Dennis McCarthy - North of Shakespeare
287 views
Skip to first unread message
frode
Jun 25, 2011, 11:49:00 PM6/25/11
to Forest of Arden
At hlas someone named Peter has recommended a new book called "North
of Shakespeare" by Dennis McCarthy. I bought the book and I'm reading
it now. McCarthy's main point is that Thomas North wrote some of the
best stuff credited to Shakespeare, while Shakespeare adapted it for
the stage. It's hard to judge by a superficial reading, but it seems
very well researched, and to me it appears far more convincing than
what we get from the regular Shakespeare scholar.
frode
Jun 26, 2011, 5:10:50 PM6/26/11
to Forest of Arden
I have now finished the book, and I’m much impressed. Most of the
arguments display the same scholarly quality, and is as exhaustively
backed up by evidence as the papers McCarthy has published in “Notes
and Queries “. (“Sir Thomas North as Sir John Daw” (2007), “Thomas
North was the 'TN'Who Prefaced Belleforest's 'Tragicall
Hystories'” (2007) and “A 'Sea of Troubles' and a 'Pilgrimage
Uncertain'/Dial Of Princes as the Source for Hamlet's
Soliloquy” (2009)).
The interpretation of contemporary references and allusions to
Shakespeare (from Stratford) and Thomas North is very convincing,
including his interpretation of “Groatsworth of Wit”, as is McCarthys
explanation of “The Longleat Manuscript”.
He has convinced me that Thomas North was involved in the writing of
the Shakespeare canon beyond his translations being the most important
sources for many of the plays.
But the theories advanced in the book do make Ben Jonson’s
participation in the publication of the first folio a bit puzzling. I
also find many of the attempts to specify North’s, Shakespeare’s and
other writers’ relative contributions to specific plays rather
speculative.
arguments display the same scholarly quality, and is as exhaustively
backed up by evidence as the papers McCarthy has published in “Notes
and Queries “. (“Sir Thomas North as Sir John Daw” (2007), “Thomas
North was the 'TN'Who Prefaced Belleforest's 'Tragicall
Hystories'” (2007) and “A 'Sea of Troubles' and a 'Pilgrimage
Uncertain'/Dial Of Princes as the Source for Hamlet's
Soliloquy” (2009)).
The interpretation of contemporary references and allusions to
Shakespeare (from Stratford) and Thomas North is very convincing,
including his interpretation of “Groatsworth of Wit”, as is McCarthys
explanation of “The Longleat Manuscript”.
He has convinced me that Thomas North was involved in the writing of
the Shakespeare canon beyond his translations being the most important
sources for many of the plays.
But the theories advanced in the book do make Ben Jonson’s
participation in the publication of the first folio a bit puzzling. I
also find many of the attempts to specify North’s, Shakespeare’s and
other writers’ relative contributions to specific plays rather
speculative.
frode
Jun 26, 2011, 5:35:35 PM6/26/11
to Forest of Arden
The most striking feat of the book, perhaps, is how it manages to
tell, and document, a coherent story of the production of the
Shakespeare plays which doesn’t contain any conspiracies, and which
shows that both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians have been
correct in many of their most strongly held beliefs (and both been
wrong on other matters).
tell, and document, a coherent story of the production of the
Shakespeare plays which doesn’t contain any conspiracies, and which
shows that both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians have been
correct in many of their most strongly held beliefs (and both been
wrong on other matters).
Tom Reedy
Jun 26, 2011, 5:56:56 PM6/26/11
to Forest of Arden
From the Amazon description: "McCarthy will now transform our view of
Shakespeare . . . . North of Shakespeare" presents nothing less than
the first major global intellectual revolution in the past half a
century."
Ah, yes, of course! The third Shakespearan global revolution this
month, no doubt.
On Jun 26, 4:35 pm, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The most striking feat of the book, perhaps, is how it manages to
> tell, and document, a coherent story of the production of the
> Shakespeare plays which doesn’t contain any conspiracies, and which
> shows that both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians have been
> correct in many of their most strongly held beliefs (and both been
> wrong on other matters).
And which beliefs of the anti-Stratfordians have been proved correct?
TR
Shakespeare . . . . North of Shakespeare" presents nothing less than
the first major global intellectual revolution in the past half a
century."
Ah, yes, of course! The third Shakespearan global revolution this
month, no doubt.
On Jun 26, 4:35 pm, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The most striking feat of the book, perhaps, is how it manages to
> tell, and document, a coherent story of the production of the
> Shakespeare plays which doesn’t contain any conspiracies, and which
> shows that both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians have been
> correct in many of their most strongly held beliefs (and both been
> wrong on other matters).
TR
frode
Jun 26, 2011, 6:25:35 PM6/26/11
to Forest of Arden
On Jun 26, 11:56 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the Amazon description: "McCarthy will now transform our view of
> Shakespeare . . . . North of Shakespeare" presents nothing less than
> the first major global intellectual revolution in the past half a
> century."
>
> Ah, yes, of course! The third Shakespearan global revolution this
> month, no doubt.
> On Jun 26, 4:35 pm, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The most striking feat of the book, perhaps, is how it manages to
> > tell, and document, a coherent story of the production of the
> > Shakespeare plays which doesn’t contain any conspiracies, and which
> > shows that both the Stratfordians and the anti-Stratfordians have been
> > correct in many of their most strongly held beliefs (and both been
> > wrong on other matters).
