesting the play was translated into Italian, and
then inspired the story that Brooke translated? Don't think so, somehow.
> > (Thomas) True, he was a genius at
> > turning these into beautiful plays - but they are all signs of a man
> > whose skills lay in making silk purses out of sow's ears, and doing it
> > very quickly. The constant recycling makes him sound much more like a
> > man of the theatre (working to deadlines for new material) than a
> > leisured and artistically pretentious Lord satisfying a hobby. It also
> > shows that Shakespeare was very good at making use of OTHER PEOPLE'S
> > creativity and knowledge.
>
> (Peter) Interesting hypothesis... Can I presume you don't agree Shakespeare was
> "one of the best-educated people of the century" as I've posted
> previously ?
No. I don't. Read Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson, Thomas Moore. In fact,
read almost any Renaissance writer reknowned for their intelligence and
wide reading and you will find that they know at least as much as
Shakespeare did, and probably more. Then compare these people with the
writings of Edward de Vere. I haven't read Vere to do the test, but I
suspect he might prove fairly ordinary.
Perhaps Peter has read the Earl's Complete works (all which have
survived, at least) and will be able to answer this, but I doubt it - why
read a person's own writings before claiming they wrote all of
Shakespeare's plays? I doubt many Oxfordians have bothered.
> > (Thomas) The fact is that people are far too eager to set up Shakespeare as
> > omniscient. The all-knowing, all-seeing Bard. What they forget is that
> > he was actually a human being. Whoever he was, he quite simply CANNOT
> > have known everything that people say he did. Otherwise he would be the
> > best EVERYTHING the world has ever known. Genius like this would have
> > been commented on - but actually all those writing during his lifetime
> > and for the next 200 or so years, talked about how vulgar and unlearned
> > he was - comparing him (unfavourably) with the Classical brilliance of
> > Jonson.
>
> (Peter) Ah.. the "dumming-down" of the Bard ! I suppose all those 30 specialists
> were just Shakespeare worshippers who forgot to consider his "humble"
> origins and Grammer school diploma... ? : ) : )
I suppose Jonson (who actually knew Shakespeare, watched his plays and
had a Classical knowledge which was regarded by his contemporaries as
enormous and impressive) just failed to notice that he was talking
complete rubbish, and that Shakespeare was actually a Classical genius.
As for the "humble Grammar school origins", I wasn't thinking at
all about the authorship debate when I originally formulated these
arguments. I was reading Stratfordian bardolators long before I read my
first anti-Stratfordian (collecting 19th Century books on Shakespeare
has been a hobby of mine since I was 17), and I was making comments like
this before I even knew that Oxford was a candidate for the authorship.
Unfortunately for Peter these observations were based on my readings of
the plays, not of the man's biography.
Sorry - but the Stratfordian Bardolators were the ones whose arguments I
originally attacked. Oxfordian and Baconian Bardolators came later, and
are only slightly more ridiculous.
Note, also, that Peter and is yet again trying to apply standards to me
that he does not follow himself. I was not guilty of basing my arguments
on my knowledge that Shakespeare had a "humble grammar school" education,
when I first created these arguments I had no idea that this was
significant. Oxfordians however start from the nobility and education of
De Vere, and then argue (going backwards) that the author of
Shakespeare's plays MUST have had these qualifications. Peter always has
in mind the unhumble Universities which his favourite Earl underwent, and
as a result of this tries to prove that Shakespeare must have had the
same. This is going backwards.
Besides, a Grammar School Education wasn't that humble you know.
That would be a bit like saying that today anybody who doesn't go to
Oxford or Harvard has had a "humble education".
Renaissance Schools and Universities did not have the same relationship
that they have today - which can be proved by the fact that Oxford
started to study at Cambridge when he was a child, matriculated at 9, got
a degree at 14. This doesn't prove that Oxford was a genius (it
certainly would today), it just proves that in the Renaissance University
degrees were much closer to modern school certificates (GCSEs or A-levels
in Britain, not sure what they are called elsewhere). Oxford may have
got a GOOD school education from his early years at University, but it
would only have been a school education.
> I'm just the messenger... but you obviously *believe* the Elizabethean
> audience understood something different than the canonical scholars who
> study his classical knowledge today...consider what Tom Bethel wrote
> in "The Atlantic Monthly; October, 1991; "The Case for Oxford":
>
> "Shakespeare's learning, worn so unostentatiously, didn't become apparent
> until much later <after 17th c.>. The eighteenth-century editor George
> Steevens said of a portion of Titus Andronicus: "This passage alone would
> sufficiently convince me that the play before us was the work of one who
> was conversant with the Greek tragedies in their original language.
18th Century!!! Do you know what the standards of criticism were like in
the 18th Century !!! There weren't any. They didn't fully understand
Greek, or Renaissance drama. Scholars were all amateurs and
Jacks-of-all-Trades. There weren't public libraries with facsimilies of
original sources open to general inspection. English Literature wasn't
going to arrive as a formal subject for another century or so. If the
Oxfordians have to go back to quoting the opinions of 18th Century
scholars as if they were written in stone facts (and again, notice, no
evidence ... no argument ... just the opinion) they really must be
getting desperate.
