John Chamberlain
Richard J Kennedy
I'd still like to get some response about why John Chamberlain
omits any mention of Shakespeare in his letters, when he spoke
of dozens of other theater folks. As Chamberlain says, to
paraphrase, "He didn't seem to know of the existence of
Shakespeare." Kathman is the one to answer this, the letters
should be easy enough for him to find.
--
Richard Nathan
I'd still like to get a response to MY questions.
1. What do YOU think the absence of any reference to Shakespeare proves?
If it is supposed to prove Chamberlain didn't think Shakespeare was the
author, why is there an absense of any reference to the mystery of the
authorship?
2. If Chamberlain, a commoner, was able to bring Kings and Queens to
life, doesn't that demolish the Oxfordian argument that the plays couldn't
have been written by Shakespeare of Stratford, because he was a commoner
and commoners couldn't write convincingly about the nobility?
Richard J Kennedy
Kathman has not only evaded the question posed by the
letters of Chamberlain re: the seeming non-existence of
any flesh and blood Shakespeare; he has also spoken out
of ignorance in saying that "The only playwright (Chamberlain)
mentions is Ben Jonson..." Which is plain ignorance, or else the
man is fooling around with us, hoping to pass something over
our heads, an offhand toss of the blinders. For other than Ben
Jonson, Chamberlain mentions as well Beaumont, Chapman, Field,
Hayward, Middleton, and I think others but I haven't the
vols. at hand. He also speaks of actors by name, and theaters,
and talks of many of the poets of the day, Sidney, Spenser,
Suckling, Wither, Raleigh, Donne and more yet -- and less yet
no mention of Shakespeare at all.
But aside from this ignorance (I mean to say lack of information
on the subject), Kathman must be only pretending when he says
that "Chamberlain was concerned with court gossip, so that's
what he wrote about in his letters." So he did, but his interest
was a great deal more modest than to speak only of Kings and
Queens. Chamberlain had a spacious interest, and his letters
are scattered with notes from all over, high and low. He spoke
of bear-baiting, riots, executions, duels, disease, and the plain
dirt and hardness of those days, a view from the street, and
had the experience of walking around the block. And of course
he had court gossip also, for he had some friends rather more
"inside" than himself.
Now I think it's peculiar that Kathman should misrepresent
Chamberlain twice in one small paragraph, and then has the
brass to say to me, "Have you read Chamberlain's letters,
Richard?" Godalmighty, I was the one who brought the man
to the table! Have I >read< him? Judge from the above who
has read Chamberlain's letters, Kathman or myself. But I don't
want to discourage Kathman. The books are very likely
available to him, and when he has time to search them out
and post a knowlegeable reply I'll be happy to hear it and
consider any good reason why Shakespeare is not noticed by
Chamberlain, for as the editor of the letters says, "...Chamberlain
knew very well what was going on in the world. In fact he
made that the business of his life, to be a spectator, an
onlooker, a reporter." (McClure)
As McClure says, "nowhere in the letters is there any indication
that Chamberlain even so much as knew of the existence of
Shakespeare." And once again we come to the matter of the
Stratfordians not being able to see a >Problem< about this.
They'll say it's no problem at all, and that it was a very
understandable oversight, and they'll cite other playwrights
that Chamberlain didn't mention. But it is a problem, and I
think the best solution is a matter of common sense. Chamberlain
didn't mention Shakespeare because Shakespeare wasn't around,
not at least so you'd notice, and this is at the heart of the mystery,
this lack of any eye-witness in the larger case of the authorship
question, and that lack is the great poverty of the Stratfordians.
--
Richard J Kennedy
My apologies, for I have been drawing my previous information
about Chamberlain from notes, and have credited all quotations
to Norman Egbert McClure re: the life and interests of the man.
There are three books to be mentioned, (and no doubt more).
1: The Letters of John Chamberlain, 2 vols.,ed. by N.E. McClure
1939.
2: The Chamberlain Letters, a selection, ed. by Elizabeth McClure
Thomson.
3: Letters written by John Chamberlain, ed by Sarah Williams,
printed for the Camden Society, 1861.
Mistakenly, I've credited N.E. McClure with some introductory notes
from Elizabeth McClure Thomson's book. I'll correct that here,
and give some more quotations from the introduction in
Ms. Thomson's study, and credit that Introduction to whom it
belongs. It was not Ms. Thomson who wrote the Introduction,
but a well-known Stratfordian scholar. To quote him, then, his
opinion of Chamberlain and his letters:
"In that brilliant and brutal age, uneasy, on edge, vulgar and
ostentatious -- the age of the full flowering of Shakespeare's
genius...
"Chamberlain knew very well what was going on in the world.
In fact he made that the business of his life, to be a spectator,
an onlooker, a reporter."
"(Chamberlain) was a conscientious man, very careful to get his
facts right, to check his information before handing it on to his
correspondent....he was not carried away by anything, he saw
through everybody's shams, particularly those of the great,
of the Court."
"An inveterate Londoner, Chamberlain lived nearly all his life
within a stone's throw of Old St. Paul's, making it his business
to walk every day in Paul's Walk -- up and down the nave and
aisles of the cathedral, which in those days served as a general
exchange and mart, humming with activity and news -- and
collecting information."
"Hence it is that Chamberlain, and this selection of his letters in
turn, give us so full a portrait of the age."