>
> And which beliefs of the anti-Stratfordians have been proved correct?
>
> TR
John W Kennedy
Jun 26, 2011, 9:17:02 PM6/26/11
to ardenm...@googlegroups.com
Investigation of past threads reveals a slip establishing it as highly probable that you were already attached to this theory last December. I have already pointed out elsewhere that McCarthy is deploying numerous sock puppets, as well as intruding advertising into at least one Wikipedia article.
Mr. McCarthy's much ballyhooed academic credit, by the way, appears to consist of a single volume of pop science, and this Shakespeare "book" (it doesn't seem to be available as a real book, just as an e-text) is pretty obviously self-published.
--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
frode
Jun 26, 2011, 9:56:37 PM6/26/11
to Forest of Arden
On Jun 27, 3:17 am, John W Kennedy <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2011, at 11:49 PM, frode wrote:
>
> > At hlas someone named Peter has recommended a new book called "North
> > of Shakespeare" by Dennis McCarthy. I bought the book and I'm reading
> > it now. McCarthy's main point is that Thomas North wrote some of the
> > best stuff credited to Shakespeare, while Shakespeare adapted it for
> > the stage. It's hard to judge by a superficial reading, but it seems
> > very well researched, and to me it appears far more convincing than
> > what we get from the regular Shakespeare scholar.
>
> Investigation of past threads reveals a slip establishing it as highly probable that you were already attached to this theory last December. I have already pointed out elsewhere that McCarthy is deploying numerous sock puppets, as well as intruding advertising into at least one Wikipedia article.
inclination, you are right, but that is about as perceptive as
classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together as
the 'sea-story'. I hadn't heard of Dennis McCarthy until yesterday.
>
> Mr. McCarthy's much ballyhooed academic credit, by the way, appears to consist of a single volume of pop science, and this Shakespeare "book" (it doesn't seem to be available as a real book, just as an e-text) is pretty obviously self-published.
>
haven't read other things he have written. But the interesting thing
here is the content and justification of McCarthy's claims about
Shakespeare.
Tom Reedy
Jun 26, 2011, 10:09:54 PM6/26/11
to Forest of Arden
That "someone named Peter" ("Peter Huygens") is Dennis McCarthy, the
author of the ground-breaking new work that is even now
revolutionizing the way we think about Shakespeare. He is also trying
to spam Wikipedia with his self-published book. You can read what he
says about himself on this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/browse_thread/thread/37da63fbbc995c93/0ac5f1e49effc3df#0ac5f1e49effc3df
Apparently he thinks himself to be a pretty amazing guy.
TR
author of the ground-breaking new work that is even now
revolutionizing the way we think about Shakespeare. He is also trying
to spam Wikipedia with his self-published book. You can read what he
says about himself on this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/browse_thread/thread/37da63fbbc995c93/0ac5f1e49effc3df#0ac5f1e49effc3df
Apparently he thinks himself to be a pretty amazing guy.
TR
frode
Jun 27, 2011, 5:52:58 AM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
Peter Huygens might be Dennis McCarthy. How do you know for sure that
he is?
But again, the interesting thing here is the content and justification
he is?
But again, the interesting thing here is the content and justification
of McCarthy's claims about Shakespeare
On Jun 27, 4:09 am, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That "someone named Peter" ("Peter Huygens") is Dennis McCarthy, the
> author of the ground-breaking new work that is even now
> revolutionizing the way we think about Shakespeare. He is also trying
> to spam Wikipedia with his self-published book. You can read what he
> says about himself on this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/bro...
> That "someone named Peter" ("Peter Huygens") is Dennis McCarthy, the
> author of the ground-breaking new work that is even now
> revolutionizing the way we think about Shakespeare. He is also trying
> to spam Wikipedia with his self-published book. You can read what he
Tom Reedy
Jun 27, 2011, 8:31:43 AM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
Anybody who knows the least bit about computers can tell it's
McCarthy.
Until you post some specifics about the content instead of a
generalized "this book is awesome" review I won't spent the money to
read it, I don't care how cheap it is. It has long been known that
Shakespeare used North, as well as many other sources, to the point
where nowadays we would call it plagiarism, and from what you've
posted so far it appears that this is another case of someone who is
proficient in a scientific discipline spinning yet another bird-
brained theory to explain the "mystery" of Shakespeare.
TR
McCarthy.
Until you post some specifics about the content instead of a
generalized "this book is awesome" review I won't spent the money to
read it, I don't care how cheap it is. It has long been known that
Shakespeare used North, as well as many other sources, to the point
where nowadays we would call it plagiarism, and from what you've
posted so far it appears that this is another case of someone who is
proficient in a scientific discipline spinning yet another bird-
brained theory to explain the "mystery" of Shakespeare.
TR
frode
Jun 27, 2011, 9:11:59 AM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
If you don't want to read it, that's up to you. I have summed up his
main points, but I don't want to argue on behalf of McCarthy here with
someone who hasn't read the book, since the main strength of the book
is the extensive backing of McCarthy's claims. Not all of them,
though. I am particularly impressed by his identification of
references to Shakespeare (from Stratford) and North in two of Ben
Jonson's plays, and in "“Groatsworth of Wit”.
main points, but I don't want to argue on behalf of McCarthy here with
someone who hasn't read the book, since the main strength of the book
is the extensive backing of McCarthy's claims. Not all of them,
though. I am particularly impressed by his identification of
references to Shakespeare (from Stratford) and North in two of Ben
Jonson's plays, and in "“Groatsworth of Wit”.
