Van Dam on Sir Thomas More

49 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 5, 2008, 2:51:57 PM9/5/08
to Forest of Arden
On Sep 5, 1:57 am, Jerry <geralddo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom, I am not used to using g-mail, or groups, or Chrome.

> > In your article you quote Van Dam's explanation of how the problems in
> > lines 235-37 occurred (page numbers in square brackets):

> > <><><><><><><>
> > [4]
> > [begin Van Dam:]
> > An interlineation . . . is meant either to add something new, or to
> > correct a mistake . . . . Here the latter is the case, for the
> > insertion helps to put the blank verse in order, and, besides, there
> > appears to be something that fully explains the omission. After having
> > written l. 237 the scribe . . . reads that the word last written by
> > him, *obedienc*, is followed by *what rebell captaine*, so he copies
> > these words. In reading over what he has written he perceives that he
> > has omitted nearly a whole line, and that the word *obedienc* occurs
> > in two successive lines; he inserts the words omitted, but by mistake
> > he places them between ll. 235 and 236 instead of between 236 and
> > 237 . . . . An intelligent redaction . . . looks thus:

> > . . . To kneele to be forgyven
> > Is safer warrs, then euer you can make 235
> > Whose discipline is ry’t. Why, e’n your hurly
> > Cannot proceed but by obedi-enc. 237
> > In, in to your obedi-enc! What rebell, 237a
> > As mutynies ar incident, by ‘s name
> > Can still the rout? Who will obay a traytor?
> > [end Van Dam]

> > This correction arguably improves the text, though the plausibility of
> > ‘in, in to your obedience’ as an omission is somewhat diminished by
> > the inference of its misplaced reinsertion and by the deletion (at
> > 237a) of the extrametrical ‘Captain’. Here the lines revert to iambic
> > pentameter and More’s rationale for *obedience* logically precedes his
> > order to obey. Despite possible objections, Van Dam establishes the
> > possibility of
> > [5]
> > transcription, and it must be stressed that the strength of his case
> > depends on the presence of the word obedience both at the end of the
> > addition and in the body of the text.

> > <><><><><>

> > I take it you essentially agree with him (without completely accepting
> > his emendation), because it seems like an awful lot of copy just to
> > establish that he introduced the idea that Hand D was a transcription.
> > Or am I assuming too much?

> > TR

> And I assume that you have read the whole paper. Copy is cheap, no?

Yes, I've read it several times, but I've only marked up the first
half of it, and in any case you don't elaborate on his comments.

> In first versions of the article (mid-nineties) Van Dam got much more
> space than here. He was the most able and brilliant of 20th-century
> scholars and his contributions will someday be vindicated, I hope.

I find Van Dam almost ridiculous in some of his assertions. I've
posted his *More* comments in the Pages section so anyone who's
interested can read what he has to say:
http://groups.google.com/group/ForestofArden/web/van-dam-on-sir-thomas-more

He claims line 230 is punctuated with a full stop, when it is actually
a raised point, or *punctus circumflexus*, a mark most commonly used
to separate clauses. He apparently believes that authors never
interlineated their manuscripts; he says the facts that an *i* in
*mutynes* and the tittle over *matie* have been omitted are mistakes
that argue for transcription error; miscounts the meter in line 243;
and claims the addition is "a slovenly transcript" because it
"contains interpolations, written in one and the same hand."

> I do agree with Van Dam, but my analysis comes later. Cutting the
> quote and my comment too much would leave the perceptive reader
> hanging. Further, as simple as eyeskip seems, any restatement of
> its features will help the reader. Most Shakespeare scholars have a
> very shaky idea of it.
> For example, a reader will grasp that misplacing the restoration is
> not
> as likely as proper correction, so I was obliged to note that.
> However,
> readers will not know that misplacing a restored line is actually easy
> to do, for some reason. One (scribe, compositor, editor, reader) takes
> for granted that the error is as easily undone as 'undo' -- but it
> isn't.

> Blayney cites an instance in F Lear where Theobald observes a line
> transposition. Blayney explains, "The transposed lines both begin
> with 'To', and it would have been extremely easy for for the
> compositor
> to omit one of them by eyeskip." But on restoration, "What he forgot
> was that line B belonged between . . ." (Lear, 215). But that's an
> awful lot of copy, so I cut it short. Blayney understands that eyeskip
> (homoeoarchton in this case) can occur with either line, and that
> correction may err. Van Dam is also unusually perceptive.

The problem with Van Dam's explanation is that it needlessly
multiplies entities. First we have an author (who apparently, going by
your and Van Dam's comments, should never make mistakes or get tangled
up), then we have a scribe hired to copy only three pages (147 lines),
then the scribe corrects himself, and makes mistakes while doing so
without checking himself, and then Hand C, a playhouse scribe,
corrects the first scribe. It seems to me that if transcription was
needed Hand C would have been the person used as a scibe, since he
obviously was so used in other added scenes.

In addition, the type of eyeskip you describe requires that the same
word begin and end a section that is dropped, and in trying to fit
this particular passage in you have to stetch those boundaries.
Blayney's explanation concerns compositors transposing lines as he
sets type, not a scribe with (presumably) the original foul papers on
one side and his copy on the other.

Neither Van Dam nor you comment on line 130 ("a sorry" takes the place
of the crossed out "a watrie"), line 194 ("advauntage" takes the place
of "helpe"), or line 225 ("he" for "god"), all of which appear to be
authorial.

> I quoted Melchiori's attempt at the crux. Van Dam's could not be
> cited without pointing out some of his alterations. But I couldn't
> explain them at that point without getting off topic. He knew that
> almost all unmetrical verse is corrupt, or misapprehended by the
> modern reader (e.g. 'ry't', not 'ri-ot'). He perceived that 'captain'
> may have been added later by D because it is at the end of the
> line and extra-metrical. I couldn't digress there either, but had
> to note the emendation, which I justify later in the paper.

> If the restoration had been properly placed the eyeskip may
> have been credited long before now. But I didn't want to snip
> too much of the key observation. If Hand D is transcription,
> the credit goes to Van Dam, from whom I learned it. Jerry

Another problem that I see with both Van Dam's and your paper (and
with a lot of *More* commentary) is that the arguments are made in a
vacuum with nothing or very little more than arguments based on
internal evidence. Have you looked at the other manuscript plays to
see if they contain the same type of errors and strikeouts that are
found in Hand D?

For instance, in Thomas Heywood's holograph MS of *The Captives*,
there are several such word and phrase substitutions, missing speech
headings and word repetitions that you say reveal scribal errors. So
does Munday's holograph *John a Kent John a Cumber*.

TR

Jerry

unread,
Sep 6, 2008, 3:12:39 AM9/6/08
to Forest of Arden
> http://groups.google.com/group/ForestofArden/web/van-dam-on-sir-thoma...
Tom, thanks for the post. I had meant my reply to be private,
but that's just as well. The tone and content of your answer is
such that I will not respond further after today, but I will point
out a few things. Too bad it is this way. Interesting that you
feel a quote of Van Dam is "an awful lot of copy," only to post
more copy.

> He apparently believes that authors never interlineated their
>manuscripts

But his first words were that an "interlineation . . . is meant
either to add something new, or to correct a mistake . . ."
That a correction or addition can be authorial goes without
saying. It is absurd to argue your way, Tom.

> and in any case you don't elaborate on his comments

But I do justify (by argument) the reason why I agree that
'captain' is out of place and probably not authorial. That is
an elaboration.

> miscounts the meter in line 243;
> and claims the addition is "a slovenly transcript" because it
> "contains interpolations, written in one and the same hand."

