Yeoman, and Gentleman - what did the terms really mean? - Wikipedia articles
lyra
> <<Inquisition taken in the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields 24 July
>
> 1567 before Richard VALE, coroner, upon a viewing of the body of
> Thomas Brincknell, of Westminster, yeoman, lying dead, by
> 17 named jurymen, who affirm that on 23 July 156 between
> seven and eight in the evening Edward earl of Oxford and
> Edward Baynham, TAILOR of the same city, were together
> in the back yard of the residence of Sir William CECIL
> in the same parish, meaning no harm to anyone.
> Each had a sword, called a foil, and together
> they meant to practice the science of defense.
> Along came Thomas Brincknell, drunk, . . . who ran
> and fell upon the point of the earl of OXFORD's FOIL
> (WORTH TWELVE PENCE), which Oxford held
> in his right hand intending to play a round (as they call it).
> With the foil Thomas [Brincknell] gave himself a wound to
> the front of his thigh four inches deep and one inch wide,
> of which he died instantly. This, to the exclusion
> of all other explanations, was the way he died.>>
........................................................................................................................................................
There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
of,
for example,
yeoman
........................................................................................................................................................................................
(quote, excerpts)
Yeoman
Etymology and early use
The English word is rooting in the Old English 'iunge man' or ,
'young man' or 'yonge man', and this meaning possibly combined
with 'geaman', 'geman', or 'gauman', meaning district,
villager, or countryman rustic.
In the Fifteenth Century, a 'yeoman' was also a farmer of middling
social status who owned his own land and often farmed it himself into
prosperity.
In German occupational and social standing, the 'yeoman farmer' is
known as a 'Freibauer' (meaning freehold farmer).
In the middle ages or medieval times, a 'yeoman' was identified as
a rank, or position in a noble or royal household with titles such as:
Yeoman of the Chamber, Yeoman of the Crown, Yeoman Usher, King's
Yeoman, and various others. Most duties were connected with protecting
the sovereign and dignitaries as a bodyguard, attending the sovereign
with various tasks as needed, or duties assigned to his office.
(from
lyra
(quote, excerpts)
Gentleman
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term gentleman (from Latin gentilis, belonging to a race or "gens",
and "man", cognate with the French word gentilhomme, the Spanish
gentilhombre and the Italian gentil uomo or gentiluomo), in its
original and strict signification, denoted a man of good family, the
Latin generosus (its invariable translation in English-Latin
documents).
In this sense the word equates with the French gentilhomme (nobleman),
which latter term was in Great Britain long confined to the peerage.
The term "gentry" (from the Old French genterise for gentelise) has
much of the social class significance of the French noblesse or of the
German Adel, but without the strict technical requirements of those
traditions (such as quarters of nobility).
This was what the rebels under John Ball in the 14th century meant when
they repeated:
When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the Gentleman? [1]
John Selden in Titles of Honour, (1614), discussing the title
"gentleman", speaks of "our English use of it" as "convertible with
nobilis" (an ambiguous word, like 'noble' meaning elevated either by
rank or by personal qualities) and describes in connection with it the
forms of ennobling in various European countries.
To a degree, "gentleman" signified a man who did not need to work, and
the term was particularly used of those of them who could not claim
nobility or even the rank of esquire.
In modern speech, the term is usually democratised so as to include any
man of good, courteous conduct.
(from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman )
..................................................................................................................................
lyra
Yeoman
Origins of the term
It's still highly debated today by linguists about the origins of the
term 'yeoman'. The word 'yeoman' most likely derived from the
Proto-Germanic term 'Gauja' or 'Gauia', an ancient word meaning
'district' or 'country', hence the term, 'countryman' or
'man-of-the-district'. The suffix 'ge-' exists in Anglo-Saxon in
ancient place names such as 'Suthrige'; which is modern day Surrey. The
Anglo Saxon suffix or prefix 'ge-' is cognate with the Old Germanic
suffix or prefix 'gau-'. In many parts of modern Germany, and
Switzerland there are regional names which contain the suffix
'gau'. Place names with 'gau' attached as a suffix are
primarily located or situated along the ancient river borderlands.
The expanded form of 'yeoman' being that such as 'yongeman' or
'yongerman' is possibly of Anglo-Saxon or northwestern Germanic
origin which eventually became 'yeman' or 'yoman' in the Middle
Ages (with variations such as 'yoeman' , etc.). In the early 1300s
AD, the word emerges into a more recognizable form in the modern
spelling of 'yeoman'. By 1363 AD the vernacular form of English was
officially recognized as the national language of the kingdom, whereas
previously the French term 'valet' (used in formal language), and
the Latin term 'valectus' (used in the courts) was replaced by the
term 'yeoman'. The term 'yeoman', primarily identified as a
'servant' is noted throughout the Calendar Patent Rolls in the
early 1300s.
The Medieval period
Throughout the Medieval Period the term 'yeoman' was used within
the royal and noble households to indicate a servant's rank, degree,
position or status. A 'yeoman' during the middle-ages was commonly used
in feudal or private warfare. 'Yeoman' is also believed to come from
the word 'yonge' or 'iunge' man (meaning young man), possibly as a
freeborn servant (serviens or sergeant) in rank between the esquire
(shield escort, from scutum) and page (pagus, meaning rustic, later on
used to define young errand boys).
Anciently, long before the concept of 'chivalry' and the
'crusades' were born from the ideas of Christianity, the term
'knight' (from cniht) originally meant boy. Terms used such as 'radman'
and 'radcniht' or 'radknight' being defined as riding man or road man,
riding boy or road boy (page). The difference of terms helps to
distinguish the young riding men or 'yeomen' from the riding boys
or 'pages' who provide a riding service, or road service. It also
indicates a path of career progression within a noble or royal
household.
All the fighting classes of men in the middle ages from the knights (in
particular knight's bachelors), squires, yeomen, to pages were
usually young servants; the degree of importance or status of each
changed over time. Many serving men (serviens or sergeants) would
usually promote, or sometimes (rarely) demote to various positions of
degree or importance within the king's, or within the lord's household.
The term "yongermen" is found in text as early as the 12th Century, as
well is "geongramanna" found in Beowulf in a much earlier period (c.
700-800 AD). Serving men of districts, since the days of the 'Gau'
republics in Germania, and the stretches of the Germanic peoples
throughout Western Europe immediately after the collapse of the Roman
Empire would most likely be young men, or young men of the district.
'Yeoman' or 'gauman' within the definition of both land and/or service
of a young man appeared mostly settled around the border regions or
remote country sides of their districts, or kingdoms (both modern and
ancient); thus a connection or association with pagus (pages), or
rustics to the term 'yeoman'.
The Dark Ages
In Tacitus' Germania he writes of young men chosen from every district
(pagus), who are swift on foot, and with this swift ability they
support the cavalry, fixed in number (100) and from this they take
their name of honor. It's not known exactly what that name is in which
Tacitus was writing about (though claims of hundred-men have been made,
it has not been validated). Their most likely equivalent is that of
ancient Roman centurions, in itself an ancient idea that is most likely
associated with the concept of using young men of status within their
districts for the wars, e.g., in later times known as 'yeomen',
'pages', 'squires', and 'knights'.
The Yeomen of the Guard is an example of the use of the number 100 of
special military corps/royal bodyguard as told in the tales of Robin
Hood. The number 100 is also a number that is commonly used in the
formation of the lesser fyrd created in during the reign of King Alfred
the Great for protecting the districts (homeland defense); while the
general fyrd also created by King Alfred the Great was primarily an
expeditionary force.
In many ways the ancient 'yeoman' is very similar to the modern concept
of the 'yeomanry' today who are volunteers of the Territorial Army
protecting the United Kingdom, 'yeomanry' ancestry comes from the
volunteer cavalry in the mid 1700s, and later to become known as the
Yeomanry Cavalry in the 1790s.
The term 'yeoman' is also used to define a man who follows a chief, or
a lord; in ancient times known as 'gau judices' (district chiefs). The
term is similar in concept to 'geneatas' meaning companion (with
geneatas being classed as peasants). In the Brythonic language the term
'gweis' is similarly used in the same context as a young freeborn
servant. The ancient Brittonic word 'gweis' is very similar to 'gewi-'
or 'gawi-' prefixes in Gothic. Both languages are now extinct, though
ancient Brittonic language has evolved into modern Welsh and Cornish,
while Cumbrian (Northern Welsh) and many other Britonnic dialects are
now extinct.
[edit] Ancient to modern usage
If the term 'yeoman' is associated with land, or degree of land
ownership, then it may have its ancient roots in the early Anglo-Saxon
rule of England or earlier (thus coming full circle to its most likely
etymological roots). In ancient times the land was a strong indicator
of social status, and wealth, since the period known as the Dark Ages,
and in terms like 'yeoman farmer' used in the 16th Century to denote
prosperous small farmers; whether land was copyhold, freehold, or a
mixture of both.
As land indicated social status, just as the term yeoman farmer in the
1600s as an identifier of social status for small freeholders or
copyholders of land with and an indicated amount of wealth that is a
determining factor of his social standing. Not all yeomen owned land as
many were indentured or feudal servants in a castle. In earlier Anglo
Saxon rule, the class of 'geneatas' would most likely be the
classification a 'yeoman' in this period as an aristocratic peasantry.
The 'yeoman' would be the connection between royalty and nobility to
the peasantry, thus a middling class of sorts in feudal or manorial
service to either the king, or a lord. Also possibly identified within
a class of libri homini (freemen) within Domesday, the 'yeoman' in
service to a king or lord would be known as serviens/sergeants, or
valet/valectus during the Norman period. There also men known as
'socmen' or 'sokemen', usually derived from Anglian or Danish sources,
equivalent in status as 'radman', thus combining land status and
servile status as equals.
Term used as a compliment or praise
This is most likely based upon the historical achievements of winning
numerous battles during the Hundred Years' War when the odds and
numbers were stacked against the yeoman archers in these conflicts. It
also may have been used to denote the excellent or superior service
given by a king's servant performing heroic duties such as preventing
an assassination attempt on his life, or protecting his castle or
palace (such as we see in the modern day Yeomen of the Guard and the
Yeomen Warders of the Tower of London).