Those quotations are the work of A.L. Rowse, one of the most
respected of all Stratfordian modern day scholars, recently
deceased. He concludes in his introduction that the 479 letters
were written by a diligent reporter, intelligent, observant
truthful, insightful, and a good writer. And yet for all of that,
Chamberlain has not a word to say about Shakespeare, in spite
of Rowse's notice that the our correspondent wrote in "the age of
the full flowering of Shakespeare's genius."
And although Chamberlain wrote of many lesser men of the age,
Rowse did not think to question that this great flowering genius
Shakespeare is nowhere to be found in the 479 Letters.
As Norman Egbert McClure says, "nowhere in the letters is there
any indication that Chamberlain even so much as knew of the
existence of Shakespeare."
--
Dick Wisan
In article <610tsg$6...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
>
[snip]
>
>"Chamberlain knew very well what was going on in the world.
>In fact he made that the business of his life, to be a spectator,
>an onlooker, a reporter."
>
>"(Chamberlain) was a conscientious man, very careful to get his
>
>"An inveterate Londoner, Chamberlain lived nearly all his life
>within a stone's throw of Old St. Paul's, making it his business
>
>"Hence it is that Chamberlain, and this selection of his letters in
> ...And yet for all of that,
>Chamberlain has not a word to say about Shakespeare...
>
>And although Chamberlain wrote of many lesser men of the age,
>Rowse did not think to question that this great flowering genius
>Shakespeare is nowhere to be found in the 479 Letters.
>As Norman Egbert McClure says, "nowhere in the letters is there
>any indication that Chamberlain even so much as knew of the
>existence of Shakespeare."
>
So, as you say, the question is what to make of this. Obviously,
in the London theatre of the time, there was no such person as
Shakespeare and the name was not one to which anything of importance
was commonly attributed. It certainly was not a pseudonym under which
important plays were exhibited.
So, about the plays: Does Chamberlain make any mention of the plays?
Does he mention the titles we use of plays we have been told were
"Shakespeare's"? If not, it surely seems likely that there were no
such plays, and the whole "Shakespeare" myth is the product of another
time.
Does anyone know when the first clearly datable mention of such a person
or such plays occurred?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan - Email: wis...@norwich.net
- Snail: 37 Clinton Street, Oneonta NY 13820, U.S.A.
- Just your opinion, please, ma'am: No fax.
Richard Nathan
rken...@orednet.org (Richard J Kennedy) wrote:
(snip)
> I
>think the best solution is a matter of common sense. Chamberlain
>didn't mention Shakespeare because Shakespeare wasn't around,
>not at least so you'd notice, and this is at the heart of the mystery,
>this lack of any eye-witness in the larger case of the authorship
>question, and that lack is the great poverty of the Stratfordians.
>--
>
What? Is Kennedy denying all the quartos published with Shakespeare
credited as the author? Is he denying that "William Shakespeare" was a
very important name in London theater? Even if he doesn't believe this
meant William Shakespeare of Stratford, surely even he must acknowledge
that the name WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE was an important name in the theater.
If Chamberlain never mentioned the name, it seems to show a disinterest in
a major name in the theater.
Richard J Kennedy
For Dick Wisan: You ask when the first "clearly datable" occasion
was when such a person as Shakespeare was brought together with
the plays. I assume you mean Shakespeare of Stratford. If so, it
would be seven years after he was dead, around 1623, first folio.
Before that time there is no bringing together the man from
Stratford and the plays, nothing to suggest to the larger world
that he was a writer of any kind at all. No one met him, no
one spoke to him, no one spoke "of" him, no one had a drink with
him in London, and whatever other negatives you can think of that
connect him >in any way< with being the writer of the poems and
plays.
For your other question, are any Shakespeare plays mentioned by
Chamberlain, I think not. He was not a theater-goer, and mentions
only a couple of plays as I recall. His reports to his friend
Carleton, touching on literature, were of the playwrights
themselves, and the poets of the time, and actors, and the life
about the theaters. It was clearly the drama of life that was
his chief entertainment, not as it was invented on the stage.
You say, "Obviously, in the London theater of the time, there was
no such person as Shakespeare and the name was not one to which
anything of importance was commonly attributed." That's well
said if you mean that there was no flesh and blood playwright
walking about who was recognized to be the Shakespeare the
playwright.
--
Dick Wisan
In article <612eht$q...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
>
>For Dick Wisan: You ask when the first "clearly datable" occasion
>was when such a person as Shakespeare was brought together with
I mean whoever we're talking about when we say "Shakespeare's Plays",
--whoever it was that the Oxfordians deny wrote the plays --it
doesn't matter where he came from or whether he was somebody else
of the same name who was brought up on the banks of a different Avon.
>For your other question, are any Shakespeare plays mentioned by
>Chamberlain, I think not. He was not a theater-goer, and mentions
>only a couple of plays as I recall. His reports to his friend
>Carleton, touching on literature, were of the playwrights
>themselves, and the poets of the time, and actors, and the life
>about the theaters. It was clearly the drama of life that was
>his chief entertainment, not as it was invented on the stage.
>
>You say, "Obviously, in the London theater of the time, there was
>no such person as Shakespeare and the name was not one to which
>anything of importance was commonly attributed." That's well
>said if you mean that there was no flesh and blood playwright
>walking about who was recognized to be the Shakespeare the
>playwright.
