inquest query
lowercase dave
set up to host an online inquest into the murder of Christopher
Marlowe, attended by several coroners. Although we didn't go as deeply
into the causes, etc. as has been done at HLAS, there was general
agreement that the circumstances and medical testimony were suspect.
The transcript was published online. But since very few, if any, in
this group are aol users, I thought it would be worthwhile to cast a
wider net.
So I'm wondering, would anyone in this group be willing to meet at the
same time and (cyber)space with some professional coroners to examine
the evidence of the CM's murder online? It would probably need to be
in the evening, here in the U.S. at say, 9 p.m. central time. This
would be in the wee hours of the morning in England, but surely a
hearty soul like Peter Farey rises early, though whether he'd agree to
participate is another matter. If having it at another time would gain
his participation, I'd adjust. Would anyone else? On June 1, a Sunday.
david more
p.s. i know i've been away for awhile and all, but I have a note from
my doctor. The only welcome back i get is from yogi buchon. True,
there are many new voices, and the quality of the posts is much
better, now that certain "mental defectives" are gone (but not all,
alas), and Farey continues to dazzle with his footwork and
counterpunches, the Rocky MARchiano of HLAS. Greg can correct me if I
have "the rock's" modus operandi wrong.
lowercase dave
nail out of the coffin. Farey fairly well demolishes the original
inquest anyway in his essay "Was Marlowe's Inquest Void"
<http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/inquest.htm>
Is this thing on?
David More
i've got my blog to keep me warm
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
Argo1871
>nail out of the coffin. Farey fairly well demolishes the original
>inquest anyway in his essay "Was Marlowe's Inquest Void"
><http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/inquest.htm>
>
>Is this thing on?
>
All Farey's essay shows (and claims to show) is that the inquest might have
been a little unusual. I don't see how that "demolishes" the findings of the
inquest.
As for why the local coroner didn't appear, I think it's a lot more likely that
he was in bed sick than that a conspiracy was afoot.
Richard Larsen
lowercase dave
Yes, "demolishes" is too strong a word to decribe what that particular
essay of Farey's does to the credibility of Danby's report of the
inquest into Marlowe's murder, but added to all the other, shall we
say, "unusual circumstances" of the proceedings...(see Peter's other
essay *Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End*
<http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm>) the truthfulness
of the inquest has been thoroughly eroded. Don't you agree?
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/daleyd.html>
argo...@aol.com (Argo1871) wrote in message news:<20030513140932...@mb-m29.aol.com>...
Argo1871
>Yes, "demolishes" is too strong a word to decribe what that particular
>essay of Farey's does to the credibility of Danby's report of the
>inquest into Marlowe's murder, but added to all the other, shall we
>say, "unusual circumstances" of the proceedings...(see Peter's other
>essay *Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End*
><http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm>) the truthfulness
>of the inquest has been thoroughly eroded. Don't you agree?
>
No. There is no real evidence that disputes the conclusion of the inquest, and
the story that the inquest relates is *far* more believable than all the other
competing versions put out by modern conspiracy theorists, almost none of whom
agree with each other.
>david more
><http://www.marlovian.com/blog/daleyd.html>
>
lowercase dave
have fodder for my "Marlowe Lives!" blog
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>.
Certainly the (factual and circumstantial) evidence that Farey has on
his Marlowe page is "real." And I'm confident that the majority of
"Marlovians" would go along with Peter. Maybe we should have that
online inquest after all. I feel certain that a jury of coroners
possessing Ph.D's in Elizabethan literature would find it more than
reasonable that the poet was alive in June, 1593 and shortly
afterwards would write the lengthy "Rape of Lucrece."
I say this because you wrote
> No. There is no real evidence that disputes the conclusion of the inquest, and
> the story that the inquest relates is *far* more believable than all the other
> competing versions put out by modern conspiracy theorists, almost none of whom
> agree with each other.
before that:
argo...@aol.com (Argo1871) wrote in message news:<20030514012643...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> >Richard,
> >Yes, "demolishes" is too strong a word to decribe what that particular
> >essay of Farey's does to the credibility of Danby's report of the
> >inquest into Marlowe's murder, but added to all the other, shall we
> >say, "unusual circumstances" of the proceedings...(see Peter's other
> >essay *Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End*
> ><http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm>) the truthfulness
> >of the inquest has been thoroughly eroded. Don't you agree?
> >
>
>
> >david more
> ><http://www.marlovian.com/blog/daleyd.html>
> >
bookburn
"lowercase dave" <graydo...@netscape.net> wrote in
message
news:545b95a7.03051...@posting.google.com...
> I have to disagree with you, Richard (If for no other
reason) so I'll
> have fodder for my "Marlowe Lives!" blog
> <http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>.
>
> Certainly the (factual and circumstantial) evidence that
Farey has on
> his Marlowe page is "real." And I'm confident that the
majority of
> "Marlovians" would go along with Peter. Maybe we should
have that
> online inquest after all. I feel certain that a jury of
coroners
> possessing Ph.D's in Elizabethan literature would find it
more than
> reasonable that the poet was alive in June, 1593 and
shortly
> afterwards would write the lengthy "Rape of Lucrece."
VA, which was registered 18 April 1593, has no author's name
on
the title page, but on the next page has "William
Shakespeare"
following the dedication. This was six weeks BEFORE M's
death on
May 30th of that year. bookburn
Argo1871
>have fodder for my "Marlowe Lives!" blog
><http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>.
>
>Certainly the (factual and circumstantial) evidence that Farey has on
>his Marlowe page is "real."
I read it, and thought it was all pretty speculative. So we're on the same
page, could you point out the stuff you regard as "real evidence" that refutes
the inquest's conclusions?
And I'm confident that the majority of
>"Marlovians" would go along with Peter.
I don't know who these Marlovians are. I have heard a mess of conspiracy
theories from those who doubt the inquest. Some accept that Marlowe was killed
in 1593, while others think that he faked his death. For those who think he
was killed, I've heard theories blaming it on, variously, Sir Walter Ralegh,
the Earl of Essex, the Queen of England, and Audrey Walsingham. Those he think
he survived have argued that he went on to France, or committed suicide in
Scadbury, and/or wrote the works of Shakespeare --- a pretty marvelous
achievement, since Shakespeare's earliest published work precedes Marlowe's
death. It seems like a big cacophanous mess to me.
Maybe we should have that
>online inquest after all. I feel certain that a jury of coroners
>possessing Ph.D's in Elizabethan literature would find it more than
>reasonable that the poet was alive in June, 1593 and shortly
>afterwards would write the lengthy "Rape of Lucrece."
>
Sounds like a waste of time to me. One, I don't see what business an English
professor has pretending to be a coroner. Two, there's little to analyze. The
inquest simply reports the conclusions of Coroner Danby and the local jury,
adding some supplementary details. With no crime scene photos, no toxicology
reports, nothing at all new, what basis is there to revise the conclusions
reached by those who actually saw and touched the body, and spoke to witnesses?
Third, Christopher Marlowe was buried in the Deptford churchyard on 1 June
1593, making it rather unlikely that he was writing anything, lengthy or short.