Line 243 in the manuscript is too short, as Van Dam says,
not because of the number of syllables per se, but because the
tenth syllable is unstressed, or feminine. There is little point in
arguing such things merely to be contrary.

If a ms. is scribal, the description 'slovenly' is a matter of choice.
There are many mistakes, certainly. You misrepresent (willfully?)
Van Dam's comment: he did not say the pages were a 'slovenly
transcript' because there were interpolations. What he really said
was, "Moreover, the passage cannot be an author's autograph,
because the text contains interpolations, written in one and the
same hand." What he means is that 'non-authorial interpolations'
appear in the same hand. You prefer to make this opinion seem
'almost ridiculous' by misconstruing it. Can't you argue on a
higher level?

> The problem with Van Dam's explanation is that it needlessly
> multiplies entities.

The need for entities is determined by the evidence. If a single
agent doesn't explain the evidence, or if common scribal errors
suggest an alternative, added entities are perfectly logical,
and even necessary before jumping to authorial conclusions
-- or worse -- before avoidance of debate, which characterizes
the most publicized view for 90 years; a view with which you
don't agree.

I might add that your view of authorial copying multiplies entities.
Presumably you came to that view by considering the evidence.
What evidence? That adduced by Van Dam, Schucking, and
even myself, according to your e-mail to me. The question
remains, to be determined by the evidence, whether the copyist
was the author or a scribe.

> First we have an author (who apparently, going by your and
> Van Dam's comments, should never make mistakes or get
> tangled up)

Why argue this way, Tom? You waste my time. No one would
say that but an antagonist of what was really implied. Is Hand D
a copy? If it is a copy, is it scribal? If it can't be proved either
way,
then Hand D should not be cited as Shakespearean evidence.
It hasn't much to do with the silly notion (not mine or Van Dam's)
that 'authors don't make errors.'

> then we have a scribe hired to copy only three pages (147 lines),

You multiply entities with the 'scribe hired to copy only 3 pages.'
Bad form, according to you.

The scribe has not been identified. Why attribute your mistake to
me? Further, I report on an issue described by the respected Scott
McMillin (who corresponded very courteously with me). The question
of C and D being the same person has not been settled. It has not
been argued. That said, there would be nothing inherently unusual
for a different theatrical personage to copy three pages. It depends
not on putting words in other mouths, but on the evidence.

> then the scribe corrects himself, and makes mistakes while doing
> so without checking himself,

It happened all the time with scribes and compositors. It is a matter
of inference and probability. The passage at 235 is difficult. The
bibliographical evidence (ink on paper, and as I explain) is
consistent
with eye-skip. If it is eye-skip, the restoration is misplaced.

> and then Hand C, a playhouse scribe, corrects the first scribe.

Hard to deny that C corrects D. This does not add anything. And
it would be wrong to assume that anyone involved would not feel
free to alter the text. Don't deny entities.

> It seems to me that if transcription was needed Hand C would
> have been the person used as a scibe, since he obviously was
> so used in other added scenes.

Perhaps you will tell the group how you know when D wrote and
when C made his corrections. No one else seems to know. You
are multiplying assumptions.

> In addition, the type of eyeskip you describe requires that the same
> word begin and end a section that is dropped, and in trying to fit
> this particular passage in you have to stetch those boundaries.

As I have noted, persons (such as yourself) think they grasp
the concept fully when they don't, even when one has taken
care in describing it to them. And after several readings!

The section that is dropped (as with 'askt' and 'obedienc') will
only end with the word. The other will be the last word copied
before the omission. The result of course fits the initial word
to the resumption, which confuses people. But please, Tom:
don't admit your confusion.

And the boundary is not stretched at all. The error happened
normally, but the restoration was botched because D didn't
have a Van Dam around to ask him to be careful. That kind
of eye-skip is called homoeoteleuton. When the deceptive
words each begin a line (such as when aligned in verse) it
is called homoeoarchton. The difference in that case is that
either line can be omitted in practice, as Blayney observed
in the example I quoted.

I am not an expert on the terminology and I didn't think it
necessary to hold the reader's hand on the 'prentisses' and
the 'all' examples, which seem so obvious once pointed out.
But in the first instance the first line is omitted; in the second,
the second. These phenomena are very well documented, as
I tried to show.

> Blayney's explanation concerns compositors transposing lines
> as he sets type, not a scribe with (presumably) the original foul
> papers on one side and his copy on the other.

Again, the error is well-documented. Blayney conjectured a
miscorrection of eye-skip, not an immediate transposition. But I
know that examples, meant as examples, can be nit-picked.

> Neither Van Dam nor you comment on line 130 ("a sorry" takes
> the place of the crossed out "a watrie"), line 194 ("advauntage"
> takes the place of "helpe"), or line 225 ("he" for "god"), all of
> which appear to be authorial.

These are not examples of possible scribal error, unless 'sorry'
is a misreading, somehow, of 'sorry' ('wat' for 'sor', perhaps as a
guess). But what proves, in any way, that the scribe could not
make these changes? If ever there was a theatrical venture of
many hands, this is it. Further, 'help' or 'watry' may have been
alterations thought better of. With a transcript, one never knows.
Further, the meaningful evidence, as always, is the negative
evidence, not the positive.

> Another problem that I see with both Van Dam's and your paper
> (and with a lot of *More* commentary) is that the arguments are
> made in a vacuum with nothing or very little more than arguments
> based on internal evidence.

I quoted two classical scholars on eye-skip. Others are available,
but of course they are 'nothing' when nothing will be seen.
And I began (I know, only 3 readings) with a beautiful example
from the Dering manuscript. And that was a hired scribe. This
kind of 'argument' is a non-starter, don't you think? The point
was that the long recorded history of eye-skip enables the
bibliographical inference of eye-skip from the internal evidence
of interpolation coupled with identical (or nearly so) words properly
placed in the interpolation and the body of the text. I explained all
this. There is no vacuum (on my end of the hose).

> Have you looked at the other manuscript plays to see if
> they contain the same type of errors and strikeouts that are
> found in Hand D?
>
> For instance, in Thomas Heywood's holograph MS of
> *The Captives*, there are several such word and phrase
> substitutions, missing speech headings and word repetitions
> that you say reveal scribal errors.

First, there is no doubt that The Captives is in Heywood's hand.
Second, though Ioppolo claims that the ms. is an example of
foul papers, I believe it is Heywood's own transcribed copy.

I didn't claim anything about missing speech headings and Hand
D. Why say I did? I explain my reasons for suspecting scribal
error in some instances, but not simply for substitutions. I do
not claim that an author would be free of error when copying.
Remember, my first object was to show that Hand D is a copy.
My argument that D is not the author is based on a limited
number of telling examples.

Heywood's errors seem to me to be from copying, and many
of them are kinds similar to those of Hand D. Of course most
of his alterations were made after the copy was completed,
and in a different ink (Ink 2). Many changes in Ink 1 reflect the
author's privilege of altering his play. But again, there is no
question of his authorship. Ink 3 is the theatrical reviser, who
felt no compunction at altering the text.

I have looked the play over carefully and find no sure examples
of eye-skip. It looks to be a fairly careful fair copy that has been
suspected of less simply because of his execrable handwriting.
Fair copies are usually not slovenly, but errors occur. At line
564 there is

A remarke able raskall, a damnable [raskall, and]

Which is probably eye-skip from '-able' of a kind that I call
'repetition', since the eye trails back, not forward, when a
previously copied word or phrase is repeated. The error is
more easily noticed than an omission and is usually fixed
right away. A more interesting error occurs at 598, which
I described (conjecturally) on Hardy Cook's group.

