Archaionomia - the 7th signature?
Pat Dooley
<Kathman>
By "paper trail" I assume you mean the things you mention --
"correspondence, manuscripts, personal library, or ephemera".
Actually, we do have one letter written to Shakespeare by his
townsman Richard Quiney, and a book (William Lambarde's
*Archaionomia*) with a signature that is now widely, but not
universally, accepted as William Shakespeare's.
</Kathman>
The Quiney letter is about finance, so it is a literary red herring.
The "widely accepted" claim was news to us so we researched
the issue and created a web page documenting who does and
does not accept this signature as genuine. It would seem
Kathman is in a distinct minority.
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/Archaionomia.asp
You can see the Archaionomia signature on that page and the
rest of Shakespeare's signatures at:
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
--
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
Crows Dog
the issue and created a web page documenting who does and
distinct minority.
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/Archaionomia.asp
Go to the Dooley Price website and see what bullshit this is. Dooley claimss
his site documents who does and who does not accept the signature, but that's a
lie. He assumes someone who does not come out as 100% for the signature must
be against it.
But don't trust me. Go to Dooley's site and see.
Tom Reedy
news:z1xi8.294721$uz6.3...@news.webusenet.com...
From your website:
<begin>
But there is no proof that even the first six signatures were written by the
same person, since Jane Cox has shown, and Jonathan Hope has recently
reminded us all (on the Shaksper news group), that some of the allegedly
genuine signatures on Shakespeare's will may not be that of the testator:
At the risk of appearing willfully mischievous, could I point out that the
authenticity of the signatures on the will is not certain. David Thomas'
Shakespeare in the Public Records (1985: Public Record Office), page 34,
notes that signatures were often 'supplied' in a different hand from their
own by the scribe - wills were proved by executor's oath not by the
signature. (Hope, Feb. 27, 2002)
<end>
This is an excellent example of your misleading argumentive tactics.
Jane Cox "has shown," what, exactly? And whatever it is she "has shown,"
Jonathan Hope "has recently reminded us all" of it. Whatever it is she "has
shown" and he "has reminded us" of, it is certainly *NOT* that "there is no
proof that even the first six signatures were written by the same person."
The fact is, the three will signatures are universally accepted as genuine.
Nobody "has shown" that they're not by citing a not-so-commonplace about
other documents.
By arguing one point by citing someone on a related, but different topic,
you attempt to lend your argument credibility through osmosis from a
contiguously-placed statement that is not in dispute. We commonly refer to
that tactic as the old switcheroo.
It's the same with your made-up CPLE. Buc is obviously a person who knew
Shakespeare and accepted him as a writer, but because he didn't write, "I
asked my good friend William Shakespeare about the attribution of a play
today," the evidence he left is disallowed.
Which is fine, if it makes you feel better. Assertions are cheap, even
speciously documented ones such as yours. Your big hurdle is to get scholars
to accept your definition about what counts as evidence for Shakespeare's
writing. How about putting up a website documenting who does and does not
accept your evidence standards as genuine? It shouldn't take you longer
than, say, five minutes.
TR
Tom Reedy
news:20020309191319...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Now, now, Dog. What Pat said has *got* to be true. Didn't you see all them
citations and such with page numbers and all and that big ol' bibliography
there at the end? Ya cain't argue with them kinds of facks!
TR
Stephanie Caruana
"Crows Dog" <crow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020309191319...@mb-fp.aol.com...
Funny you should say that. I just did go to the page in question, and I was
impressed by what a neat and rational job Dooley did with this page. This
was in addition to my astonishment to see that Kathman was claiming general
agreement that the Archaionomia signature was genuine. I had seen a
reproduction of this signature many years ago, and always with the judgment
attached that it was a forgery.
Stephanie
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Stephanie Caruana
author/editor:
The Gemstone File of Bruce Roberts
http://gemstone-file.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Pat Dooley
"Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9Dxi8.9043$Vx1.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
The "shown" has been changed to "argued," if that works better
for you, but the statement on the website remains valid. Cox
shows or argues that the signatures "may not be" that of the
testator. That is the point.
> The fact is, the three will signatures are universally accepted as
genuine.
> Nobody "has shown" that they're not by citing a not-so-commonplace
about
> other documents.
The reason we cite sources is so you can check them. If Jane Cox
thinks there is reason to doubt their authenticity, then their
acceptance is not universal, as Jonathan Hope noted. Cox wrote:
<Cox>
Six 'authenticated' Shakespeare signatures survive and three of these
are on his will. There is one on the Court of Requests document
(document 11) in the Public Record Office and the two others arc on
deeds connected with the purchase of the Blackfriars; house, in the
British Library and the Guildhall Library respectively. All are
reproduced below, with the exception of the first will signature which
is of very poor quality.
It is obvious at a glance that these signatures, with the exception of
the last two, are not the signatures of the same man. Almost every
letter is formed in a different way in each. Literate men in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries developed personalized signatures
much as people do today and it is unthinkable that Shakespeare did
not. Which of the signatures reproduced here is the genuine article is
anybody's guess. Some scholars, perhaps more familiar with literature
than the calligraphy of the period have failed to recognize the
problem; Tannenbaum saw a 'striking similarity between the last will
signature and that on the Guildhall deed.' The anti-Stratfordians, on
the other hand, have argued that Shakespeare did not sign the
documents himself because he was illiterate or that he did sign them,
but because he was not used to writing, each time the signature and
the spelling was different. An article by Sir Hilary Jenkinson,
published in 1922, gives a clue to what the solution might be. It was
his opinion that clerks taking down the evidence of witnesses in law
suits often 'signed' it with the deponent's name themselves, using a
different hand from that which they had used for the body of the text
to give it 'an air of verisimilitude'.' So much for the signature on
the deposition given by Shakespeare to the Court of Requests. If this
was the practice in the equity courts, why should it not also have
been the practice of attomeys' clerks when drawing up conveyancing
documents? Possibly Shakespeare was not even in London to sign the
mortgage deed and the deed of purchase for the Blackfriars gatehouse.
The will signatures have been regarded as sacrosanct, in the main, but
in the light of Sir Hilary Jenkinson's observations and practice in
the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, the authenticity of even these
signatures must be questioned. There is a possibility that the so
called original will is a facsimile copy made either by the court or
by Collins' clerk. The court's ancient practice had been to return the
original will to the executor and to keep a copy; among the bundles of
wills proved in 1538, for instance, there are hardly any originals. By
the time Shakespeare died the court was more likely to keep the
original but there are instances of facsimile copies being made for
the court's files. The will of John Borlas, part of which is
reproduced below, is an example. Borlas's name and the name of the
witnesses are in a different hand from each other and from the text of
the will and it is only when the paper is turned over that the will is
revealed to be vera copia It is not very likely that Shakespeare's
will comes into this category as the contemporary copy now kept by the
Birthplace Trust is probably the executors' copy which was retained by
them when the grant of probate was made and the original was kept by
the court. Another possibility is that the clerk who wrote the will
'forged' Shakespeare's signatures. Until the Statute of Frauds of 1667
there was no necessity for a will to bear the testator's signature at
all. Manuals of the period indicate the form preferred by the doctors
of civil law, namely that a will should be signed on every page and
witnessed, but virtually any form was acceptable so long as it seemed
to be a true representation of the dying man's wishes. The will of one
Jacob Westcombe, proved in 1593, was signed and sealed only by the
overseer.' Among fifty-five wills proved in the Prerogative Court in
the same month as Shakespeare's, there are numerous examples of
'forgeries' of witnesses' signatures; the attorney's clerk simply
wrote the names on the document, sometimes using a contrived hand to
make them look like signatures, sometimes not. It is not unlikely that
Collins' clerk wrote the names of Shaw, Robinson and Sadler on
Shakespeare's will; the hands of the three witnesses are suspiciously
similar. There is no positive evidence that Shakespeare did not sign
his will; the shaky pen strokes certainly look like those made by a
sick man. But if one must select one of the four signed documents as
being the sole example of our greatest playwrights hand, the will has
no better claim than the Requests deposition, the mortgage deed or the
Guildhall conveyance. As we have seen, the legal sanctity of the
signature was not firmly established; the medieval tradition was that
of an illiterate landowning class with scribes to do their writing and
signing. Wills were proved by the executor's oath, nothing more,
unless objections were raised by some interested party, in which case
witnesses would be examined. It was not until later in the seventeenth
century that handwriting experts began to be used by the court.
</cox>
>
> By arguing one point by citing someone on a related, but different
topic,
> you attempt to lend your argument credibility through osmosis from a
> contiguously-placed statement that is not in dispute. We commonly
refer to
> that tactic as the old switcheroo.
Cox is talking about all six signatures. Her reservation is relevant
to
any discussion of a potential seventh signature, since it affects the
reliability
of the core control sample. Probably the signatures are by Shakspeare,
but that's not the point. The point is that one cannot be absolutely
sure.
Whether three, four, five, or six are ultimately confirmed as
authentic,
they still represent too small a sampling with which to make
meaningful comparisons.
> It's the same with your made-up CPLE. Buc is obviously a person who
knew
> Shakespeare and accepted him as a writer, but because he didn't
write, "I
> asked my good friend William Shakespeare about the attribution of a
play
> today," the evidence he left is disallowed.
It is not obvious that Buc recognized Shakespeare as a writer.
Buc called on him to identify the authorship of a play, and he
called on another man, Juby, who was not a writer, to ask
him the same question. Diana's hypothesis is that Shakespere
was the business agent for the company, in which case both
he and Juby were called in because they had similar
responsibilities with their respective companies, and would
presumably be in a position to know from whom the company
bought the play. His concerns were likely to be related to
questions of ownership, and it may be that in this case,
the first step toward answering that question was to
establish authorship.
Buc's official role was to authorise texts.
He did that in the Revel's office and signed the manuscript
when he was done. The stationer or his clerk then takes it
to the Stationer' Hall where it is licensed and, optionally
entered into the Stationer's Register. In that process it
would be most unusual for Buc to have any reason to
speak or otherwise communicate with Shakespeare,
the presumed author; it is more likely that he would
be dealing with the owner, not the author of a book.
