Antony, Cleopatra, Shakespeare and Thomas North
peter....@yahoo.com
It's blown me away. Is this the first work to note the connection
between the two writers? I've only skimmed it on my computer app for
kindle -- and got it yesterday because of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2CR-n-66V4 It's really incredible.
hport
Fascinating videos! But in the description of the video on Youtube it
says ""North of Shakespeare / The Secrets of the Sonnets" will be
published on Kindle on 8/23/2011". I can't see how this relates to
Shakespeare's Sonnets. Is "North of Shakespeare / The Secrets of the
Sonnets" the correct title?
peter....@yahoo.com
> On Jun 25, 5:24 pm, peter.huyg...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Wow. Just wondering what the reaction to "North of Shakespeare" is.
> > It's blown me away. Is this the first work to note the connection
> > between the two writers? I've only skimmed it on my computer app for
>
> Fascinating videos! But in the description of the video on Youtube it
> says ""North of Shakespeare / The Secrets of the Sonnets" will be
> published on Kindle on 8/23/2011". I can't see how this relates to
> Shakespeare's Sonnets. Is "North of Shakespeare / The Secrets of the
> Sonnets" the correct title?
The book's available now. Yeah, I can't believe the videos haven't
gone crazy yet, but I guess they just came out. The secrets of the
sonnets part confused me too. But in the book, it just refers to a
second part of "North of Shakespeare," that will come out n August I
guess on the sonnets. I am dying to see the reaction to this book. I
imagine it's going to get quite a lot of press.
hport
I searched for "Dennis McCarthy" and found three pieces by him in
"Notes and Queries". I have now read them, and to me they appear as
far more convincing than what we get from the regular Shakespeare
scholar. Looking forward to see what he now has found.
hport
I searched for "Dennis McCarthy" and found three pieces by him in
peter....@yahoo.com
Yeah, I knew him from his Here Be Dragons, which was a book on
evolution and plate tectonics The critical reviews on that were
amazing. But I guess he's published papers on both science and
literature. Whatever. I really, truly believe he's now ended all
arguments on Shakespeare. I mean if you read the last four chapters
and especially chapter ten, it's over. He just as proof after proof
after proof. North is the real genius behind the masterpieces.
hport
But like Edward de Vere, he died in 1604. So what is North's role
according to McCarthy?
John W Kennedy
I rather fancy.
--
John W Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)
Peter Groves
Just what we need --- another nutter.
Peter G.
book...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Which two writers? We know from college that Shakespeare used Lord
North's translation of Plutarch's Lives as a source for the Roman
PLays; North's translation is of the Jacques Amyot French version of
Plutarch's Parallel Lives. So what new is revealed in "North of
Shakespeare"?
christian...@yahoo.com
I read it. You're right. He did it. Arguments are over. Why isn't this
in the press yet?
christian...@yahoo.com
Agreed on North of Shakespeare. It ends all arguments. I wrote a post
on it a little while ago and new topic, but they haven't appeared yet.
Was it removed for some reason?
John W Kennedy
Old McCarthy had a book,
E-I-E-I-O.
And on this book he had some blurbs,
E-I-E-I-O.
With a sock puppet here,
With a sock puppet there.
Here a sock, there a puppet,
Everywhere a sock puppet.
Old McCarthy had a book,
E-I-E-I-O.
Be sure to check out "The United States of Tara" on DVD.
--
John W Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it
to Windows?
ignoto
Yes, 'the trust' doesn't allow posts on 'unauthorised' topics to appear
on usenet.
Ign.
hport
I have read the book now, and it makes a very good case for Thomas
North's involvement in producing the Shakespeare canon. Thanks for the
recomendation. But the argument is far from over. North died in (or
around) 1604 so there's a lot of interesting questions left about what
was done with the manuscripts, and who was involved, until they
appeared in the first folio in 1623.
Peter Groves
How long is this ludicrous and desperately unconvincing 'conversation'
between sock-puppets to continue? Hint, McCarthy: don't take up play-
writing.
Peter G.
Tom Reedy
Wow. Just wondering why you find it necessary to spam your own book
and then lie about it. Whats wrong with honestly posting a "Hey guys!
check out my new book and let me know what your think"?
TR
Tom Reedy
Uh, you know him because you are him.
TR
Peter Groves
> Wow. Just wondering what the reaction to "North of Shakespeare" is.
> It's blown me away.
Would that it had, drongo.
Peter G.
Robin G.
his wife and daughter. For all I know, the third glowing review was
written by his mother-in-law or Dennis McCarthy under an assumed
named.
I'm left to conclude Dennis McCarthy doesn't have confidence in his
book.
I'd say, don't waste your time or money on it.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
There are tens of millions of books at Amazon, and I would be
willing to guess that just about every one of them contains a
favorable review by friends and/or family members. The reason people
know Lulu was my wife is because I pointed this out here. However,
they use their names and have read the book. "Roger A. Leff," in
contrast, is almost certainly Tom Reedy, who didn't get my book and
just went on to give it 1 star. The point was that the book should be
judged by what's in it, not by Amazon reviews. The following is a
summary of the only substantive discussion on the book yet that has
appeared here:
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.
On Jun 30, 2:12 am, "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> Two of the glowing reviews ofDennis McCarthy'sbook were written by
> his wife and daughter. For all I know, the third glowing review was
> written by his mother-in-law orDennis McCarthyunder an assumed
> named.
>
> I'm left to concludeDennis McCarthydoesn't have confidence in his
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
ignoto
> New video for North of Shakespeare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
>
"This testimony is so strong, so direct, so authoritative�; that it
quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works � could
not have been Shakespeare"
Actually the converse is true. The testimonial evidence for Shakspere of
Stratford is so strong as to make it, for practical purposes, impossible
that anyone else could have been the author.
Ign.
ignoto
> Hi Robin,
> There are tens of millions of books at Amazon, and I would be
> willing to guess that just about every one of them contains a
> favorable review by friends and/or family members. The reason people
> know Lulu was my wife is because I pointed this out here. However,
> they use their names and have read the book. "Roger A. Leff," in
> contrast, is almost certainly Tom Reedy, who didn't get my book and
> just went on to give it 1 star. The point was that the book should be
> judged by what's in it, not by Amazon reviews. The following is a
> summary of the only substantive discussion on the book yet that has
> appeared here:
>
> 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.
No, it's disputed (for the simple reason the evidence is inadequate to
ground an inference one way or another. The claim that Shakespeare =
Sogliardo is, in epistemic terms, no better than a guess).
> (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.)
Without doing the arithmetic, I will simply observe that the fact that
you have to arbitrarily choose the date 1620 (prior to the publication
of the First Folio) shows this argument is not bona fide.
> 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.
If you think Henry V is just a 'staged adaption' then I suggest you read
Holinshed. Shakespeare invariably improved upon his sources (including
North).
> There were no conspiracies.
No, according to you, Shakespeare was just a fraud.
> 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.
You mean documents like the introduction to the First Folio by
Shakespeare's Fellow Actors Heminge and Condell, affirming that
Shakespeare was a great playwright and the author of his own works?
Or Jonson;s eulogy to Shakespeare, that praises him as the 'soul of the
age' and explicitly compares him to his peers, Kyd, Lyly and Marlowe?
> 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.
There are no conspiracies framing Shakespeare for mediocre work, in the
orthodox account of things, at least (of course Oxfordians and Baconians
must pin Shakespeare for the painful ploddings of Bacon and Oxford).
Ign.
ignoto
> Actually, my article in "Notes and Queries" shows that the "to be or not to be" speech derives from North's
>"Dial of Princes" -- not his "Plutarch."
> In fact, I show that many of the passages, themes, quotes, philosophy
>found in the canon derive from North's works -- much more than anyone
had previously realized.
Without going into the detail, North is, in all likelihood, just one
source among many. Baldwin, for instance, notes that the analogues for
the 'to be or not to be' speech include:
-Socrates in Plato's Apology
-Cicero's Tusculan Disputations
-Plutarch, Consolatio ad Appolonium
-Xenophon, Cyrop VIII
-Montaigne (who repeats Socrates's thoughts)
-Ph de Mornay's Discourse of Life and Death (echo, translated by
Countess of Pembroke, 1592)
-Cardan's De consolatione
With the most likely 'source' being Cicero's Tusculan Disputations,
which Shakespeare read in school.
(See TW Baldwin, William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke, vol2
pp603-604)
> But that's just
> circumstantial and merely confirms that North's style is the style of
the canon -- and he wrote on the same
>subjects and themes. The direct evidence for his authorship is, for example, that Groatsworth of Wit gives his
>life story and explains how he came to sell plays to Shakespeare.
This is not direct evidence. Direct evidence would be the name 'Thomas
North' on a quarto of Hamlet.
> Likewise, Cynthia's Revels and Epicene identify
>him as the author of the canon.
Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By th' Mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale.
Polonius: Very like a whale.
Ign.
frode
I don't get the impression that you have read McCarthy's book, Ignoto.
If you had read it you would have seen that some of your remarks are
highly relevant, while others are rather off the mark. (Or maybe you,
like a couple of other Stradfordians here, think that it is
unnecessary to read the book before you argue against it).
ignoto
I don't need to have read the book to reply to his comments here (and if
it had more on the textual comparison between North and Shakespeare, and
less of the 'North was Shakespeare' theme, I would ahve considered
buying it).
But then again you just sound like a sock puppet.
Ign.
frode
I was accused of being a sock puppet on “Forest of Arden” too, but I
am rather sure that McCarthy was right when he replied that he doesn’t
know me.
Concerning something you wrote earlier: If someone other than William
Shakespeare writes a play called X, and it is published with “William
Shakespeare” on the title page, why is this an instance of conspiracy
if X is “Hamlet” or “Othello”, but not if X is “A Yorkshire Tragedy”
or “The London Prodigal”?
ignoto
Firstly, it is not at all clear that a Yorkshire Tragedy is not by
Shakespeare, Duncan-Jones, for instance, offers the following sample of
style which is, she says, 'overwhelmingly' Shakespeareian:
"My lands showed like a full moon about me. But now the moon's i'th'last
quarter, waning, waning, and I am mad to think the moon was mine. Mine
and my forefathers', generations, generations. Down goes the house of
us; down, down it sinks"
Secondly, as far as conspiracy goes, Mr McCarthy seems to make a big
thing about his theory not involving any conspiracies at all, but what
you describe as a conspiracy, 'someone other than William Shakespeare
writes a play called X, and it is published with “William Shakespeare”
on the title page' is actually what McCarthy thinks happened with
Hamlet, is it not? Per Mc, North wrote the 'literary' version of Hamlet
which was then adapted by Shakespeare for the stage, this 'playing'
version was then published in 1603 (1st quarto) and subsequently North's
'lierary' version was published as the 2nd quarto. So, here we have two
instances of 'someone other than William Shakespeare [North] writes a
play called Hamlet, and it is published with “William Shakespeare”.
In any case the instances of quartos not by Shakespeare that are
published with the name Shakespeare are better classified as instances
of 'fraud' rather than 'conspiracy' (the intent of the publications was
to make money for their unscrupulous publishers).
Ign.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Ing writes: "There are no conspiracies framing Shakespeare for mediocre work, in the
orthodox account of things:
Dennis: Well, here are 12 plays with Shakespeare's name on the title page, printed prior to the FF, all of which are conventionally believed to have been written by other people. So the title pages are considered fraudulent -- and the result of greedy printer/publishers conspiring (often with unknown authors) to put Shakespeare's name on the title pages. I argue that Shakespeare wrote these works.
The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1591) / "written by W. Sh. (Simmes-Helme, 1611) and "Written by W. Shakespeare" (Mathewes --Dewe, 1622) / Queen's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printers/publishers)
The Contention (Henry VI, Part 2) (1594) / "Written by William Shake-Speare, gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)
True Tragedy (Henry VI, Part 3) (1595) / "Written by William Shake-speare, Gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Locrine (1595) / **"Newly set forth, overseen and corrected. By W.S."** (Creede, 1595) / Not mentioned / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Richard III (1597) / "By William Shake-speare" (Simmes-Wise, 1598) changed to **"Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare"** (Creede-Wise, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
Henry V (1600) / Part of Shakespeare Collection (originally printed by Creede; Jaggard-Pavier,1619) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-Johnson, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / King's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/publisher)
London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter, 1605) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) / "By W. Shakespeare" (Braddock-Pavier, 1608) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer / publisher)
Pericles (1609) / "By William Shakespeare" (White/Creede-Gosson, 1609) / King's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
So do you agree me that Shakespeare wrote these works? Or do you think that they are fraudulent?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
published with the name Shakespeare are better classified as instances
of 'fraud' rather than 'conspiracy' (the intent of the publications was
to make money for their unscrupulous publishers)."
Dennis responds: Well, I'm not sure it makes a difference what label you give this -- "group fraud" or "conspiracy." In another post I listed 12 plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620. Essentially, each was performed by Shakespeare's theater company. Shakespeare never did anything to correct the misconception that he wrote any of these plays. The alleged anonymous authors of these works never came forward to demand recognition for their work. No external evidence has ever been found positively linking any of the plays with any other writer. In fact, the later editors of the First Folio -- specifically editors of both the Third and Fourth Folios -- included some of these plays with the other "authentic" works. So even by the 18th century, some of these "apocryphal plays" were still officially part of the "Shakespeare canon," and literary adepts of that time were just as sure William of Stratford authored the works as they were that he wrote Othello.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On 2/07/11 12:38 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> > Actually, my article in "Notes and Queries" shows that the "to be or not to be" speech derives from North's
> >"Dial of Princes" -- not his "Plutarch."
> > In fact, I show that many of the passages, themes, quotes, philosophy
> >found in the canon derive from North's works -- much more than anyone
> had previously realized.
>
> Without going into the detail, North is, in all likelihood, just one
> source among many. Baldwin, for instance, notes that the analogues for
> the 'to be or not to be' speech include:
Well, I didn't describe an "analogue," but a point-by-point paraphrase that includes verbal echoes that link Hamlet's speech to "Dial of Princes" to the exclusion of all other works in EEBO.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> North' on a quarto of Hamlet.
Dennis: 1) Well, if you agree that name on a quarto is "direct evidence," why do you dismiss the majority of such documented "direct evidence" printed prior to 1620? In fact, you actually think that title pages involving Shakespeare were fraudulent more often than not. 2) Well, in that case you don't think there is any "direct evidence" that Thomas Kyd ever wrote anything. And 3) a document stating that Thomas North sold plays to Shakespeare is every bit as much "direct evidence" that North did indeed sell plays to Shakespeare as a document (title page) stating that Shakespeare wrote London Prodigal.
Robin G.
For the most part, I have no objections when someone outside the field
of literary criticism and/or theatre history and drama or even a non-
scholar writes about Shakespeare. One of my favorite books about
Shakespeare is Shakespeare's Game by playwright William Gibson. As
far as I know, Gibson was not a scholar, but his insights into
Shakespeare's craft as a playwright is illuminating. What I expect in
a book about Shakespeare is an understanding of the workings of
theatre companies before the Elizabethan period and during the
Elizabethan/Jacobean period, an understanding of playwriting during
these periods and an understanding of publishing during these
periods. Based on your postings on the Forest of Arden and here, you
do not meet my criteria.
You don't appear to understand the term "bad quarto" is a scholarly
invention by scholars to dismiss quarto's that did not fit their image
of Will Shakespeare and what he wrote.
You don't appear to understand there was a period when no playwright's
name appeared on the title page of a play quarto and you don't appear
to understand when and why this changed.
You believe plays such as London Prodigal and Yorkshire Tragedy were
written by Shakespeare. Do you know there are scholars who disagree
with you? If you do, have you read any of them and do you point out
why they are wrong. Have you done a detailed examination of all or
any of these plays and compared the play or plays to the work of other
writers of the period? I would expect this of any scholar. You don't
seem to know why some scholar's believe William Shakespeare was listed
as the author of plays they believe he did not write.