By the way, although I believe Heywood is a candidate
for the authorship of the Hand D scene (see Schucking,
who notes that Pollard held that if the author weren't
Shakespeare he would opt for Heywood). Since that
author worked alongside the other More playwrights,
the case is plausible.

However, it is highly unlikely that Hand B is Heywood.
Nosworthy and Rasmussen make this clear, especially to
those who have poked around Heywood's work. Ioppolo
accepts Heywood as B without referring to the naysayers.

I guess that's about it. I had hoped Forest of Arden would be
a good place to discuss this topic. But Tom Reedy's methods
of misrepresentation and his throw-anything-against-the-wall
argument get old in a hurry. I suppose they represent the
'nicer' approach, but it isn't hard to see they fail as argument.

Respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like these,
for good reason. Who wants to see his serious work entangled
by such stuff as the above? Who has the patience to answer
the tons of nonsense? I sure don't.

Because the scholarly process was interrupted by appropriation
of my article, I had hoped to avert a loss of time before the piece
got a fair hearing by discussing it where I can. I have no doubt
that my take on Hand D will be accepted eventually. Good enough.

Tom will continue his examination, I reckon, but it probably won't
improve much in quality as the quantity mounts. If anyone else
has reason to discuss the paper I will be happy to respond privately,
and I will e-mail copies to those who request. I do not want the
article posted on this group. Sorry. Watry? Authorial? Shakespeare?

Jerry Downs







Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 6, 2008, 8:50:42 AM9/6/08
to Jerry, Forest of Arden
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Jerry <geral...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> I guess that's about it. I had hoped Forest of Arden would be
> a good place to discuss this topic. But Tom Reedy's methods
> of misrepresentation and his throw-anything-against-the-wall
> argument get old in a hurry. I suppose they represent the
> 'nicer' approach, but it isn't hard to see they fail as argument.
>
> Respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like these,
> for good reason. Who wants to see his serious work entangled
> by such stuff as the above? Who has the patience to answer
> the tons of nonsense? I sure don't.
>
> Because the scholarly process was interrupted by appropriation
> of my article, I had hoped to avert a loss of time before the piece
> got a fair hearing by discussing it where I can. I have no doubt
> that my take on Hand D will be accepted eventually. Good enough.
>
> Tom will continue his examination, I reckon, but it probably won't
> improve much in quality as the quantity mounts. If anyone else
> has reason to discuss the paper I will be happy to respond privately,
> and I will e-mail copies to those who request. I do not want the
> article posted on this group. Sorry. Watry? Authorial? Shakespeare?
>
> Jerry Downs

I'm on my way out the door to leave town for the weekend, so it will
have to be later before I can reply. My first reply was a preliminary
post, as I have not yet finished my examination or research, as I
explained.

It's a shame you feel the way you do, although there's nothing I can
do about it. Given your supercilious tone (which is, BTW, also
blatantly evident in the essays you've posted to other groups on the
Internet) I'm surprised at your sensitivity, because my reply is
certainly civil. You can sure dish it out, but you can't take even the
suspicion of it.

TR

Mouse

unread,
Sep 6, 2008, 4:00:01 PM9/6/08
to Forest of Arden


On Sep 6, 8:50 am, "Tom Reedy" <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, actually, Tom, there is. You can avoid sentences such as this
one:
"I find Van Dam almost ridiculous in some of his assertions." And
Jerry could
avoid talking about his adventures with SY. And then we could all live
together
peaceably and "shut up in measureless content."

Mouse

Given your supercilious tone (which is, BTW, also
> blatantly evident in the essays you've posted to other groups on the
> Internet) I'm surprised at your sensitivity, because my reply is
> certainly civil. You can sure dish it out, but you can't take even the
> suspicion of it.
>
> TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Message has been deleted

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 11:57:10 AM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
> > > Respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like these,
> > > for good reason. Who wants to see his serious work entangled
> > > by such stuff as the above? Who has the patience to answer
> > > the tons of nonsense? I sure don't.

The reason "respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like
these" is because they only care about their establishment standing,
not about the search for truth. For them it's lose/lose: they either
get creamed by someone like Reedy, or they defeat him but don't get a
gold star for doing so because the deed was not carried on a properly
refereed page. They also fear having to deal with unconventional
points of view--and conclusions without the ton of cited material
certified specialists need to understand anything even slightly
differing from Established Knowledge..

> > > Because the scholarly process was interrupted by appropriation
> > > of my article, I had hoped to avert a loss of time before the piece
> > > got a fair hearing by discussing it where I can. I have no doubt
> > > that my take on Hand D will be accepted eventually. Good enough.
>
> > > Tom will continue his examination, I reckon, but it probably won't
> > > improve much in quality as the quantity mounts. If anyone else
> > > has reason to discuss the paper I will be happy to respond privately,
> > > and I will e-mail copies to those who request. I do not want the
> > > article posted on this group. Sorry. Watry? Authorial? Shakespeare?
>
> > > Jerry Downs
>
> > I'm on my way out the door to leave town for the weekend, so it will
> > have to be later before I can reply. My first reply was a preliminary
> > post, as I have not yet finished my examination or research, as I
> > explained.
>
> > It's a shame you feel the way you do, although there's nothing I can
> > do about it.
>
> Well, actually, Tom, there is. You can avoid sentences such as this
> one:
> "I find Van Dam almost ridiculous in some of his assertions."

Right: spend your time worrying about the sensitivities of your most
fragile readers
instead of on stating your case. Not that Tom won't agree that he was
grievously ill-manner and vile to have given his readers an idea of
his feelings about some of Van Dam's assertions. I'd be annoyed by
the way he expressed himself--if he hadn't gone on to elaborate, with
examples from Van Dam, why he felt as he did. As is, all he did was
foreshadow a point he wanted to make.

--Wobert the Wuffian

KCL

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 12:55:19 PM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
I don't think Downs is at all fragile.

Also for me the key point of his paper is that properly evaluating the
evidence for Hand D requires examining some prior possibly faulty
scholarship that is accepted as gospel, or non-existent scholarship,
where it is needed.

KCL  

Not that Tom won't agree that he was
> grievously ill-manner and vile to have given his readers an idea of
> his feelings about some of Van Dam's assertions.  I'd be annoyed by
> the way he expressed himself--if he hadn't gone on to elaborate, with
> examples from Van Dam, why he felt as he did.  As is, all he did was
> foreshadow a point he wanted to make.
>
> --Wobert the Wuffian- Hide quoted text -
Message has been deleted

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 7:21:34 PM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
On Sep 6, 2:12 am, Jerry <geralddo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 5, 1:51 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > miscounts the meter in line 243;
> > and claims the addition is "a slovenly transcript" because it
> > "contains interpolations, written in one and the same hand."

> Line 243 in the manuscript is too short, as Van Dam says,
> not because of the number of syllables per se, but because the
> tenth syllable is unstressed, or feminine. There is little point in
> arguing such things merely to be contrary.

I'm still out of town and using a hotel computer, so it will be later
tongiht or sometime tomorrow before I can make a substantive reply
(Jerry is right that I intend to continue my discussion, however inept
it may be), but let me at least address this:

If you read the entire line, you see that not only is the last
syllable unstressed, but it also begins with a stressed syllable:
/ ˘ / ˘ / ˘ / ˘ / ˘

kill them / cutt their / throts po / ssesse their / how ses

I know I'm not as well-versed as, say, Peter Groves, but I can
recognize a trochiac pentameter when I see it, and I can also tell
that it's there for dramatic effect, not because of error. As I said,
Van Dam miscounts the meter.