The term used in context such as the forester provided 'yeoman
service' in finding the lost children in the woods, or the Hubble
Telescope has done 'yeoman service' or 'yeoman's duty' over
the last three decades.
Yeoman farmers
Yeoman farmers were originally a class of British or English
landholding (freehold and copyhold) farmers in the late 14th to the
18th century. The amount of land owned and the wealth of the English
yeoman farmer varied from place to place. Many yeoman farmers were
prosperous, mixed with the minor gentry and some even rented land to
gentleman landowners. Some were entitled to be classed as gentlemen but
did not pursue it, as it was cheaper to remain a yeoman. Some yeomen
farmers of the later Tudor and Stuart period shared the heritage and
ancestry of the occupational medieval yeoman, as attested mainly by
weapons found above the fireplace mantles (especially in the border
shires) of the West Midlands part of England.
Yeoman farmers were called upon to serve their sovereign and their
country well after the Middle Ages, for example in the Yeomanry Cavalry
of the late 1700s and later Imperial Yeomanry of the late 1890s.
Most yeomen farmers had servants or labourers with whom they would work
if they had the means to afford such services. The term Yeoman Farmer
was later used to distinguish them from Gentleman Farmers, who did not
labour with their hands. Some yeomen had more wealth than the minor
gentry, but remained classed as yeomen by choice rather than by
necessity. Often it was hard to distinguish minor gentry from the
wealthier yeomen farmers, and wealthier husbandmen from the poorer
yeoman farmers.
Sir Anthony Richard Wagner, Garter Principal King of Arms, wrote that
"a Yeoman would not normally have less than 100 acres" (40 hectares)
and in social status is one step down from the Gentry, but above, say,
a husbandman. (English Genealogy, Oxford, 1960, pps: 125-130).
The Concise Oxford Dictionary, (edited by H.W. & F.G. Fowler, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1972 reprint, p.1516) states that a Yeoman is "a person
qualified by possessing free land of 40/- annual [feudal] value, and
who can serve on juries and vote for a Knight of the Shire. He is
sometimes described as a small landowner, a farmer of the middle
classes."
Yeoman medieval obligations
Yeomen were identified in the middle ages as persons owning land worth
approximately 40s to 80s annually, roughly between ¼ Hide and 1 Hide
(about 30 to 120 acres, or 12 to 50 hectares). In the early 12th
Century, 40 acres (16 hectares) of land was worth about 40s to 50s. The
Assize of Arms of 1252 gave instructions for the small landholder to be
armed and trained with a bow and those of more wealth (wealthy yeomen)
would be required to possess and be trained with sword, dagger and the
longbow (the war bow). The Assize of Arms of 1252 AD identify a class
long identified with the 'yeomanry', being a 40-shilling
freeholder, and indicates "Those with land worth annual 40s-100s will
be armed/trained with bow and arrow, sword, buckler and dagger". The
description of societal standing of landowning persons mentioned in the
1252 Assize of Arms of who is to own and train with certain weapons
epitomizes the Knight's Yeoman such as the one in Chaucer's Canterbury
Tales (Yeoman's Portrait in the General Prologue).
Yeoman positions in society
The Yeoman represented a status between the aristocratic knights and
the lower-class foot soldiers and household servants (pages). The
yeoman archer was typically mounted and fought either on foot or on
horseback, in contrast with infantry archers, and came to be applied to
societal standing as a farmer in particular during the 14th to 18th
Centuries. A Yeoman during the 12th and 13th Centuries was primarily a
household and military (semi-feudal and feudal) term later associated
with the days of private warfare.
Yeomen are also noted as providing guard escorts to deliveries of
victuals and supplies (not only fighting as an elite archer but also as
a guard to the baggage train as well a protector of the nobility and
royalty) to the expeditions of the Hundred Years' War. They also
provided escorts for the sovereign and great nobles on their journeys
and their pilgrimages across the realm and overseas. Yeomen of the
Crown were essentially agents of the king who were allowed to sit and
dine with knights and squires of any lord's house or estate. At
retirement they were offered tenure of stewardship of royal forests at
the king's choosing.
Later in Medieval history and through the Renaissance, the yeomanry
shared attributes with both the upper and working classes, though they
had little in common with today's urban middle class. The yeomanry was
the first class of the commoners (peasants), in ancient Saxon days
would be the equivalent to geneatas or villager. The 'yeoman' was
more military and bound to the manor or estate, comparable to the
radman or radcniht (radknight) who would provide escorts, deliver
messages, erect fences for the hunt, and repair bridges. He would be
given land (copyhold or sometimes freehold) by his lord for services
well rendered. Many similarities exist between radmen/radknights and
yeomen of the crown, as yeomen had many of the same tasks, though he
was not as heavily imposed with the intense labor requirements as the
radman/radknight had during his time.
Many duties throughout history
Duties of 'yeomen' were manifold from the Middle Ages through to the
19th Century. They were usually constables of their parish, and
sometimes chief constables of the district, shire or hundred. Many
'yeomen' would hold status as bailiffs for the High Sheriff, or for the
shire, or hundred. Other civic duties would include churchwarden,
bridge warden, and other warden duties. It was also common for a
'yeoman' to be an overseer for their parishes.
'Yeomen', whether working for a lord, king, shire, knight, district
or parish are noted for their civic duties as localized or municipal
police forces raised by or led by the gentry. Some of these duties and
mostly that of constable and bailiff would be carried down through
family traditions. 'Yeomen' are seemingly in a role of ranging,
roaming, surveying, and policing throughout their social history. In
Chaucer's Canterbury Friar's Tale a 'yeoman' who is a bailiff of
the forest who tricks the Summoner, and he turns out to be the devil
ready to grant wishes already made.
In the early Middle English period (noted in the text Psuedo Cnut De
Foresta Constitutiones written in the late eleventh century). The
'yonger men' chosen of liberi homini mediocre were to range or
underkeep the royal forests and is the first known use of the word
'yeoman' being associated with the forests (both greenwood and
royal or manorial hunting forests). The chief forester of such royal
forests was stationed at the nearest castle and was also the constable
of the castle with his deputy foresters or yeomen assisting in the
maintenance and affairs of the royal forests.
The earlier word Franklin was the Yeoman's equivalent (a wealthy
peasant landowner or freeholder or village official). Franklins in
their days would typically be village leaders (aldermen), constables or
mayors. Yeomen would find that status in the 14th Century as many of
them became leaders, constables, sheriffs, justices of the peace,
mayors and significant leaders of their country districts. It was too
much, for even 'valets' known as 'yeoman archers' were
forbidden to be returned to parliament, indicating they even held power
at a level never before held by the upper class of commoners. The
further away the district from gentry or burgesses, the more power a
'yeoman' held in office, as well attested in statutes during the reign
of Henry VIII indicating yeomen along with knights and squires who have
the leading of men to be in charge of certain functions.
A 'yeoman' could be equally comfortable working on his farm,
educating himself from books, or enjoying country sports such as
shooting and hunting. By contrast members of the landed gentry and the
aristocracy did not farm their land themselves, but let it to tenant
farmers. Yeomen in the Tudor and Stuart period could also be found
leasing or renting lands to the minor gentry. However, 'yeomen' and
'tenant farmers' were the two main divisions of the rural middle
class in traditional British society, and the yeoman was a respectable,
honorable class and ranked above the husbandmen, artisans, and
laborers.
Isaac Newton, as well many other famous people such as Thomas Jefferson
hailed from the yeoman class of society. Isaac Newton inherited a small
farm which paid the bills for his academic work. Many 'yeoman'
fathers would have the means to send their sons to school to qualify to
join the professions, and become classed as gentlemen. Many families of
'yeoman' status and established good standing would also have sons
who would serve in the royal or great noble households providing not
menial, but honorable service, as his social status or degree in
society was equal in the royal or noble household.
The term also suggests someone upright, sturdy, honest and trustworthy,
qualities attributed to the Yeomen of the Crown; and in the 13th
Century the Yeomen of the Chamber were described as virtuous, cunning,
skillful, courteous, and experts in archery chosen out of every great
noble's house in England. The King's Yeoman or King's Valectus
(Valetti) is the earliest usage in a recognizable form such as King's
Yeman or King's Yoman. Possibly the concept is derived from King's
Geneatas, meaning either companion or a follower of a king. In ancient
times before the establishments of feudalism and manorialism, a
'yeoman' was a follower of a district (gau) chief or judice.
[edit] Comparable classes of people
The term is sometimes applied to people of similar status in other
traditional societies. The 'franklin' is an example meaning a
freeman and sometimes meaning a French or Norman freeholder. Franklin
milites would basically be the equivalent of a 'yeoman' in the
middle-ages and the 'yeoman' the equivalent of a 'franklin' in
the late middle-ages.
The 'yeoman' belonged to a class or status of fighter (usually
known as in the third order of the fighting class between that of a
squire and a page). This status was very different from what was
occurring on the continent in the days of feudalism where the gap
between commoners and gentry was far wider causing much derision
between the two classes in medieval society. Though a middling class
existed on the continent, it was not well respected or held in such
high-esteem as the 'yeoman' of England was during his time when the
class existed.
This wide gulf between rich and poor could possibly explain why
outlawry was common on the continent in comparison to England. Mostly
outlawry in England was from troops returning to their lands and having
lost them, or finding themselves unemployed. The large wealth gap
between the rich and the poor was causing conditions and the plight of
the poor to deteriorate rapidly to the point of hopelessness; not to
mention the companies, or routiers, notoriously known during the
Hundred Years War (both French and English) ravaging the countryside
causing further devastation to an already devastated peasantry.
[edit] Other references to yeoman
* Yeomanry Cavalry refers to the extra-judicial military force
organized by the property-owning class to defend against French
invasion in 18th-century England as well as to protect British
occupation in 18th-century Ireland. Yeomanry Cavalry was officially
formed in 1794 (formed unofficially circa. 1760s as a Volunteer
Cavalry), it eventually became an expeditionary force known as the
Imperial Yeomanry in 1899, and then was absorbed into the Territorial
Army in 1907. Many units retain their 'Yeomanry' designation today and
have seen service in both the World Wars and modern times, including
the current "War on Terrorism". This contrasts with the title of
Gentlemen Cavaliers of the Household Cavalry regiments.