The inscription on George a Greene only demonstrates
that Buc believed that Shakespeare and Juby might shed
light on who wrote that play. Shakespeare and
Juby were both involved in the business of their companies
and had been active since the early 1590s so they seem
like reasonable prospects to give Buc an answer.
The fact that Buc also asked Juby indicates to me
that he saw Shakespeare as a business representative of
his company rather than a writer.
>
> Which is fine, if it makes you feel better. Assertions are cheap,
even
> speciously documented ones such as yours. Your big hurdle is to get
scholars
> to accept your definition about what counts as evidence for
Shakespeare's
> writing. How about putting up a website documenting who does and
does not
> accept your evidence standards as genuine? It shouldn't take you
longer
> than, say, five minutes.
We're happy to receive criticsm and we take it seriously.
If we're wrong we admit it, correct the error and move on.
Bob Grumman
< the issue and created a web page documenting who does and
< does not accept this signature as genuine. It would seem
< Kathman is in a distinct minority.
Most of the authorities this loon says don't accept the signature
are those who don't accept it as finally established. Pat and
Diana seem incapable of considering evidence that is not explicitly
for Shakespeare as being possibly for him. Susanna can sign her
signature but has trouble recognizing a manuscript written by
her husband; ergo, she is functionally illiterate, not she may
or may not be literate; many writers refer to Shakespeare but
don't explicitly say they know him; therefore, they DON'T know
him rather than possibly know him; the evidence does not completely
indicate hand D as Shakespeare's, although it fails to indicate it
may be any other known person's, so it is NOT Shakespeare's. An
authority comparing hand D to Shakespeare's signatures fails to
compare it to the Archai-whatever signature, undoubtedly because
the latter has never been OFFICIALLY accepted as Shakespeare's; ergo,
the authority rejects it as Shakespeare's.
All that said, I lean against accepting it. I suspect the book was
Shakespeare's and he loaned it to someone, who put his name on it.
My reasoning is that if Shakespeare put his name in his books, we'd
likely have come across one or two more books with his name in them.
I also wonder if he'd sign a book, "Mr. Shakespeare," but don't know
how people of the time called themselves in such cases--though Heywood
said Shakespeare was plain Will. The signature doesn't look that
close to the others, but I can't see it well enough to really have
an opinion.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
David Kathman
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>All that said, I lean against accepting it. I suspect the book was
>Shakespeare's and he loaned it to someone, who put his name on it.
>My reasoning is that if Shakespeare put his name in his books, we'd
>likely have come across one or two more books with his name in them.
>I also wonder if he'd sign a book, "Mr. Shakespeare," but don't know
>how people of the time called themselves in such cases--though Heywood
>said Shakespeare was plain Will. The signature doesn't look that
>close to the others, but I can't see it well enough to really have
>an opinion.
It doesn't say "Mr. Shakespeare" -- it says "Wm Shakespeare",
or maybe "Wm Shakspeare".
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
It's a mystery how this escaped the notice of Maunde Thompson and other
palaeographers. Ms. Cox must be an accomplished and unique palaeographer
indeed. Is that her profession?
Almost every
> letter is formed in a different way in each. Literate men in the
> sixteenth and seventeenth centuries developed personalized signatures
> much as people do today and it is unthinkable that Shakespeare did
> not. Which of the signatures reproduced here is the genuine article is
> anybody's guess. Some scholars, perhaps more familiar with literature
> than the calligraphy of the period have failed to recognize the
> problem;
So she is saying Thompson, Dawson, et al were unfamilar with English
secretary hand?
> Tannenbaum saw a 'striking similarity between the last will
> signature and that on the Guildhall deed.' The anti-Stratfordians, on
> the other hand, have argued that Shakespeare did not sign the
> documents himself because he was illiterate or that he did sign them,
> but because he was not used to writing, each time the signature and
> the spelling was different. An article by Sir Hilary Jenkinson,
> published in 1922, gives a clue to what the solution might be. It was
> his opinion
"his opinion"
Your previous statement, "Cox shows or argues that the signatures 'may not
be' that of the
testator," is not quite true, is it? It should be, "Cox shows or argues that
Sir Hilary Jenkinson's opinion is that the signatures 'may not be' that of
the testator."
> It was his opinion
> that clerks taking down the evidence of witnesses in law
> suits often 'signed' it with the deponent's name themselves, using a
> different hand from that which they had used for the body of the text
> to give it 'an air of verisimilitude'.'
"It was his opinion..." Which is worth, what? It's more likely his opinion
is wrong. That would be the simplest explanation for the phenomena he
observes. And what does this have to do with a will?
> So much for the signature on
> the deposition given by Shakespeare to the Court of Requests.
I can see why you like Ms. Cox. She argues in the exact manner you do. She
quotes an opinion she likes, and then transforms it into indisputable fact
in the next sentence.
If this
> was the practice in the equity courts, why should it not also have
> been the practice of attomeys' clerks when drawing up conveyancing
> documents?
Ah. "If this was the practice ... why should it not also...." So that's how
she transforms one type of--I was almost going to say eveidence, but we're
really just dealing with an opinion here, aren't we? And on ethat is not
eveidently shared by too many (Ms. Cos, of course, and you. But who
else?)--opinion into another type.
I can really see why you like her so much.
> Possibly Shakespeare was not even in London to sign the
> mortgage deed and the deed of purchase for the Blackfriars gatehouse.
And possibly he was. as a matter of fact, all the evidence says he was (he
signed the documents, or do you believe you have already disposed of that
evidence also?).
> The will signatures have been regarded as sacrosanct, in the main, but
> in the light of Sir Hilary Jenkinson's observations and practice in
> the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
This Ms. Cox is a miracle worker. She's transformed Jenkinson's opinion into
"observations and practice in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury." Did he
have a time machine?
> the authenticity of even these
> signatures must be questioned. There is a possibility that the so
> called
"[S]o called." I like that. It comes in handy when casting aspersions
without evidence, as Cox does.
> original will is a facsimile copy made either by the court or
> by Collins' clerk. The court's ancient practice had been to return the
> original will to the executor and to keep a copy; among the bundles of
> wills proved in 1538, for instance, there are hardly any originals.
What about 1539, 1540, 1541 ... 1614, 1615, 1616? (We are discussing a will
executed and probated in 1616, if you recall.)
By
> the time Shakespeare died the court was more likely to keep the
> original but there are instances of facsimile copies being made for
> the court's files. The will of John Borlas, part of which is
> reproduced below, is an example.
And exactly what percentage of Elizabethan/Jacoban extant wills fall under
this category? that *is* the way real scholars do things, in case you've
forgotten.
> Borlas's name and the name of the
> witnesses are in a different hand from each other and from the text of
> the will and it is only when the paper is turned over that the will is
> revealed to be vera copia
More likely the witnesses signed the copy, also.
> It is not very likely that Shakespeare's
> will comes into this category as the contemporary copy now kept by the
> Birthplace Trust is probably the executors' copy which was retained by
> them when the grant of probate was made and the original was kept by
> the court. Another possibility is that the clerk who wrote the will
> 'forged' Shakespeare's signatures.
Well, that's certainly a "possibility." What do you reckon the odds of that
are? I mean, you already have an opinion that clerks taking depositions did
it, so that makes it a virtual certainly that was the case at Shakespeare's
death bed, at least in the land of Antistratfordia.
>Until the Statute of Frauds of 1667
> there was no necessity for a will to bear the testator's signature at
> all. Manuals of the period indicate the form preferred by the doctors
> of civil law, namely that a will should be signed on every page and
> witnessed, but virtually any form was acceptable so long as it seemed
> to be a true representation of the dying man's wishes.
Ya ever wonder why Shakespeare's will was witnessed by five people instead
of just the usual two?
The will of one
> Jacob Westcombe, proved in 1593, was signed and sealed only by the
> overseer.' Among fifty-five wills proved in the Prerogative Court in
> the same month as Shakespeare's, there are numerous examples of
> 'forgeries' of witnesses' signatures; the attorney's clerk simply
> wrote the names on the document, sometimes using a contrived hand to
> make them look like signatures, sometimes not.
How can she tell if the hand is "contrived" or genuine? Are we going by her
opinion or someone else's here?
> It is not unlikely
"It is not unlikely." I like that, too. It lends an air of certainty to a
guess.
that
> Collins' clerk wrote the names of Shaw, Robinson and Sadler on
> Shakespeare's will;
Cox doesn't know what she's talking about.
> the hands of the three witnesses are suspiciously
> similar.
She is quite the palaeographer. the hands "*are* "suspiciously similar* (I
like that word, "suspiciously."). Except for the J's, H's, M's, N's, E's,
L's and S's, the letters are almost the same!
> There is no positive evidence that Shakespeare did not sign
> his will;
She finally says something relevant.
>the shaky pen strokes certainly look like those made by a
> sick man. But if one must select one of the four signed documents as
> being the sole example of our greatest playwrights hand,
Why must this be done?
the will has
> no better claim than the Requests deposition, the mortgage deed or the
> Guildhall conveyance.
Who said it did? Are you sure Stephanie Caruana didn't write this?
> As we have seen, the legal sanctity of the
> signature was not firmly established;
Mmm. Sorry. We haven't seen this at all. Or at least not from her.
> the medieval tradition was that
> of an illiterate landowning class with scribes to do their writing and
> signing. Wills were proved by the executor's oath, nothing more,
What about testaments? Or does Ms. Cox even know the difference?
> unless objections were raised by some interested party, in which case
> witnesses would be examined. It was not until later in the seventeenth
> century that handwriting experts began to be used by the court.
> </cox>
>
> >
> > By arguing one point by citing someone on a related, but different
> topic,
> > you attempt to lend your argument credibility through osmosis from a
> > contiguously-placed statement that is not in dispute. We commonly
> refer to
> > that tactic as the old switcheroo.
>
> Cox is talking about all six signatures. Her reservation is relevant
> to
> any discussion of a potential seventh signature, since it affects the
> reliability
> of the core control sample.
Her opinion is only relevant because she has an opinion you like. She's
almost half-educated, and her opinion is not worth much upon examination, I
don't care where she works.
>Probably the signatures are by Shakspeare,
> but that's not the point. The point is that one cannot be absolutely
> sure.