TR

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 7:33:43 PM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
> On Sep 7, 11:57 am, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> > > > > Respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like these,
> > > > > for good reason. Who wants to see his serious work entangled
> > > > > by such stuff as the above? Who has the patience to answer
> > > > > the tons of nonsense? I sure don't.
>
> > The reason "respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like
> > these" is because they only care about their establishment standing,
> > not about the search for truth.

I don't agree and I think you're denigrating an entire class of people
with an ill-considered and obviously prejudiced remark.

Jerry Downs has a point; why would any academic, or anyone, as far as
that goes, waste his or her time refuting the crap that is splattered
all over hlas? Whether he chooses to respond to my comments is
completely up to him; I just don't think the reason he gave applies to
the points I raised, which were and are valid criticisms.

> For them it's lose/lose: they either
> > get creamed by someone like Reedy, or they defeat him but don't get a
> > gold star for doing so because the deed was not carried on a properly
> > refereed page. They also fear having to deal with unconventional
> > points of view--and conclusions without the ton of cited material
> > certified specialists need to understand anything even slightly
> > differing from Established Knowledge..

I don't understand why you're so bitter toward the academic
establishment, but it does you no credit and I'd appreciate it if
you'd vent it somewhere else.

On Sep 7, 11:55 am, KCL <dialec...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think Downs is at all fragile.
>
> Also for me the key point of his paper is that properly evaluating the
> evidence for Hand D requires examining some prior possibly faulty
> scholarship that is accepted as gospel, or non-existent scholarship,
> where it is needed.

That is exactly what I did with Van Dam and am doing with Downs'
paper.

TR

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 9:39:48 PM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
> I don't understand why you're so bitter toward the academic
> establishment,

No reason you should, Tom.

> but it does you no credit

Certainly not among people like you.

> and I'd appreciate it if you'd vent it somewhere else.

Oh, I do. But I fully understand your wish that no one express
outlooks that go against yours.

--Bob G.

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 10:12:39 PM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
A Minor Clarification: in my rush, I tarred all mainstream scholars
instead of the ones my ire was directed against, those who "won't
touch groups like these." I value those mainstream scholars who do
visit groups like this, and HLAS when it was at its best (and vastly
superior to this group).

> > > > Respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like these,
> > > > for good reason. Who wants to see his serious work entangled
> > > > by such stuff as the above? Who has the patience to answer
> > > > the tons of nonsense? I sure don't.

Clarifying insertions follow:

> The reason THERE ARE "respected mainstream scholars WHO won't touch groups like
> these" WHEN SOMETHING OF CONSEQUENCE TO THEIR SPECIALTY IS BEING DISCUSSED is that SUCH SCHOLARS (word removed) care MORE about their establishment standing,
> (word removed) THAN about the search for truth.  For them it's lose/lose: they either
> get creamed by someone like Reedy, or they defeat him but don't get a
> gold star for doing so because the deed was not carried on a properly
> refereed page.  They also fear having to deal with unconventional
> points of view--and conclusions without the ton of cited material
> certified specialists need to understand anything even slightly
> differing from Established Knowledge.

Certainly it is also true that many scholars don't want to bother with
the bilge rife in groups like HLAS, but no reason they should. You
ignore it, and concentrate on the non-bilge that is also there, in
some cases ONLY there, and superior to anything in refereed journals
(and here I speak more of texts I know about in my "official field" of
poetry criticism than of texts in authorship studies and Shakespeare
scholarship).

A further note to KC:

> > Well, actually, Tom, there is. You can avoid sentences such as this
> > one:
> > "I find Van Dam almost ridiculous in some of his assertions."

Because of things like the previous paragraph, Downs will not field
arguments here--but he's not "fragile?"

--Bob G.

KCL

unread,
Sep 7, 2008, 10:56:38 PM9/7/08
to Forest of Arden
Right, I don't think he ended his participation because he's fragile.
Remember it's Mouse who suggested the above, not Jerry.

KCL
Message has been deleted

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 1:00:05 AM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
On Sep 6, 2:12 am, Jerry <geralddo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 5, 1:51 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Tom, thanks for the post. I had meant my reply to be private,
> but that's just as well. The tone and content of your answer is
> such that I will not respond further after today, but I will point
> out a few things. Too bad it is this way. Interesting that you
> feel a quote of Van Dam is "an awful lot of copy," only to post
> more copy.

> > He apparently believes that authors never interlineated their
> >manuscripts

> But his first words were that an "interlineation . . . is meant
> either to add something new, or to correct a mistake . . ."
> That a correction or addition can be authorial goes without
> saying.

Van Dam writes “In l. 245 we have omitted the obvious actors’
interpolation *alas alas*, which, besides, proves to be an addition by
its being interlineated in the manuscript between ll. 244 and 245.” It
seems to me that he judges that *alas alas* is non-authorial by it
being interlineated. I fail to see what makes it so obviously an
"actors' interpolation."

He next writes, “From all these mistakes taken together, but
especially from the nature of some mistakes in these few lines, we may
with certainty conclude that the whole passage 123-270 is a slovenly
transcript. Moreover, the passage cannot be an author's autograph,
because the text contains interpolations, written in one and the same
hand,” which seems to me to be begging the question.

> It is absurd to argue your way, Tom.

Here’s the way I argue, Jerry: I read the paper, I make notes. I read
it again, I make more notes. I check all the references, I make notes.
I read the paper again, I make more notes. I repeat this until I think
I understand what the author is saying. The points that I disagree
with, I try to formulate some kind of coherent argument in an attempt
to demonstrate to others the way I see things.

I don’t really know any other way to argue, and I see nothing absurd
about it. I have been proven to be in error many times, but I look at
this exercise as a learning experience, not as a certified conclusion.

> > and in any case you don't elaborate on his comments

> But I do justify (by argument) the reason why I agree that
> 'captain' is out of place and probably not authorial. That is
> an elaboration.

> > miscounts the meter in line 243;
> > and claims the addition is "a slovenly transcript" because it
> > "contains interpolations, written in one and the same hand."

> Line 243 in the manuscript is too short, as Van Dam says,
> not because of the number of syllables per se, but because the
> tenth syllable is unstressed, or feminine. There is little point in
> arguing such things merely to be contrary.

I’ve already answered this, and I’m not bringing up objections “merely
to be contrary.”

> If a ms. is scribal, the description 'slovenly' is a matter of choice.
> There are many mistakes, certainly. You misrepresent (willfully?)
> Van Dam's comment: he did not say the pages were a 'slovenly
> transcript' because there were interpolations. What he really said
> was, "Moreover, the passage cannot be an author's autograph,
> because the text contains interpolations, written in one and the
> same hand." What he means is that 'non-authorial interpolations'
> appear in the same hand. You prefer to make this opinion seem
> 'almost ridiculous' by misconstruing it. Can't you argue on a
> higher level?

But it *is* ridiculous to argue that a text is non-scribal because
the “non-authorial interpolations” are written in the same hand, since
he hasn’t proven that the “interpolations” are non-authorial. That is
begging the question.

> > The problem with Van Dam's explanation is that it needlessly
> > multiplies entities.

> The need for entities is determined by the evidence. If a single
> agent doesn't explain the evidence, or if common scribal errors
> suggest an alternative,

But these “common scribal errors” are also present in other MSS we
know are autograph.

> added entities are perfectly logical,

Agreed (except for my above objection) up to this point.

> and even necessary before jumping to authorial conclusions
> -- or worse -- before avoidance of debate, which characterizes
> the most publicized view for 90 years; a view with which you
> don't agree.

I’m having trouble following you here.

> I might add that your view of authorial copying multiplies entities.

My “view” of authorial copying—second draft—is but a suspicion at this
point, which causes I have not yet been able to articulate.