> We have
> here a plain allusion to the Ajax of Sophocles, of which no translation
> was extant in the time of Shakespeare." Gilbert Highet, of
> Columbia University, said that "we can be sure" that Shakespeare
> "had not read Aeschylus." (He meant that Shakspere (of Stratford) had not.)
> "Yet what can we say when we find some of Aeschylus' thoughts appearing
> in Shakespeare's plays?"
>
> "The Comedy of Errors was taken from a play by Plautus before it
> had been published in English translation. The Rape of Lucrece is
> derived from the Fasti of Ovid, of which there appears to have
> been no English version, according to John Churton Collins, the
> author of Studies in Shakespeare (1904). Collins also found in the
> plays "portions of Caesar, Sallust, Cicero and Livy."
>
But additional Renaissance books have been turning up in libraries and
records for most of the last century, and we know for a fact that
manuscript versions were often circulated. Besides, as I keep saying,
Shakespeare did know at least some Latin and Greek (even Jonson says so)
- just not as much as Jonson (a Classical snob) thinks he should have
done. The point is that Shakespeare was not the Classical genius that
Peter claims him to have been.
In any case, I don't know about the others, but Caesar, Cicero and Livy
were almost certainly available in translation, and even if they weren't
they were so frequently quoted by other writers that Shakespeare would
have had no problem picking up their words and ideas. Again Oxfordians
are hoping that not telling the whole truth (when it is inconvenient) is
the same as being right. It isn't.
> > > > (Thomas) So (with no factual basis, but with more authority than the quotes cited
> > > > by Peter ...) Shakespeare must also be a professional
> > > > Lawyer and Classicist. Oxford was neither.
> > > (Peter) [Cites Edward de Vere's education]
> >
> > (Thomas) You have proved that Oxford studied Law and Classics. What you HAVE NOT
> > proved is that he was the best Lawyer and Classicist THAT EVER EXISTED.
>
> (Peter) Wait a minute... above you say " that people are far too eager to set up
> Shakespeare as omniscient." Now you say that I must prove Oxford to be
> "the best Lawyer and Classicist THAT EVER EXISTED". Which position
> do you support ?
If you read my original comment (which you kindly duplicated before
making your reply) you might have noticed the words "WITH NO FACTUAL
BASIS" which ought to answer your question. I think it's rubbish. It
just happens that there are hundreds of similar quotes about every
subject that you can think of - law, divinity, classics, (Renaissance)
Italy, Catholic religion, Puritan religion, the natural world, women,
some esoteric mystical philosophy related to the Templars (forgotten what
that one was called). I've come across endless supplies of them.
Basically every Bardolator believes that Shakespeare was an expert in his
own field of interest, or in the things that he feels any genius should
be expert in.
Someone has been willing to claim that Shakespeare knew and was an expert
in all of these things (individually). And yet no human being could have
been expert in all of them at the same time. The point that I have made
is that most of these arguments are just as well (or rather, just as
badly) founded as the ones that you were quoting. If you accept yours,
you should also accept the others. And nobody could really know
everything that it has been claimed that he knew. Just saying that an
academic (even a respected one) claimed he knew it is proof of nothing.
Support your theories by quoting reasoned arguments, not just final
opinions, and you might be able to prove that your arguments are better
founded than the rest. You have steadfastly refused to do this.
You were also the one who attempted to support the sadly ridiculous
source that I quoted in relation to Oxford by citing his legal and
classical education. If the ridiculous anti-Stratfordian source that I
quoted was correct (which you must have thought that it was to want to
prove it applicable to Oxford) then it proved that Oxford wasn't the
author of the plays. You supported the source when you thought it helped
you, now it turns against you - you suddenly you seek to rubbish it.
Double standards again? I was simply showing that whether this statement
was true or false it undermines your argument.
Besides YOU first described Shakespeare (and Oxford) as a genius, which
on its own justifies the line I was taking. Strangely nobody in the
Renaissance seems to have considered either of these men to be a genius,
since they were both well known this makes Peter's arguments very
suspicious. But then again, Peter (of course) knows far more about them
than the people who spoke to them every day. Well, he doesn't actually,
but he likes to think that he does.
> (Peter) Some contemporary commentary (thanks to the SOS web site)
> "Edward de Vere was praised by the author of the Arte of
> English Poesie (1589) "for Comedy and Enterlude"; by William Webbe,
> A Discourse of English Poetry (1586): "...the right honourable Earl of
> Oxford may challenge to himself the title of the most excellent among
> the rest"; and by Francis Meres, Palladis Tamia (1598): "The best for
> comedy among us be Edward Earl of Oxford,...(and others)"
>
> None of Oxford's Comedies or Enterludes (court plays? ) remain under
> his name.. even the titles are lost... strange but true... could they exist
> under another authors name ? <hint hint>
>
What Peter has conveniently forgotten to mention (or perhaps doesn't
know, if his knowledge of these books is based purely on Oxfordian
propaganda) is that the title Webbe said that Oxford could challenge for
is for a position among the "Noble Lords and Gentlemen, in her Majesty's
Court". So he wasn't being compared with all poets, just the court
poets.
Webbe handled the genuinely successful poets (as opposed to court
hobbyists) completely separately, and thought that Spenser was much
better than anybody else. "The title of the rightest English Poet ... is
the Author of the Shepheardes Calender", he says ... which means Spenser.
As for Oxford's skill at comedy. Puttenham wrote "That for Tragedy, the
Lord of Buckhurst, and Master Edward Ferrys ... do deserve the highest
price: Th'Earl of Oxford and Master Edwardes of her Majesty's Chapel for
Comedy and Interlude". So Oxford wasn't considered particularly good at
Tragedy, which Shakespeare certainly was. Besides Oxford's partner in
this equation (who by Peter's logic must be a close rival of
Shakespeare's in quality, to appear next to Oxford in this list) only
ever wrote one comedy called DAMON AND PITHIAS which has not exactly been
remembered as one of the great comedies of the time, let alone all time.
Oxford was almost certainly just as insignificant.
As for Oxford's "Enterludes" not surviving. Isn't that strange. Neither
did any by Shakespeare. Probably because he didn't write any. If
Oxford's plays were preserved, but just published under Shakespeare's
name, then these "Enterludes" (like Jonson's Masques) should have
survived. But obviously, nobody wanted to print plays by Oxford.
Shakespeare's name, on the other hand, sold anything - even plays he
hadn't written. Why did Oxford use Shakespeare's name for poetry (Venus
and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece) despite writing other poems under his
own name, while not taking advantage of the Shakespeare name for his
"Enterludes"? Answer - he didn't use Shakespeare's name for anything.
Oxford's theatre work almost certainly disappeared because it wasn't
printed. Printers pirated everything of Shakespeare's that they could
get their hands on. They really weren't the same person.
THOMAS.
Thomas Larque
Apologies to anybody who has read this before. Or any subsequent
variation sent through DejaNews.
Unfortunately my mail software has been playing up, and is
occasionally telling me that I have successfully sent messages that
haven't gone OR that messages which have already been transmitted have
not gone out.
Peter Wilson's recent posting made me wonder whether this earlier posting
of mine had reached him, and since I can find no sign of it on DejaNews I
have to assume that my computer was lying when it told me that this had
already been sent out.
This is a reply to Peter's 23rd January posting, and is therefore a step
further back than the current discussion.
Apologies again.
THOMAS.
*** EARLIER MESSAGE STARTS ***
To reply to Peter Wilson's last posting on Oxford / Shakespeare and
Italy.
Sorry if you think I mistated your case in my last post by saying that
you thought the Italy visit "proved" that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's
plays. I meant "provided evidence that", but perhaps this didn't come
across.
Anyway, on with the debate.
> > > Peter wrote:
> > > The *Italian travel* problem is a problem only for the Stratford
> attribution.
> >
> > (Thomas) No. Actually the Italian problem is only a problem for the Oxfordians
> > who haven't got any decent evidence for their man's authorship, and who
> > are therefore clutching at straws.
>
> (Peter) I beg to differ. Although Dave Kathman has provided some additional
> sources which he claims challenge "The Shakespeare must have visited Italy"
> position of some orthodox canonical scholars... (thanks Dave)... I still stand
> by my assertation, the Italian problem remains a *problem* ONLY for the
> Stratford attribution.
The problem with all this is that none of the Stratfordian authors you
quote (mostly outdated as Dave Kathman suggests) actually see a PROBLEM.
They question whether or not Shakespeare went to Italy, but accept -
whatever their theories - that it was Shakespeare who wrote the plays.
You are artificially constructing a PROBLEM from this, because - and only
because - you want to prove that an unconnected man wrote the plays.
Hence the ITALIAN PROBLEM exists only in the minds of Oxfordian
theorists.
Dave Kathman has provided a little modern research to show that the
modern consensus - based on much less emotive and amateurish scholarship
than 19th century criticism - is actually (in direct contradiction to
your claims) that the author of the plays didn't have to go to Italy to
write them.
You seem to be willing to suggest four irrelevant *coincidences* between
Oxford's voyage and Shakespeare's plays - which you still haven't
defended from my recent attack - and then try to pretend that these are
concrete paralells rather than conjectures. Which they are not.
The *coincidences* were weak to begin with, but here is a reminder of the
reasons that they have no real value whatever.
(a) Oxfordians suggest that Oxford visited France and might POSSIBLY have
met Henry of Navarre ... Navarre (the place) appears in one of
Shakespeare's plays. Therefore Shakespeare must have spoken to Henry of
Navarre to find out about the Court.
REPLY : (1) Nobody - including Oxfordians - actually claims there is any
evidence that this meeting took place. It is a total conjecture (and we
know how Peter hates conjecture ... except when it agrees with his
theories, of course).
(2) Nobody needs to speak to the ruler of a place to be able to write a
play about it.
(3) Shakespeare also writes about Elsinore (Denmark), Dunsinane
(Scotland), Milan (in THE TEMPEST), Cyprus (OTHELLO), Egypt (ANTONY AND
CLEOPATRA), Ancient Rome (repeatedly), Ancient Britain (KING LEAR,
CYMBELINE) etc. etc. Did he visit or speak to the rulers of all these
places? Doesn't seem likely does it. And yet the courts in ALL of
Shakespeare's plays are remarkably similar. The Navarre court in Love's
Labour's Lost behaves exactly like the court in Illyria (TWELFTH NIGHT)
which is just like the court in THE WINTER'S TALE. There are alterations
according to narrative, but basically Shakespeare is following a literary
model of court behaviour in all cases.
(b) Oxford wrote "For fear of the Inquisition I dare not pass by Milan,
the Bishop whereof exerciseth such tyranny"
REPLY - So?
(1) Actually Peter doesn't link this to Shakespeare's
writings in any way ... which makes it seem rather pointless to bring it
up in the first place.
(2) The main appearance of Milan in Shakespeare's plays is in THE
TEMPEST. Here Prospero (a good Duke) is the true ruler of Milan. There
is no bishop, the inquisition do not appear. Shakespeare makes no
attempt to describe the city as a hotbed of religious fanaticism. In
fact, there is no link whatever with the Earl of Oxford's impression of a
dangerous religious tyranny.
(3) In any case, Peter ... who has all along been arguing that
Shakespeare must have based all his Italian references on personal
experience ... suddenly decides that it is OK for the Earl of Oxford to
write about Milan without having actually set foot in the place. This is
another example of Peter's attempts to have his cake and eat it. Somehow
the tests that Peter applies to Stratfordian theories suddenly become
redundant when Peter is discussing Oxford. Presumably the Earl was
either told about Milan, or read about it, in order to know how dangerous
it was in the first place. So we are back to the conclusion that the
Italian references could easily be based upon other people's written or
spoken experiences.
(c) Oxford borrowed money from a man called Baptista Nigrone. In THE
TAMING OF THE SHREW, there is a character called Baptista who has a lot
of money.
REPLY -
(1) Whoever wrote Shakespeare's plays certainly wasn't too familiar
with the name Baptista. He uses it (by mistake) as a female name in
Hamlet (Act 3 Scene 2).
(2) Oxford borrowed money from a Baptista in Italy, he MUST therefore
have known that the name was a MALE name. It is therefore unlikely that
he would have made the mistake that Shakespeare made.
(3) If Oxford (having been to Italy) wanted an Italian female name
for a character - he should have had hundreds to choose from. He surely
met or heard about one or two of them on his long voyage. Shakespeare -
probably working from more limited experience of Italian women - is
infinitely more likely to make this sort of mistake.
(d) Oxford was described as attending COMMEDIA DELL'ARTE performances
in Italy. There are some COMMEDIA references in LOVE'S LABOURS LOST.
(1) The COMMEDIA DELL'ARTE were the single greatest influence on
theatre throughout Europe in their time. Their characters and techniques
circulated freely throughout the period.
(2) A COMMEDIA company was performing in London, England in 1577. So
London experienced the COMMEDIA itself BEFORE any of Shakespeare's plays
were written. By 1600 COMMEDIA had infiltrated "every major European
country". Is Peter suggesting that the only way to refer to a few
Commedia characters would be to go all the way to Italy, and watch them
in their own theatre? Not very believable really.
***
So to sum up.
Argument (a) is a non-starter. Oxford never met Henry of Navarre as far
as anybody knows. To suggest he did is pure conjecture. Peter hates
conjecture.
Argument (b) isn't even given a connection to Shakespeare's plays.
Oxford's vision of Milan is completely unconnected with Shakespeare's.
Besides if you have to visit a place to be able to write about it (the
basis of Peter's entire argument), Oxford who never visited Milan cannot
write about it in THE TEMPEST. And therefore isn't Shakespeare.
Argument (c) is interesting, but fatally flawed. Shakespeare apparently
wasn't always sure whether Baptista was a male or female name. If the
name struck Oxford so firmly that he used it (and a disguised version of
its owner) in a play many years later, how could he possibly make this
mistake? Also Oxford who spent months in Italy, must have met one or two
women during the trip, and should therefore have had no problems coming
up with real female Italian names. Again, this seems to suggest that
Oxford DID NOT write the plays rather than the other way around.
Argument (d) is purely pointless. Everybody in Europe, and especially
everybody connected to theatre, had some chance of seeing or hearing
about the characters of COMMEDIA the most influential theatre of its day.
To argue that one would have to go to Italy to research the minor
COMMEDIA references in Love's Labour's Lost is a bit like suggesting that
you have to go to a Cinema in Hollywood to see American films. Fantasy,
in other words.
***
Now. Sorry for repeating all that, but Peter's entire argument for
Oxford's authorship hinges on these *coincidences* - so unless he has
better reasons for believing that Oxford's Italian voyage has some direct
connections with Shakespeare's work, or can provide explanations for the
continued validity of the coincidences above, anybody who visited Italy
has as good a claim to having written the plays according to Peter's
argument.
Any defence for these *coincidences*, Peter?
Incidentally, at least one of the theories about Shakespeare's authorship
is that the plays were written by a group of Jesuits. Since many of the
English Jesuits trained in Rome, this means that they can be added to
David Kathman's earlier list of "candidates" who actually HAD visited
Italy. So Peter's assertion that "other travellers to Italy ... are not
candidates for the authorship of the canon" is very wrong.
Peter says :
> You can dispute the relative importance of Tom Bethell's Oxford-links-to-the
> -canon... ie. they may be weak, strong, definitive, inconclusive, coincidental,
> or minor etc. but they are not "conjectures".
>
> conjecture (ken-jčk´cher) noun
> 1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence;
> guesswork.
> 2. A statement, an opinion, or a conclusion based on guesswork:
There it is again. That definition of conjecture. Nice of you Peter.
Now let me show you how well it fits each of your *coincidences*.
(a) Henry of Navarre ... is pure conjecture. From your own posting - "It
is POSSIBLE that at this time Oxford met Henry of Navarre". In other
words it is not absolutely certain that it didn't happen, but there is no
evidence that it did. "Inference ... based on ... incomplete evidence /
... a conclusion based on guesswork". Perfect description. That
POSSIBLE kills any chance you have to argue that this one isn't
conjecture.
(b) Milan ... You don't even make any attempt to link this to
Shakespeare's plays - but I will be generous and assume that it is a
supposed link to THE TEMPEST. If this is the case, then you are assuming
that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays ("a conclusion based on guesswork")
and then imagining that there are links between this one brief sentence
about religious tyranny in Milan and a play (mentioning Milan) in which
religious tyranny makes no appearance. Guess what? This makes this an
"Inference ... based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence".
(c) Baptista ... OK, this one isn't quite as ridiculous a conjecture as
the rest - but it is still a conjecture. You are assuming that Oxford
wrote Shakespeare's plays, for which there is no hard evidence ("a
conclusion based on guesswork"), and then suggesting that his Baptista
was a direct model for the Baptista in the play. Since there is no real
evidence for this either, this makes it "an inference based on
inconclusive evidence". Hence a conjecture.
(d) This one isn't really even a conjecture, it is just a mistake. It
assumes that one must have seen COMMEDIA in Italy to borrow from
COMMEDIA. It was an art-form that circulated around Europe. People
could see it anywhere. Even if we accept this (false) assumption, for
the sake of argument, these claims are still conjecture. You are only
guessing (with no real evidence) that there is a direct link between
Oxford's COMMEDIA visit and the COMMEDIA references in LOVE'S LABOURS
LOST. This is "an inference based on inconclusive evidence", and
therefore is conjecture.
All of these are conjectures according to your own definition.
But, perhaps foolishly in your mind, I am willing to accept that
conjectures are academically relevant - you are not being unacademic by
making these conjectures, only by failing to abandon them when they
become untenable.
In my last post I said :
> > (Thomas) Yes. I accept that conjecture must be used to try to fill in the details
> > of Shakespeare's life. But I say again, how can you possibly suggest
> > that conjecture is always a negative thing ?
>
> (Peter) Certainly... conjecture (guesswork) is fun and interesting.. but I regard it
> as a barrier to understanding and the heavy use of it in many of the
> biographies of the Stratford man (he could have, he must have, he might have)
> as further *evidence* of the weakness of the Stratford attribution.
This from a man who is constructing an invented biography for the Earl of
Oxford based on the assumption that "he could have, he must have, he
might have" written Shakespeare's plays? If you think that your own
arguments are so clearly and obviously meaningless and non-academic, give
them up. If you think conjectures are academically meaningless, go away
and find some documents that say Oxford wrote the plays. Then forget
about them. By your standards they are completely useless - because you
simply dismiss similar documents about Shakespeare on the grounds that
they are dishonest, misinterpreted, or simply mistaken. You would only
be using CONJECTURE to prove that such documents were telling the truth.
***
On the importance of conjecture to academic research, I suggest that you
compare your definition of "conjecture" with this definition of "theory".
The capitals are mine. The definitions are from THE COLLINS ENGLISH
DICTIONARY(1989).
THEORY -
1) A system of rules, procedures and ASSUMPTIONS used to produce a
result. 2) abstract knowledge or REASONING. 3) a SPECULATIVE or
**CONJECTURAL** view or idea. 4) An ideal or HYPOTHETICAL situation.
5) A set of HYPOTHESES related by logical or mathematical arguments to
explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general
terms : i.e THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. 6) A non-technical name for a
HYPOTHESIS. [16th C Latin from theoria ... something to be viewed].
Notice a familiar word in there? Conjecture? Yes. Even Einstein's
THEORY OF RELATIVITY is a conjecture. He could be wrong - there are
already people suggesting that he is. The theory of relativity works for
the moment, but then so did the THEORY that the Sun went round the Earth.
They got the science all wrong, but they could still predict the
movements of the planets in the sky.
Are you going to tell me that THEORY has no part in academic thinking? I
really hope that you aren't.
In my last post I tried my best to explain to you that believing Oxford
wrote Shakespeare's plays was a conjecture :
> > Apparently not even the most educated members of the audience spotted
> > the fact that this man (William Shakespeare) was actually (from
> > an Oxfordian perspective) an *illiterate village idiot*. Hmm ...
> > quite a lot of *conjecture* there really.
>
> (Peter) The Stratford man's biographers have concluded the following chronology:
>
> * grandparents, parents, wife, children illiterate (although one daughter was able to write her name clearly ... this I think from
Schoenbaum's Lives)
> * greatest writer in the English language; (contributed some 3200 new
> words according to the Oxford English Dictionary)
> Stratford was a village of approx. 1700 (I seem to remember reading)
>
> *illiterate village idiot* <- your words -> Conjecture ? or hypothesis ?
First. How could a village idiot become a wealthy Merchant? (Which is
all that some Oxfordians claim Shakespeare was). Or own shares in a
theatre company? (Which all the records of the time say that he did).
Literate or illiterate Shakespeare was no idiot, and it is evidence of
the malice that Peter and other Oxfordians bear the man that they are
willing to suggest that he was.
Besides. Although Peter may not have noticed, in English CONJECTURE and
HYPOTHESIS mean almost EXACTLY THE SAME THING. A conjecture CAN be a
hypothesis. A hypothesis is ALWAYS a conjecture.
Since you like Dictionary definitions. Here is another one:
HYPOTHESIS - 1) A SUGGESTED explanation for a group of facts or
phenomena, either accepted as A BASIS FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION (a working
hypothesis) or accepted as LIKELY to be true. 2) An ASSUMPTION used in
an argument WITHOUT IT BEING ENDORSED, a SUPPOSITION. 3) An UNPROVED
THEORY; a **CONJECTURE**.
Notice that not only does one of the definitions use **CONJECTURE** as a
synonym for HYPOTHESIS, but all of the others make clear that a
HYPOTHESIS is an educated guess that can never be anything more than
"LIKELY to be true". Conjecture, again.
I can understand you splitting hairs and messing around with
Shakespeare's biography, it is uncertain enough to allow debate. The
same is NOT true of the English language. Words do NOT mean what you
want them to mean, they have an accepted meaning. Your definition of
CONJECTURE - as opposed to the dictionary definition you keep brandishing
- is completely mistaken. In truth, THEORY = HYPOTHESIS = CONJECTURE -
all of which are very similar terms. You can't study any subject without
conjecture.
***
As for the illiteracy. In the first place we are almost certain that
Shakespeare's father was illiterate, but we have no absolute proof. As
Schoenbaum points out "APPARENTLY John could not himself write, for he
signed documents with a cross", however, "That he executed written
instruments in this way DOES NOT ... DEFINITELY PROVE HIS ILLITERACY, for
others who were able to sign their names followed the same custom" but
"the natural INFERENCE is that he never learned to write".
Now these INFERENCES are quite enough to convince Schoenbaum and myself
that John Shakespeare was probably illiterate, but it is interesting that
Peter - who dismisses "CONJECTURES" when they are made against his point
of view - is quite happy to accept them as firm facts when they suit him.
Shakespeare's parents were illiterate. But that didn't stop his father
becoming first Alderman, and then High Bailiff (Mayor in modern terms) of
Stratford. According to Schoenbaum, and many others, this "entitled" him
"to have his children educated without charge at the King's New School of
Stratford-upon-Avon, which had been endowed more than two centuries
previously". In a town with (from Peter's recollection) only 1700
inhabitants - mostly poor and illiterate - is it likely that the most
important Civic Official would find the Town's one school closed to his
children? Then who exactly was the school meant to teach? The nobility
would normally have used private tutors.
Shakespeare was 1 year old when his father became an Alderman, and only 4
when his father became High Bailiff. When John Shakespeare's offices
were finally revoked (due to debt and non-attendance), Shakespeare was 22
and had certainly finished his education. John Shakespeare's illiteracy
would be no proof of his son's.
As for Shakespeare's daughters. Schoenbaum writes "Susanna Hall could
sign her name to legal documents and was lauded as witty beyond her sex".
This makes it very clear that Susanna was NOT illiterate. If her father
had been incapable of writing, how did his daughter learn?
Renaissance education was extremely sexist. In "A HISTORY OF WOMEN :
RENAISSANCE AND ENLIGHTENMENT PARADOXES" (eds. George Duby & Michelle
Perot) there is an essay called "A Daughter to Educate" by Martine
Sonnet. She points out :
"The sons of the nobility and ... the bourgeoisie were made to study
classical culture ... Daughters of all strata of society were relegated
to learning skills useful around the home: things that a girl could learn
from her mother".
That Grammar School in Stratford was for boys. Just boys. However rich
Shakespeare became, his daughters could never have been educated there.
Had his son Hamnet survived, we might have known more about the
educational opportunities that Shakespeare might have been able to offer
his male children. As he did not, we can assume that his daughters (like
all Renaissance women beneath the highest nobility) will have received a
much more perfunctory education. Probably no formal education at all.
If Susanna Hall (born Shakespeare) could sign her own name, someone had
taught her how to do it. Besides, we have no evidence that she was not
able to read and write more extensively. Even if she could the evidence
is unlikely to have passed down through the generations. Women's papers
were almost always destroyed, and very rarely valued enough to be
preserved from generation to generation. Signatures on legal documents
(naturally presereved in archives) are virtually all that we have from
many literate people in the period.
Last time I pointed out :
> > Shakespeare's Italians usually behave just like the English, and there
> > are no huge passages about the Italian countryside. Just basic details
> > that any fool with a few books could pick up. What is this mysterious
> > "accurate topography" that cannot have come from books? Peter doesn't
> > seem to want to say.
Peter replied:
> Dave Kathman and I have both posted many sources which you can read
> at your lesiure.
Well possibly, but there are two points here. First, although this may
be turning into a private discussion between myself and Peter Wilson, we
are actually carrying it out on a Public NewsGroup. Not everybody who
reads this debate will have time to look up all of these books, therefore
Peter (who is using them as the main support for his argument) should
certainly publish some extracts from them as requested, so that the whole
group can read them.
Secondly my own health problems (a combination of epilepsy and fatigue
problems) make it very difficult for me to reach distant libraries. The
only one in my own County likely to stock books of this type - still many
miles away - is closed for repairs. So, for the moment, I can only
access my own (large - but not limitless) collection of Shakespeare
related books. Given these circumstances, I would ask Peter out of
generousity to provide me with the information that he is citing so that
I can respond to it. The quotations that he has cited so far are
extremely inconclusive.
Looking back at Peter's (long) original list of quotations about
Shakespeare and Italy, I find that all of them are statements of opinion
and NOT ONE cites a particular reason for the conclusions that are
reached. In other words, without further support, they are all empty
conjectures. Peter doesn't believe in conjectures. In addition most
only say that Shakespeare read languages, and used sources to gather his
Italian material. Even on the most generous extrapolation of the source
material Peter quoted, only three of the scholars even SUGGEST in these
extracts that Shakespeare must have gone to Italy. One of these is an
Oxfordian, who must therefore count as extremely biased.
If Peter has read all of these books, he must surely know the parts of
the plays that these various critics suggest can only have been written
by a man who knew Italy. Since he knows where to find these quotations I
would ask him, to support his own argument, to cite two or three of the
most convincing suggestions so that the group can consider this evidence.
> > (Thomas) According to contemporary descriptions the most important
> > audience members came backstage to talk to the actors - including
> > Shakespeare - during every performance. And the entire audience
> > heard Shakespeare speak several authorial prologues and epilogues - >
> > which are still attached to the plays.
> >
> > Apparently not even the most educated members of the audience spotted
> > the fact that this man (William Shakespeare) was actually (from
> > an Oxfordian perspective) an *illiterate village idiot*. Hmm ...
> > quite a lot of *conjecture* there really.
>
> (Peter) Really ? are any such personal encounters OR speechs recorded ?
> Please post them for our collective review.
Cheeky. Considering you just refused to post sources for other people's
collective review, this is really quite interesting. I am, however,
quite willing to offer what evidence I have.
In the first place, I must admit to a mistake. The Epilogue that I was
mainly thinking of was at the end of 2 Henry IV (Epilogue), "What
I have to say is of my own making" - but looking at it again the "our
author" comment almost certainly proves me wrong. I admit it when my
memory goes astray.
However, audiences definitely heard Shakespeare's voice and saw him
perform in his own plays - which is the point that I was making. The
front of the Folio lists "The Principall Actors in All These Playes" and
starts with "William Shakespeare". Ben Jonson's Folio of his own Plays
(the one which Shakespeare's friends imitated) also lists Shakespeare as
an actor in two of his plays. Records of payments to Shakespeare for his
work as a "Player" are relatively common.
Oxfordians suggest that all these documents were faked (?) - but this is
entirely ridiculous. Shakespeare was not long dead when the two volumes
with his name in cast lists were published, and many who had watched the
plays being acted - not to mention some who had acted in them, and the
Company's patron James I - were still very much alive. Not only would
these lies be very easily discredited, but (even from an Oxfordian
perspective) there is no valid reason for the claim to be made if it were
not true. Surely, nobody is foolish enough to suggest that the Earl of
Oxford actually got onto the stage?
The fact that Shakespeare was an actor also discredits Peter's illiteracy
argument. In Renaissance plays, the actors were given their parts
written out. These were not like modern scripts, in that they only had
the words for the character that the actor was playing and his cue lines
from other actors. If an actor could not read, he would have been unable
to cue his fellows - who would have no way of helping him with his own
words. Since there were far fewer actors than parts in Renaissance
theatres, everybody had to play several parts ... so there was no room
for non-speaking actors.
For proof that the writer of Shakespeare's plays knew that Renaissance
plays were rehearsed from written scripts in this manner - take a look at
the Mechanicals' rehearsals in A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM. Even among
these rough amateur actors the stupidest of their number begs for an
early look at his script. "Have you the lion's part written? Pray you,
if it be, give it me; for I am slow of study". So it seems that all
actors were expected to be able to read.
In the short time since reading Peter's post, I have not had time to find
the books that talk about audience visits backstage in the short breaks
during performances. These do exist, however. Unlike modern theatre
dressing rooms, the Globe's "tiring room" was a very public place.
For the moment I will refer people to Pepys' diaries which mention the
habit in Restoration theatres of going backstage to watch the actresses
dressing and undressing, which was a rather more salacious continuation
of the earlier practice. I will have a look for the Renaissance sources
which confirm audience visits to the tiring rooms once I have posted this
message.
In any case, the backstage areas of theatres are still open to
distinguished visitors even today (when Dressing Rooms are private
areas), and it seems fairly natural that anybody going backstage would
want to speak to a man who had both written and acted in the plays. The
evidence that Shakespeare was an actor also serves to prove that he spent
time in the tiring house during productions. Every actor did.
I hope that Peter will now provide some defence for his *coincidences*,
and some examples of the "topographical details" which he claims
Shakespeare cannot have read in books.
THOMAS.
Thomas Larque
Chris wrote:
>
>
> LOTS OF EVIDENCE THE AUTHOR OF SHAKESPEARE WAS IN ITALY.
> NOTICE THE SOURCES OF OTHELLO WERE IN ITALIAN. FOR EXAMPLE OTHELLO
> AKS FOR THE "OCCULAR PROOF' THE ONLY TIME SK USES 'OCCULAR' SAME AS
> THE ITALIAN WORD IN CENTHO'S TEXT. THE FRENCH TRANSLATION USED
> VISUAL PROOF. ETC., ETC.
>
> 'TRAMJECT' IS THE NAME OF THE LOCAL FERRY BOAT, HE KNEW IT.
>
> ETC., ETC.
>
> OF COURSE THE ACTOR NEVER TRAVELED OUTSIDE ENGLAND.
>
> BAKER
There are a couple of spelling mistakes that need correcting here ...
normally I wouldn't do this (I make plenty of them, myself) - but if
anybody tries to track these quotes down with a Concordance or CD-Rom
Search Program (as I did) then you won't be able to find them without the
correct spellings.
"Ocular" - has only one C.
"Tranect" - NOT Tramject.
Apart from that, I have to congratulate Chris on being able to provide
some of the appropriate reasons for believing that Shakespeare travelled
to Italy (which Peter Wilson suggested would take hundreds of pages of
copy typing) in under 10 lines.
Chris lists 2 reasons. The first is immediately irrelevant. Shakespeare
does not have to have gone to Italy in order to speak Italian. In the
first place, we know that he would have been taught Latin (from which
Renaissance Italian developed) and plenty of people in Renaissance
England could speak and read Italian, French and Latin.
The question of whether Shakespeare could READ Italian is entirely
separate from the question of whether he actually went to Italy. Any
evidence that Shakespeare used Italian books as sources for his Italian
references completely undermines the "he must have been there himself"
argument. Books written by Italians will describe things about Italy and
its culture - providing Shakespeare with material for his own writings
about Italy.
Personally I do not have access to a library, so I cannot check
appropriate Renaissance books to see whether the name of the Ferry is
likely to have been easily available to Shakespeare.
It is a fair bet, however, that any travel literature (and it was a very
popular genre at the time) will describe the way that the travellers made
their way around the countries that they were visiting. So the name of
the Venetian Ferry is very likely to have been published at some point.
Perhaps somebody who has access to this sort of material, could check
this one out for us.
At least the Italian debate has finally moved into the world of reasoned
discussion - rather than a display of unjustified and outdated scholarly
opinions.
Chris' last line, however, returns to form. I could reply :
OF COURSE CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE DIDN'T WRITE SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS, - HE WAS
DEAD!!!
... with rather better justification. We have no evidence that
Shakespeare travelled outside England, but a hypothetical Italian voyage
for Shakespeare is rather more likely than either of the hypothetical
conspiracies which are required for Oxford or Marlowe to have written
Shakespeare's plays.
If anybody is in the realms of fantasy, it is the Anti-Stratfordians.
When Stratfordians make hypothetical suggestions, they point out that
they are hypothetical. When Peter or (especially) Chris make
hypothetical suggestions, they usually present them as absolute facts.
As I have said before, the reasoned argument is (not all in capitals) :
It is unlikely that Shakespeare went to Italy, but we cannot
prove that he did not. If he had made such a journey, we would
be very unlikely to know anything about it.
On its own, the name of a ferry is hardly firm proof of anything.
Perhaps Shakespeare spoke to an English sailor who had been to Venice
(which was, after all, a trading city). Again, this supposition is far
more likely than Chris' suppositions about Marlowe staging his own murder
etc. etc.
This is not "lots" of evidence. It is one interesting, but inconclusive,
point. Could we have a few more bits of this "evidence" if there is any?
THOMAS.