Which really irks antiStrats, I know. Why else this pathological desire to
invent a biography?
> Whether three, four, five, or six are ultimately confirmed as
> authentic,
> they still represent too small a sampling with which to make
> meaningful comparisons.
The signatures compare favorably with that in Archaionomia.
>
> > It's the same with your made-up CPLE. Buc is obviously a person who
> knew
> > Shakespeare and accepted him as a writer, but because he didn't
> write, "I
> > asked my good friend William Shakespeare about the attribution of a
> play
> > today," the evidence he left is disallowed.
>
> It is not obvious that Buc recognized Shakespeare as a writer.
Not obvious to you, surely, which is the only way you recognize anything
about Shakespeare, unless it confirms him as a writer. Then it's obvious
that whoever said he was a writer was only kidding.
> Buc called on him to identify the authorship of a play, and he
> called on another man, Juby, who was not a writer, to ask
> him the same question. Diana's hypothesis is that Shakespere
> was the business agent for the company, in which case both
> he and Juby were called in because they had similar
> responsibilities with their respective companies, and would
> presumably be in a position to know from whom the company
> bought the play.
Watch this:
> His concerns were likely to be related to
> questions of ownership, and it may be that in this case,
> the first step toward answering that question was to
> establish authorship.
See how Dooley did exactly what Cox did above? Posit a "maybe," and then in
the next sentence treat it as proven.
> Buc's official role was to authorise texts.
> He did that in the Revel's office and signed the manuscript
> when he was done. The stationer or his clerk then takes it
> to the Stationer' Hall where it is licensed and, optionally
> entered into the Stationer's Register. In that process it
> would be most unusual for Buc to have any reason to
> speak or otherwise communicate with Shakespeare,
But I thought you believed Shakespeare was the business representative of
his company? Wouldn't Buc have dealt with him to license plays for the
stage?
> the presumed author; it is more likely that he would
> be dealing with the owner, not the author of a book.
Errr, I hate to tell you this, Pat. But when Buc licensed Lear for the
stage, William Shakespeare *was* the owner.
> The inscription on George a Greene only demonstrates
> that Buc believed that Shakespeare and Juby might shed
> light on who wrote that play.
Watch him do it again:
Shakespeare and
> Juby were both involved in the business of their companies
> and had been active since the early 1590s so they seem
> like reasonable prospects to give Buc an answer.
>
> The fact that Buc also asked Juby indicates to me
> that he saw Shakespeare as a business representative of
> his company rather than a writer.
See him do it again?
Practice makes perfect, and you've got it down, Pat.
TR
Bob Grumman
< <how people of the time called themselves in such cases--though
Heywood
< <said Shakespeare was plain Will. The signature doesn't look that
< <close to the others, but I can't see it well enough to really have
<
< It doesn't say "Mr. Shakespeare" -- it says "Wm Shakespeare",
< or maybe "Wm Shakspeare".
<
< Dave Kathman
In that case, I'd be pretty close to exactly neutral. But I was
sure there was some question as to whether it was William's
book or his father's--hence my believing that the letter that
looks on the Dooply site like either an M or a W was an M.
Any thoughts on why we'd only have one book from Shakespeare with
his signature in it, Dave? I guess maybe it could have been an
especially valuable one to him--or maybe he did lend it out, and
jotted his signature on it just before doing so . . .
Elizabeth Weir
> In a recent post Kathman wrote:
>
> <Kathman>
> snip
> ". . . we do have one letter written to Shakespeare by his
> townsman Richard Quiney. . .
And it doesn't bother you, Kathman, that the world's greatest
playwright--who was not keeping it a secret--would receive in
his lifetime
** one letter? **
Bacon has two or three times as many letters revealing that
he's a concealed poet.
Bacon has 900 times as many letters as Shakespeare
despite the fact that Bacon's library was sold, his papers were
lost and Gorhambury was foreclosed. And Wilmot had to burn
his Baconian evidence.
Strat "armies of scholars" have turned over the archives thousands of
times and there's only *one letter.*
You're awfully trusting, Kathman.
> and a book (William Lambarde's
> *Archaionomia*) with a signature that is now widely, but not
> universally, accepted as William Shakespeare's.
> </Kathman>
I just downloaded the Archaionomia signature into
an editor and it doesn't look anything like Shakespeare's
disjointed scrawls.
Have you taken a close look? There is no similarity.
The Archaionomia signature looks cramped and hurried but
it's the nevertheless the signature of someone who has been
**taught penmanship.**
The letters are connected like script--they aren't drawn--are
consistent in height and form and the signature was
written with speed.
<http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/Archaionomia.asp>
This is Bacon's Italic signature that looks cloer to the Archaionomia
hand than anything Shakespeare scratched out.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/alicefrsig2.jpg>
Shakespeare's handwriting--in fact the handwriting of
the Shakespeare family--is illiterate.
Illiterates can write, they just *draw* their letters.
All the Shakespeare family signatures on your site have the
look of the handwriting of adult illiterates.
<http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/Images/Archaionomia.jpg>
Judith Shakespeare couldn't even make an X. It looks like she
was attempting to make her initals but got confused.
Susanna was taught to write as an adult--John Hall
must have taught her--she doesn't have the fluidity of
a writer taught penmanship as a child. Susanna writes some
of her letters and draws others.
Shakespeare's handwriting is not fluid--each letter is
painstakingly drawn and the individual letters
are separated by white gaps. Sort of a printed script.
And Shakespeare couldn't remember all of his letters
because each signature is missing at least two letters,
some missing in the middle. He may not have known the
entire alphabet.
The author of the First Folio wrote 50,000 lines.
No one who printed out his letters as slowly as Shakespeare
could have done that.
KQKnave
Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:
>Any thoughts on why we'd only have one book from Shakespeare with
>his signature in it, Dave? I guess maybe it could have been an
>especially valuable one to him--or maybe he did lend it out, and
>jotted his signature on it just before doing so . . .
>
Why do we have only one copy of the first edition of V&A? There
were multiple copies, unlike this book. I think that it's a miracle
that we have it at all.
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Pat Dooley
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comspamslam> wrote in message
news:20020310100843...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> In article
<91d60bb805401aec371...@mygate.mailgate.org>, "Bob
> Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> writes:
>
> >Any thoughts on why we'd only have one book from Shakespeare with
> >his signature in it, Dave? I guess maybe it could have been an
> >especially valuable one to him--or maybe he did lend it out, and
> >jotted his signature on it just before doing so . . .
> >
>
> Why do we have only one copy of the first edition of V&A? There
> were multiple copies, unlike this book. I think that it's a miracle
> that we have it at all.
You seem to have a low standard for miracles.
Thousands of books have survived from Shakespeare's era.
What's more, some of them can be associated with
Shakespeare's literary colleagues. Ben Jonson's first library
was burnt but 120 surviving books from his 2nd library have
been catalogued. Gabriel Harvey left over 150 books, many
with marginalia. He got some of them from Edmund Spenser.
William Drummond's library was left to Edinburgh University.
According to orthodox scholarship Shakespeare consulted
the following list of 179 authors:
Æschylus
Æsop
Africanus (Leo)
Alberti, Leon Battista
Albertus, Magnus
Alciatus, Andreas
Aphthonios
Appian
Apuleius, Lucius
Aretino, Pietro
Ariosto, Lodovico
Aristophanes
Athenaeus
Aurelius Antoninus, Marcus
Averell, William
Bandello, Matteo
Barnes, Barnaby
Beaumont, Francis
Belleforest, François de
Berni, Francesco
Boaistuau, Pierre
Boccaccio, Giovanni
Boiardo, Matteo Maria
Bright, Timothy
Brooke, Arthur
Buchanan, George
Caesar, Julius
Camden, William
Camerarius, Ioachimus
Cardano, Girolamo
Castiglione, Baldassare
Catullus, Valerius
Caxton, William
Cecchi, Giovammaria
Cervantes, Miguel de
Chapman, George
Chaucer, Geoffrey
Cicero, Marcus Tullius
Claudianus, Claudius
Constable, Henry
Contareno, Cardinal
Créton, Jean
Daniel, Samuel
Dante
Day, Angell
Day, John
de Vega, Lope
Dekker, Thomas
Diodorus, Siculus
Dionysius, Periegetes
Dolce, Lodovico
Drayton, Michael
Eden, Richard
Edwards, Richard
Eliot, John
Elyot, Sir Thomas
Erasmus, Desiderius
Euripides
Fabyan, Robert
Fian, Doctor
Fiorentino, Giovanni
Florio, John
Foxe, John
Froissart, Jean (tr. by Berner)
Fulbecke, William
Gallus, Cornelius
Gascoigne, George
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Giraldi Cinthio
Golding, Arthur
Goslicius, Laurentius Grimaldus
Gower, John
Grafton, Richard
Grammiticus, Saxo
Greene, Robert
Groto, Luigi
Guazzo, Stefano
Hakluyt, Richard
Hall, Edward
Harington, Sir John
Harsnett, Samuel
Heliodorus (tr. A. Fraunce)
Henryson, Robert
Hesiod
Holinshed, Raphel
Homer
Horatius Flaccus, Quintus (Horace)
Hurtado De Mendoza, Diego
Jones, Robert
Jonson, Ben
Josephus
Jourdain, Silvester
Juvenalis, Decius Junios (Juvenal)
Kyd, Thomas
Legge, Thomas
Leslie, Bishop John
Lily, William
Livy
Lodge, Thomas
Lucan
Lucianus (Lucian)
Lucretius
Lydgate, John
Lyly, John
Machiavelli, Niccolo
Mantuan (Battisti Spagnuoli)
Marianus
Marlowe, Christopher
Martire, Pietro
Massuccio, Salernitano
Mexía, Pedro
Montaigne, Michel de
Montemayor, Jorge de
More, Sir Thomas
Morley, Thomas
Nashe, Thomas
North, Sir Thomas
Ovidius, Naso Publius (Ovid)
Painter, William
Palingenius
Paracelsus
Pasqualigo, Luigi
Peele, George
Persius
Pescetti, Orlando
Petrarch, Francesco
Pettie, George
Philostratus
Plato
Plautus, Titus Maccius
Plinius, Caius (Pliny, the Elder)
Plutarch
Pomponius
Porto, Luigi Da
Preston, Thomas
Proclus
Puttenham, George
Quintilian
Rabelais, François
Raleigh, Sir Walter
Ravenscroft, Thomas
Riche, Barnabe
Ronsard, Pierre De
Sabie, Francis
Salluste, duBartas
Scot, Reginald
Segar, Sir William
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus
Sidney, Sir Philip
Silva, Feliciano de
Silvayn, Alexander
Sophocles
Spenser, Edmund
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
Statius
Sterling, William Earl of
Storer, Thomas
Stow, John
Strachey, William
Straporola, Giovanni Francesco
Surrey, Henry Earl of
Susenbrotus
Tacitus, Caius Cornelius
Tasso, Torquato
Terentius, Publius (Terence)
Theocritus
Thomas, W.