Richard Larsen
KQKnave
(Argo1871) writes:
>Sounds like a waste of time to me. One, I don't see what business an English
>professor has pretending to be a coroner. Two, there's little to analyze.
>The
>inquest simply reports the conclusions of Coroner Danby and the local jury,
>adding some supplementary details. With no crime scene photos, no toxicology
>reports, nothing at all new, what basis is there to revise the conclusions
>reached by those who actually saw and touched the body, and spoke to
>witnesses?
> Third, Christopher Marlowe was buried in the Deptford churchyard on 1 June
>1593, making it rather unlikely that he was writing anything, lengthy or
>short.
>
Hahahahahahah!!! Good one, Richard! If you think your common sense
is going to have ANY effect on the wacks who post here, think again,
because it doesn't matter what the facts are. The only thing that
matters is what they want to believe, the facts are just slight
inconveniences to be bent and prodded into the shapes that they desire.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Bob Grumman
>>professor has pretending to be a coroner. Two, there's little to analyze.
>>The
>>inquest simply reports the conclusions of Coroner Danby and the local jury,
>>adding some supplementary details. With no crime scene photos, no toxicology
>>reports, nothing at all new, what basis is there to revise the conclusions
>>reached by those who actually saw and touched the body, and spoke to
>>witnesses?
>> Third, Christopher Marlowe was buried in the Deptford churchyard on 1 June
>>1593, making it rather unlikely that he was writing anything, lengthy or
>>short.
>>
>
>Hahahahahahah!!! Good one, Richard! If you think your common sense
>is going to have ANY effect on the wacks who post here, think again,
>because it doesn't matter what the facts are. The only thing that
>matters is what they want to believe, the facts are just slight
>inconveniences to be bent and prodded into the shapes that they desire.
Oh, come now, JimKQKnave. All you people have is the fact that certain people
testified that Marlowe died in Deptford, and a complete absence of any other
facts from the time, such as a record of someone's doubting this, that indicate
that he did not. What kind of case is that?!
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
guess, Prof. Jonathan Bate made the same mistake in the *Much Ado
About Something* documentary...) The title page did not appear until
early JUNE -- AFTER CM shuffled off to mortalcoilville!
I say this because you wrote:
> VA, which was registered 18 April 1593, has no author's name
> on
> the title page, but on the next page has "William
> Shakespeare"
> following the dedication. This was six weeks BEFORE M's
> death on
> May 30th of that year. bookburn
and before that...
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vc7c14o...@corp.supernews.com>...
Terry Ross
> bookburn dude--you got your facts wrong (you're in good company, i
> guess, Prof. Jonathan Bate made the same mistake in the *Much Ado
> About Something* documentary...) The title page did not appear until
> early JUNE -- AFTER CM shuffled off to mortalcoilville!
Why do you say that? *Venus and Adonis* was registered on April 18.
Marlowe was killed on May 30. Less than two weeks later, Richard Stonley
bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis* and noted in his account book both the
date (June 12) and the work's author ("Shakspere"). There is no author's
name on the title page (as you have been told), but Shakespeare's name
does appear as a signature to the dedication.
*Venus and Adonis* appeared sometime in the 8 weeks between the book's
registration and Stonley's purchase. Marlowe was alive for about 3/4 of
that period, so he well may have been alive when the book appeared.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
bookburn
the handbook (Bentley, Shakespeare: a Biographical
Handbook):
1. VA was entered in the Stationers' Register by the
printer on 18 April 1593 and printed the same year.
2. On the dedication following the title page he signs his
name, "Shakespeare."
3. A number of Shakespeare's plays had been written and
performed before this dedication was composed, but none had
been published.
4. It is likely that Shakespeare had written the poem
during the preceding nine or ten months when plague had
closed all the theaters. VA and RL are more free of error
than any other printed works of Shakespeare, an indication
that he for them carefully read proof.
5. The publisher and printer of VA, Richard Field, who also
printed RL and the sonnets, was formerly from Stratford,
presumably not likely to mistake Stratman for someone else.
6. Not only do VA and RL both present a dedication signed
by Shakespeare but both are dedicated to the same man.
My source says nothing about late arrival of the dedication
page in June, as you and others sometimes allege, and I've
forgotten the proof for that. Please refresh the record,
unless this must be an illusive part of the shadowy haunt of
the mysteriously ever-living Marlowe.
bookburn
lowercase dave
it appears that Bentley was misleading on point #2, since the book
didn't come out until June (probably) although Ross claims that it
could have come out before Marlowe died, and I won't disagree, but
with no name on the title page, only appended to the dedication to
CM's fellow Cambridge alum, Wriothesley. In any case, NOT in April.
You know the rest.
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vcamv0o...@corp.supernews.com>...
KQKnave
<tr...@bcpl.net> writes:
>Less than two weeks later
"less than two months later", according to Schoenbaum, CDL p175.
bookburn
the name of William Shakespeare was added later. I don't
know "the rest" or why "not in April." Are you making that
up? bb
lowercase dave
i didn't say "added later" i said "appended to the dedication" but I
meant in space not time, maybe should have used "signed" instead.
also i didn't say "not in april," but did say "probably june," but am
quite comfortable with April, if anyone has evidence that it was
actually in print that soon after being registered. The first mention
of it (correct me if i'm wrong, terry ross) was in stonely's diary,
about early june.
pretty basic stuff, in Schoenbaum and other bios.
david more
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vcbh24i...@corp.supernews.com>...
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.03...@mail.bcpl.net>, Terry Ross
> <tr...@bcpl.net> writes:
>
> >Less than two weeks later
>
> "less than two months later", according to Schoenbaum, CDL p175.
>
Less than two months after *Venus and Adonis* was registered; less that
two WEEKS after Marlowe was killed -- which is what I said:
> *Venus and Adonis* was registered on April 18. Marlowe was killed on May
> 30. Less than two weeks later, Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus
> and Adonis* and noted in his account book both the date (June 12) and
> the work's author ("Shakspere").
For the benefit of those who wonder why the chronology may matter -- the
Marlite point is supposed to be that the name of Shakespeare was invented
after Marlowe's (they believe non-) death. They assume that "Marlowe's"
*Venus and Adonis* was about to be published either with Marlowe listed as
the author or with no author mentioned at all, but after Marlowe's death,
Shakespeare's name was inserted as part of a conspiracy-so-vast. One
problem with this line of (let us not call it) reasoning is that it
assumes that *Venus and Adonis* was printed after Marlowe's death. We
don't know exactly when it was printed, but it had to have been in the 8
weeks between the book's registration and Stonley's purchase. Marlowe
died 3/4 of the way through that 8-week period.
lowercase dave
i said it because bookburn thought the name william shakespeare
appeared in April 18, whereas only the title of book was registered,
as everyone in this group knows. It was the date I quibbled with. When
do YOU think V&A was printed Terry? I think it was June because
Stonley would have snapped up a handsomely produced new book like that
as soon as it came out, don't you think?
anyone can see the name isn't on the title page here -->
<http://vallance22.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/vanda1593.jpg>
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
Bob Grumman
>For the benefit of those who wonder why the chronology may matter -- the
>Marlite point is supposed to be that the name of Shakespeare was invented
>after Marlowe's (they believe non-) death. They assume that "Marlowe's"
>*Venus and Adonis* was about to be published either with Marlowe listed as
>the author or with no author mentioned at all, but after Marlowe's death,
>Shakespeare's name was inserted as part of a conspiracy-so-vast. One
>problem with this line of (let us not call it) reasoning is that it
>assumes that *Venus and Adonis* was printed after Marlowe's death. We
>don't know exactly when it was printed, but it had to have been in the 8
>weeks between the book's registration and Stonley's purchase. Marlowe
>died 3/4 of the way through that 8-week period.