> Presumably you came to that view by considering the evidence.
> What evidence? That adduced by Van Dam, Schucking, and
> even myself, according to your e-mail to me. The question
> remains, to be determined by the evidence, whether the copyist
> was the author or a scribe.

> > First we have an author (who apparently, going by your and
> > Van Dam's comments, should never make mistakes or get
> > tangled up)

> Why argue this way, Tom? You waste my time. No one would
> say that but an antagonist of what was really implied.

You imply such when you write, “No clear choice can be made between
author and transcriber . . . . However . . . a scribe may
have . . . .”; “These errors are probably more typical of
transcription . . . .”; “A putative scribe may have . . . .”; “But the
preceding lines . . . could lead a copyist . . . .” and etc. etc.

Yes, a scribe *may* or *could* have *probably* done so; just as likely
an author *may* have, especially when we have examples of it in other
autograph copy, yet you conclude “These examples do not strongly
suggest D as the original author.”

To me, that strongly suggests to me that you don’t think authors
commit those types of errors. And Van Dam’s analysis of lines 235-38
and your repetition of them strongly suggest to me that neither you
nor he think that authors ever get tangled up, which is to me the
simplest explanation of the shortcomings of the passage. Remember
Jonson’s recollection of Shakespeare? “He . . . had an excellent
fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with
that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped.
‘Sufflaminandus erat’ as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his
own power; would the rule of it had been so too.”

> Is Hand D a copy? If it is a copy, is it scribal? If it can't be proved
> either way, then Hand D should not be cited as Shakespearean
> evidence. It hasn't much to do with the silly notion (not mine or
> Van Dam's) that 'authors don't make errors.'

> > then we have a scribe hired to copy only three pages (147 lines),

> You multiply entities with the 'scribe hired to copy only 3 pages.'
> Bad form, according to you.

I’m not the one multiplying entities; I’m constructing a timeline of
Van Dam’s scenario concerning the Hand D addition.

> The scribe has not been identified. Why attribute your mistake to
> me? Further, I report on an issue described by the respected Scott
> McMillin (who corresponded very courteously with me). The question
> of C and D being the same person has not been settled. It has not
> been argued.

Books may not have been written about it, but opinions have been
published, and from what I gather the consensus is that C and D are
different hands. It seems obvious to me: the formation of the letters,
the capitalizations, the shading—they all argue for different hands,
and I’ve never heard an argument that they’re the same from anyone
who’s looked at them.

> That said, there would be nothing inherently unusual
> for a different theatrical personage to copy three pages. It depends
> not on putting words in other mouths, but on the evidence.

> > then the scribe corrects himself, and makes mistakes while doing
> > so without checking himself,

> It happened all the time with scribes and compositors. It is a matter
> of inference and probability.

Here we have a playhouse scribe, Hand C, who copies out a total of 317
lines in five additions. While doing so, he strikes out words and
passages a total of 19 times.

Then we have “scribe” Hand D, who in the process of “copying” a total
of 147 lines in one addition, makes a total of 27 strikeouts and
corrections, most of them while “copying out” More’s speech to the
mob, the most complicated and challenging part of the scene.

Between the two hands, it appears to me it only “happened all the
time” with Hand D, and the number and types of errors in Hand D cause
me to think they are due to an author’s process of composing.

> The passage at 235 is difficult. The
> bibliographical evidence (ink on paper, and as I explain) is
> consistent
> with eye-skip. If it is eye-skip, the restoration is misplaced.

> > and then Hand C, a playhouse scribe, corrects the first scribe.

> Hard to deny that C corrects D. This does not add anything. And
> it would be wrong to assume that anyone involved would not feel
> free to alter the text. Don't deny entities.

Again, I’m not denying entities; I’m setting out a time-line for
Addition II according to Van Dam.

> > It seems to me that if transcription was needed Hand C would
> > have been the person used as a scribe, since he obviously was
> > so used in other added scenes.

> Perhaps you will tell the group how you know when D wrote and
> when C made his corrections. No one else seems to know.
> You are multiplying assumptions.

Coit'nly! C corrected after D wrote!

> > In addition, the type of eyeskip you describe requires that the same
> > word begin and end a section that is dropped, and in trying to fit
> > this particular passage in you have to stretch those boundaries.

> As I have noted, persons (such as yourself) think they grasp
> the concept fully when they don't, even when one has taken
> care in describing it to them. And after several readings!

Sometimes I am slow of study and it takes me more than several
readings. This is one of those times.

> The section that is dropped (as with 'askt' and 'obedienc') will
> only end with the word. The other will be the last word copied
> before the omission. The result of course fits the initial word
> to the resumption, which confuses people. But please, Tom:
> don't admit your confusion.

I don’t mind admitting when I’m confused. How else is one to learn?

> And the boundary is not stretched at all.

Yes, I understand it better now. I *was* confused. However, the
speculation that it happened in Hand D is just that, because as you
point out on page 2 of your paper, we don't have another text to
compare it to, and Van Dam's correction necessitates not only two
errors in a row, but the deletion of a word that appears to be an
example of Shakespearean oxymoronic wordplay that stretches the
meaning of words out of their usual senses: "rebell captaine," which
is the same type as "how ordere shoold be quelld." (Disorder, not
order, is usually quelled.)

> The error happened
> normally, but the restoration was botched because D didn't
> have a Van Dam around to ask him to be careful.

Nor, apparently, did he ever read it over again.

> That kind
> of eye-skip is called homoeoteleuton. When the deceptive
> words each begin a line (such as when aligned in verse) it
> is called homoeoarchton. The difference in that case is that
> either line can be omitted in practice, as Blayney observed
> in the example I quoted.

> I am not an expert on the terminology and I didn't think it
> necessary to hold the reader's hand on the 'prentisses' and
> the 'all' examples, which seem so obvious once pointed out.

The “prenty” example is not at all obvious to me. More on that later.
Nor is the "all" example as cut-and-dried as that in the Dering MS.

> But in the first instance the first line is omitted; in the second,
> the second. These phenomena are very well documented, as
> I tried to show.

And do these examples ever happen when an author is composing or
copying and revising his first draft?

> > Blayney's explanation concerns compositors transposing lines
> > as he sets type, not a scribe with (presumably) the original foul
> > papers on one side and his copy on the other.

> Again, the error is well-documented. Blayney conjectured a
> miscorrection of eye-skip, not an immediate transposition. But I
> know that examples, meant as examples, can be nit-picked.

> > Neither Van Dam nor you comment on line 130 ("a sorry" takes
> > the place of the crossed out "a watrie"), line 194 ("advauntage"
> > takes the place of "helpe"), or line 225 ("he" for "god"), all of
> > which appear to be authorial.

> These are not examples of possible scribal error,

That is my point: they seem to be examples of authorial revision,
which you do not discuss, despite your earlier statement in the “letts
vs” thread that you were attempting to cover all the evidence.

> unless 'sorry'

(I take it you meant to write “unless ‘watrie’ is a misreading,
somehow, of ‘sorry,’” which proves my point that these types of
mistakes can be authorial, even in the process of composing.)

> is a misreading, somehow, of 'sorry' ('wat' for 'sor', perhaps as a
> guess).

No, I just looked at it again; it’s pretty clear. Compare MWW 3.3.33:
"this grosse-watry Pumpion."

> But what proves, in any way, that the scribe could not
> make these changes? If ever there was a theatrical venture of
> many hands, this is it. Further, 'help' or 'watry' may have been
> alterations thought better of. With a transcript, one never knows.

I suppose if “may have been” is your standard, anything is possible.

> Further, the meaningful evidence, as always, is the negative
> evidence, not the positive.

All the evidence is meaningful.