Tibullus
Twine, Lawrence
Vergil (Polydore)
Vespucci, Amerigo
Virgilius, Maro Publius
Warner, William
Watson, Thomas
Whetstone, George
Wilkins, George
Wilson, Thomas
Wyatt, Sir Thomas
Xenophon
Shakespeare seems to have read all these authors
without without leaving any evidence that he bought
books, borrowed books from a friend, or received
books as a gift. The only miracle I can see is that
such a widely read author somehow escaped leaving
any evidence that puts him in the same room as a book.
KQKnave
<patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> writes:
>> Why do we have only one copy of the first edition of V&A? There
>> were multiple copies, unlike this book. I think that it's a miracle
>> that we have it at all.
>
>You seem to have a low standard for miracles.
You seem to have a special talent for specious reasoning.
>
>Thousands of books have survived from Shakespeare's era.
I'm sure that they have. Not from one person though.
>What's more, some of them can be associated with
>Shakespeare's literary colleagues. Ben Jonson's first library
>was burnt but 120 surviving books from his 2nd library have
>been catalogued. Gabriel Harvey left over 150 books, many
>with marginalia. He got some of them from Edmund Spenser.
>William Drummond's library was left to Edinburgh University.
>
>According to orthodox scholarship Shakespeare consulted
>the following list of 179 authors:
I'm sure a similar list could be compiled for Marlowe and
Spenser, but we don't have any of their books either.
Pat Dooley
Maunde Thompson has Hand D to his credit or discredit.
He also wrote:
<Thompson>
The three subscriptions present difficulties which are almost beyond
explanation. In the first place, they differ from one another to such
a degree that it is not going too far to declare that, were they met
with on three independent documents, they might not unreasonably be
taken, at first sight, for the signatures of three different persons.
And, besides their intrinsic dissimilarity, the methods of writing
them also vary.
</Thompson>
<From: http://www.shakespearetoday.net/contributor%20biographies.htm>
Jane Cox is a past assistant keeper of records for the British Public
Records office. A seasoned writer and speaker, Jane is also a
specialist in Genealogy with a particular interest in the life and
times of William Shakespeare.
</From...>
> Almost every
> > letter is formed in a different way in each. Literate men in the
> > sixteenth and seventeenth centuries developed personalized
signatures
> > much as people do today and it is unthinkable that Shakespeare did
> > not. Which of the signatures reproduced here is the genuine
article is
> > anybody's guess. Some scholars, perhaps more familiar with
literature
> > than the calligraphy of the period have failed to recognize the
> > problem;
>
> So she is saying Thompson, Dawson, et al were unfamilar with English
> secretary hand?
Apparently not. See above.
>
> > Tannenbaum saw a 'striking similarity between the last will
> > signature and that on the Guildhall deed.' The anti-Stratfordians,
on
> > the other hand, have argued that Shakespeare did not sign the
> > documents himself because he was illiterate or that he did sign
them,
> > but because he was not used to writing, each time the signature
and
> > the spelling was different. An article by Sir Hilary Jenkinson,
> > published in 1922, gives a clue to what the solution might be. It
was
> > his opinion
>
> "his opinion"
>
> Your previous statement, "Cox shows or argues that the signatures
'may not
> be' that of the
> testator," is not quite true, is it? It should be, "Cox shows or
argues that
> Sir Hilary Jenkinson's opinion is that the signatures 'may not be'
that of
> the testator."
She quotes him approvingly and continues the argument.
>
> > It was his opinion
> > that clerks taking down the evidence of witnesses in law
> > suits often 'signed' it with the deponent's name themselves, using
a
> > different hand from that which they had used for the body of the
text
> > to give it 'an air of verisimilitude'.'
>
> "It was his opinion..." Which is worth, what? It's more likely his
opinion
> is wrong. That would be the simplest explanation for the phenomena
he
> observes. And what does this have to do with a will?
>
> > So much for the signature on
> > the deposition given by Shakespeare to the Court of Requests.
>
> I can see why you like Ms. Cox. She argues in the exact manner you
do. She
> quotes an opinion she likes, and then transforms it into
indisputable fact
> in the next sentence.
She's one of yours. Actually, the method of argument you
describe is a common feature in the Shakespearean
biographer. For example, Schoenbaum's section on
Shakespeare's career on-stage as an actor provides
an example of presenting legends as legends, and then
building on them as though they were fact..
>
> If this
> > was the practice in the equity courts, why should it not also have
> > been the practice of attomeys' clerks when drawing up conveyancing
> > documents?
>
> Ah. "If this was the practice ... why should it not also...." So
that's how
> she transforms one type of--I was almost going to say eveidence, but
we're
> really just dealing with an opinion here, aren't we? And on ethat is
not
> eveidently shared by too many (Ms. Cos, of course, and you. But who
> else?)--opinion into another type.
>
> I can really see why you like her so much.
It's not a question of "liking" or not liking Cox. She raises
an issue, based on the absence of statutes at the time
concerning the execution of legal documents, and the
point which she makes is simply that one cannot be sure
that Shakespeare signed the will himself. The paleographers,
approaching the subject from a different vantage point, note
dissimilarities in the signatures. There is insufficient
evidence to prove the case one way or the other. And so,
as Jonathan Hope noted, it is not "certain" that all
the signatures were actually written by Shakespeare. Since
the case cannot be proved, the reliability of the control sample
of signatures is therefore weakened.
>
> > Possibly Shakespeare was not even in London to sign the
> > mortgage deed and the deed of purchase for the Blackfriars
gatehouse.
>
> And possibly he was. as a matter of fact, all the evidence says he
was (he
> signed the documents, or do you believe you have already disposed of
that
> evidence also?).
Actually, I would expect he was there. It was a big deal.
>
> > The will signatures have been regarded as sacrosanct, in the main,
but
> > in the light of Sir Hilary Jenkinson's observations and practice
in
> > the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
>
> This Ms. Cox is a miracle worker. She's transformed Jenkinson's
opinion into
> "observations and practice in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury."
Did he
> have a time machine?
>
She's orthodox, as far as I know, but if you want to question
her credibility, perhaps you could check with her
colleagues at
http://www.shakespearetoday.net/contributor%20biographies.htm.
We've found "Shakespeare in the Public Records" to
be a valuable resource. But I need not appeal to authority.
The statutory conditions are a matter of record, and the
various paleographic analyses do not confirm the
authenticity of the three signatures one way or the other.
I should suppose that Shakespere probably did sign
all three pages, but that is a probability, even a high
one. The point is that it cannot be proved on the
existing evidence.
> > the authenticity of even these
> > signatures must be questioned. There is a possibility that the so
> > called
>
> "[S]o called." I like that. It comes in handy when casting
aspersions
> without evidence, as Cox does.
Maybe she read what Thompson had to say.
>
> > original will is a facsimile copy made either by the court or
> > by Collins' clerk. The court's ancient practice had been to return
the
> > original will to the executor and to keep a copy; among the
bundles of
> > wills proved in 1538, for instance, there are hardly any
originals.
>
> What about 1539, 1540, 1541 ... 1614, 1615, 1616? (We are discussing
a will
> executed and probated in 1616, if you recall.)
>
> By
> > the time Shakespeare died the court was more likely to keep the
> > original but there are instances of facsimile copies being made
for
> > the court's files. The will of John Borlas, part of which is
> > reproduced below, is an example.
>
> And exactly what percentage of Elizabethan/Jacoban extant wills fall
under
> this category? that *is* the way real scholars do things, in case
you've
> forgotten.
I have to wonder what you look up yourself before offering
your views. Cox hasn't given us the information you seek, and
the bibliography for Thomas and Cox is short and
"Selective." It includes Schoenbaum, Lewis, and
Eccles among others.However, there is a good section
on legal procedure and process in Honigmann and
Brock's Playhouse Wills. One interesting example
that they cite is Tilney's will:
<<it is dangerous to assume that a will is holograph
even in those exceptional cases where the testator
clearly states that he has written the will himself and
appears to have signed it. Edmund Tylney, Master of
the Revels, made his will in 1610 'Written with my owne
hand' but the document among the original wills at PRO
is a scribal copy (17).>>
Now, talking about checking percentages, and doing the
comparative stuff, I agree that that is the scholarly
approach to take. Actually, that is how Diana thought
about looking at the evidence left by Shakespeare and
his literary contemporaries, so she looked at everything
the real scholars had found out about all those writers
and she tabulated it, and classified it, just like a real
scholar might, and she kept finding Shakespeare was
the odd man out.
>
> > Borlas's name and the name of the
> > witnesses are in a different hand from each other and from the
text of
> > the will and it is only when the paper is turned over that the
will is
> > revealed to be vera copia
>
> More likely the witnesses signed the copy, also.
>
> > It is not very likely that Shakespeare's
> > will comes into this category as the contemporary copy now kept by
the
> > Birthplace Trust is probably the executors' copy which was
retained by
> > them when the grant of probate was made and the original was kept
by
> > the court. Another possibility is that the clerk who wrote the
will
> > 'forged' Shakespeare's signatures.
>
> Well, that's certainly a "possibility." What do you reckon the odds
of that
> are? I mean, you already have an opinion that clerks taking
depositions did
> it, so that makes it a virtual certainly that was the case at
Shakespeare's
> death bed, at least in the land of Antistratfordia.