The whole line of reasoning is dopey because (1) if Marlowe's death was faked,
the conspirators could easily have put his new name into currency before the
faking of his death' indeed, that would have been the most logical thing to do
to further the deception; (2) the name Shakespeare was obviously already being
used since Greene referred in 1592 to an actor (as Will Shakespeare of Stratford
was) whose name was associated as a writer with a work later appearing with
Shakespeare's name on it, and referred to him as a "Shake-scene."
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>appeared in April 18, whereas only the title of book was registered,
>as everyone in this group knows. It was the date I quibbled with. When
>do YOU think V&A was printed Terry? I think it was June because
>Stonley would have snapped up a handsomely produced new book like that
>as soon as it came out, don't you think?
You think he visited the booksellers daily? And always had the cash on hand to
buy new books?
One interesting question occurred to me: how soon after a book's publication
date was the book actually available to the public? Surely not the very day of
printing.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
>On Fri, 17 May 2003, KQKnave wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.03...@mail.bcpl.net>, Terry Ross
>> <tr...@bcpl.net> writes:
>>
>> >Less than two weeks later
>>
>> "less than two months later", according to Schoenbaum, CDL p175.
>>
>
>Less than two months after *Venus and Adonis* was registered; less that
>two WEEKS after Marlowe was killed -- which is what I said:
>
>> *Venus and Adonis* was registered on April 18. Marlowe was killed on May
>> 30. Less than two weeks later, Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus
>> and Adonis* and noted in his account book both the date (June 12) and
>> the work's author ("Shakspere").
Unless I'm missing something, what you say in the above paragraph is
that Stonley bought a copy less than two weeks later (two weeks after
Marlowe was killed), when it should say "Less than two months later,
Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis*...." etc. Not
a big deal.
Terry Ross
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.03...@mail.bcpl.net>, Terry Ross
> <tr...@bcpl.net> writes:
>
> >On Fri, 17 May 2003, KQKnave wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.03...@mail.bcpl.net>, Terry Ross
> >> <tr...@bcpl.net> writes:
> >>
> >> >Less than two weeks later
> >>
> >> "less than two months later", according to Schoenbaum, CDL p175.
> >>
> >
> >Less than two months after *Venus and Adonis* was registered; less that
> >two WEEKS after Marlowe was killed -- which is what I said:
> >
> >> *Venus and Adonis* was registered on April 18. Marlowe was killed on May
> >> 30. Less than two weeks later, Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus
> >> and Adonis* and noted in his account book both the date (June 12) and
> >> the work's author ("Shakspere").
>
> Unless I'm missing something, what you say in the above paragraph is
> that Stonley bought a copy less than two weeks later (two weeks after
> Marlowe was killed), when it should say "Less than two months later,
> Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis*...." etc. Not
> a big deal.
It is not a big deal, I may not be making myself clear. Marlowe died on
May 30. Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis* on June 12. June 12
came thirteen days after May 30. Thirteen days is less than two weeks.
Argal, it is correct to say, as I did,
> Marlowe was killed on May 30. Less than two weeks later, Richard
> Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis* and noted in his account
> book both the date (June 12) and the work's author ("Shakspere").
Of course, thirteen days is also less than two months, or two years or two
centuries, but the "less than two months" period that Schoenbaum was
referring to is the gap between April 18, when *Venus and Adonis* was
registered, and June 12, when Stonley bought his copy. Marlowe lived for
some six weeks AFTER *Venus and Adonis* was registered but died some two
weeks BEFORE Stonley made his purchase.
*Venus and Adonis* was printed sometime during the EIGHT WEEKS between the
books registration and Stonley's purchase. It could have been printed
during the SIX WEEKS before Marlowe's death or the TWO WEEKS after his
death; we can't fix the time more precisely than that. There is no reason
to think there was any connection between Marlowe's death and the printing
of *Venus and Adonis*, but the absence of a reason is no bar to
antistratfordian claims.
lowercase dave
nom de plume "William Shakespeare" was invented....Nor does it matter
(to the enlightened Marlight case) if it was published BEFORE CM
allegedly got stabbed.
For that matter, the Dedication could even have been written before
his sudden end (a last minute thing before boarding the boat, or
swimming, across the channel). Whenever he wrote to Wriothesley, he
must have been aware of his "death" (recent or impending), since he
left a glaring clue, promising Essex's protege, Wriothesley, a "graver
labor." (Young Henry was a lawless maverick of a nobleman in those
days: the year after Marlowe was sent packing, Henry helped the
murderer Danver flee to Europe to escape legal prosecution.) And that
kind of dark wordplay was EXACTLY what you might expect from writer of
Marlowe's bravado and brilliance, as he demonstrates in *Hero and
Leander*
But when he [Neptune] knew it was not Ganimed,
For underwater he [Leander] was almost dead,
He heav'd him up, and looking on his face,
Beat downe the bold waves with his triple mace,
Which mounted up, intending to have kist him,
And fell in drops like teares, because they mist him.
*missed* (as in a lover missing the beloved) *missed* (as in the waves
missing a direct hit on his face and become the third meaning), *mist*
(as in fine spray of water).
A triple play on words. So when Marlowe wrote to Wriothesley about
performing a "graver labor" in his spare time, he was being darkly
humorous, leaving the first(?) of many clues of his "posthumous"
literary existence.
david more
p.s. Peace, Stratfordians, spare me, I know: It was William of
Stratford promising a more serious work in rime royal to his esteemed
patron....Whatever you say. :)
i like this explanation so well, i'm going to add it to my blog, here
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.55.03...@mail.bcpl.net>...
> For the benefit of those who wonder why the chronology may matter -- the
Terry Ross
> yo, book, don't burn me
> i didn't say "added later" i said "appended to the dedication" but I
> meant in space not time, maybe should have used "signed" instead.
>
> also i didn't say "not in april," but did say "probably june," but am
> quite comfortable with April, if anyone has evidence that it was
> actually in print that soon after being registered. The first mention of
> it (correct me if i'm wrong, terry ross) was in stonely's diary, about
> early june.
What you said was "The title page did not appear until early JUNE -- AFTER
CM shuffled off to mortalcoilville!" It may be that the title page,
along with the rest of *Venus and Adonis*, did not appear until early
June, but it could have appeared in late April or during May. We don't
know. Marlowe was alive for 3/4 of the period that elapsed between the
book's registration and Stonley's purchase; it could well have been
printed while he was alive.
>
> pretty basic stuff, in Schoenbaum and other bios.
Marlites sometimes suggest that the absence of Shakespeare's name on the
title page is mysterious, and somehow or other raises a question whether
Shakespeare actually wrote the thing. Clearly Stonley knew that the
author's dedication, signed by the author, indicated who the author was.
Similarly, Samuel Daniel's *Delia* did not bear the author's name on the
title page, but the work's dedication was signed by the author -- see
Spenser's *Faerie Queene* for another example. Not only did Marlowe not
write *Venus and Adonis*, he didn't write *Delia* or *The Faerie Queene*.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
KQKnave
>> >> *Venus and Adonis* was registered on April 18. Marlowe was killed on May
>> >> 30. Less than two weeks later, Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus
>> >> and Adonis* and noted in his account book both the date (June 12) and
>> >> the work's author ("Shakspere").
>>
>> Unless I'm missing something, what you say in the above paragraph is
>> that Stonley bought a copy less than two weeks later (two weeks after
>> Marlowe was killed), when it should say "Less than two months later,
>> Richard Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis*...." etc. Not
>> a big deal.
>
>
>It is not a big deal, I may not be making myself clear. Marlowe died on
>May 30. Stonley bought a copy of *Venus and Adonis* on June 12. June 12
>came thirteen days after May 30. Thirteen days is less than two weeks.
>Argal, it is correct to say, as I did,
No, you made yourself clear, sorry I made you type so much. For some
reason my brain was fixated on the April 18 - Jun 12 dates. Duh.
Peter Farey
Terry Ross wrote:
>
> What you said was "The title page did not appear until early
> JUNE -- AFTER CM shuffled off to mortalcoilville!" It may
> be that the title page, along with the rest of *Venus and
> Adonis*, did not appear until early June, but it could have
> appeared in late April or during May. We don't know.
> Marlowe was alive for 3/4 of the period that elapsed between
> the book's registration and Stonley's purchase; it could well
> have been printed while he was alive.
It seems to me that both sides of the argument need to make sure
that they get their facts right, and present them in a way that
avoids any ambiguity. A perfect example of both getting it wrong
is in Mike Rubbo's film "Much Ado About Something", in his
interview with Jonathan Bate.
Bate: Reasons why Marlowe *couldn't* have written the works of
Shakespeare: One is that a major plank in the Hoffman argument
is that Shakespeare's name as a writer only emerges in public
after Marlowe's death. The argument is that *Venus & Adonis*,
with the name Shakespeare on the title page, is published soon
after, and so that's how the alias emerges. But the chronology
simply doesn't work then, because *Venus & Adonis* was already
written and entered in the Stationers' Register as being by
Shakespeare.
Rubbo: But anonymously. In fact it was entered anonymously and
only had the name put onto it after Marlowe's death.
Bate: Are you sure about that?
Rubbo: Sure. Absolutely sure. That's a major plank of the other
side's argument.
Bate is obviously wrong to say that it was "entered in the
Stationers' Register as being by Shakespeare", as no author's
name appears there, and Rubbo is right to pick him up on this.
Where he himself then goes off the rails too, however, is by
going on to say that it "only had the name put onto it after
Marlowe's death". As Terry has been saying, we don't know that.
I tried to state it as accurately as possible in my essay
"A Deception at Deptford", where I said:"Less than two weeks
after the killing, the first copy of *Venus and Adonis* that we
know of was bought, with a dedication by William Shakespeare...",
and (sorry Bob) that "this publication was indeed the very first
time that the name Shakespeare had been mentioned in connection
with poetry". Even then I may have been slightly misleading,
however, by not referring to the date of its registration.
In this context, therefore, I also think that Terry & Dave are
wrong to include in their "Chronological list of references
to Shakespeare as an author/poet/playwright" the first entry:
1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
"William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
(printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
The record of the signature would far more appropriately (if
still not absolutely correct) appear in the next record:
1593 (Entry in account book of Richard Stonley, for his purchase
of Venus and Adonis and Survey of France; June 12)
"Shakspere"
(handwritten; Richard Stonley) (SS, 131, with facs.)
The way it is shown at the moment gives a clear but entirely
erroneous impression that there is a record of William Shake-
speare "as an author/poet/playwright" dated 18th April 1593,
which, as we all know by now, there is not.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Bob Grumman
>"A Deception at Deptford", where I said:"Less than two weeks
>after the killing, the first copy of *Venus and Adonis* that we
>know of was bought, with a dedication by William Shakespeare...",
>and (sorry Bob) that "this publication was indeed the very first
>time that the name Shakespeare had been mentioned in connection
>with poetry".
Sorry, Peter, but if you want to be accurate, you have to say that "this
publication is the earliest record that has come to us that explicitly connects
the name, "William Shakespeare," to poetry. The Groatsworth makes it quite
obvious that the name "Shakespeare" was already being used by an actor/writer
(since it would be absurd for an actor to boast that he could declaim something
as well as any non-acting playwright could).
>Even then I may have been slightly misleading,
>however, by not referring to the date of its registration.
>
>In this context, therefore, I also think that Terry & Dave are
>wrong to include in their "Chronological list of references
>to Shakespeare as an author/poet/playwright" the first entry:
>
>1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
>The record of the signature would far more appropriately (if
>still not absolutely correct) appear in the next record:
>
>1593 (Entry in account book of Richard Stonley, for his purchase
> of Venus and Adonis and Survey of France; June 12)
> "Shakspere"
> (handwritten; Richard Stonley) (SS, 131, with facs.)
>The way it is shown at the moment gives a clear but entirely
>erroneous impression that there is a record of William Shake-
>speare "as an author/poet/playwright" dated 18th April 1593,
>which, as we all know by now, there is not.
>Peter F.
Were books registered anonymously?
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
Actually, this is in response to Peter; his post has not yet appeared on
my usenet reader, but Bob's reply has. Peter has found something that
probably needs changing, but not the thing he thinks he has found.
[snip]
> >
> >In this context, therefore, I also think that Terry & Dave are
> >wrong to include in their "Chronological list of references
> >to Shakespeare as an author/poet/playwright" the first entry:
> >
> >1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
> >
Does the name "William Shakespeare" appear in the signature to the
dedication? Yes. Can we date the printing of *Venus and Adonis*? It
appeared no earlier than April 18, 1593. The entry does NOT say that the
name of Shakespeare appears in the SR entry. Contrast that with
this item from the list:
1600 (Stationer's Register entry for Henry the Fourth, Part Two and
Much Ado About Nothing)
"master Shakespere"
(handwritten) (EKC I, 377)
In this case the Stationer's Register entry is the item that contains
Shakespeare's name. While two plays are mentioned, Shakespeare's name
appears only once in this entry, so this is a single item on the list.
> >The record of the signature would far more appropriately (if
> >still not absolutely correct) appear in the next record:
> >
No it would not. The entry you object to reflects the fact that
Shakespeare's name was PRINTED as a signature to the dedication of *Venus
and Adonis*.
> >1593 (Entry in account book of Richard Stonley, for his purchase
> > of Venus and Adonis and Survey of France; June 12)
> > "Shakspere"
> > (handwritten; Richard Stonley) (SS, 131, with facs.)
>
The Stonley entry is for his HANDWRITTEN record of his purchase of a work
by "Shakspere." The work itself, which bore Shakespeare's name in PRINT,
and which had to have been printed before Stonley made his notation, is
not to be identified with Stonley's account book.
> >The way it is shown at the moment gives a clear but entirely
> >erroneous impression that there is a record of William Shake-
> >speare "as an author/poet/playwright" dated 18th April 1593,
> >which, as we all know by now, there is not.
>
The signature to *Venus and Adonis* is a separate reference to Shakespeare
as a poet from Stonley's note, and is listed as such. When Shakespeare's
name appears in the Stationer's Register for a work, that Register entry
is a separate instance from any appearance of Shakespeare's name in the
printed work itself. Had Shakespeare's name appeared in the Stationer's
Register in the April 18, 1593, entry for *Venus and Adonis* there would
have been a separate entry for it.
I suppose the list could be changed so that only dates, and not years were
given for Stationer's register entries. Thus we would delete the date
from this one:
1604 (From Epigrames by John Cooke; registered May 22)
"Shakespeare"
(printed) (EKC II, 212)
But who, exactly is harmed by our listing the date for the registration of
Cooke's *Epigrams*? I suppose those who do not know the difference
between Cooke's work and the Register might be, but I doubt many of them
are looking at the list.
On the other hand, there are some Stationer's Register entries for which
we do NOT give dates. The entry for *Henry the Fourth, Part Two* and
*Much Ado About Nothing* is dated "23 Augusti," and it would make sense to
add the date to the information in the list. Here's another one:
1607 (Stationer's Register entry for King Lear)
"Mr. William Shakespeare"
(handwritten) (EKC I, 463; facs. SS, 202)
The entry as given in Chambers is dated "26 Novembris," but the full date
does not appear on the list. For the sake of consistency, the list should
probably included full SR dates when we have them.
Thank you, Peter, for drawing our attention to an inconsistency I had
never noticed.
Peter Farey
Terry Ross wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > In this context, therefore, I also think that Terry & Dave are
> > wrong to include in their "Chronological list of references
> > to Shakespeare as an author/poet/playwright" the first entry:
> >
> > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
> Does the name "William Shakespeare" appear in the signature to
> the dedication? Yes. Can we date the printing of *Venus and
> Adonis*? It appeared no earlier than April 18, 1593. The
> entry does NOT say that the name of Shakespeare appears in the
> SR entry.
It is misleading. Most people reading the words as they stand
would assume that the name William Shakespeare first appeared
on that date. I take your point about the two different
documents where the name appeared, however, so (should you wish
to avoid any possible misunderstanding) may I suggest that the
entry would be clearer if you replaced it with something like:
1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
"William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
(Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
I suggest such an expanded entry only in the case of this item
because of its obvious relevance to the authorship issue, which
is the main *raison d'etre* of your site. I will also fully
understand, therefore, if you are not particularly concerned
that people might misread it in such a way!
Bob Grumman
>would assume that the name William Shakespeare first appeared
>on that date.
I agree with Terry that most of the people who would read that entry would
assume no such thing.
>I take your point about the two different
>documents where the name appeared, however, so (should you wish
>to avoid any possible misunderstanding) may I suggest that the
>entry would be clearer if you replaced it with something like:
>
>1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
I agree.
>I suggest such an expanded entry only in the case of this item
>because of its obvious relevance to the authorship issue, which
>is the main *raison d'etre* of your site. I will also fully
>understand, therefore, if you are not particularly concerned
>that people might misread it in such a way!
>
>Peter F.
Why do you consider your last insinuation not an insult equal to my calling
people insane, Peter? I know you mean it light-heartedly, but it is an
accusation of dishonesty.
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > > In this context, therefore, I also think that Terry & Dave are
> > > wrong to include in their "Chronological list of references
> > > to Shakespeare as an author/poet/playwright" the first entry:
> > >
> > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
> >
> > Does the name "William Shakespeare" appear in the signature to
> > the dedication? Yes. Can we date the printing of *Venus and
> > Adonis*? It appeared no earlier than April 18, 1593. The
> > entry does NOT say that the name of Shakespeare appears in the
> > SR entry.
>
> It is misleading. Most people reading the words as they stand
> would assume that the name William Shakespeare first appeared
> on that date.
The list has been available for years; no such misreading has yet
happened, to the best of my knowledge. The *Venus and Adonis* entries
have been posted to this newslist several times over the years, and nobody
that I know of has misread them even in that concentrated context.
> I take your point about the two different documents where the name
> appeared,
The list is of INSTANCES of Shakespeare's name. If his name had appeared
twice in the same document, both instances would have been listed.
> however, so (should you wish to avoid any possible misunderstanding)
Oh, I'm sure a talented person could will himself to misunderstand just
about anything if he put his mind to it. I doubt one could avoid "any
possible" misunderstanding.
> may I suggest that the
> entry would be clearer if you replaced it with something like:
>
> 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
> I suggest such an expanded entry only in the case of this item
> because of its obvious relevance to the authorship issue, which
> is the main *raison d'etre* of your site. I will also fully
> understand, therefore, if you are not particularly concerned
> that people might misread it in such a way!
Nobody has misread it yet, so far as I know. Would you like to be the
first? Every item on the two lists has an "obvious relevance" to the
spelling of Shakespeare's name, which is why the lists were compiled in
the first place. I think it is important in such things to use a
consistent format throughout; you are free to disagree. It would distort
the list to flag certain items merely because Oxfordians or Marlites woke
up one morning and said "this one is the key!" References are given for
each item, so that readers may consult the lists' sources.
By the way, "Registered anonymously" IS misleading.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > It is misleading. Most people reading the words as they stand
> > would assume that the name William Shakespeare first appeared
> > on that date.
>
> I agree with Terry that most of the people who would read that
> entry would assume no such thing.
Then we must agree to differ. As there is only the one date given,
there is the clear implication that it was upon this date that the
spelling of the name in this way first occurred.
> > I take your point about the two different
> > documents where the name appeared, however, so (should you wish
> > to avoid any possible misunderstanding) may I suggest that the
> > entry would be clearer if you replaced it with something like:
> >
> > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> > was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> > first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
> I agree.
Thank you.
> > I suggest such an expanded entry only in the case of this item
> > because of its obvious relevance to the authorship issue, which
> > is the main *raison d'etre* of your site. I will also fully
> > understand, therefore, if you are not particularly concerned
> > people might misread it in such a way!
> Why do you consider your last insinuation not an insult equal
> to my calling people insane, Peter? I know you mean it light-
> heartedly, but it is an accusation of dishonesty.
It was not intended to be. Crafty, perhaps; dishonest, no.
I believe that you should always tell the truth and nothing but
the truth (unless it is clear that what you are saying is in
jest, of course, as with sarcasm). I do not, however, think it
necessarily dishonest to fail to tell the *whole* truth. In
fact for the truly honest person this can sometimes be the
only sensible course open to them.
As regards calling people insane. My main objection is the lack
of sensitivity shown towards those suffering the effects of real
mental illness, either their own or that of someone close to them.
Peter Farey
Terry Ross wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > > In this context, therefore, I also think that Terry & Dave are
> > > > wrong to include in their "Chronological list of references
> > > > to Shakespeare as an author/poet/playwright" the first entry:
> > > >
> > > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
> > >
> > > Does the name "William Shakespeare" appear in the signature to
> > > the dedication? Yes. Can we date the printing of *Venus and
> > > Adonis*? It appeared no earlier than April 18, 1593. The
> > > entry does NOT say that the name of Shakespeare appears in the
> > > SR entry.
> >
> > It is misleading. Most people reading the words as they stand
> > would assume that the name William Shakespeare first appeared
> > on that date.
>
> The list has been available for years; no such misreading has
> yet happened, to the best of my knowledge. The *Venus and Adonis*
> entries have been posted to this newslist several times over the
> years, and nobody that I know of has misread them even in that
> concentrated context.
This was said in the context of an apparent confusion on both
sides as to facts. I felt that this entry would tend to add to
that confusion rather than diminish it, and pointed that out.
> > I take your point about the two different documents where the name
> > appeared,
>
> The list is of INSTANCES of Shakespeare's name. If his name had
> appeared twice in the same document, both instances would have
> been listed.
Yes, I do understand that. I was simply referring to your words:
"The work itself, which bore Shakespeare's name in PRINT,
and which had to have been printed before Stonley made
his notation, is not to be identified with Stonley's
account book."
> > however, so (should you wish to avoid any possible misunderstanding)
>
> Oh, I'm sure a talented person could will himself to misunderstand just
> about anything if he put his mind to it. I doubt one could avoid "any
> possible" misunderstanding.
I shall try to avoid such cliches in future.
> > may I suggest that the
> > entry would be clearer if you replaced it with something like:
> >
> > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> > was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> > first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
> >
> > I suggest such an expanded entry only in the case of this item
> > because of its obvious relevance to the authorship issue, which
> > is the main *raison d'etre* of your site. I will also fully
> > understand, therefore, if you are not particularly concerned
> > that people might misread it in such a way!
>
> Nobody has misread it yet, so far as I know. Would you like to be the
> first? Every item on the two lists has an "obvious relevance" to the
> spelling of Shakespeare's name, which is why the lists were compiled in
> the first place. I think it is important in such things to use a
> consistent format throughout; you are free to disagree. It would distort
> the list to flag certain items merely because Oxfordians or Marlites woke
> up one morning and said "this one is the key!" References are given for
> each item, so that readers may consult the lists' sources.
Yes Terry. I fully understand, as I said I would.
> By the way, "Registered anonymously" IS misleading.
True. "...when it was registered - without the author's name -"?
Lorenzo4344
>From: "Peter Farey" Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk
>Date: 5/20/2003
>As regards calling people insane. My main objection is the lack
>of sensitivity shown towards those suffering the effects of real
>mental illness, either their own or that of someone close to them.
I am sure Bob and his ilk assume we all know that they are just being
hilariously funny. They are impressively wacky guys that way.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
lowercase dave
item on his website
> > > > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > > > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > > > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
Which implies that the name WS was in print on April 18, 1593.
In fact, it was Bookburn's confusion earlier in this thread that
spawned the discussion:
"VA, which was registered 18 April 1593, has no author's name
on the title page, but on the next page has "William Shakespeare"
following the dedication. This was six weeks BEFORE M's death on May
30th of that year."
Bookburn apparently believed that the name appeared six weeks before
CM's alleged death. Who knows how many more have thought so because of
the crafty way the information is presented (including possibly Prof.
Jonathan Bate, who got it wrong in Mike Rubbo's documentary).
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/>.
Will Terry change the listing, so it's not misleading? Peter's sounds
good,
> > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> > > was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> > > first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
Maybe Bob Grumman could offer an improvement. Or Terry.
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
context:
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<baf6oj$2js$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
bookburn
I assume you are led to confusion not by the above record
but by ambiguities you choose to believe support a ghostly
mystery. First entered ambiguously and the author's name
not on the title page but the dedication page, therefore the
dedication page was added later? This contention is not
supported by evidence, apparently; at least none you bring
forth. It seems at least as logical to simply assume the
dedication page was present at the time of registration.
The good news is that Ross and Farey have sorted out
ambiguities in how we reference the record, so I suggest we
not infer too much except as armchair speculation.
bookburn
Terry Ross
> Terry Ross claims that no one has been confused by the following list
> item on his website
No one has, to the best of my knowledge.
>
> > > > > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
> > > > > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > > > > (printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
> Which implies that the name WS was in print on April 18, 1593.
>
No it does not. There are consistent conventions used on the list that
careful readers will understand.
> In fact, it was Bookburn's confusion earlier in this thread that
> spawned the discussion:
>
Actually, archy, it was YOUR confusion that prompted me to post on this.
You said,
> > bookburn dude--you got your facts wrong (you're in good company, i
> > guess, Prof. Jonathan Bate made the same mistake in the *Much Ado
> > About Something* documentary...) The title page did not appear until
> > early JUNE -- AFTER CM shuffled off to mortalcoilville!
I do not know where you got this misinformation, but it could not have
come from the Shakespeare Authorship page. Nor could it have come from an
examination of *Venus and Adonis*.
> "VA, which was registered 18 April 1593, has no author's name on the
> title page, but on the next page has "William Shakespeare" following the
> dedication. This was six weeks BEFORE M's death on May 30th of that
> year."
>
And you thought the title page was added in June. I don't know whether
the list on the Shakespeare Authorship site was even consulted; the entry
for *Venus and Adonis* does not say on which page the dedication appears.
> Bookburn apparently believed that the name appeared six weeks before
> CM's alleged death.
Perhaps he did, perhaps he did not; perhaps he looked at the list, but he
also looked elsewhere. In any case, we all know the story now, do we not?
1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis; registered April 18)
"William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
(printed by Richard Field) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
1593 (Entry in account book of Richard Stonley, for his purchase of
Venus and Adonis and Survey of France; June 12)
"Shakspere"
(handwritten; Richard Stonley) (SS, 131, with facs.)
> Who knows how many more have thought so because of the crafty way the
> information is presented (including possibly Prof. Jonathan Bate, who
> got it wrong in Mike Rubbo's documentary).
I taped that when it was broadcast, but haven't seen it yet.
> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muchado/>.
I do not know that ANYBODY misread the items.
> Will Terry change the listing, so it's not misleading?
I do not accept that it is misleading; I do not deny that it could be
wilfully misread. I don't see any point in changing the format of the
pages for the sake of a single item that Marlites, either from ignorance
or a desire to deceive, may choose to misrepresent. The information on
the list is accurate.
> Peter's sounds good,
>
> > > > 1593 (Q1 Venus and Adonis)
> > > > "William Shakespeare" (signature to dedication)
> > > > (Printed by Richard Field between 18 April, when it
> > > > was registered anonymously, and 12 June, when it is
> > > > first known to have been purchased) (Poems, 3, 5, 369)
>
Now this WOULD be misleading. Of course, there is nothing to prevent
anyone from preparing his or her own lists.
>
> Maybe Bob Grumman could offer an improvement. Or Terry.
>
I have, with Dave Kathman's agreement, made a few changes to his
"Chronological list of references to Shakespeare as an
author/poet/playwright" at http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/name3.html
Where the list had indicated only years for SR entries, and where Chambers
gives full dates, I have added the full dates. This makes the list more
consistent and provides a bit more information for some items.
lowercase dave
the statement wherein the confusion was revealed. I thought I was
helping you out. I did claim that the name didn't appear until June
(which the evidence supports--Stonley had the reputation of an avid
book buyer, and a hot ticket like *Venus & Adonis*, would not stay
long on the shelves). I later admitted it *could* have come out sooner
(but would make no difference to the Marlovian case) but it certainly
NOT appear on April 18, as you said (and apparently still believe)
Here, I'll quote it for you again. This is what you wrote:
> > "VA, which was registered 18 April 1593, has no author's
> name
> > on the title page, but on the next page has "William
> Shakespeare"
> > following the dedication. This was six weeks BEFORE M's
> death on May
> > 30th of that year."
It sounds to me as if you are saying the name appeared on April 18,
which everyone (even Prof. Bate) now knows was NOT the case.
> I assume you are led to confusion not by the above record
> but by ambiguities you choose to believe support a ghostly
> mystery. First entered ambiguously and the author's name
> not on the title page but the dedication page, therefore the
> dedication page was added later?
No, not entered AMBIGUOUSLY, but ANONYMOUSLY.
This contention is not
> supported by evidence, apparently; at least none you bring
> forth.
Because it is not a contention I made or insist on. I explained this
earlier in this thread. My point was simply that it was registered
ANONYMOUSLY on April 18, which you appeared to miss. okay?
It seems at least as logical to simply assume the
> dedication page was present at the time of registration.
Seems logical to you, does it? I wonder if Ross or Kathman or any of
the other Strat authorities would agree with you.
> The good news is that Ross and Farey have sorted out
> ambiguities in how we reference the record, so I suggest we
> not infer too much except as armchair speculation.
Not really, the fact remains that you were confused by the April 18
date, and so was Prof. Bate, and Terry might want to consider making
it clearer.
david more
> bookburn
>
"bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<vcnbsmt...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
Darby Mitchell
I'd like to suggest an alternative reason for the early "Venus &
Adonis" date with a Shakespeare signature.
It is "Venus & Adonis" which may have caused the crisis that
forced Marlowe 'to get the hell out of town,' so to speak. Up until
about 1585, Sir Walter Raleigh had been the Queen's 'favorite.' But
in that year, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex, was introduced at Court
by his step-father, the earl of Leicester--who himself had preceeded
Raleigh in filling that court position. Well before the publication of
"Venus & Adonis" in 1593, Essex had supplanted Raleigh as 'favorite'.
The result was the ridiculous situation of there being a powerful old
woman, the Queen of England, who was in love with a boy. Might not we
have here Venus, the Queen of love, and the boy Adonis --who would
rather play with his spear than make love to a goddess?
If the poem "Venus & Adonis" is political allegory, it was
probably instigated by Raleigh, because Raleigh had most cause and
knew the situation best. Raleigh, as has been established, was a
friend to Marlowe. Marlowe would have written "Venus & Adonis," which
is much like his "Hero and Leander." Marlowe knew Shakespeare,
because they both worked within the theatre community in London and
lived in roughly the same neighborhood. Raleigh and Marlowe needed
someone to take the heat off themselves, so, theoretically,
Shakespeare could have been paid (probably by Raleigh)to pretend to be
the author. (Technically, however, Shakespeare's name is never given
as the author of the poem, but only as the writer of the dedication to
the poem. If Marlowe assumed the false identity I think he did, he
uses this same ploy in presenting another person as 'publisher' of an
Irish history in 1633, when the author is himself, working
anonymously.)
Adding evidence to the "Venus & Adonis" sexual-political allegory
theory is that the homosexual imagery which may be embedded in the
double horse described in V&A lines 289-300, may be coupled with the
fact that Southampton and Essex have been supposed to be very good
friends indeed.
If this is the case, the Queen would have been just a wee tiny
bit angry when she read the poem "Venus & Adonis." She would have
trounced Raleigh, and from Raleigh moved onto Marlowe. Marlowe is
arrested. Before he is punished, as he certainly would have been,
either Raleigh helped Marlowe get out of town,i.e., arranged his
'death', or Marlowe's punishment was banishment.
The beauty of this homely little theory is that once Shakespeare
had been used as a 'front' by Marlowe, and not in that first instance
having presumably betrayed Marlowe, Shakespeare could have been used
again, starting in 1599 and continuing until his death --but well
short of the author Marlowe's death, which, by my reckonynge, comes at
1643 when he is the owner of all of Raleigh's lands in Ireland,
co-lord chief justice of Ireland, lord treasurer of Ireland, and
'first and great' earl of Cork. At any rate, it would have been in
1599 that a long-term contract was made by Marlowe with Shakespeare,
because it is in that year that Shakespeare's name begins (and
continues) to be put on the plays. (If I am wrong about the 1599 date
for the continuous signature of Shakespeare, please correct me.)
And please see my book that presents this entire theory:
MIRANDA, HER LITEL BOOKE. It's at castlepublishing.net. as well as on
the Marlowe Lives! website.
- - Darby Mitchell
KQKnave
Mitc...@baydenoc.cc.mi.us (Darby Mitchell) writes:
>Marlowe would have written "Venus & Adonis," which
>is much like his "Hero and Leander."
This topic has been discussed before on this newsgroup.
The resemblance is due to the similar topic, not because
Marlowe wrote Venus and Adonis. Thomas Lodge began
the fashion for this type of poem with his "Scylla's Metamorphosis",
and Marlowe and Shakespeare followed suit, and Thomas
Heywood published in 1594 his "Oenone and Paris". Marlowe's
poem is obviously homosexual, doting on the physicalness
of Leander, while Shakespeare focuses on the physical
beauty of the woman.
Lodge's poem, published in 1589, has amazing
similarities with Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis.
The rhyme and stanza scheme are identical,
unlike Hero and Leander, and the kernel of
Shakespeare's story is found in Lodge's poem (121-138):
"He that hath seen the sweet Arcadian boy
Wiping the purple from his forced wound,
His pretty tears betokening his annoy,
His sighs, his cries, his falling on the ground,
The echoes ringing from the rocks his fall,
The trees with tears reporting of his thrall:
And Venus starting at her love-mate's cry,
Forcing her birds to haste her chariot on;
And full of grief at last with piteous eye
Seeing where all pale with death he lay alone,
Whose beauty quail'd, as wont the lilies droop
When wasteful winter winds do make them stoop:
Her dainty hand address'd to daw her dear,
Her roseal lip allied to his pale cheek,
Her sighs, and then her looks and heavy cheer,
Her bitter threats, and then her passions meek;
How on his senseless corpse she lay a-crying,
As if the boy were then but new a-dying."
Couldn't the above have served as a better springboard for
V&A than Hero and Leander? And there are numerous words
and phrases reminiscent of V&A in this poem. They even
rhyme many of the same words! Holy cow, could Lodge be
Shakespeare?
Here is a sample of similarities in word usage (very incomplete, I
only searched through 10 or 12 stanza's of Lodge's poem):
'You hurt my hand with wringing; V&A
wringing mine arms - Lodge
But lo, from forth a copse that neighbours by, V&A
From forth the channel, with a sorrowing cry - Lodge
But like a stormy day, now wind, now rain,
Sighs dry her cheeks, V&A
And when my tears had ceas'd their stormy shower
He dried my cheeks - Lodge
In his soft flank; whose wonted lily white
With purple tears that his wound wept was drenched: V&A
He that hath seen the sweet Arcadian boy
Wiping the purple from his forced wound - Lodge
'Ay me!' she cries, and twenty times, 'Woe, woe!'
And twenty echoes twenty times cry so. V&A
His sighs, his cries, his falling on the ground
The echoes ringing from the rocks his fall - Lodge
And yokes her silver doves, by whose swift aid
Their mistress, mounted, through the empty skies
In her light chariot quickly is conveyed V&A
And Venus starting at her love-mate's cry,
forcing her birds to haste her chariot on - Lodge
His victories, his triumphs and his glories. V&A
As woods and waves should triumph in our glories - Lodge
=======================
And here are some of the words they both like to rhyme:
Fair flowers that are not gath'red in their prime
Rot and consume themselves in little time. V&A
That while some smile, some sigh through change of time;
Some smart, some sport, amidst their youthly prime. - Lodge
And now she beats her heart, whereat it groans,
...Make verbal repetition of her moans; V&A
The piteous streams, relenting at my moan,
Withdrew their tides, and stayed to hear me groan. - Lodge
Stands on his hinder legs with list'ning ear,
...Anon their loud alarums he doth hear; V&A
As were the Delian harper bent to hear,
Her stately strains might tempt his curious ear. - Lodge
The poor fool prays her that he may depart.
...Bids him farewell, and look well to her heart. V&A
Of Roland's ruth, of Medor's false depart,
Sighing each rest from centre of her heart. - Lodge
She crops the stalk, and in the breach appears
Green-dropping sap, which she compares to tears. V&A
Upon the willows water'd with her tears
...When but the shadow of his name appears. - Lodge
My smooth moist hand, were it with thy hand felt,
Would in thy palm dissolve, or seem to melt. V&A
That near Olympus fair Lucina felt
...How with suspect her inward soul doth melt. - Lodge
O, how her eyes and tears did lend and borrow!
...Both crystals, where they viewed each other's sorrow, V&A
When you are fled, the heaven shall lour for sorrow,
...The air from sea such streaming showers shall borrow. - Lodge
Had ta'en his last leave of the weeping morn,
...Hunting he loved, but love he laughed to scorn. V&A
Scylla a saint in look, no saints in scorning:
Look saint-like, Scylla, lest I die with mourning. - Lodge
Sometimes she shakes her head, and then his hand,
...Sometime her arms infold him like a band; V&A
Some chafe his temples with their lovely hands,
...Some weep, some wake, some curse affection's bands. - Lodge
Tells him of trophies, statues, tombs, and stories
His victories, his triumphs and his glories. V&A
You then should smile, and I should tell such stories
As woods and waves should triumph in our glories. - Lodge
It's uncanny!
But wait a sec..could the author Scylla's Metamorphosis, Hero and Leander,
Venus and Adonis and Oenone and Paris all be the same person?
flint-hearted boy V&A 95
flint-hearted Phrygian O&P 349
their flinty hearts SM 750
flint-breasted Pallas H&L 321
'Nuff said?
Bob Grumman
>>is much like his "Hero and Leander."
>
>This topic has been discussed before on this newsgroup.
>The resemblance is due to the similar topic, not because
>Marlowe wrote Venus and Adonis. Thomas Lodge began
>the fashion for this type of poem with his "Scylla's Metamorphosis",
>and Marlowe and Shakespeare followed suit, and Thomas
>Heywood published in 1594 his "Oenone and Paris". Marlowe's
>poem is obviously homosexual, doting on the physicalness
>of Leander, while Shakespeare focuses on the physical
>beauty of the woman.
>
>Lodge's poem, published in 1589, has amazing
>similarities with Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis.
>The rhyme and stanza scheme are identical,
>unlike Hero and Leander, and the kernel of
>Shakespeare's story is found in Lodge's poem (121-138):
SNIP
>Couldn't the above have served as a better springboard for
>V&A than Hero and Leander? And there are numerous words
>and phrases reminiscent of V&A in this poem. They even
>rhyme many of the same words! Holy cow, could Lodge be
>Shakespeare?
You forget, Jim, that Shakespeare, like all truly great writers, was never
influenced by an inferior writer. You've presented very interesting data,
though--and Lodge's poem reads pretty nicely in the excerpts you quoted. So,
thank you for the post.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
> You forget, Jim, that Shakespeare, like all truly great writers, was never
> influenced by an inferior writer. You've presented very interesting data,
> though--and Lodge's poem reads pretty nicely in the excerpts you quoted. So,
> thank you for the post.
>
> --Bob G.
I warned Darby about you and Jim, Roberto, then you both go and act
like perfect gentlemen! This place has definitely cleaned up its act
while i've been gone. You should both give yourselves a nice sticker
for your computer monitor. Most improved students. :)
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
Bob Grumman
graydo...@netscape.net says...
>
>Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<baveu...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>
>> You forget, Jim, that Shakespeare, like all truly great writers, was never
>> influenced by an inferior writer. You've presented very interesting data,
>> though--and Lodge's poem reads pretty nicely in the excerpts you quoted. So,
>> thank you for the post.
>>
>> --Bob G.
>
>I warned Darby about you and Jim, Roberto, then you both go and act
>like perfect gentlemen!
Actually, Dave, in the above I feel I was trashing Crowley, who believes, or has
stated, that Shakespeare could not have been influenced by any non-Major-Writer,
much worse than I could have by merely calling him an idiot. As for Darby, I
don't know how he could have gotten by me without damage. You can be sure I'll
make up for it in the future, though!
This place has definitely cleaned up its act
>while i've been gone. You should both give yourselves a nice sticker
>for your computer monitor. Most improved students. :)
>
>david more
I don't think Elizabeth Weir or Richard Kennedy will agree with you. And I was
pretty uppity with the latest Baconian, though I've been a little
better-mannered since--having determined that he, however loopy, is no Richard
Kennedy.
--Bob G.
Darby Mitchell
subject, and I should have qualified my statement with "I think," or,
even better, I think "Venus and Adonis" is not markedly DISsimilar to
"Hero and Leander."
But are there no responses to my main points?
kqk...@aol.comcrashed (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<20030526225048...@mb-m22.aol.com>...