> > Another problem that I see with both Van Dam's and your paper
> > (and with a lot of *More* commentary) is that the arguments are
> > made in a vacuum with nothing or very little more than arguments
> > based on internal evidence.

> I quoted two classical scholars on eye-skip. Others are available,
> but of course they are 'nothing' when nothing will be seen.

No, I meant in context with other examples of EM MSS, such as the
comparison I gave above of the lines/errors of Hand C and Hand D.

> And I began (I know, only 3 readings) with a beautiful example
> from the Dering manuscript.

Yes, it was a good example of eye-skip, which is central to your
thesis, and served well as an introduction. It is a pity that the
tangled lines you say are due to eye-skip in Hand D are not as
beautiful or as clear-cut.

> And that was a hired scribe. This
> kind of 'argument' is a non-starter, don't you think? The point
> was that the long recorded history of eye-skip enables the
> bibliographical inference of eye-skip from the internal evidence
> of interpolation coupled with identical (or nearly so) words properly
> placed in the interpolation and the body of the text. I explained all
> this. There is no vacuum (on my end of the hose).

The vacuum is that you didn’t address whether authors made the same
type of mistakes. We have autograph MSS from the era; are they free
from such mistakes? I don’t think they are. All the evidence you
discuss comes from the lines in question, which is what I meant by no
context.

> > Have you looked at the other manuscript plays to see if
> > they contain the same type of errors and strikeouts that are
> > found in Hand D?

> > For instance, in Thomas Heywood's holograph MS of
> > *The Captives*, there are several such word and phrase
> > substitutions, missing speech headings and word repetitions
> > that you say reveal scribal errors.

> First, there is no doubt that The Captives is in Heywood's hand.
> Second, though Ioppolo claims that the ms. is an example of
> foul papers, I believe it is Heywood's own transcribed copy.

You don’t address my point: there are the same types of errors in that
MS, and as you say, we *know* it is in Heywood’s hand.

In fact, the same types of errors can be found in Heywood’s hand in
the Thomas More MS. See Addition II:

line 2: shall strangers Rule the Roste [yes] but wele baste [it] the
roste

line 5: I lincolne my leder and doll [his] my true breeder . . .

lines 7-8: we are fre/borne and doo take skorne to be [so] vsde soe

lines 11-12: [come on than] then largelye dilliuer speake bullie and
he that presumes to [speak before ye]/interrupte the in this orratione
this for him [capatene]

and so on. Does this make Addition II scribal? Your argument for D
would have it so.

> I didn't claim anything about missing speech headings and Hand
> D. Why say I did?

As you say above, examples, meant as examples, can be nit-picked.

> I explain my reasons for suspecting scribal
> error in some instances, but not simply for substitutions. I do
> not claim that an author would be free of error when copying.
> Remember, my first object was to show that Hand D is a copy.

Any serious attempt to show that Hand D is a copy should consider all
the evidence, including contrary evidence, not just the evidence you
think supports your point of view. You can't just "show that Hand D is
a copy" and then take up the contrary evidence.

> My argument that D is not the author is based on a limited
> number of telling examples.

> Heywood's errors seem to me to be from copying, and many
> of them are kinds similar to those of Hand D. Of course most
> of his alterations were made after the copy was completed,

Only one of the above examples was made after the copy was completed,
the *his/my* substitution. The rest were written *currente calamo*,
just as most of those in Hand D.

> and in a different ink (Ink 2). Many changes in Ink 1 reflect the
> author's privilege of altering his play. But again, there is no
> question of his authorship. Ink 3 is the theatrical reviser, who
> felt no compunction at altering the text.

> I have looked the play over carefully and find no sure examples
> of eye-skip. It looks to be a fairly careful fair copy that has been
> suspected of less simply because of his execrable handwriting.
> Fair copies are usually not slovenly, but errors occur. At line
> 564 there is

> A remarke able raskall, a damnable [raskall, and]

> Which is probably eye-skip from '-able' of a kind that I call
> 'repetition', since the eye trails back, not forward, when a
> previously copied word or phrase is repeated. The error is
> more easily noticed than an omission and is usually fixed
> right away. A more interesting error occurs at 598, which
> I described (conjecturally) on Hardy Cook's group.

> By the way, although I believe Heywood is a candidate
> for the authorship of the Hand D scene (see Schucking,
> who notes that Pollard held that if the author weren't
> Shakespeare he would opt for Heywood). Since that
> author worked alongside the other More playwrights,
> the case is plausible.

Paradoxically, I think Shucking makes a better case for Heywood’s
authorship than he does for a scribal copy.

> However, it is highly unlikely that Hand B is Heywood.

But just above you say Heywood “worked alongside the other More
playwrights” as support for his possible authorship of Hand D. I
suppose you mean to say at other times?

> Nosworthy and Rasmussen make this clear, especially to
> those who have poked around Heywood's work. Ioppolo
> accepts Heywood as B without referring to the naysayers.

Most who have given their opinion say it is Heywood, yet two
dissenters make it “highly unlikely?” I haven’t studied it closely,
but they look very similar to me.

> I guess that's about it. I had hoped Forest of Arden would be
> a good place to discuss this topic. But Tom Reedy's methods
> of misrepresentation and his throw-anything-against-the-wall
> argument get old in a hurry.

I have misrepresented nothing willfully and am always open to
correction. Yes, tough questions do get old; they're not for
everybody, I'll admit.

> I suppose they represent the
> 'nicer' approach, but it isn't hard to see they fail as argument.

I don’t think it is my arguments that have failed here.

> Respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like these,
> for good reason.

Arden is not a peer-refereed venue and is not meant to be. It is,
however, a good place to hammer out thoughts and ideas and to explore
facets of an argument that might otherwise go unrecognized. I do
realize, however, that some might not appreciate the public exposure
while they’re working out what they thought was a proved proposition.
In my own case, I don’t care that much; I live in a glass house for
the most part.

> Who wants to see his serious work entangled
> by such stuff as the above? Who has the patience to answer
> the tons of nonsense? I sure don't.

My arguments were put forward in good faith. That you choose not to
answer them is one thing; characterizing them as “nonsense” is
another, and one that does not survive scrutiny.

> Because the scholarly process was interrupted by appropriation
> of my article, I had hoped to avert a loss of time before the piece
> got a fair hearing by discussing it where I can. I have no doubt
> that my take on Hand D will be accepted eventually. Good enough.

Yes, well, good luck.

> Tom will continue his examination, I reckon, but it probably won't
> improve much in quality as the quantity mounts. If anyone else
> has reason to discuss the paper I will be happy to respond privately,
> and I will e-mail copies to those who request. I do not want the
> article posted on this group. Sorry. Watry? Authorial? Shakespeare?

Yes, I do plan to review and discuss the rest of your paper, with or
without your participation, and not for your benefit, but for mine.
This is the way I think, which is one of my favorite things to do with
my favorite body part: my head.

It was my hope that you would be able to see the advantage of
discussing your paper on Arden, but one apparently not to be realized.

TR

Robin G.

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 2:33:11 AM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden


On Sep 7, 7:12 pm, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> A Minor Clarification: in my rush, I tarred all mainstream scholars
> instead of the ones my ire was directed against, those who "won't
> touch groups like these."  I value those mainstream scholars who do
> visit groups like this, and HLAS when it was at its best (and vastly
> superior to this group).

Gee, Bob, who might those mainstream scholars be who provoke your
ire?
Name names! In the so-called Golden Age of HLAS did Greenblatt, Bate,
Kermode, Schoenbaum, Wells, Garber drop by from time to time for a
chat?
What happy days indeed!