Tom Reedy
Jun 27, 2011, 2:23:42 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
On Jun 27, 8:11 am, frode <frod...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you don't want to read it, that's up to you. I have summed up his
> main points, but I don't want to argue on behalf of McCarthy here with
> someone who hasn't read the book, since the main strength of the book
> is the extensive backing of McCarthy's claims. Not all of them,
> though. I am particularly impressed by his identification of
> references to Shakespeare (from Stratford) and North in two of
> Ben Jonson's plays, and in "“Groatsworth of Wit”.
>
I've just now finished the sample chapter, and I'm not impressed at
> If you don't want to read it, that's up to you. I have summed up his
> main points, but I don't want to argue on behalf of McCarthy here with
> someone who hasn't read the book, since the main strength of the book
> is the extensive backing of McCarthy's claims. Not all of them,
> though. I am particularly impressed by his identification of
> references to Shakespeare (from Stratford) and North in two of
> Ben Jonson's plays, and in "“Groatsworth of Wit”.
>
all. His identification of Shakespeare as Sogliardo and Poet-Ape by
Ben Jonson and in Greene has been bandied about by anti-Strats since
Day 1, and his repetition of them is just as unconvincing and shows a
lack of acquaintanceship with Early Modern works in general and the
War of the Poets in particular. His main idea, that Shakespeare wrote
all the bad early quartos as stage versions of the true original
literary versions of the plays as written by North that were later
published in the First Folio shows that he is not very acquainted with
the early quartos, many of which differ very little from the Folio
versions.
TR
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Jun 27, 2011, 3:15:32 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
Well, I'm very happy to be able to become a part of this discussion --
especially with Tom Reedy, whose work I very much enjoy.
I believe Mr. Reedy with Kathman have published the definitive essay
on authorship -- and I accept it, almost every word of it, without
quibble. Before I discuss these points,
I feel like I should briefly address the less relevant points about my
credentials and sock puppets and advertisements -- because too most of
these accusations, I must sheepishly plead guilty as charged.
I did indeed add a sentence to the Thomas North wikipedia, stating he
had also become a candidate for authorship -- and I added a reference
to my book. Though I am not sure this is a particularly scurrilous
practice. After all, all other candidates -- Oxford, Marlowe, etc. --
have a wikipedia line or two or more addressing this -- and often the
reference is a book (e.g., Kathman's.) Also, let me confess that the
Lulu Ann "5 star" review of my book is from my wife Lori, nicknamed
Lulu, and Peter Huygens is a close friend. My daughter (Nicole) also
will be posting things soon enough -- and I have no doubt she will be
flowery in her praise. Frode, however, I do not know. But I must say
I like him immensely -- and think he's a rather judicious and amiable
fellow.
I also think it is a tad unfair to dismiss my credentials as a "pop
sci" book. But I won't bore anyone with them -- as I think we should
all agree they are irrelevant to this issue.
Now, Mr.Reedy has co-authored a wonderful essay in which he notes that
Shakespeare's name is on the title page of all the works he wrote.
I agree with him whole-heartedly. And I accept the validity of all
those title pages. Reedy and Kathman list, for example, Henry VI, part
3 as being attributed to Shakespeare in 1619.
So can we all agree that Shakespeare did indeed write this play that
was attributed to him in 1619?
(Also, most of my references in the book are to conventional works and
conventional scholars -- as they were with my not-terribly-
controversial identification of Sogliardo with Shakespeare. But the
discussion on these issues comes in parts of the book not available in
the sample.)
Again, I am very honored to have my book even discussed (but alas
dismissed) by a notable scholar like Reedy.
especially with Tom Reedy, whose work I very much enjoy.
I believe Mr. Reedy with Kathman have published the definitive essay
on authorship -- and I accept it, almost every word of it, without
quibble. Before I discuss these points,
I feel like I should briefly address the less relevant points about my
credentials and sock puppets and advertisements -- because too most of
these accusations, I must sheepishly plead guilty as charged.
I did indeed add a sentence to the Thomas North wikipedia, stating he
had also become a candidate for authorship -- and I added a reference
to my book. Though I am not sure this is a particularly scurrilous
practice. After all, all other candidates -- Oxford, Marlowe, etc. --
have a wikipedia line or two or more addressing this -- and often the
reference is a book (e.g., Kathman's.) Also, let me confess that the
Lulu Ann "5 star" review of my book is from my wife Lori, nicknamed
Lulu, and Peter Huygens is a close friend. My daughter (Nicole) also
will be posting things soon enough -- and I have no doubt she will be
flowery in her praise. Frode, however, I do not know. But I must say
I like him immensely -- and think he's a rather judicious and amiable
fellow.
I also think it is a tad unfair to dismiss my credentials as a "pop
sci" book. But I won't bore anyone with them -- as I think we should
all agree they are irrelevant to this issue.
Now, Mr.Reedy has co-authored a wonderful essay in which he notes that
Shakespeare's name is on the title page of all the works he wrote.
I agree with him whole-heartedly. And I accept the validity of all
those title pages. Reedy and Kathman list, for example, Henry VI, part
3 as being attributed to Shakespeare in 1619.
So can we all agree that Shakespeare did indeed write this play that
was attributed to him in 1619?