* Yeoman Riders of the Coursers Stables, Yeoman Riders of the
Hunting Stables, Yeoman Riders of the Race and Running Horses, First
Yeoman Rider, Second Yeoman Rider. (See British History Online.)
* Yeomen of the Guard were established in 1485 AD after the Battle
of Bosworth Field and were officially chartered by King Henry VII for
their loyal service during the war. Later, King Henry VIII established
the Yeomen Warders of the Tower of London, which is the oldest of the
Royal Bodyguards in England, and one of the oldest Royal Bodyguards and
military organizations in the world. In essence Yeomen of the Guard and
Yeomen Warders are direct modern day links to the days of warfare in
the Middle Ages.
* Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod is a deputy position to the
Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and is the deputy sergeant-at-arms in
the House of Lords. The position is an official figure in the
parliaments of some Commonwealth countries.
* There are several Yeoman positions in the staff of the Royal
Household, under the Master of the Household.
* According to Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, Robin Hood's band of
Merry Men is largely comprised of Yeomen.
* In William Caxton's print of the Canterbury Tales there is a
woodcut engraving of the knight's yeoman.
* In falconry, the bird for the Yeoman is a Goshawk, a forest bird.
* Sir Gawain states that he was made a yeoman at Yule in Le Morte
d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory.
* In the tabletop game of Warhammer, a yeoman is a leader of a
footsoldier unit, and held positions in towns like the head gaoler or
warden.
* The Yeoman is also the mascot for the Oberlin College Football
team.
* The Yeoman is the mascot for Yoe High School in Cameron, Texas.
* The Yeoman is the mascot for York University in Toronto, Ontario.
* University of Cambridge, and some other traditional universities,
possess (or once possessed) an office by the name of the Yeoman Bedell,
which originally consisted primarily of running errands, such as
serving summons to appear in the University's courts. Largely the
office has either been abolished as a medievealism, or retained in a
purely ceremonial form. At the University of Sydney the office has been
retained as the manager in charge of the University's caretaking and
security services.
* Yeoman is also a petty officer's rank in the fictional universe
of Star Trek: The Original Series.
* The sinister supporter of the arms of Wisconsin is a yeoman,
though the figure incorrectly shown on the flag seems to be a miner, a
miner's helmet not being mentioned in the blazon.
* The sergeant flagman at Windsor Castle carries the title of
'Yeoman of the Round Tower'.
[edit] Further reading
* Mildred Campbell - "The English Yeoman"
[edit] External links
* Yeomen of the Guard
* Caxton's Print of Canterbury Tales
* Longbow-Archers
* Tower of London
* Official Yeomen of the Guard
* Robin Hood Society
* Yeoman Board Game
* Amesbury Archer Longbow
* Knight's Yeoman
* Physics of the Longbow
* Society of Archers Antiquaries
* The Medieval Longbow
* The Yeoman Warders
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeoman"
.............................................................................................................................
lyra
Gentleman
William Harrison, writing a century earlier, says "gentlemen be those
whom their race and blood, or at the least their virtues, do make noble
and known".
A gentleman was in his time usually expected to have a coat of arms, it
being accepted that only a gentleman could have a coat of arms; and
Harrison gives the following account of how gentlemen were made in
Shakespeare's day:
Gentlemen whose ancestors are not known to come in with William
duke of Normandy (for of the Saxon races yet remaining we now make none
accompt, much less of the British issue) do take their beginning in
England after this manner in our times.
Who soever studieth the laws of the realm, who so abideth in the
university, giving his mind to his book, or professeth physic and the
liberal sciences, or beside his service in the room of a captain in the
wars, or good counsel given at home, whereby his commonwealth is
benefited, can live without manual labour, and thereto is able and will
bear the port, charge and countenance of a gentleman, he shall for
money have a coat and arms bestowed upon him by heralds (who in the
charter of the same do of custom pretend antiquity and service, and
many gay things) and thereunto being made so good cheap be called
master, which is the title that men give to esquires and gentlemen, and
reputed for a gentleman ever after.
Which is so much the less to be disallowed of, for that the prince doth
lose nothing by it, the gentleman being so much subject to taxes and
public payments as is the yeoman or husbandman, which he likewise doth
bear the gladlier for the saving of his reputation. Being called also
to the wars (for with the government of the commonwealth he medleth
little) what soever it cost him, he will both array and arm himself
accordingly, and show the more manly courage, and all the tokens of the
person which he representeth. No man hath hurt by it but himself, who
peradventure will go in wider buskins than his legs will bear, or as
our proverb saith, now and then bear a bigger sail than his boat is
able to sustain.
Shakespeare
In this way Shakespeare himself was demonstrated, by the grant of his
coat of arms, to be no "vagabond" but a gentleman. The inseparability
of arms and gentility is shown by two of his characters:
Petruchio: I swear I'll cuff you if you strike again.
Katharine: So may you lose your arms: If you strike me, you are no
gentleman;
And if no gentleman, why then no arms.
(The Taming of the Shrew, Act II Scene i.)
However, although only a gentleman could have a coat of arms (so that
possession of a coat of arms was proof of gentility), the coat of arms
recognised rather than created the status (see G D Squibb The High
Court of Chivalry at pp 170-177). Hence, all armigers were gentlemen,
but not all gentlemen were armigers.
Superiority of the fighting man
The fundamental idea of "gentry", symbolised in this grant of
coat-armour, had come to be that of the essential superiority of the
fighting man; and, as Selden points out (page 707), the fiction was
usually maintained in the granting of arms "to an ennobled person
though of the long Robe wherein he hath little use of them as they mean
a shield".
At the last the wearing of a sword on all occasions was the outward and
visible sign of a "gentleman"; and the custom survives in the sword
worn with "court dress".
A suggestion that a gentleman must have a coat of arms (and that no-one
is a "gentleman" without one) was vigorously advanced by certain 19th
and 20th century heraldists, notably A C Fox-Davies in England and
Innes of Learny in Scotland. But the suggestion is discredited by an
examination, in England, of the records of the High Court of Chivalry
and, in Scotland, by a judgment of the Court of Session (per Lord
Mackay in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean [1941] SC 613 at 650). The
significance of a right to a coat of arms was that it was definitive
proof of the status of gentleman, but it recognised rather than
conferred such a status and the status could be and frequently was
accepted without a right to a coat of arms.
....................................................................................................................................................................................
The first "gentleman" commemorated on an existing monument was John
Daundelyon of Margate (died circa 1445); the first gentleman to enter
the House of Commons, hitherto composed mainly of "valets", was William
Weston, "gentylman"; but even in the latter half of the 15th century
the order was not clearly established.
As to the connection of gentilesse with the official grant or
recognition of coat-armour, that is a profitable fiction invented and
upheld by the heralds; for coat-armour was but the badge assumed by
gentlemen to distinguish them in battle, and many gentlemen of long
descent never had occasion to assume it, and never did.
[edit] Further decline of standards
This fiction, however, had its effect; and by the 16th century, as has
been already pointed out, the official view had become clearly
established that "gentlemen" constituted a distinct social order, and
that the badge of this distinction was the heralds' recognition of the
right to bear arms.
However, some undoubtedly "gentle" families of long descent never
obtained official rights to bear a coat of arms, the family of
Strickland being an example, which caused some consternation when Lord
Strickland applied to join the Order of Malta in 1926 and could prove
no right to a coat of arms, although his direct male ancestor had
carried the English royal banner of St George at the Battle of
Agincourt.
(from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleman )
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Elizabeth
........................................................................................................................................................
>
> There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
> at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
> of,
> for example,
>
> yeoman
This is very helpful.
The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
by the genius Malone in 1785].
The Elizabethan class system is blatant in the Shakespeare works,
class status reveals the identity of the author and so far the author-
ship factions have treated the Elizabethan era so anachronistically
that one would think Shakespeare lived and wrote in Marin County
in the 1970s.
Class barriers, as a matter of fact, narrow the authorship of the
Sonnets to the class of Bacon, Marlowe and Neville. No yeoman or
aristocrat can possibly have written the Sonnets to Southampton.
Art Neuendorffer
> ........................................................................
> >
> > There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
> > at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get
> > Wikipedia's definition of, for example,
> >
> > yeoman
>
>
> This is very helpful.
>
> The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
> whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
> Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
> by the genius Malone in 1785].
>
Art Neuendorffer
Bianca Steele
[..]
> There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
> at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
> of,
> for example,
>
> yeoman
>
> ........................................................................................................................................................................................
>
> (quote, excerpts)
>
> Yeoman
>
> Etymology and early use
>
> The English word is rooting in the Old English 'iunge man' or ,
> 'young man' or 'yonge man', and this meaning possibly combined
> with 'geaman', 'geman', or 'gauman', meaning district,
> villager, or countryman rustic.
I have seen the Hebrew term "_am ha'aretz_" (literally, more or less,
"a soul of the land"), often translated as "ignoramus," rendered
instead as "rustic."
--
Bianca Steele
Paul Crowley
news:1168805555.0...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> lyra wrote:
>
> ........................................................................................................................................................
>>
>> There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
>> at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
>> of,
>> for example,
>>
>> yeoman
>
> This is very helpful.
Lyra made a helpful post? That still won't
make me take her out of my killfile -- given
the huge amount of junk she posts.
> Class barriers, as a matter of fact, narrow the authorship of the
> Sonnets to the class of Bacon, Marlowe and Neville. No yeoman or
> aristocrat can possibly have written the Sonnets to Southampton.
None of the Sonnets were addressed to
Southampton. That is exceedingly obvious.
A lot is known about his character, his life,
his friends, his appearance, his family, and
so on -- and not one iota is reflected in any
of them.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
news:1168817330.7...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> lyra wrote:
> [..]