You say that The Merchant of Venice is an inferior stage adaptation of
a play titled The Jew. You call The Jew a literary masterpiece. The
Jew is a lost play. Unless you have find a copy, you have nothing on
which to base your claim.
If you want to learn something about contemporary Shakespeare
scholarship, I suggest buying The Arden Shakespeare HAMLET (Third
Series). It comes in two volumes.
I watched your YouTube video about Love's Labor's Lost and what not
impressed. To me, quoting Mark Twain on Shakespeare is not a good
sign. You make the same old same old claim about the character's
names. Have you spent anytime looking at the quarto? Yes, there is a
character named Moth. On the other hand, are you aware that some
scholars say the name should be Mote? Yes, the stage direction reads
enter Armado and Moth, but in the script before each of Moth's lines
there is the name Boy. Do you have any idea why?
By the way, Mr. McCarthy, there are scholars who don't not believe
Sogliardo is Shakespeare.
As for your wife and daughter, you first mentioned them on Forest of
Arden.
Finally, Mr. McCarthy, you believe Thomas North wrote Shakespeare.
Pray tell, how did he manage to write all the plays, narrative poems,
and sonnets BEFORE HE DIED IN 1604.
BTM, the title of your book is confusing. North of Shakespeare. Is
Shakespeare the name of a street, river, village, town, etc? Do you
mean someone is standing north of William Shakespeare?
ignoto
You haven't provided a 'paraphrase'. The correspondences occur over a
large range text and in an order unrelated to the speech in H:
North, 535.
North, 380.
North, 524.
North, 132.
North, 472
North, 536
North, 129.
North, 533
North, 533.
North, 670.
North, 558.
North, 524.
North, 558.
If one is looking for a paraphrase of this:
"To be, or not to be…
To die to sleep
No more and by a sleep say we end
the heart ache and the thousand natural shocks
That the flesh is heir to, tis a consummation
devoutly to be wished. to die to sleep
to sleep perchance to dream: ay there's the rub
for in that sleep of death what dreams may come, etc."
the it is found here:
"'Let us reflect' says Socrates in Plato's apology, in another way, and
we shall see that there is great reason to hope that death is a good;
for one of two things - either death is a state of nothingness and utter
unconsciousness, or, as men say, there is a change and migration of the
soul from this world to another. Now if you suppose that there is no
consciousness but a sleep like the sleep of him who is undisturbed even
by dreams, death will be an unspeakable gain… Now if death be of such a
nature, I say to die is gain; for eternity is then only a single night.
But if death is a journey to another place and there, as men say, all,
the dead abide, what good, O my friends and judges, can be greater than
this?" (Plato, Apology, 40, as quoted in Baldwin p604).
And here:
"What then is the speech which Plato represents Socrates as having given
before his judges, when the death sentence had been pronounced? "I
entertain, gentlemen of the jury, high hopes," said he, "that it is for
my good that I am sent to death; for there must follow one of two
consequences, either that death takes away all sensation altogether, or
that by death a passage is secured from those regions to another place.
Accordingly, if sensation is obliterated and death resembles the sleep
which sometimes brings calmest rest, untroubled even by the appearances
of dreams, good gods, what gain to die! or how many days can be found
preferable to such a night, and if the coming endless succession of
ensuing times resembles this sleep, who can be happier than I? But if
there is truth in the tale that death is a passage to those shores
which are inhabited by the departed dead, that surely is happier still…"
(Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, Trans JE King, 97-98)
And here:
"'I feare me, my Maisters' (saith hee), 'that if I entreate you not to
make me die, I shall confirme the evidence of my accusers, which is,
That I professe to have more understanding than others, as having some
knowledge more secret and hid of things both above and beneath us. I
know I have neither frequented nor knowne death, nor have I seene any
body that hath either felt or tried her qualities to instruct me in
them. Those who feare her presuppose to know; As for me, I neither know
who or what she is, nor what they doe in the other world. Death may
peradventure be a thing indifferent, happily a thing desirable. Yet it
is to bee beleeved that if it be a transmigration from one place to
another, there is some amendment in going to live with so many worthy
famous persons that are deceased, and be exempted from having any more
to doe with wicked and corrupted Judges. If it be a consummation of ones
being, it is also an amendment and entrance into a long and quiet night.
Wee finde nothing so sweete in life as a quiet rest and gentle sleepe,
and without dreames. The things I know to be wicked, as to wrong or
offend ones neighbour, and to disobey his superiour, be he God or man, I
carefully shunne them; Such as I know not whether they be good or bad, I
cannot feare them. If I goe to my death, and leave you alive, The Gods
onely see, whether you or I shall prosper best; and therefore, for my
regarde, you shall dispose of it as it shall best please you."
(Montaigne, Essays 3.12)
Ign.
ignoto
> Ign:
>> This is not direct evidence. Direct evidence would be the name 'Thomas
>> North' on a quarto of Hamlet.
>
> Dennis: 1) Well, if you agree that name on a quarto is "direct evidence," why do you dismiss the majority of such
> documented "direct evidence" printed prior to 1620? In fact, you actually think that title pages involving
> Shakespeare were fraudulent more often than not.
You need to distinguish direct evidence and proof. A title page is
direct evidence, not proof, of authorship.
2) Well, in that case you don't think there is any
"direct evidence" that Thomas Kyd ever wrote anything.
No there is direct evidence that Kyd was a writer (and that he wrote
ST), eg:
-Kyd is named as one of Shakespeare's peers in Jonson's poem in the Fist
Folio.
-Tho Heywood in 'Apology for Actors':
'Therefore M Kid, in the Spanish Tragedy..."
And 3) a document stating that Thomas North sold plays
> to Shakespeare is every bit as much "direct evidence" that North did indeed sell plays to Shakespeare as a
> document (title page) stating that Shakespeare wrote London Prodigal.
And what document states that North sold plays to Shakespeare?
Ign.
ignoto
> Ing, great stuff! All fact based, sober, and helpful. Really, really good stuff.
>
> Ing writes: "There are no conspiracies framing Shakespeare for mediocre work, in the
> orthodox account of things:
>
> Dennis: Well, here are 12 plays with Shakespeare's name on the title page, printed prior to the FF, all of which are conventionally believed to have been written by other people. So the title pages are considered fraudulent -- and the result of greedy printer/publishers conspiring (often with unknown authors) to put Shakespeare's name on the title pages. I argue that Shakespeare wrote these works.
>
> The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1591) / "written by W. Sh. (Simmes-Helme, 1611) and "Written by W. Shakespeare" (Mathewes --Dewe, 1622) / Queen's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printers/publishers)
Maybe.
> The Contention (Henry VI, Part 2) (1594) / "Written by William Shake-Speare, gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Maybe.
> True Tragedy (Henry VI, Part 3) (1595) / "Written by William Shake-speare, Gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Maybe.
> Locrine (1595) / **"Newly set forth, overseen and corrected. By W.S."** (Creede, 1595) / Not mentioned / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Touched it up for the King's Men.
> Richard III (1597) / "By William Shake-speare" (Simmes-Wise, 1598) changed to **"Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare"** (Creede-Wise, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
Yes.
> Henry V (1600) / Part of Shakespeare Collection (originally printed by Creede; Jaggard-Pavier,1619) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
Yes.
> Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
No.
> Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-Johnson, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Yes.
> Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / King's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Yes (memorial reconstruction including parts of Kyd's Hamlet, see Lukas
erne, Beyond the Spanish tragedy)
> London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter, 1605) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
May have touched it up for performance.
> Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) / "By W. Shakespeare" (Braddock-Pavier, 1608) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer / publisher)
Yes (possibly with Middleton)
> Pericles (1609) / "By William Shakespeare" (White/Creede-Gosson, 1609) / King's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
Yes (touched up the first two acts which are by Wilkins)
> So do you agree me that Shakespeare wrote these works? Or do you think that they are fraudulent?
Some are fraudulent, some are pirated.
Ign.
ignoto
> Ign writes: "In any case the instances of quartos not by Shakespeare that are
> published with the name Shakespeare are better classified as instances
> of 'fraud' rather than 'conspiracy' (the intent of the publications was
> to make money for their unscrupulous publishers)."
>
> Dennis responds: Well, I'm not sure it makes a difference what label you give this -- "group fraud" or "conspiracy."
> In another post I listed 12 plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620. Essentially, each was performed by
> Shakespeare's theater company. Shakespeare never did anything to correct the misconception that he wrote any of
> these plays.
And you know this... how?
> The alleged anonymous authors of these works never came forward to demand recognition for their work.
The acting companies generally held the rights to plays.
> No external evidence has ever been found positively linking any of the plays with any other writer.
So?
> In fact,
> the later editors of the First Folio -- specifically editors of both the Third and Fourth Folios --
> included some of these plays with the other "authentic" works. So even by the 18th century, some of these
> "apocryphal plays" were still officially part of the "Shakespeare canon," and literary adepts of that time
> were just as sure William of Stratford authored the works as they were that he wrote Othello.
Well, whatever people may have said in the past, the Shakespeare canon
is as well established as it has ever been (with some disputes, obviously).
Ign.
Tom Reedy
Yes, but his time it should be obvious to all that he has written from
no Early Modern context at all and is ill-informed about the subject.
He also does not appear to be interested in learning. This is yet one
more depressing example of a person who is very knowledgeable in
another discipline who thinks that status should easily transfer over
to Shakespeare studies. Anti-Stratfordism is rife with such
characters, and unfortunately they end up being more well known for
their folly instead of their very real virtues.
TR
Tom Reedy
I reviewed the relevant thread and could find no accusation of that
type. John W. Kennedy did point out that your enthusiasm was a bit
suspicious, but his post fell far short of accusation. However, you do
have another sock puppet on this thread, Henryp...@gmail.com
(hport), and I can see how your enthusiastic interaction with him at
the top of this thread could raise suspicion.
The only sock puppets of Dennis I know of are
christian...@yahoo.com and peter.huygens at yahoo.com.
TR
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Robin Writes: > You don't appear to understand the term "bad quarto"
is a scholarly
> invention by scholars to dismiss quarto's that did not fit their image
> of Will Shakespeare and what he wrote.
Dennis: Um, no, no, no Robin. I make that point exactly -- and point
out that anti-Stratfordians do exactly the same thing. Orthodox
scholars and anti-Stratfordians completely reject title page
declarations as worthless whenever it suits them, depending on what
their biases are about Shakespeare. As I write in "North of
Shakespeare" "The view put forth here of Shakespeare as theatrical
adapter is the only theory of Strat-fordian authorship that does not
explicitly assume a wide-ranging conspiracy of shadowy figures trying
to frame an unwitting Shakespeare (or was he a dastardly accomplice?)
for authorship of plays that were published over a period of two
decades, that were assigned to him via title pages, that his own
theater companies produced and that he never allegedly wrote. The
most likely ex-planation is that there was no wide-ranging plot to
give him false credit for Merchant of Venice and Much Ado About
Nothing as anti-Stratfordians would believe. And there was no plot to
give him false credit for True Tragedy, A Yorkshire Tragedy, Locrine,
London Prodigal, Hamlet Q1, etc, as Stratfordians would believe.
These were the works attributed to Shakespeare during his lifetime;
these were the works that contemporaries were referring to when they
wrote about Shakespeare's plays; these were the works that
Shakespeare's acting companies performed, and these were the works
that William Shakespeare of Stratford directed, abridged, revised,
organized, augmented, and hired helpers to craft."
>
> You don't appear to understand there was a period when no playwright's
> name appeared on the title page of a play quarto
Dennis responds: You really have to read the book, as I make that
point again and again.
Robin:
> You believe plays such as London Prodigal and Yorkshire Tragedy were
> written by Shakespeare. Do you know there are scholars who disagree
> with you?
Dennis responds: Yes, I do know that, Robin, and that's my whole
point. Orthodox scholars reject what is written on the title pages if
they feel the work doesn't
fit in with the "style of Shakespeare" -- but how do we know what the
real "style of Shakespeare" is except by reading the works that
carried his name on the title page?
> I watched your YouTube video about Love's Labor's Lost and what not
> impressed. To me, quoting Mark Twain on Shakespeare is not a good
> sign. You make the same old same old claim about the character's
> names. Have you spent anytime looking at the quarto? Yes, there is a
> character named Moth. On the other hand, are you aware that some
> scholars say the name should be Mote?
Dennis McCarthy writes: Hmmm. You really think it is a coincidence
that Mothe was the ambassador for France when the King of Navarre was
married to the Princess of France -- and had just laid siege to La
Rochelle with Longueville, Dumaine and Biron? There is no historical
event that brings all these French aristocrats together other than
North's embassy to France.
Robin writes: > By the way, Mr. McCarthy, there are scholars who don't
not believe
> Sogliardo is Shakespeare.
Dennis responds: Well, I'm sure there's a few. But could you please
cite any scholarly book on the war of the theaters in the last 50
years that denies the link? And just as a matter of curiosity, do you
believe that any satirist *ever* wrote about Shakespeare in any War of
the Theaters play? Or was the Shakespeare the only prominent
playwright not spoofed in one of these plays?
Robin writes: > As for your wife and daughter, you first mentioned
them on Forest of
> Arden.
Dennis responds: Yes, which is why Tom Reedy knew that the first
review was from my wife -- and then someone named "Robert A. Leff"
commented on that review, pointing that out. Leff also gave the book
a 1-star review without reading it, and wrote a condescending comment
to my daughter's nice review about defending "daddy's work." My point
is that I was the one that let it be known here that the first review
was from my wife -- a point which you seemed to believe was enough to
disqualify the work from any sort of serious attention, no matter what
was written in it.
Robin writes:
> BTM, the title of your book is confusing. North of Shakespeare. Is
> Shakespeare the name of a street, river, village, town, etc? Do you
> mean someone is standing north of William Shakespeare?
Dennis responds: Yes, and why is it called "East of Eden" when it
takes place in California -- and "Searching for Bobby Fischer" when
they didn't look for him at all -- and let's face it, "Catcher in the
Rye" really had little to do with baseball or bread.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
order to determine primacy of sources?
And your speeches were not paraphrases at all. This isn't even close:
1) Monologue on death in
Hamlet
2) Meditation on death in
North's Dial of Princes
Hamlet begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
or to go on living:
"To be or not to be? That is the question."
Pantutius begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
or to go on living:
“Is it better that thou die...than that thou scape and live?
Directly following his own question, Hamlet describes death as a way
to escape “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:”
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, And by opposing, end
them. (3.1.56-8)"
Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a
way to escape “the assaults of life and broils of fortune:”
"What other thing is the grave, but a strong fort, wherein we shut
ourselves from the assaults of life and broils of fortune? "
Hamlet then refers to death as a kind of sleeping -- and notes that
during sleep we feel none of the sufferings of life:
"To die -- to sleep/ No more, and by a sleep to say we end / The
heartache, and the thousand natural shocks / That flesh is heir to;
(60-64)"
The Dial refers to death as a kind of sleeping -- and notes that
during sleep we feel none of the sufferings of life:
"Death is an eternal sleep…a kind of sleeping …[And w]hen we sleep,
the enticements of the flesh do not provoke us…[and] we feel not the
anguishes of the body … "
After listing life’s miseries, Hamlet answers his own original
question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring
a welcome end to these sufferings:
"'tis a consummation / Devoutly to be wish't…
After listing life’s miseries, Pantutius answers his own original
question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring
a welcome end to these sufferings:
“Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death”
But Hamlet then points out the problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the
suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it
also brings dread:
" …who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death..,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that
we know not of (76-82)"
But Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop
the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it
also brings dread:
"Life is so troublesome that it wearyeth us: [but] Death is so
doubtful, that it feareth us…
"I desire no more to live: but for that I know not whither I am
carried by death..."
Hamlet then refers to death as an “undiscover’d country, from whose
bourn/ No traveler returns (3.1.79-80). ”
The Dial refers to death as
"a pilgrimage uncertain...for of all those which are dead none
returned.”
Dial of Princes also includes Hamlet’s phrases “sea of troubles,” “of
so long life,” and, in one sentence, places forms of the words sleep,
perchance and dream in proximity, echoing the immortal “To sleep,
perchance to dream...” Just how common is such a juxtaposition?
According to the massive Early English Books Online database, only two
works in the English language place those three words together (i.e.,
place them within ten words of each other): Hamlet and North’s Dial of
Princes. In other words, the juxtaposition of sleep, perchance, and
dream is a fingerprint grouping -- linking Hamlet's soliloquy with
North's Dial of Princes to the exclusion of all other works in the
history of the English language as provided in the massive database.
Not only that ign -- though I didn't point this out in the paper --
the "law's delay," "opressor's wrong" etc. all relate to specific
chapters in The Dial. By all means, if you want to claim that the
verbal echoes are all coincidences and the point by point paraphrase
is meaningless, please send in a rebuttal paper to "Notes and
Queries."
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Shakespeare on its title page. Are you or are not saying Shakespeare
wrote it?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Ign: "May have touched it up for performance."
Dennis responds: Exactly! Okay, so you are admitting Shakespeare
would be ascribed authorship of plays that he touched up or adapted
for the stage. The title pages are correct!
And that's also what he did with MoV and Hamlet and TA! Now,
Shakespeare was assigned the authorship of "True Tragedy". Do you
know why? Because he wrote it. And "True tragedy" is a touched up,
adapted version of Henry Vi, part 3. That's what "Groatsworth of Wit"
was about. The most famous of all references to him accused him of
being an "upstart" plagiarizer who was getting accolades for the work
of others and especially Henry VI, Part 3. The "Tiger's Heart" line
also occurs in "True Tragedy" and is a plagiarized line from a
plagiarized play. As the orthodox and renowned scholar J Dover-Wilson
wrote about this passage, expressing a once-common scholarly opinion,
the pamphlet "was accusing Shakespeare of stealing and adapting plays
upon Henry VI....." And so this was marking him as the author of
"True Tragedy," just like the title page states. Likewise, In the
preface to his 1687 adaptation of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus,
Edward Ravenscroft offered this tantalizing bit of literary gossip:
“I have been told by some anciently conversant with the stage, that it
[Titus Andronicus] was not originally [Shakepseare’s]…and he only gave
some master-touches to one or two of the principal characters.”
Again there we have it! This testimony agrees with all the Shakespeare-
era title pages and all the comments from his contemporaries. All are
true. And you know why his name is on the touched up, staged
adaptation of "Hamlet' (Q1)-- just as it is with "True Tragedy," "MWW"
"Henry V," "RIII," etc. because that was Shakespeare's version. No
conspiracies. No lies. That's what he wrote.
In fact, that's how Shakespeare was described on four of the first
five plays that bear his name:
• Locrine Q1 (1595 -- allegedly apocryphal): "Newly set foorth,
overseene, and corrected. By W.S."
• Love's Labour's Lost Q1 (1598): "Newly corrected and augmented By W.
Shakespeare."
• Henry IV, part 1, Q2 (1599): "Newly corrected by W. Shake-speare."
• Richard III Q3 (1602 --"bad quarto") "Newly augmented, by William
Shake-speare."
Do you know why it says these are works "corrected and augmented" by
Shakespeare? Because it was true -- just as all the title pages state,
just as Ravenscroft said, just as Groatswroth declared. The documents
are correct!
frode
> (hport), and I can see how your enthusiastic interaction with him at
> the top of this thread could raise suspicion.
>
> The only sock puppets of Dennis I know of are
>
> TR
>
>
>
>
>
> > Concerning something you wrote earlier: If someone other than William
> > Shakespeare writes a play called X, and it is published with “William
> > Shakespeare” on the title page, why is this an instance of conspiracy
> > if X is “Hamlet” or “Othello”, but not if X is “A Yorkshire Tragedy”
> > or “The London Prodigal”?
Yes, hport is me. I have been writing as "hport" on HLAS and as
"frode" on Forest of Arden. Since the discussion here is connected to
a thread I begun on Forest of Arden I decided to write as "frode".
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On 2/07/11 4:15 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>
> > Ign:
> >> This is not direct evidence. Direct evidence would be the name 'Thomas
> >> North' on a quarto of Hamlet.
>
> > Dennis: 1) Well, if you agree that name on a quarto is "direct evidence," why do you dismiss the majority of such
> > documented "direct evidence" printed prior to 1620? In fact, you actually think that title pages involving
> > Shakespeare were fraudulent more often than not.
>
> You need to distinguish direct evidence and proof. A title page is
> direct evidence, not proof, of authorship.
>
> 2) Well, in that case you don't think there is any
> "direct evidence" that Thomas Kyd ever wrote anything.
>
> No there is direct evidence that Kyd was a writer (and that he wrote
> ST), eg:
>
> -Kyd is named as one of Shakespeare's peers in Jonson's poem in the Fist
> Folio.
>
> -Tho Heywood in 'Apology for Actors':
> 'Therefore M Kid, in the Spanish Tragedy..."
Dennis responds: Ahh, okay, we're agreed. Such written quotes like
that are forms of "direct evidence." So this is "direct evidence"
that Shakespeare did not originate "Titus Andronicus":
Ravenscroft: “I have been told by some anciently conversant with the
stage, that it [Titus Andronicus] was not originally his
[Shakespeare's]…and he only gave some master-touches to one or two of
the principal characters.”
If such quotes are direct evidence, then they are direct evidence. And
there is no intelligible reason to contend either Heywood or
Ravenscroft are liars.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Ign: So?
Dennis: "So?" That's a standard orthodox claim in rejecting the
conspiracy theories of anti-Stratfordians. Look, Reedy and Kathman,
like most other scholars taking on anti-Stratfordians, reference the
title pages as important evidence for Shakespeare's authorship. And
Reedy and Kathman refer to "Henry Vi, parts 2 and 2, Hamlet Q1, Henry
V, Q1, etc. Well, are these title pages important evidence or not? Or
was there a conspiracy or group fraud committed to frame Shakespeare
for authorship? (If the latter, then this is a standard anti-
Stratfordian argument.)
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Dennis writes: Exactly right...about the staged adaptations that were attributed to him while he was alive. The twelve adaptations and mediocre plays with his name on the title page are all examples of "direct evidence" that he wrote those plays. They were essentially all performed by Shakespeare's theater company as well. You dismiss them as fraudulent or the results of piracy. But you have no direct evidence for any of this. With not a single play do you have any direct evidence that it was a piracy. Yet you are willing to hypothesize it again and again and again. I am accepting the direct evidence -- a dozen examples -- while you are following unsupported theories of behind-the-scenes schemes of fraud in order to explain away all this direct evidence that you find inconvenient. The testimony is clear.
Tom Reedy
<Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
> > On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> > > New video for North of Shakespeare:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
>
> > quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works could
> > not have been Shakespeare"
>
> > Actually the converse is true. The testimonial evidence for Shakspere of
> > Stratford is so strong as to make it, for practical purposes, impossible
> > that anyone else could have been the author.
> Dennis writes: Exactly right...about the staged adaptations that were attributed to him while he was alive. The twelve adaptations and mediocre plays with his name on the title page are all examples of "direct evidence" that he wrote those plays. They were essentially all performed by Shakespeare's theater company as well. You dismiss them as fraudulent or the results of piracy. But you have no direct evidence for any of this. With not a single play do you have any direct evidence that it was a piracy. Yet you are willing to hypothesize it again and again and again. I am accepting the direct evidence -- a dozen examples -- while you are following unsupported theories of behind-the-scenes schemes of fraud in order to explain away all this direct evidence that you find inconvenient. The testimony is clear.
The testimony is clear but your interpretation is cloudy.
21 plays were correctly attributed to Shakespeare in his lifetime.
Three were attributed incorrectly to him in his lifetime: Sir John
Oldcastle (1600), actually written by Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton,
Richard Hathwaye, and Robert Wilson; A Yorkshire Tragedy (1698),
probably written by Thomas Middleton; and The London Prodigal (1605),
author unknown. Three others were attributed to W.S.: Locrine (1595),
Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602), and The Puritan (1607), probably written
by Thomas Middleton. The first two W.S. plays could just as well have
been Wentworth Smith.
In the FF, Hemings and Condell wrote “as where (before) you were
abus'd with diverse stolne, and surreptitious copies, maimed, and
deformed by the frauds and stealthes of injurious impostors, that
expos'd them”. That is certainly direct evidence that the bad quartos
were “fraudulent or the result of piracy”. There is more; I suggest
you try to educate yourself.
TR
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On Jul 2, 2:52 pm, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
> > > On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> > > > New video for North of Shakespeare:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
> >
> > > "This testimony is so strong, so direct, so authoritative ; that it
> > > quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works could
> > > not have been Shakespeare"
> >
> > > Actually the converse is true. The testimonial evidence for Shakspere of
> > > Stratford is so strong as to make it, for practical purposes, impossible
> > > that anyone else could have been the author.
> > Dennis writes: Exactly right...about the staged adaptations that were attributed to him while he was alive. The twelve adaptations and mediocre plays with his name on the title page are all examples of "direct evidence" that he wrote those plays. They were essentially all performed by Shakespeare's theater company as well. You dismiss them as fraudulent or the results of piracy. But you have no direct evidence for any of this. With not a single play do you have any direct evidence that it was a piracy. Yet you are willing to hypothesize it again and again and again. I am accepting the direct evidence -- a dozen examples -- while you are following unsupported theories of behind-the-scenes schemes of fraud in order to explain away all this direct evidence that you find inconvenient. The testimony is clear.
>
> The testimony is clear but your interpretation is cloudy.
>
Reedy: 21 plays were correctly attributed to Shakespeare in his lifetime.
Dennis: Reedy gets substantive! I love it. For the first time in a while, he isn't just relying on a vague attack and personal insults. Alas, he begins with a preposterous and instantly refutable claim that "21 plays were correctly attributed to Shakespeare" and in so doing he naturally doesn't explicitly cite what plays he's talking about and for good reason. After all, he uses the same obviously misleading trick as he did in his Reedy-Kathman article. There, for example, he refers to "Henry VI Part 2 - Q1 1594, Q2 1600, both with the author unnamed, Q3 1619 by William Shakespeare, Gent." Incredibly, Reedy-Kathman actually use this as evidence for Shakespeare. As they state: "Good evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems bearing his name is the fact that his name appears on them as the author." I concur and would even say that's great evidence. The only problem is, as Reedy knows now if he didn't know before, the play that they are citing is NOT "Henry VI - Part 2." It is of course, a rewritten, weaker adaptation known as "The Contention." The same is true of their claim about "Henry VI, Part 3," which really was the weaker, rewritten plagiarized version known as "True Tragedy." What is more, Groatsworth of Wit (1592), identifies Shakespeare as an "upstart" plagiarizer who was getting accolades for the work of others and especially Henry VI, Part 3. As the orthodox and renowned scholar J Dover-Wilson wrote about this passage, expressing a once-common scholarly opinion, the pamphlet "was accusing Shakespeare of stealing and adapting plays upon Henry VI....." So there it is! There's a cotemporaneous comment that Shakespeare was plagiarizing plays on Henry VI. And what do we find? We find exactly this: The plagiarized adaptation of "Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3" -- known as "The Contention" and "True Tragedy" printed while Shakespeare was alive -- and attributed to him in 1619.
So if that's his idea of a work "correctly attributed to Shakespeare" then he is certainly right. That's what you believe, right, Mr. Reedy? That "True Tragedy" and "The Contention" were written by Shakespeare?
ignoto
> Ign, are you actually challenging the reliance on "verbal echoes" in
> order to determine primacy of sources?
> And your speeches were not paraphrases at all.
Gee, so Harold Jenkins (who is one of many) is flat out wrong when he says:
'For all their brilliant use, the ideas of the speech are for the most
part traditional ... For its classical origins see Anders [who quotes
the relevant passage from Plato]' (Jenkins, Arden Hamlet 2 at 489)
And no, your correspondences are not a 'paraphrase' because they occur
over a large range text and in an order unrelated to the speech in H.
Moreover most of your the correspondences you list are just commonplaces
of stoic philosophy.
This isn't even close:
>
> 1) Monologue on death in
> Hamlet
> 2) Meditation on death in
> North's Dial of Princes
>
> Hamlet begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
> or to go on living:
Whether life or death is preferable is a stoic commonplace (See Cicero
Tusculan Disputations XLII)
>
> "To be or not to be? That is the question."
>
>
> Pantutius begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
> or to go on living:
>
> �Is it better that thou die...than that thou scape and live?
>
> Directly following his own question, Hamlet describes death as a way
> to escape �the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:�
>
> "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, And by opposing, end
> them. (3.1.56-8)"
>
> Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a
> way to escape �the assaults of life and broils of fortune:�
>
> "What other thing is the grave, but a strong fort, wherein we shut
> ourselves from the assaults of life and broils of fortune? "
Death ends life's miseries: another stoic commonplace, eg.
CARDAN: �In holy scripture, death is not accounted other than sleep, and
to die is said to sleep � better to follow the counsel of Agathius, who
right well commended death, saying that it did not only remove sickness
and all other grief, but also, when all other discommodities of life did
happen to man often, it never would come more than once � Seeing,
therefore, with such ease men die, what should we account of death to be
resembled to anything better than sleep � Most assured it is that such
sleep be most sweet as be most sound, for those are the best wherein
like unto dead men we dream nothing. The broken sleeps, the slumber,
the dreams full of visions, are commonly in them that have weak and
sickly bodies.�
>
> Hamlet then refers to death as a kind of sleeping -- and notes that
> during sleep we feel none of the sufferings of life:
>
> "To die -- to sleep/ No more, and by a sleep to say we end / The
> heartache, and the thousand natural shocks / That flesh is heir to;
> (60-64)"
>
> The Dial refers to death as a kind of sleeping -- and notes that
> during sleep we feel none of the sufferings of life:
>
> "Death is an eternal sleep�a kind of sleeping �[And w]hen we sleep,
> the enticements of the flesh do not provoke us�[and] we feel not the
> anguishes of the body � "
See Cardan above. The notion of death as sleep is, again, a stoic
commonplace (see Plato, Cicero, Montaigne).
>
> After listing life�s miseries, Hamlet answers his own original
> question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring
> a welcome end to these sufferings:
>
> "'tis a consummation / Devoutly to be wish't�
>
> After listing life�s miseries, Pantutius answers his own original
> question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring
> a welcome end to these sufferings:
>
> �Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death�
Another commonplace, see eg:
"Death may peradventure be a thing indifferent, happily a thing
desirable. Yet it is to bee beleeved that if it be a transmigration from
one place to another, there is some amendment in going to live with so
many worthy famous persons that are deceased, and be exempted from
having any more to doe with wicked and corrupted Judges. If it be a
consummation of ones being, it is also an amendment and entrance into a
long and quiet night. Wee finde nothing so sweete in life as a quiet
rest and gentle sleepe, and without dreames.."
(Montaigne, Essays 3.12)
> But Hamlet then points out the problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the
> suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it
> also brings dread:
>
> " �who would fardels bear,
> To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
> But that the dread of something after death..,
>
> And makes us rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that
> we know not of (76-82)"
>
> But Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop
> the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it
> also brings dread:
>
> "Life is so troublesome that it wearyeth us: [but] Death is so
> doubtful, that it feareth us�
>
> "I desire no more to live: but for that I know not whither I am
> carried by death..."
>
> Hamlet then refers to death as an �undiscover�d country, from whose
> bourn/ No traveler returns (3.1.79-80). �
> The Dial refers to death as
> "a pilgrimage uncertain...for of all those which are dead none
> returned.�
>
> Dial of Princes also includes Hamlet�s phrases �sea of troubles,� �of
> so long life,� and, in one sentence, places forms of the words sleep,
> perchance and dream in proximity, echoing the immortal �To sleep,
> perchance to dream...� Just how common is such a juxtaposition?
"He reports that his EEBO-TCP search term was �sleep near perchance near
dream�, and applied to EEBO-TCP at the time of writing of this review
this search term also hits John Florio's First Fruits [1578], which
contains �if perchaunce thou aske me, because thou hast dreamed it,
sleping�. Perhaps the Florio book was added to EEBO-TCP after McCarthy
looked." ('VI Shakespeare', Years Work English Studies (2011) First
published online: May 12, 2011)
[The author also affirms my comments about sleep, death etc. as
commonplaces and that omnly about 20% of EEBO are searchable]
Ign.
> According to the massive Early English Books Online database, only two
> works in the English language place those three words together (i.e.,
> place them within ten words of each other): Hamlet and North�s Dial of
ignoto
>> London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter, 1605) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
>
> Ign: "May have touched it up for performance."
>
> Dennis responds: Exactly! Okay, so you are admitting Shakespeare
> would be ascribed authorship of plays that he touched up or adapted
> for the stage.
I am not 'admitting' anything. I am saying that as chief playwright of
the King's Men Shakespeare would have exercised some 'artistic control'
over the plays they staged.
Of course there are recorded instances where Shakespeare has revised the
play (or part htereof) of another - eg Pericles.
> The title pages are correct!
No.
> And that's also what he did with MoV and Hamlet and TA!
Merchant of Venice bears a vague relation to Jew of Malta.
Shakespeare's Hamlet is probably a substantial revision of Kyd's Hamlet.
And TA is probably a revision of a play be Peele.
> Now,
> Shakespeare was assigned the authorship of "True Tragedy". Do you
> know why? Because he wrote it. And "True tragedy" is a touched up,
> adapted version of Henry Vi, part 3. That's what "Groatsworth of Wit"
> was about. The most famous of all references to him accused him of
> being an "upstart" plagiarizer who was getting accolades for the work
> of others and especially Henry VI, Part 3. The "Tiger's Heart" line
> also occurs in "True Tragedy" and is a plagiarized line from a
> plagiarized play. As the orthodox and renowned scholar J Dover-Wilson
> wrote about this passage, expressing a once-common scholarly opinion,
> the pamphlet "was accusing Shakespeare of stealing and adapting plays
> upon Henry VI....." And so this was marking him as the author of
> "True Tragedy," just like the title page states. Likewise, In the
> preface to his 1687 adaptation of Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus,
> Edward Ravenscroft offered this tantalizing bit of literary gossip:
> �I have been told by some anciently conversant with the stage, that it
> [Titus Andronicus] was not originally [Shakepseare�s]�and he only gave
> some master-touches to one or two of the principal characters.�
Ravenscroft's gossip, however, does not square with the text, which
clearly contains more of Shakespeare's hand than 'some master-touches to
one or two of the principal characters'.
Ign.
> Again there we have it! This testimony agrees with all the Shakespeare-
> era title pages and all the comments from his contemporaries. All are
> true. And you know why his name is on the touched up, staged
> adaptation of "Hamlet' (Q1)-- just as it is with "True Tragedy," "MWW"
> "Henry V," "RIII," etc. because that was Shakespeare's version. No
> conspiracies. No lies. That's what he wrote.
> In fact, that's how Shakespeare was described on four of the first
> five plays that bear his name:
> � Locrine Q1 (1595 -- allegedly apocryphal): "Newly set foorth,
> overseene, and corrected. By W.S."
> � Love's Labour's Lost Q1 (1598): "Newly corrected and augmented By W.
> Shakespeare."
> � Henry IV, part 1, Q2 (1599): "Newly corrected by W. Shake-speare."
> � Richard III Q3 (1602 --"bad quarto") "Newly augmented, by William
ignoto
> On Jul 2, 4:47 am, ignoto<ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>> On 2/07/11 4:15 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>
>>> Ign:
>>>> This is not direct evidence. Direct evidence would be the name 'Thomas
>>>> North' on a quarto of Hamlet.
>>
>>> Dennis: 1) Well, if you agree that name on a quarto is "direct evidence," why do you dismiss the majority of such
>>> documented "direct evidence" printed prior to 1620? In fact, you actually think that title pages involving
>>> Shakespeare were fraudulent more often than not.
>>
>> You need to distinguish direct evidence and proof. A title page is
>> direct evidence, not proof, of authorship.
>>
>> 2) Well, in that case you don't think there is any
>> "direct evidence" that Thomas Kyd ever wrote anything.
>>
>> No there is direct evidence that Kyd was a writer (and that he wrote
>> ST), eg:
>>
>> -Kyd is named as one of Shakespeare's peers in Jonson's poem in the Fist
>> Folio.
>>
>> -Tho Heywood in 'Apology for Actors':
>> 'Therefore M Kid, in the Spanish Tragedy..."
>
> Dennis responds: Ahh, okay, we're agreed. Such written quotes like
> that are forms of "direct evidence." So this is "direct evidence"
> that Shakespeare did not originate "Titus Andronicus":
>
> stage, that it [Titus Andronicus] was not originally his
> the principal characters.�
> If such quotes are direct evidence, then they are direct evidence. And
> there is no intelligible reason to contend either Heywood or
> Ravenscroft are liars.
No, but Heywood's testimony is, by reason of his proximity in time and
circumstance, more reliable than Ravenscroft's.
Ign.
>
ignoto
> On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
>> On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>> New video for North of Shakespeare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
>>>
>>
>> "This testimony is so strong, so direct, so authoritative�; that it
>> quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works � could
>> not have been Shakespeare"
>>
>> Actually the converse is true. The testimonial evidence for Shakspere of
>> Stratford is so strong as to make it, for practical purposes, impossible
>> that anyone else could have been the author.
>
> Dennis writes: Exactly right...about the staged adaptations that were attributed to him while he was alive.
> The twelve adaptations and mediocre plays with his name on the title
page are all examples of "direct evidence"
> that he wrote those plays.
A name on a title page is direct evidence of authorship. It is not
conclusive evidence, however. The reliability of such evidence is
contingent upon the source of the attestation(s). So, for instance
quartos that are attributed to Shakespeare by Richard Field are
generally thought to have an excellent provenance by reason of that
printer's circumstantial proximity to Shakespeare and (IIRC) Field's
reputation for making (what are considered to be) reliable attributions.
Other printers fare less well.
Of course, the FF contains the attestations of Shakespeare's fellow
players, Heminge and Condell, popular dramatist Jonson and sundry
others, thus providing overwhelming evidence in support of Shakespeare's
authorship.
They were essentially all performed by Shakespeare's theater company
as well. You
> dismiss them as fraudulent or the results of piracy. But you have no direct evidence for any of this.
TR has already pointed out the FF testimony in relation to this point.
> With
> not a single play do you have any direct evidence that it was a piracy.
Again, you seem to be confusing direct evidence and proof. Direct
evidence can be rebutted.
> Yet you are willing to hypothesize
> it again and again and again. I am accepting the direct evidence -- a dozen examples -- while you are
> following unsupported theories of behind-the-scenes schemes of fraud in order to explain away all this
> direct evidence that you find inconvenient.
No, I reject direct evidence when further and better evidence points to
a different conclusion. Direct evidence is not conclusive.
> The testimony is clear.
Of course, because testimony is *always* reliable, eh...
VOLPONE:
... [POINTING TO HIS BILL AND HIS VIAL.]
For, this is the physician, this the medicine; this counsels,
this cures; this gives the direction, this works the effect;
and, in sum, both together may be termed an abstract of the
theorick and practick in the Aesculapian art. 'Twill cost you
eight crowns. And,�Zan Fritada, prithee sing a verse extempore
in honour of it.
Ign.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> over a large range text and in an order unrelated to the speech in H.
Dennis: Not sure what you're reading. Again,the Hamlet soliloquy follows the exact *order* of the Pantutius Aurelius discussions on death. Again:
Pantutius begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
or to go on living: “Is it better that thou die...than that thou scape and live?
Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a way to escape “the assaults of life and broils of fortune:”
After listing life’s miseries, Pantutius answers his own original question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring a welcome end to these sufferings: “Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death”
But Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it also brings dread:
"Life is so troublesome that it wearyeth us: [but] Death is so doubtful, that it feareth us…
"I desire no more to live: but for that I know not whither I am carried by death..."
That's the order. And that's the order of the Hamlet monologue. No other speech follows this order like this -- or contains the verbal echoes that I reference.
> > Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a
> > way to escape �the assaults of life and broils of fortune:�
> >
> > "What other thing is the grave, but a strong fort, wherein we shut
> > ourselves from the assaults of life and broils of fortune? "
>
> Death ends life's miseries: another stoic commonplace, eg.
Dennis responds: Ign, I think you're putting me on here. The resemblance is not simply that they're both saying death ends life miseries. Again, the discussion begins with the someone FIRST asking out loud the rhetorical question, Is it better to live or is it better to die? And then they answer their own question themselves by pointing out that death was a way to escape “the assaults of life and broils of fortune:” Or in Hamlet: death was a way to escape “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:”
Now, are you really putting me on or do you seriously believe this is coincidental? (Forgetting all the other verbal echoes that I mention)
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
In your view, all of the inconvenient title pages are fraudulent -- and all of the inconvenient statements are lies. And you can play that game forever. We could find five or ten or fifteen more inferior plays or staged adaptations with Shakespeare's name on the title page -- and you would dismiss them too, arguing they were all fraudulent and their publishers were greedy. We could find a contemporaneous letter penned by some writer that states, "Shakespeare did not write 'Twelfth Night,' he merely adapted it for the stage." And you would dismiss him as a liar too. Groatsworth unambiguously identifies Shakespeare as a plagiarist -- of Henry VI, part 3, no less. What's the reaction? Greene was dying, insane and bitter? That's not really what the passage meant? Again, how could anyone falsify this view?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On 3/07/11 5:52 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
> >> On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> >>> New video for North of Shakespeare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
> >>>
> >>
> >> "This testimony is so strong, so direct, so authoritative�; that it
> >> quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works � could
> >> not have been Shakespeare"
> >>
> >> Actually the converse is true. The testimonial evidence for Shakspere of
> >> Stratford is so strong as to make it, for practical purposes, impossible
> >> that anyone else could have been the author.
> >
> > Dennis writes: Exactly right...about the staged adaptations that were attributed to him while he was alive.
> > The twelve adaptations and mediocre plays with his name on the title
> page are all examples of "direct evidence"
> > that he wrote those plays.
>
> A name on a title page is direct evidence of authorship. It is not
> conclusive evidence, however. The reliability of such evidence is
> contingent upon the source of the attestation(s). So, for instance
> quartos that are attributed to Shakespeare by Richard Field are
> generally thought to have an excellent provenance by reason of that
> printer's circumstantial proximity to Shakespeare
Dennis responds: Well,should we not trust the title pages of Twain or Hemingway or Fitzgerald if they didn't know the printer specifically? Or is this a unique situation? Indeed, was false-title page attribution of plays something that was common among Elizabethan/Jacobean printers? Indeed, was this something that was common among Augustine Mathewes, Valentine Simmes, William Jaggard, Thomas Creede, Valentine Simmes, Thomas Creede, Richard Braddock, and William White? Did they do this with any other playwright (I'm not talking about padding a collection of poems, but actually, purposefully, attributing a full play to a wrong author)? Or did each of them, for peculiar reasons of their, all single out Shakespeare to do this to?
and (IIRC) Field's
> reputation for making (what are considered to be) reliable attributions.
> Other printers fare less well.
Dennis: I'm sorry, which of the aforementioned printers have a reputation for falsifying title pages? Didn't Jaggard print the First Folio? So I guess we can't trust FF, right?
ignoto
> Sure, but you think Ravenscroft's a liar, right? He didn't really hear that from an informed
> theater-insider, right?
Now you are just sprouting nonsense.
I nowhere said Ravenscroft was a liar. As is well known rumour stuffs
'the ears of men with false reports.'
> Just like you think all of the following publishers are liars -- John Helme,
> Thomas Dewe, Thomas Pavier, Andrew Wise. Arthur Johnson, Nicholas Ling, Nathaniel Butter, William
> Jones, and Henry Gosson. Just as you think all of the following printers are liars: Augustine Mathewes,
> Valentine Simmes, William Jaggard, Thomas Creede, Valentine Simmes, Thomas Creede, Richard Braddock,
> and William White.
Nope. I never said they were all 'liars', though some of them may very
well be (I'd have to check on specifics).
>In your view, all of the inconvenient title pages are fraudulent
They are not 'inconvenient'. The ones that are, on the whole, when
measured against what we know Shakespeare wrote, demonstrably wrong
(and what we know he wrote is affirmed by excellent testimony).
> -- and all of the inconvenient statements
> are lies. And you can play that game forever. We could find five or ten or fifteen more
> inferior plays or staged adaptations with Shakespeare's name on the title page --
> and you would dismiss them too, arguing they were all fraudulent and their publishers
> were greedy. We could find a contemporaneous letter penned by some writer that states,
> "Shakespeare did not write 'Twelfth Night,' he merely adapted it for the stage."
Gee, another hypothetical. Too bad such a letter doesn't exist (and that
the FF *was* published).
> And you would dismiss him as a liar too. Groatsworth unambiguously identifies Shakespeare
> as a plagiarist -- of Henry VI, part 3, no less. What's the reaction? Greene was dying,
> insane and bitter? That's not really what the passage meant? Again, how could anyone falsify this view?
I don;t recall saying Shakespeare never borrowed from other writers. He
did. As did many others.
Of course it's not even established that Greene's venom was directed
against Shakespeare.
Ign.
ignoto
> On Saturday, July 2, 2011 10:58:38 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
>> On 3/07/11 5:52 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
>>>> On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>>>> New video for North of Shakespeare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works � could
>>>> not have been Shakespeare"
>>>>
>>>> Actually the converse is true. The testimonial evidence for Shakspere of
>>>> Stratford is so strong as to make it, for practical purposes, impossible
>>>> that anyone else could have been the author.
>>>
>>> Dennis writes: Exactly right...about the staged adaptations that were attributed to him while he was alive.
>> > The twelve adaptations and mediocre plays with his name on the title
>> page are all examples of "direct evidence"
>>> that he wrote those plays.
>>
>> A name on a title page is direct evidence of authorship. It is not
>> conclusive evidence, however. The reliability of such evidence is
>> contingent upon the source of the attestation(s). So, for instance
>> quartos that are attributed to Shakespeare by Richard Field are
>> generally thought to have an excellent provenance by reason of that
>> printer's circumstantial proximity to Shakespeare
>
> Dennis responds: Well,should we not trust the title pages of Twain or Hemingway or Fitzgerald if they didn't
> know the printer specifically?
This argument is anachronistic and ignorant of the material
circumstances of Shakespeare's period.
> Or is this a unique situation? Indeed, was false-title page attribution of
> plays something that was common among Elizabethan/Jacobean printers?
Gee, you wrote a book in which title page attribution appears to be one
of the central planks, and you don't know?
> Indeed, was this something that was
> common among Augustine Mathewes, Valentine Simmes, William Jaggard, Thomas Creede, Valentine Simmes,
> Thomas Creede, Richard Braddock, and William White? Did they do this with any other playwright
> (I'm not talking about padding a collection of poems, but actually, purposefully, attributing a
> full play to a wrong author)? Or did each of them, for peculiar reasons of their, all single out
> Shakespeare to do this to?
eg. (there are probably better examples, these are jsut from what I have
close at hand)
The Widow attributed to Jonson and Fletcher, despite title page,
believed to be by Middleton alone
Wit at Several Weapons by Beaumont and Fletcher, despite title page,
Middleton and Rowley believed to be collaborators
Appius and Virginia by John Webster, despite title page, believed to
have been co-authored by Heywood
Of course as the acting companies generally owned the plays, the
attribution to the company is sometimes seen on a quarto (eg IIRC Henry
5, says as it was acted by the LC's Men, and gives no author. But as
Shakespeare was chief playwright of the LC's men, it's no great
inference to his authorship).
> and (IIRC) Field's
>> reputation for making (what are considered to be) reliable attributions.
>> Other printers fare less well.
>
> Dennis: I'm sorry, which of the aforementioned printers have a reputation for falsifying title pages?
> Didn't Jaggard print the First Folio? So I guess we can't trust FF, right?
No, you are simply twisting my what I say to suit your own agenda. A
printer's reputation is but one thing to consider. As regards the FF I
have already pointed out that Shakespeare's authorship was attested to
by his fellows Heminge and Condell, Jonson and sundry others, so
Jaggard's 'reliability' is not in issue here. Plus there's the
Stationer's Register:
1623 (Stationer's Register entry for First Folio; November 8)
"Mr. William Shakspeer"
Ign.
ignoto
> Ign:
>> And no, your correspondences are not a 'paraphrase' because they occur
>> over a large range text and in an order unrelated to the speech in H.
>
> Dennis: Not sure what you're reading. Again,the Hamlet soliloquy follows the exact *order* of the Pantutius Aurelius discussions on death. Again:
> Pantutius begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
>
> Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a way to escape �the assaults of life and broils of fortune:�
>
> After listing life�s miseries, Pantutius answers his own original question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring a welcome end to these sufferings: �Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death�
>
> But Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it also brings dread:
> "I desire no more to live: but for that I know not whither I am carried by death..."
> That's the order. And that's the order of the Hamlet monologue. No other speech follows this order like this -- or contains the verbal echoes that I reference.
>
>>> Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a
>>> way to escape �the assaults of life and broils of fortune:�
>>>
>>> "What other thing is the grave, but a strong fort, wherein we shut
>>> ourselves from the assaults of life and broils of fortune? "
>>
>> Death ends life's miseries: another stoic commonplace, eg.
>
> Dennis responds: Ign, I think you're putting me on here. The resemblance is not simply that they're
> both saying death ends life miseries. Again, the discussion begins with the someone FIRST asking out
> loud the rhetorical question, Is it better to live or is it better to die? And then they answer their
> of fortune:� Or in Hamlet: death was a way to escape �the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:�
> Now, are you really putting me on or do you seriously believe this is coincidental? (Forgetting all the
> other verbal echoes that I mention)
Firstly, why does your N+Q article reference the 1619 edition of Dial
which contains the following exordium:
'lately reperused, and corrected from many grosse imperfections. With
addition of a fourth booke, stiled by the name of The fauoured courtier.
, London : Imprinted by Bernard Alsop, dwelling by Saint Annes Church
neere Aldersgate, 1619.'
In the 1619 edition the fourth book begins on page 543, it does not
exist in the earlier edition, so far as I can see, so anything after
page 543 you can draw a line through. [Page 534 of the 1619 edition
begins on Fol. 334 of the 1582 edition (I haven't checked 1552 or other
printings).]
Secondly, the correspondences you have listed, I do not find convincing
because they are widely used commonplaces (and the fact that you find
correspondences, which you think meaningful, between Hamlet and 4th book
of the 1619 edition of Dial, which did not exist when Halmet was
written, essentially proves my point).
Thirdly, as to the order, of the correspondences, I am reading your N+Q
article which contains a side by side comparison between Hamlet and
Dial. The footnote progression is not sequential: 535, 380, 524, 132,
472, 536, 129, 533, 533, 670, 558, 524, 558.
Ign.
frode
> On 3/07/11 3:07 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ign:
> >> And no, your correspondences are not a 'paraphrase' because they occur
> >> over a large range text and in an order unrelated to the speech in H.
>
> > Dennis: Not sure what you're reading. Again,the Hamlet soliloquy follows the exact *order* of the Pantutius Aurelius discussions on death. Again:
> > Pantutius begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
>
> > Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a way to escape the assaults of life and broils of fortune:
>
> > After listing life s miseries, Pantutius answers his own original question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring a welcome end to these sufferings: Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death
>
> > But Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it also brings dread:
> > "Life is so troublesome that it wearyeth us: [but] Death is so doubtful, that it feareth us
> > That's the order. And that's the order of the Hamlet monologue. No other speech follows this order like this -- or contains the verbal echoes that I reference.
>
> >>> Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a
>
> >>> "What other thing is the grave, but a strong fort, wherein we shut
> >>> ourselves from the assaults of life and broils of fortune? "
>
> >> Death ends life's miseries: another stoic commonplace, eg.
>
> > Dennis responds: Ign, I think you're putting me on here. The resemblance is not simply that they're
> > both saying death ends life miseries. Again, the discussion begins with the someone FIRST asking out
> > loud the rhetorical question, Is it better to live or is it better to die? And then they answer their
> > of fortune: Or in Hamlet: death was a way to escape the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:
> > Now, are you really putting me on or do you seriously believe this is coincidental? (Forgetting all the
> > other verbal echoes that I mention)
>
> Firstly, why does your N+Q article reference the 1619 edition of Dial
> which contains the following exordium:
>
> 'lately reperused, and corrected from many grosse imperfections. With
> addition of a fourth booke, stiled by the name of The fauoured courtier.
> , London : Imprinted by Bernard Alsop, dwelling by Saint Annes Church
> neere Aldersgate, 1619.'
>
> In the 1619 edition the fourth book begins on page 543, it does not
> exist in the earlier edition, so far as I can see, so anything after
> page 543 you can draw a line through. [Page 534 of the 1619 edition
> begins on Fol. 334 of the 1582 edition (I haven't checked 1552 or other
> printings).]
>
> Secondly, the correspondences you have listed, I do not find convincing
> because they are widely used commonplaces (and the fact that you find
> correspondences, which you think meaningful, between Hamlet and 4th book
> of the 1619 edition of Dial, which did not exist when Halmet was
> written, essentially proves my point).
>
> Thirdly, as to the order, of the correspondences, I am reading your N+Q
> article which contains a side by side comparison between Hamlet and
> Dial. The footnote progression is not sequential: 535, 380, 524, 132,
> 472, 536, 129, 533, 533, 670, 558, 524, 558.
>
> Ign.
You are wrong on this point, Ignoto. On the title page of an edition
of Dial from 1568 we can read:
Englished out of the Frenche by T. North. . . And now newly revised
and corrected by hym, refourmed of faultes escaped in the first
edition: with an amplification also of a fourth booke annexed to the
same, entituled The fauored Courtier, never heretofore imprinted in
our vulgar tongue.
ignoto
Ok, so the EEBO summaries on the search page are not accurate.
Nevertheless the article references should be not be to an edition that
post dates Hamlet (unless DM has collated them all and found no material
differences).
I stand by my other comments.
Ign.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Dennis responds: Ign, I think the hook may be through your nose and you're scrutinizing my past works so you can quibble relentlessly over nonsense, allowing you to avoid more careful discussion of your belief that the majority of plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1620 were the result of a wide-ranging conspiracy to fool the public about what he had really written.
1) The Fourth Book of The Dial was added by North in 1568. 2) Nice catch on the Florio quote. I think I may not have checked variant spellings. But the reason why Florio has it is that he is reproducing the same passage reproduced by North. And I'm not sure if the fact that the obvious echo and grouping of "sleep, perchance, dream" occurs in only one other place in the massive EEBO database -- and in a work that is following North in its reproduction of a passage to boot -- makes this a "commonplace." 3)It is only the verbal echoes that are not in order -- as would be expected. Again, the most relevant passages to Hamlet's soliloquy on death are concentrated in this 700+ page book in the passage on death in 533, and most especially, the Pantutius discussion with Aurelius on death, 535-7, and Aurelius's eventual response: 558. The Hamlet soliloquy is structured on the Pantutius-Aurelius exchange.
Now, of course, yes, other stoic works also point out that death ends suffering or that people don't know what happens in the afterlife or have complained about how much suffering occurs in life. But what they don't do is this:
First, begin with the someone FIRST asking aloud the rhetorical question, Is it better to live or is it better to die?
And then they answer their own question themselves by pointing out that death was a way to escape "the assaults of life and broils of fortune:" Or in Hamlet: that death was a way to escape "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:"
[see the resemblance here or are you spoofing?)
Then lists life's miseries.
Then after listing life's miseries, provides an answer to his own original question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring a welcome end to these sufferings: "Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death"
Then, there's a rub!
There's a rebuttal: Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it also brings dread: "Life is so troublesome that it wearyeth us: [but] Death is so doubtful, that it feareth us. I desire no more to live: but for that I know not whither I am carried by death..."
That's the order. And that's the order of the Hamlet monologue. No other speech follows this order like this.
Now, while the Hamlet monologue thematically follows this exact order -- it also contains a number of verbal echoes, including echoes from passages on death/sleeping that occur elsewhere in The Dial, like just a few pages before or in other chapters. This just shows that the reader was familiar with these other passages and verbal idiosyncrasies and so his peculiar phrasings were seeping into the monologue. So again the exact order of the Hamlet monologue is not a commonplace. The start with the rhetorical question, Is it better to live or is it better to die? is not a commonplace. The response that death is a way to stop "the assaults of life and broils of fortune" -- is not a commonplace. The continued order with the listing of miseries, the conclusion for the hope for death, followed by the rub, is not a commonplace. The verbal echoes: "sea of troubles" "of so long life" "the assaults of life and broils of fortune" "all those which are dead none returned" "the pains and travels men endure in this mortal life" "the thousand calamities which do torment their hearts" "a pilgrimage uncertain" "Sleep, perchance, dream" -- the collection of all these phrases are not commonplaces. I mean, come on. Those phrasings occurring mostly in passages on death in a work that contains the exact thematic unfolding of the Hamlet soliloquy does sound familiar, doesn't it?
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
> On 3/07/11 3:46 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 2, 2011 10:58:38 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
> >> On 3/07/11 5:52 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
> >>>> On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
> >>>>> New video for North of Shakespeare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works � could
Dennis: No. The title page ascribes it to Jonson, Fletcher AND Middleton. Yes, scholars believe the language is demonstrably Middletonian, but some scholars "have reserved some small portion of the play for Jonson and Fletcher, or else they have postulated that Jonson and Fletcher, while not contributing to the play's language, helped with the plot." [References therein.] Roger Trager Levine (ed.) "A critical edition of Thomas Middleton's 'The Widow', Univ. Salzburg, 1975 xii. So while this is a 1652 work -- and has nothing to do with the evil printers who tried to frame Shakespeare -- it still does not describe a printer ascribing one work of one person to someone else.
Ign: "Wit at Several Weapons by Beaumont and Fletcher, despite title page,
Middleton and Rowley believed to be collaborators
"Appius and Virginia by John Webster, despite title page, believed to
have been co-authored by Heywood"
Dennis responds; No one denies that collaborators, coauthors, later editors, or later augmenters were often left off title pages. In fact, many times, original authors were left off of title pages -- and the only person labeled was the "corrector" or "augmenter." This, of course, was not meant to imply that the corrector was the original author. I make these points throughout "North of Shakespeare" repeatedly myself. The question to you, was there any example of any of the dastardly Shakespeare printers actually knowingly attributing a play written by one person to someone else. And not only could you not reference such an example, you couldn't reference a clear cut example from any time in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. Yet you believe *all* of those printers, operating between the 1590's to 1619, just all decided to start framing Shakespeare, alone, for inferior work. Shakespeare is the only author in history who became a patsy of a variety of printers all scheming to fool the public.
> > and (IIRC) Field's
> >> reputation for making (what are considered to be) reliable attributions.
> >> Other printers fare less well.
> >
> > Dennis: I'm sorry, which of the aforementioned printers have a reputation for falsifying title pages?
> > Didn't Jaggard print the First Folio? So I guess we can't trust FF, right?
>
> No, you are simply twisting my what I say to suit your own agenda. A
> printer's reputation is but one thing to consider. As regards the FF I
> have already pointed out that Shakespeare's authorship was attested to
> by his fellows Heminge and Condell,
Dennis: So Shakespeare wrote the first Act of "Henry VI, part 1"? It appears in the FF after all -- and Heminges and Condell were complimentary. No one believes that since the FF contains book-jacket praise from Shakespeare's friends (Ironic that most people here are on the record stating that praise from friends or family members is worthless, isn't it?) that this means he wrote everything in it. I agree that many of the plays in it are Shakespeare's adaptations -- just not all the material. Indeed, you yourself believe that Folio editors would include material not written by Shakespeare -- no matter what kind things Heminges and Condell wrote -- as the Third and Fourth Folios include Yorkshire Tragedy, London Prodigal, Thomas Lord Cromwell, etc.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Ign writes" They are not 'inconvenient'. The ones that are, on the whole, when
measured against what we know Shakespeare wrote.."
Dennis responds: I'm sorry, but how do you know "what Shakespeare wrote" -- other than by looking at the title pages of the works attributed to him? You are begging the question. You start off with the conviction that you know how Shakespeare wrote (he's Shakespeare, after all)-- and so are able to reject the majority of plays attributed to him prior to 1620. But of course its those plays that have to be studied to determine how Shakespeare wrote. Earlier, you argued that contemporaneous evidence is stronger than later evidence. And if that's the case shouldn't the title pages printed while he was alive take precedence. Finally, no one believes that we must accept everything in the Folio as from his pen simply because of book jacket praise from his friends. Yes, many of the First Folio plays are Shakespeare's adaptations -- and so are some of the plays added to the Third and Fourth Folios. It's just that not all the material in the folios are from Shakespeare. And that's not a controversial statement. Now, the trick is to determine which is Shakespeare's and which isn't. And the best way to do that? Determine Shakespeare's actual style and methods from the 20 or so plays attributed to him *prior* to the FF -- and which were printed while Shakespeare was alive.
Tom Reedy
I'm sure the many Shakespearean academics will be forever grateful to
you for clearing all this up for them. If you had only come along
sooner, they could have saved themselves from doing all that worthless
labor for the past four centuries. Let us know when you publish
something peer-reviewed about Shakespeare and we'll all make our
proper apologies. Until then, you're just yet another monomaniacal
crank with the usual distorted arguments and skewed rationalizations
that unknowingly (to you) reveal basic ignorance about the subject.
Oh, and BTW, I did not review your book, not having read but one
chapter, and I have no idea who "Roger A. Leff" is. My guess would be
that he's somebody with the name "Roger A. Leff". Unlike yourself, not
everybody thinks using sockpuppets is a good idea. (I notice you
haven't addressed that issue at all.)
TR
frode
If Dennis McCarthy is "just yet another monomaniacal crank with the
usual distorted arguments and skewed rationalizations", shouldn't it
be rather easy for you to rebut him? Ignoto, who seems to be well
versed in this field, is trying to, but I think McCarthy is doing very
well. But then, I'm not an expert.
Dennis McCarthy
> On Jul 3, 9:10 am, "den...@NorthofShakespeare.com"
> <Den...@NorthofShakespeare.com> wrote:
> > >In your view, all of the inconvenient title pages are fraudulent
> >
> > Ign writes" They are not 'inconvenient'. The ones that are, on the whole, when
> > measured against what we know Shakespeare wrote.."
> >
> > Dennis responds: I'm sorry, but how do you know "what Shakespeare wrote" -- other than by looking at the title pages of the works attributed to him? You are begging the question. You start off with the conviction that you know how Shakespeare wrote (he's Shakespeare, after all)-- and so are able to reject the majority of plays attributed to him prior to 1620. But of course its those plays that have to be studied to determine how Shakespeare wrote. Earlier, you argued that contemporaneous evidence is stronger than later evidence. And if that's the case shouldn't the title pages printed while he was alive take precedence. Finally, no one believes that we must accept everything in the Folio as from his pen simply because of book jacket praise from his friends. Yes, many of the First Folio plays are Shakespeare's adaptations -- and so are some of the plays added to the Third and Fourth Folios. It's just that not all the material in the folios are from Shakespeare. And that's not a controversial statement. Now, the trick is to determine which is Shakespeare's and which isn't. And the best way to do that? Determine Shakespeare's actual style and methods from the 20 or so plays attributed to him *prior* to the FF -- and which were printed while Shakespeare was alive.
>
> I'm sure the many Shakespearean academics will be forever grateful to
> you for clearing all this up for them. If you had only come along
> sooner, they could have saved themselves from doing all that worthless
> labor for the past four centuries. Let us know when you publish
> something peer-reviewed about Shakespeare and we'll all make our
> proper apologies. Until then, you're just yet another monomaniacal
> crank with the usual distorted arguments and skewed rationalizations
> that unknowingly (to you) reveal basic ignorance about the subject.
Dennis responds: And, as I suspected, Reedy goes back to personal slights. Well, at least he tried one substantive post. As for the peer-reviewed article on Shakespeare which will generate "proper apologies"? Here you go: Dennis McCarthy "A ‘Sea of Troubles’ and a ‘Pilgrimage Uncertain’ / Dial Of Princes as the Source for Hamlet's Soliloquy, Notes and Queries (2009) 56(1): 57-60 first published online March 13, 2009 doi:10.1093/notesj/gjn242
But I won't really hold my breath for the apology. ;)
Tom Reedy
Here's the deal, Frode: His theory. like all anti-Stratfordian
theories, is based on the premise that a lot--the majority--of
previous scholarship is mistaken or dishonest, and I've long since
grown tired of playing Whack-a-Mole with such theorists. Have no fear,
there will be another Zenner/Streitz/Pinksen/McCarthy for you to cheer
on in a few months or so; we're quite used to them. Everyone of them
make the same claims about having discovered the true secret of
Shakespeare and everyone of them make the same complaints about not
being treated fairly and how they're "winning" because those who won't
debate them point-by-point are afraid of their theories, when in
reality we're just tired of dealing with them because they are all the
same and it has become boring.
If he is confident that his ideas have merit and that he has proven
them, then it is incumbent upon him to submit his work to peer review
instead of self-publishing a Kindle book. A newsgroup "debate" is not
peer review, and if you think the techniques he is using to "win" a
newsgroup debate even approaches scholarship, then I'm sorry, you
don't know what it is either.
And FYI, N&Q is not a peer-reviewed journal.
TR
Tom Reedy
wrote:
And again Dennis fails to respond to the accusation of sock-puppetry
because he considers that a "personal" attack.
How many readers read your N&Q submission besides the editors?
TR
ignoto
If you call 'verballing' doing well.
Ign.
ignoto
Well, let's see you N+Q article references TWO books on the source
material for the 'to be or not to be speech' a 1902 article by Hooker
and a 2002 'guide for students and actors'.
Woefully inadequate.
And yet you, having no idea about the relevant literature of the period,
presume to preach to me what is and is not a commonplace of the period,
even going so far as to claim that Socrates' comments on death, as
reported in Cicero, Montainge and Florio, acknowledged by the most
credible authorities, as material fundamental to the speech, 'are not
paraphrases at all'. And when I point out the support for these sources
in the literature. What do you do? Ignore them and *reassert* that your
'correspondences' are the best.
> 1) The Fourth Book of The Dial was added by North in 1568. 2) Nice catch on the Florio quote.
> I think I may not have checked variant spellings. But the reason why Florio has it is that he
> is reproducing the same passage reproduced by North.
Evidence?
> And I'm not sure if the fact that the
> obvious echo and grouping of "sleep, perchance, dream" occurs in only one other place in the
> massive EEBO database -- and in a work that is following North in its reproduction of a passage
> to boot -- makes this a "commonplace."
According to the 20% of the EEBO database that was searched.
Not to mention the fact that Florio's 'First Fruits' is a common source
for Shakespeare.
3)It is only the verbal echoes that are not in order --
Ok, so you now concede that they are not in order.
> as would be expected. Again, the most relevant passages to Hamlet's soliloquy on death are
> concentrated in this 700+ page book in the passage on death in 533, and most especially,
> the Pantutius discussion with Aurelius on death, 535-7, and Aurelius's eventual response: 558.
> The Hamlet soliloquy is structured on the Pantutius-Aurelius exchange.
No, as you would know if you were not ignorant of the relevant
literature, it's structured around stoic commonplaces found in Plato,
Montaigne, Cicero, Plutarch AND North, etc.
> Now, of course, yes, other stoic works also point out that death ends
> suffering or that people don't know what happens in the afterlife or have complained about
> how much suffering occurs in life. But what they don't do is this:
And therefore you know that the other sources 'don't do this', how?
What sources other than:
A search of 20% of the EEBO database.
-Elizabeth Robbins Hooker, ‘The Relation of Shakespeare to Montaigne,’
PLMA, xvii (3) (1902), 312–66, esp. 354–5
-Leslie O’Dell, Shakespearean Scholarship, A Guide for Actors and
Students, (Westport, CT, 2002), 143.)
have you consulted?
What primary sources have you read?
What works on the use of parallels to determine authorship have you
consulted?
Ign.
David L. Webb
<14cd31e3-a420-4a8d...@h14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:
True, except that Streitz was really one of a kind!
> for you to cheer
> on in a few months or so; we're quite used to them. Everyone of them
> make the same claims about having discovered the true secret of
> Shakespeare and everyone of them make the same complaints about not
> being treated fairly and how they're "winning" because those who won't
> debate them point-by-point are afraid of their theories, when in
> reality we're just tired of dealing with them because they are all the
> same and it has become boring.
>
> If he is confident that his ideas have merit and that he has proven
> them, then it is incumbent upon him to submit his work to peer review
> instead of self-publishing a Kindle book.
Mr. Streitz self-published his moronic monograph, then spammed
several hundred academics with an offer of a free copy in exchange for
an Amazon review. (I had already agreed to review the book, but he
didn't send me one; I wonder why.) Surely Mr. Streitz's marketing
technique (and I daresay his book itself) is *much* funnier than
anything that Mr. McCarthy has yet produced; I haven't seen his Kindle
book, but I can't believe that it could funnier than Streitz's effort.
ignoto
> On Sunday, July 3, 2011 2:23:06 AM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
>> On 3/07/11 3:46 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2011 10:58:38 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
>>>> On 3/07/11 5:52 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2011 8:54:01 PM UTC-4, ignoto wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/07/11 7:54 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>>>>>> New video for North of Shakespeare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9rt_lNrOo&feature=channel_video_title
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> quite convinces me that the man who wrote Shakespeare's works � could
Yes, the same 'evil' printers who misattributed poems to Shakespeare.
And it's clear (despite your arbitrary exclusion of these from evidence)
that the motive for misattribution (where not simply an instance of a
mistake) of poems is the same for plays: to capitalise on an author's
marketability.
> -- it still does not describe a
> printer ascribing one work of one person to someone else.
>
> Ign: "Wit at Several Weapons by Beaumont and Fletcher, despite title page,
> Middleton and Rowley believed to be collaborators
> "Appius and Virginia by John Webster, despite title page, believed to
> have been co-authored by Heywood"
>
> Dennis responds; No one denies that collaborators, coauthors, later editors, or later augmenters were often
> left off title pages. In fact, many times, original authors were left off of title pages -- and the only
> person labeled was the "corrector" or "augmenter." This, of course, was not meant to imply that the corrector
> was the original author. I make these points throughout "North of Shakespeare" repeatedly myself. The question
> to you, was there any example of any of the dastardly Shakespeare printers actually knowingly attributing a
> play written by one person to someone else.
Actually, the question was:
'Was false-title page attribution of plays something that was common
among Elizabethan/Jacobean printers?'
To which I responded with materials at hand, to make the point that
title page misattribution, outside of Shakespeare do indeed occur,
during the period (admittedly the period is longer than queried, but the
point is the same: title page misattributions are not unique to
Shakespeare).
> And not only could you not reference such an example, you couldn't
> reference a clear cut example from any time in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.
Uh, YOU wrote the book.
> Yet you believe *all*
> of those printers, operating between the 1590's to 1619, just all decided to start framing Shakespeare, alone,
> for inferior work.
Yes, and if they did, they had good reason to. Guess why? Because
Shakespeare was a marketable product.
> Shakespeare is the only author in history who became a patsy of a variety of printers all
> scheming to fool the public.
Actually the attribution of spurious works to a famous known author is a
well known occurrence throughout literary history.
>
>>> and (IIRC) Field's
>>>> reputation for making (what are considered to be) reliable attributions.
>>>> Other printers fare less well.
>>>
>>> Dennis: I'm sorry, which of the aforementioned printers have a reputation for falsifying title pages?
>>> Didn't Jaggard print the First Folio? So I guess we can't trust FF, right?
>>
>> No, you are simply twisting my what I say to suit your own agenda. A
>> printer's reputation is but one thing to consider. As regards the FF I
>> have already pointed out that Shakespeare's authorship was attested to
>> by his fellows Heminge and Condell,
>
> Dennis: So Shakespeare wrote the first Act of "Henry VI, part 1"? It appears in the FF after all
> -- and Heminges and Condell were complimentary. No one believes that since the FF contains book-jacket
> praise from Shakespeare's friends (Ironic that most people here are on the record stating that praise
> from friends or family members is worthless, isn't it?) that this means he wrote everything in it. I
> agree that many of the plays in it are Shakespeare's adaptations -- just not all the material. Indeed,
> you yourself believe that Folio editors would include material not written by Shakespeare -- no matter
> what kind things Heminges and Condell wrote -- as the Third and Fourth Folios include Yorkshire Tragedy,
> London Prodigal, Thomas Lord Cromwell, etc.
The fact that Heminge and Condell, who worked with Shakespeare for over
20 years, attested to the authorship of the works in the FF is excellent
evidence for the provenance of those works.
Of course the FF contains material that, on concentrated *textual
analysis*, is apparently not by Shakespeare. That is hardly surprising,
however, given the authorship practices of the period.
As for the statement that you 'agree that many of the plays in it are
Shakespeare's adaptations'. I never made any such statement.
As for the comment that 'most people here are on the record stating that
praise from friends or family members is worthless'. Heminge and Condell
were Shakespeare's *work* colleagues, not his freinds and family. You
will note that employers, as a matter of policy, do not accept
references from family members.
Ign.
ignoto
>> In your view, all of the inconvenient title pages are fraudulent
>
> Ign writes" They are not 'inconvenient'. The ones that are, on the whole, when
> measured against what we know Shakespeare wrote.."
>
> Dennis responds: I'm sorry, but how do you know "what Shakespeare wrote" -- other than by looking at the
> title pages of the works attributed to him?
> You are begging the question. You start off with the conviction
External evidence provides a basic corpus of the works. Textual analysis
(internal evidence) is used to determine the consistency of the
'authorial fingerprint'.
> that you know how Shakespeare wrote (he's Shakespeare, after all)-- and so are able to reject the majority of
> plays attributed to him prior to 1620.
Actually, the pirated quarto texts are generally corrupt (as is
evidenced by their interpolations from known plays, etc.)
> But of course its those plays that have to be studied to determine how
> Shakespeare wrote. Earlier, you argued that contemporaneous evidence is stronger than later evidence.
I assume you here mean Heywood's attribution of Spanish Tragedy to Kyd.
Kyd died in 1594 and Heywood attributed ST to him in 1612. That's 18
years after Kyd's death.
> And if
> that's the case shouldn't the title pages printed while he was alive take precedence.
Nice try to trip me up, but Heywood's testimony falls (as I note above)
in the same epistemic category as the the testimony for the FF.
> Finally, no one believes
> that we must accept everything in the Folio as from his pen simply because of book jacket praise from his friends.
> Yes, many of the First Folio plays are Shakespeare's adaptations -- and so are some of the plays added to the
> Third and Fourth Folios. It's just that not all the material in the folios are from Shakespeare. And that's not
> a controversial statement. Now, the trick is to determine which is Shakespeare's and which isn't. And the best
> way to do that? Determine Shakespeare's actual style and methods from the 20 or so plays attributed to him *prior*
> to the FF -- and which were printed while Shakespeare was alive.
No, the best way to determine what Shakespeare wrote is to use all the
evidence, including the FF.
Ign.
frode
Shakespeare scholars have been able to identify a “literary voice” in
the books published with Shakespeare’s name on them, which they
ascribe to Shakespeare from Stratford. I will call this the “master
voice”. Editions of plays where that voice is distorted or absent, are
said to be pirated, or not by Shakespeare at all. McCarthy’s idea is
that it is the prevalent deviations from the master-voice, as a result
of adapting plays for the public stage, which truly should be ascribed
to Shakespeare from Stratford (and collaborators), while the master-
voice itself belongs to Thomas North.
What are the arguments to reassure us that it is the “master-voice” we
correctly should ascribe to Shakespeare from Stratford?
John W Kennedy
1) Despite your ridiculous attempts to sweep the point under the rug,
North was dead. D-E-A-D, dead.
2) As anyone can tell who knows his way around these things, the plays
were written by a man of the theatre, not by an ivory-tower
intellectual working in his study. Even genius can't substitute for
work on the boards; check out Tennyson's ghastly "The Foresters".
3) The Folio text is, in several cases, provably taken directly from
stage copies. On the other hand, it is /never/ in a state that could be
sanely described as a "cleaned-up, literary version". Shakespeare's
plays, in fact, do not even resemble what would have been accepted in
period as literary texts. That you could think so indicates only that
you have been mesmerized by some snake of "thou" and "thee".
4) The various quartos are of many different styles and qualities. Some
are arguably better than the Folio. Your entire theory, then, makes no
sense, and argues that you are either not acquainted with the actual
texts, or are too unfamiliar with Early Modern English to tell the
difference.
5) Just like all the other anti-Strats, you are assuming that Heminges,
Condell, Jonson and others are lying, and challenging the world to
prove that they are not. You don't get to do that, sunshine; the burden
of proof is on you.
--
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Robin G.
Thomas North DIED in 1604. Shakespeare from Stratford wrote plays
after that year. If North wrote the plays, as you and Dennis
believe, how did he do so after he died?
ignoto
>> On 3/07/11 3:07 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>>> Ign:
>>>> And no, your correspondences are not a 'paraphrase' because they occur
>>>> over a large range text and in an order unrelated to the speech in H.
>>>
>>> Dennis: Not sure what you're reading. Again,the Hamlet soliloquy follows the exact *order* of the Pantutius Aurelius discussions on death. Again:
>>> Pantutius begins by asking rhetorically whether it is better to die
>>>
>>> Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a way to escape �the assaults of life and broils of fortune:�
>>>
>>> After listing life�s miseries, Pantutius answers his own original question, noting that we should wish for death because it would bring a welcome end to these sufferings: �Truly we ought to be more desirous of that we find in death�
>>>
>>> But Aurelius then points out a problem. Yes, death may indeed stop the suffering, but it still remains so uncertain that it also brings dread:
>>> "I desire no more to live: but for that I know not whither I am carried by death..."
>>> That's the order. And that's the order of the Hamlet monologue. No other speech follows this order like this -- or contains the verbal echoes that I reference.
>>>
>>>>> Directly following his own question, Pantutius describes death as a
>>>>>
>>>>> "What other thing is the grave, but a strong fort, wherein we shut
>>>>> ourselves from the assaults of life and broils of fortune? "
>>>>
>>>> Death ends life's miseries: another stoic commonplace, eg.
>>>
>>> Dennis responds: Ign, I think you're putting me on here. The resemblance is not simply that they're
>>> both saying death ends life miseries. Again, the discussion begins with the someone FIRST asking out
>>> loud the rhetorical question, Is it better to live or is it better to die? And then they answer their
>>> of fortune:� Or in Hamlet: death was a way to escape �the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune:�
Which is a perfect example of a 'verbal'. Of course I do not hold that
there was a 'wide-ranging conspiracy to fool the public about what he
had really written', that is a 'fact' enitrely of your own creation.
Individual printers ascribing works to Shakespeare out of either error
or mendaciousness does not constitute a 'conspiracy'.
Now, as for this:
"Inferior adaptions were the plays that were published with
Shakespeare's name of the title pages during Shakespeare's lifetime
and/or composed the very first posthumous collection of his works in
1619. None of the literary masterpieces were unambiguously attributed to
Shakespeare while he was alive. There is no intelligible reason to doubt
the authenticity of the majority of Shakespeare-related title-pages
printed prior to 1620." (From 'North of Shakespeare', Overview)
It is false to claim that 'none of the literary masterpieces were
unambiguously attributed to Shakespeare while he was alive'. Hamlet Q2
and Lear Q1 which are unambiguously attributed to Shakespeare. The Lear
title page reads 'M. William Shak-speare His True Chroncile etc.', the
'M.' indicating Shakespeare's status as a gentleman. Likewise the
stationer's Register entry for King Lear (November 26 1607) reads
"Master William Shakespeare". Q2 of Hamlet title page reads: "William
Shakespeare". Two 'literary' texts, two identifications of Shakespeare
as author.
There is no evidence that North had anything to do with either of these
quartos.
Ign.
frode
Thanks, Robin G and John W Kennedy. I will let Dennis argue his side
of this.
Dennis McCarthy
sanely described as a "cleaned-up, literary version". Shakespeare's
plays, in fact, do not even resemble what would have been accepted in
period as literary texts."
Dennis resopnds: As I do in "North of Shakespeare," I quote here Lukas Erne from his book "Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist:"
"I have argued in the preceding chapters that many of Shakespeare's plays existed in two significantly different forms in the late sixteenth and in the seventeenth centuries. On the one hand, Shakespeare produced "authorial manuscripts," instances of what John Webster called the "poem" and what some title pages refer to as the "true original copy." On the other hand, there were manuscripts that had undergone the company's preparation for actual performance, what Webster calls "the play," in other words, the text "as it has been sundry times performed." Whereas texts in the former group were of a length which the actors found impossible to reconcile with the requirements of performance, the latter had been reduced to what was compatible with the "two hours traffic of our stage." Contrary to the theatrical scripts, the raison d'etre of the long "poems" I have argued, was basically literary."
The longer, literary version of "Hamlet," would have lasted four hours on stage. And as English Professor and Shakespeare scholar Deborah Schwartz wrote about the literary Hamlet: "In Shakespeare's day, this 'full text' would never have been performed. By contrast, Kenneth Branagh's recent film version of the 'complete' text runs about four hours, far too long for an Elizabethan audience, only a portion of whom were seated."
It is actually now conventional that Hamlet, Q1, the one advertised as having been acted is much closer to the version that Shakespeare and company put on stage -- not Q2. So you seem here to be attacking convention.
Also and again, it is the conventional scholars that assume a conspiracy of liars, corrupt printers, etc. I accept the straightforward documentation. I never suggested Heminges and Condell were liars. And I think much of the work in the FF was by Shakespeare --e.g., TA, MoV, Much Ado, etc. --all were adaptations by Shakespeare. But as everyone agrees just because Shakespeare's friends gave him book-jacket praise, doesn't mean everything in the Folio is by him. I assume you agree the first act of 1 HIV is Nashe's and not his, right? Does that make Heminges and Condell liars? Of course not. However, you believe the printers of Yorkshire Tragedy, London Prodigal, Hamlet Q1, True Tragedy, etc. were all liars. You are the one who believes in conspiracies of liars, not me.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
> > Ign: "Wit at Several Weapons by Beaumont and Fletcher, despite title page,
> > Middleton and Rowley believed to be collaborators
> > "Appius and Virginia by John Webster, despite title page, believed to
> > have been co-authored by Heywood"
>
> > Dennis responds; No one denies that collaborators, coauthors, later editors, or later augmenters were often
> > left off title pages. In fact, many times, original authors were left off of title pages -- and the only
> > person labeled was the "corrector" or "augmenter." This, of course, was not meant to imply that the corrector
> > was the original author. I make these points throughout "North of Shakespeare" repeatedly myself. The question
> > to you, was there any example of any of the dastardly Shakespeare printers actually knowingly attributing a
> > play written by one person to someone else.
>
> Actually, the question was:
>
common
> among Elizabethan/Jacobean printers?'
>
> To which I responded with materials at hand, to make the point that
> title page misattribution, outside of Shakespeare do indeed occur,
Dennis: Again, those weren't misattributions (i.e., the conscious
attributing of a play to someone who didn't write it.)
Again, leaving collaborators names off a title page is not a
"misattribution" -- and the supposition that Jonson and Fletcher
should not have been with Middleton on that one title page is just
that: a supposition.
You have yet to cite an example of any printer -- let alone all the
accused printers -- of purposefully attributing a play to someone who
did not write it.
> during the period (admittedly the period is longer than queried, but the
> point is the same: title page misattributions are not unique to
> Shakespeare).
>
> > And not only could you not reference such an example, you couldn't
> > reference a clear cut example from any time in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.
>
> Uh, YOU wrote the book.
>
> > Yet you believe *all*
> > of those printers, operating between the 1590's to 1619, just all decided to start framing Shakespeare, alone,
> > for inferior work.
>
> Yes, and if they did, they had good reason to. Guess why? Because
> Shakespeare was a marketable product
Dennis: There were lots of marketable writers during that time -- and
there have been many since. How come printers haven't conspired
against anyone else? And why didn't anyone mentions this? Or try to
stop the practice?
And by the way, the reading public would have certainly believed that
Shakespeare really wrote the works attributed to him -- works like
"Yorkshire Tragedy" and "London Prodigal." So Shakespeare's
contemporaries -- the reading public -- all would have been wrong.
What an extraordinary hoax.
.
> > Shakespeare is the only author in history who became a patsy of a variety of printers all
> > scheming to fool the public.
>
> Actually the attribution of spurious works to a famous known author is a
> well known occurrence throughout literary history.
Dennis: Isn't that what anti-Stratfordians say? They too believe
people were conspiring to frame Shakespeare for plays. And could you
please cite some examples of spurious plays, novels, etc. being
attributed to a famous author?
> >>> and (IIRC) Field's
> >>>> reputation for making (what are considered to be) reliable attributions.
> >>>> Other printers fare less well.
>
> >>> Dennis: I'm sorry, which of the aforementioned printers have a reputation for falsifying title pages?
> >>> Didn't Jaggard print the First Folio? So I guess we can't trust FF, right?
>
> >> No, you are simply twisting my what I say to suit your own agenda. A
> >> printer's reputation is but one thing to consider. As regards the FF I
> >> have already pointed out that Shakespeare's authorship was attested to
> >> by his fellows Heminge and Condell,
>
> > Dennis: So Shakespeare wrote the first Act of "Henry VI, part 1"? It appears in the FF after all
> > -- and Heminges and Condell were complimentary. No one believes that since the FF contains book-jacket
> > praise from Shakespeare's friends (Ironic that most people here are on the record stating that praise
> > from friends or family members is worthless, isn't it?) that this means he wrote everything in it. I
> > agree that many of the plays in it are Shakespeare's adaptations -- just not all the material. Indeed,
> > you yourself believe that Folio editors would include material not written by Shakespeare -- no matter
> > what kind things Heminges and Condell wrote -- as the Third and Fourth Folios include Yorkshire Tragedy,
> > London Prodigal, Thomas Lord Cromwell, etc.
>
> The fact that Heminge and Condell, who worked with Shakespeare for over
> 20 years, attested to the authorship of the works in the FF is excellent
> evidence for the provenance of those works.
> Of course the FF contains material that, on concentrated *textual
> analysis*, is apparently not by Shakespeare.
Dennis; Ahh, so we're agreed that despite nice comments from friends,
not everything in the FF is by Shakespeare.
And how can you possibly determine what Shakespeare's style is except
by looking at the full body of his work -- including plays attributed
to him while he was alive.
> As for the statement that you 'agree that many of the plays in it are
> Shakespeare's adaptations'. I never made any such statement.
Dennis: Huh? You certainly understand that a number of Shakespeare's
works in the FF were adaptations of plays written by another (or
others), right? No one denies this.
> As for the comment that 'most people here are on the record stating that
> praise from friends or family members is worthless'. Heminge and Condell
> were Shakespeare's *work* colleagues, not his freinds
Dennis responds: "onely to keepe the memory of so worthy a Friend, &
Fellow alive:"
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: You have to read my book. I explain those title pages -- and
show why they stand out from the 20 other title pages that DO
unambiguously attribute authorship to Shakespeare. Hamlet Q1 says it
"by William Shakespeare." The second edition keeps the exact same
title and exact same phrase "by William Shakespeare" but the page
adds that it was "enlarged...according to the true and perfect copy,"
i.e. according to the original. But it doesn't say who wrote the
original Hamlet. And we know of course that Shakespeare did not write
the original Hamlet as Nashe referred to this original Hamlet in
1589. What is so funny is that everyone knows that 1) Shakespeare did
not write the original Hamlet (1588-9) but wrote an adaptation of
someone else's play 2) that Q1 is an adapted Hamlet, was printed
first, and has Shakespeare's name on the title page 3) that Q1 is
essentially the version Shakespeare's company performed and 4) that q2
states that it was printed according to the original Hamlet. Yet
conventional researchers oddly believe it was Shakespeare who wrote
the original, literary Hamlet, based on a French source and filled
with numerous arcane legal allusions -- and that someone else wrote
the Hamlet his company performed!
David L. Webb
Indeed, he has the same problem as Oxford in that respect. Of
course, certain of the more...uh...eccentric Oxfordians (e.g., the
amusing Mr. Streitz and our beloved illiterate District Heights boob)
have dispensed with this awkward problem by the simple expedient of
asserting that Oxford did *not* die in 1604 -- of course, they furnish
no evidence whatever of his survival, but he *had* to have lived past
1604 in order to have written the plays! (Aren't anti-Stratfordians
entertaining?)
> 2) As anyone can tell who knows his way around these things, the plays
> were written by a man of the theatre, not by an ivory-tower
> intellectual working in his study. Even genius can't substitute for
> work on the boards; check out Tennyson's ghastly "The Foresters".
Indeed, even the early operas of a transcendent musical genius like
Schubert cannot overcome the taint of inexperience with the stage, and
are very rarely performed.
> 3) The Folio text is, in several cases, provably taken directly from
> stage copies. On the other hand, it is /never/ in a state that could be
> sanely described as a "cleaned-up, literary version". Shakespeare's
> plays, in fact, do not even resemble what would have been accepted in
> period as literary texts. That you could think so indicates only that
> you have been mesmerized by some snake of "thou" and "thee".
>
> 4) The various quartos are of many different styles and qualities. Some
> are arguably better than the Folio. Your entire theory, then, makes no
> sense, and argues that you are either not acquainted with the actual
> texts, or are too unfamiliar with Early Modern English to tell the
> difference.
>
> 5) Just like all the other anti-Strats, you are assuming that Heminges,
> Condell, Jonson and others are lying, and challenging the world to
> prove that they are not. You don't get to do that, sunshine; the burden
> of proof is on you.
An admirably concise, clear summary of some of the main points.
Dennis McCarthy
> On 3/07/11 3:24 PM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>
> > Sure, but you think Ravenscroft's a liar, right? He didn't really hear that from an informed
> > theater-insider, right?
>
> Now you are just sprouting nonsense.
>
> I nowhere said Ravenscroft was a liar. As is well known rumour stuffs
> 'the ears of men with false reports.'
So not only was Shakespeare beset upon by a hoard of printers and
publishers all trying to fool the public in believing he wrote
mediocre plays and weaker staged adaptions, he also is victimized by
false rumors, claiming he just added some touches to "Titus
Andronicus." Worse, the authors of Groatsworth refer to a jack-of-all-
trades upstart, actor-dramatist, with the nickname "Shake-Scene," as a
plagiarizer who stole and adapted a play Henry VI! And Shakespeare's
name just happens to be on the title page of an adaptation of Henry VI
parts 2 and 3. Hmmm. That's certainly quite a series of unfortunate
events. Or perhaps, it is possible that all the printers, publishers,
author(s) of Groatsworth and Ravenscroft were simply telling the
truth.
> Of course it's not even established that Greene's venom was directed
> against Shakespeare.
>
> Ign.
Dennis McCarthy
Reedy writes: "And FYI, N&Q is not a peer-reviewed journal."
Are you actually referring to Oxford's "Notes and Queries"?
Dennis McCarthy
> > 1) The Fourth Book of The Dial was added by North in 1568. 2) Nice catch on the Florio quote.
> > I think I may not have checked variant spellings. But the reason why Florio has it is that he
> > is reproducing the same passage reproduced by North.
>
> Evidence?
Dennis: The evidence is that Florio's passage post dates North and
reproduces the same passage (slightly reworded.)
> > And I'm not sure if the fact that the
> > obvious echo and grouping of "sleep, perchance, dream" occurs in only one other place in the
> > massive EEBO database -- and in a work that is following North in its reproduction of a passage
> > to boot -- makes this a "commonplace."
>
> According to the 20% of the EEBO database that was searched.
Dennis responds: Well, of the more than 25000 searchable texts, only
one work other than North's and Hamlet's monologue
contains the "sleep-perchance-dream" grouping -- and that work,
Florio's, is reproducing the same passage translated by North.
Dennis responds: > 3)It is only the verbal echoes that are not in
order --
>
Ign: Ok, so you now concede that they are not in order.
Dennis responds: I never said the verbal echoes are in order, as that
would be a preposterous expectation. I said the Hamlet monologue
unfolds in the precise order as the Pantutius-Aurelius point-
counterpoint discussion of death.
> > as would be expected. Again, the most relevant passages to Hamlet's soliloquy on death are
> > concentrated in this 700+ page book in the passage on death in 533, and most especially,
> > the Pantutius discussion with Aurelius on death, 535-7, and Aurelius's eventual response: 558.
> > The Hamlet soliloquy is structured on the Pantutius-Aurelius exchange.
>
> No, as you would know if you were not ignorant of the relevant
> literature, it's structured around stoic commonplaces found in Plato,
> Montaigne, Cicero, Plutarch AND North, etc.
Dennis: The verbal echoes, the rhetorical question should one live or
die, the conclusion that one should desire death followed by a
rebuttal that the uncertainty of death brings dread -- and the verbal
echoes: "sea of troubles" "of so long life" "the assaults of life and
broils of fortune" "all those which are dead none returned" "the pains
and
travels men endure in this mortal life" "the thousand calamities
which do torment their hearts" "a pilgrimage uncertain" "Sleep,
perchance, dream" occur in North and nowhere else. AFAIA, the only
echo in any of the other works is "consummation." Please point out
the verbal echoes, or the other similarities I just highlighted.
> > Now, of course, yes, other stoic works also point out that death ends
> > suffering or that people don't know what happens in the afterlife or have complained about
> > how much suffering occurs in life. But what they don't do is this:
>
> And therefore you know that the other sources 'don't do this', how?
Dennis: Because I read them and they don't -- and they don't include
the extraordinary echoes that I point out. But if you disagree,
provide the example.
Robin G.
A SIMPLE QUESTION. Thomas North DIED in 1604. Shakespeare from
Stratford wrote plays
after that year. If North wrote the plays how did he do so after he
died?
Dennis McCarthy
> On 3/07/11 1:45 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>
> >> London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter, 1605) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
>
> > Ign: "May have touched it up for performance."
>
> > Dennis responds: Exactly! Okay, so you are admitting Shakespeare
> > would be ascribed authorship of plays that he touched up or adapted
> > for the stage.
>
> I am not 'admitting' anything. I am saying that as chief playwright of
> the King's Men Shakespeare would have exercised some 'artistic control'
> over the plays they staged.
Dennis: Yes, indeed, he may have even written those same staged
adaptations that bear his name on the title page and that his acting
companies performed -- and that the reading public believed he
wrote.
> > The title pages are correct!
>
> No.
Dennis: You sound just like an ant-Stratfordian. Reedy-Kathman's
paper, by the way, starts out referring to all the title pages printed
prior to 1620 -- and saying title pages are "good evidence" he wrote
the plays. But considering they have to believe that the majority of
them were wrong, they actually have to argue that title pages are in
fact very misleading.
> > And that's also what he did with MoV and Hamlet and TA!
>
> Merchant of Venice bears a vague relation to Jew of Malta.
Dennis writes: The major source for MofV was "The Jew," referred to by
Gosson in 1579. Since Gosson then paraphrases some of the passages
found in MofV, we know that this was a very close adaptation and uses
passages from it.
Ign: Shakespeare's Hamlet is probably a substantial revision of Kyd's
Hamlet.
Dennis: Nashe is referring to North as "English Seneca," as I show in
the appendices of North of Shakespeare. And Shakespeare's Hamlet was
indeed an adaptation of North's Hamlet. And Shakespeare published it
with his name on the title page in 1603.
Ign: > And TA is probably a revision of a play be Peele.
Dennis: TA follows Titus and Vespasian -- as the Longleat Manuscript
proves (Chapter 5)
> Ravenscroft's gossip, however, does not square with the text, which
> clearly contains more of Shakespeare's hand than 'some master-touches to
> one or two of the principal characters'.
Dennis; That "hand" is North's, so Ravenscroft (like all the printers
and publishers) was being honest. What is more, the Longleat
Manuscript, which contains two of the principal speeches of the play
can now be positively dated to 1575 or 1565 -- and the scene being
illustrated is from "Titus and Vespasian." That's why the plot and
speeches are different.
Tom Reedy
wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, ignoto <ign...@tarpit.org> wrote:
>
> > On 3/07/11 1:45 AM, den...@NorthofShakespeare.com wrote:
>
> > >> London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter, 1605) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
>
> > > Ign: "May have touched it up for performance."
>
> > > Dennis responds: Exactly! Okay, so you are admitting Shakespeare
> > > would be ascribed authorship of plays that he touched up or adapted
> > > for the stage.
>
> > I am not 'admitting' anything. I am saying that as chief playwright of
> > the King's Men Shakespeare would have exercised some 'artistic control'
> > over the plays they staged.
>
> Dennis: Yes, indeed, he may have even written those same staged
> adaptations that bear his name on the title page and that his acting
> companies performed -- and that the reading public believed he
> wrote.
>
> > > The title pages are correct!
>
> > No.
>
> Dennis: You sound just like an ant-Stratfordian. Reedy-Kathman's
> paper, by the way, starts out referring to all the title pages printed
> prior to 1620 -- and saying title pages are "good evidence" he wrote
> the plays. But considering they have to believe that the majority of
> them were wrong,
Where do you get this from? The voices in your head?
As I wrote earlier, 21 plays were correctly attributed to Shakespeare
in his lifetime. Three were attributed incorrectly to him in his
lifetime.
> they actually have to argue that title pages are in
> fact very misleading.
And where do we argue that? Or are those voices talking to you again?
> > > And that's also what he did with MoV and Hamlet and TA!
> > Merchant of Venice bears a vague relation to Jew of Malta.
> Dennis writes: The major source for MofV was "The Jew," referred to by
> Gosson in 1579. Since Gosson then paraphrases some of the passages
> found in MofV,
Would you care to give us some of those paraphrases? No? I thought
not.
> we know that this was a very close adaptation and uses
> passages from it.
>
> Ign: Shakespeare's Hamlet is probably a substantial revision of Kyd's
> Hamlet.
>
> Dennis: Nashe is referring to North as "English Seneca," as I show in
> the appendices of North of Shakespeare.
Do you even know who Seneca was?
> And Shakespeare's Hamlet was
> indeed an adaptation of North's Hamlet. And Shakespeare published it
> with his name on the title page in 1603.
>
> Ign: > And TA is probably a revision of a play be Peele.
>
> Dennis: TA follows Titus and Vespasian -- as the Longleat Manuscript
> proves (Chapter 5)
Really? Do you even know who the Emperor Vespasian was? Or his son
Titus? Or what they did that was noteworthy enough for a play to have
been written about?
> > Ravenscroft's gossip, however, does not square with the text, which
> > clearly contains more of Shakespeare's hand than 'some master-touches to
> > one or two of the principal characters'.
>
> Dennis; That "hand" is North's, so Ravenscroft (like all the printers
> and publishers) was being honest. What is more, the Longleat
> Manuscript, which contains two of the principal speeches of the play
> can now be positively dated to 1575 or 1565 -- and the scene being
> illustrated is from "Titus and Vespasian." That's why the plot and
> speeches are different.
You haven't caught up with Streitz' ignorance yet, but keep posting;
you're getting there. I predict a long career for you in the anti-
Stratfordian world. Your mental processes are quite congruent with
theirs.
TR
Robin G.
wrote:
> Dennis writes: The major source for MofV was "The Jew," referred to by
>
> Gosson in 1579. Since Gosson then paraphrases some of the passages
> found in MofV, we know that this was a very close adaptation and uses
> passages from it.
Mr McCarthy -
Your knowledge about Shakespeare's time period is a little less than a
fourth of an inch deep.
Have you ever heard of or read Ser Giovanni Fiorention's "Il
Pecorone?" If not, read it.
It is a major source for The Merchant of Venice. As for "The Jew."
there are scholars who do not agree with the idea
that it was a direct source for The Merchant of Venice.
Another question worth repeating, "Thomas North died in 1604.
Shakespeare wrote plays after this year. How did North manage to keep
writing after he died?"
David L. Webb
<51519a2b-cf72-4f72...@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com>,
"Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
How, indeed? It's one of the first points that must be addressed.
North has the same chronological problem that besets Oxford.
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Dennis: Tom, I'm surprised you're typing this again as I've already
falsified this claim with a statement to which you have not responded.
Perhaps, we can wager $1000 on that claim -- as judged by a top editor
at an orthodox Shakespeare/English Lit journal,? Here's what we'll
do. We'll offer him or her a $100 gift certificate to Amazon (paid
from the winner's collections) to judge the veracity of the following
statement: "Were 21 different plays correctly attributed to
Shakespeare in his life time? Please answer yes or no." I imagine I'm
about to be hit with more personal insults -- but of course no wager
or any substantive response. Let me again post 12 plays printed while
Shakespeare was alive and attributed to him then or by 1619, that
Reedy and orthodox scholars do not believe he wrote:
The Troublesome Raigne of King John (1591) / "written by W. Sh.
(Simmes-Helme, 1611) and "Written by W. Shakespeare" (Mathewes --Dewe,
1622) / Queen's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printers/publishers)
The Contention (Henry VI, Part 2) (1594) / "Written by William Shake-
Speare, gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke's Men / Bad Quarto
(pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)
True Tragedy (Henry VI, Part 3) (1595) / "Written by William Shake-
speare, Gent" (Jaggard-Pavier, 1619) / Pembroke's Men / Bad Quarto
(pirate actors and a greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Locrine (1595) / **"Newly set forth, overseen and corrected. By
W.S."** (Creede, 1595) / Not mentioned / Anonymous (greedy, lying
printer/publisher)
Richard III (1597) / "By William Shake-speare" (Simmes-Wise, 1598)
changed to **"Newly augmented, by William Shake-speare"** (Creede-
Wise, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and
dishonest printer/publisher)
Henry V (1600) / Part of Shakespeare Collection (originally printed by
Creede; Jaggard-Pavier,1619) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto
(pirate actors and dishonest printer/publisher)
Thomas Lord Cromwell (1602) / "Written by W.S." (Cotton -Jones,
1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/
publisher)
Merry Wives of Windsor (1602) / "By William Shakespeare"(Creede-
Johnson, 1602) / Lord Chamberlain's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors
and greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Hamlet (1603) / "By William Shake-Speare...as it hath been diverse
times acted..." (Simmes-Ling, 1603) / King's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate
actors and greedy, lying printer/publisher)
London Prodigal (1605) / "By William Shakespeare" (Creede-Butter,
1605) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer/publisher)
Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) / "By W. Shakespeare" (Braddock-Pavier,
1608) / King's Men / Anonymous (greedy, lying printer / publisher)
Pericles (1609) / "By William Shakespeare" (White/Creede-Gosson,
1609) / King's Men / Bad Quarto (pirate actors and dishonest printer/
publisher)
The problem is that I noted before, is that he's using the same
mileading trick as he did in his Reedy-Kathman article. There, for
example, he refers to "Henry VI Part 2 - Q1 1594, Q2 1600, both with
the author unnamed, Q3 1619 by William Shakespeare, Gent." And they
actually use this as evidence for Shakespeare. As they state: "Good
evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems bearing
his name is the fact that his name appears on them as the author." I
concur and would even say that's great evidence. The only problem is,
as Reedy knows now if he didn't know before, the play that they are
citing is NOT "Henry VI - Part 2." It is of course, a rewritten,
weaker adaptation known as "The Contention." The same is true of their
claim about "Henry VI, Part 3," which really was the weaker, rewritten
plagiarized version known as "True Tragedy." What is more,
Groatsworth of Wit (1592), identifies Shakespeare as an "upstart"
plagiarizer who was getting accolades for the work of others and
especially Henry VI, Part 3. As the orthodox and renowned scholar J
Dover-Wilson wrote about this passage, expressing a once-common
scholarly opinion, the pamphlet "was accusing Shakespeare of stealing
and adapting plays upon Henry VI....." So there's a contemporaneous
comment that Shakespeare was plagiarizing plays on Henry VI. And what
do we find? We find exactly this: The plagiarized adaptation of
"Henry VI, Parts 2 and 3" -- known as "The Contention" and "True
Tragedy" printed while Shakespeare was alive -- and attributed to him
in 1619.
So if that's Reedy's idea of a work "correctly attributed to
Shakespeare" then he is certainly right. Indeed, for all we know,
Reedy is also even counting "Troubelsome Raigne" as a work "correctly
attributed to Shakespeare." But it is hard to tell -- as he won't
explain his numbers, won't answer any question, and certainly won't
take the wager challenge above. Again, Mr. Reedy, do you think that
"True Tragedy" and "The Contention" and "Troublesome Raigne" were
written by Shakespeare? [Please surprise me with a substantive
reply.]
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Dennis writes:
> > > > And that's also what he did with MoV and Hamlet and TA!
> > > Merchant of Venice bears a vague relation to Jew of Malta.
> > Dennis writes: The major source for MofV was "The Jew," referred to by
> > Gosson in 1579. Since Gosson then paraphrases some of the passages
Reedy responds: > Would you care to give us some of those paraphrases?
No? I thought
> not.
Dennis: I think it might help if you actually read "North of
Shakespeare," rather than arguing blind. The similar comments are
discussed in Chapter Five -- and were pointed out be researcher J. C.
Ross in “Stephen Gosson and the Merchant of Venice Revisited,” Notes
and Queries (2003) 50: 36-37. .
To quote from "North of Shakespeare" (Please forgive the fact that
titles are no longer italicized because of the transference here:)
Other independent evidence also confirms that the dinner-masque was
part of The Jew. In The Merchant of Venice, before Shylock leaves for
the dinner he warns Jessica not to be tempted by revelers outside the
house or the music of the night masque entering the windows, using the
phrase "stop" the "ears" from this enticing assault. And in the very
same work in which Gosson referenced The Jew, he provided eerily
similar instructions for young women, warning them not to be tempted
by revelers outside the house or the music of the night entering the
windows, telling them to "stop your ears" from this enticing
assault.
Just immediately prior, Gosson also warns women not to use the theater
to help relieve grief: “lest that laboring to shun Scylla you light on
Charybdis.”
This is also similar to another comment in Merchant of Venice, which
also uses “shun” with a metaphor involving the same two Homeric
monsters: “Thus when I shun Scylla your fa-ther, I fall into
Charybdis your mother (3.5.13-15)”
Researcher J.C. Ross was the one who discovered these verbal
similarities, but of course assumed that Shakespeare was borrowing
from Gosson. As Ross wrote about the warnings to women: “It is as if
Shylock has been reading Gosson, and is applying this advice to his
daugh-ter…” But this is an extraordinary interpretation as we know
for a fact that it is Gosson who had seen Shylock. Indeed, Gosson had
emphasized The Jew as one of few plays that he liked in the very tract
where these similarities appear.
The notion that Shakespeare copied Gosson reminds one of the
conventional view that Shakespeare constructed the gravedigger scene
in Hamlet around Nashe’s brief satirical imagery used in Christ's
Tears Over Jerusalem. These, at first, may seem like strange efforts
by the or-thodox because Shakespeare does not get credit for
originality in either case – whether he bor-rowed from the original
play or from some other source. But the result of this continued
conven-tional effort to scatter the sources helps the orthodox at
least imbue Shakespeare with the craft of compilation. In this view,
the great Shakespeare didn’t just work off a source-play ready-made
but had to pick up other bits and pieces from other works.
This is a common mistake that has been underscored by more careful
orthodox editors for centuries. Horace Howard Furness, 19th century
editor of the New Variorum editions of Sha-kespeare, also commented on
this Stratfordian bias that imbues the dramatist with the craft of
compilation -- even though all evidence suggests that the various
"Shakespearean" elements of certain works had already been combined in
the lost source play. Quoting Furness: "Thus far we have been
dealing with the plot of his play [The Merchant of Venice] as if it
were a mosaic, which Shakespeare had combined into one group by
gathering in diverse elements from diverse sources, and he has been
greatly praised for showing so much dramatic and artistic skill in the
combination." Yet Furness then notes that this conflicts with
evidence "that Shakespeare was indebted for the framework at least of
this drama to an older play, in which the Bond Story and the Casket
Story were already combined."
Furness also quotes an early nineteenth century editor, Francis Douce,
to show that scho-lars had been underscoring this same error for some
time:
"Douce refers to the 'mistake that has been commited by those who
speak of Shakespeare's imitations of the sources of this play, and who
forget that one on the same subject had already appeared, and which
might have furnished him with the whole of the plot.' Again, in
referring to Tyrwhitt's conjectures concerning [Shakespeare's use of]
the Gesta Romanorum [as a source for the Casket subplot], Douce says:
'He also had forgotten the elder drama mentioned by Gosson.'"
The repeated and continued crediting of Shakespeare with combining a
great variety of "Shakespearean" elements that , in reality, had
already appeared in the source plays have helped disguise the fact
that these lost source plays were far more "Shakespearean" than many
scholars would like to believe. But these hypothetical efforts of the
orthodox all wither beneath a harsh and searching light.
First, it conflicts with the orthodox view of Shakespeare’s extremely
close following of Troublesome Raigne to make King John and King Leir
to make King Lear -- as well as his un-abashed plagiarism of Thomas
North (Of course, in the thesis here, Shakespeare was not plagia-
rizing North; North was merely converting his prior writings into
plays.) Also, must we really assume that Shakespeare was
coincidentally reading Gosson’s School of Abuse while trying to adapt
The Jew so that Shakespeare’s Merchant became touched by the language
of the very work that originally references The Jew? Must we really
also make a similar supposition regarding Nashe and Hamlet? The
reality is, of course, far simpler. The reason why Gosson’s passage
is similar to one in The Merchant of Venice is because Gosson had just
seen The Jew and greatly enjoyed it. So the very work that mentions
The Jew also became influenced by its language and themes. Likewise,
the reason why the satirist, Thomas Nashe, who we know had read or
seen a Hamlet by 1589, seems to satirize the gravedigger scene in a
1594 pamphlet is because, well, he was familiar with the play and was
satirizing it....
> > we know tha this was a very close adaptation and uses
Den...@northofshakespeare.com
Dennis response: Also, Robin, I'm getting to the chronology argument
in a moment -- and your frequent claim that "there are scholars who
do not agree" is not much of an objection -- as that can be claimed
about practically everything in Shakespeare studies. If I were forced
to confine myself to subjects about which *all scholars agree,* NofSh
would be two pages long.