(Also, most of my references in the book are to conventional works and
conventional scholars -- as they were with my not-terribly-
controversial identification of Sogliardo with Shakespeare. But the
discussion on these issues comes in parts of the book not available in
the sample.)
Again, I am very honored to have my book even discussed (but alas
dismissed) by a notable scholar like Reedy.
Tom Reedy
Jun 27, 2011, 3:28:46 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
"Peter Huygens" must be a very close friend to spend so much time on
your computer.
I did not disparage your scientific credentials. In fact, you have
joined a large group of people who are experts in one field and who
make pronouncements in another field about which they know very
little. The practice leads many to think that anti-Stratfordism has
some scholastic basis, when in fact it contradicts the very essence of
scholarship.
TR
On Jun 27, 2:15 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
your computer.
I did not disparage your scientific credentials. In fact, you have
joined a large group of people who are experts in one field and who
make pronouncements in another field about which they know very
little. The practice leads many to think that anti-Stratfordism has
some scholastic basis, when in fact it contradicts the very essence of
scholarship.
TR
On Jun 27, 2:15 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Jun 27, 2011, 4:06:23 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
Tom,
You wrote above you wanted to address the actual arguments, but your
last reply (like many comments here) was just about me. (Not my
personal computer by the way). Certainly I can understand your
frustration, as there have been a lot of outsiders who have attacked
the conventional view, and often put forth wild speculation. But
outsiders have also been known to revolutionize fields as well (e.g.
Alfred Wegener, E.O. Wilson, John Waterston, etc.) So I think the
best way to deal with arguments and evidence in North of Shakespeare
is to address the arguments and evidence of North of Shakespeare.
My book shows multiple proofs that Shakespeare wrote essentially all
the works attributed to him while he was alive and up until 1620 --
that the title pages were correct.
Do you agree with that -- or do you think that many works "by William
Shakespeare" were penned by others?
You wrote above you wanted to address the actual arguments, but your
last reply (like many comments here) was just about me. (Not my
personal computer by the way). Certainly I can understand your
frustration, as there have been a lot of outsiders who have attacked
the conventional view, and often put forth wild speculation. But
outsiders have also been known to revolutionize fields as well (e.g.
Alfred Wegener, E.O. Wilson, John Waterston, etc.) So I think the
best way to deal with arguments and evidence in North of Shakespeare
is to address the arguments and evidence of North of Shakespeare.
My book shows multiple proofs that Shakespeare wrote essentially all
the works attributed to him while he was alive and up until 1620 --
that the title pages were correct.
Do you agree with that -- or do you think that many works "by William
Shakespeare" were penned by others?
Tom Reedy
Jun 27, 2011, 4:29:55 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
On Jun 27, 3:06 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
something about computers.
> Certainly I can understand your
> frustration, as there have been a lot of outsiders who have attacked
> the conventional view, and often put forth wild speculation. But
> outsiders have also been known to revolutionize fields as well (e.g.
> Alfred Wegener, E.O. Wilson, John Waterston, etc.)
You forgot Galileo. And it frustrates me not a whit that people
believe irrational things; I have a few irrationalities I cherish
myself, but none, I think, concerning Shakespeare.
> So I think the
> best way to deal with arguments and evidence in North of Shakespeare
> is to address the arguments and evidence of North of Shakespeare.
> My book shows multiple proofs that Shakespeare wrote essentially all
> the works attributed to him while he was alive and up until 1620 --
> that the title pages were correct.
> Do you agree with that -- or do you think that many works "by William
> Shakespeare" were penned by others?
No, I do not think that "many works 'by William Shakespeare' were
penned by others". He undoubtedly collaborated with other playwrights,
and some publications were falsely issued under his by-line, but the
works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford were for the most
part written by him.
If Shakespeare of Stratford "wrote essentially all the works
attributed to him while he was alive and up until 1620", and then the
FF published the "literary" versions written by North, how do you
explain Titus, Lear, LLL, MoV, MND, R2, and all the other quartos that
were republished in the FF virtually unchanged?
TR
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> Tom,
> You wrote above you wanted to address the actual arguments, but your
> last reply (like many comments here) was just about me. (Not my
> personal computer by the way).
Dennis, all I have to say about that is that you need to learn
> Tom,
> You wrote above you wanted to address the actual arguments, but your
> last reply (like many comments here) was just about me. (Not my
> personal computer by the way).
something about computers.
> Certainly I can understand your
> frustration, as there have been a lot of outsiders who have attacked
> the conventional view, and often put forth wild speculation. But
> outsiders have also been known to revolutionize fields as well (e.g.
> Alfred Wegener, E.O. Wilson, John Waterston, etc.)
believe irrational things; I have a few irrationalities I cherish
myself, but none, I think, concerning Shakespeare.
> So I think the
> best way to deal with arguments and evidence in North of Shakespeare
> is to address the arguments and evidence of North of Shakespeare.
> My book shows multiple proofs that Shakespeare wrote essentially all
> the works attributed to him while he was alive and up until 1620 --
> that the title pages were correct.
> Do you agree with that -- or do you think that many works "by William
> Shakespeare" were penned by others?
penned by others". He undoubtedly collaborated with other playwrights,
and some publications were falsely issued under his by-line, but the
works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford were for the most
part written by him.
If Shakespeare of Stratford "wrote essentially all the works
attributed to him while he was alive and up until 1620", and then the
FF published the "literary" versions written by North, how do you
explain Titus, Lear, LLL, MoV, MND, R2, and all the other quartos that
were republished in the FF virtually unchanged?