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 6:37:28 AM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
> Gee, Bob, who might those mainstream scholars be who provoke your
> ire?
> Name names! In the so-called Golden Age of HLAS did Greenblatt, Bate,
> Kermode, Schoenbaum, Wells, Garber drop by from time to time for a
> chat?
> What happy days indeed!

Mainstream scholars who have made it rarely bother with their
"inferiors." But Hals has had contributions from people I consider
mainstream scholars like Terry Ross and Tom Larque, some of whom have
as much of consequence to say as the big names would have. Peter
Groves is the only certified mainstream scholar I can think of offhand
who has contributed to HLAS. But if you're really interested, do a
search of HLAS sometime.

--Bob G.

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 11:00:39 AM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
Not true. I need those contrary outlooks in order to have something to
argue against. But just because I disagree with them does not make it
OK to insult them or disrespect their profession or person. In fact, I
respect someone like Jerry Downs or Pat Dooley or Diana Price much
more than I respect some Strats on my side of the fence. At least they
speak from the authority of their original research and not from ad
hominem arguments. This, at least, is one thing I've learned from
newsgroup discussions, so that in itself has made it worthwhile for
me. I can go back in the hlas archives and observe the evolution in my
way of argument, thinking and dealing with people. Can everyone say
the same?

TR

> --Bob G.

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 2:28:04 PM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
> > I fully understand your wish that no one express
> > outlooks that go against yours.
>
> Not true. I need those contrary outlooks in order to have something to
> argue against.

The outlook that goes against yours is expressed here:

The reason "respected mainstream scholars won't touch groups like
these" is because they only care about their establishment standing,
not about the search for truth. For them it's lose/lose: they either
get creamed by someone like Reedy, or they defeat him but don't get a
gold star for doing so because the deed was not carried on a properly
refereed page. They also fear having to deal with unconventional
points of view--and conclusions without the ton of cited material
certified specialists need to understand anything even slightly
differing from Established Knowledge..

This I amended in a last post as I don't agree with parts of it,
myself.

> But just because I disagree with them does not make it
> OK to insult them or disrespect their profession or person. In fact, I
> respect someone like Jerry Downs or Pat Dooley or Diana Price much
> more than I respect some Strats on my side of the fence. At least they
> speak from the authority of their original research and not from ad
> hominem arguments.

Their general outlook is the same as yours; you only disagree with
their arguments, not their manner of constructing them.

> This, at least, is one thing I've learned from
> newsgroup discussions, so that in itself has made it worthwhile for
> me. I can go back in the hlas archives and observe the evolution in my
> way of argument, thinking and dealing with people. Can everyone say
> the same?
>
> TR

Not I. I've always been candid, but reasonably uninsulting to non-
Crowleys, however the hyper-insultable take what I write. Certainly,
while I don't do orignal research, only original thinking, I don't
speak from ad hominem arguments

--Wotten Wobert

Groundling

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 3:46:33 PM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden


On Sep 7, 10:12 pm, bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>
> > The reason THERE ARE "respected mainstream scholars WHO won't touch groups like
> > these" WHEN SOMETHING OF CONSEQUENCE TO THEIR SPECIALTY IS BEING DISCUSSED is that SUCH SCHOLARS (word removed) care MORE about their establishment standing,
> > (word removed) THAN about the search for truth.  For them it's lose/lose: they either
> > get creamed by someone like Reedy, or they defeat him but don't get a
> > gold star for doing so because the deed was not carried on a properly
> > refereed page.  They also fear having to deal with unconventional
> > points of view--and conclusions without the ton of cited material
> > certified specialists need to understand anything even slightly
> > differing from Established Knowledge.<

>
> Certainly it is also true that many scholars don't want to bother with
> the bilge rife in groups like HLAS, but no reason they should.  You
> ignore it, and concentrate on the non-bilge that is also there, in
> some cases ONLY there, and superior to anything in refereed journals<

But Bob,
Wading through the "bilge" takes time and effort, which most scholars
are unwilling to expend. And they don't "fear" unconventional points
of view but rather deem most just more flat-earth variety bilge. I'm
still hoping a free-flowing lightly moderated forum like Arden will in
time attract more scholars of the caliber of Groves, Andrews, Kathman,
Ross, Downs, et al, to balance out those high-flying unconventional
amateurs like...

Yours truly,
Groundling

Peter Groves

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 5:01:58 PM9/8/08
to Forest...@googlegroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Forest...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Forest...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Reedy
Sent: Monday, 8 September 2008 9:19 AM
To: Forest of Arden
Subject: [Forest of Arden] Re: Van Dam on Sir Thomas More


On Sep 6, 2:12 am, Jerry <geralddo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 5, 1:51 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > miscounts the meter in line 243;
> > and claims the addition is "a slovenly transcript" because it
> > "contains interpolations, written in one and the same hand."

> Line 243 in the manuscript is too short, as Van Dam says,
> not because of the number of syllables per se, but because the
> tenth syllable is unstressed, or feminine. There is little point in
> arguing such things merely to be contrary.

I'm still out of town and using a hotel computer, so it will be later
tongiht or sometime tomorrow before I can make a substantive reply
(Jerry is right that I intend to continue my discussion, however inept
it may be), but let me at least address this:

If you read the entire line, you see that not only is the last
syllable unstressed, but it also begins with a stressed syllable:

/ ˘ / ˘ / ˘ /
˘ / ˘
kill them / cutt their / throts po / ssesse their / how ses

I know I'm not as well-versed as, say, Peter Groves, but I can
recognize a trochiac pentameter when I see it, and I can also tell
that it's there for dramatic effect, not because of error. As I said,
Van Dam miscounts the meter.

TR

He does indeed, though since he doesn't go in for multiple trochees, Occam's Razor suggests it should be thought of as a headless line with feminine ending:

^ Gen|tleměn|, impor|tune me| no far|(ther (TS. 1.1.48)
^ Come|, sir, wĕ| will be|tter ĭt| in Pi|(sa. (TS. 4.4.71)
^ Go| with mě|. \ Ònce more|, nèw ser|vant, wel|(come. (TGV 2.4.118)
^ Then| the whi|ning school|boy, wĭth| his sa|(tchel (AYL 2.7.145)
^ Set| it down|. Is ink| and pa|per rea|(dy? (R3 5.3.75)
^ Say| to mě|, whose for|tunes [shall rise] high|(er (AC 2.3.16)
^ Look|, I draw| a sword| against| conspi|(rators. (JC 5.1.51)
^ Say| again|, <where didst| thou leave| thèse var|(lets? (Tp. 4.1.170)
^ How|? <Traitor>? / Náy, tem|peratel|: your pro|(mise. (Cor. 3.3.67)

Not to mention "^ Ne|ver, ne|ver, ne|ver, ne|ver, ne|ver, ne|(ver."

Peter G.



Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 6:39:17 PM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
On Sep 8, 2:46 pm, Groundling <tre...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> But Bob,
> Wading through the "bilge" takes time and effort, which most scholars
> are unwilling to expend. And they don't "fear" unconventional points
> of view but rather deem most just more flat-earth variety bilge. I'm
> still hoping a free-flowing lightly moderated forum like Arden will in
> time attract more scholars of the caliber of Groves, Andrews, Kathman,
> Ross, Downs, et al, to balance out those high-flying unconventional
> amateurs like...
>
> Yours truly,
> Groundling

Although Arden is primarily a group composed of amateurs, I think a
discussion group such as we have would be useful to work out problems
in papers before sending them out. Catching a mistake such as "lett
vs" in Jerry's paper would have been a valuable service before it was
committed to print. But as I said, not everyone appreciates being
corrected in the light of day, and most especially not by amateurs,
unconventional or otherwise.

TR

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 6:41:26 PM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
Thanks for the lesson; I knew it had to be something. I wonder what
caused him to commit that error?