>> There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
>> at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
>> of,
>> for example,
>>
>> yeoman
See this from Holinshed's *Chronicles:*
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1577harrison-england.html, Chapter I: Of
Degrees Of People In The Commonwealth Of Elizabethan England.
Being an actual primary source, this would be something Crowley has never
read, nor probably ever will.
TR
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> read, nor probably ever will.
>
> TR
Why should he, Tom? Does Superman travel by Greyhound Bus?
--Bob G.
Ms. Mouse
> lyra wrote:
>
> ........................................................................................................................................................
> >
> > There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
> > at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
> > of,
> > for example,
> >
> > yeoman
>
>
> This is very helpful.
>
>
> The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
> whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
> Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
> by the genius Malone in 1785].
>
>
I'm sorry, Elizabeth, I don't get your point. Malone's theory (1778),
which was that Jourdain's narrative was the source for Tempest, was
thoroughly discredited by Hunter and others in the next century.
Furness then proposed that Strachey was the source--if TR was published
in 1612, and if Tempest wasn't written until afterwards. We now know
that neither proviso was correct. Gayley, Cawley, etc., "strengthened"
or rather shored up the theory by finding more parallels/devising a
magical and wholly unsupported chain of custody by which Shakespeare
got Strachey's "letter" in ms from the Virginia Company. I'm not
certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
whatever that either
1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
2. Shakespeare ever saw it
Hope you had a great holiday season.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Tom Reedy
news:1168871239.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Elizabeth wrote:
>> lyra wrote:
>>
>> ........................................................................................................................................................
>> >
>> > There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
>> > at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
>> > of,
>> > for example,
>> >
>> > yeoman
>>
>>
>> This is very helpful.
>>
>>
>> The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
>> whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
>> Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
>> by the genius Malone in 1785].
>>
>>
>
> I'm sorry, Elizabeth, I don't get your point. Malone's theory (1778),
> which was that Jourdain's narrative was the source for Tempest, was
> thoroughly discredited by Hunter and others in the next century.
> Furness then proposed that Strachey was the source--if TR was published
> in 1612, and if Tempest wasn't written until afterwards. We now know
> that neither proviso was correct. Gayley, Cawley, etc., "strengthened"
> or rather shored up the theory by finding more parallels/devising a
> magical and wholly unsupported chain of custody by which Shakespeare
> got Strachey's "letter" in ms from the Virginia Company.
I find that scenario more convincing than that of the letter circulating in
court. There is no evidence whatsoever the letter circulated at court,
although it could have. But there is ample evidence the letter circulated
within the company.
> I'm not
> certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
> their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
> grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
> the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
> sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
> whatever that either
>
> 1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
Actually, there is evidence the letter went to the company in 1610, as you
well know: the date on the letter and the fact that it was in Hakulyt's
possession in 1616, along with other similar documents and letters. You
choose to doubt that evidence.
> 2. Shakespeare ever saw it
>
> Hope you had a great holiday season.
What holiday season is that?
TR
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
Ms. Mouse
Why?
>There is no evidence whatsoever the letter circulated at court,
> although it could have. But there is ample evidence the letter circulated
> within the company.
No, there is no more evidence for one than for the other. There is nil
evidence in either case.
>
> > I'm not
> > certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
> > their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
> > grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
> > the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
> > sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
> > whatever that either
> >
> > 1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
>
> Actually, there is evidence the letter went to the company in 1610, as you
> well know: the date on the letter and the fact that it was in Hakulyt's
> possession in 1616, along with other similar documents and letters. You
> choose to doubt that evidence.
The letter could NOT have gone to the company in the form in which it
was published. In any case, Hakluyt got material from all over the
place, not just the VC. Also, the story doesn't make sense. The
Company, which somehow had the "letter", even though it was to a
"Noble Lady," didn't want it published because the material in it was
so sensitive--that's almost always the reason given for no mention of
it anywhere until 1625; however, the Company members handed it to
Hakluyt to publish--a complete contradiction. On top of all that, we
only have Purchas' word that it was found among Hakluyt's papers. He
may or may not have been telling the truth, especially since neither
Hakluyt nor Strachey were around to gainsay him.
All we know for sure is that there is not hide nor hair of the document
until 1625, when Purchas published it, saying he got it from Hakluyt.
Moreover there are numerous reasons to believe, as you well know Tom,
that the "letter" was not transmitted to England, at least in its
published form, in July 1610, and in fact Strachey, writing the
introduction to Lawes in late 1611 or early 1612, says his narrative
about Bermuda is neither "perfected" nor revealed to the Company.
Mouse.
>
> > 2. Shakespeare ever saw it
> >
> > Hope you had a great holiday season.
>
> What holiday season is that?
Um, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza, New Year, add your own if I missed it.
Mouse
>
> TR
>
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
Tom Reedy
Since Hakulyt was a company officer, and since the letter, along with other
similar letters and reports, were found in his effects after he died and
sold to Purchas, and since a pamphlet issued by the company quoted parts of
the letter and paraphrased other parts, excising the worst material, that is
evidence for the letter circulating within the company.
Your interpretation of those facts may be different, but it is evidence
nonetheless, not to be dismissed out of hand with your comment.
>
>>
>> > I'm not
>> > certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
>> > their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
>> > grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
>> > the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
>> > sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
>> > whatever that either
>> >
>> > 1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
>>
>> Actually, there is evidence the letter went to the company in 1610, as
>> you
>> well know: the date on the letter and the fact that it was in Hakulyt's
>> possession in 1616, along with other similar documents and letters. You
>> choose to doubt that evidence.
>
> The letter could NOT have gone to the company in the form in which it
> was published.
Right. The appendage was added by Purchas, a practice he indulged numerous
times in his compilation, up to and including using the first person without
warning, which you would know if you had researched him thoroughly. I would
suggest you begin with Carol Urness' article, "Purchas as editor," beginning
page 121 in the Purchas Handbook, Vol. 1, L.E. Pennington, ed., Hakluyt
Society, London (1997).
> In any case, Hakluyt got material from all over the
> place, not just the VC.
He didn't get Virginia materials from all over the place.
> Also, the story doesn't make sense. The
> Company, which somehow had the "letter", even though it was to a
> "Noble Lady," didn't want it published because the material in it was
> so sensitive--that's almost always the reason given for no mention of
> it anywhere until 1625; however, the Company members handed it to
> Hakluyt to publish--a complete contradiction.
I am unaware of any directive by the company to Hakylut to publish the
material. Where is your citation for that assertion? As you know, the rest
of the material Purchas got from Hakulyt's estate had not been published up
until that time either.
> On top of all that, we
> only have Purchas' word that it was found among Hakluyt's papers.
Oh, Jesus. Here we go with another conspiracy. "We only have Jonson's word,
or Condell's word, or Heminges' word, that Shakespeare was Shakespeare."
And I suppose we should take your agenda-driven word, 400 years after the
fact, as the truth?
> He
> may or may not have been telling the truth, especially since neither
> Hakluyt nor Strachey were around to gainsay him.
Why would he lie? (Here comes the conspiracy!)
> All we know for sure is that there is not hide nor hair of the document
> until 1625, when Purchas published it,
You've got your facts wrong. He purchaed it in 1616, along with a lot of
other papers.
> saying he got it from Hakluyt.
> Moreover there are numerous reasons to believe,
I know YOU have numerous reasons. That they are reasonable is what is in
debate, isn't it?
> as you well know Tom,
> that the "letter" was not transmitted to England, at least in its
> published form, in July 1610, and in fact Strachey, writing the
> introduction to Lawes in late 1611 or early 1612, says his narrative
> about Bermuda is neither "perfected" nor revealed to the Company.
You're overreaching here. That you have a theory that you believe does not
proof make.
>> > Hope you had a great holiday season.
>>
>> What holiday season is that?
>
> Um, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza, New Year, add your own if I missed it.
Umm, I believe it is now January 15, long after the holidays. But I suppose
your time sense would be distorted, as in Oxford's mother's "hasty
remarriage?"
TR
Ms. Mouse
We have only Purchas word for this, and not until 1625. I don't deny it
was the case, I am just saying it's poor evidence that it happened that
way, and no evidence at all that the letter was received by the company
in 1610 or circulated.
>and since a pamphlet issued by the company quoted parts of
> the letter and paraphrased other parts, excising the worst material, that is
> evidence for the letter circulating within the company.
Almost everything is in other documents. If just one or two items
appear to come from Strachey's "letter," they might just as easily have
come from Gates, who was debriefed, and copied by Strachey from the TD
publication later. Or from another unknown source. Almost every
similarity between Strachey and TD can be found either in De La Warre's
letter or Jourdain's narrative. These, we know, were in England by
September 1610. We have no such assurance of the Strachey letter,
whereas we have many clues it didn't get to England until later.
>
> Your interpretation of those facts may be different, but it is evidence
> nonetheless, not to be dismissed out of hand with your comment.
It is very poor evidence indeed, and controverted by Strachey himself
in his 1612 intro to Lawes.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > I'm not
> >> > certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
> >> > their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
> >> > grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
> >> > the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
> >> > sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
> >> > whatever that either
> >> >
> >> > 1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
> >>
> >> Actually, there is evidence the letter went to the company in 1610, as
> >> you
> >> well know: the date on the letter and the fact that it was in Hakulyt's
> >> possession in 1616, along with other similar documents and letters. You
> >> choose to doubt that evidence.
> >
> > The letter could NOT have gone to the company in the form in which it
> > was published.
>
> Right. The appendage was added by Purchas, a practice he indulged numerous
> times in his compilation, up to and including using the first person without
> warning, which you would know if you had researched him thoroughly.
Please get off your high horse. You, more than almost anyone else, know
that I've spent two years on research and have provided you with a
list of all the documents and secondary sources we used.
>I would
> suggest you begin with Carol Urness' article, "Purchas as editor," beginning
> page 121 in the Purchas Handbook, Vol. 1, L.E. Pennington, ed., Hakluyt
> Society, London (1997).
And I suggest you look again at the material I sent you, which shows
that Purchas as editor often embroidered the work of others. Once you
admit that Purchas tampered with the document in any way between 1616
and 1625, you can no longer rely upon it as a pure source for a play
composed at the latest in 1611. Why are you making all this effort to
salvage Strachey anyway, given that, as you know, all the parallels to
Shakespeare's play are easily documented in earlier, published and much
more famous sources?
>
> > In any case, Hakluyt got material from all over the
> > place, not just the VC.
>
> He didn't get Virginia materials from all over the place.
I haven't checked whether all the documents passed on to Purchas are
recorded as having been received by the company--We know Strachey's TR
wasn't. Do you have evidence that all the others were?
>
> > Also, the story doesn't make sense. The
> > Company, which somehow had the "letter", even though it was to a
> > "Noble Lady," didn't want it published because the material in it was
> > so sensitive--that's almost always the reason given for no mention of
> > it anywhere until 1625; however, the Company members handed it to
> > Hakluyt to publish--a complete contradiction.
>
> I am unaware of any directive by the company to Hakylut to publish the
> material. Where is your citation for that assertion? As you know, the rest
> of the material Purchas got from Hakulyt's estate had not been published up
> until that time either.
Material given to Hakluyt was invariably published by him. That's what
he did. That the other material was unpublished also is evidence only
that he died before publishing, not that he didn't intend to publish.
>
> > On top of all that, we
> > only have Purchas' word that it was found among Hakluyt's papers.
>
> Oh, Jesus. Here we go with another conspiracy. "We only have Jonson's word,
> or Condell's word, or Heminges' word, that Shakespeare was Shakespeare."
You are confusing conspiracy theory with historical methodology that
insists on some kind of verification of facts. As it happens, the "Just
So" story of how Shakespeare got the ms from Strachey and turned it
into a play, which was written, rehearsed, and produced by November of
1611, smacks much more of a conspiracy to keep the Strachey ship afloat
(!) no matter what the contrary and compelling evidence.
>
> And I suppose we should take your agenda-driven word, 400 years after the
> fact, as the truth?
Be careful, Tom. Your slip is showing. Who are the ones with an agenda?
And what does the 400 year time lapse have to do with anything? I used
contemporaneous documents to make my case, and Roger went through the
secondary sources to see where mistakes may have occurred in fact or
reasoning. These show that Furness made several errors that were
magnified by Gayley et al.
>
> > He
> > may or may not have been telling the truth, especially since neither
> > Hakluyt nor Strachey were around to gainsay him.
>
> Why would he lie? (Here comes the conspiracy!)
You were just arguing a few lines above that Purchas was in the habit
of inserting first person emendations into documents. He also lies in
his synopsis of TR when he says Strachey's going to tell the story of
the "manifold deaths" in the storm. In addition I have read several
scholars who attest to the fact that Purchas was a plagiarist in his
own right, as well as an embroiderer of the prose of others. There is
also apparently evidence that Purchas fell out with Hakluyt, who didn't
want him to have the papers (perhaps because he was such a god-awful
editor? ;) ) and so he waited for Hakluyt to die so he could get hold
of them. The question therefore becomes, why would you ever choose to
believe his words as gospel and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of
being a conspiracy theorist?
Note, at no point have I said--or at least meant to say--that Purchas
did not get the papers from Hakluyt's estate. I'm just asking for
better evidence that he did than a single letter of the alphabet
against the article in Purchas' Pilgrims--especially as both you and I
know he was a terrible, careless editor-- and any evidence at all that
Hakluyt got TR from the company, and that the company got it in
September 1610 and then transmitted it to Shakespeare.
>
> > All we know for sure is that there is not hide nor hair of the document
> > until 1625, when Purchas published it,
>
> You've got your facts wrong. He purchaed it in 1616, along with a lot of
> other papers.
No, I do not have my facts wrong. I said, there is not hide nor hair of
the document until 1625. Whatever Purchas said about it, he said in
Purchas' Pilgrims, 1625. Before that, there is no record whatsoever of
the document, unless you have one I haven't seen.
>
> > saying he got it from Hakluyt.
> > Moreover there are numerous reasons to believe,
>
> I know YOU have numerous reasons. That they are reasonable is what is in
> debate, isn't it?
The trouble is, Tom, that you are still so influenced by the words of
Furness that
The voice of the majority pronounces in favour of 1610-1611.
Let us all, therefore, acquiesce, and henceforth be, in this
regard, shut up in measureless content (306)
that you can't see the wood for the trees on this topic.
>
> > as you well know Tom,
> > that the "letter" was not transmitted to England, at least in its
> > published form, in July 1610, and in fact Strachey, writing the
> > introduction to Lawes in late 1611 or early 1612, says his narrative
> > about Bermuda is neither "perfected" nor revealed to the Company.
>
> You're overreaching here. That you have a theory that you believe does not
> proof make.
Well, even if that is so, and I don't necessarily agree that it is, we
don't have to show that Strachey didn't write what you think he wrote
in 1610. We only have to show that there was other similar or identical
source material available for Shakespeare for there to be doubt that he
needed Strachey at all. We have written several essays showing not only
that Shakespeare could have relied on Erasmus and/or Ariosto plus Eden
for the material paralleled by Strachey, but that Strachey relied on
these sources also. They were so common that many did. And both Ariosto
and Eden have proven much richer sources for Shakespeare. We have also
written an essay suggesting that Tempest was a Shrovetide play, which,
if true, obviates the possibility of Strachey as a source even if all
that you are claiming is valid. This article will be published in June
in a peer-reviewed journal. We are also completing an essay that will
hopefully date the play to before 1603.
>
> >> > Hope you had a great holiday season.
> >>
> >> What holiday season is that?
> >
> > Um, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza, New Year, add your own if I missed it.
>
> Umm, I believe it is now January 15, long after the holidays. But I suppose
> your time sense would be distorted, as in Oxford's mother's "hasty
> remarriage?"
My time sense is distorted by a brain malfunction affecting memory
following surgery, but I never think it too late anyhow to wish someone
a happy anything. Happy Thanksgiving, Tommy. Forgive typos. In a big
hurry.
L.
>
> TR
Ignoto
I noticed this myself, I think it is pretty plain on even a brief
perusal of the book.
I wonder though if Purchas' editorial practices can be used to further
bolster the claim that the letter was circulated in MS- as I noted
before Purchas (seems) to usually publish the names of those involved
in the correspondence- but there is no sign of it on the Strachey
letter, which might indicate that he got an MS copy (with names
excised), not the original. (?)
>
> > In any case, Hakluyt got material from all over the
> > place, not just the VC.
>
> He didn't get Virginia materials from all over the place.
>
> > Also, the story doesn't make sense. The
> > Company, which somehow had the "letter", even though it was to a
> > "Noble Lady," didn't want it published because the material in it was
> > so sensitive--that's almost always the reason given for no mention of
> > it anywhere until 1625; however, the Company members handed it to
> > Hakluyt to publish--a complete contradiction.
>
> I am unaware of any directive by the company to Hakylut to publish the
> material. Where is your citation for that assertion? As you know, the rest
> of the material Purchas got from Hakulyt's estate had not been published up
> until that time either.
>
> > On top of all that, we
> > only have Purchas' word that it was found among Hakluyt's papers.
>
> Oh, Jesus. Here we go with another conspiracy. "We only have Jonson's word,
> or Condell's word, or Heminges' word, that Shakespeare was Shakespeare."
>
> And I suppose we should take your agenda-driven word, 400 years after the
> fact, as the truth?
> > He
> > may or may not have been telling the truth, especially since neither
> > Hakluyt nor Strachey were around to gainsay him.
>
> Why would he lie? (Here comes the conspiracy!)
Musta been trying to cover up Oxfordian authorship of the Shakespeare
canon.
> > All we know for sure is that there is not hide nor hair of the document
> > until 1625, when Purchas published it,
>
> You've got your facts wrong. He purchaed it in 1616, along with a lot of
> other papers.
[obligatory comment]
It's also not true to say 'there is neither hide nor hair of the
docuemnt until 1625'
1. The letter is plainly dateable to July 1610
2. The letter is used in the writing of ATD.
In any case, even if there were no record of the letter until 1625, it
still would not follow that the record was a forgery or somehow
suspect.
> > saying he got it from Hakluyt.
> > Moreover there are numerous reasons to believe,
>
> I know YOU have numerous reasons. That they are reasonable is what is in
> debate, isn't it?
>
> > as you well know Tom,
> > that the "letter" was not transmitted to England, at least in its
> > published form, in July 1610, and in fact Strachey, writing the
> > introduction to Lawes in late 1611 or early 1612, says his narrative
> > about Bermuda is neither "perfected" nor revealed to the Company.
>
> You're overreaching here. That you have a theory that you believe does not
> proof make.
"I have both in the Bermudas, and since in Virginea beene a sufferer
and an eie witnesse, and the full storie of both in due time shall
consecrate unto your viewes, as unto whom by right it appertaineth,
being vowed patrones of a worke, and enterprise so great, then which no
object nor action (the best of bests) in these time, may carry with it
the like fame, honour, or goodnesse.
Howbet since many impediments, as yet must detaine such my observations
in the shadow of darknesse, untill I shall be able to deliver them
perfect unto your judgements why I shall provoke and challenge..."
(Strachey, Lawes)
Note Strachey says: the FULL story of both in due time... (which is
perfectly compatiable with his already having delivered an IMPERFECT
partial story)
Elizabeth
Ms. Mouse wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > lyra wrote:
> >
> > ........................................................................................................................................................
> > >
> > > There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
> > > at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
> > > of,
> > > for example,
> > >
> > > yeoman
> >
> >
> > This is very helpful.
> >
> >
> > The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
> > whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
> > Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
> > by the genius Malone in 1785].
> >
> >
>
> I'm sorry, Elizabeth, I don't get your point. Malone's theory (1778),
> which was that Jourdain's narrative was the source for Tempest, was
> thoroughly discredited by Hunter and others in the next century.
My point was that Malone was the first to recognize that Virginia
Company pamphlets were a source for The Tempest. Six or seven
highly qualified Shakespeare critics amplified Malone's theory. I don't
consider Hunter or Lang and Elze to be credible sources.
> Furness then proposed that Strachey was the source--if TR was published
> in 1612, and if Tempest wasn't written until afterwards. We now know
> that neither proviso was correct.
A True Repertory was not printed because the Virginia Company
changed factions with the Third Charter. Historie of Travails -- also
written in the style of promotional literature -- was not published for
the same reason. The 'civil governance' faction was out and the
'justification faction' was in. History would be the worse for it.
> Gayley, Cawley, etc., "strengthened"
> or rather shored up the theory by finding more parallels/devising a
> magical and wholly unsupported chain of custody by which Shakespeare
> got Strachey's "letter" in ms from the Virginia Company.
I don't support Dating The Tempest Part V. The Strats beat me up
[it hasn't ceased] for posting evidence that the London Council passed
resolutions containing very tough secrecy regulations. Gayley was the
first to prove that the 'Strachey letter' did not circulate. He went
to great
lengths to collect evidence that it did not.
That does not mean that official reports such as Strachey's to Martin
were not intended to be used to write promotional literature. The
Virginia Company was in the publishing business and the Stationer's
Company was a member of the London Council. Media was just as
important to poltics then as now and there was factionalism in the
Virginia Company just as determined and unprincipled as we see in
every era.
> I'm not
> certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
> their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
> grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
> the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
> sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
> whatever that either
The Oxfordians have a triple standard. Shakespeare, who some
critics think used in excess of a thousand sources including whole
plots -- why do they call them 'the Italian plays?' -- was not a
plagiarist
and Smith, whose name is on a map that he could not possibly have
drafted and on works he didn't write is not a plagiarist, but Strachey
is a plagiarist by some kind of inductive false analogy because his
'plagiarism' of Smith somehow overturn's Kathman's thesis based
on an entirely separate work. . . I can't even finish the syllogism.
> 1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
> 2. Shakespeare ever saw it
A True Repertory? It wasn't written in Virginia. Everything the
Virginia Company's writer of promotional literature required to
write it was at hand. Gayley proved that Shakespeare never
saw it. Two Virginia historians who published in the 1960s
only confirmed Gayley's evidence.
Early Modern studies has taken us far beyond the 'letter' theory.
There are whole interdisciplinary subdisciplines on 17th c.
pamphlets.
Ms. Mouse
It is plain if you want it to be plain. If you think these words are by
Purchas (which I'm not disputing) how do you know he didn't add other
material?
Not worth a reply.
>
> > > All we know for sure is that there is not hide nor hair of the document
> > > until 1625, when Purchas published it,
> >
> > You've got your facts wrong. He purchaed it in 1616, along with a lot of
> > other papers.
Is there any evidence of this before 1625? If not, I'm correct.
>
> [obligatory comment]
>
> It's also not true to say 'there is neither hide nor hair of the
> docuemnt until 1625'
> 1. The letter is plainly dateable to July 1610
Not at all. Only in your mind and Tom's. But we've been through this a
hundred times before and I'll feel sick if I repeat the argument all
over again..
> 2. The letter is used in the writing of ATD.
Not necessarily at all. The influence, such as it is could go either
way. Other considerations suggest it went from TD to TR. Other
considerations include the fact that Strachey copied almost every
document he ever laid eyes on.
>
> In any case, even if there were no record of the letter until 1625, it
> still would not follow that the record was a forgery or somehow
> suspect.
Agree that it's not necessarily a forgery. Disagree that it's not
suspect, especially when looking at all the other circumstances.
>
> > > saying he got it from Hakluyt.
> > > Moreover there are numerous reasons to believe,
> >
> > I know YOU have numerous reasons. That they are reasonable is what is in
> > debate, isn't it?
> >
> > > as you well know Tom,
> > > that the "letter" was not transmitted to England, at least in its
> > > published form, in July 1610, and in fact Strachey, writing the
> > > introduction to Lawes in late 1611 or early 1612, says his narrative
> > > about Bermuda is neither "perfected" nor revealed to the Company.
> >
> > You're overreaching here. That you have a theory that you believe does not
> > proof make.
>
> "I have both in the Bermudas, and since in Virginea beene a sufferer
> and an eie witnesse, and the full storie of both in due time shall
> consecrate unto your viewes, as unto whom by right it appertaineth,
> being vowed patrones of a worke, and enterprise so great, then which no
> object nor action (the best of bests) in these time, may carry with it
> the like fame, honour, or goodnesse.
>
> Howbet since many impediments, as yet must detaine such my observations
> in the shadow of darknesse, untill I shall be able to deliver them
> perfect unto your judgements why I shall provoke and challenge..."
> (Strachey, Lawes)
>
> Note Strachey says: the FULL story of both in due time... (which is
> perfectly compatiable with his already having delivered an IMPERFECT
> partial story)
Yes, absolutely. Put it in your arsenal along with all the other
excuses. Where is his perfect copy? What has he left out? He's already
written over twenty three thousand words on it, according to you. If he
delivered an imperfect, partial story, how do we know it was TR, which
was addressed, not to the company, but to a lady? Why are his
observations "[detained] in the shadow of darkness" if he's already
given them to the company? Why didn't Martin remark on them when
writing to Strachey in Dec if he'd received them in September? And on
and on and on.
Ms. Mouse
> Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > Elizabeth wrote:
> > > lyra wrote:
> > >
> > > ........................................................................................................................................................
> > > >
> > > > There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
> > > > at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's definition
> > > > of,
> > > > for example,
> > > >
> > > > yeoman
> > >
> > >
> > > This is very helpful.
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
> > > whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
> > > Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
> > > by the genius Malone in 1785].
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm sorry, Elizabeth, I don't get your point. Malone's theory (1778),
> > which was that Jourdain's narrative was the source for Tempest, was
> > thoroughly discredited by Hunter and others in the next century.
>
>
> My point was that Malone was the first to recognize that Virginia
> Company pamphlets were a source for The Tempest. Six or seven
> highly qualified Shakespeare critics amplified Malone's theory.
No, they disputed it and suggested Strachey instead of Jourdain.
>I don't
> consider Hunter or Lang and Elze to be credible sources.
Why not? Hunter was one of those who disputed Malone's theory about
Jourdain.
>
>
> > Furness then proposed that Strachey was the source--if TR was published
> > in 1612, and if Tempest wasn't written until afterwards. We now know
> > that neither proviso was correct.
>
>
> A True Repertory was not printed because the Virginia Company
> changed factions with the Third Charter. Historie of Travails -- also
> written in the style of promotional literature -- was not published for
>
> the same reason. The 'civil governance' faction was out and the
> 'justification faction' was in. History would be the worse for it.
Evidence?
>
>
> > Gayley, Cawley, etc., "strengthened"
> > or rather shored up the theory by finding more parallels/devising a
> > magical and wholly unsupported chain of custody by which Shakespeare
> > got Strachey's "letter" in ms from the Virginia Company.
>
>
> I don't support Dating The Tempest Part V. The Strats beat me up
> [it hasn't ceased] for posting evidence that the London Council passed
> resolutions containing very tough secrecy regulations. Gayley was the
> first to prove that the 'Strachey letter' did not circulate. He went
> to great
> lengths to collect evidence that it did not.
What? Have you actually read Gayley? He says:
That [Shakespeare] should have had access to a manuscript
privately circulated among members of the Vir-
ginia Council, Southampton, Sandys, and the rest,
is of significance, more vital than has hitherto been
recognized, in our understanding of Shakespeare's
intimacy with the leaders of the Virginia enterprise (70).
>
>
> That does not mean that official reports such as Strachey's to Martin
> were not intended to be used to write promotional literature.
Which official report to Martin is this?
>The
> Virginia Company was in the publishing business and the Stationer's
> Company was a member of the London Council. Media was just as
> important to poltics then as now and there was factionalism in the
> Virginia Company just as determined and unprincipled as we see in
> every era.
>
>
> > I'm not
> > certain what either they, or Dave Kathman, who basically summarised
> > their findings, such as they were, did that was so brilliant, so
> > grounded in research, and so analytical, especially as they all missed
> > the fact that Strachey was copying from earlier and much more famous
> > sources available to Shakespeare, and that there is no evidence
> > whatever that either
>
>
> The Oxfordians have a triple standard. Shakespeare, who some
> critics think used in excess of a thousand sources including whole
> plots -- why do they call them 'the Italian plays?' -- was not a
> plagiarist
> and Smith, whose name is on a map that he could not possibly have
> drafted and on works he didn't write is not a plagiarist, but Strachey
> is a plagiarist by some kind of inductive false analogy because his
> 'plagiarism' of Smith somehow overturn's Kathman's thesis based
> on an entirely separate work. . . I can't even finish the syllogism.
Shakespeare was influenced by sources, but he wasn't writing
non-fiction.
Smith must have drafted his own map because Strachey had not visited
the area when sketches first appeared. Smith also listed people whose
work he used.
Strachey copied sources, sometimes from fictional material, and
presented them as real happenings.
>
>
> > 1. The "letter" went to the company in 1610 or later or
> > 2. Shakespeare ever saw it
>
>
> A True Repertory? It wasn't written in Virginia. Everything the
> Virginia Company's writer of promotional literature required to
> write it was at hand. Gayley proved that Shakespeare never
> saw it.
See Gayley's excerpt above re Shakespeare. Of course, he had no
evidence for what he said, but he did say that Shakespeare saw the
document.
>Two Virginia historians who published in the 1960s
> only confirmed Gayley's evidence.
Who were they? And could you please reproduce their statement that they
were confirming Gayley's evidence that Shakespeare never saw the
document?
>
>
> Early Modern studies has taken us far beyond the 'letter' theory.
> There are whole interdisciplinary subdisciplines on 17th c.
> pamphlets.
Um, Evidence? And how does this help your thesis?
Pistol
Right, and as we can all confirm by a quick look at the daily
newspapers, nobody eVER leaks information (a fact that seems especially
true where political factions exist).
Tom Reedy
> Elizabeth wrote:
>> Ms. Mouse wrote:
>> > Elizabeth wrote:
>> > > lyra wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ........................................................................................................................................................
>> > > >
>> > > > There is so much talk about social classes and other groups
>> > > > at h.l.a.s just now, that I thought I would get Wikipedia's
>> > > > definition
>> > > > of,
>> > > > for example,
>> > > >
>> > > > yeoman
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This is very helpful.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The problem in HLAS as well as in the authorship factions as a
>> > > whole is that there is no depth in research and analysis. [I except
>> > > Kathman's Dating The Tempest, a brilliant twist on a book written
>> > > by the genius Malone in 1785].
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I'm sorry, Elizabeth, I don't get your point. Malone's theory (1778),
>> > which was that Jourdain's narrative was the source for Tempest, was
>> > thoroughly discredited by Hunter and others in the next century.
>>
>>
>> My point was that Malone was the first to recognize that Virginia
>> Company pamphlets were a source for The Tempest. Six or seven
>> highly qualified Shakespeare critics amplified Malone's theory.
>
> No, they disputed it and suggested Strachey instead of Jourdain.
I'm pretty sure the consensus is that all the Bermuda pamphlets played a
role, with Strachey being preeminent. It wasn't just Strachey, but the news
that the crew and passengers on the Sea Venture wasn't lost that galvanized
the attention of London.
More late; I got wicked busy today unexpectedly.
TR
Ms. Mouse
The concensus may well be what you say it is; however, it doesn't make
it correct.
>It wasn't just Strachey, but the news
> that the crew and passengers on the Sea Venture wasn't lost that galvanized
> the attention of London.
We are not talking of what galvanised the attention of London, but what
Shakespeare used as a source. In any case, Malone first thought that
the source of the play could be found in the horrendous tempests in
Stowe in 1612, and other storms which followed, which certainly
galvanised the attention of everyone living in the vicinity. They
missed London, but were much written of (See Furness 277s). I guess
what I'm saying is that in retrospect we would say that any negative
and unusual incident thought to have sourced Tempest would be looked at
as "galvanising the attention."
Re Jourdain: In contradicting Malone, Furness says: "Not that these
parallelisms amount to much at best; to me they seem but little more
than are to be expected where the same theme is treated by two
different persons. To both Halliwell and Hunter, the parallelisms which
were to Malone so remarkable and so convincing in Jourdan's pamphlet
were either commonplace or non-existent" (313).
Gayley says: "It is, however (as given in
Hakluyt), but a four-page quarto; and the sugges-
tions of any possible value to a Shakespeare are
found on the first page and a half. From none of
them should we conclude that he was dependent upon
Jourdan; for practically everything here, and much
beside pertaining to the subject, is definitely dis-
coverable in other and better sources with which the
poet was certainly acquainted. In the remaining pages of Jourdan...
there is nothing uniquely suggestive of any feature of Shakespeare's
Tempest (48).
iirc, I believe Cawley used Jourdain in a very minor way to make his
case, as did Kathman. But that case could not be made without Strachey
as main man.
Tom Reedy
I was not disputing the correctness or incorrectness of it; I was responding
to your characterization of what "highly qualified Shakespeare critics"
believe.
>>It wasn't just Strachey, but the news
>> that the crew and passengers on the Sea Venture wasn't lost that
>> galvanized
>> the attention of London.
>
> We are not talking of what galvanised the attention of London, but what
> Shakespeare used as a source.
Yes, we are. And since we know Shakespeare was influenced by topicalities in
other plays (H5 for one), and since there are many parallels in Strachey and
the Bermuda pamphlets to The Tempest, most critics believe they influenced
the play in terms of plot, topicality and language.
> In any case, Malone first thought that
> the source of the play could be found in the horrendous tempests in
> Stowe in 1612, and other storms which followed, which certainly
> galvanised the attention of everyone living in the vicinity. They
> missed London, but were much written of (See Furness 277s).
And did these accounts include the plot and language parallels to The
Tempest the accounts of the Bermuda incident do? Do they the miraculous
preservation of the entire crew and passengers as the Bermuda accounts do?
Do they include an unsuccessful rebellion against authority as the Bermuda
accounts do? Do they include a refutation of bad reports from "fools at
home" similar to Antonio's in 3.3, the way almost every Virginia pamphlet
does since 1608?
> I guess
> what I'm saying is that in retrospect we would say that any negative
> and unusual incident thought to have sourced Tempest would be looked at
> as "galvanising the attention."
>
> Re Jourdain: In contradicting Malone, Furness says: "Not that these
> parallelisms amount to much at best; to me they seem but little more
> than are to be expected where the same theme is treated by two
> different persons. To both Halliwell and Hunter, the parallelisms which
> were to Malone so remarkable and so convincing in Jourdan's pamphlet
> were either commonplace or non-existent" (313).
>
> Gayley says: "It is, however (as given in
> Hakluyt), but a four-page quarto; and the sugges-
> tions of any possible value to a Shakespeare are
> found on the first page and a half. From none of
> them should we conclude that he was dependent upon
> Jourdan; for practically everything here, and much
> beside pertaining to the subject, is definitely dis-
> coverable in other and better sources with which the
> poet was certainly acquainted. In the remaining pages of Jourdan...
> there is nothing uniquely suggestive of any feature of Shakespeare's
> Tempest (48).
>
> iirc, I believe Cawley used Jourdain in a very minor way to make his
> case, as did Kathman. But that case could not be made without Strachey
> as main man.
I think Jourdain -- and the other Bermuda reports, such as Rich's "News from
Virginia: The lost flock triumphant -- were used to indicate the
sensationalism of the news of the time, a fact Shakespeare could not have
missed.
TR
Ms. Mouse
Oh, well, that's easy. We know he used Eden. He must also have used
Ariosto or Erasmus because they contain parallels that Strachey
doesn't. These sources are much richer both thematically and verbally
in their parallels than Strachey.
>
> Yes, we are. And since we know Shakespeare was influenced by topicalities in
> other plays (H5 for one), and since there are many parallels in Strachey and
> the Bermuda pamphlets to The Tempest, most critics believe they influenced
> the play in terms of plot, topicality and language.
Most critics obviously failed to investigate
1. Strachey's MO and
2. The existence of earlier, more famous, and richer sources, all of
which, by the way, were published.
>
> > In any case, Malone first thought that
> > the source of the play could be found in the horrendous tempests in
> > Stowe in 1612, and other storms which followed, which certainly
> > galvanised the attention of everyone living in the vicinity. They
> > missed London, but were much written of (See Furness 277s).
>
> And did these accounts include the plot and language parallels to The
> Tempest the accounts of the Bermuda incident do?
>From the excerpts in Furness, they obviously include some. Malone was
impressed. But I haven't investigated further. I didn't think it a
priority to do so, as the play was earlier than 1612. I was just
showing that the strange quality of "galvanisation" ;) is often in the
eye of the beholder.
The plot and language parallels, as well as the ethos in the sources
I've given, are much closer to Tempest than anything in the Bermuda
pamphlets of 1611. And they were all published over and over again.
Eden in particular had an amazing effect on English consciousness, as
his book translating the Iberian explorers demonstrated that there was
a place, too, for the English in the New World--The New World. The
phrase was first used by Martyr (translated in Eden, and found in
Tempest). Martyr's Decades were published often, in Latin and in
English.
>Do they the miraculous
> preservation of the entire crew and passengers as the Bermuda accounts do?
> Do they include an unsuccessful rebellion against authority as the Bermuda
> accounts do? Do they include a refutation of bad reports from "fools at
> home" similar to Antonio's in 3.3, the way almost every Virginia pamphlet
> does since 1608?
You don't seem to understand what we're doing. These parallels are all
in earlier and more famous sources. They occur over and over again. And
Antonio's speech? "Travellers ne'er did lie, Though fools at home
condemn them"? "The truthfulness of travellers' tales is debated in
Montaigne, in the essay, "Of the Cannibals'" (fn.Lindley) Montaigne
has obviously read some or much of Eden, and Eden has a passage too,
that's almost a complete parallel to Gonzalo's speech, which directly
follows Antonio's:
Gonz. If in Naples
I should report this now, would they believe me?
If I should say, I saw such islanders--For, certes, these are people of
the island--
Who, though they are of monstrous shape, yet, note,
Their manners are more gentle-kind than of
Our human generation you shall find
Many, nay, almost any.
(III.3.27-33)
Eden:
For who wyll beleve that men are found with only one legge. Or with
such such <fe>ete (illegible) whose shadowe covereth theyr bodies? Or
men of a cubite heyght, and other such lyke, being rather monsters then
men? (216).
These are much closer parallels than any source you've given.
Especially if the play was written earlier than 1611. Merry Christmas,
Tom.
Ms. Mouse
Tom Reedy
You know, just doubting the word of someone is not evidence.
> and not until 1625. I don't deny it
> was the case, I am just saying it's poor evidence that it happened that
> way, and no evidence at all that the letter was received by the company
> in 1610 or circulated.
I have given the evidence that it was received in 1610 and circulated. And
the letter doesn't include any of the incidents he saw after July 1610, and
he saw a lot. There were many raids on Indian villages, for instance, which
would have made great stories, and did, in letters from other people, who
aid he was there. Why would he leave out some of his best material, if he
was writing after he came home to England? Your scenario doesn't make sense.
>>and since a pamphlet issued by the company quoted parts of
>> the letter and paraphrased other parts, excising the worst material, that
>> is
>> evidence for the letter circulating within the company.
>
> Almost everything is in other documents. If just one or two items
> appear to come from Strachey's "letter," they might just as easily have
> come from Gates, who was debriefed, and copied by Strachey from the TD
> publication later. Or from another unknown source.
I suppose every historical event you doubt could be expalined that way. The
only trouble is, it explains nothing; it is merely speculation wihout
evidence.
> Almost every
> similarity between Strachey and TD can be found either in De La Warre's
> letter or Jourdain's narrative. These, we know, were in England by
> September 1610.
And we know Strachey had a copy of DeLawarr's letter, because
1. as secretary of the colony, he probably had a large hand in writing it,
and
2. he signed it.
As secretary and recorder, Strachey was involved in writing both DeLaWare's
letter and Gate's report. Strachey, as you have shown, incorporated other
unpublished works in TR, all of them originating in Virginia. He did the
same with the reports he helped write, or at the very least, read before
they went to England.
That makes a lot more sense than his writing a letter years after the fact
and pretending he was writing it from Virginia. What would be the motive for
that? He didn't do that with any of his other writings.
> We have no such assurance of the Strachey letter,
> whereas we have many clues it didn't get to England until later.
Your clues are suppositions on top of suppositions.
>> Your interpretation of those facts may be different, but it is evidence
>> nonetheless, not to be dismissed out of hand with your comment.
>
> It is very poor evidence indeed,
It is very much better than your evidence.
> and controverted by Strachey himself
> in his 1612 intro to Lawes.
No, it is not. As long as you're speculating, I speculate that the letter
might have had something to do with Strachey's being put out of favor with
the Company, after they intercepted the letter he had written to someone
other than the Company itself.
And strachey says himself the full information about the Bermuda/Virginia
incidents he witnessed had to be kept secret at the time of the Lawes
publication. That does not rule out a private letter that had gotten
intercepted. His public communication would be that the letter had not been
sent.
So? My point is Purchas appended material to a lot of the narratives he
published, and he did so in the first person without identifying it as such.
I was responding to your obvious lack of knowledge about this.
> and have provided you with a
> list of all the documents and secondary sources we used.
As I have you with my research.
>
>>I would
>> suggest you begin with Carol Urness' article, "Purchas as editor,"
>> beginning
>> page 121 in the Purchas Handbook, Vol. 1, L.E. Pennington, ed., Hakluyt
>> Society, London (1997).
>
> And I suggest you look again at the material I sent you, which shows
> that Purchas as editor often embroidered the work of others. Once you
> admit that Purchas tampered with the document in any way between 1616
> and 1625, you can no longer rely upon it as a pure source for a play
> composed at the latest in 1611.
Why can't I? What literary principle forbids a contaminated source that we
don't know everything about to have been used?
And the meddling by Purchas hardly amounted to more than adding a published
source that Shakespeare had access to anyway! How would that have rendered
Strachey's letter unusable?
Good evidence that Purchas tacked on True Declaration to Strachey is the way
Sir Thomas Gates is addressed. Strachey would never have written, "After Sir
Thomas Gates his arrival . . ." He would have written, "After the arrival of
our right famous sole Governour then, now Lieutenant Generall Sir Thomas
Gates Knight . . ." or something similar. He never forgot a title.
Why would Strachey repeat himself by tacking on TD? He had already included
most of the material from DeLaWarr's letter almost verbatim. and it doesn't
really matter if he wrote it or not, he certainly had access to it as
secretary.
> Why are you making all this effort to
> salvage Strachey anyway, given that, as you know, all the parallels to
> Shakespeare's play are easily documented in earlier, published and much
> more famous sources?
"All the parallels?" Only they aren't.
>> > In any case, Hakluyt got material from all over the
>> > place, not just the VC.
>>
>> He didn't get Virginia materials from all over the place.
>
> I haven't checked whether all the documents passed on to Purchas are
> recorded as having been received by the company
Not unexpected, given that the company records of that time are missing.
However, you can go through the published pamphlets and compare them with
the documents and tell which letters and reports were used by the company in
its propaganda.
> --We know Strachey's TR
> wasn't. Do you have evidence that all the others were?
As I said, all the company records are missing.
>> > Also, the story doesn't make sense. The
>> > Company, which somehow had the "letter", even though it was to a
>> > "Noble Lady," didn't want it published because the material in it was
>> > so sensitive--that's almost always the reason given for no mention of
>> > it anywhere until 1625; however, the Company members handed it to
>> > Hakluyt to publish--a complete contradiction.
>>
>> I am unaware of any directive by the company to Hakylut to publish the
>> material. Where is your citation for that assertion? As you know, the
>> rest
>> of the material Purchas got from Hakulyt's estate had not been published
>> up
>> until that time either.
>
> Material given to Hakluyt was invariably published by him.
Not all of it. And Hakluyt gave some material to Purchas to publish, as he
was not intending to publish it himself.
> That's what
> he did. That the other material was unpublished also is evidence only
> that he died before publishing, not that he didn't intend to publish.
The fact that he gave Purchas some material to publish shows that he did not
intend to publish it himself.
>> > On top of all that, we
>> > only have Purchas' word that it was found among Hakluyt's papers.
>>
>> Oh, Jesus. Here we go with another conspiracy. "We only have Jonson's
>> word,
>> or Condell's word, or Heminges' word, that Shakespeare was Shakespeare."
>
> You are confusing conspiracy theory with historical methodology that
> insists on some kind of verification of facts. As it happens, the "Just
> So" story of how Shakespeare got the ms from Strachey and turned it
> into a play, which was written, rehearsed, and produced by November of
> 1611, smacks much more of a conspiracy to keep the Strachey ship afloat
> (!) no matter what the contrary and compelling evidence.
>>
>> And I suppose we should take your agenda-driven word, 400 years after the
>> fact, as the truth?
>
> Be careful, Tom. Your slip is showing. Who are the ones with an agenda?
> And what does the 400 year time lapse have to do with anything? I used
> contemporaneous documents to make my case, and Roger went through the
> secondary sources to see where mistakes may have occurred in fact or
> reasoning. These show that Furness made several errors that were
> magnified by Gayley et al.
We will see in the eventuality of things to come.
>> > He
>> > may or may not have been telling the truth, especially since neither
>> > Hakluyt nor Strachey were around to gainsay him.
>>
>> Why would he lie? (Here comes the conspiracy!)
>
> You were just arguing a few lines above that Purchas was in the habit
> of inserting first person emendations into documents. He also lies in
> his synopsis of TR when he says Strachey's going to tell the story of
> the "manifold deaths" in the storm.
We've discussed this before. Purchas didn't write all the haedings, and he
complained himslef that it appeared that the printers who wrote them had not
read the material before writing them.
> In addition I have read several
> scholars who attest to the fact that Purchas was a plagiarist in his
> own right, as well as an embroiderer of the prose of others. There is
> also apparently evidence that Purchas fell out with Hakluyt, who didn't
> want him to have the papers (perhaps because he was such a god-awful
> editor? ;) ) and so he waited for Hakluyt to die so he could get hold
> of them. The question therefore becomes, why would you ever choose to
> believe his words as gospel and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of
> being a conspiracy theorist?
>
> Note, at no point have I said--or at least meant to say--that Purchas
> did not get the papers from Hakluyt's estate. I'm just asking for
> better evidence that he did than a single letter of the alphabet
Puchas explains his method of identifying the documents from Hakulyt. Do you
thinik we should throw out all the documents he IDed because you want more
that "a single letter of the alphabet?" Your language here is meant to
belittle the evidence with nothing more than diminutive words, a tactic that
adds no substantive comment to the evidence we have. As a matter of fact, it
smacks of Greenwood.
> against the article in Purchas' Pilgrims--especially as both you and I
> know he was a terrible, careless editor-- and any evidence at all that
> Hakluyt got TR from the company, and that the company got it in
> September 1610 and then transmitted it to Shakespeare.
>
>>
>> > All we know for sure is that there is not hide nor hair of the document
>> > until 1625, when Purchas published it,
>>
>> You've got your facts wrong. He purchased it in 1616, along with a lot of
>> other papers.
>
> No, I do not have my facts wrong. I said, there is not hide nor hair of
> the document until 1625.
There are certainly excerpts and summaries of it.
> Whatever Purchas said about it, he said in
> Purchas' Pilgrims, 1625. Before that, there is no record whatsoever of
> the document, unless you have one I haven't seen.
>
>>
>> > saying he got it from Hakluyt.
>> > Moreover there are numerous reasons to believe,
>>
>> I know YOU have numerous reasons. That they are reasonable is what is in
>> debate, isn't it?
>
> The trouble is, Tom, that you are still so influenced by the words of
> Furness that
>
> The voice of the majority pronounces in favour of 1610-1611.
> Let us all, therefore, acquiesce, and henceforth be, in this
> regard, shut up in measureless content (306)
This is the first time I've read those words, so I doubt they've influenced
my stance.
> that you can't see the wood for the trees on this topic.
>
>>
>> > as you well know Tom,
>> > that the "letter" was not transmitted to England, at least in its
>> > published form, in July 1610, and in fact Strachey, writing the
>> > introduction to Lawes in late 1611 or early 1612, says his narrative
>> > about Bermuda is neither "perfected" nor revealed to the Company.
>>
>> You're overreaching here. That you have a theory that you believe does
>> not
>> proof make.
>
> Well, even if that is so, and I don't necessarily agree that it is, we
> don't have to show that Strachey didn't write what you think he wrote
> in 1610.
In that case, why are you expending all this energy on trying to do so?
> We only have to show that there was other similar or identical
> source material available for Shakespeare for there to be doubt that he
> needed Strachey at all.
That's the hundred monkeys chained to a typewriter argument, only reversed.
> We have written several essays showing not only
> that Shakespeare could have relied on Erasmus and/or Ariosto plus Eden
> for the material paralleled by Strachey, but that Strachey relied on
> these sources also. They were so common that many did. And both Ariosto
> and Eden have proven much richer sources for Shakespeare. We have also
> written an essay suggesting that Tempest was a Shrovetide play, which,
> if true, obviates the possibility of Strachey as a source even if all
> that you are claiming is valid. This article will be published in June
> in a peer-reviewed journal. We are also completing an essay that will
> hopefully date the play to before 1603.
>>
>> >> > Hope you had a great holiday season.
>> >>
>> >> What holiday season is that?
>> >
>> > Um, Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza, New Year, add your own if I missed it.
>>
>> Umm, I believe it is now January 15, long after the holidays. But I
>> suppose
>> your time sense would be distorted, as in Oxford's mother's "hasty
>> remarriage?"
>
> My time sense is distorted by a brain malfunction affecting memory
> following surgery, but I never think it too late anyhow to wish someone
> a happy anything. Happy Thanksgiving, Tommy. Forgive typos. In a big
> hurry.
In that case, Happy Fouth of July!
TR
>
> L.
>>
>> TR
>