I would not be surprised if Shakespeare signed
his will. I would equally unsurprised if he hadn't.
I don't doubt he was literate despite the illiteracy
of his immediate family. But my inference is based
on the evidence for his acting and business activities.
> >Until the Statute of Frauds of 1667
> > there was no necessity for a will to bear the testator's signature
at
> > all. Manuals of the period indicate the form preferred by the
doctors
> > of civil law, namely that a will should be signed on every page
and
> > witnessed, but virtually any form was acceptable so long as it
seemed
> > to be a true representation of the dying man's wishes.
>
> Ya ever wonder why Shakespeare's will was witnessed by five people
instead
> of just the usual two?
Big estate?
>
> The will of one
> > Jacob Westcombe, proved in 1593, was signed and sealed only by the
> > overseer.' Among fifty-five wills proved in the Prerogative Court
in
> > the same month as Shakespeare's, there are numerous examples of
> > 'forgeries' of witnesses' signatures; the attorney's clerk simply
> > wrote the names on the document, sometimes using a contrived hand
to
> > make them look like signatures, sometimes not.
>
> How can she tell if the hand is "contrived" or genuine? Are we going
by her
> opinion or someone else's here?
>
I hope she isn't making this stuff up, but as far as I know,
Cox is not a paleographer, nor does she claim to be one.
She raises the question as one of procedure and legal
process, and any layperson can look at the three signatures
and observe their characteristics and dissimilarities.
Her question about the authenticity of the signatures is
not settled by the analyses of the paleographers.
She cites Jenkinson's "observations and practices in
the Prerogative Court" in support of her position.
Which reminds me, didn't David Kathman's colleague
Jonathan Hope cite this very article?
> > It is not unlikely
>
> "It is not unlikely." I like that, too. It lends an air of certainty
to a
> guess.
>
> that
> > Collins' clerk wrote the names of Shaw, Robinson and Sadler on
> > Shakespeare's will;
>
> Cox doesn't know what she's talking about.
Jonathon Hope seemed to think she does.
>
> > the hands of the three witnesses are suspiciously
> > similar.
>
> She is quite the palaeographer. the hands "*are* "suspiciously
similar* (I
> like that word, "suspiciously."). Except for the J's, H's, M's, N's,
E's,
> L's and S's, the letters are almost the same!
>
> > There is no positive evidence that Shakespeare did not sign
> > his will;
>
> She finally says something relevant.
>
> >the shaky pen strokes certainly look like those made by a
> > sick man. But if one must select one of the four signed documents
as
> > being the sole example of our greatest playwrights hand,
>
> Why must this be done?
Maybe she thinks writers wrote for a living.
>
> the will has
> > no better claim than the Requests deposition, the mortgage deed or
the
> > Guildhall conveyance.
>
> Who said it did? Are you sure Stephanie Caruana didn't write this?
Cox, page 34.
>
> > As we have seen, the legal sanctity of the
> > signature was not firmly established;
>
> Mmm. Sorry. We haven't seen this at all. Or at least not from her.
I don't know what sources you've consulted. Honigmann and
Brock are good. Lewis discusses procedures and legal process.
But Cox notes that until the Statute of Frauds of 1667, it
was not necessary for a will to be signed by the testator.
Honigmann and Brock cover this as well.
>
> > the medieval tradition was that
> > of an illiterate landowning class with scribes to do their writing
and
> > signing. Wills were proved by the executor's oath, nothing more,
>
> What about testaments? Or does Ms. Cox even know the difference?
I think it was her job at the PRO.
Just passing on an informed opinion. I suppose Thompson
doesn't know what he's talking about either.
> >Probably the signatures are by Shakspeare,
> > but that's not the point. The point is that one cannot be
absolutely
> > sure.
>
> Which really irks antiStrats, I know. Why else this pathological
desire to
> invent a biography?
In our case, it is a desire to see where the evidence
leads; to find a connection between the writer's works
and his life. And to find out what happened.
Every major Elizabethan writer who left more
than a few scraps of personal evidence seems to have
left enough personal literary evidence to construct a
literary biography. I've just been going through "A Cup
of News" again and the contrast between that biography
and the usual Shakespeare biography is startling.
If you took the personal evidence that Shakespeare did leave
you could just about write a biography tracing Shakespeare's
business career. It would be a colorful book with some dreary
interludes -- just reading Chambers on the Welcombe enclosures
would give you an idea of just how boring it could be -- but you
would be left with a sense of the man and his life. I even
have a title: "Shakespeare's Orthodox Biography".
> > Whether three, four, five, or six are ultimately confirmed as
> > authentic,
> > they still represent too small a sampling with which to make
> > meaningful comparisons.
>
> The signatures compare favorably with that in Archaionomia.
That's an ambiguous statement. Do you mean that they are
better or do you mean they are all comparable?
I'll refer you back to what Thompson wrote:
<Thompson>
The three subscriptions present difficulties which are almost beyond
explanation. In the first place, they differ from one another to such
a degree that it is not going too far to declare that, were they met
with on three independent documents, they might not unreasonably be
taken, at first sight, for the signatures of three different persons.
And, besides their intrinsic dissimilarity, the methods of writing
them also vary.
</Thompson>
If Thompson's opinion of this matter is right, then you can't
really group the three will signatures and compare them with
a 4th which is yet again different.
You're switching tracks. The discussion was on the
licensing of "M. William Shak-speare: His True
Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear
and his three daughters".
Perhaps Shakespeare did personally deliver the
plays his company was going to perform to Buc
for authorization. The fair copy that Buc signed
would not necessarily name the author. The only
surviving example I know of is the Sir Thomas More
manuscript. It doesn't show any author's names
but Tilney has written in the margin "Leave out
ye insurrection wholy & ye cause ther of &
begin wt Sr Tho: More att ye mayors session wt
a report afterwards off his good don being Shrive off
London uppon a mutiny Agaynst ye Lubards only
by a shortt report & nott otherwise att your own
perilles E Tyllney". There are other signs of
censorship in the manuscript.
The authorities did become interested in
authorship when a play had to be suppressed
(Isle of Dogs, Eastward Ho, A Game at Chess)
and actors and authors could be arrested,
but apparently not otherwise.
>
> > the presumed author; it is more likely that he would
> > be dealing with the owner, not the author of a book.
>
> Errr, I hate to tell you this, Pat. But when Buc licensed Lear for
the
> stage, William Shakespeare *was* the owner.
We were talking about the book. At the point of
authorization, the Stationer would own the copy
havng just bought it from the playing company
or another source.
The licensing for performance is a different
issue. In that case, Shakespeare, as a sharer,
would be a part-owner of the play. (And of course,
I question whether Shakespeare, the owner, was
also Shakespeare, the author.)
> > The inscription on George a Greene only demonstrates
> > that Buc believed that Shakespeare and Juby might shed
> > light on who wrote that play.
>
> Watch him do it again:
>
> Shakespeare and
> > Juby were both involved in the business of their companies
> > and had been active since the early 1590s so they seem
> > like reasonable prospects to give Buc an answer.
> >
> > The fact that Buc also asked Juby indicates to me
> > that he saw Shakespeare as a business representative of
> > his company rather than a writer.
>
> See him do it again?
I provide some evidence that you apparently don't
disagree with, since you've presumably checked
Juby's records, and then I give you my take
on what that evidence suggests to me.
You approach seems to start with the preconceived
idea that Shakespeare was the writer we all thought
he was and interpret every piece of evidence to support
the preconceived idea.
<snip>
Bob Grumman
> >the following list of 179 authors:
Wrong. His works indicate some knowledge of the works of
those 179 authors. That is different from indicating that
he actively consulted them.
> I'm sure a similar list could be compiled for Marlowe and
> Spenser, but we don't have any of their books either.
Also, we know that Dr. Hall's books were stolen, and it is
probable that they included Shakespeare's.
David L. Webb
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
Isn't Usenet great? Where else can a well-known Shakespeare scholar
learn the rudiments of paleography under the tutelage of the comically
clueless and the invincibly ignorant?
Elizabeth Weir
The Quiney letter was never mailed.
Any explanation for that?
Tom Reedy
news:efbc3534.02031...@posting.google.com...
Yes. Stamps hadn't been invented yet.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TR
Tom Reedy
"Pat Dooley" <patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> wrote in message
news:hnOi8.308621$uz6.4...@news.webusenet.com...
>
> "Tom Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:GnBi8.9398$Vx1.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/Archaionomia.asp
You can see the Archaionomia signature on that page and the
rest of Shakespeare's signatures at:
http://www.shakespeare-authorship.com/resources/literacy.asp
> > > > From your website:
> > > > <begin>
> > > > But there is no proof that even the first six
> > > > signatures were written by the same person,
> > > > since Jane Cox has shown, and Jonathan Hope
> > > > has recently reminded us all (on the Shaksper
> > > > news group), that some of the allegedly genuine
> > > > signatures on Shakespeare's will may not be
> > > > that of the testator:
<snip>
> > > Cox shows or argues that the signatures "may not
> > > be" that of the testator. That is the point.
<snip>
> > >
> > > <Cox>
> > > Six 'authenticated' Shakespeare signatures survive
> > > and three of these are on his will. There is one on
> > > the Court of Requests document (document 11) in
> > > the Public Record Office and the two others arc
> > > on deeds connected with the purchase of the
> > > Blackfriars; house, in the British Library and the
> > > Guildhall Library respectively. All are
> > > reproduced below, with the exception of the first
> > > will signature which is of very poor quality.
> > >
> > > It is obvious at a glance that these signatures, with
> > > the exception of the last two, are not the signatures
> > > of the same man.
> >
> > It's a mystery how this escaped the notice of Maunde
> > Thompson and other palaeographers. Ms. Cox must
> > be an accomplished and unique palaeographer
> > indeed. Is that her profession?
>
> Maunde Thompson has Hand D to his credit or discredit.
What's your point? Are you agreeing with Cox, when she
says, "It is obvious at a glance that these signatures, with
the exception of the last two, are not the signatures of the
same man."
> He also wrote:
>
> <Thompson>
> The three subscriptions present difficulties which are almost beyond
> explanation. In the first place, they differ from one another to such
> a degree that it is not going too far to declare that, were they met
> with on three independent documents, they might not unreasonably be
> taken, at first sight, for the signatures of three different persons.
> And, besides their intrinsic dissimilarity, the methods of writing
> them also vary.
> </Thompson>
There you go again. Thompson is talking about the will signaturess
exclusively. Nor does he make the unequivocal statement, ""It is
obvious at a glance that these signatures, with the exception of the
last two, are not the signatures of the same man."
> <From: http://www.shakespearetoday.net/contributor%20biographies.htm>
> Jane Cox is a past assistant keeper of records for the British Public
> Records office. A seasoned writer and speaker, Jane is also a
> specialist in Genealogy with a particular interest in the life and
> times of William Shakespeare.
> </From...>
"A seasoned writer and speaker." Which qualifies her as a paleaographer
how, exactly? This reminds me of a UFO book written in the 1950s with
the claim that the author worked for the Palomar observatory in California.
Turned out he did ... as a janitor.
<snip>
> > > An article by Sir Hilary Jenkinson, published in 1922,
> > > gives a clue to what the solution might be. It was
> > > his opinion
> >
> > "his opinion"
> >
> > Your previous statement, "Cox shows or argues that the
> > signatures 'may not be' that of the testator," is not quite
> > true, is it? It should be, "Cox shows or argues that
> > Sir Hilary Jenkinson's opinion is that the signatures 'may
> > not be' that of the testator."
>
> She quotes him approvingly and continues the argument.
She quotes his opinion and then assumes it to be fact,
without even giving the evidence for his opinion.
> > > It was his opinion
> > > that clerks taking down the evidence of witnesses
> > > in law suits often 'signed' it with the deponent's
> > > name themselves, using a different hand from that
> > > which they had used for the body of the text
> > > to give it 'an air of verisimilitude'.'
> >
> > "It was his opinion..." Which is worth, what? It's more
> > likely his opinion is wrong. That would be the simplest
> > explanation for the phenomena he
> > observes. And what does this have to do with a will?
> >
> >
> > I can see why you like Ms. Cox. She argues in the exact
> > manner you do. She quotes an opinion she likes, and then
> > transforms it into indisputable fact in the next sentence.
>
> She's one of yours. Actually, the method of argument you
> describe is a common feature in the Shakespearean
> biographer.
It's certainly a common feature of Price's "Shakespeare's
Unorthodox Biography.
> For example, Schoenbaum's section on
> Shakespeare's career on-stage as an actor provides
> an example of presenting legends as legends, and then
> building on them as though they were fact..
>
> >
> > > If this was the practice in the equity courts, why
> > > should it not also have been the practice of
> > >attomeys' clerks when drawing up conveyancing
> > > documents?
> >
> > Ah. "If this was the practice ... why should it not also...."
> > So that's how she transforms one type of--I was almost
> > going to say evidence, but we're really just dealing with
> > an opinion here, aren't we? And one that is not
> > eveidently shared by too many (Ms. Cos, of course, and
> > you. But who else?)
I notice you didn't append a list of believers here.
--opinion into another type.
> >
> > I can really see why you like her so much.
>
> It's not a question of "liking" or not liking Cox.
Well, you act as if she settles the question, going so far as
to quote her pronouncement, "So much for the signature on
the deposition given by Shakespeare to the Court of Requests."
She raises
> an issue, based on the absence of statutes at the time
> concerning the execution of legal documents, and the
> point which she makes is simply that one cannot be sure
> that Shakespeare signed the will himself. The paleographers,
> approaching the subject from a different vantage point, note
> dissimilarities in the signatures. There is insufficient
> evidence to prove the case one way or the other. And so,
> as Jonathan Hope noted, it is not "certain" that all
> the signatures were actually written by Shakespeare.
One could make the case that nothing is "certain" unless
observed personally. OTOH, you seem to consider it
"certain" that Shakespeare was a theater manager, a
play broker and a usurer, and that he wasn't a writer.
Your difference in standards of evidence between the
historical record of Shakespeare and your theory of his
career is disconcerting.
Since
> the case cannot be proved, the reliability of the control sample
> of signatures is therefore weakened.
>
> >
> > > Possibly Shakespeare was not even in London to sign the
> > > mortgage deed and the deed of purchase for the Blackfriars
> gatehouse.
> >
> > And possibly he was. as a matter of fact, all the evidence
> > says he was (he signed the documents, or do you believe
> > you have already disposed of that evidence also?).
>
> Actually, I would expect he was there. It was a big deal.
>
> >
> > > The will signatures have been regarded as sacrosanct,
> > > in the main, but in the light of Sir Hilary Jenkinson's
> > > observations and practice in the Prerogative Court
> > > of Canterbury,
> >
> > This Ms. Cox is a miracle worker. She's transformed
> > Jenkinson's opinion into "observations and practice in
> > the Prerogative Court of Canterbury." Did he
> > have a time machine?
> >
>
> She's orthodox, as far as I know,
You don't speak to my point.
I notice my pointing this out did nothing to raise your suspicions.
> > > By the time Shakespeare died the court was
> > > more likely to keep the original but there are
> > > instances of facsimile copies being made for
> > > the court's files. The will of John Borlas, part
> > > of which is reproduced below, is an example.
> >
> > And exactly what percentage of Elizabethan/Jacoban
> > extant wills fall under this category? that *is* the way
> > real scholars do things, in case you've forgotten.
>
> I have to wonder what you look up yourself before offering
> your views.
Not much. It doesn't take much to point out lapses in logic
and procedure.
> Cox hasn't given us the information you seek, and
> the bibliography for Thomas and Cox is short and
> "Selective." It includes Schoenbaum, Lewis, and
> Eccles among others.However, there is a good section
> on legal procedure and process in Honigmann and
> Brock's Playhouse Wills. One interesting example
> that they cite is Tilney's will:
>
> <<it is dangerous to assume that a will is holograph
> even in those exceptional cases where the testator
> clearly states that he has written the will himself and
> appears to have signed it. Edmund Tylney, Master of
> the Revels, made his will in 1610 'Written with my owne
> hand' but the document among the original wills at PRO
> is a scribal copy (17).>>
I don't see what your point is here. We're not discussing whether
Shakespeare's will is holograph.
> Now, talking about checking percentages, and doing the
> comparative stuff, I agree that that is the scholarly
> approach to take. Actually, that is how Diana thought
> about looking at the evidence left by Shakespeare and
> his literary contemporaries, so she looked at everything
> the real scholars had found out about all those writers
> and she tabulated it, and classified it, just like a real
> scholar might, and she kept finding Shakespeare was
> the odd man out.
>
<snip>
> > Ya ever wonder why Shakespeare's will was witnessed
> > by five people instead of just the usual two?
>
> Big estate?
From my 1998 hlas review of Joyce Rogers' _The Second Best
Bed: Shakespeare's Will in a New Light_ (Contributions to the
Study of World Literature 48, Greenwood Press, 1993):
<begin quote>
In Shakespeare's time there were two types of testaments: the Solemn
Testament
and the Unsolemn Testament. Shakespeare's was the Solemn Testament
(hereafter
abbreviated ST). There were seven requirements for a testament to be
considered solemn:
1. Greater number of witnesses (usually a will needed two; the ST needed at
least four; Shakespeare's has five).
2. The presence of all of them at the execution.
3. Their personal signatures on the document, when possible (i.e. if they
were literate).
4. The testator's personal signature.
5. No witnesses forbidden to bear testimony.
6. The witnesses must actually see the testator, and not hear him only (as
from behind a screen, etc.), and they must seal the document.
7. The testament must be made all at one time (no codicils or modifications
added later after the witness to the execution).
<end quote>
I'm not sure I buy her explanation about the second-best
bed phrase, but I do buy the background on Elizabethan
wills and testaments.
<snip>
> I hope she isn't making this stuff up, but as far as I know,
> Cox is not a paleographer, nor does she claim to be one.
> She raises the question as one of procedure and legal
> process, and any layperson can look at the three signatures
> and observe their characteristics and dissimilarities.
Yes, they get progressively worse from the third sheet
(which is assumed by most to have been written first,
although we can not be absolutely "certain") to the
first sheet.
> Her question about the authenticity of the signatures is
> not settled by the analyses of the paleographers.
> She cites Jenkinson's "observations and practices in
> the Prerogative Court" in support of her position.
She cites Jenkinson's opinion and then treats it as fact.
> Which reminds me, didn't David Kathman's colleague
> Jonathan Hope cite this very article?
I've got no idea. I haven't had time for SHAKSPER for a
couple of years now. I barely have time to read 5-10 posts
on hlas.
> > > It is not unlikely
> >
> > "It is not unlikely." I like that, too. It lends an air of
> > certainty to a guess.
> >
> > that Collins' clerk wrote the names of Shaw,
> > Robinson and Sadler on Shakespeare's will;
> >
> > Cox doesn't know what she's talking about.
>
> Jonathon Hope seemed to think she does.
Well, to quote you on three other signatures:
"any layperson can look at the three signatures
and observe their characteristics and dissimilarities."
> > > the hands of the three witnesses are
> > > suspiciously similar.
> >
> > She is quite the palaeographer. the hands "*are*
> > "suspiciously similar* (I like that word, "suspiciously.").
> > Except for the J's, H's, M's, N's, E's, L's and S's, the
> > letters are almost the same!
> >
> > > There is no positive evidence that Shakespeare
> > > did not sign his will;
> >
> > She finally says something relevant.
> >
> > > the shaky pen strokes certainly look like those made
> > > by a sick man. But if one must select one of the four
> > > signed documents as being the sole example of our
> > > greatest playwrights hand,
> >
> > Why must this be done?
>
> Maybe she thinks writers wrote for a living.
You didn't get my question. Why must one "select one of
the four signed documents as being the sole example of our
greatest playwrights hand"? Why is it necessary to do that/
> > > the will has no better claim than the Requests
> > > deposition, the mortgage deed or the
> > > Guildhall conveyance.
> >
> > Who said it did? Are you sure Stephanie Caruana didn't write this?
>
> Cox, page 34.
You didn't get my joke. I was referring to the fuzziness of her prose.
> > > As we have seen, the legal sanctity of the
> > > signature was not firmly established;
<snip>
> > > Wills were proved by the executor's oath, nothing more,
> >
> > What about testaments? Or does Ms. Cox even know the difference?
>
> I think it was her job at the PRO.
She was an "assistant keeper of the records." Whatever that is, the
title doesn't imply that she had to know the difference.
<snip>
(I'm leaving this in just because I think it's true.)
> > > > By arguing one point by citing someone on a
> > > > related, but different topic, you attempt to lend
> > > > your argument credibility through osmosis from
> > > > a contiguously-placed statement that is not in
> > > > dispute. We commonly refer to that tactic as
> > > > the old switcheroo.
> > >
<snip>
> > > Whether three, four, five, or six are ultimately
> > > confirmed as> authentic, they still represent too
> > > small a sampling with which to make
> > > meaningful comparisons.
> >
> > The signatures compare favorably with that in Archaionomia.
>
> That's an ambiguous statement. Do you mean that they are
> better or do you mean they are all comparable?
I say that the Archaionomia signature possesses similarities to the
others, especially the mortgage signatures, the deposition
signature, and that on the third sheet of the will.
Whether it will ever be universally accepted is doubtful, given the
conservatism of Shakespearean scholars. Nevertheless, if you were
to conduct a poll on who accepts the signature as genuine, I wager
you'll come up with more than you have on your web page, which
you say you created to document "who does and does not accept
this signature as genuine."
<snip Buc material>
TR
Pat Dooley
Since I'm looking at the same signatures that she was, I'd
have to say they do look so different from each other that
it would be hard to believe they represent the established
signature of one man. I've seen the actual Blackfriars
signatures and the space available for the signature was
quite limited, and this may have impeded the ability
of the signatory to sign in his usual style. The last
two signatues are from the will. I happen to believe that
the scribe who wrote "By me" on the last page of the
will also wrote the following "William." My reasoning is that
those three words are evenly space and aligned
horizontally, whereas the surname starts lower
than the line established by the preceding words
and is angled slightly. The character and quality of
the writing appears to me to shift with the start of the
surname. Be that is it may, the first
three letters of the last two will signatures are so
differently formed as to cast doubt on whether or
not they are the signatures of the same man.
But that's just my uninformed opinion, no doubt
influenced by what Thompson said about the
will signatures and what Cox said about the
historical context.
>
> > He also wrote:
> >
> > <Thompson>
> > The three subscriptions present difficulties which are almost
beyond
> > explanation. In the first place, they differ from one another to
such
> > a degree that it is not going too far to declare that, were they
met
> > with on three independent documents, they might not unreasonably
be
> > taken, at first sight, for the signatures of three different
persons.
> > And, besides their intrinsic dissimilarity, the methods of writing
> > them also vary.
> > </Thompson>
>
> There you go again. Thompson is talking about the will signaturess
> exclusively. Nor does he make the unequivocal statement, ""It is
> obvious at a glance that these signatures, with the exception of the
> last two, are not the signatures of the same man."
So? The point at issue is the reliability of the control sample.
Thompson casts doubt on it from a paleographic perspective.
Cox cast doubt on it from a historical and legal context plus the
observation that the signatures look different. I'll put in
my 2c worth and say that the words "By me William"
should be excluded as well.
> > <From:
http://www.shakespearetoday.net/contributor%20biographies.htm>
> > Jane Cox is a past assistant keeper of records for the British
Public
> > Records office. A seasoned writer and speaker, Jane is also a
> > specialist in Genealogy with a particular interest in the life and
> > times of William Shakespeare.
> > </From...>
>
> "A seasoned writer and speaker." Which qualifies her as a
paleaographer
> how, exactly? This reminds me of a UFO book written in the 1950s
with
> the claim that the author worked for the Palomar observatory in
California.
> Turned out he did ... as a janitor.
The janitor was not in charge of the telescope.
Examples please. We really do like to correct errors.
> > For example, Schoenbaum's section on
> > Shakespeare's career on-stage as an actor provides
> > an example of presenting legends as legends, and then
> > building on them as though they were fact..
> >
> > >
> > > > If this was the practice in the equity courts, why
> > > > should it not also have been the practice of
> > > >attomeys' clerks when drawing up conveyancing
> > > > documents?
> > >
> > > Ah. "If this was the practice ... why should it not also...."
> > > So that's how she transforms one type of--I was almost
> > > going to say evidence, but we're really just dealing with
> > > an opinion here, aren't we? And one that is not
> > > eveidently shared by too many (Ms. Cos, of course, and
> > > you. But who else?)
> I notice you didn't append a list of believers here.
I've produced three witnesses who express their opinions
and reasoning. Why don't you find some expert witnesses for
your side.
> --opinion into another type.
> > >
> > > I can really see why you like her so much.
> >
> > It's not a question of "liking" or not liking Cox.
>
> Well, you act as if she settles the question, going so far as
> to quote her pronouncement, "So much for the signature on
> the deposition given by Shakespeare to the Court of Requests."
Given her position at the PRO, I don't think she would
have ventured an opionion on the authenticity of
the signatures carelessly. But she raises a valid point. From
a legal standpoint, the testator's signature was not
a requirement. Honigmann and Brock concur with this
position.
>
> She raises
> > an issue, based on the absence of statutes at the time
> > concerning the execution of legal documents, and the
> > point which she makes is simply that one cannot be sure
> > that Shakespeare signed the will himself. The paleographers,
> > approaching the subject from a different vantage point, note
> > dissimilarities in the signatures. There is insufficient
> > evidence to prove the case one way or the other. And so,
> > as Jonathan Hope noted, it is not "certain" that all
> > the signatures were actually written by Shakespeare.
>
> One could make the case that nothing is "certain" unless
> observed personally. OTOH, you seem to consider it
> "certain" that Shakespeare was a theater manager, a
> play broker and a usurer, and that he wasn't a writer.
> Your difference in standards of evidence between the
> historical record of Shakespeare and your theory of his
> career is disconcerting.
What I find disconcerting is the gap between
the personal evidence we have for Shakespeare in these
roles and the lack of personal evidence for him being
a writer.
Usurer
=====
The evidence for usurer is strongest since
1. there are three records of him operating as a
money lender and pursuing defaulters in court.
2. His father had been convicted of usury, so he
had an opportunity to learn the trade.
3. He charges interest from beyond the grave
in his will, so he must have leaned his lessons well.
4. The GGW reference to a Usurer
has been taken by some orthodox critics
as applying to Shake-scene. That reading is reinforced
by the paraphrase of GGOW in Vertue's Commonwealth.
That is enough evidence, some of it personal, to support
the statement "he was a usurer".
Business Manager or Agent
====================
The evidence for him being a business manager or agent
for his company includes:
1. His documented participation as a sharer
2. His prominence of position in official documents. In comparable
documents for other companies, and for the Kings Men after
his departure, that position was assigned to the business
manager or agent of the company. When his name drops off
the documentation, it is Heminges who takes his place. Heminges
is known to have taken over business management for the
company.
3. His sketchy acting record, confirmed by his absence
during important performance seasons, suggests his
primary role was entrepreneurial (cf. Alleyn, as Diana
notes).
4. The Buc inscription that puts him on a par with Juby,
a business agent for a rival company.
That is enough personal evidence to support
the conclusion that his primary role in the
Kings Men had a business focus i.e. that he was
performing similar dutie to those Heminges
undertook after Shakespeare left the scene.
Play Broker
=========
1. The attribution of apocryphal plays to William Shakespeare,
W. Sh. and W.S. and the absence of any reaction to
such mis-attribution.
2. The linkage in GGW between Shakes-scene and the
actor in Roberto's table that some orthodox critics have
also noted.
3. The linkage between GGW and Vertues Commonwealth.
4. Davies's epigram. Davies wrote straight-forward
personal epigrams in praise of literary figures of the day, but wrote
a cryptic epigram that suggests that Shakespeare was a front.
5. The appearance of his name on title pages despite
the absence of any personal evidence
that he actually was a writer by vocation
This evidence is circumstantial, rather than personal, so I
would regard play broking or fronting as a working hypothesis.
> Since
> > the case cannot be proved, the reliability of the control sample
> > of signatures is therefore weakened.
> >
> > >
> > > > Possibly Shakespeare was not even in London to sign the
> > > > mortgage deed and the deed of purchase for the Blackfriars
> > gatehouse.
> > >
> > > And possibly he was. as a matter of fact, all the evidence
> > > says he was (he signed the documents, or do you believe
> > > you have already disposed of that evidence also?).
> >
> > Actually, I would expect he was there. It was a big deal.
> >
> > >
> > > > The will signatures have been regarded as sacrosanct,
> > > > in the main, but in the light of Sir Hilary Jenkinson's
> > > > observations and practice in the Prerogative Court
> > > > of Canterbury,
> > >
> > > This Ms. Cox is a miracle worker. She's transformed
> > > Jenkinson's opinion into "observations and practice in
> > > the Prerogative Court of Canterbury." Did he
> > > have a time machine?
> > >
> >
> > She's orthodox, as far as I know,
>
> You don't speak to my point.
She didn't have a time machine. She had access to the
work of Jenkinson, Honigmann & Brock and the
Elizabethan works in the subject by Swinburne
and west.
That the practice changed much? "Playhouse Wills" gives
a summary of practices for the relevant period.
We are discussing whether or not they are his signatures.
Good publisher. Must be a good book.
The closest I can find to your source is on p.12 of
Honigmann & Brock's Playhouse Wills:
<q>For a testator's last wishes to have legal force it was
necessary that they be authenticated by witnesses
or by writing (Swinburne) [an Elizabethan source]....
Theoretically, witnesses
were not required when a will was written or signed
by the testator (Swinburne) although in practice a
minimum of two was advised and three or four were
required for the devise of real estate (Statute of Wills
1540, 32 Hen VIII, c.1).</q>
Seems like "Big estate" was close enough to the right
answer.
> > I hope she isn't making this stuff up, but as far as I know,
> > Cox is not a paleographer, nor does she claim to be one.
> > She raises the question as one of procedure and legal
> > process, and any layperson can look at the three signatures
> > and observe their characteristics and dissimilarities.
>
> Yes, they get progressively worse from the third sheet
> (which is assumed by most to have been written first,
> although we can not be absolutely "certain") to the
> first sheet.
>
> > Her question about the authenticity of the signatures is
> > not settled by the analyses of the paleographers.
> > She cites Jenkinson's "observations and practices in
> > the Prerogative Court" in support of her position.
>
> She cites Jenkinson's opinion and then treats it as fact.
>
> > Which reminds me, didn't David Kathman's colleague
> > Jonathan Hope cite this very article?
>
> I've got no idea. I haven't had time for SHAKSPER for a
> couple of years now. I barely have time to read 5-10 posts
> on hlas.
Well, Hope did cite Cox.
> > > > It is not unlikely
> > >
> > > "It is not unlikely." I like that, too. It lends an air of
> > > certainty to a guess.
> > >
> > > that Collins' clerk wrote the names of Shaw,
> > > Robinson and Sadler on Shakespeare's will;
> > >
> > > Cox doesn't know what she's talking about.
> >
> > Jonathon Hope seemed to think she does.
>
> Well, to quote you on three other signatures:
> "any layperson can look at the three signatures
> and observe their characteristics and dissimilarities."
>
Try it. See blow on "Sh".
Well, I kinda fingured that Jane Cox wouldn't hire her
as a ghost writer. I don't read Oxfordian posts very often.
Here's my amateur paleograhic analysis of "Sh":
The initial "S" of Archaionomia is similar to will signature 2 in
style.
It is different from:
1. the deposition signature, which starts with a large loop.
2. Will signature 2, which is drawn in one stroke and crosses itself,
3. the Blackfriars purchase signature, which is a sickle-cell loop,
4. the Blackfriars mortgage, which is close but no match, since the
top of the S is not a separate pen stroke.
The following "h" of Archaionmia is similar to will signature 3
and the Blackfriars purchase signature in general form.
It is different from:
1. the deposition signature and Blackfriars
mortgage signatures which use a secretary script
2. Will signature 3 which has an italic loop on top
Perhaps you might care to line up the "Sh" characters of
the seven signatures and see if my description is
reasonable.
About the only characteristic Archaionomia seems to share
is its degree of dissimilarity from the other signatures. In that
circumstance, virtually any literate Elizabethan of uncertain
penmanship could have written any of the signatures.
>
> Whether it will ever be universally accepted is doubtful, given the
> conservatism of Shakespearean scholars. Nevertheless, if you were
> to conduct a poll on who accepts the signature as genuine, I wager
> you'll come up with more than you have on your web page, which
> you say you created to document "who does and does not accept
> this signature as genuine."
>
> <snip Buc material>
The two points we were trying to make are:
(i) The six signatures may not all be genuine
(ii) The six signatures (or fewer) are too small
a control sample for establishing whether or
not they match another hand.
In the light of that uncertainty, it is little wonder
few scholars have accepted it explicitly.
Bob Grumman
Williams Shakespeaere that he would, by custom, be assumed to
have signed. Since his monument speaks of "all that he hath
writt," we know that he was able to sign. The signatures are
all as similar to each other as any set of signatures from a
non-rigidnik can be expected to be. That a few people have
decided to go on record, and gain publicity, for being skeptical
of them is irrelevant, as is the fact that you, out to ambiguate
anything connected to William Shakespeare are. Without hard
evidence such as a contemporary's testimony that Shakespeare
did not make one or more of these signatures, they have to
be accepted as genuine. Case closed.
Stephanie Caruana
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:e5c42e6751f06843bd1...@mygate.mailgate.org...
Case far from closed. It has been frequently noted by a variety of people,
each "signature" looks and is spelled differently. There are NO TWO
SIGNATURES ALIKE enough so that one could even say, these two signatures are
recognizable as being "typical" samples of Willam Shaxper's handwriting. I
wrote an article about this, called "Six Signatures in Search of an Author,"
in issue #5 of Spear Shaker Review, May 1991. The evidence gathered by
various inquirers raises basic questions about whether any of them can be
considered "genuine" signatures. [Ambiguate???]
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Tom Reedy wrote:
> Liberally snipped and corrected throughout.
>
> "Pat Dooley" <patd...@nospam.allowed.nls.net> wrote in message
> news:hnOi8.308621$uz6.4...@news.webusenet.com...
>
> > > > It is not unlikely
> > >
> > > "It is not unlikely." I like that, too. It lends an air of
> > > certainty to a guess.
> > >
> > > that Collins' clerk wrote the names of Shaw,
> > > Robinson and Sadler on Shakespeare's will;
> > >
> > > Cox doesn't know what she's talking about.
Very probably.
> > Jonathon Hope seemed to think she does.
>
> Well, to quote you on three other signatures:
> "any layperson can look at the three signatures
> and observe their characteristics and dissimilarities."
>
> > > > the hands of the three witnesses are
> > > > suspiciously similar.
That statement alone is enough to make me
suspicious of Cox's expertise. (Or is that not
a quote from her?)
Hamilton's _In Search of William Shakespeare_
wouldn't at all useful, except for the fact that
it contains a fair number of samples of the
handwriting of a good number of Elizabethans.
Among those samples are two signatures each
for Shawe and Sadler. (Two taken from
Shakespeare's will and two taken from other
documents.)
Sadler's two signatures are not exactly the
same, but they are close enough that I doubt
any expert would claim that each was executed
by a different hand.
Julyns Shawe's two signatures look quite different.
However, one thing that stands out pretty quickly
is that in 1616, he drew the capital 'J' in his name
in the same unusual way that we see him drawing it
back in 1597. Additionally, the way Shawe formed
the 'J' in his name is not seen anywhere else in
the will.
> > >
> > > She is quite the palaeographer. the hands "*are*
> > > "suspiciously similar* (I like that word, "suspiciously.").
> > > Except for the J's, H's, M's, N's, E's, L's and S's, the
> > > letters are almost the same!
It *would* be nice to know what features she thinks are
similar. In fact, it would be nice to know which three
of the five signatures she finds suspicious.
Most amazingly, I've seen it stated several places that
Jane Cox thinks that Shakespeare's will may actually be
a scribal copy. For that to be the case, the copyist
would have had to intentially attempt to duplicate
defects in the original will, something which appears to
be extremely unlikely. (It seems much more likely that
Cox is not competent to make any paleographic
judgements.)
Rob
John Bede
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:e5c42e6751f06843bd1...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > Pat, the six signatures are on documents clearly having to do with
> > Williams Shakespeaere that he would, by custom, be assumed to
> > have signed. Since his monument speaks of "all that he hath
> > writt," we know that he was able to sign. The signatures are
> > all as similar to each other as any set of signatures from a
> > non-rigidnik can be expected to be. That a few people have
> > decided to go on record, and gain publicity, for being skeptical
> > of them is irrelevant, as is the fact that you, out to ambiguate
> > anything connected to William Shakespeare are. Without hard
> > evidence such as a contemporary's testimony that Shakespeare
> > did not make one or more of these signatures, they have to
> > be accepted as genuine. Case closed.
> >
> > --Bob G.
> >
> Case far from closed. It has been frequently noted by a variety of people,
> each "signature" looks and is spelled differently. There are NO TWO
> SIGNATURES ALIKE enough so that one could even say, these two signatures are
> recognizable as being "typical" samples of Willam Shaxper's handwriting. I
> wrote an article about this, called "Six Signatures in Search of an Author,"
> in issue #5 of Spear Shaker Review, May 1991. The evidence gathered by
> various inquirers raises basic questions about whether any of them can be
> considered "genuine" signatures. [Ambiguate???]
>
> Stephanie
>
I agree with both of you. The six signatures could be Shakespeare's,
even if they were the only things he ever wrote. On the other hand,
his name could have been signed by others, if he didn't or wasn't
qualified to write. I seem to remember from somewhere that he had
problems with his hands in his last years.
Captain Nemo dropping in
Bob Grumman
--Bob G.
--
Stephanie Caruana
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:a9c431b96709d89ad16...@mygate.mailgate.org...
The "signatures" ARE the evidence. The additional testimony regarding the
circumstances under which such "signatures" might be obtained is testimony.
More like "mind closed" (yours, that is.)
Pat Dooley
<Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.44.020312...@pcr8.pcr.com...
>
>
<snip>
>
> Most amazingly, I've seen it stated several places that
> Jane Cox thinks that Shakespeare's will may actually be
> a scribal copy. For that to be the case, the copyist
> would have had to intentially attempt to duplicate
> defects in the original will, something which appears to
> be extremely unlikely. (It seems much more likely that
> Cox is not competent to make any paleographic
> judgements.)
>
She makes that argument based on observed practice,
not paleograohic grounds. She also notes that "it is
not very likely that Shakespeare's will comes into this
category". Certainly, the other copy of the will looks more
like a copy (and for Ogburnian conspiracy theorists,
it contains the same bequests to H&C).
Pat Dooley
Webmaster of www.shakespeare-authorship.com
.
Bob Grumman
> even if they were the only things he ever wrote. On the other hand,
> his name could have been signed by others
If so, how do you account for the many things they have in common?
How is it that those who signed for him all used the secretary
hand, all used point w's,all (I think) put the dot of the first
i under a loop from the w, etc.?
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> I happen to believe that
> the scribe who wrote "By me" on the last page of the
> will also wrote the following "William."
<snip>
Actually, there's evidence for your belief.
Quoting from a paper I wrote about five years ago:
<begin quote>
?Dawson also notes the preliminary upstrokes with a thickening or "neddle
eye" at the
beginning of certain words, a characteristic E M Thompson made much of, and
cites the
scarcity of these in the Elizabethan hands he had examined. He says that he
found only one
formed with a preliminary down-stroke, and that "This is the only
down-stroke preliminary to an
up-stroke that I have seen, apart from the one in Shakespeare's signature on
the final page of his
will and ten in Hand D" (122). It's a shame he didn't look up from the will
signature, because
there are 22 upstrokes in that document, 3 of which, W7.1(Will, line 7 first
word) "vnto," W49.6 "wth," and W97.4 "whom" show evidence of having been
formed with a preliminary downstroke. The last cited is on the same page as
the final signature!
<end quote>
Or this can be construed as evidence that the will is holograph.
TR