TR

bobgr...@nut-n-but.net

unread,
Sep 8, 2008, 8:37:06 PM9/8/08
to Forest of Arden
> > > The reason THERE ARE "respected mainstream scholars WHO won't touch groups like
> > > these" WHEN SOMETHING OF CONSEQUENCE TO THEIR SPECIALTY IS BEING DISCUSSED is that SUCH SCHOLARS (word removed) care MORE about their establishment standing,
> > > (word removed) THAN about the search for truth.  For them it's lose/lose: they either
> > > get creamed by someone like Reedy, or they defeat him but don't get a
> > > gold star for doing so because the deed was not carried on a properly
> > > refereed page.  They also fear having to deal with unconventional
> > > points of view--and conclusions without the ton of cited material
> > > certified specialists need to understand anything even slightly
> > > differing from Established Knowledge.<
>
> > Certainly it is also true that many scholars don't want to bother with
> > the bilge rife in groups like HLAS, but no reason they should.  You
> > ignore it, and concentrate on the non-bilge that is also there, in
> > some cases ONLY there, and superior to anything in refereed journals<
>
> But Bob,
> Wading through the "bilge" takes time and effort, which most scholars
> are unwilling to expend.

Actually, you can do it quite quickly. You'll mistake some non-bilge
for bilge, but you'll come across its author again enough times to
catch on to what he's saying. Also: scholars have as much bilge from
proper scholars to wade through, if inclined (which most are not) as
there is at good internet discussion groups as HLAS was.

> And they don't "fear" unconventional points
> of view but rather deem most just more flat-earth variety bilge. I'm
> still hoping a free-flowing lightly moderated forum like Arden will in
> time attract more scholars of the caliber of Groves, Andrews, Kathman,
> Ross, Downs, et al, to balance out those high-flying unconventional
> amateurs like...
>
> Yours truly,
> Groundling
>
And I. But I didn't say they feared unconventional points, or posts,
but having to deal with them without citations providing them with the
background their common sense should be able to provide them with.
But I think it reduces to this: they don't have the ability to deal
with anything more than a percent or two unconventional.

Note: I think it amusing that I'm a member of an organization called
The National Coalition of Independent Scholars. It consists almost
entirely of Ph.D.'s who describe themselves as "independent" because
they aren't affiliated with any college. I'm independent in a
somewhat different way. A friend in it invited me to join and had
enough influence to get me in (as a scholar of experimental poetry).
I thought the certification would help me but it never did. Good
group that does good things for deserving people, but isn't really
right for people like me.

--Bob

John W Kennedy

unread,
Sep 9, 2008, 7:02:31 PM9/9/08
to Forest of Arden


Losing the thread, here -- caused whom to commit what error?

--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 9, 2008, 7:17:36 PM9/9/08
to John W Kennedy, Forest of Arden
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John W Kennedy <john.w....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 6:41 PM, Tom Reedy wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 4:01 pm, "Peter Groves" <Montive...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----

<snip>

>>> As I said,
>>> Van Dam miscounts the meter.
>>>
>>> TR
>>>
>>> He does indeed, though since he doesn't go in for multiple
>>> trochees, Occam's Razor suggests it should be thought of as a
>>> headless line with feminine ending:
>>
>> Thanks for the lesson; I knew it had to be something. I wonder what
>> caused him to commit that error?
>
>
> Losing the thread, here -- caused whom to commit what error?

Van Dam's miscounting the line. It seems easy enough to count 10 syllables.

TR

>
> --
> John W Kennedy

Peter Groves

unread,
Sep 9, 2008, 8:24:33 PM9/9/08
to Forest...@googlegroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Forest...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Forest...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Tom Reedy
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2008 9:18 AM
To: John W Kennedy
Cc: Forest of Arden
Subject: [Forest of Arden] Re: Van Dam on Sir Thomas More


Earlier in his career he wrote <William Shakespeare: Prosody and Text>
(London, 1900) with one Cornelius Stoffel, in which he states that ten
syllables, with stress on every even numbered one, is a necessary and
sufficient condition of metricality in the pentameter (the ONLY allowed
variation is the feminine ending). This sounds highly exclusive, but since
he allowed stress-shifting at will and the most brutal (and often
impossible) elisions, usually to solve problems created by his own weird
textual decisions, his system actually excludes almost nothing.
Unfortunately the result is to translate Shakespeare into Klingon:

The tri'mph| of's pledge|. / Is't cus|tom? / Ay|, marr', is't|. (Ham.
1.4.12)
What wheels|? Racks? Fi|-res? What| flaYING|? boiLING| (WT
3.3.177)
Sir, I'M| made OF| that self|same mett|' 's my sis|ter's (Lr
1.1.71)
And this| vile deed| wese, w'all| our maj'st| and skill| (Ham.
4.1.31)

I quite like the last one: a slightly slurred post-prandial Claudius.

His magic wand can turn prose into verse:

But I've| a son, sir, b'ord'| of law|, some year|
ElDER| than this|, who yet| is no| deaRER|
In my| account|, though this| knave came| someTHING|
Sauc'LY| to th'world| before| he WAS| sent FOR|. (Lr 1.1.19ff.)

By his own logic, therefore, the line in question is unexceptionable:

kill THEM| cutt THEIR| throts PO|ssesse THEIR| howSES|

The remark that so offended some ("I find Van Dam almost ridiculous in some
of his assertions.") could in the light of this kind of nonsense be seen as
a charitable understatement.

Peter G.




>
> --
> John W Kennedy


KCL

unread,
Sep 9, 2008, 8:48:05 PM9/9/08
to Forest of Arden


On Sep 9, 8:24 pm, "Peter Groves" <Montive...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forest...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Forest...@googlegroups.com]
>
> On Behalf Of Tom Reedy
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2008 9:18 AM
> To: John W Kennedy
> Cc: Forest of Arden
> Subject: [Forest of Arden] Re: Van Dam on Sir Thomas More
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:02 PM, John W Kennedy <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
Was anyone so offended?

KCL


>
> > --
> > John W Kennedy- Hide quoted text -

Tom Reedy

unread,
Sep 9, 2008, 11:06:35 PM9/9/08
to Peter Groves, Forest...@googlegroups.com

Ah! Glad to know my instincts were right about this reading of his:

Make them your feet. To kneele to be forgyven
Is safer warrs, then euer you can make 235
Whose discipline is ry't. Why, e'n your hurly 236
Cannot proceed but by obedi-enc. 237
In, in to your obedi-enc ! What rebell, 237a
As mutynies ar incident, by 's name 238
Can still the rout?

> The remark that so offended some ("I find Van Dam almost ridiculous in some
> of his assertions.") could in the light of this kind of nonsense be seen as
> a charitable understatement.

Perhaps I should have said "nonsensical" instead of "ridiculous." I
doubt the result would have changed.

TR

> Peter G.
>

John W Kennedy

unread,
Sep 9, 2008, 11:31:50 PM9/9/08
to Forest of Arden
On Sep 9, 2008, at 8:24 PM, Peter Groves wrote:
> Earlier in his career he wrote <William Shakespeare: Prosody and Text>
> (London, 1900) with one Cornelius Stoffel, in which he states that ten
> syllables, with stress on every even numbered one, is a necessary and
> sufficient condition of metricality in the pentameter (the ONLY
> allowed
> variation is the feminine ending). This sounds highly exclusive,
> but since
> he allowed stress-shifting at will and the most brutal (and often
> impossible) elisions, usually to solve problems created by his own
> weird
> textual decisions, his system actually excludes almost nothing.

His mother was evidently frightened by a French neoclassicist.

--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages