Werstine Introduction
Tom Reedy
inadequately sourced -- it has been so long since I've had to write an
academic paper -- but I think everybody can find the souce of my
citations. I'll post more specific More arguments tomorrow.
Dr. Paul Werstine is Professor of English at King's College and the
Graduate School of the university of Western Ontario, Canada. He is
editor of the New Folger Shakespeare series and general editor of the
New Variorum Shakespeare and author of many papers and articles on the
printing and editing of Shakespeare's plays. So he is not the typical
antiStratfordian ignoramus, and as a matter of fact I can find nothing
of his work that doubts the traditional attribution to William
Shakespeare of the works that bear his name.
Werstine has complex and controversial theories on the editing and
printing of Elizabethan play texts, and for the past 20 years he has
consistently criticized the work of New Bibliographers in general, and
W. W. Greg in particular.<1>
In the journal *Florigieum* in 1999, Werstine takes Shakespeareans to
task for basing editorial decisions on the Thomas More fragment
thought by the majority of Shakespearean scholars to be an autograph
composition by Shakespeare, and he says the arguments made for the
dentification have been disproved individually, yet scholars continue
to put faith in the "cumulative evidence" put forth by the original
champions of the identification.<2>
In the *Florigieum* article, Werstine rejects the view that a portion
of the manuscript of Sir Thomas More is in Shakespeare's hand. He says
that in the 1923 compendium of evidence for the Shakespeare
identification edited by A.W. Pollard, *Shakespeare's Hand in Sir
Thomas More*, "Pollard set out to shape an argument in favor of
Shakespearean authorship that mirrored the argument against it" (126).
Werstine's basic premise is that all three of the legs -
palaeographical, bibliographical and literary imagery - that the
Shakespeare attribution stand on have been disproved, yet while
admitting one part of the argument is faulty, scholars point to the
other two as corroborating evidence for the identification. He says
this strategy mirrors the arguments of the antiStratfordian, who claim
the cumulative nature of weak arguments amounts to evidence that
someone else wrote Shakespeare. Moreover, Werstine says this strategy
was deliberate on Pollard's part.
In effect, Werstine says that the evidence for the More attribution is
a spinning plate act. When one plate comes crashing to the ground, the
performer points at the other three still spinning, and by the time
another crashes down, the performer has launched the previous one back
onto its stick to distract the audience from his failure to keep all
three in the air at the same time.
Werstine claims that Pollard uses the antiStratfordian ploy of
"rhetoric of accumulation" (130). He quotes W.W. Greg's description of
how an antiStratfordian "takes up the position . . . that his
arguments are cumulative. Individually they may not be convincing, but
taken together! . . . . Not until every single item of his evidence
has been proved utterly fictitious will he cease to believe in the
alchemy of the words, 'cumulative evidence.'" <3> (I would add that
the antiStratfordian _never_ cease to believe in his arguments. When
proven false, he just starts arguing again from the beginning. T.R.)
Werstine describes Pollard's method as arguing "from an array of
evidence, none of which was conclusive in itself, but all of which
[Pollard claims] was persuasive in its accumulation" (128).
There is a delicious irony in Werstine's argument, one that causes me
to think he might be arguing with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and
that is that Werstine himself uses antiStratfordian tactics to argue
that Pollard utilizes the same techniques of antiStratfordians.
He makes declaratory statements without proof, he overstates the
opinions of others, he cherry-picks his points, he is inconsistent in
his use of scholarly opinion, he puts words in the mouths of the
principles and subtly mischaracterizes their arguments.
Tomorrow I will start going through Werstine's points individually. By
his own declaration, if I show each of his points to be false, his
argument comes crashing down. Not that it will stop Pat Dooley from
citing him, because the minority opinion that Shakespeare did not
write Shakespeare can be supported only by other minority opinions,
and Werstine's opinion that Hand D is not authorial Shakespeare is
very much in the minority among those who have studied it.
<1> Egan, Gabriel. "Idealist and Materialist Interpretations of BL
Harley 7368, the Sir Thomas
More Manuscript." *Early Modern Literary Studies* 7.2 (September,
2001): 6.1-4
http://purl.oclc.org/emls/07-2/egannote.htm
<2> Werstine, Paul. "Shakespeare, More or Less-A.W. Pollard and
Twentieth-Century
Shakespeare Editing." *Florilegium* 16 (1999):125-142.
<3> Greg, W.W. "Facts and Fancies." *The Library* 2nd. Ser. 4 (1903):
49. Quoted by Werstine.
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>I'll post more specific More arguments tomorrow.
I, for one, am looking forward to it.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Bob Grumman
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >I'll post more specific More arguments tomorrow.
> I, for one, am looking forward to it.
> Agent Jim
Me, too. But I'm looking more forward to hearing Pat Dooley's rebuttal,
which should be hilarious. Unless he's already hidden behind his A-Defense,
which is that Reedy is a lout not worth arguing with.
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
Bob Grumman wrote in message ...
I'm looking more forward to hearing Pat Dooley's rebuttal,
>which should be hilarious. Unless he's already hidden behind his
A-Defense,
>which is that Reedy is a lout not worth arguing with.
> --Bob G.
ANTISTRATS. STRATS.
Oh, horror! Their horror
They can't dissemble
Nor hide the fear that makes them
tremble!
ENSEMBLE.
ANTISTRATS STRATS.
Tom Reedy is the kind of lout With Reedy for your foe, no doubt,
We do not care a fig about! A fearful prospect opens out,
We cannot say And who shall say
What evils may What evils may
Result in consequence. Result in consequence?
But lordly vengeance will pursue A hideous vengeance will pursue
All kinds of common people who All Oxford-men who venture to
Oppose our views, Opppose his views,
Or boldly choose Or boldly choose
To offer us offence. To offer him offence.
He'd better fly at humbler game, 'Twill plunge them into grief and
shame;
Or our forbearance he must claim, His kind forbearance they must claim,
If he'd escape If they'd escape
In any shape In any shape
A very painful wrench! A very painful wrench.
Your powers we dauntlessly pooh-pooh: Although our threats you now
pooh-pooh,
A dire revenge will fall on you. A dire revenge will fall on you,
If you besiege Should he besiege
Our high prestige-- Your high prestige--
(The word "prestige" is French). The word "prestige" is French).
PETZOLD Our Oxford-man
You shall not quench
With base canaille!
GRUMMAN (That word is French.)
WEIR Sir Bacon ebbs
Before a herd
Of vulgar plebs!
GROVES (A Latin word.)
ZENNER 'Twould fill with joy,
And Marlowe stark
The hoi polloi!
WEBB (A Greek remark.)
DOOLEY One Latin word, one Greek remark,
And one that's French.
(mumbles under his breath: "And no CPLE.")
ROUNDTABLE Your Oxford-man
We'll quickly quench
With base canaille!
CARUNA (That word is French.)
REYNOLDS Sir Bacon ebbs
Before a herd
Of vulgar plebs!
PARISOUS (A Latin word.)
BRENNEN 'Twill fill with joy
And madness stark
The hoi polloi!
CROWLEY (A Greek remark.)
DOOLEY One Latin word, one Greek remark,
And one that's French.
(mumbles under his breath: "And no CPLE.")
ANTISTRATS STRATS
You needn't wait: We will not wait:
Away you fly! We go sky-high!
Your threatened hate Our threatened hate
We won't defy! You won't defy!
(Strats threaten Anti-Strats with their facts and scholarly research. They
complain about ad hom attacks, and then make ad hom attacks. Stephanie
Caruna falls into the arms of Greg Reynolds. Richard Kennedy, who was banned
from the production for foul language, watches from the audience. General
mayhem on stage. As the curtain falls we hear:
KQKNAVE: Bwhaahahahahahaha!
Bob Grumman
then fall into the arms of Greg! Gad. I'll not allow my music to be used
for such an absurdity!
Sir Bobber Grummivan
"Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aj46fa$rco$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Toby Petzold
There's no doubt of a parodic flavor in *Shakespeare's Hand*. The only
questions are "WHICH belief system is being parodied?" and "Was it
intentional?"
> In effect, Werstine says that the evidence for the More attribution is
> a spinning plate act. When one plate comes crashing to the ground, the
> performer points at the other three still spinning, and by the time
> another crashes down, the performer has launched the previous one back
> onto its stick to distract the audience from his failure to keep all
> three in the air at the same time.
>
> Werstine claims that Pollard uses the antiStratfordian ploy of
> "rhetoric of accumulation" (130). He quotes W.W. Greg's description of
> how an antiStratfordian "takes up the position . . . that his
> arguments are cumulative. Individually they may not be convincing, but
> taken together! . . . . Not until every single item of his evidence
> has been proved utterly fictitious will he cease to believe in the
> alchemy of the words, 'cumulative evidence.'" <3> (I would add that
> the antiStratfordian _never_ cease to believe in his arguments. When
> proven false, he just starts arguing again from the beginning. T.R.)
Well, you have an advantage over us, Tom. Your belief system is so old
that its lies and nonsense have taken on the patina of time-honored
authority. The Anti-Stratfordian, naturally, must fire his steel and
see it folded hundreds of times over before it's strong enough for him
to strike with purpose.
> Werstine describes Pollard's method as arguing "from an array of
> evidence, none of which was conclusive in itself, but all of which
> [Pollard claims] was persuasive in its accumulation" (128).
>
> There is a delicious irony in Werstine's argument, one that causes me
> to think he might be arguing with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and
> that is that Werstine himself uses antiStratfordian tactics to argue
> that Pollard utilizes the same techniques of antiStratfordians.
Seriously. I actually believed in a few passages in *Shakespeare's
Hand* that I was being had. Especially Thompson's essay. That was
either a parody or an old man's prerogative.
> He makes declaratory statements without proof, he overstates the
> opinions of others, he cherry-picks his points, he is inconsistent in
> his use of scholarly opinion, he puts words in the mouths of the
> principles and subtly mischaracterizes their arguments.
What a laugh! The only way in which a Stratfordian of Werstine's
caliber could commit such indiscretions would be if they were intended
as such as part of some parody? Jesus! That's the actual, mathematical
limit of excuse-making.
> Tomorrow I will start going through Werstine's points individually. By
> his own declaration, if I show each of his points to be false, his
> argument comes crashing down.
No, no: it's all a PARODY! Don't you GET the joke?
> Not that it will stop Pat Dooley from
> citing him, because the minority opinion that Shakespeare did not
> write Shakespeare can be supported only by other minority opinions,
> and Werstine's opinion that Hand D is not authorial Shakespeare is
> very much in the minority among those who have studied it.
Here, Werstine is serious.
> <1> Egan, Gabriel. "Idealist and Materialist Interpretations of BL
> Harley 7368, the Sir Thomas
> More Manuscript." *Early Modern Literary Studies* 7.2 (September,
> 2001): 6.1-4
> http://purl.oclc.org/emls/07-2/egannote.htm
>
> <2> Werstine, Paul. "Shakespeare, More or Less-A.W. Pollard and
> Twentieth-Century
> Shakespeare Editing." *Florilegium* 16 (1999):125-142.
>
> <3> Greg, W.W. "Facts and Fancies." *The Library* 2nd. Ser. 4 (1903):
> 49. Quoted by Werstine.
Not bad, Tom. Only a few bibliographical mistakes; otherwise, a fine
job.
Toby Petzold
American
Tom Reedy
news:2dbd058e.02081...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> There's no doubt of a parodic flavor in *Shakespeare's Hand*. The
only
> questions are "WHICH belief system is being parodied?" and "Was it
> intentional?"
You'll have to cite some examples.
> > In effect, Werstine says that the evidence for the More
attribution is
> > a spinning plate act. When one plate comes crashing to the ground,
the
> > performer points at the other three
Typo. shold be "two."
still spinning, and by the time
> > another crashes down, the performer has launched the previous one
back
> > onto its stick to distract the audience from his failure to keep
all
> > three in the air at the same time.
> >
<snip>
> Seriously. I actually believed in a few passages in *Shakespeare's
> Hand* that I was being had. Especially Thompson's essay. That was
> either a parody or an old man's prerogative.
I know what you mean, but old-fashioned language is not evidence of
parody in progress.
>
> > He makes declaratory statements without proof, he overstates the
> > opinions of others, he cherry-picks his points, he is inconsistent
in
> > his use of scholarly opinion, he puts words in the mouths of the
> > principles and subtly mischaracterizes their arguments.
>
> What a laugh! The only way in which a Stratfordian of Werstine's
> caliber could commit such indiscretions would be if they were
intended
> as such as part of some parody? Jesus! That's the actual,
mathematical
> limit of excuse-making.
I'm trying to be kind, in my habitual, gentlemanly way, for which I am
well-known and celebrated.
TR