TR
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Jun 27, 2011, 4:56:12 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
> No, I do not think that "many works 'by William Shakespeare' were
> penned by others". He undoubtedly collaborated with other playwrights,
> and some publications were falsely issued under his by-line, but the
> works attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford were for the most
> part written by him
depending on what you count) different plays attributed to William
Shakespeare on the title page by name or initials prior to 1620 --
which is the majority. Here they are:
1) The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1591) / "written by W. Sh.
(Simmes-Helme, 1611) and "Written by W. Shakespeare" (Mathewes --Dewe,
1622) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printers/publishers) / Queen's Men
2) The Contention (Henry VI, Part 2) (1594) / "Written by William
Shake-Speare, gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors
and a greedy, lying printer/publisher) / Pem-broke's Men
3) True Tragedy (Henry VI, Part 3) (1595) / "Written by William Shake-
speare, Gent" (Jag-gard-Pavier, 1619) Bad Quarto (pirate actors and a
greedy, lying printer/publisher) / Pembroke's Men
4) Locrine (1595) / "Newly set forth, overseen and corrected. By
W.S." (Creede, 1595) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher) /
Not mentioned
5) Richard III (1597) / "By William Shake-speare" (Simmes-Wise, 1598)
changed to **"Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare"** (Creede-
Wise, 1602) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer
publisher) / Lord Chamberlain's Men
6) Henry V (1600) / Part of Shakespeare Collection (originally printed
by Creede; Jaggard-Pavier,1619) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and
dishonest printer publisher) / Lord Chamberlain's Men
7) Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones,
1602) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher) / Lord
Chamberlain's Men
8) Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-
Johnson, 1602) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/
publisher) / Lord Chamberlain's Men
9) Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse
times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and
greedy, lying printer/publisher) / King's Men
10) London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter,
1605) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher) / King's Men
11) Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) / "By W. Shakespeare" (Braddock-Pavier,
1608) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer / publisher) / King's Men
12) Pericles (1609) / "By William Shakespeare" (White/Creede-Gosson,
1609) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher) /
King's Men
>
frode
Jun 27, 2011, 5:14:58 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
Dennis: Great to have the author of the book participating in the
discussion. I guess you can defend your claims better than I can, so I
won't interfer.
Tom: I think calling McCarthy’s theory “bird-brained“ and claiming
that he knows very little about the field, based on a sample chapter,
discussion. I guess you can defend your claims better than I can, so I
won't interfer.
Tom: I think calling McCarthy’s theory “bird-brained“ and claiming
that he knows very little about the field, based on a sample chapter,
contradicts the very essence of scholarship.
On Jun 27, 10:56 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
Tom Reedy
Jun 27, 2011, 6:44:39 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
None of what you wrote is relevant to the question I asked, which IS
relevant to your authorship theory: If Shakespeare of Stratford "wrote
author's name) 1H4, 1H2, Hamlet Q2, Lear, LLL, MoV, MND, R2, Ado,
Troilus, all of which were republished in the FF virtually unchanged?
On Jun 27, 3:56 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
This has no author's name.
>
> 7) Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones,
> 1602) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher) / Lord
> Chamberlain's Men
>
> 8) Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-
> Johnson, 1602) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/
> publisher) / Lord Chamberlain's Men
>
> 9) Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse
> times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and
> greedy, lying printer/publisher) / King's Men
Followed closely by Q2, "by William Shakespeare".
relevant to your authorship theory: If Shakespeare of Stratford "wrote
essentially all the works attributed to him while he was alive and up
until 1620", and then the FF published the "literary" versions written
by North, how do you explain (I'll delete Titus, which didn't have the
until 1620", and then the FF published the "literary" versions written
author's name) 1H4, 1H2, Hamlet Q2, Lear, LLL, MoV, MND, R2, Ado,
Troilus, all of which were republished in the FF virtually unchanged?
On Jun 27, 3:56 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
>
> 7) Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones,
> 1602) / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher) / Lord
> Chamberlain's Men
>
> 8) Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-
> Johnson, 1602) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/
> publisher) / Lord Chamberlain's Men
>
> 9) Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse
> times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and
> greedy, lying printer/publisher) / King's Men
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Jun 27, 2011, 8:56:23 PM6/27/11
to Forest of Arden
Hi Tom, you make a great point, and I will directly answer all your
questions. I just referenced the twelve documents to show that
actually current orthodox scholars have to argue that William
Shakespeare did not really pen the majority of plays attributed to him
via title pages prior to 1619.
(You note "Henry V" did not have a name on its title page, but as I
noted in its parenthetical, it was included in Pavier-Jaggard's 1619
collection of Shakespeare plays. Thus, there's no doubt this work was
being attributed to him.) The notion that all these title pages are
fraudulent would require a multi-decade conspiracy of numerous
printers, publishers, and anonymous writers who were evidently trying
to frame Shakespeare for staged adaptations and mediocre work.
Myself, I believe in the title pages. This is after all the same type
of evidence we use for all other authors. As to your question, this is
answered in the book (and I promise I'd send you the three dollars if
you bought it) -- or else I'm just going to be rehashing everything
I've already covered. But to address your point:
The reason we know True Tragedy, Hamlet Q1, Henry V Q1, etc are staged
adaptations of longer, more literary works is because those literary
works have survived. But the truth is Titus Andronicus, Much Ado,
Henry IV, 1 and 2, Merchant of Venice, etc. are also staged
adaptations of longer, literary masterpieces -- but the difference is
those masterpiece versions of those works have been lost. But
conventional scholars have pointed out various fossils left in the
play and countless other forms of evidence that all these works are
abridged versions of some lost source play. For example, as I show in
Chapter Five, numerous conventional scholars have noted that MoV has
characters that have been condensed, side stories truncated, and is
clearly missing a scene (the dinner/masque). MoV is Shakespeare's
staged adaptation of longer, literary play "The Jew," which Stephen
Gosson referred to in 1579.
questions. I just referenced the twelve documents to show that
actually current orthodox scholars have to argue that William
Shakespeare did not really pen the majority of plays attributed to him
via title pages prior to 1619.
(You note "Henry V" did not have a name on its title page, but as I
noted in its parenthetical, it was included in Pavier-Jaggard's 1619
collection of Shakespeare plays. Thus, there's no doubt this work was
being attributed to him.) The notion that all these title pages are
fraudulent would require a multi-decade conspiracy of numerous
printers, publishers, and anonymous writers who were evidently trying
to frame Shakespeare for staged adaptations and mediocre work.
Myself, I believe in the title pages. This is after all the same type
of evidence we use for all other authors. As to your question, this is
answered in the book (and I promise I'd send you the three dollars if
you bought it) -- or else I'm just going to be rehashing everything
I've already covered. But to address your point:
The reason we know True Tragedy, Hamlet Q1, Henry V Q1, etc are staged
adaptations of longer, more literary works is because those literary
works have survived. But the truth is Titus Andronicus, Much Ado,
Henry IV, 1 and 2, Merchant of Venice, etc. are also staged
adaptations of longer, literary masterpieces -- but the difference is
those masterpiece versions of those works have been lost. But
conventional scholars have pointed out various fossils left in the
play and countless other forms of evidence that all these works are
abridged versions of some lost source play. For example, as I show in
Chapter Five, numerous conventional scholars have noted that MoV has
characters that have been condensed, side stories truncated, and is
clearly missing a scene (the dinner/masque). MoV is Shakespeare's
staged adaptation of longer, literary play "The Jew," which Stephen
Gosson referred to in 1579.
frode
Jun 28, 2011, 1:34:06 AM6/28/11
to Forest of Arden
Just have to get this off my chest. I downloaded the sample chapter
from Amazon, to find out what it contained. It is the first chapter
from “North of Shakespeare”. The chapter is a summary, and contains a
set of claims, pointing out that the justification for the claims will
be found in the following 9 chapters of the book. On that basis I
think the prejudging response quoted below is beneath your level,
Tom.
from Amazon, to find out what it contained. It is the first chapter
from “North of Shakespeare”. The chapter is a summary, and contains a
set of claims, pointing out that the justification for the claims will
be found in the following 9 chapters of the book. On that basis I
think the prejudging response quoted below is beneath your level,
Tom.
Tom Reedy
Jun 28, 2011, 11:49:40 AM6/28/11
to Forest of Arden
On Jun 27, 7:56 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
quarto theory. Tell me, did Christopher Marlowe write Faustus, which
is a bad Q, or was that North, also? And which version did he write?
What about Massacre at Paris? How about Chapman's Blind Beggar? Did he
write that, since it is also an obvious bad Q, and did North write the
rest of Chapman's attributed work? And why did you leave out Sir John
Oldcastle? It was published under Shakespeare's name in 1619; doesn't
that prove he wrote it to you?
The big problem with anti-Stratfordian theorists is their insistence
that everything be neatly and unambiguously explained. Reality is not
like that, which is the reason why they refuse to live in it when it
comes to Shakespeare.
TR
Tom Reedy
Jun 28, 2011, 11:57:17 AM6/28/11
to Forest of Arden
Frode, I've read literally hundreds of similar claims about
Shakespeare, and every one of them was going to change the way we look
at Shakespeare forever. Pardon me if I don't fall for the latest one,
especially when coupled with his ham-fisted sock puppetry to spam his
book and an unwillingness to fess up to it when he's found out.
Referring back to your other, similar, admonishment, I don't see any
scholarship here (and indeed anyone who expects scholarship in a
newsgroup obviously hasn't had much experience with them), but instead
nothing but a set of specious arguments based on incomplete and skewed
data conveniently arranged to justify a predetermined conclusion.
I'll let someone else take up this topic if they are so inclined; I've
pretty much had my say about it.
TR
Shakespeare, and every one of them was going to change the way we look
at Shakespeare forever. Pardon me if I don't fall for the latest one,
especially when coupled with his ham-fisted sock puppetry to spam his
book and an unwillingness to fess up to it when he's found out.
Referring back to your other, similar, admonishment, I don't see any
scholarship here (and indeed anyone who expects scholarship in a
newsgroup obviously hasn't had much experience with them), but instead
nothing but a set of specious arguments based on incomplete and skewed
data conveniently arranged to justify a predetermined conclusion.
I'll let someone else take up this topic if they are so inclined; I've
pretty much had my say about it.
TR
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Jun 28, 2011, 5:05:49 PM6/28/11
to Forest of Arden
TR writes: > I'm sure literary historians would be very interested in
your bad
> quarto theory.
Dennis responds: Well, actually, the view that the bad quartos were
staged adaptations is quite conventional.
My argument is simply that all the title pages attributed to
Shakespeare prior to 1620 is correct. In other words, I accept the
veracity of all the straight forward documentation. The scholarly
view, as I have shown, is that the majority of these contemporaneous
title pages were fraudulent, that there were about a dozen different
conspiracies, operating over the course of two decades led by
different printers, publishers, and anonymous writers to frame
Shakespeare for inferior work. Yet no one ever discussed these
conspiracies and Shakespeare never did anything to stop it.
TR writes: Tell me, did Christopher Marlowe write Faustus, which
accepts the title page documentation and eschews all imaginative,
conspiracy theories. It is the conventional view that believes in a
cabal of conspiring printers/publishers who place wrong names on title
pages. Moreover, the different quartos of Faustus, Philaster, Maid's
Tragedy, etc adds more evidence to my theory. This proves that
Shakespeare was not the only writer in history who was this unique
patsy of a dozen different conspiracies trying to give him false
credit of the works of other people. Instead, it was not uncommon for
plays to be produced in different versions -- often a longer work was
adapted for the stage. As for your other questions about North, again,
you obviously have read nothing of the book or even the sample
chapter: I believe North wrote the works that Nashe and Jonson
attributed to him (which also not coincidentally happen to be plays in
the exact style of his Plutarch's Lives and Dial of Princes) -- and
these plays were the original masterpieces that Shakespeare adapted
for the stage and then sold to printers with his name on the title
pages. No conspiracies. No secret cabals.
TR: And why did you leave out Sir John
pages seriously. But as I note in the book, it is possible there was
confusion over this play. There were two Oldcastle's that had been
penned in the late 1590's -- and Shakespeare did write one of them,
Munday much of the other. So there is a question of whether Pavier/
Jaggard may be confusing the two plays, especially since this
Oldcastle was originally printed as having been performed by the
Admiral's Men. Essentially, with all the other plays, as I show above,
they not only carry William Shakespeare's name but they were also
labelled as having been performed for his company. There's a very
good chance that Shakespeare did write this Oldcastle, but there
remains the possibility of an honest confusion so I removed it from
the list.
TR: > The big problem with anti-Stratfordian theorists is their
different behind-the-scenes conspiracies, for which there is no
evidence, resulting in fraudulent title pages attributing the wrong
works to Shakespeare, then I imagine you would also have to believe
reality tends to be very ambiguous and very messy. ;)
your bad
> quarto theory.
Dennis responds: Well, actually, the view that the bad quartos were
staged adaptations is quite conventional.
My argument is simply that all the title pages attributed to
Shakespeare prior to 1620 is correct. In other words, I accept the
veracity of all the straight forward documentation. The scholarly
view, as I have shown, is that the majority of these contemporaneous
title pages were fraudulent, that there were about a dozen different
conspiracies, operating over the course of two decades led by
different printers, publishers, and anonymous writers to frame
Shakespeare for inferior work. Yet no one ever discussed these
conspiracies and Shakespeare never did anything to stop it.
TR writes: Tell me, did Christopher Marlowe write Faustus, which
> is a bad Q, or was that North, also? And which version did he write?
> What about Massacre at Paris? How about Chapman's Blind Beggar? Did he
> write that, since it is also an obvious bad Q, and did North write the
> rest of Chapman's attributed work?
Dennis responds: ?? I'm sorry, but again: My view is the one that
> What about Massacre at Paris? How about Chapman's Blind Beggar? Did he
> write that, since it is also an obvious bad Q, and did North write the
> rest of Chapman's attributed work?
accepts the title page documentation and eschews all imaginative,
conspiracy theories. It is the conventional view that believes in a
cabal of conspiring printers/publishers who place wrong names on title
pages. Moreover, the different quartos of Faustus, Philaster, Maid's
Tragedy, etc adds more evidence to my theory. This proves that
Shakespeare was not the only writer in history who was this unique
patsy of a dozen different conspiracies trying to give him false
credit of the works of other people. Instead, it was not uncommon for
plays to be produced in different versions -- often a longer work was
adapted for the stage. As for your other questions about North, again,
you obviously have read nothing of the book or even the sample
chapter: I believe North wrote the works that Nashe and Jonson
attributed to him (which also not coincidentally happen to be plays in
the exact style of his Plutarch's Lives and Dial of Princes) -- and
these plays were the original masterpieces that Shakespeare adapted
for the stage and then sold to printers with his name on the title
pages. No conspiracies. No secret cabals.
TR: And why did you leave out Sir John
> Oldcastle? It was published under Shakespeare's name in 1619; doesn't
> that prove he wrote it to you?
Dennis: Great point, as yes, I'm the one who does indeed take title
> that prove he wrote it to you?
pages seriously. But as I note in the book, it is possible there was
confusion over this play. There were two Oldcastle's that had been
penned in the late 1590's -- and Shakespeare did write one of them,
Munday much of the other. So there is a question of whether Pavier/
Jaggard may be confusing the two plays, especially since this
Oldcastle was originally printed as having been performed by the
Admiral's Men. Essentially, with all the other plays, as I show above,
they not only carry William Shakespeare's name but they were also
labelled as having been performed for his company. There's a very
good chance that Shakespeare did write this Oldcastle, but there
remains the possibility of an honest confusion so I removed it from
the list.
TR: > The big problem with anti-Stratfordian theorists is their
insistence
> that everything be neatly and unambiguously explained. Reality is not
> like that, which is the reason why they refuse to live in it when it
> comes to Shakespeare.
Dennis responds: Well, I guess when you have to rely on a dozen
> that everything be neatly and unambiguously explained. Reality is not
> like that, which is the reason why they refuse to live in it when it
> comes to Shakespeare.
different behind-the-scenes conspiracies, for which there is no
evidence, resulting in fraudulent title pages attributing the wrong
works to Shakespeare, then I imagine you would also have to believe
reality tends to be very ambiguous and very messy. ;)
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Jun 28, 2011, 5:36:47 PM6/28/11
to Forest of Arden
Alas, while Mr. Reedy often does make insightful comments, he cannot
seem to avoid the personal slights. Once again, here, he gets personal
and this time ends the discussion. That is unfortunate as I did enjoy
his intelligent and knowledgeable questioning. I'd like to summarize
now to ensure that every point of his has been addressed:
In between a string of personal comments, Reedy wrote the following:
1) He seemed to dismiss the point that Sogliardo represented
Shakespeare -- and used that fact as evidence that I do not understand
the war of the theaters. I pointed out that actually the
identification of Sogliardo as Shakespeare is quite conventional.
(Reedy did not respond.)
2) Reedy said: "No, I do not think that "many works 'by William
Shakespeare' were
penned by others...the works attributed to William Shakespeare of
I responded by giving a full list of twelve plays (thirteen if you
count Oldcastle) unambiguously attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620
that conventional scholars (and presumably Reedy himself) do not
believe were written by Shakespeare. This shows that they actually
think the majority of works "by William Shakespeare" were penned by
others. (Reedy did not respond.)
3) Reedy made the excellent point about Merchant of Venice, Much Ado,
Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, etc. This is addressed in my book, but in
brief, I point out that these were also staged adaptations of longer,
literary works -- just like Hamlet Q1, True Tragedy, The Contention,
Henry V Q1 -- which were attributed to Shakespeare. And these were
attributed to Shakespeare because that's what he wrote. He wrote
mediocre works like London Prodigal and staged adaptations, like Henry
V, Q1 and MoV. There were no conspiracies.
4) Reedy responded with a question whether I believe that Shakespeare
or North wrote other "bad quartos" by plays originally by Marlowe. I
don't think this was really a serious question. But I did respond,
noting that the other examples of "bad quartos" are explained in the
same simple, transparent way. No conspiracies. There's no reason to
think that either North or Shakespeare were involved in these as no
one ever attributed these works in them and their names are not on the
title pages. It's best just to accept what the documentation states.
Reedy ended, after the personal comment, by arguing, without reading
my book, that I used "specious arguments based on incomplete and
skewed
data." Exactly what data was "skewed" and what arguments were
"specious," he doesn't say. So I can't really defend the comment. Nor
does he explain why we should believe in all the conspiracies framing
Shakespeare for mediocre work.
All in all, I am very happy I got to be part of this discussion -- and
have a chance to duel with such an expert in this field as Tom
Reedy.
Cheers,
Dennis McCarthy
seem to avoid the personal slights. Once again, here, he gets personal
and this time ends the discussion. That is unfortunate as I did enjoy
his intelligent and knowledgeable questioning. I'd like to summarize
now to ensure that every point of his has been addressed:
In between a string of personal comments, Reedy wrote the following:
1) He seemed to dismiss the point that Sogliardo represented
Shakespeare -- and used that fact as evidence that I do not understand
the war of the theaters. I pointed out that actually the
identification of Sogliardo as Shakespeare is quite conventional.
(Reedy did not respond.)
2) Reedy said: "No, I do not think that "many works 'by William
Shakespeare' were
penned by others...the works attributed to William Shakespeare of
Stratford were for the most
part written by him."
I responded by giving a full list of twelve plays (thirteen if you
count Oldcastle) unambiguously attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620
that conventional scholars (and presumably Reedy himself) do not
believe were written by Shakespeare. This shows that they actually
think the majority of works "by William Shakespeare" were penned by
others. (Reedy did not respond.)
3) Reedy made the excellent point about Merchant of Venice, Much Ado,
Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, etc. This is addressed in my book, but in
brief, I point out that these were also staged adaptations of longer,
literary works -- just like Hamlet Q1, True Tragedy, The Contention,
Henry V Q1 -- which were attributed to Shakespeare. And these were
attributed to Shakespeare because that's what he wrote. He wrote
mediocre works like London Prodigal and staged adaptations, like Henry
V, Q1 and MoV. There were no conspiracies.
4) Reedy responded with a question whether I believe that Shakespeare
or North wrote other "bad quartos" by plays originally by Marlowe. I
don't think this was really a serious question. But I did respond,
noting that the other examples of "bad quartos" are explained in the
same simple, transparent way. No conspiracies. There's no reason to
think that either North or Shakespeare were involved in these as no
one ever attributed these works in them and their names are not on the
title pages. It's best just to accept what the documentation states.
Reedy ended, after the personal comment, by arguing, without reading
my book, that I used "specious arguments based on incomplete and
skewed
data." Exactly what data was "skewed" and what arguments were
"specious," he doesn't say. So I can't really defend the comment. Nor
does he explain why we should believe in all the conspiracies framing
Shakespeare for mediocre work.
All in all, I am very happy I got to be part of this discussion -- and
have a chance to duel with such an expert in this field as Tom
Reedy.
Cheers,
Dennis McCarthy
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Message has been deleted
0 new messages