That's important. No plays can have been attributed to "Shakespeare"
at the time, or it would have been too delicious a tidbit for so
informed a man-about-town to have overlooked. All those real people
producing plays by Nobody? Bah! Never existed.
Richard Nathan
>was when such a person as Shakespeare was brought together with
>the plays. I assume you mean Shakespeare of Stratford.
Kennedy, there is no reason WHATSOEVER to assume that Dick Wisan mean
Shakespeare of Stratford. Your whole point was that John Chamerlain
never mentioned the name William Shakespeare. It doesn't matter if it
was William Shakespeare of London, William Shakespeare of Stratford, or
WIlliam Shakespeare of the planet Viwqliuyoer.
The correct answer to Dick Wisan's question is that William
Shakespeare's name appeared on the title page of the quartos of RICHARD
II and RICHARD III in 1598.
If so, it
>would be seven years after he was dead, around 1623, first folio.
>Before that time there is no bringing together the man from
>Stratford and the plays, nothing to suggest to the larger world
>that he was a writer of any kind at all. No one met him, no
>one spoke to him, no one spoke "of" him, no one had a drink with
>him in London, and whatever other negatives you can think of that
>connect him >in any way< with being the writer of the poems and
>plays.
Of course there were lots of references to the plays being written by
"William Shakespeare." There is plenty of evidence that "William
Shakespeare" of Stratford was in London at the time.
How many references are there to "William Shakespeare" being Oxford?
None.
>
>For your other question, are any Shakespeare plays mentioned by
>Chamberlain, I think not. He was not a theater-goer, and mentions
>only a couple of plays as I recall. His reports to his friend
>Carleton, touching on literature, were of the playwrights
>themselves, and the poets of the time, and actors, and the life
>about the theaters. It was clearly the drama of life that was
>his chief entertainment, not as it was invented on the stage.
So this would prove that William Shakespeare of Stratford wasn't a major
social figure in London, such that everyone would have been talking about
him as a social figure rather than as a playwright and actor. It doesn't
prove he wasn't in London. (I notice that, much to my disappointment, you
haven't actually said William Shakespeare of Stratford wasn't IN London.
It would be easy to prove you wrong on that point. It certainly doesn't
prove that he didn't write the plays.)
>
>You say, "Obviously, in the London theater of the time, there was
>no such person as Shakespeare and the name was not one to which
>anything of importance was commonly attributed." That's well
>said if you mean that there was no flesh and blood playwright
>walking about who was recognized to be the Shakespeare the
>playwright.
>
>--
>
That is such nonsense! The plays were extremely popular. They were all
credited to Shakespeare. If there was no flesh and blood Shakespeare
walking around London at the time, don't you think someone would have
mentioned it.
You have avoided saying whether or not you believe William Shakespeare of
Stratford spent any significant amount of time in London. If you believe
he didn't, please say so.
david joseph kathman
In article <610otd$5...@ednet2.orednet.org>,
Richard J Kennedy <rken...@orednet.org> wrote:
>
>Kathman has not only evaded the question posed by the
>letters of Chamberlain re: the seeming non-existence of
>any flesh and blood Shakespeare; he has also spoken out
>of ignorance in saying that "The only playwright (Chamberlain)
>mentions is Ben Jonson..." Which is plain ignorance, or else the
>man is fooling around with us, hoping to pass something over
>our heads, an offhand toss of the blinders. For other than Ben
>Jonson, Chamberlain mentions as well Beaumont, Chapman, Field,
>Hayward, Middleton, and I think others but I haven't the
>vols. at hand. He also speaks of actors by name, and theaters,
>and talks of many of the poets of the day, Sidney, Spenser,
>Suckling, Wither, Raleigh, Donne and more yet -- and less yet
>no mention of Shakespeare at all.
>
>But aside from this ignorance (I mean to say lack of information
>on the subject), Kathman must be only pretending when he says
>that "Chamberlain was concerned with court gossip, so that's
[more ad hominem snipped]
This exchange has been a stark reminder of why I long ago
stopped responding to Kennedy for the most part.
Paying attention to him just makes him more frenzied
than usual, and I don't think too many people take him
seriously anyway. But, since I brought this on myself
by posting a response to Kennedy's "challenge", I'm
going to finish it, tedious as that may be.
When I said that Ben Jonson was the only playwright
mentioned by Chamberlain, I was not "ignorant"; I
was right. A few years ago I made a special point of
going through Norman Egbert McClure's two-volume
edition of Chamberlain's letters (the standard edition)
to see whether he mentioned any playwrights, partly
in order to address the type of Oxfordian claims that
Kennedy has been making. Ben Jonson was the only
one I found, and as I said, he's mentioned primarily
in connection with court masques. I should clarify that
when I say "playwrights", I mean "professional playwrights";
a few of the courtiers and noblemen that Chamberlain
wrote about had written closet dramas, but they were only
recreational playwrights, and Chamberlain predictably
makes no mention of their dramatic activity, if he knew
about it at all (which is doubtful).
As for Kennedy's supposed examples, he's wrong on
just about every count, but I'm pretty sure I know how
he got his bogus "facts". I'll go through them one by one.
* Francis Beaumont is nowhere mentioned in the letters,
though Chamberlain does note the death in 1598 of the
future dramatist's father and namesake, who was a Justice
of the Common Pleas. McClure does mention Beaumont
the dramatist twice in his notes and commentary, but I'm
hesitant to believe that even Kennedy would be so confused
as to not distinguish between the letters themselves and
scholarly commentary written 300 years later.
* George Chapman is likewise nowhere mentioned in the
letters, but Chamberlain does make a 1596 reference (well
known to theater historians) of a newly popular "play of
humours"; this has been conjectured to be Chapman's
*Humorous Day's Mirth*, and McClure's noting of this
conjecture is the only place he mentions Chapman in his
commentary.
* Nathan Field, like Beaumont and Chapman, is never
once mentioned by Chamberlain, though his name occurs
once in McClure's footnotes.
* By "Hayward", I assume Kennedy means Sir John Hayward,
the author of *The Historie of Henry the IIII* (1599).
Chamberlain does mention Hayward once (as "Dr. Hayward"),
but Hayward was not a playwright. Was Kennedy confusing
him with Thomas Heywood? Hayward's *Henry IIII* was
a prose history which got Hayward into trouble because his
fawning dedication to the Earl of Essex, attached to a work
describing the deposition of a king, caused a scandal at a time
when Essex was widely (and correctly) though to have designs
on the throne. Even so, Chamberlain's letter where he discusses
the scandalous book makes no mention of its author; his lone
mention of Hayward comes years later.
* Thomas Middleton, like Beaumont, Chapman, and Field,
is never mentioned a single time by Chamberlain. There is
one famous letter where Chamberlain discusses the scandal
aroused by Middleton's play *A Game at Chess* (which he calls
"the play of Gondomar"), but he does so without ever
mentioning the author of the play, or showing any apparent
interest in who the author was.
In addition to the above playwrights, Chamberlain also failed
to ever mention John Fletcher, John Marston, Thomas Dekker,
John Webster, and Philip Massinger, among many others; as I
said, the only professional playwright he mentions is Jonson.
McClure writes in his introduction: "Of the theatre Chamberlain
wrote little. In an age when great drama was being made possible
by the support of the unlettered crowd and of courtiers and
gallants, he shared the half-hostile, half-tolerant view of the
sober, respectable middle class. To the players themselves he
applies the somewhat contemptous terms 'fellows' and
'companions'." McClure then goes on to describe the few times
Chamberlain did report theatrical news, including those I cited
above, but he notes that "[i]nteresting as these glimpses of the
theatre are, they disappoint; they omit what moderns readers
would value most." It is then that McClure notes that Chamberlain
never mentions Shakespeare, but Kennedy has predictably
omitted most of the sentence in which he does so. Here it is in
full: "Doubtless Chamberlain often passed [Shakespeare] in the
street, often rubbed elbows with him in the crowded center aisle
of St. Paul's, often heard mention of him and his plays, often
saw his thin quartos offered for sale in St. Paul's Churchyard;
he may have known the man well, may have talked with him
often; but nowhere in the letters is there any indication that
Chamberlain even so much as knew of the existence of
Shakespeare." Or of any playwright except the self-promoting
Jonson, I might add. As McClure had just shown, in the few
times Chamberlain relayed theatrical news, he showed little interest
in the names of those involved.
Chamberlain does mention a few nondramatic poets, but here
again Kennedy has distorted things. One by one:
* Sir Philip Sidney is mentioned twice in successive letters, but
only because his daughter had died; Chamberlain was reporting
the rumor that she would be buried next to her father.
* Chamberlain does mention Spenser's death once in a famous
passage, calling him "our principall poet". Spenser was by far
the most famous poet in England at the time, being routinely
compared to Chaucer.
* I assume that by "Suckling", Kennedy means the poet Sir
John Suckling, but he is nowhere to be found in the letters.
Chamberlain does mention (several times) the courtier Sir John
Suckling, but McClure makes it clear in his notes that this is the
father of the more famous poet. Since Kennedy assures us that
he has read the letters (as opposed to just finding "Suckling" in
the index, for example), I find it hard to see how he could have
made this mistake.
* George Wither is mentioned once, in a 1623 letter describing
how Ben Jonson has made fun of Wither.
* Sir Walter Raleigh is mentioned many times, since he was
a very famous public figure, but Chamberlain unsurprisingly
makes no mention of the poetry Raleigh had written years before.
If you're going to include Raleigh as a poet mentioned by
Chamberlain, you might as well include Queen Elizabeth and
King James too, since they both also wrote poetry.
* John Donne is mentioned numerous times, but almost always
in connection with a sermon he had given or an office he was
seeking (two of Chamberlain's favorite topics). Chamberlain
does mention Donne's poetry a couple of times, but makes it clear
that he thinks such frivolity was below the Dean of St. Paul's:
"I send you here certain verses of our Dean of Paules upon the
death of the Marquis Hamilton, which though they be reasonably
wittie and well don yet I could wish a man of his yeares and place
to geve over versifying."
I've written about enough. If you ask me, it looks like what
Kennedy did was go through the index of McClure's edition
looking for the names of poets and playwrights, never actually
looking in the text to see whether those names occur in the
actual letters or in McClure's notes and commentary, or whether
they refer to the right person as opposed to a namesake. That's
a pretty shoddy excuse for scholarship, coming from a man who
feels entitled to lecture others on their "ignorance".
And now, I bid this thread adieu.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Richard J Kennedy
Dick Wisan: there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Although
many playwrights and theater people, poets and such notable at
the time, and theater news as well, we find that Chamberlain
had >nothing whatsoever< to say about Shakespeare. That's the
fact that Stratfordians must confront. For example, they might
give some reason why the greatest poet of the day was overlooked
by this man who was in on everything, so it seems, but the
superstar of the day might have well "not existed", so says the
editor of the Letters. It's strange, you know, and to make fun
of the question does not answer the question.
--
Dick Wisan
In article <618jf7$n...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
What I'm making fun of is the inference from the question. If
he doesn't mention X, there was no X. Someone who isn't interested
in the theater may not mention any theatre people or plays or
whatever. That he doesn't, proves nothing about the existence
of plays or the authorship of the plays he isn't interested in,
doesn't attend, and doesn't mention.
It's worse. That Shakespeare wrote plays attributed to him isn't
news. That he didn't, and nobody knows who wrote them is news,
even to people who don't give two pins for the theatre. So, that
so well-informed a gossip says nothing about this puzzle suggests
(if it suggests anything) that nobody doubted that Shakespeare's
plays were written by Shakespeare.
This Chamberlain, therefore, makes for the Stratfordians, not for
you. Better forget he ever existed.
david joseph kathman
In article <WHtN0wyT...@vcn.bc.ca>, Gary Kosinsky <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <610otd$5...@ednet2.orednet.org>,>>As McClure says, "nowhere in the letters is there any indication
>>that Chamberlain even so much as knew of the existence of
>>Shakespeare."
>
>can interject:
>
> Does this Chamberlain person ever mention the plays of
>Shakespeare (whoever we may think Shakespeare was) in his letters?
No. In roughly 500 surviving letters spanning roughly 30 years, the
only two plays Chamberlain mentions are the two I noted in my
other post in this thread: the "play of humours" (conjectured to
be Chapman's *Humorous Day's Mirth*), and the "play of Gondomar"
(certainly Middleton's *Game at Chess*). As I said in that post,
Chamberlain's interest in the theater was slight, at least compared
to his interest in Court gossip.
>If so, does he mention who wrote them.
A moot question on the Shakespeare plays, but as I noted in my
other post, Chamberlain does not mention the authors of either
of the two plays he does mention.
>If he doesn't mention the
>plays, isn't that strange in itself?
Not really. See above.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Peter Wilson
>In article <618jf7$n...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
>>Dick Wisan: there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Although
>>many playwrights and theater people, poets and such notable at
>>the time, and theater news as well, we find that Chamberlain
>>had >nothing whatsoever< to say about Shakespeare. That's the
>>fact that Stratfordians must confront.
<snip>
>It's worse. That Shakespeare wrote plays attributed to him isn't
>news. That he didn't, and nobody knows who wrote them is news,
>even to people who don't give two pins for the theatre. So, that
>so well-informed a gossip says nothing about this puzzle suggests
>(if it suggests anything) that nobody doubted that Shakespeare's
>plays were written by Shakespeare.
>
>This Chamberlain, therefore, makes for the Stratfordians, not for
>you. Better forget he ever existed.
Dick,
I think your missing the point. Chamberlain's well-informed gossip
saying *nothing* about Shakespeare is just another *unexplained*
example of Shakespeare's *obscurity*. Consider:
* "Almost alone among Elizabethan poets, Shakespeare wrote no eulogy
on the death of the Queen, in 1603. (Tom Bethel, 91)
* "In 1622, the year before the publication of the Folio, Henry Peacham
published a book with a chapter on poetry. Elizabeth's reign had
been a "golden age," he wrote therein, listing (in order of rank)
those who had "honoured poesie with their pens and practice."
First was "Edward Earl of Oxford." Edmund Spenser and Philip Sidney
made the list. There was no mention of *Shakespeare*." (Tom Bethel, 91)
* "The most detailed theatrical records of the times, those kept by
Philip Henslowe, proprietor of several London theatres, and those
kept by his son-in-law, a leading actor-producer and founder of
Dulwich College, Edward Alleyn, make no reference to Shakespeare."
(Ogburn 91)
Henslowe records plays (8 which were Shakespeare's), he names the
actors he hired, many who signed to serve or acknowledge receipt for
payments. Dozens of authors sign for money received as well.
Sir Sidney Lee wrote "the Rose" - Henslowe's theatre - "was doubtless
the earliest scene of Shakespeare's pronounced successes alike as
actor and dramatist" Ok, so where is he ?
* In Nov 1597 and again in Oct 1598, "William Shakespeare" was listed
as a tax delinquent The London tax collectors could not find this
*famous* actor/playwright.
Where oh where art thou William ?
Regards, Peter.
david joseph kathman
In article <peterw-0710...@bmermb9a.ca.nortel.com>,
Peter Wilson <pet...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>In article <618rob$8...@news1.zippo.com>, wis...@norwich.net (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>
>>In article <618jf7$n...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
>
>>>Dick Wisan: there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Although
>>>many playwrights and theater people, poets and such notable at
>>>the time, and theater news as well, we find that Chamberlain
>>>had >nothing whatsoever< to say about Shakespeare. That's the
>>>fact that Stratfordians must confront.
>
><snip>
>
>>It's worse. That Shakespeare wrote plays attributed to him isn't
>>news. That he didn't, and nobody knows who wrote them is news,
>>even to people who don't give two pins for the theatre. So, that
>>so well-informed a gossip says nothing about this puzzle suggests
>>(if it suggests anything) that nobody doubted that Shakespeare's
>>plays were written by Shakespeare.
>>
>>This Chamberlain, therefore, makes for the Stratfordians, not for
>>you. Better forget he ever existed.
>
>Dick,
>
>I think your missing the point. Chamberlain's well-informed gossip
>saying *nothing* about Shakespeare is just another *unexplained*
>example of Shakespeare's *obscurity*. Consider:
>
>* "Almost alone among Elizabethan poets, Shakespeare wrote no eulogy
> on the death of the Queen, in 1603. (Tom Bethel, 91)
What? I thought even Oxfordians acknowledge that Sonnet 107 is
about the death of Queen Elizabeth. See John Kerrigan's Penguin
edition of the Sonnets for the most complete exposition of the
strong case for this.
>* "In 1622, the year before the publication of the Folio, Henry Peacham
> published a book with a chapter on poetry. Elizabeth's reign had
> been a "golden age," he wrote therein, listing (in order of rank)
> those who had "honoured poesie with their pens and practice."
> First was "Edward Earl of Oxford." Edmund Spenser and Philip Sidney
> made the list. There was no mention of *Shakespeare*." (Tom Bethel, 91)
First of all, Peacham was talking about nondramatic poets, and
Shakespeare (at least by 1622) was better known as a playwright.
Second, Peacham copied his list from Puttenham's *Art of English
Poesie*, written before Shakespeare had become known to the
general public. This is fully discussed in Terry Ross's essay
"Oxford's Literary Reputation" on the Shakespeare Authorship
web page (URL below).
>* "The most detailed theatrical records of the times, those kept by
> Philip Henslowe, proprietor of several London theatres, and those
> kept by his son-in-law, a leading actor-producer and founder of
> Dulwich College, Edward Alleyn, make no reference to Shakespeare."
> (Ogburn 91)
>
> Henslowe records plays (8 which were Shakespeare's), he names the
> actors he hired, many who signed to serve or acknowledge receipt for
> payments. Dozens of authors sign for money received as well.
>
> Sir Sidney Lee wrote "the Rose" - Henslowe's theatre - "was doubtless
> the earliest scene of Shakespeare's pronounced successes alike as
> actor and dramatist" Ok, so where is he ?
Oh boy, not this again. Once again: when Shakespeare's plays were
being performed at the Rose, Henslowe was only noting play titles
and not playwrights; by the time Henslowe started recording payments
to individual playwrights several years later, Shakespeare was
a member of the rival Chamberlain's Men and had nothing to with
Henslowe. I discuss Ogburn's absolutely shameful distortions on this
point in my essay "Why I'm Not an Oxfordian", also on the Shakespeare
Authorship web page.
>* In Nov 1597 and again in Oct 1598, "William Shakespeare" was listed
> as a tax delinquent The London tax collectors could not find this
> *famous* actor/playwright.
Actually, all this means is that he wasn't at home when the tax
collectors came to his door. The tax collectors eventually found
him in 1599 in Southwark, where he had moved; you would know this
if you had read the details in Chambers or Schoenbaum. Richard
Burbage is also listed as "not found" in the tax rolls for 1599.
Are you going to deny that he was a famous actor?
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP WEB PAGE:
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html
Dick Wisan
In article <peterw-0710...@bmermb9a.ca.nortel.com>,
pet...@nortel.ca says...
>
>In article <618rob$8...@news1.zippo.com>,
>wis...@norwich.net (Dick Wisan) wrote:
>
>
>>It's worse. That Shakespeare wrote plays attributed to him isn't
>>news. That he didn't, and nobody knows who wrote them is news,
>>even to people who don't give two pins for the theatre. So, that
>>so well-informed a gossip says nothing about this puzzle suggests
>>(if it suggests anything) that nobody doubted that Shakespeare's
>>plays were written by Shakespeare.
>>
>>This Chamberlain, therefore, makes for the Stratfordians, not for
>>you. Better forget he ever existed.
>
>Dick,
>
>I think your missing the point. Chamberlain's well-informed gossip
>saying *nothing* about Shakespeare is just another *unexplained*
>example of Shakespeare's *obscurity*. Consider:
>
Look, my point concerned what was said here about Chamberlain. I
know nothing about Chamberlain except what appeared on the thread.
From that information and nothing else, I (and others) point out
that nothing in it supports the claim it was cited to prove.
Now, you're talking about other people, other reports. Other people
may dispute the information, but I have no information and will say
nothing. I take it the Chamberlain argument is laid to rest.
THopeB
<<<<First of all, Peacham was talking about nondramatic poets, and
Shakespeare (at least by 1622) was better known as a playwright.
Second, Peacham copied his list from Puttenham's *Art of English
Poesie*, written before Shakespeare had become known to the
general public.>>>>>
Refresh my memory as to when the *Art of English Poesie* was written. And from
everything I've read the Shake-speare name was known from 1593 to 1598 as the
author of dramatic poetry.
Tracey
Terry Ross
There have been several posts lately about the significance of references
to Oxford by Meres, Peacham, and others. These and other contemporary
references to Oxford are discussed in my essay "Oxford's Literary
Reputation," which is available on the Shakespeare Authorship page. The
URL for the reputation essay is
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/rep.html
Puttenham's work appeared in 1589. Let me quote a few paragraphs from my
discussion of Peacham:
"The list isn't entirely Peacham's own work but is based on the list from
Puttenham . . . . The first four names on Peacham's list are the same
names and in the same order as on Puttenham's list, and the reason for not
listing every poet (not for envy but to avoid tediousness) is also the
same. Somewhat surprisingly, for the author of a courtesy book, Peacham
commits something of a social gaffe by transcribing Puttenham so
slavishly. Peacham means to list the poets in the order of social rank.
Peacham refers to "the Lord Buckhurst," which was the appropriate title
when Puttenham wrote, but Buckhurst was named the Earl of Dorset in 1604.
Similarly, M[aster] Edward Dyer was the appropriate title in Puttenham's
time, but Dyer was knighted in 1596 and deserved the honorific "Sir." If
Peacham had made the list without cribbing from Puttenham, he would used
the higher titles.
"Thus, the names of such minor poets as Oxford and Paget make the list
because they were lords whose poetry was known to Puttenham. There is
nothing in Peacham's brief chapter on poetry to suggest that he himself
had actually read the poetry of Oxford or Paget, but Puttenham's
approbation of their verse in the 1580s was good enough for Peacham in
1622. The only poet on the list whose work was entirely unknown to
Puttenham is Samuel Daniel. Daniel, like Spenser before him, had been
considered poet laureate under Elizabeth, and as such would have merited
inclusion on such a list. Ben Jonson, however, does not appear on the list
because he was made poet laureate under Elizabeth's successor.
"Oxfordians note that while Oxford is mentioned, Shakespeare is not. Yet
Peacham says that the list is not complete; Shakespeare could certainly be
among the "sundry others" (as could Marlowe, Chapman, Lodge, Warner, and
Drayton, to name a few of Meres's favorites); for that matter, there is
no one on the list who was primarily a playwright, or who wrote plays at
all for the public theaters. The only poetry published by Shakespeare
during Elizabeth's reign appeared before he had attained the rank of
"gentleman." By Peacham's standards, Shakespeare's social rank among
Elizabethan poets would not have been high enough to make the list. Had
Peacham's list included Jacobean gentlemen who wrote poetry or plays, then
we would have expected Shakespeare and Jonson to be named.
"Peacham's reference to Oxford, like Meres's, thus tells us more about
Puttenham's reputation than Oxford's. Oxford's reputation as a poet was
based originally on a handful of poems in the *Paradise of Dainty Devices*
that William Webbe liked; Puttenham was familiar with some other Oxford
poems and a play; Meres we know had read both Webbe and Puttenham, and
copied not only some of their judgments but also some of their errors, but
he does not seem familiar with any works by Oxford that are unknown to us;
Peacham essentially copied out a passage from Puttenham and pasted it into
his text. There is no suggestion that Peacham is familiar with any poems
at all by Oxford, even those known to Webbe, let alone works by him that
have not come down to us under his name."
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP Page
http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~tross/ws/will.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wilson
In article <EHpM...@midway.uchicago.edu>, dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
(david joseph kathman) wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>>In article <618jf7$n...@ednet2.orednet.org>, rken...@orednet.org says...
>>
>>>>Dick Wisan: there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Although
>>>>many playwrights and theater people, poets and such notable at
>>>>the time, and theater news as well, we find that Chamberlain
>>>>had >nothing whatsoever< to say about Shakespeare. That's the
>>>>fact that Stratfordians must confront.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>* "Almost alone among Elizabethan poets, Shakespeare wrote no eulogy
>> on the death of the Queen, in 1603. (Tom Bethel, 91)
>What? I thought even Oxfordians acknowledge that Sonnet 107 is
>about the death of Queen Elizabeth. See John Kerrigan's Penguin
>edition of the Sonnets for the most complete exposition of the
>strong case for this.
Dave,
Yes, I agree. I think 107 was written on the eve or shortly after
Elizabeth I's death. But is it really a eulogy ? My Merriam-Webster's
says:
1 : a commendatory formal statement or set oration
2 : high praise
Sonnet 107 is clearly NOT commendatory or full of high praise for the
Queen. I find it sad and personal and about the uncertain time.
There is mentions of "fears", "confined doom", "sad augars",
"Incertainties", "balmy time" etc. For courtiers, like Oxford, this was a
period of
great uncertainty.
The author also refers to his mortality.
"My love looks fresh, and death to me subscribes," Oxford died the
next year in 1604 and his biography includes references to his "lameness"
late in life. William of Stratford (still active in the theatre? ) was a
year or so away from his early retirement to Stratford (according to the
biographers).
>>* "In 1622, the year before the publication of the Folio, Henry Peacham
>> published a book with a chapter on poetry. Elizabeth's reign had
>> been a "golden age," he wrote therein, listing (in order of rank)
>> those who had "honoured poesie with their pens and practice."
>> First was "Edward Earl of Oxford." Edmund Spenser and Philip Sidney
>> made the list. There was no mention of *Shakespeare*." (Tom Bethel, 91)
>
>First of all, Peacham was talking about nondramatic poets, and
>Shakespeare (at least by 1622) was better known as a playwright.
>Second, Peacham copied his list from Puttenham's *Art of English
>Poesie*, written before Shakespeare had become known to the
>general public. This is fully discussed in Terry Ross's essay
>"Oxford's Literary Reputation" on the Shakespeare Authorship
>web page (URL below).
Dave,
Was not Peacham writing about Elizabeth's reign ? Surely, during
the 1590's Shakespeare was an enormously successful (popular?) poet with
his V&A. and R.of L. (early 1590's). Most of the tributes to him
(according to Sobran), during this period focused on his poetry.
And why does Peacham place Oxford on the "honoured poesie" list at all ?
For Oxford, we have only 16 or 20 pieces of poetry (May, Looney);
some juvenile, some good, some bad. Where is the GREAT poetry that
Oxford was supposed to have written ? Has it been LOST like his GREAT
comedies ? (he was identified by Meres, I think, as "best for comedies")
Maybe "deep-down" we really know where his LOST works are ? : ) <- a smiley.
<snip>
>>* In Nov 1597 and again in Oct 1598, "William Shakespeare" was listed
>> as a tax delinquent The London tax collectors could not find this
>> *famous* actor/playwright.
>Actually, all this means is that he wasn't at home when the tax
>collectors came to his door. The tax collectors eventually found
>him in 1599 in Southwark, where he had moved; you would know this
>if you had read the details in Chambers or Schoenbaum. Richard
>Burbage is also listed as "not found" in the tax rolls for 1599.
>Are you going to deny that he was a famous actor?
No I won't. The main point of this thread, is the surprising *obscurity*
of William of Stratford... this despite massive searchs by determined
scholars thru millions of records and countryside searchs.
The man, whoem orthodox scholars, tell us was hob-nobing with courtiers,
learning from books and learning from all his
buddies in the taverns, earning lots of money from his busy acting career,
just never seems to make a *personal* appearance anywhere. No one ever
seems to have met him, or wrote a note, or spoken to him, or acknowledged
him as that great so and so. Geez no one in his home town, nor a relative
ever seems to have saved a single thing that he ever owned or wrote !!
As the late Sam Schoenbaum (20th c. biographer) lamented "what we would not
give for a personal note, a scrap of paper"
Regards, Peter.
Peter Wilson
In article <peterw-1010...@bmermb9a.ca.nortel.com>,
pet...@nortel.ca (Peter Wilson) wrote:
>As the late Sam Schoenbaum (20th c. biographer) lamented "what we would not
>give for a personal note, a scrap of paper"
>
>
>Regards, Peter.
Sorry, I wrote that quote from memory and got it wrong... he actually
wrote:
"what we would not give for a single personal letter, one page of
his diary!"
Gee.. I wouldn't want anyone to accuse me of being a sloppy Oxfordian.
Regards, Peter.
Quixote Digital Typography
>* "Almost alone among Elizabethan poets, Shakespeare wrote no eulogy
> on the death of the Queen, in 1603. (Tom Bethel, 91)
Who else is missing? Can we find any motives (religious, political,
etc.) for their declining to write eulogies that we might also ascribe
to Shakespeare?
>* "In 1622, the year before the publication of the Folio, Henry Peacham
> published a book with a chapter on poetry. Elizabeth's reign had
> been a "golden age," he wrote therein, listing (in order of rank)
> those who had "honoured poesie with their pens and practice."
> First was "Edward Earl of Oxford." Edmund Spenser and Philip Sidney
> made the list. There was no mention of *Shakespeare*." (Tom Bethel, 91)
How many playwriters were on the list?
>* "The most detailed theatrical records of the times, those kept by
> Philip Henslowe, proprietor of several London theatres, and those
> kept by his son-in-law, a leading actor-producer and founder of
> Dulwich College, Edward Alleyn, make no reference to Shakespeare."
> (Ogburn 91)
> Henslowe records plays (8 which were Shakespeare's), he names the
> actors he hired, many who signed to serve or acknowledge receipt for
> payments. Dozens of authors sign for money received as well.
> Sir Sidney Lee wrote "the Rose" - Henslowe's theatre - "was doubtless
> the earliest scene of Shakespeare's pronounced successes alike as
> actor and dramatist" Ok, so where is he ?
Below, it's mentioned that he was a tax delinquent. Might that not be
some incentive to not collect money under one's own name (or at least
not have it written down).
>* In Nov 1597 and again in Oct 1598, "William Shakespeare" was listed
> as a tax delinquent The London tax collectors could not find this
> *famous* actor/playwright.
D. B. Cooper, famous hijacker has not been located by the
authorities. Can we conclude then, that D. B. Cooper did not exist?
I note that most of your citations are from a single secondary
source... that would tend to give a distorted view of things, since
secondary source authors are notorious for ignoring things that do not
agree with their theses.
-dh
"A Brief Commentary on the Shakespeare Authorship Controversy"
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Shakespeare is dead,
Lord Oxford is too.
--
Don Hosek dho...@quixote.com Quixote Digital Typography
708-788-1501 fax: 708-788-1530 orders: 800-810-3311
For information about SERIF: THE MAGAZINE OF TYPE & TYPOGRAPHY,
http://www.quixote.com/serif/ or mail serif...@quixote.com