Literacy
Tom Reedy
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
illiterate people almost
> always have illiterate children; literate people almost always have
> literate children.
<snip>
> --Volker
This is certainly news to me. I thought literacy was learned, not inherited.
I'm going to go to my son's school and demand a tuition refund for their
teaching him what he already knew.
TR
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Neuendorffer
> > illiterate people almost
> > always have illiterate children; literate people almost always have
> > literate children.
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> This is certainly news to me. I thought literacy was learned, not inherited.
> I'm going to go to my son's school and demand a tuition refund for their
> teaching him what he already knew.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And sometimes things can't be learned OR inherited:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Reedy wrote:
> My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst. He
> doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I told
> him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an honor to
> be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just sulks off &
> gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all do, eventually.
>
> Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family "hi" & that
> we'll see you all in Stratford in April.
>
> Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
<aaa...@ramail.angelo.edu> wrote:
>In article <36B45D33...@erols.com>,
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> illiterate people almost
>> always have illiterate children; literate people almost always have
>> literate children.
>
>> --Volker
That is beautifully expressed, Volker. Pithy, succint, and
absolutely true. It should kill off Stratfordianism on its own
-- but we know how hard it is to dispose of such hydra-headed
monsters. Is it your own --or did you read it somewhere? And
what thread did it come from? I've missed a lot of posts
recently.
>This is certainly news to me. I thought literacy was learned, not inherited.
>I'm going to go to my son's school and demand a tuition refund for their
>teaching him what he already knew.
Of course, Tom's 'witty' response makes one despair. He
obviously thought it was clever. One feels that one knows
exactly why Mao-tse-tung started the 'Cultural Revolution'.
It's better to be illiterate if being able to read causes you to
lose most other mental faculties -- and that seems to be a common
effect, almost normal among academics.
Paul.
volker multhopp
> >> illiterate people almost
> >> always have illiterate children; literate people almost always have
> >> literate children.
It's mine, though I'm not sure "beautiful" is quite right.
>And
> what thread did it come from?
It's from the "rare facts" thread in a msg dated Sunday, 8:40am EST.
--Volker
Paul Crowley
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> illiterate people almost
> always have illiterate children; literate people almost always have
> literate children.
There was a nice cameo on the way home on the cross-city train
this evening. A 'tinker' family got on. It consisted of the
mother in her mid-to-late thirties, a boy of about 12 and two
girls of about 11 and 6. 'Tinkers' or 'itinerants' or
'travellers' have long been a class apart in Ireland. They're
probably a bit like gypsies elsewhere (although I don't know
enough of those to say). However, the mother was perfectly
representative. She was drunk and very loud. She had the coarse
complexion, the long black hair, the ill-kempt heavy clothes, and
was putting on weight. She soon got out her fags -- and was the
first person I've seen to smoke on that line for a several
months. On getting on the train she had to ask where it was
going, and as it stopped at every station, she loudly asked where
it was -- she couldn't read the signs. She was illiterate -- as
all tinkers have traditionally been.
But her children were entirely different. They were slightly
embarrassed about her, although they were clearly well used to
the situation. However they _could_ read. They read out the
station names to their mother. When someone left a newspaper
behind they grabbed it and began reading out the horoscopes and
so on. They were well behaved, clean and well-dressed in current
teen-age fashion.
It's the end of a long tradition. Those kids will almost
certainly give up the travelling life and merge into the rest of
the community. Their ability to read changes everything.
I mention this as a case of a breach of "Volker's rule". It is
an illuminating one. We rarely, in normal life, encounter
illiterate parents of literate children or vice versa. Yet the
Strats want us to believe that it happened TWICE -- as child and
as parent -- with respect to their 'greatest writer that ever
lived'.
Paul.
KQKnave
Oops. Spoke too soon.
In article <36b7696c...@news.indigo.ie>, crow...@hxtmail.cxm (Paul
Crowley) writes:
Jim
Tom Reedy
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) wrote:
<snip>
> Jim
It looks like it's going to be a race. Whoever posts his latest offering
first wins.
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > illiterate people almost
> > always have illiterate children; literate people almost always have
> > literate children.
> illiterate parents of literate children or vice versa. Yet the
> Strats want us to believe that it happened TWICE -- as child and
> as parent -- with respect to their 'greatest writer that ever
> lived'.
Perhaps the Shakspere family, after experiencing the apparent failure
of William's experiment, decided to go back to old ways.
--Volker
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Paul Crowley wrote:
<snip>
>
> I mention this as a case of a breach of "Volker's rule". It is
> an illuminating one. We rarely, in normal life, encounter
> illiterate parents of literate children or vice versa. Yet the
> Strats want us to believe that it happened TWICE -- as child and
> as parent -- with respect to their 'greatest writer that ever
> lived'.
>
Not quite correct. What we'd _like_ is for you to make some attempt to
consider Elizabethan customs concerning education and literacy when you
next favor us with your reasoning(and I use that term with some
reluctance) on this allegedly illiterate family.
No anti-Stratfordian(that I know of) has ever acknowledged the fact that
it was customary in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries for literate
English women to make their marks on legal documents. I suspect that this
well established fact is ignored for no other reason than that its
acknowledgement makes it difficult to determine with any reliability
whether or not a particular woman was illiterate. And that, of course,
drastically weakens the anti-Stratfordian argument at the outset.
It was also customary for English women to receive much less education
than men. In the past, I've told Volker of the Banbury school charter
which stated that girls could attend only until they could read. (I don't
believe he made a response.) The inference is that it would not be out of
the ordinary if the Stratfordian girls were but partially literate. I
suppose these sorts of points are ignored because "Shaksper's children may
have been illiterate, they may have been partially literate, or they may
have been literate" isn't a very persuasive way to start an authorship
argument.
Anti-Stratfordians also take as axiomatic that a 60 year old Elizabethan
woman, who didn't recognize her dead husband's handwriting in a old Latin
manuscript, was necessarily illiterate despite the fact that she signed at
least one document. It's not. It's quite disputable. I doubt that any
study has ever been done that would show what proportion of people would
recognize handwriting under such circumstances, yet that's clearly
necessary to evaluate the anecdote's value as evidence.
How about an impromptu unscientific survey. I am curious. Who here is
adept at recognizing handwriting and who here is not?
Bob has already said that he is not.
I'm pretty sure I could develope a strategy for recognizing handwriting
but it hasn't come naturally. At the moment, my ability to recognize
handwriting is poor.
Paul believes that he is good at it.
2 to 1, so far.
It's also sometimes stated without any real proof that illiterate
Elizabethans sometimes signed legal documents. It's not at all obvious
that any illiterate would have bothered to learn to sign their name at a
time when literate men sometimes made their mark. I've considered Paul's
point that people sometimes pretend to more education than they have. I'm
guessing that everyone in Stratford knew how just educated (or uneducated)
Susanna was so any pretence on her part would have been futile.
Anti-Strats usually ignore the fact that reading was taught before writing
and that the end result was that many Elizabethans could read but not
write. I suspect this fact is ignored because it casts some doubt on one
of the basic tenets of anti-Stratfordian dogma: that John Shakespeare was
completely illiterate. (It doesn't help their "illiterate children"
argument either.)
I don't think I've seen an acknowledgement by an anti-Stratfordian of the
Stratfordian point(made many times) that an Elizabethan middleclass
father who was absent most of the year was not in a good position to
dictate against the generally accepted custom that daughters receive an
inferior education. Perhaps there's a good reason to discount this point.
Let's hear it.
It might be interesting to reconsider Abraham Lincoln, a man widely
considered to be the United State's best political writer. (I suppose
Thomas Jefferson might split the vote but he had a lot more years to
write.)
Abraham Lincoln had at most but a year of school and the literacy level of
his parents was apparently no better than that of Shakespere's. His
father was a noted story teller but according to Abe, could only
"bunglingly sign his own name but was otherwise illiterate." His birth
mother was said to be beautiful and "intellectual" by those who knew her
but she signed all legal documents with an X. Anti-Stratfordians might
find it curious that according to tradition she could read but not write.
His stepmother is also said to have been illiterate probably because she
signed legal documents with an X. Anti-Stratfordians may be amazed at the
fact that she is known to have owned a few books. Many anti-Stratfordians
have made remarks concerning how small and unimportant Stratford was. I
doubt they ever consider how small and unimportant rural Pigeon Creek,
Indiana was. By most definitions, it wasn't even a town.
According to anti-Stratfordian dogma, Abraham Lincoln couldn't have done
what he did. Fortunately, genius has little regard for anti-Stratfordian
dogma.
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
Richard Nathan
>
(snip)
>
>How about an impromptu unscientific survey. I am curious. Who here is
>adept at recognizing handwriting and who here is not?
>
In my case, it would depend on the individual handwriting. I know some
people who have a handwriting style which is unique to them, and therefore
readily identifiable. But most of the people I know don't have a
noticably different handwriting - so I can't identify their writing.
(snip)
>>
>Anti-Strats usually ignore the fact that reading was taught before writing
>and that the end result was that many Elizabethans could read but not
>write. I suspect this fact is ignored because it casts some doubt on one
>of the basic tenets of anti-Stratfordian dogma: that John Shakespeare was
>completely illiterate. (It doesn't help their "illiterate children"
>argument either.)
I was in an optomitrist's office a few months ago, and I started reading
an old magazine article (it was either in National Geographic or the
Smithsonian). It was about Elizabethan England, but had nothing to do
with Shakespeare. However, it did have a paragraph referring to literacy,
and it made the point that there were MANY people who could read, but
could not write. This point has been made here before, but Oxfordians
refuse to believe it.
It does seem odd to think of people being able to read, but not write,
because in the 20th Century we are taught both skills at the same time.
It seems odd to imagine being able to read, but not write, but that does
seem to be the truth of the matter. I wonder if this has anything to do
with the difficulty of using writing instruments of the time (quill pens)
- or just has to do with teaching.
KQKnave
In article <79f8cu$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Richard Nathan
<Richard...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> I wonder if this has anything to do
>with the difficulty of using writing instruments of the time (quill pens)
Probably. Perishable resources cost money, and I'm sure
that it was quite an expense for those people. Today, organic
chemistry is not taught at the high school level, even though
it is more relevant to everyday life than physics, because
glassware, chemicals and waste disposal cost money.
Jim
volker multhopp
> I was in an optomitrist's office a few months ago, and I started reading
> an old magazine article (it was either in National Geographic or the
> Smithsonian). It was about Elizabethan England, but had nothing to do
> with Shakespeare. However, it did have a paragraph referring to literacy,
> and it made the point that there were MANY people who could read, but
> could not write. This point has been made here before, but Oxfordians
> refuse to believe it.
The point has been stated before, but never made credible. Again,
let's see the evidence.
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> >
> >How about an impromptu unscientific survey. I am curious. Who here is
> >adept at recognizing handwriting and who here is not?
> >
>
writing, enough time, and unstressful working conditions. I wouldn't
turn down help from those more experienced at it than I, though.
> In my case, it would depend on the individual handwriting. I know some
> people who have a handwriting style which is unique to them, and therefore
> readily identifiable. But most of the people I know don't have a
> noticably different handwriting - so I can't identify their writing.
>
And some have unique but variable handwriting.
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
Hi Volker.
I was gonna start a thread about Volkervorkian, a madman who killed writers
mercifully, but as you say "The point has been stated before, but never made
credible. Again, let's see the evidence.." and these are words to live by (if
you call that living).
So "Viva Lost Vagueness"
Oxfordians will go to Baconland, the Garden of Kit, the Black Derby, etc. as
you are backlogged sEVERely and cannot answer the charges launched on your
stand (see Oxford scrounging to the lord when you claim he's a world beater
writer and actor, then he dies but Shakespeare doesn't).
Surrender the literacy issue.
Prove beyond one reasonable iota that deVere wrote any play or sonnet. Apply
the standards you use to refute Shakespeare himself.
Surrender the calendar issue, too.
DeVere is tied to the queen, not to the king.
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp
> Surrender the literacy issue.
> Prove beyond one reasonable iota that deVere wrote any play or sonnet.
Puttenham and Meres both prove Oxford wrote plays, specifically
comedies. (Iota of what?)
> Surrender the calendar issue, too.
> DeVere is tied to the queen, not to the king.
What calendar issue?
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Surrender the literacy issue.
> > Prove beyond one reasonable iota that deVere wrote any play or sonnet.
>
> Puttenham and Meres both prove Oxford wrote plays, specifically
> comedies.
No, their testimony is EVIDENCE that he wrote ONE comedy.
(Actually, I can't remember what Puttenham said, but Meres praised
Oxford for the writing of comedy without specifying how many plays he
had written.)
Tom Reedy
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Surrender the literacy issue.
> > Prove beyond one reasonable iota that deVere wrote any play or sonnet.
>
> Puttenham and Meres both prove Oxford wrote plays, specifically
>
Your proof is certainly faulty--you yourself don't take Meres word that
William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him, but that it was
Oxford, so why are you trotting out unreliable evidence for Oxford's
authorship of anything? If Meres proves Oxford wrote plays, he also proves
Shakespeare wrote plays.
The plays attributed to Oxford were most probably written by Lyly. It's very
suspicious that Oxford had a known poet working for him.
> > Surrender the calendar issue, too.
> > DeVere is tied to the queen, not to the king.
>
> What calendar issue?
>
> --Volker
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Caius Marcius
>consider Elizabethan customs concerning education and literacy when
you
>next favor us with your reasoning(and I use that term with some
>reluctance) on this allegedly illiterate family.
CADE
How now! who's there?
Enter some, bringing forward the Clerk of Chatham
SMITH
The clerk of Chatham: he can write and read and cast accompt.
CADE
O monstrous!
SMITH
We took him setting of boys' copies.
CADE
Here's a villain!
SMITH
Has a book in his pocket with red letters in't.
CADE
Nay, then, he is a conjurer.
DICK
Nay, he can make obligations, and write court-hand.
CADE
I am sorry for't: the man is a proper man, of mine
honour; unless I find him guilty, he shall not die.
Come hither, sirrah, I must examine thee: what is thy name?
Clerk
Emmanuel.
DICK
They use to write it on the top of letters: 'twill
go hard with you.
CADE
Let me alone. Dost thou use to write thy name? or
hast thou a mark to thyself, like an honest
plain-dealing man?
CLERK
Sir, I thank God, I have been so well brought up
that I can write my name.
ALL
He hath confessed: away with him! he's a villain
and a traitor.
CADE
Away with him, I say! hang him with his pen and
ink-horn about his neck.
Exit one with the Clerk
- 2 Henry VI, IV,ii
It's not surprising that Shakespeare - or any writer - would play
Cade's proud illiteracy for laughs. But as a playwright for a largely
common audience, I think we are safe to assume that the audience would
have enjoyed the mockery of Cade as well. Oxfordians seems to think
that the typical Elizabethan below the rank of Earl would have reacted
to signs of literacy like Jack Cade to the Clerk of Chatham. But just
as Shakespeare shows Cade's behavior to be both laughable and barbaric,
so to did the "culture of illiteracy" perish for good during the
Elizabethan-Jacobean era. According to George Sampson in The Concise
Cambridge History of English Literature, this era saw:
(1) The first *printed* popular literature - popular art has always
existed of course, but new genres were created whose primary mode of
dissemination was print. This literature included sermons, theological
tracts, political pamphlets, verse satire on current affairs, romances,
collections of epigrams, and collections of ballads. Unlike the
printed material of earlier eras which were directed at a scholarly and
learned audience, the new printed literature was aimed as the less
well-advantaged general public: "The ballad-mongers anticipated the
lower forms of modern journalism in giving the public what the public
is always alleged to want, 疎mazing' news, 壮tartling revelations', and
vivid accounts of monstrosities, portents, prodigies, disasters,
executions, confessions, and repentances. Only the absence of
壮ensational' divorces us that we are not moving among the familiar
features of the modern newspapers" (pp. 222-223)
(2) In 1557, the publishing business was organized into a Guild, and by
1560 it was recognized as one of the Liveried Companies of the City.
Sampson writes "In 1582 there were 22 printing houses in London. In
1586 there were 25. By 1640 the number had risen to 60. One effect of
the incorporation of the publishing guild was to effectively end the
printing that had taken place at in several (unnamed) provincial towns
in the first half of the sixteenth century (the Crown awarded a
monopolies to many of the London guilds). After 1557, though there was
no printing done outside London until 1582. However, "the provinces
were supplied [with printed material] by fairs or traveling chapmen"
(p. 227)
(3) Libraries became more widespread - for the first time, libraries
were founded not only by universities and religious orders but by
private tradesmen acting in a philanthropic capacity (e.g., the Chethem
library in Manchester was founded by Humphrey Chethem (1580-1653), a
wealthy tradesmen (p. 228-29).
(4) The mercantile classes themselves became increasingly conscious
that education was their surest path to a secure prosperity. JB
Black's The Reign of Elizabeth: 1558-1603 (1959) devotes a ten-page
section to the status of education during that era, which he portrays
as a major growth industry:
[begin quote] In the earlier years of [Elizabeth's] reign it had been
publicly announced in the commons that England was sadly lacking in
schools, that the universities were decayed, and that many great market
towns were without either school or preacher. This was at once a
challenge and an incentive - not to the state but to private
enterprise, for the creative power lay with the individual. Conscious
of the fact that education was the "open sesame" to honour, distinction
& power, and eager to immortalize themselves in stone & lime, in
scholarships and bursaries, and in other aids to learning, the rich
merchant on whom fortune had smiled, the prosperous industrialist, the
well-to-do yeoman, the wealthy brewer and clothier, and - not the least
- the high-minded cleric who valued education as a priceless entity in
itself - all put their hands in their pocket so to make good the losses
caused by the upheaval of the Reformation; and soon the builders were
busy not only in the south-east, but also in the backward north-west
and north (p. 320).
None of this "proves" - or is intended to prove - anything about the
literacy of Shakespeare himself or his family. What is does suggest is
that the society in which he flourished held literacy and education in
increasing esteem.
- CMC
Richard Nathan
>Richard Nathan wrote:
>
>> I was in an optomitrist's office a few months ago, and I started reading
>> an old magazine article (it was either in National Geographic or the
>> Smithsonian). It was about Elizabethan England, but had nothing to do
>> with Shakespeare. However, it did have a paragraph referring to literacy,
>> and it made the point that there were MANY people who could read, but
>> could not write. This point has been made here before, but Oxfordians
>> refuse to believe it.
>
> The point has been stated before, but never made credible. Again,
>let's see the evidence.
>
> --Volker
Are you accusing me of lying, or are you accusing the writer of the
article of lying?
The article was not written about the authorship issue, it was written
about Elizabethan England. It clearly stated that there were a lot more
people who could read than could write.
What would be the motivation for lying?
I'm sure this is stated in a lot of history books. Are they all lying?
What would constitute proof for you?
volker multhopp
> The plays attributed to Oxford were most probably written by Lyly.
You obviously know more about Elizabethan playwrights that Puttenham or
Meres or anyone else.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> The plays attributed to Oxford were most probably written by Lyly.
You obviously know more about Elizabethan playwrights than Puttenham or
Tom Reedy
Why not? You obviously know more than Meres did. He said Shakespeare wrote
plays, and named several of them. Why don't you take his word for it?
As to Lyly ghosting for Oxford, why not? He wrote 2 plays that were
performed by Oxford's Boys: "Alexander, Campaspe, and Diogenes," possibly
1580-84, and "Sappho and Phao," 1582-84. Both of these were comedies. Maybe
Puttenham and Meres were confused, and they thought Oxford wrote them. In
any case, why would Oxford hire a playwright if he were Shakespeare? Wasn't
his own prodigious output enough for his company of players? Remember, this
was before Oxford's disgraceful behavior during the Spanish War. In 1584 he
was still welcome at the court and getting votes every year for the Order of
the Garter.
The only play we know of that was possibly attributed to Oxford was "Agamemnon
and Ulysses," performed at court 27 Dec 1584, described as "classical legend,"
not as a comedy.
During 1599-1600 Oxford's Men performed "The Weakest Go to the Wall," a play
attributed in part to Dekker. In 1601 they performed "George Scanderbarge,"
an anonymous lost play described as a "foreign history." Note that Oxford's
Men were in direct competition with Shakespeare's troupe, the Lord
Chamberlain's Men, a situation hardly credible if Oxford were Shakespeare.
No, the Oxford-as-Shakespeare scenerio doesn't fly, not at all.
Shakespeare-as-Shakespeare has too much going for it, including documentary
evidence, which you refuse to rebut (and I don't blame you; it can't be done).
TR
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Surrender the literacy issue.
> > Prove beyond one reasonable iota that deVere wrote any play or sonnet.
>
> Puttenham and Meres both prove Oxford wrote plays, specifically
> comedies. (Iota of what?)
I'll go with Puttenham and Meres and two distinct canons. Do you agree to
that? One for Oxford, one for Shakespeare. Otherwise, my question was to
introduce proof that Oxford wrote any of the Shakespeare canon. You would
have to start somewhere, pick a play and use your same standards on Oxford
that you use on William.
In other words, build a platform instead of taking one apart.
I'm saying that the Oxfordian scenario is not a free-standing reliable
argument, its a series of denials of another scenario.
> > Surrender the calendar issue, too.
> > DeVere is tied to the queen, not to the king.
>
> What calendar issue?
The one about Cymbeline being written in 1609 or 1610, disqualifying your
guy entirely.
Greg Reynolds
volker multhopp
>
> You would
> have to start somewhere, pick a play and use your same standards on Oxford
> that you use on William.
No, I don't. Strats claim their case is proved by the evidence, yet
they launch into a tamtrum when the evidence is called for. I'm saying
there are different models for authorship, and mine is the most
plausible.
> In other words, build a platform instead of taking one apart.
I have one, see my theory at
http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/Oxford.htm.
> I'm saying that the Oxfordian scenario is not a free-standing reliable
> argument, its a series of denials of another scenario.
No, it has its own challengeable framework, although it was born on the
implausibility of the various tattered Stratfordian models.
> > What calendar issue?
> The one about Cymbeline being written in 1609 or 1610, disqualifying your
> guy entirely.
I'm not familiar with this argument, but since I've smashed the Tempest
dating and eviscerated Kathman's relevant article (where is his promised
rebuttal?), maybe I can give Cymbeline a push back, too. So how do you
know this date, 1609-10?
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > The plays attributed to Oxford were most probably written by Lyly.
>
> Meres or anyone else.
>
> --Volker
>
Come on, Volker: Tom doesn't know anything that Meres and Puttenham
didn't know. He's just less vulnerable to the torture chambers for
revealing truths a Lord of the Eminence of Oxford would not have
wanted known about himself. Plus, he is, as we all know, a rotter.
--Bob G.
Dave Kathman
Hold your horses, Volker. I know I said I'd try to get to it this
weekend,
but it doesn't look like I'll have the time. I have a full and busy
life
to lead, and there are a number of things with higher priority right now
than writing up a response to your article. I do appreciate the
feedback,
and I will respond when I can find the time to do a proper job. In the
meantime, I'm going to repost three things of mine from the past two
years. The first is part of a response to criticisms of my Tempest
article
by Patrick Sullivan, aka SUSUPPLY, in May 1997; the next two are
responses
to the original drafts of Volker's "Dating the Tempest" which he posted
here in November 1998. These are not meant to replace a full response,
which I will get to one of these days and which will elaborate on many
of the points I raise below, but they cover many of the claims
and issues that Volker raises.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
**************************
(Posted to humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare on 5/5/97)
First of all, note what I said in the Sobran article: "while verbal
parallels are not completely without value if they are used judiciously
and with a knowledge of the conventions of Elizabethan writing
(qualities
generally lacking in Sobran's article), even then their primary value is
as a supplement to more systematic and sophisticated methods of
investigating authorship." Now, attribution studies and source studies
are not the same thing, but similar caveats apply. The verbal parallels
in the Tempest article are only one part of a larger argument; I
specifically wrote in the "Miscellaneous Verbal Parallels" section that
"none of the following verbal parallels would have much value as
evidence taken by themselves, but combined with the mass of
correspondences noted above, I think they can be taken as further
evidence of Shakespeare's knowledge of Strachey's account." That's
entirely consistent with the passage quoted just above. Many of the
parallels between Strachey and the Tempest are narrative parallels.
For example, the Sea Venture was one of a fleet of ships going to
Virginia, carrying the new Governor of Virginia; it was separated by
a storm from the rest of the fleet, who went on to Virginia assuming
that the Governor had drowned. The ship in the Tempest is one of a
fleet of ships going to Naples, carrying the King of Naples; it is
separated by a storm from the rest of the fleet, who go on to Naples
assuming that the King has drowned. In both cases the ship does not
sink, but is lodged between rocks offshore, and everybody makes it
ashore alive. In both cases the parties unexpectedly find the island to
be bountiful, and some of the "common" members of the party decide to
rebel against their leaders in order to stay and live there. And so on
and so on, yadda yadda yadda -- I don't want to repeat the whole article
here. Taken together, these narrative parallels are pretty striking by
themselves, and are much more specific and numerous than anything
I've seen in other travel accounts, including those advanced by
Oxfordians. Now, in many cases, verbal parallels accompany the
narrative ones (examples are in the article), and some of these are
pretty unusual; such a combination of narrative and verbal parallels
is more significant than either one by itself. On top of all this, we
have miscellaneous other verbal parallels which aren't connected to
the narrative; as I said in the passage quoted above, I wouldn't put
much stock in these by themselves, but on top of all the other
correspondences they provide added evidence.
Now, what Sobran primarily does is just list a bunch of verbal
parallels, without placing them in a larger context. He does claim that
there are certain recurring themes and images in both Oxford's and
Shakespeare's poetry, but as I noted in the article these are primarily
Elizabethan commonplaces which can be found in the work of many
other poets -- things like the lark as herald of the morning, dew
melting,
characters from classical mythology, and so on. I just don't see
anything distinctive or significant overall in the parallels Sobran
gives,
and I don't think anybody else who's familiar with Elizabethan poetry
would either. I illustrated this point in the article by taking a poem
by
Oxford's fellow courtier Sir Edward Dyer and finding a bunch of
parallels from Shakespeare's works, of the same type found by Sobran,
in the first dozen lines. I could repeat the exercise with any other
contemporary poet. If some Oxfordian can find another work with
anywhere near the parallels to the Tempest that Strachey's letter has,
and enumerate those parallels as I've done for Strachey and the other
two Bermuda narratives, I'd love to see it. I've looked at a whole
bunch
of travel narratives and have failed to find such a work, but I'm always
willing to listen.
Another problem with Sobran is that he takes his parallels
indiscriminately from all of Shakespeare's plays and poetry, which is a
huge corpus to draw from. In contrast, I described parallels between
Strachey's letter (mostly the first half of the letter, from which 90%
of the parallels come) and a single play of Shakespeare's. There's a
huge
difference between taking parallels willy-nilly from 38 plays, two long
narrative poems, and a sonnet sequence, and finding a concentration of
parallels in a single play, one of Shakespeare's shortest. (This is not
even getting into the different nature of the parallels, noted above.)
There's more I could say on this, but I've got to go. Thank you for the
feedback.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
Re: Undating the *Tempest*Â
Author: david joseph kathman <dj...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1998/11/22
Forum: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
volker multhopp wrote:
>
> Undating the *Tempest*
[snip]
I've already responded briefly to Volker by e-mail, but I thought
I should do the same to the group. As I told Volker, I'm glad to
see this kind of criticism. I was hoping for some of it when I
first posted the article 2 1/2 years ago, but my hope was in vain.
There was a general article on the Oxfordian web page which didn't
actually address my article (having been written before it), and
in the spring of last year there was a very hostile critique posted
on this newsgroup by Patrick Sullivan (aka SUSUPPLY), which only
addressed a few of the points I had made, and to which I replied
at the time.
I don't have time to respond point-by-point to what Volker has
written, but I'll repeat the gist of what I've told him by e-mail.
I specifically said in the article that purely verbal parallels of
the type Volker has focused on in this first installment have
little value just by themselves. Any specific parallel in isolation
is virtually worthless for source or attribution study; it's their
cumulative effect that has to be gauged. It's possible for purely
verbal parallels to be concentrated and striking enough that we
can be virtually certain that the author of one work had read
another -- there is such a relationship between Thomas Nashe's
pamphlets of the 1590s and many of Shakespeare's plays, for
example. I don't think the purely verbal parallels between Strachey
and The Tempest are enough, by themselves, for us to be sure
of a relationship between the works. Much more important are the
similarities in plot and substance, most of which are also accompanied
by verbal parallels, including some of the most striking. In my
opinion it's the cumulative and intertwined similarities in plot,
theme, and phrasing that is the most important evidence that
Shakespeare had read Strachey closely before (and perhaps even while)
writing his play; the miscellaneous verbal parallels are just
icing on the cake.
Also, I have never insisted that anybody has to accept my
conclusions about Strachey and The Tempest; I've just presented
the case for Shakespeare's indebtedness as completely as I could,
and let each person decide. I was hoping to at least refute the
occasional ludicrous Oxfordian claim that there is no similarity
between Strachey and The Tempest, which I hope we can all agree is
not the case.
I look forward to seeing what Volker has to say on the rest of the
paper.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Undating the *Tempest* -- Part 3Â
Author: david joseph kathman <dj...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 1998/11/23
Forum: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
I only have a few minutes for some quick observations. A full
response to Volker will have to wait, probably until the weekend.
volker multhopp wrote:
>
> BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> > 1. The notion that Strachey remembered enough of The Tempest to crib
> > from it to write a memoir of his ACTUAL experiences is daffy.
>
> Why is that? He didn't have to memorize it. He was himself a
> playwright; he only had to remember some words and phrases. Maybe it
> was a favorite play of his.
Actually, Strachey wasn't a playwright, just a poet and a sharer in
the Blackfriars theater (when it was still occupied by a boys' company).
But I have to agree with Bob here. It wasn't just words and phrases
that Strachey "remembered", but descriptions and events. You have to
believe not only that Strachey "borrowed" language from Shakespeare,
but that the events he described somehow paralleled those in
Shakespeare's play. And it's not just Strachey; although he is the most
important source, the other two pamphlets I mentioned, Jourdain and
the anonymous *True Declaration*, describe the same basic events,
and both are reflected by verbal parallels in *The Tempest*, though
not as many as with Strachey. You have to somehow believe that not
only Strachey, but Jourdain and the *True Declaration* author,
independently "remembered" Shakespeare's play in writing their
accounts. And I might add that Strachey and Jourdain were on
different continents when they wrote their accounts;
Jourdain came back to England with the first ships in the summer of
1610, while Strachey stayed in Virginia until the fall of 1611.
> >(Although
> > I, of course, understand that a mere mortal like he would not be able to
> > draw on his own experiences for material like a God such as Shakespeare
> > was, and would be driven to books as Shakespeare rarely was.)
>
> It wasn't his experiences that was a a problem-- it was language. How
> could he miss if he borrowed from Shakespeare?
But his experiences are a factor, along with the language. You try to
downplay the plot similarities, but I think they're awfully convincing.
I'll have to wait to respond fully to your post.
> > 2. That Strachey later plagiarized the Folio's version of The Tempest
> > makes minimally more sense. Whom, by the way, did he plagiarize for
> > his Historie of Travell into Virginia Britania?
>
> I don't know. If someone like David does the legwork to show all the
> verbal parallels to X, and X's previous work is available as etext, I'll
> take a crack at determining whether Strachey or X is the original
> author.
Setting aside Strachey's *Historie of Travell* for a moment, let's get
back to the claim that Bob is responding to here, which I find very
weak. You suggest that the Strachey letter is "bogus", that it was
actually written in 1625 specifically for the Hakluyt volume, and
that it drew upon the printed version of *The Tempest* from the
First Folio. If so, not only would the date of the letter (July 15,
1610) have to have been falsified, but so would the attribution, for
Strachey had died in 1619. What possible purpose could be served
by writing this account of the Bermuda shipwreck based on
Shakespeare and slapping a false date and author on it? This is
even loopier than your claim that the conspirators
continued to forge theatrical documents mentioning "William Shakespeare"
after the death of Oxford, just to "keep the illusion alive". I'm
afraid none of this makes the slightest bit of sense in any kind of
rational world; it's just a series of increasingly desperate
rationalizations
you've come up with to save your scenario. I have to give you credit
for doing all this with a straight face, but it bears little resemblance
to actual literary history.
> > 3. Even if everything you said in your first two installments were valid,
>
> Is there something you don't accept?
>
> > it does not follow that Shakespeare did not copy from Strachey--only
> > that he NEED not have.
>
> He didn't need to. WS did not scoop his own language from the letter
> of a 2nd rate writer.
Again, we have the Oxfordian refusal to believe that Shakespeare ever
borrowed from inferior writers. I don't know what I can say that would
change your mind, so I won't try.
> > 4. Why is the first known production of The Tempest 1 November 1611?
> > Shortly after the Bermuda shipwreck.
>
> Performances became increasingly well documented. There had to be a
> first recorded one. The play was probably revived in wake of interest
> due to the Sea-Venture wreck, and the play was brought to court when it
> was noted.
>
> > 5. I suspect Dave or someone will bring up the evidence for believing
> > the Strachey report circulated in manuscript when the scholars said
> > it did.
>
> Is this an argument or a wish?
The Strachey letter was dated July 15, 1610, and addressed to an
"Excellent Lady" who Charles Mills Gayley identified in his 1917
book *Shakespeare and the Founders of Liberty and America*
(unfortunately, I don't have that book handy and can't remember who
she was). It's apparent from what Strachey says in the letter that it
was
intended to be circulated among the members of the Virginia Company,
and the portions of the letter were incorporated into the *True
Declaration*,
as was shown by Morton Luce in the first Arden *Tempest* and by
Gayley (cited above). A more direct source for the *True Declaration*
is
a second, more upbeat "Despatch" by Strachey (apparently meant for the
public rather than the Company members); the manuscript of this
"Despatch", in Strachey's handwriting, still survives. If Strachey's
*True
Reportory* was forged, as you suggest, the forgers did an awfully good
job of making it fit seamlessly into the other documents relating to the
Sea-Venture shipwreck written in 1610-11.
> > Volker, you should have stuck with the idea that the parallels Dave cites
> > are insufficient--
>
> Why? Clearly one writer cribbed off the other. You simply believe--
> because of your authorship bias-- that Shakespeare could not use his own
> language until he was empowered by little Strachey. When's the last
> time you saw or read a Strachey play?
No, Bob doesn't believe this because of his "authorship bias", he
believes
it because it's the only scenario that makes any sense. You have to
posit all kinds of very unlikely scenarios, which I've described above,
for your story to have any coherence.
> >but that would have made it very hard to argue for
> > Oxford elsewhere, so I understand your reluctance to have done so.
>
> My argument takes nothing away from Shakspere. You are merely
> unwilling to acknowledge the high probability that Shakespeare did not
> use Strachey, because you think that keeps your candidate alive. If
> Shakspere is the author, no amount of truth will hurt him.
"High probability"? Oh, Volker, that's rich. Your contortions and
bluster are only showing people how strong the evidence is that
Shakespeare did rely on Strachey's account. The fact that you have
to come up with such farfetched scenarios in order to deny the
dependence should tell you something.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > You would
> > have to start somewhere, pick a play and use your same standards on Oxford
> > that you use on William.
>
> No, I don't. Strats claim their case is proved by the evidence, yet
> they launch into a tamtrum when the evidence is called for. I'm saying
> there are different models for authorship, and mine is the most
> plausible.
>
> > In other words, build a platform instead of taking one apart.
>
> I have one, see my theory at
> http://www.erols.com/volker/Shakes/Oxford.htm.
>
> > I'm saying that the Oxfordian scenario is not a free-standing reliable
> > argument, its a series of denials of another scenario.
>
> No, it has its own challengeable framework, although it was born on the
> implausibility of the various tattered Stratfordian models.
>
> > > What calendar issue?
>
> > The one about Cymbeline being written in 1609 or 1610, disqualifying your
> > guy entirely.
>
> I'm not familiar with this argument, but since I've smashed the Tempest
> dating and eviscerated Kathman's relevant article (where is his promised
> know this date, 1609-10?
>
> --Volker
You're really becoming megalomaniacal, Volker. Or have you been so all
along and I've not noticed it? You haven't "smashed" Kathman's article.
And your claim that we Stratfordians have tantrums when asked to present
evidence for our case is quite bereft of reason. We present evidence
over and over and over again. You either ignore it, or define it as
not evidence. As I've told you possibly literally a hundred times by
now, the fact that you can, in your own mind, explain away evidence
for Stratfordianism does not make it not evidence; at best, it only
makes it CONTRAVERTED evidence.
Just to show you how fair I am, I'm going here to disagree with Tom
Reedy that there's no INDIRECT evidence for Oxford's authorship of
the plays. I think the various word-games that have been found in
the plays are indirect evidence that he wrote the plays--terrible
evidence (since [1] the anagrams, puns, etc., are very poor ones that
could easily be explained as coincidences; [2] similar word-games
could be found for others {how about the sea's getting into so many
plays being proof that Meres wrote them?}; and [3] except for maybe
one or two, the word-games' presence in the plays does not prove any
person whose name they are plays on wrote the plays), but evidence
nonetheless; that Oxford was said to have written a play is weak
circumstantial evidence that he wrote the Shakespearean plays, a known
playwright being more likely to have done that than one not a
known playwright; that Gabriel Harvey used Latin in a poem to Oxford
that can be loosely translated as having something to do with shaking
spears is weak indirect evidence that Oxford was Shakespeare, a man
with ANY connection to a word or phrase like "Shakespeare" being more
likely to have been Shakespeare than one with no such connection,
though this is almost preposterously weak indirect evidence (since
the reference is in Latin, doesn't necessarily translate to "shake
spears," has nothing to do with writing, is not used as a name,
appears very strongly to be coincidental [since the English
translatation consists of two common words often used together], and
appears some ten years before the name "Shakespeare" first appears in
the records; and so forth. Evidence, for me, is anything that can
be used to justify a position; direct evidence is any CONCRETE
evidence that indicates but doesn't necessarily prove a proposition
IN ONE STEP--e.g., a name know to have been applied to the Stratford
man on the author's published plays is concrete evidence that
indicates in one step that the Stratford man wrote said plays. You
have NO SUCH EVIDENCE to support your view.
I'd love, by the way, to find out what YOUR definition of evidence is.
Any fact or non-fact that you think favors your belief system?
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with this argument, but since I've smashed the Tempest
> > dating and eviscerated Kathman's relevant article (where is his promised
> > rebuttal?),
> Hold your horses, Volker. I know I said I'd try to get to it this
> weekend,
> but it doesn't look like I'll have the time. I have a full and busy
> life
> to lead, and there are a number of things with higher priority right now
> than writing up a response to your article. I do appreciate the
> feedback,
> and I will respond when I can find the time to do a proper job.
We all have busy lives, so I can appreciate your problem. However, I
am concerned that you might be allowing this problem to rationalize
failure to defend your position.
Here is the state of the debate:
1) [Dave found] There is an extensive core of common special vocabulary
between *Tempest* and the Strachey letter. (Dave also says plot they
are tied by plot simularities, but this argument is underdeveloped and
should be restated to be taken seriously.)
2) The common vocabulary is so extensive that one piece clearly was
written with the assistance of the other. There are no intrinsic clues
to help us determine which one came first.
3) [Volker found] The common special vocabulary overwhelmingly already
exists in the rest of the canon. This shows us that WS could have
written *Tempest* without the assistance of Strachey.
4) Dave has not shown that the special vocabulary pre-existed in
Strachey; ie there is no reason to believe the Strachey letter could
have been written without the *Tempest*.
Now, Dave, without working up your argument, you could indicate whether
my "state of the debate" is approximately right. You could indicate
approximately how you plan to defend your thesis. If you plan to defend
on the "plot simularities" I was so dismissive of, you could agree or
disagree to the vocabulary part of the debate as I state it.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> > I'm not familiar with this argument, but since I've smashed the Tempest
> > dating and eviscerated Kathman's relevant article (where is his promised
> > know this date, 1609-10?
> along and I've not noticed it? You haven't "smashed" Kathman's article.
Yes, I have. Denial won't save it. Neither Dave nor anyone else can
defend his argument. You're welcome to try.
--Volker
Paul Crowley
wrote:
>It's not surprising that Shakespeare - or any writer - would play
>Cade's proud illiteracy for laughs. But as a playwright for a largely
>common audience
This is not an assumption Oxfordians accept. The plays were
written primarily for a learned audience -- the court and the
aristocracy. You can tell that just by reading them -- or more
exactly -- by just looking at a few passages. Try it sometime,
with a slightly open mind.
> I think we are safe to assume that the audience would
>have enjoyed the mockery of Cade as well.
It's interesting to see how acknowledged assumptions can be based
on wholly unacknowledged and unrecognised ones.
>Oxfordians seems to think
>that the typical Elizabethan below the rank of Earl would have reacted
>to signs of literacy like Jack Cade to the Clerk of Chatham. But just
>as Shakespeare shows Cade's behavior to be both laughable and barbaric,
>so to did the "culture of illiteracy" perish for good during the
>Elizabethan-Jacobean era.
This is nonsense. If you're a 'traveller' in Ireland _now_ you
are probably in a 'culture of illiteracy'. And I'm sure that
the same applies in many other communities, such as among women
in Bangladesh. And Jack Cade is still very much with us. He
makes his presence felt wherever you see English soccer fans.
>"In 1582 there were 22 printing houses in London. In
>1586 there were 25. By 1640 the number had risen to 60.
These 'houses' were small operations; their equipment was
primitive. It should not be too difficult to work out the
average number of books per person for the whole country. The
vast majority of houses would be bookless -- as many in the UK
are still today.
<snip>
>None of this "proves" - or is intended to prove - anything about the
>literacy of Shakespeare himself or his family. What is does suggest is
>that the society in which he flourished held literacy and education in
>increasing esteem.
The 'culture of illiteracy' would have been almost as strong as
ever in the Jack Cade's class. Have you read Richard Hoggart's
'The uses of Literacy'? It describes his own experience of
growing up in the working-class of Northern England, and finding
his way out of it as a result of the eleven-plus. But most
working-class boys who passed that exam and went to grammar
school, did not escape their cultural background. The Beatles,
for example, were typical. They and their friends left school as
soon as it was legally possible. While they were not, of course,
illiterate, they retained a scorn for 'reading' and for learning
that has a tradition going back to well before Jack Cade.
Education was _never_ held in any kind of esteem by the bulk of
the population in England.
That has been a crucial distinction between the classes. Since
before the time of Elizabeth, education was held in some (but
definitely _not_ high) esteem by the upper and middle classes.
It was not esteemed by the rest. And the question is 'Into which
group do we place the Stratman and his family?'. I can see no
good reason to place him among the literate classes. His parents
certainly weren't; and that's, by far, the best guide. It's the
one that's normally used.
However, to a large extent IMO, this debate is missing the point.
Literacy is not a be-all and end-all. It has grades. Many
'literate' people simply can't read broadsheet newspapers or
serious books. They contain too many words they don't know, and
their sentence construction is too difficult. Whether or not
the Stratman went to school, there can be little doubt that he
grew up in a bookless household. IF he did learn to read, he
would only have acquired _mininum_ literacy. Unless, of course,
he was the unprecedented (and never since repeated) genetic freak
that the Strats like to portray. But that's simply a 'sky-hook'
or an explanation from magic. Still, if it keeps them happy . .
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>It was also customary for English women to receive much less education
>than men. In the past, I've told Volker of the Banbury school charter
>which stated that girls could attend only until they could read.
That makes sense. Literate families would have wanted their
daughters to be able to read -- it would have been important to
their marriage prospects -- i.e. literate men would have wanted
literate children, so they'd have much preferred a literate
bride. But schooling beyond the stage of literacy was largely
about getting 'qualified' for some other job. And since girls
didn't go into professions, there was little point in them
attending.
>Anti-Stratfordians also take as axiomatic that a 60 year old Elizabethan
>woman, who didn't recognize her dead husband's handwriting in a old Latin
>manuscript, was necessarily illiterate despite the fact that she signed at
>least one document. It's not. It's quite disputable.
If it's disputable, you should be able to quote parallel cases.
It was a doctor of Warwick, James Cooke, who was attending a
troop of Parliamentary soldiers passing through Stratford, who
identified the books. Mrs Hall maintained her husband had bought
them from an apothecary. Cooke knew the apothecary and his
handwriting; but he saw that they were in Hall's hand.
>How about an impromptu unscientific survey. I am curious. Who here is
>adept at recognizing handwriting and who here is not?
>
>Bob has already said that he is not.
I'm quite sure Bob could tell if any of his regular students ever
handed in work that had been written by someone else.
>I'm pretty sure I could develope a strategy for recognizing handwriting
>but it hasn't come naturally. At the moment, my ability to recognize
>handwriting is poor.
>
>Paul believes that he is good at it.
>
>2 to 1, so far.
What a weird discussion one gets into with Strats! Is it the
insidious effects of higher education? Anyway, much of our
economy depends on the recognition of handwriting -- or
signatures at least -- on credit cards. Most court cases are
concerned to examine handwriting and decide who wrote what on
many documents. The recognition of handwriting must come up
about a dozen times in the Canon.
>It's also sometimes stated without any real proof that illiterate
>Elizabethans sometimes signed legal documents. It's not at all obvious
>that any illiterate would have bothered to learn to sign their name at a
>time when literate men sometimes made their mark. I've considered Paul's
>point that people sometimes pretend to more education than they have. I'm
>guessing that everyone in Stratford knew how just educated (or uneducated)
>Susanna was so any pretence on her part would have been futile.
That is not a sound guess. People in small communities often
boost their claims to abilities and talents, well beyond reality.
Those ten or twenty years younger would not know exactly what
education she had.
>Anti-Strats usually ignore the fact that reading was taught before writing
>and that the end result was that many Elizabethans could read but not
>write.
Have you evidence for this? I can accept it for adults who learn
to read in maturity, but children have to learn to read by doing
something, and that something is invariably the writing
individual letters and words.
>I don't think I've seen an acknowledgement by an anti-Stratfordian of the
>Stratfordian point(made many times) that an Elizabethan middleclass
>father who was absent most of the year was not in a good position to
>dictate against the generally accepted custom that daughters receive an
>inferior education. Perhaps there's a good reason to discount this point.
>Let's hear it.
But who contrived that situation? He was apparently making good
money. He could have paid for a tutor. Or he could easily have
brought his family to London, if he had really thought his wife
would neglect his daughters' education in Stratford. And where
in the plays or the sonnets do we get the slightest hint of this
separation from his family? The theme of absent daughters? As
usual for the Strat theory of authorship, nothing fits.
>According to anti-Stratfordian dogma, Abraham Lincoln couldn't have done
>what he did. Fortunately, genius has little regard for anti-Stratfordian
>dogma.
I know little about Lincoln. (Was he some American?) But he was
hardly a literary genius. He certainly had a good supply of
books and plenty of literate friends and neighbours.
Paul.
Terry Ross
> In article <36BC83A8...@erols.com>,
> volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > > The plays attributed to Oxford were most probably written by Lyly.
> >
> > You obviously know more about Elizabethan playwrights than Puttenham or
> > Meres or anyone else.
> >
> > --Volker
> >
>
> Why not? You obviously know more than Meres did. He said Shakespeare wrote
> plays, and named several of them. Why don't you take his word for it?
>
> As to Lyly ghosting for Oxford, why not?
But then again, why? What reason is there for doubting Puttenham's word
that Oxford contributed to a comedy? Puttenham published a poem by Oxford
that had never appeared in print, so he clearly had access to at least
some writing by Oxford in manuscript. He has very little to say about
drama (he gives no sign of knowing that there were public theaters in
England), and his references to Oxford do nothing to indicate that
Oxford's comedy was a play that we now consider Shakespeare's, but I don't
see any reason to think that Puttenham meant to refer to a play by Lyly.
Puttenham also refers to "Edward Ferris" (he probably meant George
Ferrers) as a writer of tragedy and Lord Paget as a poet. The fact that no
such work by either man has come down to us does not mean that Puttenham
was wrong or that Ferrers wrote Shakespeare's tragedies while Paget wrote
his sonnets. It is more likely that Ferrers had a hand in some tragedy,
that Oxford had a hand in some comedy, and that Paget wrote some verse;
and that these works were known to Puttenham but have not survived.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > You're really becoming megalomaniacal, Volker. Or have you been so all
> > along and I've not noticed it? You haven't "smashed" Kathman's article.
>
> Yes, I have. Denial won't save it. Neither Dave nor anyone else can
> defend his argument. You're welcome to try.
>
> --Volker
>
even quotes some of my points in his recentest post about it. I
notice, by the way, that you have characteristically replied to only
one part of one of my posts. You've ignored my rebuttal of your
ridiculous claim that Stratfordians never present evidence for their
theory.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
a high verbal intelligence. Such a man, taught even the basics of
reading, would surely have gone on to learn how to read anything in the
language--very quickly.
Aside from all that, when are you going to admit that you were wrong
about the anecdote concerned with Shakespeare's literacy: the one
describing how Shakespeare would write to those asking him to go out
on the town with them and claim he was too under the weather to do so?
Volker gave up on that one--though, of course, he lacks the integrity
to admit to not being able to defeat the arguments I took so long to
marshall: he just stopped responding to them--as have you.
Dave Furstenau
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> I'm saying that the Oxfordian scenario is not a free-standing reliable
>> argument, its a series of denials of another scenario.
>
> No, it has its own challengeable framework, although it was born on the
> implausibility of the various tattered Stratfordian models.
And *exactly* how can it be challenged without evoking whines of
"forgery" or (rub-rub-rub) "conspiracy"? What hypothetical modicum
of evidence would convince you. Name something that wouldn't have a
Volkeresque escape hatch.
Dave Furstenau d...@binary.net
http://www.binary.net/df
Lincoln, Nebraska
Neuendorffer
> Paul, Shakespeare, whoever he was, WAS a genetic freak--
---------------------------------------------------------------
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Freak, n. [Prob. from OE. frek bold, AS. frec bold, greedly; akin to
OHG. freh greedly, G. frech insolent, Icel. frekr greedly, Goth.
fa['i]hufriks avaricious.] A sudden causeless change or turn of the
mind; a whim of fancy; A CAPRICIOUS PRANK; a vagary or caprice.
Absolutely!
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
> > have to start somewhere, pick a play and use your same standards on Oxford
> > that you use on William.
>
> No, I don't. Strats claim their case is proved by the evidence, yet
> they launch into a tamtrum when the evidence is called for.
> --Volker
No, we present the evidence and then YOU go into a tantrum when asked to rebut
it.
The evidence is there. Your response has been that it's too long to read.
TR
volker multhopp
> > Yes, I have. Denial won't save it. Neither Dave nor anyone else can
> > defend his argument. You're welcome to try.
> I already smashed your feeble attempt to defeat Dave's argument--Dave
> even quotes some of my points in his recentest post about it.
Where is your defense of Dave's article? Dave has promised a defense,
but not yet delivered.
--Volker
volker multhopp
>
> And *exactly* how can it be challenged without evoking whines of
> "forgery" or (rub-rub-rub) "conspiracy"? What hypothetical modicum
> of evidence would convince you. Name something that wouldn't have a
> Volkeresque escape hatch.
The challenge stands-- Show the *Tempest* was written after 1604.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> The plays were
> written primarily for a learned audience -- the court and the
> aristocracy. You can tell that just by reading them -- or more
> exactly -- by just looking at a few passages.
Could you provide a few to prove your point?
> The vast majority of houses would be bookless -- as many in the
> UK are are still today.
How many of the millions of houses in the UK have you surveyed to establish this
"fact"?
> But most
> working-class boys who passed that exam and went to grammar
> school, did not escape their cultural background. The Beatles,
> for example, were typical. They and their friends left school as
> soon as it was legally possible. While they were not, of course,
> illiterate, they retained a scorn for 'reading' and for learning
> that has a tradition going back to well before Jack Cade.
"In 1953 Paul took the 11-plus and qualified for Liverpool Institute, the city's
top Grammar School, one of the best schools in the country that regularly sent
more of its students to Oxford and Cambridge Universities than any other British
state school. It's high academic standards made it a serious rival to Eton and
Harrow..."My parents aspired for us very much indeed. That's one of the great
things you can find in ordinary people. My dad left school at 14 and would have
loved for me to be a great scientist. I always feel grateful for that. That was
all bred into me. We had George Newnes Encyclopedias. He was improving us
without having had an awful lot of experience of improvement himself. By going
to Grammar School I knew I'd fairly soon have Latin phrases or know about
Shakespeare which he wouldn't know about. That's why I'm so keen on my old
school, because it really turned my head to being expansive: "Wait a minute,
there's all these guys who wrote those poems!"...I had the greatest teacher ever
of English Literature called Alan Durband who was a leading light in the
Everyman Theatre when Willie Russell and everybody were there. I totally loved
Chaucer. Chaucer was my man and I could get into this strange "Ful semyly hir
wympul pynched was". Then we got into Shakespeare. We did "Hamlet" which I
immediately started to eat up. I became a director in my own mind. I started
reading a lot of plays, Oscar Wilde's "Salome", Tennessee Williams' "Camino
Real" then a lot of Shaw's stuff, Sheridan, Hardy. When my daughter Mary was
doing Shakespeare I said she should get a translation, like the Coghill, so she
went and bought one and what was it called? "Shakespeare Made Easy" by Alan
Durband. It was a lovely tip of the circle."...Paul did not just read
playscripts, he regularly attended the Liverpool Playhouse and the Royal Court.
"I'd buy books from Philips, Son & Nephews: "Under Milk Wood", a lot of
Dylan Thomas, John Steinbeck, a little bit of Samuel Becket, "Waiting for
Godot", I love it all.".
"Many Years From Now" Paul McCartney's autobiography (with Barry Miles),
copyright: Barry Miles.
"Books were his passion particularly the "Just William" series by Richmal
Crompton, which particularly mirrored hs own personality. "Alice in Wonderland"
was another favourite: he would re-read it until he could recite passages by
memory. Aunt Mimi [his legal guardian]: "I had 20 volumes of the world's best
short stories and we had a love of books in common. John used to go back and
read them over and over again, particularly Balzac. I thought there was a lot of
Balzac in his song-writing later on. Anyway, he'd read most of the classics by
the time he was 10"...And of course, Lennon became a successful writer himself
with his 2 books: "In His Own Write" and "A Spaniard in the Works".
"John Lennon", the definitive biography by Ray Coleman, copyright: Ray Coleman.
"The Beatles, for example, were typical. They and their friends left school as
soon as it was legally possible. While they were not, of course, illiterate,
they retained a scorn for 'reading' and for learning that has a tradition
going back to well before Jack Cade.
Pure Irish bull, copyright: Paul Crowley.
> That has been a crucial distinction between the classes. Since
> before the time of Elizabeth, education was held in some (but
> definitely _not_ high) esteem by the upper and middle classes.
> It was not esteemed by the rest. And the question is 'Into which
> group do we place the Stratman and his family?'. I can see no
> good reason to place him among the literate classes. His parents
> certainly weren't; and that's, by far, the best guide. It's the
> one that's normally used.
- The existence of the Stratford Grammar School is proof positive of the social
responsibilities and priorities of the people of Stratford.
- The teaching staff comprising Oxford dons is proof positive of the standard of
education that the people of Stratford wanted.
- The salaries of the Oxford dons on twice the average is proof positive of the
costs the people of Stratford were prepared to incur to properly educate their
children.
- John Shakespeare's business, public office as town bailiff, and application
for a family coat of arms are proof positive of the social responsibility and
personal ambitions of the man.
- Shakespeare's proximity to the school and his free access to it given his
father's position is proof positive of the ease with which Shakespeare could
avail himself of that education.
- Shakespeare's family were middle class.
Shakespeare had the means, the motive, the facilities, the status, the
parentage, the town culture, the access, to Oxford don-taught Grammar School
education. Only a new and rare form of myopia could not see the obviousness of
him having attended there.
> Literacy is not a be-all and end-all. It has grades. Many
> 'literate' people simply can't read broadsheet newspapers or
> serious books.
Can you name one?
> They contain too many words they don't know, and
> their sentence construction is too difficult.
Don't judge people by your own colouring-in books, Paul.
> Whether or not
> the Stratman went to school, there can be little doubt that he
> grew up in a bookless household. IF he did learn to read, he
> would only have acquired _mininum_ literacy.
Of course. Just like Paul McCartney and John Lennon whom you believe have and
have had a "scorn for reading", except the facts yet again prove you're talking
out of your bottom.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Dave Kathman
>
> Dave Kathman wrote:
>
> > volker multhopp wrote:
>
> > > dating and eviscerated Kathman's relevant article (where is his promised
> > > rebuttal?),
>
> > Hold your horses, Volker. I know I said I'd try to get to it this
> > weekend,
> > but it doesn't look like I'll have the time. I have a full and busy
> > life
> > to lead, and there are a number of things with higher priority right now
> > than writing up a response to your article. I do appreciate the
> > feedback,
> > and I will respond when I can find the time to do a proper job.
>
> am concerned that you might be allowing this problem to rationalize
> failure to defend your position.
>
> Here is the state of the debate:
>
> 1) [Dave found] There is an extensive core of common special vocabulary
> between *Tempest* and the Strachey letter. (Dave also says plot they
> are tied by plot simularities, but this argument is underdeveloped and
> should be restated to be taken seriously.)
>
> 2) The common vocabulary is so extensive that one piece clearly was
> written with the assistance of the other. There are no intrinsic clues
> to help us determine which one came first.
>
> 3) [Volker found] The common special vocabulary overwhelmingly already
> exists in the rest of the canon. This shows us that WS could have
> written *Tempest* without the assistance of Strachey.
>
> 4) Dave has not shown that the special vocabulary pre-existed in
> Strachey; ie there is no reason to believe the Strachey letter could
> have been written without the *Tempest*.
>
> Now, Dave, without working up your argument, you could indicate whether
> my "state of the debate" is approximately right.
No, it's not. You're attacking a straw man which is quite different
from my actual argument. You give the impression that my argument is
centered on "common special vocabulary", when it's not. In fact, I have
explicitly said many times that verbal parallels alone are of little
value by themselves in attribution and source studies, but that they can
be used in conjunction with, and as a supplement to, other types of
evidence. You keep trying to separate the plot similarities from (your
version of) the "vocabulary" evidence, when I have repeatedly argued
that the two are inextricably connected: ideally we should find verbal
parallels alongside plot similarities, concentrated at the same points
in the two texts. The two in tandem reinforce each other.
> You could indicate
> approximately how you plan to defend your thesis.
For one thing, I'll restate my arguments more explicitly, since you
seem to have misunderstood them so badly. Much of what I will say
was already present in the brief responses I reposted last night; I'll
flesh those arguments out and add some stuff.
> If you plan to defend
> on the "plot simularities" I was so dismissive of, you could agree or
> disagree to the vocabulary part of the debate as I state it.
See above. I don't agree with your characterization of the vocabulary
part of the debate, for reasons I've briefly summarized above. More
explanation will have to wait.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > Now, Dave, without working up your argument, you could indicate whether
> > my "state of the debate" is approximately right.
> No, it's not. You're attacking a straw man which is quite different
> from my actual argument. You give the impression that my argument is
> centered on "common special vocabulary", when it's not.
The verbal parallels certainly make up the bulk of your argument-- and
it's right, the parallels show one of the pieces was written off the
other. You never show that it had to be Shakespeare imititating
Strachey's vocabulary (which was, infact, WS's own vocabulary), as
opposed to the other way around.
>In fact, I have
> explicitly said many times that verbal parallels alone are of little
> value by themselves in attribution and source studies, but that they can
> be used in conjunction with, and as a supplement to, other types of
> evidence. You keep trying to separate the plot similarities from (your
> version of) the "vocabulary" evidence, when I have repeatedly argued
> that the two are inextricably connected: ideally we should find verbal
> parallels alongside plot similarities, concentrated at the same points
> in the two texts. The two in tandem reinforce each other.
Your plot parallels are often very weak. You're really tryin to tell
us WS had to read Strachey's marriage of a cook and a maid to give
Shakespeare the idea of joining Miranda and Ferdinand? What chutzpah!
> For one thing, I'll restate my arguments more explicitly, since you
> seem to have misunderstood them so badly.
I think that would be a fine idea. You don't have to restate your
evidence-- just explain the logic of your position. And be sure to
explain (at least to youreslf) why the Strachey letter couldn't have
been made from the *Tempest*.
> See above. I don't agree with your characterization of the vocabulary
> part of the debate, for reasons I've briefly summarized above.
I really don't understand now-- are you now discounting the verbal
parallels as important? What is your argument?
--Volker
Dave Kathman
>
> Dave Kathman wrote:
>
> > volker multhopp wrote:
>
> > > Now, Dave, without working up your argument, you could indicate whether
> > > my "state of the debate" is approximately right.
>
> > No, it's not. You're attacking a straw man which is quite different
> > from my actual argument. You give the impression that my argument is
> > centered on "common special vocabulary", when it's not.
>
> The verbal parallels certainly make up the bulk of your argument-- and
> it's right, the parallels show one of the pieces was written off the
> other.
You keep focusing on the explicitly verbal parallels, which I explicitly
discount as supplementary to my argument, as Jim/KQKnave has pointed
out.
You keep ignoring my explanations of how verbal and plot parallels
reinforce one another. You keep isolating individual pieces of my
argument, imputing much greater importance to them than I ever gave
them,
when I have repeatedly said how important it is to look at the sum
total of an argument and how the pieces fit together. You've done
the same thing in responding (or rather, refusing to respond) to Tom
Reedy's arguments linking Shakespeare as a playwright, actor, and
Stratford resident. For me, this has all been a very illuminating peek
into the mind of a hard-core Oxfordian.
> You never show that it had to be Shakespeare imititating
> Strachey's vocabulary (which was, infact, WS's own vocabulary), as
> opposed to the other way around.
I thought I had addressed this in the second of my post from last
November,
which I just reposted last night. I know you saw it, because you
quoted from it in your response, but it seems not to have sunk in,
because
you show no sign of having absorbed its substance. Here it is again:
**************************************
********************************
> >In fact, I have
> > explicitly said many times that verbal parallels alone are of little
> > value by themselves in attribution and source studies, but that they can
> > be used in conjunction with, and as a supplement to, other types of
> > evidence. You keep trying to separate the plot similarities from (your
> > version of) the "vocabulary" evidence, when I have repeatedly argued
> > that the two are inextricably connected: ideally we should find verbal
> > parallels alongside plot similarities, concentrated at the same points
> > in the two texts. The two in tandem reinforce each other.
>
> Your plot parallels are often very weak. You're really tryin to tell
> us WS had to read Strachey's marriage of a cook and a maid to give
> Shakespeare the idea of joining Miranda and Ferdinand? What chutzpah!
Huh? What? I never said that. As an isolated parallel, this would
barely
count, and I considered leaving it out altogether. But it's *context*
that's important here, Volker, a concept which seems alien to you.
I was merely pointing out that Strachey's account contained a
description
of a marriage, not something one would normally expect to find in an
account
of a shipwreck. I can see that I need to explain all this much more
explicitly than I expected.
> > For one thing, I'll restate my arguments more explicitly, since you
> > seem to have misunderstood them so badly.
>
> I think that would be a fine idea. You don't have to restate your
> evidence-- just explain the logic of your position. And be sure to
> explain (at least to youreslf) why the Strachey letter couldn't have
> been made from the *Tempest*.
See above, although I harbor no illusions that I'll ever be able to
convince you.
> > See above. I don't agree with your characterization of the vocabulary
> > part of the debate, for reasons I've briefly summarized above.
>
> I really don't understand now-- are you now discounting the verbal
> parallels as important? What is your argument?
Aaaargh. I really don't have the time for this, and I'm starting to
regret
having responded before I had the time for a proper response. Your
obsession with "verbal parallels," and your inability to process my
repeated
explanations of the various types of context which you ignore, do not
bode
well for the rest of this argument. Still, I'll write up my response
when
I can get to it, if only for the benefit of others who can follow normal
arguments.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > The verbal parallels certainly make up the bulk of your argument-- and
> > it's right, the parallels show one of the pieces was written off the
> > other.
> You keep focusing on the explicitly verbal parallels, which I explicitly
> discount as supplementary to my argument, as Jim/KQKnave has pointed
> out.
Then show your plot links or whatever you want-- I went by the bulk of
your essay.
> You keep ignoring my explanations of how verbal and plot parallels
> reinforce one another. You keep isolating individual pieces of my
> argument, imputing much greater importance to them than I ever gave
> them,
> when I have repeatedly said how important it is to look at the sum
> total of an argument and how the pieces fit together.
I've shown how the pieces did come together-- they were already present
in the canon, a point you keep completely ignoring.
> > You never show that it had to be Shakespeare imititating
> > Strachey's vocabulary (which was, infact, WS's own vocabulary), as
> > opposed to the other way around.
> I thought I had addressed this in the second of my post from last
> November,
> which I just reposted last night. I know you saw it, because you
> quoted from it in your response, but it seems not to have sunk in,
> because
> you show no sign of having absorbed its substance. Here it is again:
I've read it, the evidence and argument just isn't there.
> **************************************
> And it's not just Strachey; although he is the most
> important source, the other two pamphlets I mentioned, Jourdain and
> the anonymous *True Declaration*, describe the same basic events,
> and both are reflected by verbal parallels in *The Tempest*, though
> not as many as with Strachey. You have to somehow believe that not
> only Strachey, but Jourdain and the *True Declaration* author,
> independently "remembered" Shakespeare's play in writing their
> accounts.
No, it was you who concentrated on Strachey-- if you now want to pull
in Jourdain and *TD*, do so, but I can only respond to your
presentation.
> > It wasn't his experiences that was a a problem-- it was language. How
> > could he miss if he borrowed from Shakespeare?
> But his experiences are a factor, along with the language. You try to
> downplay the plot similarities, but I think they're awfully convincing.
> I'll have to wait to respond fully to your post.
Let's see these critical experiences in J and *TD*.
> You suggest that the Strachey letter is "bogus", that it was
> actually written in 1625 specifically for the Hakluyt volume, and
> that it drew upon the printed version of *The Tempest* from the
> First Folio.
Yes, I hold that the likelier of the two possibilities I mentioned.
>If so, not only would the date of the letter (July 15,
> 1610) have to have been falsified,
Where's the letter?
> but so would the attribution, for
> Strachey had died in 1619. What possible purpose could be served
> by writing this account of the Bermuda shipwreck based on
> Shakespeare and slapping a false date and author on it?
Simply to provide a story for Hakluyt. The letter writer probably is
only a dupe and not a participant in the Stratford hoax.
>This is
> even loopier than your claim that the conspirators
> continued to forge theatrical documents mentioning "William Shakespeare"
> after the death of Oxford, just to "keep the illusion alive". I'm
> afraid none of this makes the slightest bit of sense in any kind of
> rational world;
You're right, there are no frauds in the world.
> > He didn't need to. WS did not scoop his own language from the letter
> > of a 2nd rate writer.
> Again, we have the Oxfordian refusal to believe that Shakespeare ever
> borrowed from inferior writers. I don't know what I can say that would
> change your mind, so I won't try.
You're deliberately ignoring the point. That was already Shakespeare's
language. You refuse (can't) to show that that was Strachey's language
before the letter.
> > > 5. I suspect Dave or someone will bring up the evidence for believing
> > > the Strachey report circulated in manuscript when the scholars said
> > > it did.
> > Is this an argument or a wish?
> The Strachey letter was dated July 15, 1610, and addressed to an
> "Excellent Lady" who Charles Mills Gayley identified in his 1917
> book *Shakespeare and the Founders of Liberty and America*
> (unfortunately, I don't have that book handy and can't remember who
> she was). It's apparent from what Strachey says in the letter that it
If the letter was bogus, all this is pointless.
> A more direct source for the *True Declaration*
> is
> a second, more upbeat "Despatch" by Strachey (apparently meant for the
> public rather than the Company members); the manuscript of this
> "Despatch", in Strachey's handwriting, still survives.
Bingo!-- just show the obvious parallels between this Despatch and the
*Tempest*, and you win. Of course you won't do that-- you're going to
stick to the letter publishe 1625.
> If Strachey's
> *True
> Reportory* was forged, as you suggest, the forgers did an awfully good
> job of making it fit seamlessly into the other documents relating to the
> Sea-Venture shipwreck written in 1610-11.
Gee, how hard would that be?
> > Why? Clearly one writer cribbed off the other. You simply believe--
> > because of your authorship bias-- that Shakespeare could not use his own
> > language until he was empowered by little Strachey. When's the last
> > time you saw or read a Strachey play?
> No, Bob doesn't believe this because of his "authorship bias", he
> believes
> it because it's the only scenario that makes any sense. You have to
> posit all kinds of very unlikely scenarios, which I've described above,
> for your story to have any coherence.
No, you haven't, Dave. You don't address the possibility seriously--
you just dismiss the *Tempest* first theory by saying it wouldn't have
happened. That's not argument.
> > My argument takes nothing away from Shakspere. You are merely
> > unwilling to acknowledge the high probability that Shakespeare did not
> > use Strachey, because you think that keeps your candidate alive. If
> > Shakspere is the author, no amount of truth will hurt him.
> "High probability"? Oh, Volker, that's rich. Your contortions and
> bluster are only showing people how strong the evidence is that
> Shakespeare did rely on Strachey's account.
It's not rot-- you're running away from the verbal parallels you
previously trumpeted. The language was Shakespeare's-- you even refuse
to acknowledge that. Shakespeare did not need Strachey. Strachey
needed Shakespeare for the language. I shot your argument away, you have
nothing except empty promises to put your argument back together.
> > Your plot parallels are often very weak. You're really tryin to tell
> > us WS had to read Strachey's marriage of a cook and a maid to give
> > Shakespeare the idea of joining Miranda and Ferdinand? What chutzpah!
> Huh? What? I never said that. As an isolated parallel, this would
> barely
> count, and I considered leaving it out altogether. But it's *context*
> that's important here, Volker, a concept which seems alien to you.
> I was merely pointing out that Strachey's account contained a
> description
> of a marriage, not something one would normally expect to find in an
> account
> of a shipwreck. I can see that I need to explain all this much more
> explicitly than I expected.
You're still doing it! You think Shakespeare needed Strachey otherwise
he wouldn't have thought of marrying the girl and the guy! Does
Strachey teach Shakespeare to end with a wedding (was his wedding at the
end?) or is this irrelevant.
--Volker
Dave Kathman
[snip]
Volker, it's apparent that we're on completely different pages here, and
more like completely different planets. I'm going to have to stop
this thread for now, because I just don't have the time to explain
everything again and again just to have you completely misunderstand
what I'm trying to say. I've really tried to understand how your
mind works, but it's not easy. I will write up that response as soon
as I can, maybe next weekend, and I'll do my best to lay everything
out as explicitly as I can. I doubt that it will convince you of
anything, but perhaps it will help others understand what I'm saying.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
<snip>
> I've shown how the pieces did come together-- they were already present
> in the canon, a point you keep completely ignoring.
The question is whether or not it is statistically odd that a number of
parallels exist between one play and two apparently independent accounts
of a shipwreck.
Your point isn't exactly irrelevant because if the parallels were all
unique within the canon, Dave's case would be strengthened. However,
there's an obvious statistical difference between finding parallels
densely placed in one play and finding them thinly spread throughout 36
plays.
<snip>
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
volker multhopp
> Your point isn't exactly irrelevant because if the parallels were all
> unique within the canon, Dave's case would be strengthened. However,
> there's an obvious statistical difference between finding parallels
> densely placed in one play and finding them thinly spread throughout 36
> plays.
Yes, exactly. Strats are expecting me to show a special correlation
between *Tempest* and any other play of the canon. In fact, no plays of
the canon are that closely linked as that Strats expect me to produce
with the Tempest. But if Foster saw the Strachey letter, and didn't
know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him. The
easier conclusion is Strachey copied Tempest, not vice-versa.
--Volker
Geralyn Horton
KQNave & Nathan on expense and difficulty with tools for
writing:
It may also have to do with mental/physical maturation.
At the best time for acquiring the mental process, the
physical skills aren't developed enough to carry it out.
When the fine motors skills do appear, the household may
expect the child to use them in productive work: sewing or
sowing.
G.L.Horton <http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>
Caius Marcius
Crowley) writes:
>>According to anti-Stratfordian dogma, Abraham Lincoln couldn't have
done
>>what he did. Fortunately, genius has little regard for
anti-Stratfordian
>>dogma.
>
>I know little about Lincoln. (Was he some American?) But he was
>hardly a literary genius. He certainly had a good supply of
>books and plenty of literate friends and neighbours.
From *A Literary History of the United States* by Robert Spiller et al.
(1948), from a discussion of the writings of Abraham Lincoln: "Perhaps
no other American held so definitely in himself both....the genius of
the Tragic [and] the spirit of the Comic. The fate of man, his burdens
and crosses, the pity of circumstance, the extent of tragedy in human
life, these stood forth in word shadows of the Lincoln utterance, as
testamentary as the utter melancholy of his face in repose. And in
contrast he came to be known as the first authentic humorist to occupy
the Executive Mansion in Washington, his gift of laughter and his flair
for the funny being taken as a national belonging." (Vol. II.. p. 778)
Lincoln grew up in what was then wilderness country - his father was
mostly illiterate (but could sign his name), while his mother knew how
to read (she often read to the young Abraham out of the KJV), but did
not know how to write. Yet Lincoln, like Shakespeare, grew up in a
time when education was newly held in esteem. According to Louis
Warren's Lincoln's Indiana Years, 1816-1830 (1959), Lincoln could both
read and write by age seven, surpassing his parents, and quite a
remarkable achievement for anyone in the wilderness at that time, let
alone a boy of seven.
Warren extensively documents the books the young Lincoln was exposed
to, a selection which makes up in depth what it lacks in breadth: the
KJV, Shakespeare, Pilgrim's Progress, Parson Weems' Life of Washington,
etc. I believe that Bob Grumman once postulated that individuals of a
particular bent are going to discover what they want to learn, whatever
their circumstances - so it was with Lincoln, so it was with
Shakespeare.
- CMC
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
> Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> > Your point isn't exactly irrelevant because if the parallels were all
> > unique within the canon, Dave's case would be strengthened. However,
> > there's an obvious statistical difference between finding parallels
> > densely placed in one play and finding them thinly spread throughout 36
> > plays.
>
> Yes, exactly. Strats are expecting me to show a special correlation
> between *Tempest* and any other play of the canon.
Not exactly.
> In fact, no plays of
> the canon are that closely linked as that Strats expect me to produce
> with the Tempest.
This seems to simply argue for a special relationship between the
*Tempest* and the two contemporary accounts of a kind not found between
any canonical plays. That point now seems moot because you've
acknowledged that some sort of relationship probably exists.
> But if Foster saw the Strachey letter, and didn't
> know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
> because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him. The
> easier conclusion is Strachey copied Tempest, not vice-versa.
Perhaps you have an instance in mind where he did something like this?
I can't recall Foster writing anything that would lead me to believe
that that's anything like a fair characterization of his methods.
I think everyone(Foster included) would agree that the mere existance of
verbal parallels can't alone tell you who was the borrower. Some sort of
context has to be used to get that direction. I believe that Bob (and
maybe others) have made the point that if Strachey had used particularly
Shakespearean sounding language, it could be seen as an indication that
Strachey had read the play before writing his letter. Likewise, it seems
obvious that there are lines of inquiry which could conceivably indicate a
different direction. The first is that Strachey is not very likely to
have borrowed plot elements from Shakespeare. A second is that it is
unlikely that both Jourdain and Strachey borrowed from Shakespeare. Do
you agree?
volker multhopp
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
> > Yes, exactly. Strats are expecting me to show a special correlation
> > between *Tempest* and any other play of the canon.
> Not exactly.
Yes-- certainly KQKnave requires that-- see his posts.
> > But if Foster saw the Strachey letter, and didn't
> > know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
> > because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him. The
> > easier conclusion is Strachey copied Tempest, not vice-versa.
> Perhaps you have an instance in mind where he did something like this?
> I can't recall Foster writing anything that would lead me to believe
> that that's anything like a fair characterization of his methods.
Read his account of his great coup-- identifying the author of *Primary
Colors*. He did exactly that.
> The first is that Strachey is not very likely to
> have borrowed plot elements from Shakespeare.
"Plot elements" certainly could have been borrowed if the letter were
actually written in 1625 for inclusion in Haklyut.
>A second is that it is
> unlikely that both Jourdain and Strachey borrowed from Shakespeare. Do
> you agree?
Yes. Let's see the Jourdain-Tempest connection.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
The problem is not different planets, but that you, not I, are unable
to see beyond your authorship bias. The verbal parallels between
*Tempest* and the Strachey letter are undeniable-- one was written with
help of the other. Furthermore, this special language was already
embedded in Shakespeare's canon. There is not the least sign at this
language was previously in Strachey's vocabulary.
Plot connections, verbal parallels, whatever-- can you solidily connect
*Tempest* to Jourdain or the *TD*? If you need the Strachey letter to
make a connection, then you at least need to show that the
1625-published letter predates the 1623-published *Tempest*-- the
putative date is not sufficient, since there is cause for deception (to
get published), the one document needs the other, and Shakespeare does
not need Strachey.
--Volker
John W Kennedy
> I'm sure this is stated in a lot of history books. Are they all lying?
In defense of Volker, the "stigma of print" myth appears in plenty of
history books. 20th-century writings without any proper apparatus are
_never_ appropriately relied upon in settling these issues.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Nigel Davies
> If you need the Strachey letter to
> make a connection, then you at least need to show that the
> 1625-published letter
It was written July 15, 1610
> predates the 1623-published *Tempest*
It was performed at court on November 1, 1611.
> Shakespeare does not need Strachey
He used Commedia dell' Arte, Strachey (1610), Jourdain (1610), Virginia Company
(1610) & Eden (1577).
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Nigel Davies
> Read his account of his great coup-- identifying the author of *Primary
> Colors*. He did exactly that.
More importantly, using his techniques, Foster ascribes the authorship of
"Funeral Elegy" to Shakespeare, written in the Oxford-eliminating year of 1612.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > If you need the Strachey letter to
> > make a connection, then you at least need to show that the
> > 1625-published letter
> It was written July 15, 1610
It claims to be written 1610.
> > Shakespeare does not need Strachey
> He used Commedia dell' Arte, Strachey (1610),
What did he use of Strachey -- that wasn't available from himself or
commedia dell'arte?
>Jourdain (1610),
Show the borrowing.
> Virginia Company
> (1610) & Eden (1577).
Ditto.
Come on, Nigel, I showed real stuff, now you show some of these
borrowings.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > Colors*. He did exactly that.
> More importantly, using his techniques, Foster ascribes the authorship of
> "Funeral Elegy" to Shakespeare, written in the Oxford-eliminating year of 1612.
He claims it's Shakespeare. A lot of observers disagree-- it sure
doesn't read like Shakespeare to me. Let's see his proof.
--Volker
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:12:33 -0500, Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> >It was also customary for English women to receive much less education
> >than men. In the past, I've told Volker of the Banbury school charter
> >which stated that girls could attend only until they could read.
>
> That makes sense. Literate families would have wanted their
> daughters to be able to read -- it would have been important to
> their marriage prospects -- i.e. literate men would have wanted
> literate children, so they'd have much preferred a literate
> bride.
I've never seen any indication that literate men preferred
literate daughters so that they could have literate children.
Do you make this stuff up as you go? Let's see some evidence.
If it happens to be true, then as both Susanna and Judith married highly
literate men, it would be evidence that they were both literate. By the
way, Susanna's daughter was literate.
> But schooling beyond the stage of literacy was largely
> about getting 'qualified' for some other job. And since girls
> didn't go into professions, there was little point in them
> attending.
In fact, I've read that education of girls beyond what was expected for
their station was viewed as something that would make them less
marriageable. This may have been Anne's view.
The education of farmers is nearly an exact parallel. John Shakespeare
apparently grew up as a farmer in a small village with no school. (In such
locations, the education of the local youth seems to have been the
responsibility of the parish priest.) There's very good evidence that
people thought it desirable to be able to read the Bible. Of course
rather than enhancing their marriage prospects, it was thought to enhance
their eternal prospects. Your average Elizabethan country farmer didn't
have much need for writing so there was little point in extending their
education beyond reading.
> >Anti-Stratfordians also take as axiomatic that a 60 year old Elizabethan
> >woman, who didn't recognize her dead husband's handwriting in a old Latin
> >manuscript, was necessarily illiterate despite the fact that she signed at
> >least one document. It's not. It's quite disputable.
>
> If it's disputable, you should be able to quote parallel cases.
You've made a logical error. Whether or not there are parallel cases has
little bearing on whether or not your proposed axiom is disputable.
Otherwise, many ludicrous propositions would be indisputable simply
because no "parallel cases" are quotable.
> It was a doctor of Warwick, James Cooke, who was attending a
> troop of Parliamentary soldiers passing through Stratford, who
> identified the books. Mrs Hall maintained her husband had bought
> them from an apothecary. Cooke knew the apothecary and his
> handwriting; but he saw that they were in Hall's hand.
Cooke never said that he knew the apothecary and his handwriting.
A look at some other possibilities:
First, consider the sort of possibility that you and Volker are so fond of
in other circumstances(ie whenever it's necessary to keep your case from
folding)-- that Cooke was a dishonest, deceptive, or self-serving man.
How do we know that Cooke honestly related how he got possession of the
manuscripts? It doesn't entirely make sense that he was unable to
convince an illiterate(or literate) Susanna that the manuscripts were her
husband's. He needed merely have related one of the accounts and said
something along the lines of "Now you know your husband was the only
doctor Mrs. Quiney ever had." We know that men broke into Dr. Hall's
study a year or two after his death and took what was reported to be a
large number of books and papers. Maybe Cooke obtained the manuscripts
from them and didn't feel like explaining the true circumstances to his
correspondant. Or perhaps Cooke accidently picked up the manuscripts with
the stack of books that he was buying and later discovered what he'd done
but was too embarrassed or too busy to bring the manuscripts back.
Without some other evidence to cast some doubt on Cooke's honesty, I have
to view these types of scenarios as highly unlikely. On the other hand,
you and Volker have often alleged similar dishonesties(without feeling any
need for corroborating evidence as to character), concerning Condell,
Heminge, Jonson, Strachey, and sundry others too numerous to mention, so
perhaps you'll feel differently.
Consider the possibility of poor eyesight. Susanna Hall was about 60
years of age at the time Cooke said that he made his visit and it's quite
reasonable to question whether her eyes were up to the task of handwriting
recognition. Cooke implied that the two manuscripts were mixed in with
books formerly owned by the apothecary. Susanna might well have viewed
her memory of what was in that pile as more reliable than Cooke's memory
of her husband's handwriting.
Cooke wrote that Susanna got angry when he tried to show her that the
manuscripts were Hall's. How do we know that she even made an effort to
look at them? Some people let their prior beliefs get in the way of
looking at evidence. I believe you place nearly every academic historian
in this category, so you shouldn't have any trouble accepting that this
scenario is possible.
> >How about an impromptu unscientific survey. I am curious. Who here is
> >adept at recognizing handwriting and who here is not?
> >
> >Bob has already said that he is not.
>
> I'm quite sure Bob could tell if any of his regular students ever
> handed in work that had been written by someone else.
I'm not so sure. Even if it is so, teachers typically see more of their
students's handwriting in a year than they do of their spouses in ten
years. I wonder if Bob would recognize the handwriting of many of his
students of ten years ago?
> >I'm pretty sure I could develope a strategy for recognizing handwriting
> >but it hasn't come naturally. At the moment, my ability to recognize
> >handwriting is poor.
> >
> >Paul believes that he is good at it.
> >
> >2 to 1, so far.
>
> What a weird discussion one gets into with Strats! Is it the
> insidious effects of higher education? Anyway, much of our
> economy depends on the recognition of handwriting -- or
> signatures at least -- on credit cards. Most court cases are
> concerned to examine handwriting and decide who wrote what on
> many documents. The recognition of handwriting must come up
> about a dozen times in the Canon.
It's surprising that you don't recognize a difference between long term
and short term memory. Comparing two sets of handwriting before your eyes
requires only a short term visual memory and some ability to recognize
patterns. I don't expect the clerk at the store to have memorized my
signature no matter how many times he's seen it. That the recognition of
handwriting comes up in the canon is irrelevant. It's only evidence
that Shakespeare thought that some people have a good eye for handwriting
and I don't think that's ever been disputed.
> >It's also sometimes stated without any real proof that illiterate
> >Elizabethans sometimes signed legal documents. It's not at all obvious
> >that any illiterate would have bothered to learn to sign their name at a
> >time when literate men sometimes made their mark. I've considered Paul's
> >point that people sometimes pretend to more education than they have. I'm
> >guessing that everyone in Stratford knew how just educated(or uneducated)
> >Susanna was so any pretence on her part would have been futile.
> That is not a sound guess. People in small communities often
> boost their claims to abilities and talents, well beyond reality.
I have no idea where you grew up but delusional people are a relative
rarity in most communities.
> Those ten or twenty years younger would not know exactly what
> education she had.
Their parents were her age mates and would have known quite well whether
or not she'd spent any significant time at school. You propose a very
strange Susanna who tried to deceive the children of her neighbors by
learning to sign when she couldn't read.
> >Anti-Strats usually ignore the fact that reading was taught before writing
> >and that the end result was that many Elizabethans could read but not
> >write.
>
> Have you evidence for this?
It is what all of the historians who've studied Elizabethan education tell
us. Since you've often claimed before(without evidence) that they
obviously lack(as a class) any degree of honesty, I don't suppose you'll
accept their word even though they aren't likely to have considered the
authorship of Shakespeare an important aspect to their research.
I'll see if I can hunt up some contemporary quotes. It may take a while
since I've no easy access to a research library. For now I'll simply note
that you've accepted that school authorities thought it possible for girls
to leave school able to read but unable to write. Clearly this implies
that reading was taught first.
> I can accept it for adults who learn
> to read in maturity, but children have to learn to read by doing
> something, and that something is invariably the writing
> individual letters and words.
Any teacher of the severely physically disabled will disagree.
> >I don't think I've seen an acknowledgement by an anti-Stratfordian of the
> >Stratfordian point(made many times) that an Elizabethan middleclass
> >father who was absent most of the year was not in a good position to
> >dictate against the generally accepted custom that daughters receive an
> >inferior education. Perhaps there's a good reason to discount this point.
> >Let's hear it.
>
> But who contrived that situation? He was apparently making good
> money. He could have paid for a tutor.
Susanna was born in 1583 and Judith in 1585. What's the evidence that
Shakespeare was making good money when they were of school age?
It's irrelevant really. Not too many years later, we know from a law suit
that at least two girls attended the Stratford petty school and it's not
too much to expect that Shakespeare's girls had the same opportunity a
decade or so earlier.
What could Shakespeare, off in London, have done to force his wife to make
the girls go to school? Would he have given up his occupation to make it
happen? I doubt it. He might not even have noticed until it was too
late.
> Or he could easily have
> brought his family to London, if he had really thought his wife
> would neglect his daughters' education in Stratford.
What's your evidence that de Vere ever did anything to help his daughters?
I can only recall him making a complaint to Cecil that Derby wasn't giving
his daughter enough of an allowance. (Perhaps he was hoping to borrow
money from her.)
And what makes you think that Will or Anne should have been willing to
relocate the family to London. It was a particularly unhealthy place for
children.
> And where
> in the plays or the sonnets do we get the slightest hint of this
> separation from his family? The theme of absent daughters? As
> usual for the Strat theory of authorship, nothing fits.
You imagine that Oxford is a better fit but how much time did Oxford spend
in his daughters's company? Didn't they reside at Cecil house with their
mother?
> >According to anti-Stratfordian dogma, Abraham Lincoln couldn't have done
> >what he did. Fortunately, genius has little regard for anti-Stratfordian
> >dogma.
>
> I know little about Lincoln.
OK.
> (Was he some American?) But he was hardly a literary genius.
How do you know this if you know little about Lincoln? Perhaps you don't
consider political writing to be a literary activity. Try reading the
*Gettysburg Address*. Most readers find it to be a work of genius. I'm
sure it can be found somewhere on the web.
> He certainly had a good supply of books and plenty of literate friends
> and neighbours.
When was this?
Shakespeare of Stratford had plenty of literate friends. It is currently
impossible to say whether or not he owned a good supply of books. It
is possible to say that at least one Mr. Shakespeare in Stratford owned
at least one book. How many Mr. Shakespeares do you expect there were
in Stratford?
KQKnave
In article <36BF2BF4...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
> But if Foster saw the Strachey letter, and didn't
>know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
>because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him.
This is absurd. There are few rare words in the parallels
between the accounts of the wreck of the Sea Venture
and The Tempest. Foster's analysis of rare words would
therefore be useless.
Jim
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
> Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
>
> > > Yes, exactly. Strats are expecting me to show a special correlation
> > > between *Tempest* and any other play of the canon.
>
> > Not exactly.
>
> Yes-- certainly KQKnave requires that-- see his posts.
If you say so. I don't remember reading it and I've not the inclination
to check. I'll let Jim deny it if he wants to.
> > > But if Foster saw the Strachey letter, and didn't
> > > know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
> > > because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him. The
> > > easier conclusion is Strachey copied Tempest, not vice-versa.
>
> > Perhaps you have an instance in mind where he did something like this?
> > I can't recall Foster writing anything that would lead me to believe
> > that that's anything like a fair characterization of his methods.
>
> Read his account of his great coup-- identifying the author of *Primary
> Colors*. He did exactly that.
Shaxicon shows possible relationships. Context tells us what to make of
it.
My understanding is that out of the pool of 50 or so candidates
considered, only Klein had work that showed a strong relationship with
*Primary Colors*. Foster's point that either it was Klein or someone
deliberately trying to sound like Klein is valid. Logic tells us that if
the author is familiar with the work of only one of the fifty candidates
(who all work pretty much in the same field), the author is probably that
candidate.
The same situation doesn't hold with Strachey/Shakespeare so a similar
judgement can't be made. The most obvious point of difference is that
there is no pool of candidates whose work has been compared to Strachey's
letter.
There's no arguing with results. Foster's credibility rose tremendously
with his correct answer to the question.
> > The first is that Strachey is not very likely to
> > have borrowed plot elements from Shakespeare.
>
> "Plot elements" certainly could have been borrowed if the letter were
> actually written in 1625 for inclusion in Haklyut.
This would seem to make Strachey a liar. I don't suppose you have any
evidence to show that Strachey lacked character? You seem far too willing
to defame the dead on no basis other than that they tell an inconvenient
story.
What does Strachey gain? His story would seem exciting enough.
Fabrications might be denied by fellow survivors, thereby diminishing his
social standing. As Bob has pointed out, the fact that Strachey failed to
borrow anything really good, is an argument against him borrowing
anything.
It would be a rather large coincidence, that the *Tempest* just happened
to first appear in the documentary record shortly after Strachey said
he wrote his letter.
> >A second is that it is
> > unlikely that both Jourdain and Strachey borrowed from Shakespeare. Do
> > you agree?
>
> Yes. Let's see the Jourdain-Tempest connection.
I'm hoping someone will post it. If there's a good connection, are you
going to accept defeat? I suppose you could Loo-ney-like, claim that the
*Tempest* was written by someone other than Shakespeare.
Dave Kathman
>
> Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
>
> > > Yes, exactly. Strats are expecting me to show a special correlation
> > > between *Tempest* and any other play of the canon.
>
> > Not exactly.
>
> Yes-- certainly KQKnave requires that-- see his posts.
>
> > > know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
> > > because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him. The
> > > easier conclusion is Strachey copied Tempest, not vice-versa.
>
> > Perhaps you have an instance in mind where he did something like this?
> > I can't recall Foster writing anything that would lead me to believe
> > that that's anything like a fair characterization of his methods.
>
> Read his account of his great coup-- identifying the author of *Primary
> Colors*. He did exactly that.
Oh, Christ. I knew I said I was absenting myself from this thread, but
I
can't let this stand. First of all, as Rob has pointed out, the
situations are not exactly analogous, since Foster was looking at a
group of several dozen candidates taken from a relatively small pool
of Washington insiders. Second, as Rob has also pointed out, Foster
never said, "Aha! This must be the author of Primary Colors!"; rather,
the excessive overlap of rare words between Primary Colors and the
writings of Joe Klein (more than twice that of any other candidate)
caused Foster to look much more closely for other types of parallels,
of which he found many. Eventually he found so many parallels of
vocabulary, phrasing, and ideas (and combinations thereof) that he
concluded that Primary Colors must have been written either by Joe Klein
or by somebody trying to write like him. Of course, it was the former.
But thirdly, and most importantly, the Primary Colors case is not
directly relevant to the Tempest, because THE PARALLELS BETWEEN STRACHEY
AND THE TEMPEST ARE NOT BASED ON FREQUENCY OF RARE VOCABULARY. I don't
know why you keep clinging to this idea, even after I've repeatedly
explained that it's not what I was arguing. Most of the parallels
are based on similarity of vocabulary and/or phrasing in similar or
identical contexts. Taken purely in isolation, many or most of these
words are not themselves rare; it's only their use in the relevant
context, and the use of numerous such words and phrases close together
in similar or identical contexts, that allows us to infer that one
text influenced the other. I will elaborate on this in my reply,
when I get to it.
> > The first is that Strachey is not very likely to
> > have borrowed plot elements from Shakespeare.
>
> "Plot elements" certainly could have been borrowed if the letter were
> actually written in 1625 for inclusion in Haklyut.
This makes no sense. As somebody else has pointed out, some such
elements were present in Jourdain's account and *A True Declaration*;
and even if we ignore those and restrict ourselves to the plot
elements restricted to Strachey, couldn't somebody who was there
have noticed that this account contained made-up elements? Plus,
if I've pointed out before in a part of my earlier post that you
keep snipping, Strachey died in 1619, so he couldn't have actually
written the letter in 1625 (unless he did it via a Ouija board).
Thus the anonymous "real" author of the letter in your fantasy
scenario would have had to falsify not only the date of the letter,
but its author. Why would they do that?
> >A second is that it is
> > unlikely that both Jourdain and Strachey borrowed from Shakespeare. Do
> > you agree?
>
> Yes. Let's see the Jourdain-Tempest connection.
Some of them are in the article, but I guess I'll have to make up
a full list. That will take time, too, which I don't have right now.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
volker multhopp
> >know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
> >because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him.
> between the accounts of the wreck of the Sea Venture
> and The Tempest. Foster's analysis of rare words would
> therefore be useless.
Nonsense, unless you have a perverse definition of "few". The majority
of Dave's verbal parallels are rare words.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, volker multhopp wrote:
> > > > Yes, exactly. Strats are expecting me to show a special correlation
> > > > between *Tempest* and any other play of the canon.
> to check. I'll let Jim deny it if he wants to.
Good idea.
> > Read his account of his great coup-- identifying the author of *Primary
> > Colors*. He did exactly that.
> My understanding is that out of the pool of 50 or so candidates
> considered, only Klein had work that showed a strong relationship with
> *Primary Colors*. Foster's point that either it was Klein or someone
> deliberately trying to sound like Klein is valid. Logic tells us that if
> the author is familiar with the work of only one of the fifty candidates
> (who all work pretty much in the same field), the author is probably that
> candidate.
And the way Foster determined this familiarity was by the common pool
of rare words. That's how he draws all his conclusions.
> The same situation doesn't hold with Strachey/Shakespeare so a similar
> judgement can't be made. The most obvious point of difference is that
> there is no pool of candidates whose work has been compared to Strachey's
> letter.
Foster does not need third party authors to draw second party
conclusions. By using his chronology of WS's works, (iho) "We can now
investigate which texts Shakespeare read by contemporary writers; which
poets read Shakespeare's texts; and WHEN [--Foster, emph mine]."
> There's no arguing with results. Foster's credibility rose tremendously
> with his correct answer to the question.
Determining the author of *Primary Colors* has little relevance to the
wild conclusions Foster draws from his augury.
> > "Plot elements" certainly could have been borrowed if the letter were
> > actually written in 1625 for inclusion in Haklyut.
> This would seem to make Strachey a liar. I don't suppose you have any
> evidence to show that Strachey lacked character? You seem far too willing
> to defame the dead on no basis other than that they tell an inconvenient
> story.
He was already dead then. Some less scrupulous person used his name.
> What does Strachey gain?
Publication.
> His story would seem exciting enough.
Stories need to be *well told* to be sold.
> Fabrications might be denied by fellow survivors, thereby diminishing his
> social standing.
Travel tales were often "improved" by yarns.
>As Bob has pointed out, the fact that Strachey failed to
> borrow anything really good, is an argument against him borrowing
> anything.
This is absurd-- you're establishing yourself as an ex post facto
expert on what a good travel tale for the time would have been.
> It would be a rather large coincidence, that the *Tempest* just happened
> to first appear in the documentary record shortly after Strachey said
> he wrote his letter.
Any *possible source* for the *Tempest* that was written AFTER a
performance would not be waved aloft as a source by Shakespeare
investigators-- instead it'd be heralded as a derivative work, which is
what the case here should be. And if we're going to date plays by their
first recorded performance, we have some serious revision to do.
And I guess it's just coincidence the letter first appears AFTER the
*F1*.
> > >A second is that it is
> > > unlikely that both Jourdain and Strachey borrowed from Shakespeare. Do
> > > you agree?
> > Yes. Let's see the Jourdain-Tempest connection.
> I'm hoping someone will post it. If there's a good connection, are you
> going to accept defeat?
Yes. But I'm still waiting.
--Volker
volker multhopp
> volker multhopp wrote:
> > Colors*. He did exactly that.
> never said, "Aha! This must be the author of Primary Colors!";
This is at odds with an account of his discovery that I read in some
mag, but I cannot provide a source.
> But thirdly, and most importantly, the Primary Colors case is not
> directly relevant to the Tempest, because THE PARALLELS BETWEEN STRACHEY
> AND THE TEMPEST ARE NOT BASED ON FREQUENCY OF RARE VOCABULARY. I don't
> know why you keep clinging to this idea, even after I've repeatedly
> explained that it's not what I was arguing.
But many of your verbal parallels do involve "rare words", so I thought
pulling in Foster relevant, esp since many here regard his
determinations as scientific fact.
> ... it's only their use in the relevant
> context, and the use of numerous such words and phrases close together
> in similar or identical contexts, that allows us to infer that one
> text influenced the other.
And in my *Undating* I, too, showed similar contexts.
>I will elaborate on this in my reply,
> when I get to it.
We're still waiting. Don't forget to show it was Strachey who
influenced Shakespeare, and vice versa.
> > "Plot elements" certainly could have been borrowed if the letter were
> > actually written in 1625 for inclusion in Haklyut.
> This makes no sense. As somebody else has pointed out, some such
> elements were present in Jourdain's account and *A True Declaration*;
Show us.
> Plus,
> if I've pointed out before in a part of my earlier post that you
> keep snipping, Strachey died in 1619, so he couldn't have actually
> written the letter in 1625 (unless he did it via a Ouija board).
> Thus the anonymous "real" author of the letter in your fantasy
> scenario would have had to falsify not only the date of the letter,
> but its author. Why would they do that?
To be published, and hence paid.
--Volker
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
determinations as scientific fact." Name one such person, Volker.
> > Plus,
> > if I've pointed out before in a part of my earlier post that you
> > keep snipping, Strachey died in 1619, so he couldn't have actually
> > written the letter in 1625 (unless he did it via a Ouija board).
> > Thus the anonymous "real" author of the letter in your fantasy
> > scenario would have had to falsify not only the date of the letter,
> > but its author. Why would they do that?
>
> To be published, and hence paid.
>
In that case why did they leave out Ariel? And Caliban? Do you really
think they'd taken small items out of the Tempest instead of using what
REALLY happened (which some survivor surely could have told them) and
NOT used such sure-fire crowd-snaring material as fairies and monsters?
A beautiful female innocent would have given their story more punch,
too.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> of rare words. That's how he draws all his conclusions.
No, Volker, that is ONE METHOD by which he works his ways to his
conclusions.
Foster does not need third party authors to draw second party
> conclusions. By using his chronology of WS's works, (iho) "We can now
> investigate which texts Shakespeare read by contemporary writers; which
> poets read Shakespeare's texts; and WHEN [--Foster, emph mine]."
>
Note the use of the word INVESTIGATE, Volker.
>
> >As Bob has pointed out, the fact that Strachey failed to
> > borrow anything really good, is an argument against him borrowing
> > anything.
>
> This is absurd-- you're establishing yourself as an ex post facto
> expert on what a good travel tale for the time would have been.
>
And you are not??? You're not only arguing that the Bermuda shipwreck
story needed elements from Shakespeare to make it commercially appealing
but that you know the mind of the person who wrote the Strachey
letter well enough to know that he would have thought it necessary to
ornament his raw material with stuff from The Tempest.
> > It would be a rather large coincidence, that the *Tempest* just happened
> > to first appear in the documentary record shortly after Strachey said
> > he wrote his letter.
>
Volker evades this point but it made me think of another question for
him to avoid: considering that Strachey (apparently) wrote A History
of Travail into Virginia, why would he NOT have written of the shipwreck?
I think that's a pretty good question! (Ariel gave it to me.)
> And if we're going to date plays by their
> first recorded performance, we have some serious revision to do.
Who is doing that? You consistently demean Shakespearean scholars by
claiming that they use only one method to reach their (usually tentative)
conclusions. They use records of first performances to show when a
play's latest date of writing was, and as data to use in conjunction
with other records (publication records, records of others' references
to a given work), evolution of style, common sense, topical references,
etc., to make EDUCATED GUESSES as to probable dates of writing.
>
> And I guess it's just coincidence the letter first appears AFTER the
> *F1*.
>
You got it, Volker. In fact, if the letter was a hoax, they wouldn't
have published it so soon after the play they stole its contents from
was published.
volker multhopp
> In that case why did they leave out Ariel? And Caliban? Do you really
> think they'd taken small items out of the Tempest instead of using what
> REALLY happened (which some survivor surely could have told them) and
> NOT used such sure-fire crowd-snaring material as fairies and monsters?
> A beautiful female innocent would have given their story more punch,
> too.
Per your request-- you're being silly. The story of the Sea-Venture
was basically known, the Strachey letter sticks to plucking tidbits from
*Tempest*.
--Volker
KQKnave
In article <36C2AA94...@erols.com>, volker multhopp <vol...@erols.com>
writes:
>KQKnave wrote:
The majority of Dave's verbal parallels involve phrases or combinations
of words taken together, like "Dido" and "Aeneas" considered together,
or "sharp north wind" or "bear up". Shaxicon does not consider
phrases. For example, of the 11 parallels
in Dave's "Miscellaneous Verbal Parallels" (the least important
portion of his paper, I might remind you) there are 5 rare words:
ague, glut, hoodwink, bosky and amazement.
You don't know if the occurrence of the same rare words in
Strachey and Tempest might not be any more than chance would
indicate, so you can't put words in Foster's mouth.
Furthermore, whether a word is rare or not is irrelevant to Kathman's
argument, because he is considering words, phrases and plot
parallels AND THEIR CONTEXT, and this kind of analysis is
not something that Shaxicon can do, so bringing Foster and
Shaxicon into the argument is irrelevant and it is just another
one of your smokescreens.
Jim
David Stephan
language. Does one not pick up the reading and understanding of a
language before being able to put it down in writing? I know that I can
read and understand something written in German or French with little
high school training but would be hard put to write even the simplest
sentence in either language.
BobGr...@Nut-N-But.Net wrote:
>
> In article <79f8cu$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> Richard Nathan <Richard...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >
> > >How about an impromptu unscientific survey. I am curious. Who here is
> > >adept at recognizing handwriting and who here is not?
> > >
> >
> Actually, I think I would be adept, given sufficient samples of the
> writing, enough time, and unstressful working conditions. I wouldn't
> turn down help from those more experienced at it than I, though.
>
> > In my case, it would depend on the individual handwriting. I know some
> > people who have a handwriting style which is unique to them, and therefore
> > readily identifiable. But most of the people I know don't have a
> > noticably different handwriting - so I can't identify their writing.
> >
> And some have unique but variable handwriting.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
plagiarist wrote up the Sea-Venture story but added items to it
from The Tempest to punch it up, but he didn't punch it up with
anything too exciting, like a vision of a fairy, only with a bright
light. The story told as it happened would not have sold, but the
story with too many items from The Tempest would not have been
believed. So, like all the hoaxsters of the time, the plagiarist took
JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT of material from The Tempest to make his text
appealing but not obviously false. He had the cleverness to do that
but not the cleverness to write a good story without the help of
The Tempest. And you say I'm being silly.
Paul Crowley
<nda...@emirates.net.ae> wrote:
>Paul Crowley wrote:
>> The plays were
>> written primarily for a learned audience -- the court and the
>> aristocracy. You can tell that just by reading them -- or more
>> exactly -- by just looking at a few passages.
>
>Could you provide a few to prove your point?
They're the norm. Find the first speech of more than 20 lines in
a few plays, then ask yourself "Could an average illiterate
Londoner of 1600 follow these with ease, or at all, on first
hearing?".
>> The vast majority of houses would be bookless -- as many in the
>> UK are are still today.
>
>How many of the millions of houses in the UK have you surveyed to establish this
>"fact"?
Do you doubt it? I've been in enough to see the pattern. Ask
any social worker, comprehensive school-teacher or Labour-Party
canvasser, and you'll be assured of that they are numerous.
Alternatively, take a look at that ghastly UK TV program with
Lloyd Grossman and David ? (the one who 'rose without a trace')
called 'Through the keyhole'. (It's so coy and contrived -- and
so class-consciously Brit, that I doubt if it could ever be
translated into a US version.) Most of those I've seen who
pretend to read some books show ones that have clearly never been
read. And I've seen several that didn't even bother to pretend.
>> But most
>> working-class boys who passed that exam and went to grammar
>> school, did not escape their cultural background. The Beatles,
>> for example, were typical. They and their friends left school as
>> soon as it was legally possible. While they were not, of course,
>> illiterate, they retained a scorn for 'reading' and for learning
>> that has a tradition going back to well before Jack Cade.
>
>"In 1953 Paul took the 11-plus and qualified for Liverpool Institute, the city's
>top Grammar School, one of the best schools in the country that regularly sent
>more of its students to Oxford and Cambridge Universities than any other British
>state school.
Maybe Sir Paul McCartney, CBE (?) was a poor example for my case.
He's a great musical genius -- but with many social pretensions.
However, you don't mention that he was only one of 4 who passed
the 11-plus out of the 96 who did it in his primary school. The
other 92 were inevitably condemned to a lower order of existence.
Like most working-class boys, his academic work was poor in
school. John Lennon went to Art College and Paul was heading
towards a similar route (leading towards a dead-end job). The
admittance of working-class boys into university, and especially
Oxbridge, is notoriously low in the UK. (The present Labour
government's policy of replacing all grants with loans is not
likely to improve this.) If you doubt any of this, please say
so. I might be able to get figures. About a year ago I read
that of those who get three or more 'A's at A-level, only 1% are
working class. (Yes, only _one_ per cent.) Three 'A's are
needed for the more prestigious courses at the better
universities. So there aren't many doctors, lawyers,
accountants, etc., from a working-class origin.
>- The teaching staff comprising Oxford dons is proof positive of the standard of
>education that the people of Stratford wanted.
An Oxford 'don' is a professor or teacher at Oxford University.
An Oxford graduate is not a 'don' unless he/she gets such a job.
>- The salaries of the Oxford dons on twice the average is proof positive of the
>costs the people of Stratford were prepared to incur to properly educate their
>children.
It shows how much they had to pay to attract a teacher to that
godforsaken backwater. And the turnover during the time of
'Shaxper's schooling' tells us that it wasn't enough to attract
those likely to be competent -- or likely to stay.
>- John Shakespeare's business, public office as town bailiff, and application
>for a family coat of arms are proof positive of the social responsibility and
>personal ambitions of the man.
You only have his (actually his son's) claim from the later
application that he had made an earlier one. A dubious claim
even under normal circumstances.
>Shakespeare had the means, the motive, the facilities, the status, the
>parentage, the town culture, the access, to Oxford don-taught Grammar School
>education. Only a new and rare form of myopia could not see the obviousness of
>him having attended there.
I'd be more inclined to believe it IF his signatures were those
of a person used to writing OR if the clerk had got the name and
address of his prospective wife right OR if he'd left anything in
writing OR if Abraham Sturley and Thomas Greene had indicated (in
their extensive correspondence about the 'Stratford crisis') that
he was anything more than a possible source of money OR if we had
good evidence that his daughters were literate OR if any person
had in writing or conversation ever given any indication that he
could write . . . . . and so on and on and on.
>> Literacy is not a be-all and end-all. It has grades. Many
>> 'literate' people simply can't read broadsheet newspapers or
>> serious books.
>
>Can you name one?
Of course. What world do you live in? Why do you think
tabloids sell?
>Of course. Just like Paul McCartney and John Lennon whom you believe have and
>have had a "scorn for reading", except the facts yet again prove you're talking
>out of your bottom.
When Harold Wilson awarded them CBE's there was a great row;
many 'respectable' persons sent their own back -- look it up in
the archives. Actually they had more sense than Harold Wilson.
The Beatles sent their own back a few years later. The class
issue in England goes extremely deep, and includes among the
working class a detestation for most things middle-class, which
covers the theatre, literature and the like. Read Richard
Hoggart.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>I've never seen any indication that literate men preferred
>literate daughters so that they could have literate children.
>
>Do you make this stuff up as you go? Let's see some evidence.
Err . . if you really do come from another planet, I could dig
out some references for you on such matters in Earth literature
over the past 400 years, starting with W. Shake-speare..
>If it happens to be true, then as both Susanna and Judith married highly
>literate men, it would be evidence that they were both literate. By the
>way, Susanna's daughter was literate.
Money (believe it or believe it not) was also an important
factor. Usually the two went together. Often there was a one-
generation time-lag -- in that the money came into the family
before the literacy was acquired. You may have noticed a similar
pattern in the country of your indicated residence: the children
of Mafiosi tend to receive expensive educations.
>In fact, I've read that education of girls beyond what was expected for
>their station was viewed as something that would make them less
>marriageable.
Yes, indeed. An illiterate man would not _generally_ want a
literate wife. It would spell trouble. The same pattern exists
here among the travelling community.
>This may have been Anne's view.
I agree. Their station was that of poor tradesmen, just above
the peasant class. Before the money came in, the daughters had
little hope of acquiring literate husbands. And their father
gave no encouragement -- neither moral nor financial.
>There's very good evidence that
>people thought it desirable to be able to read the Bible. Of course
>rather than enhancing their marriage prospects, it was thought to enhance
>their eternal prospects.
C'mon, we're talking economics here. Learning to read was
difficult and expensive -- one way or the other. The child's
labour was not available (and undermined for the future) and the
parish priest would have expected some compensation for his time
and trouble. And Bibles were expensive and not readily
available. Very few ordinary households owned one. But you're
missing the political context. During the reign of Mary
(1553-58) it was dangerous to be able to read -- and especially
to be able to read the Bible. Elizabeth's reign, during her
early years, was not secure. No one knew who would succeed her
if she died or was killed, and there were many scares about her
life. It was generally safer _not_ to be able to read. You
could not then be accused of reading the 'wrong' stuff.
>> >Anti-Stratfordians also take as axiomatic that a 60 year old Elizabethan
>> >woman, who didn't recognize her dead husband's handwriting in a old Latin
>> >manuscript, was necessarily illiterate despite the fact that she signed at
>> >least one document. It's not. It's quite disputable.
>>
>> If it's disputable, you should be able to quote parallel cases.
>
>You've made a logical error. Whether or not there are parallel cases has
>little bearing on whether or not your proposed axiom is disputable.
You suggested the axiom. And parallel cases can come from
anytime -- like today. You should be able to quote common cases
of normal literate 60-year-olds who can't recognise the
handwriting of their spouse after a widowhood of about ten years.
>Otherwise, many ludicrous propositions would be indisputable simply
>because no "parallel cases" are quotable.
I've long maintained that Stratfordianism causes brain-rot.
>First, consider the sort of possibility that you and Volker are so fond of
>in other circumstances(ie whenever it's necessary to keep your case from
>folding)-- that Cooke was a dishonest, deceptive, or self-serving man.
It is, of course, always a possibility. But it is not one that
should be entertained without evidence.
>Without some other evidence to cast some doubt on Cooke's honesty, I have
>to view these types of scenarios as highly unlikely. On the other hand,
>you and Volker have often alleged similar dishonesties(without feeling any
>need for corroborating evidence as to character), concerning Condell,
>Heminge, Jonson, Strachey, and sundry others too numerous to mention, so
>perhaps you'll feel differently.
We only come to these conclusions after what we believe is
compelling evidence for them.
>Consider the possibility of poor eyesight. Susanna Hall was about 60
>years of age at the time Cooke said that he made his visit and it's quite
>reasonable to question whether her eyes were up to the task of handwriting
>recognition.
It's possible. People are sometimes reluctant to admit to
failing eyesight. But she was a doctor's wife and reading
spectacles were common -- especially for the over-50's and for
those who needed to read -- or do other close work, such as
sewing.
>> That is not a sound guess. People in small communities often
>> boost their claims to abilities and talents, well beyond reality.
>
>I have no idea where you grew up but delusional people are a relative
>rarity in most communities.
I said nothing about 'delusional'. It is a fact that people like
to pretend to capabilites they don't possess. (Take a look
around you at your fellow academics.) No doubt many doctors'
wives could read and, maybe, she felt she should be able to do so
too. She mixed with a literate class. She had acquired a
literate family. As you say, her daughter could read. (That
daughter definitely had a literate father -- unlike the mother
whose father was no more than a usurer, hoarder, and wool
dealer.)
>Their parents were her age mates and would have known quite well whether
>or not she'd spent any significant time at school. You propose a very
>strange Susanna who tried to deceive the children of her neighbors by
>learning to sign when she couldn't read.
Doctors' wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces'. She could well
have intimated to them that her husband had taught her to read.
>For now I'll simply note
>that you've accepted that school authorities thought it possible for girls
>to leave school able to read but unable to write.
I have not accepted this. It may be true, but it doesn't sound
right to me. It's very hard to teach children anything without
them doing something. And slates and chalk were not expensive,
>Susanna was born in 1583 and Judith in 1585. What's the evidence that
>Shakespeare was making good money when they were of school age?
He bought the second-largest house in Stratford in 1596, as well
as some tithes and other property, when Susanna was 13 and Judith
11. He had presumably accumulated that money throughout their
school years -- instead of using it to pay for their education.
Even if the money somehow all came in late, they were both still
young enough, especially Judith -- yet it is she who makes her
mark instead of signing her name.
>What could Shakespeare, off in London, have done to force his wife to make
>the girls go to school? Would he have given up his occupation to make it
>happen? I doubt it. He might not even have noticed until it was too
>late.
And this sounds like your author? He had money; he was an
Elizabethan father, and head of the household. It is generally
assumed that he visited regularly. Presumably, he wrote to his
daughters on their birthdays, and the like, asking a literate
relation or neighbour to read his letters to them. Would he have
liked his daughters to be able to write back? Even something
simple? Would he have started to teach them the basics during
his stays there? Wouldn't they have been interested in his work
and wanted to imitate? Wouldn't they have been proud of his
success? Of the ten thousand who had seen his Talbot grace the
stage by (?) 1592? What about all his (supposedly) literate
brothers and sisters? Weren't they proud of his success?
Wouldn't they have talked to the girls about it? Wouldn't they
have helped out in the teaching? Wouldn't the Stratman have
asked his brothers to coach and encourage his daughters?
Wouldn't the girls feel that they _should_ be able to read his
works. Would they have liked his simple sonnets? Would he have
written a few verses to amuse them? Would he have sent them a
few from time to time from London? Would he have written to tell
them of the success of his plays with the Queen and with the
other notables? Would he have written to tell them of his
meetings with Her Royal Highness?
Or was he a monster, who couldn't stand his little girls? Was he
someone who disapproved of girls reading anything? Or their
taking the least interest in anything 'above their station'.
Is that what you pick up from the plays?
It is perfectly obvious as soon as you begin to think about the
kinds of daughters the playwright _must_ have had, that the
Stratman is wholly out of place.
>What's your evidence that de Vere ever did anything to help his daughters?
>I can only recall him making a complaint to Cecil that Derby wasn't giving
>his daughter enough of an allowance. (Perhaps he was hoping to borrow
>money from her.)
De Vere's daughters were being well educated and looked after.
Their grandfather was one of the richest and most powerful men in
the country. Later on, De Vere does not seem to have had the
money to contribute much to their upkeep; his father-in-law had
got rich, partly at his expense. Perhaps he was sometimes
troubled at the situation, but I doubt if he dwelt upon it
overmuch.
>And what makes you think that Will or Anne should have been willing to
>relocate the family to London. It was a particularly unhealthy place for
>children.
The aristocracy had their children in London. I doubt that it
was generally more unhealthy so long as you could afford decent
housing -- which the Stratman apparently could.
>> And where
>> in the plays or the sonnets do we get the slightest hint of this
>> separation from his family? The theme of absent daughters? As
>> usual for the Strat theory of authorship, nothing fits.
>
>You imagine that Oxford is a better fit but how much time did Oxford spend
>in his daughters's company? Didn't they reside at Cecil house with their
>mother?
Oxford became reconciled to his marriage and, even after his wife
died (in 1588?) I'm sure he saw them as much as he wanted. He
was not barred by distance. He had no reason (as far as we know)
to write of daughters in any way other than what we have.
>It is possible to say that at least one Mr. Shakespeare in Stratford owned
>at least one book. How many Mr. Shakespeares do you expect there were
>in Stratford?
What is your source for this? And what's its context?
Paul.
nda...@emirates.net.ae
> >> The vast majority of houses would be bookless -- as many in the
> >> UK are are still today.
> >
> >How many of the millions of houses in the UK have you surveyed to establish
this
> >"fact"?
>
> Do you doubt it? I've been in enough to see the pattern. Ask
> any social worker, comprehensive school-teacher or Labour-Party
> canvasser, and you'll be assured of that they are numerous.
You're confusing existence with ubiquity. You can find rapists in Canada - it
doesn't mean the "vast majority" of Canadians are rapists. You can find
terrorists in Ireland - it doesn't mean the "vast majority" of Irish people
are terrorists. You can find illiterates who don't own any books in Oklahoma
- it doesn't mean the "vast majority" of Americans are illiterate and don't
own books.
> Maybe Sir Paul McCartney, CBE (?) was a poor example for my case.
> He's a great musical genius -- but with many social pretensions.
> However, you don't mention that he was only one of 4 who passed
> the 11-plus out of the 96 who did it in his primary school.
He was one of 4 who passed to go to Liverpool Institute.
> >- John Shakespeare's business, public office as town bailiff, and application
> >for a family coat of arms are proof positive of the social responsibility and
> >personal ambitions of the man.
>
> You only have his (actually his son's) claim from the later
> application that he had made an earlier one. A dubious claim
> even under normal circumstances.
Huh? We have the grant that explicitly states John Shakespeare's occupations
as: "Bailiff, Justice of the Peace, Chief of the Town". These are positions
of social responsibility and accountability. Evidence of administrative
authority in the affairs of the town. They are the most senior provincial
positions that could be attained by anyone. Demonstrable competence in
holding those positions for a period of time permitted application for a coat
of arms and motto. They didn't give out these titles to just anyone, they
were granted to people who had demonstrated competence in these fields.
> >Shakespeare had the means, the motive, the facilities, the status, the
> >parentage, the town culture, the access, to Oxford don-taught Grammar School
> >education. Only a new and rare form of myopia could not see the obviousness
of
> >him having attended there.
>
> I'd be more inclined to believe it IF his signatures were those
> of a person used to writing
Only 6 survive - greater than most of his contemporaries and evidence of his
ability to write which is the issue here.
> OR if the clerk had got the name and
> address of his prospective wife right
A clerk's competence, not Shakespeare's.
> OR if he'd left anything in writing
His study in New Place was broken into by bailiffs who removed books,
documents, letters, money, bonds, etc. in the process of recovering a
disputed debt. His inventory of personal effects attached to his will that
would have documented such items as books and documents of no commercial
value at that time has not survived. He did leave items such as these.
Subsequent events very unfortunately mean we no longer have them.
> OR if Abraham Sturley and Thomas Greene had indicated (in
> their extensive correspondence about the 'Stratford crisis') that
> he was anything more than a possible source of money
What was the Stratford crisis? An issue about the theatre or
commercial/financial affairs in Stratford? Is the lack of our references to
your occupation on this newsgroup evidence of you not being what you are? Are
the references to Elvis Presley that we can find that fail to say "Elvis
Presley, the singer" proof that he wasn't a singer?
> OR if we had good evidence that his daughters were literate
Do you have evidence, as opposed to opinion, that they weren't? Do you have
evidence that de Vere's weren't? Do you have any evidence that the literacy of
anyone's female children in the 1590's has any relevance to the literacy of a
grown man who in all probability attended a Grammar School?
> OR if any person
> had in writing or conversation ever given any indication that he
> could write
These exist.
> >> Literacy is not a be-all and end-all. It has grades. Many
> >> 'literate' people simply can't read broadsheet newspapers or
> >> serious books.
> >
> >Can you name one?
>
> Of course. What world do you live in? Why do you think
> tabloids sell?
Tabloids sell to people who CAN read. Their purchase of reading material is
proof positive that they CAN read. A person who doesn't buy broadsheet
newpapers and serious books chooses not to read them, it doesn't mean they
"can't" read them. If you buy The Sun instead of The Times it doesn't mean you
CAN'T read The Times, it means you choose not to.
> When Harold Wilson awarded them CBE's there was a great row;
> many 'respectable' persons sent their own back -- look it up in
> the archives. Actually they had more sense than Harold Wilson.
> The Beatles sent their own back a few years later.
Is your complete lack of knowledge total or just 99%? John Lennon alone sent
his back in protest to the Vietnam War and his record "'Cold Turkey' slipping
down the charts". The others retained their's. No wonder your ideas on what
happened in the 1590's are so potty when you're so clueless on compartively
recent events.
li...@my-dejanews.com
7a5rld$pqt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
nda...@emirates.net.ae wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > >> The vast majority of houses would be bookless -- as many in the
> > >> UK are are still today.
> > >
> > >How many of the millions of houses in the UK have you surveyed to establish
> this
> > >"fact"?
> >
> > Do you doubt it? I've been in enough to see the pattern. Ask
> > any social worker, comprehensive school-teacher or Labour-Party
> > canvasser, and you'll be assured of that they are numerous.
>
> You're confusing existence with ubiquity. You can find rapists in Canada - it
> doesn't mean the "vast majority" of Canadians are rapists. You can find
> terrorists in Ireland - it doesn't mean the "vast majority" of Irish people
> are terrorists. You can find illiterates who don't own any books in Oklahoma
> - it doesn't mean the "vast majority" of Americans are illiterate and don't
> own books.
>
You're confusing "vast majority" with
"many". Paul didn't write that the "vast
majority" of houses in the UK are bookless
today--just that "many" are. I have no
reason to doubt that statement.
Nor have I any reason to doubt his
statement that the "vast majority" of
houses in the UK were bookless in
Shakespeare's time.
Both statements seem much more likely
than not.
li...@my-dejanews.com
7a5rld$pqt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > I'd be more inclined to believe it IF his signatures were those
> > of a person used to writing
>
> Only 6 survive - greater than most of his contemporaries and evidence of his
> ability to write which is the issue here.
>
I've seen no evidence that those 6
signatures were actually executed *by* the
Stratford man, and not
*for* him, by someone else.
nda...@emirates.net.ae
> You're confusing "vast majority" with
> "many". Paul didn't write that the "vast
> majority" of houses in the UK are bookless
> today--just that "many" are. I have no
> reason to doubt that statement.
Agreed. I'm so used to sweeping statements from Paul Crowley and him
consistently making totally incorrect statements such as "the members of the
Beatles scorned reading" that it's difficult to see when he's not talking in
misleading absolutes. Later in his post he said: "Most of those I've seen who
pretend to read some books show ones that have clearly never been read", for
example. How he can determine whether a book has or has not been read just
from a TV programme is a mystery.
> Nor have I any reason to doubt his
> statement that the "vast majority" of
> houses in the UK were bookless in
> Shakespeare's time.
Well, this is the problem with people who call Shakespeare a "bladder-faced
hick from that godforesaken backwater of Stratford." Low-grade, insulting
criticism like this just ends up shooting itself in the foot. If Stratford
was such why was Richard Field such a successful book publisher? Why was the
study at New Place broken in to and books, documents, papers owned by Susanna
Shakespeare stolen? If Stratford was indeed Hicksville, UK then the facts of
the occupations of people from Stratford, the Grammar School, and the books
and papers that existed in the homes of people who lived there must mean that
these factors must have been more prevalent in more developed parts of the
country. You can't have it both ways. We all know that that wasn't the case
though, the country wasn't a massive bookshop, but the reason why that isn't
the case is because using Stratford as a model of Hicksville, UK is flawed.
It requires gross, deliberate ignorance of the presence of the Stratford
Grammar School, what its purpose in life was, and what it says about the
social responsibilities of the people of that town in that period.
It's like the argument that Shakespeare must have had a great knowledge of
Europe to write the works when anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the
canon knows full well that the author had erroneous knowledge of Europe. The
classic self-defeating, self-contradicting argument.
nda...@emirates.net.ae
> I've seen no evidence that those 6
> signatures were actually executed *by* the
> Stratford man, and not
> *for* him, by someone else.
Post me a copy of your signature. Then prove to me that you actually wrote it.
If quality of evidence requires the equivalent of a videotape actually showing
Shakespeare signing a signature then it's pointless engaging in any debate on
the matter.
His will is signed: "By Me William Shakspeare". That literally says it all.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
li...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <
> 7a5rld$pqt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > > of a person used to writing
> >
> > Only 6 survive - greater than most of his contemporaries and evidence of his
> > ability to write which is the issue here.
> >
>
I believe one trait of the rigidnik is an inability, no
matter what the evidence is, to accept things that seem
rational to others,. I tend NOT to use this trait to
identify rigidniks because discriminating between extreme
adherence to a belief in spite of its irrationality
and adherence to a belief because OF its rationality
is too difficult. It's much easier to look for rigidnikal
traits that are easy objectively to recognize such as a
preference for black&white thinking (anti-continuumism)
and a predilection for conspiracy theories. Nonetheless,
I have to count the above REFUSAL to recognize what counts
as EVIDENCE, an insanity it would seem no anti-Stratfordian
at HLAS is able to be cured of, as ABSOLUTE RIGIDNIKRY. It
is not some subjective whim that makes me claim (stubbornly,
over and over) that evidence is, as one of my pocket
dictionaries has it, "date upon which judgement can be based,
or proof established"--i.e., it is NOT the same as "proof."
Therefore, Paul, that the signatures all spell some variant of the
name by which William Shakespeare of Stratford was known means they are
ALL evidence (not proof) that it was he who formed them. You can
say you are sure he didn't form them but you CANNOT say there is
NO EVIDENCE that he did so. In CONTINUALLY saying the latter, anyway,
you prove yourself beyond reasonable doubt an absolute rigidnik.
--Bob G.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
I'm sure the person listed as "Lisa2" will take that as a compliment.
--Bob G.
volker multhopp
> Ooops, seems I mistook this new rigidnik for Paul Crowley. But
> I'm sure the person listed as "Lisa2" will take that as a compliment.
That sounds like a good rigidnik statement.
--Volker
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 li...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <
> 7a5rld$pqt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> nda...@emirates.net.ae wrote:
> > Paul Crowley wrote:
>
> > > I'd be more inclined to believe it IF his signatures were those
> > > of a person used to writing
> >
> > Only 6 survive - greater than most of his contemporaries and evidence of his
> > ability to write which is the issue here.
> >
>
> I've seen no evidence that those 6
> signatures were actually executed *by* the
> Stratford man, and not
> *for* him, by someone else.
It's perfectly ok for someone to mangle their own signature. If he had
someone signing for him, we would expect to see much neater signatures.
There are differences between the signatures but there are enough
similarities to make nearly every professional paleographer to think it
probable that they are all by the same hand.
Rob.
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:14:10 -0500, Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> >I've never seen any indication that literate men preferred
> >literate daughters so that they could have literate children.
> >
> >Do you make this stuff up as you go? Let's see some evidence.
>
> Err . . if you really do come from another planet, I could dig
> out some references for you on such matters in Earth literature
> over the past 400 years, starting with W. Shake-speare..
OK. Let's see it. I've got a feeling that your evidence consists simply
of a few notable instances where literate men married literate women and
had literate children.
> >If it happens to be true, then as both Susanna and Judith married highly
> >literate men, it would be evidence that they were both literate. By the
> >way, Susanna's daughter was literate.
>
> Money (believe it or believe it not) was also an important
> factor. Usually the two went together. Often there was a one-
> generation time-lag -- in that the money came into the family
> before the literacy was acquired. You may have noticed a similar
> pattern in the country of your indicated residence: the children
> of Mafiosi tend to receive expensive educations.
By the standards of the time, John Shakespeare was a wealthy man. He
owned a substantial amount of property. He appears in the documentary
record a number of times with large sums attached to his name. The
largest is 210 pounds in 1571. You might note that this is about 20 times
what a master craftsman might expect to make in a year.
> >In fact, I've read that education of girls beyond what was expected for
> >their station was viewed as something that would make them less
> >marriageable.
>
> Yes, indeed. An illiterate man would not _generally_ want a
> literate wife. It would spell trouble. The same pattern exists
> here among the travelling community.
Obviously customs vary quite a bit. One of my grandmothers is said to
have taught her husband to read.
What I was referring to was more along the lines of whether or not the
average Elizabethan gentleman would consider a wife who could read latin
a likely match.
> >This may have been Anne's view.
>
> I agree. Their station was that of poor tradesmen, just above
> the peasant class. Before the money came in, the daughters had
> little hope of acquiring literate husbands. And their father
> gave no encouragement -- neither moral nor financial.
This is confusing your suppositions with reality. It's impossible to know
what he did or didn't do. The evidence is too thin. Strictly speaking,
you really can't even say how poor they were.
Aubrey tells us that Beeston told him that Shakespeare was a country
schoolmaster which if true, would probably point to a poorer rather
than richer lifestyle.
> >There's very good evidence that
> >people thought it desirable to be able to read the Bible. Of course
> >rather than enhancing their marriage prospects, it was thought to enhance
> >their eternal prospects.
>
> C'mon, we're talking economics here. Learning to read was
> difficult and expensive -- one way or the other.
Personally, I don't think learning to read is a particularly difficult
task for your average child. Nor is it usually a very expensive
proposition.
> The child's
> labour was not available (and undermined for the future)
The labor value of small children isn't very much. I've heard nothing
that would make me think that many Elizabethans thought that knowing how
to read tended to undermine labor. There was some complaint about there
being too many highly of the educated(read university graduates), but
that's really another kettle of fish.
> and the
> parish priest would have expected some compensation for his time
> and trouble.
And not unreasonably so. But since even grammar school teachers were
generally poorly paid, a parish priest couldn't command any great sum for
a part-time teaching job. The expense would not likely have been great.
> And Bibles were expensive and not readily
> available. Very few ordinary households owned one.
It is my understanding that there were a very large number of bibles
printed. Where do you suppose they all went?
> But you're
> missing the political context. During the reign of Mary
> (1553-58) it was dangerous to be able to read -- and especially
> to be able to read the Bible.
Do you have some evidence for this? I've never heard of one person who
was persecuted for being able to read in the time of Mary.
> Elizabeth's reign, during her
> early years, was not secure. No one knew who would succeed her
> if she died or was killed, and there were many scares about her
> life. It was generally safer _not_ to be able to read. You
> could not then be accused of reading the 'wrong' stuff.
You ignore the advantages of being able to read. It's generally safer not
to be able to drive too. If you always take public transportation, your
chances of dying in a traffic accident dip to nil.
> >> >Anti-Stratfordians also take as axiomatic that a 60 year old Elizabethan
> >> >woman, who didn't recognize her dead husband's handwriting in a old Latin
> >> >manuscript, was necessarily illiterate despite the fact that she signed at
> >> >least one document. It's not. It's quite disputable.
> >>
> >> If it's disputable, you should be able to quote parallel cases.
> >
> >You've made a logical error. Whether or not there are parallel cases has
> >little bearing on whether or not your proposed axiom is disputable.
>
> You suggested the axiom.
I suggested that the axiom was one that anti-Stratfordians accepted. Do
you deny it?
> And parallel cases can come from
> anytime -- like today. You should be able to quote common cases
> of normal literate 60-year-olds who can't recognise the
> handwriting of their spouse after a widowhood of about ten years.
This would perhaps be true if many cases came up where it was important
that 60 year old literate women recognize their dead husbands handwriting.
I can't think of one case where a 60 year old woman said that she did
_recognize_ her husband's handwriting. Can you?
> >Otherwise, many ludicrous propositions would be indisputable simply
> >because no "parallel cases" are quotable.
>
> I've long maintained that Stratfordianism causes brain-rot.
You can maintain whatever you like but such statements will do little
to persuade any reasonable person that you have more than the slightest
acquaintance with logic.
> >First, consider the sort of possibility that you and Volker are so fond of
> >in other circumstances(ie whenever it's necessary to keep your case from
> >folding)-- that Cooke was a dishonest, deceptive, or self-serving man.
>
> It is, of course, always a possibility. But it is not one that
> should be entertained without evidence.
What evidence do you have that shows that anyone involved with any of the
wills was dishonest? What evidence do you have that shows that anyone
involved with the Blackfriars mortgage was dishonest? What evidence
do you have that shows that Jonson was dishonest? Etc.
> >Without some other evidence to cast some doubt on Cooke's honesty, I have
> >to view these types of scenarios as highly unlikely. On the other hand,
> >you and Volker have often alleged similar dishonesties(without feeling any
> >need for corroborating evidence as to character), concerning Condell,
> >Heminge, Jonson, Strachey, and sundry others too numerous to mention, so
> >perhaps you'll feel differently.
>
> We only come to these conclusions after what we believe is
> compelling evidence for them.
It is more accurate to say that you come to those conclusions because
those sort of conclusions are a necessary part of Oxfordianism. There
really isn't any good evidence that any of those men were dishonest.
> >Consider the possibility of poor eyesight. Susanna Hall was about 60
> >years of age at the time Cooke said that he made his visit and it's quite
> >reasonable to question whether her eyes were up to the task of handwriting
> >recognition.
>
> It's possible. People are sometimes reluctant to admit to
> failing eyesight. But she was a doctor's wife and reading
> spectacles were common -- especially for the over-50's and for
> those who needed to read -- or do other close work, such as
> sewing.
She may have owned spectacles. That doesn't mean she put them on to check
whether or not Cooke was telling her the truth. I will say this. She was
a wealthy woman and probably had servants to do her sewing.
> >> That is not a sound guess. People in small communities often
> >> boost their claims to abilities and talents, well beyond reality.
> >
> >I have no idea where you grew up but delusional people are a relative
> >rarity in most communities.
>
> I said nothing about 'delusional'.
You did say "well beyond reality" which in my book at least verges on the
delusional. Long time residents of small towns generally know each other
pretty well. What sort of person would believe that they could fool their
close neighbors with claims of talents and abilities well beyond reality?
> It is a fact that people like
> to pretend to capabilites they don't possess. (Take a look
> around you at your fellow academics.)
I don't pretend to be an academic. Of the academics that I have known, I
can't think of one who pretended to have skills that he didn't have.
> No doubt many doctors'
> wives could read and, maybe, she felt she should be able to do so
> too. She mixed with a literate class.
William mixed with a literate class. In fact, all of his friends
seem to have been highly literate. How curious.
> She had acquired a
> literate family. As you say, her daughter could read. (That
> daughter definitely had a literate father -- unlike the mother
> whose father was no more than a usurer, hoarder, and wool
> dealer.)
Careful, your prejudices are showing.
What evidence is there that WS was ever a wool dealer?
The allegations that WS was a hoarder are weak. He once had
too much malt stored on his property during a time of famine.
I can go into the extenuating circumstances if I must.
I've asked but no anti-Stratfordian has ever been able to show any
document where WS can be shown to have lent money at interest.
> >Their parents were her age mates and would have known quite well whether
> >or not she'd spent any significant time at school. You propose a very
> >strange Susanna who tried to deceive the children of her neighbors by
> >learning to sign when she couldn't read.
>
> Doctors' wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces'. She could well
> have intimated to them that her husband had taught her to read.
That such wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces' is stereotype. I don't
know that it's even true today. How do you know it was true in
Elizabethan times?
Again I'll note that you've accused some poor dead soul of a dishonesty
without any evidence.
> >For now I'll simply note
> >that you've accepted that school authorities thought it possible for girls
> >to leave school able to read but unable to write.
>
> I have not accepted this. It may be true, but it doesn't sound
> right to me.
Do you think that the men who wrote the Banbury school charter didn't know
what they were talking about?
> It's very hard to teach children anything without
> them doing something. And slates and chalk were not expensive,
Believe it or not, reading is not doing nothing. It's an activity.
> >Susanna was born in 1583 and Judith in 1585. What's the evidence that
> >Shakespeare was making good money when they were of school age?
>
> He bought the second-largest house in Stratford in 1596,
I think it was in 1597.
> as well
> as some tithes and other property, when Susanna was 13 and Judith
> 11. He had presumably accumulated that money throughout their
> school years -- instead of using it to pay for their education.
> Even if the money somehow all came in late, they were both still
> young enough, especially Judith -- yet it is she who makes her
> mark instead of signing her name.
Like I said, I think the point is moot. The evidence is that
the Stratford petty school probably accepted girls. Of the two
girls that are known from a legal document to have attended, one
signed and the other did not. Curious eh?
> >What could Shakespeare, off in London, have done to force his wife to make
> >the girls go to school? Would he have given up his occupation to make it
> >happen? I doubt it. He might not even have noticed until it was too
> >late.
>
> And this sounds like your author? He had money; he was an
> Elizabethan father, and head of the household.
So you'd expect your author to have beaten Anne if she didn't comply?
> It is generally
> assumed that he visited regularly.
Where is it assumed that he visited regularly? The early tradition was
that he visited once a year for a couple of weeks in the spring or summer.
I suppose that is regular but it hardly seems enough to assure any degree
of education for his children.
> Presumably, he wrote to his
> daughters on their birthdays, and the like, asking a literate
> relation or neighbour to read his letters to them. Would he have
> liked his daughters to be able to write back? Even something
> simple?
I don't know whether he expected them to write. It seems that most
middleclass Elizabethan girls didn't do much writing.
I'd like to again note that the evidence that the girls were illiterate is
not very good.
> Would he have started to teach them the basics during
> his stays there?
If he was a typical Elizabethan, the education of the girls would have
been shorted in favor of Hamlet's.
> Wouldn't they have been interested in his work
> and wanted to imitate?
Maybe. Who knows? Maybe they lacked any real ability. That tends to be
a bit discouraging.
> Wouldn't they have been proud of his
> success? Of the ten thousand who had seen his Talbot grace the
> stage by (?) 1592?
Perhaps, but what's this got to do with anything?
> What about all his (supposedly) literate
> brothers and sisters?
Interesting. I didn't know that he had a literate sister.
> Weren't they proud of his success?
> Wouldn't they have talked to the girls about it? Wouldn't they
> have helped out in the teaching? Wouldn't the Stratman have
> asked his brothers to coach and encourage his daughters?
Not impossible but I believe it would have been most unusual.
Contemporary custom didn't regard the education of girls very important.
> Wouldn't the girls feel that they _should_ be able to read his
> works.
Given the social climate, it is impossible to know how they felt. Good
Elizabethan girls may have felt that it was more proper they should know
how to sew.
> Would they have liked his simple sonnets? Would he have
> written a few verses to amuse them? Would he have sent them a
> few from time to time from London? Would he have written to tell
> them of the success of his plays with the Queen and with the
> other notables?
We really don't know how well Shakespeare kept his family informed do we?
It certainly wouldn't be unheard of for an artist to be self-absorbed at
the expense of his family.
> Would he have written to tell them of his
> meetings with Her Royal Highness?
I'll say it again. There isn't any good evidence that he met with the
Queen. That's a very late tradition.
> Or was he a monster, who couldn't stand his little girls? Was he
> someone who disapproved of girls reading anything? Or their
> taking the least interest in anything 'above their station'.
>
> Is that what you pick up from the plays?
Nice rhetoric but there isn't any real argument behind it.
> It is perfectly obvious as soon as you begin to think about the
> kinds of daughters the playwright _must_ have had, that the
> Stratman is wholly out of place.
Egads! At worst, WS behaved as 99% of his contemporaries would have.
Indeed, can you show any other contemporary playwright who did any
better?
> >What's your evidence that de Vere ever did anything to help his daughters?
> >I can only recall him making a complaint to Cecil that Derby wasn't giving
> >his daughter enough of an allowance. (Perhaps he was hoping to borrow
> >money from her.)
>
> De Vere's daughters were being well educated and looked after.
> Their grandfather was one of the richest and most powerful men in
> the country. Later on, De Vere does not seem to have had the
> money to contribute much to their upkeep; his father-in-law had
> got rich, partly at his expense. Perhaps he was sometimes
> troubled at the situation, but I doubt if he dwelt upon it
> overmuch.
First, I'd like to note that I've never seen any proof that Burghley
got rich at de Vere's expense. It seems to be simply another
of the Oxfordian slanders directed at dead men.
So, if WS paid little attention to his family that would make him a
monster but if de Vere paid little attention to his, that wouldn't bother
you?
> >And what makes you think that Will or Anne should have been willing to
> >relocate the family to London. It was a particularly unhealthy place for
> >children.
>
> The aristocracy had their children in London. I doubt that it
> was generally more unhealthy so long as you could afford decent
> housing -- which the Stratman apparently could.
My understanding is that the aristocracy seems to have generally kept
their children on their estates outside of London.
IIRC, there were more adults than children in London, a most unusual state
of affairs attributable to a much higher than average child mortality
rate.
> >> And where
> >> in the plays or the sonnets do we get the slightest hint of this
> >> separation from his family? The theme of absent daughters? As
> >> usual for the Strat theory of authorship, nothing fits.
> >
> >You imagine that Oxford is a better fit but how much time did Oxford spend
> >in his daughters's company? Didn't they reside at Cecil house with their
> >mother?
>
> Oxford became reconciled to his marriage and, even after his wife
> died (in 1588?) I'm sure he saw them as much as he wanted. He
> was not barred by distance.
How far away did he live? How do you know he wanted to see them
at all?
> He had no reason (as far as we know)
> to write of daughters in any way other than what we have.
> >It is possible to say that at least one Mr. Shakespeare in Stratford owned
> >at least one book. How many Mr. Shakespeares do you expect there were
> >in Stratford?
>
> What is your source for this? And what's its context?
It's in a law suit. IIRC, some lady in the neighborhood of Stratford
died while in possession of a book belonging to a Mr. Shakespeare.
It's been discussed on HLAS before so I'm sure you can find the details
if you care to look.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
--Bob G.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
arguments but as requests for clarification (after which there
may well be arguments).
(1) Just how did the signatures come about? That is, did different
clerk's sign for Shakespeare? Or did he sign them all using the
same signature sample, which some literate had given him to use?
Did he use different signature samples? Did each clerk give him
a sample on the spot? Did he have some who could sign his name
accompany him?
(2) Why are all the signatures similar? You claim they are not similar
enough to be by the same man; but why are they all secretarial, and
why do they all have things in common with each other?
(3) Why were abbreviations used--for "William" and for "speare"?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>Well, this is the problem with people who call Shakespeare a "bladder-faced
>hick from that godforesaken backwater of Stratford." Low-grade, insulting
>criticism like this just ends up shooting itself in the foot.
Who used those words? Certainly not me -- as you imply.
Whenever you try to put words into Oxfordian mouths you will
always get it wrong. The 'bladder-face' comes from the existing
statue -- it's the face of 'anonymous'. No doubt the true face
of the Stratman was quite unacceptable for that of the world's
greatest writer. It was probably much like that shown in the
drawing or the original monument (by Fuller?) -- a thin, sour-
faced man -- but at least it looked genuine.
>If Stratford
>was such why was Richard Field such a successful book publisher?
People from hick towns can turn out quite successfully. They
often make a lot of money. It's just turning into great authors
-- when they have illiterate parents in a substantially
illiterate society -- that we find it hard to swallow.
>Why was the
>study at New Place broken in to and books, documents, papers owned by Susanna
>Shakespeare stolen?
What is your source for this information?
>If Stratford was indeed Hicksville, UK then the facts of
>the occupations of people from Stratford, the Grammar School, and the books
>and papers that existed in the homes of people who lived there must mean that
>these factors must have been more prevalent in more developed parts of the
>country. You can't have it both ways. We all know that that wasn't the case
>though, the country wasn't a massive bookshop, but the reason why that isn't
>the case is because using Stratford as a model of Hicksville, UK is flawed.
>It requires gross, deliberate ignorance of the presence of the Stratford
>Grammar School, what its purpose in life was, and what it says about the
>social responsibilities of the people of that town in that period.
Just pay attention to the facts. Stratford was, _more_or_less_,
Hicksville, UK. It has some literate people -- the priest,
teacher, doctor, lawyer, apothecary, and few others. The rest
weren't -- because they didn't need to be. But the jobs were in
the expanding towns and cities, especially in London, and those
who wanted a good future for their sons, got them an education.
It wasn't much. What else do you expect between 7 and 13? But
if they coped with it they could become an apprentice at some
trade or profession that needed literacy, like printing, or even
go on to university. The school was a one-teacher affair, not
unlike many schools in rural America in the 19th century. The
teacher in it had to cope with a wide range of boys in terms of
age and ablity. Most of them would have had illiterate parents.
Learning would generally have come hard. There'd be little or no
support at home. Books would have been expensive and unusual.
The few around would have been treasured and probably much pored
over by those who owned them and could read.
>It's like the argument that Shakespeare must have had a great knowledge of
>Europe to write the works when anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the
>canon knows full well that the author had erroneous knowledge of Europe. The
>classic self-defeating, self-contradicting argument.
Your problem here is not so much the supposed ignorance of
Shakespeare, but the supposed ignorance of the actors, copyists,
theatre managers, publishers, printers and the thousands, or tens
of thousands, of spectators including foreign visitors and
diplomats, as well as that of the aristocracy and the court.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> >I've never seen any indication that literate men preferred
>> >literate daughters so that they could have literate children.
>OK. Let's see it. I've got a feeling that your evidence consists simply
>of a few notable instances where literate men married literate women and
>had literate children.
Just take the principal characters in the Canon -- and throughout
the rest of English literature. When they are literate (as they
almost invariably are) who do they marry? Then take the
illiterate characters (who are almost invariably minor) -- who do
they marry?
>By the standards of the time, John Shakespeare was a wealthy man. He
>owned a substantial amount of property. He appears in the documentary
>record a number of times with large sums attached to his name. The
>largest is 210 pounds in 1571. You might note that this is about 20 times
>what a master craftsman might expect to make in a year.
That sort of money at that time did not indicate literacy. He
seems to have acquired most of it from his wife and then to have
lost it all by about the time Wm would have been going to school.
>> Yes, indeed. An illiterate man would not _generally_ want a
>> literate wife. It would spell trouble. The same pattern exists
>> here among the travelling community.
>
>Obviously customs vary quite a bit. One of my grandmothers is said to
>have taught her husband to read.
No. Customs do _not_ vary quite a bit with regard to this.
Think about it. Either a community has a tradition of illiteracy
OR it has one of literacy. Historically, social classes and
families have crossed over -- and rarely made the transition
back. Your grandfather crossed with the assistance of his wife.
It was, highly probably, an agreement or understanding that he
would do so when they agreed to marry. Her parents could well
have applied such pressure.
>> C'mon, we're talking economics here. Learning to read was
>> difficult and expensive -- one way or the other.
>
>Personally, I don't think learning to read is a particularly difficult
>task for your average child. Nor is it usually a very expensive
>proposition.
It isn't for us -- given near our universal literacy. But it is
when your family is illiterate and you are surrounded by
illiteracy -- and when there is relatively little to read.
Near-universal literacy has taken hundreds (we could say
thousands) of years to become established -- precisely because it
wasn't easy -- and it was expensive.
>And not unreasonably so. But since even grammar school teachers were
>generally poorly paid, a parish priest couldn't command any great sum for
>a part-time teaching job. The expense would not likely have been great.
It's all relative. Few of his parishioners had much disposable
income.
>> And Bibles were expensive and not readily
>> available. Very few ordinary households owned one.
>
>It is my understanding that there were a very large number of bibles
>printed. Where do you suppose they all went?
The numbers of bibles printed are well-known. The earlier ones
mostly went into churches -- one for each church. They generally
cost 10 shillings (ex printer) which was a lot more than ordinary
literate people could afford.
>> But you're
>> missing the political context. During the reign of Mary
>> (1553-58) it was dangerous to be able to read -- and especially
>> to be able to read the Bible.
>
>Do you have some evidence for this? I've never heard of one person who
>was persecuted for being able to read in the time of Mary.
I'm sure you've heard of people being prosecuted (and persecuted)
for reading the wrong kind of material in both her time and that
of Elizabeth. One sure defence against that sort of thing was
proven illiteracy.
>You ignore the advantages of being able to read. It's generally safer not
>to be able to drive too. If you always take public transportation, your
>chances of dying in a traffic accident dip to nil.
Of course there were advantages. Literacy did spread _slowly_.
I was just saying that you were forgetting that it had a
downside. There were plenty of reasons (apart from indolence)
why someone like John Shakespeare would not want to learn to
read. Such people needed compelling reasons to make the effort.
>This would perhaps be true if many cases came up where it was important
>that 60 year old literate women recognize their dead husbands handwriting.
>I can't think of one case where a 60 year old woman said that she did
>_recognize_ her husband's handwriting. Can you?
This must be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever
been in. (I know Bob Grumman supports you here, but then he's
the ultimate rigidnik. Nigel Davies must do so as well; it is
absurd enough for him.) But it is utterly routine to look at
centuries-old and decades-old handwriting, and discuss who wrote
it. We have lots of discussions here about the Handwriting D (I
think) script in St Thomas More -- or about De Vere's handwriting
or about the Will. It is absolutely normal for an ordinary
literate person to be able to recognise the handwriting of a
person they've lived with for decades. What is the matter with
you? Has technology already made this topic obscure?
>She may have owned spectacles. That doesn't mean she put them on to check
>whether or not Cooke was telling her the truth. I will say this. She was
>a wealthy woman and probably had servants to do her sewing.
Possibly, but many (most?) leisure activities that filled the
long candle-lit winter evenings required spectacles.
>> No doubt many doctors'
>> wives could read and, maybe, she felt she should be able to do so
>> too. She mixed with a literate class.
>
>William mixed with a literate class. In fact, all of his friends
>seem to have been highly literate. How curious.
'All of his friends'? To whom are you referring? Did he have
any? There is Thomas Greene, the lawyer who reported a
conversation on business matters. In any case, the man had
money. He would probably generally mix with those of about the
same wealth. They would (after 1596) have often been literate.
That does not mean that he was.
>> Doctors' wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces'. She could well
>> have intimated to them that her husband had taught her to read.
>
>That such wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces' is stereotype. I don't
>know that it's even true today. How do you know it was true in
>Elizabethan times?
Another idiotic question. The stereotype comes from reality. I
could, I suppose, enumerate the sociological pressures that
bring such routine phenomena about, but it would tedious, as
would a listing of such wives in Elizabethan/Jacobean literature.
It has a lot to do with distinctions of class and money, but I
suppose you don't have much of that in the US -- or in your alien
world?
>> >For now I'll simply note
>> >that you've accepted that school authorities thought it possible for girls
>> >to leave school able to read but unable to write.
>>
>> I have not accepted this. It may be true, but it doesn't sound
>> right to me.
>
>Do you think that the men who wrote the Banbury school charter didn't know
>what they were talking about?
What does that charter have to do with the point? You quoted
nothing about being able to read but not being able to write.
>> It's very hard to teach children anything without
>> them doing something. And slates and chalk were not expensive,
>
>Believe it or not, reading is not doing nothing. It's an activity.
Reading is not an 'activity' that can keep _illiterate_ children
occupied.
>Like I said, I think the point is moot. The evidence is that
>the Stratford petty school probably accepted girls. Of the two
>girls that are known from a legal document to have attended, one
>signed and the other did not. Curious eh?
How long did she attend? How big was the class? How effective
was the teaching? Were her parents literate? There are many in
western countries today that completed many years at school and
are still illiterate -- or largely illiterate -- and they live in
a society that expects it, and requires it.
>If he was a typical Elizabethan, the education of the girls would have
>been shorted in favor of Hamlet's.
Firstly, Shakespeare was hardly a 'typical Elizabethan'. The
Stratman wasn't short of money to pay for their education. Yet
you're quite happy with the idea that (as Shakespeare) he
wouldn't have bothered.
Secondly Hamnet has no connection to Amleth (which with the last
letter put at the start becomes 'Hamlet').
>> Wouldn't they [his daughters] have been interested in his work
>> and wanted to imitate?
>
>Maybe. Who knows? Maybe they lacked any real ability. That tends to be
>a bit discouraging.
What! With those genes? And with that father? Stratfordians
rely so much on the quality of the genes, that I'm surprised they
don't expect his daughters to have been literary giants in their
own right. Isn't it strange that we never hear any talk of the
potentially wonderful achievements of his brothers or cousins?
Or that there is no search for those wonderful genes?
>> Wouldn't they have been proud of his
>> success? Of the ten thousand who had seen his Talbot grace the
>> stage by (?) 1592?
>
>Perhaps, but what's this got to do with anything?
It provides a certain motivation to learn to read. If you dad
was a Will Shake-speare, do you think you might take an interest
in literary matters?
>> Wouldn't they have talked to the girls about it? Wouldn't they
>> have helped out in the teaching? Wouldn't the Stratman have
>> asked his brothers to coach and encourage his daughters?
>
>Not impossible but I believe it would have been most unusual.
>Contemporary custom didn't regard the education of girls very important.
Custom comes in very handy for weak excuses -- when you need
them. Yet you have the man himself breaching every possible
requirement of such customary practices -- quite apart from
acquiring literacy (itself a breach of custom) the first thing
he's supposed to have done on getting to London is to write some
long allegorical poems -- to make money!
>> Wouldn't the girls feel that they _should_ be able to read his
>> works.
>
>Given the social climate, it is impossible to know how they felt. Good
>Elizabethan girls may have felt that it was more proper they should know
>how to sew.
Surely we have a much better guide as to how they would have felt
by examining the canonical females?
>I'll say it again. There isn't any good evidence that he met with the
>Queen. That's a very late tradition.
It would have been surprising if he had NOT met the Queen, and
most of the royal family under James. Seven of his plays were
peformed at court in the Christmas season of 1604/5, one ( the
MoV) twice. They were all known to be devoted to the theatre.
>> Or was he a monster, who couldn't stand his little girls? Was he
>> someone who disapproved of girls reading anything? Or their
>> taking the least interest in anything 'above their station'.
>>
>> Is that what you pick up from the plays?
>Nice rhetoric but there isn't any real argument behind it.
The 'rhetoric' is probably the first time you've seen any attempt
to picture the Stratman in the context of his family. It's not
normally done, because it can't be done while retaining any
degree of credibility in the traditional assumptions.
>Egads! At worst, WS behaved as 99% of his contemporaries would have.
>Indeed, can you show any other contemporary playwright who did any
>better?
I know little of the families of other contemporary playwrights;
(I doubt if much is known.) And I have little interest. We are
looking at one in particular, whose works we study in great
depth, and whose character we know -- from his works -- and who
was very different from 99% of his contemporaries.
>So, if WS paid little attention to his family that would make him a
>monster but if de Vere paid little attention to his, that wouldn't bother
>you?
We have no reason to believe that De Vere was inattentive to his
daughters (other than in those matters arising from his
relatively impoverished state). They certainly learned to read.
He appeared to have excellent relations with them later in life,
either living wiith or spending much time with Derby, his
son-in-law. Whereas we have compelling reasons to believe that
the Stratman was away from his family for almost all their
childhood, and that he grieviously neglected to provide for their
education, even though he could well afford it.
Paul.
Graymalkin
>In article <
>7a5rld$pqt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> nda...@emirates.net.ae wrote:
>> Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>> > I'd be more inclined to believe it IF his signatures were those
>> > of a person used to writing
>>
>> Only 6 survive - greater than most of his contemporaries and evidence of his
>> ability to write which is the issue here.
>>
>
>I've seen no evidence that those 6
>signatures were actually executed *by* the
>Stratford man, and not
>*for* him, by someone else.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
If you sign *for* someone else you sign you *own* name, not his or
hers. I've never heard of anyone (except forgers) signing somebody
else's name, it's a contradiction in terms.
As to the legibility, I'd say that about half the signatures I'm
familiar with are readily legible. IIRC, in the days before we all
started using computers, the more people wrote, the worse their
writing tended to be. (Now, of course, we can't manage more than a
paragraph by hand without physiotherapy)
--
Jo
Nigel Davies
> >Why was the
> >study at New Place broken in to and books, documents, papers owned by Susanna
> >Shakespeare stolen?
>
> What is your source for this information?
The court records of the case between Baldwin Brookes, mercer of Stratford,
against Shakespeare's daughter Susanna and her son-in-law Thomas Nash in 1637
for recovery of a disputed debt of £77.13s.4d.
> Just pay attention to the facts. Stratford was, _more_or_less_,
> Hicksville, UK. It has some literate people -- the priest,
> teacher, doctor, lawyer, apothecary, and few others. The rest
> weren't -- because they didn't need to be. But the jobs were in
> the expanding towns and cities, especially in London, and those
> who wanted a good future for their sons, got them an education.
> It wasn't much. What else do you expect between 7 and 13? But
> if they coped with it they could become an apprentice at some
> trade or profession that needed literacy, like printing, or even
> go on to university. The school was a one-teacher affair, not
> unlike many schools in rural America in the 19th century. The
> teacher in it had to cope with a wide range of boys in terms of
> age and ablity. Most of them would have had illiterate parents.
> Learning would generally have come hard. There'd be little or no
> support at home. Books would have been expensive and unusual.
> The few around would have been treasured and probably much pored
> over by those who owned them and could read.
Statements of fact do not contain the words: "more or less", "if", "would have",
"probably". The above paragraph is a classic example of your mind-wandering
hypothesising instead of facts which are in books like Asa Briggs' "A Social
History of England" that prove you to be again talking Irish bull. The
facts are as I've previously described in respect of the existence of the
school, what it says about the social responsibilities of the people of
Stratford, John Shakespeare's status, the proximity of William Shakespeare to
the school, and the free education he could avail himself of by way of the
school's existence and his father's status. Parallels with 19th. American
schools is just more Irish bull that has no relevance to the facts of
Shakespeare and Stratford Grammar School.
> >It's like the argument that Shakespeare must have had a great knowledge of
> >Europe to write the works when anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the
> >canon knows full well that the author had erroneous knowledge of Europe. The
> >classic self-defeating, self-contradicting argument.
>
> Your problem here is not so much the supposed ignorance of
> Shakespeare, but the supposed ignorance of the actors, copyists,
> theatre managers, publishers, printers and the thousands, or tens
> of thousands, of spectators including foreign visitors and
> diplomats, as well as that of the aristocracy and the court.
There is no problem with this atall. As you know full well, Greene, Marlowe,
Shakespeare, etc., all made many geographical, historical and chronological
errors from putting Mediterranean towns on the coast to ancient Rome having
clocks. They weren't writing history documentaries, they were dramatic plays.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:21:17 -0500, Xr...@Xpcr8.Xpcr.com wrote:
>
> >> >I've never seen any indication that literate men preferred
> >> >literate daughters so that they could have literate children.
>
> >OK. Let's see it. I've got a feeling that your evidence consists simply
> >of a few notable instances where literate men married literate women and
> >had literate children.
>
> Just take the principal characters in the Canon -- and throughout
> the rest of English literature. When they are literate (as they
> almost invariably are) who do they marry? Then take the
> illiterate characters (who are almost invariably minor) -- who do
> they marry?
Noble women had an extremely high literacy rate. Subtract the noble
marriages from the equation and you'll get a different picture. Since the
subject doesn't come up most of the time, it won't be clear whether or not
the woman is literate.
There's seldom a dramatic need for a woman to explicitly shown as
illiterate so even women who would presumably be illiterate won't be
often explicitly shown as such.
Replace literacy with "the ability to ride a motorcycle" and you may see
what I mean. There's a natural bias in literature toward displaying
people being able to ride bikes. Riding has some dramatic possibilities.
But not being able to ride a bike is a lot like not being able to read.
Usually, there isn't much reason to make the lack of an ability explicit.
And of course, we're not speaking of literature. We're speaking of real
life and what was really going on is relatively obvious.
Either a mark on a legal document isn't a good predictor of literacy (in
which case, your argument falls completely apart) or literate men vastly
outnumbered literate women in every class but the highest. The
implication is that about half of the literate men ended up marrying
illiterate women or they went unmarried. They don't appear to have
gone unmarried.
If literate women were greatly favored over illiterates, middleclass
fathers who failed to educate their daughters would have severely damaged
their marriage prospects. But in fact, the Elizabethans seemed to have
worried more about overeducating their daughters than they did about
undereducating them.
> >By the standards of the time, John Shakespeare was a wealthy man. He
> >owned a substantial amount of property. He appears in the documentary
> >record a number of times with large sums attached to his name. The
> >largest is 210 pounds in 1571. You might note that this is about 20 times
> >what a master craftsman might expect to make in a year.
>
> That sort of money at that time did not indicate literacy.
I'm curious. What sort of money do you think would have indicated
literacy?
> He
> seems to have acquired most of it from his wife and then to have
> lost it all by about the time Wm would have been going to school.
Who told you that he seems to have acquired most of it from his wife?
It doesn't seem to be true.
Your point was that rich men educate their sons. At his peak,
John Shakespeare was pretty rich by contemporary standards.
The tradition is that John ran into trouble when William was about 13 and
there's some documentary support for him having financial troubles at
about that time. If Will left at age 13, that would give him about eight
times more schooling than Abraham Lincoln ever got.
> >> Yes, indeed. An illiterate man would not _generally_ want a
> >> literate wife. It would spell trouble. The same pattern exists
> >> here among the travelling community.
> >
> >Obviously customs vary quite a bit. One of my grandmothers is said to
> >have taught her husband to read.
>
> No. Customs do _not_ vary quite a bit with regard to this.
> Think about it. Either a community has a tradition of illiteracy
> OR it has one of literacy. Historically, social classes and
> families have crossed over -- and rarely made the transition
> back.
Historically, communities have a tradition of illiteracy until the first
school is built.
> Your grandfather crossed with the assistance of his wife.
> It was, highly probably, an agreement or understanding that he
> would do so when they agreed to marry. Her parents could well
> have applied such pressure.
I'd really like to know how you know these things.
The fact that things "ring true" to you should be taken by the rest of us
to merely mean that if it were true, it would support some pet theory of
yours.
> >> C'mon, we're talking economics here. Learning to read was
> >> difficult and expensive -- one way or the other.
> >
> >Personally, I don't think learning to read is a particularly difficult
> >task for your average child. Nor is it usually a very expensive
> >proposition.
>
> It isn't for us -- given near our universal literacy. But it is
> when your family is illiterate and you are surrounded by
> illiteracy -- and when there is relatively little to read.
> Near-universal literacy has taken hundreds (we could say
> thousands) of years to become established -- precisely because it
> wasn't easy -- and it was expensive.
Rubbish again. I'll say it again, Access to schools is the main factor in
literacy. In any country which builds schools, the literacy rate rises
dramatically.
> >And not unreasonably so. But since even grammar school teachers were
> >generally poorly paid, a parish priest couldn't command any great sum for
> >a part-time teaching job. The expense would not likely have been great.
>
> It's all relative. Few of his parishioners had much disposable
> income.
Indeed it's all relative. Since we don't know how much he'd have charged
we don't know how much disposable income was required. I will say that
financially speaking, the average man was much better off during John
Shakespeare's youth than during his adulthood. During his lifetime, there
was substantial price inflation while labor costs remained almost level.
> >> And Bibles were expensive and not readily
> >> available. Very few ordinary households owned one.
> >
> >It is my understanding that there were a very large number of bibles
> >printed. Where do you suppose they all went?
>
> The numbers of bibles printed are well-known. The earlier ones
> mostly went into churches -- one for each church. They generally
> cost 10 shillings (ex printer) which was a lot more than ordinary
> literate people could afford.
OK. I'm curious. How many bibles were printed? And if you know, how
many other religious books or pamphlets of lesser cost were printed? I'm
particularly interested in books like *The Small Catechism*.
> >> But you're
> >> missing the political context. During the reign of Mary
> >> (1553-58) it was dangerous to be able to read -- and especially
> >> to be able to read the Bible.
> >
> >Do you have some evidence for this? I've never heard of one person who
> >was persecuted for being able to read in the time of Mary.
>
> I'm sure you've heard of people being prosecuted (and persecuted)
> for reading the wrong kind of material in both her time and that
> of Elizabeth. One sure defence against that sort of thing was
> proven illiteracy.
I've never heard of anyone avoiding literacy because they were afraid they
might read something illegal. It sounds quite ridiculous, rather like
stumbling around with your eyes closed so that you won't see anything bad.
I do believe you're making this stuff up. Find someone somewhere
sometime(besides you) who has made a similar assertation. Perhaps they've
actually cited something verifiable.
> >You ignore the advantages of being able to read. It's generally safer not
> >to be able to drive too. If you always take public transportation, your
> >chances of dying in a traffic accident dip to nil.
>
> Of course there were advantages. Literacy did spread _slowly_.
> I was just saying that you were forgetting that it had a
> downside.
What I'm doing is ignoring an insignificant downside.
> There were plenty of reasons (apart from indolence)
> why someone like John Shakespeare would not want to learn to
> read. Such people needed compelling reasons to make the effort.
There's absolutely no evidence that John Shakespeare was particularly
indolent. To the contrary he seems to have been quite the ambitious
hustler with his fingers in many pies.
> >This would perhaps be true if many cases came up where it was important
> >that 60 year old literate women recognize their dead husbands handwriting.
> >I can't think of one case where a 60 year old woman said that she did
> >_recognize_ her husband's handwriting. Can you?
>
> This must be one of the most ridiculous discussions I've ever
> been in. (I know Bob Grumman supports you here, but then he's
> the ultimate rigidnik. Nigel Davies must do so as well; it is
> absurd enough for him.) But it is utterly routine to look at
> centuries-old and decades-old handwriting, and discuss who wrote
> it. We have lots of discussions here about the Handwriting D (I
> think) script in St Thomas More -- or about De Vere's handwriting
> or about the Will.
Place two sets of handwriting in front of me. I can easily compare the
two. It doesn't matter if one of them is Hand D or whatever. But place
another scrap of handwriting in front of me and ask me if it's my
father's and it's a different process with a different result. I have
to try and call up a mental picture of what my father's handwriting looks
like and then compare that with what's in front of me. Unless there's
some contextual clues outside of the shapes of the letters, I won't
find it easy and I won't be very accurate.
Memories are notoriously unreliable. The fact that you can identify your
father's handwriting may have more to do with the context in which you've
found your samples(and what your samples say) than any real ability.
I'm sure that if I carefully studied my father's handwriting I might spot
some peculiarities which I could then carefully tuck away for future
reference. However, so far I've had no interest in doing anything along
those lines. I rely primarily upon content to identify who wrote what.
> It is absolutely normal for an ordinary
> literate person to be able to recognise the handwriting of a
> person they've lived with for decades.
I need to know how you know this. As always, anecdotal evidence will be
regarded suspiciously. Cite a study if you want to be taken seriously.
> What is the matter with you? Has technology already made this topic
> obscure?
What's the matter with you? Are you incapable of understanding that
people have varying interests and abilities?
You usually ignore the fact that the manuscripts were in latin and
presumably in the italic hand. I don't know whether or not John Hall used
the italic hand for his usual correspondence. Do you? It would
definitely make a large difference.
> >She may have owned spectacles. That doesn't mean she put them on to check
> >whether or not Cooke was telling her the truth. I will say this. She was
> >a wealthy woman and probably had servants to do her sewing.
>
> Possibly, but many (most?) leisure activities that filled the
> long candle-lit winter evenings required spectacles.
I really don't know what kind of winter leisure activities Susanna was
likely to have occupied her time with. I'd guess that you don't either.
> >> No doubt many doctors'
> >> wives could read and, maybe, she felt she should be able to do so
> >> too. She mixed with a literate class.
> >
> >William mixed with a literate class. In fact, all of his friends
> >seem to have been highly literate. How curious.
>
> 'All of his friends'? To whom are you referring? Did he have
> any? There is Thomas Greene, the lawyer who reported a
> conversation on business matters. In any case, the man had
> money. He would probably generally mix with those of about the
> same wealth. They would (after 1596) have often been literate.
> That does not mean that he was.
Look at his will. Check out the names of those friends who got
money to buy memorial rings. Which of them were illiterate?
Hamnet Sadler was certainly literate and a very close friend
from well before 1596. (Hamlet and Judith were probably named
after Hamnet and Judith Sadler.)
> >> Doctors' wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces'. She could well
> >> have intimated to them that her husband had taught her to read.
> >
> >That such wives tend to adopt 'airs and graces' is stereotype. I don't
> >know that it's even true today. How do you know it was true in
> >Elizabethan times?
>
> Another idiotic question. The stereotype comes from reality.
It's idiotic that you think I'll accept your opinion on this. Prove that
it's any better than the "Scotsmen are stingy" stereotype which some
other people think comes directly from reality.
> I
> could, I suppose, enumerate the sociological pressures that
> bring such routine phenomena about, but it would tedious, as
> would a listing of such wives in Elizabethan/Jacobean literature.
I'd be surprised if you could name even two physician's wives in
Elizabethan or Jacobean literature. I'll be truly surprised if
you can show any putting on airs.
> It has a lot to do with distinctions of class and money, but I
> suppose you don't have much of that in the US -- or in your alien
> world?
Pleading that "Americans just don't understand" isn't an argument; it's a
cop-out.
> >> >For now I'll simply note
> >> >that you've accepted that school authorities thought it possible for girls
> >> >to leave school able to read but unable to write.
> >>
> >> I have not accepted this. It may be true, but it doesn't sound
> >> right to me.
> >
> >Do you think that the men who wrote the Banbury school charter didn't know
> >what they were talking about?
>
> What does that charter have to do with the point? You quoted
> nothing about being able to read but not being able to write.
The charter specified that girls had to leave the school as soon as they
could read. It doesn't say that they had to leave as soon as they
could read and write.
I'm sure there are more explicit statements somewhere. It may take me
a while to hunt them up.
> >> It's very hard to teach children anything without
> >> them doing something. And slates and chalk were not expensive,
> >
> >Believe it or not, reading is not doing nothing. It's an activity.
>
> Reading is not an 'activity' that can keep _illiterate_ children
> occupied.
What's that got to do with anything? How do you suppose that severely
physically disabled children learn to read?
"CAT", "cat".
Teachers model, the students follow. It's an activity.
> >Like I said, I think the point is moot. The evidence is that
> >the Stratford petty school probably accepted girls. Of the two
> >girls that are known from a legal document to have attended, one
> >signed and the other did not. Curious eh?
>
> How long did she attend?
I don't know. No Stratford school records exist prior to the 18th
century.
> How big was the class?
How would we ever know that? Perhaps it could be derived from the size of
the building. Or maybe some approximate figure could be arrived at from
the population demographics.
> How effective was the teaching?
Average would be a good guess. In any event, Susanna and Judith
would have attended the same school.
> Were her parents literate?
I'm somewhat surprised that you'd consider it a real possibility that a
pair of Elizabethan illiterates would ever send their daughter to school.
You must have forgot yourself.
> There are many in
> western countries today that completed many years at school and
> are still illiterate -- or largely illiterate -- and they live in
> a society that expects it, and requires it.
The illiteracy rates in the western countries is generally pretty low.
(Hint. It's got something to do with school.)
> >If he was a typical Elizabethan, the education of the girls would have
> >been shorted in favor of Hamlet's.
>
> Firstly, Shakespeare was hardly a 'typical Elizabethan'.
I doubt you'd accept any Stratfordian arguments based upon a premise
that "Shakespeare wasn't a typical Elizabethan."
> The
> Stratman wasn't short of money to pay for their education. Yet
> you're quite happy with the idea that (as Shakespeare) he
> wouldn't have bothered.
Well no. I say I don't know whether or not he would have bothered. That
seems unknowable. I can't say that I'm happy about not knowing.
> Secondly Hamnet has no connection to Amleth (which with the last
> letter put at the start becomes 'Hamlet').
Hamnet and Hamlet seem pretty interchangeable. Dave Kathman has told us
that Hamnet Sadler appears in a number of records as Hamlet Sadler. (The
most notable instance is when Hamlett Sadler appears as a beneficiary in
Shakespeare's will.)
> >> Wouldn't they [his daughters] have been interested in his work
> >> and wanted to imitate?
> >
> >Maybe. Who knows? Maybe they lacked any real ability. That tends to be
> >a bit discouraging.
>
> What! With those genes? And with that father? Stratfordians
> rely so much on the quality of the genes, that I'm surprised they
> don't expect his daughters to have been literary giants in their
> own right. Isn't it strange that we never hear any talk of the
> potentially wonderful achievements of his brothers or cousins?
> Or that there is no search for those wonderful genes?
Strangely enough, geniuses don't usually have genius children.
I'll point out that de Vere's relations and descendents don't seem to
have been any great Shakes.
> >> Wouldn't they have been proud of his
> >> success? Of the ten thousand who had seen his Talbot grace the
> >> stage by (?) 1592?
> >
> >Perhaps, but what's this got to do with anything?
>
> It provides a certain motivation to learn to read. If you dad
> was a Will Shake-speare, do you think you might take an interest
> in literary matters?
Let's see. It's 1594. My name is Judith and I'm 9 years old. My dad is
Will Shakespeare. When I was four, he took off for the bright lights of
London. I see him for a month or so each spring or summer. He tells us
that he's really successful playwright but mom tells us he's a no-good
so-and-so for splitting when times were tough. Maybe I take an interest
and maybe I don't.
The available evidence is so limited that I can come up with a large
number of scenarios that fit. Do you want some more?
> >> Wouldn't they have talked to the girls about it? Wouldn't they
> >> have helped out in the teaching? Wouldn't the Stratman have
> >> asked his brothers to coach and encourage his daughters?
> >
> >Not impossible but I believe it would have been most unusual.
> >Contemporary custom didn't regard the education of girls very important.
>
> Custom comes in very handy for weak excuses -- when you need
> them. Yet you have the man himself breaching every possible
> requirement of such customary practices -- quite apart from
> acquiring literacy (itself a breach of custom) the first thing
> he's supposed to have done on getting to London is to write some
> long allegorical poems -- to make money!
Which customary practices do I have him disregard? I always try to be
careful to keep contemporary customs in mind. If John Shakespeare
had been a simple laborer it would have been something of a breach
of custom for him to have William educated. Of course, he wasn't.
He was a wealthy man of relatively high status at the time William
became of school age. It would have been a breach of custom for
him to have kept William out.
For someone who argues authorship, you are strangely ignorant on the
presumed early life of Shakespeare. It is usually supposed that he when
he went to London, he first acted and wrote plays. The poems appear later
after the plague had closed the theaters for an extended period of time.
> >> Wouldn't the girls feel that they _should_ be able to read his
> >> works.
> >
> >Given the social climate, it is impossible to know how they felt. Good
> >Elizabethan girls may have felt that it was more proper they should know
> >how to sew.
>
> Surely we have a much better guide as to how they would have felt
> by examining the canonical females?
Why should we assume that Shakespeare was more accurate in this regard
than any other contemporary? He was a poet and a playwright not a
sociologist specializing in the education of middleclass girls.
> >I'll say it again. There isn't any good evidence that he met with the
> >Queen. That's a very late tradition.
>
> It would have been surprising if he had NOT met the Queen, and
> most of the royal family under James. Seven of his plays were
> peformed at court in the Christmas season of 1604/5, one ( the
> MoV) twice. They were all known to be devoted to the theatre.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about Elizabeth. I'll say that I
don't find it impossible that he met her. I just haven't seen any
evidence that that's the case.
Since Shakespeare was an important member of King James's acting company,
I would expect that there's a very good chance that he met King James and
the Queen. It's possible that his ability as a playwright led to
encounters also. It's also possible that Beaumont, Fletcher, Webster,
or any number of other prominent Jacobean playwrights met the Queen.
Sadly, neither Queen seems to have published a list of those playwrights
favored with their presence.
> >> Or was he a monster, who couldn't stand his little girls? Was he
> >> someone who disapproved of girls reading anything? Or their
> >> taking the least interest in anything 'above their station'.
> >>
> >> Is that what you pick up from the plays?
>
> >Nice rhetoric but there isn't any real argument behind it.
>
> The 'rhetoric' is probably the first time you've seen any attempt
> to picture the Stratman in the context of his family. It's not
> normally done, because it can't be done while retaining any
> degree of credibility in the traditional assumptions.
Nope. I've seen plenty of Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian attempts at
portrayals. The problem is always that too few facts are known for any
accurate picture to be developed. The end result is usually that the
prejudices of the portrayer dominate the results. Your attempt was worse
than most in that regard.
> >Egads! At worst, WS behaved as 99% of his contemporaries would have.
> >Indeed, can you show any other contemporary playwright who did any
> >better?
>
> I know little of the families of other contemporary playwrights;
> (I doubt if much is known.) And I have little interest. We are
> looking at one in particular, whose works we study in great
> depth, and whose character we know -- from his works -- and who
> was very different from 99% of his contemporaries.
Your lack of interest is no excuse. If you can't be bothered to check
your facts against reality, you really shouldn't bother us with your
opinions.
> >So, if WS paid little attention to his family that would make him a
> >monster but if de Vere paid little attention to his, that wouldn't bother
> >you?
>
> We have no reason to believe that De Vere was inattentive to his
> daughters (other than in those matters arising from his
> relatively impoverished state).
Well, let's see. He didn't live with them and he didn't go to their
mother's funeral. It sounds like there's a very good chance that he was
inattentive.
> They certainly learned to read.
So Burghley may have done a better job than Anne Shakespeare in that
regard. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.
> He appeared to have excellent relations with them later in life,
> either living wiith or spending much time with Derby, his
> son-in-law.
What's the evidence? I've grave doubts that Derby had anything to do with
him.
> Whereas we have compelling reasons to believe that
> the Stratman was away from his family for almost all their
> childhood, and that he grieviously neglected to provide for their
> education, even though he could well afford it.
Well, the first part is almost certainly true. The second part probably
isn't completely true and maybe completely wrong.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
it is not clear that Susanna failed to recognize her husband's
handwriting or just the books he was said to have written.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
<nda...@emirates.net.ae> wrote:
>> >Why was the
>> >study at New Place broken in to and books, documents, papers owned by Susanna
>> >Shakespeare stolen?
>The court records of the case between Baldwin Brookes, mercer of Stratford,
>against Shakespeare's daughter Susanna and her son-in-law Thomas Nash in 1637
>for recovery of a disputed debt of £77.13s.4d.
What exactly do these records say. Where are they reported?
I'll bet that they don't use the word 'study'.
>Statements of fact do not contain the words: "more or less", "if", "would have",
>"probably".
Since when? When was probability ruled out at a fact? It is
the basis of numerous sciences and business enterprises from
quantum physics to insurance.
>The above paragraph is a classic example of your mind-wandering
>hypothesising instead of facts which are in books like Asa Briggs' "A Social
>History of England" that prove you to be again talking Irish bull.
I note that you are careful not to quote him (or any other
alleged support) thoughout your content-free bulshitting.
>> Your problem here is not so much the supposed ignorance of
>> Shakespeare, but the supposed ignorance of the actors, copyists,
>> theatre managers, publishers, printers and the thousands, or tens
>> of thousands, of spectators including foreign visitors and
>> diplomats, as well as that of the aristocracy and the court.
>There is no problem with this atall. As you know full well, Greene, Marlowe,
>Shakespeare, etc., all made many geographical, historical and chronological
>errors from putting Mediterranean towns on the coast to ancient Rome having
>clocks. They weren't writing history documentaries, they were dramatic plays.
Yet you've not been able to come up with any 'dramatic plays'
other than Shakespeares that made such egregious errors -- such
as putting well-known inland cities (like Milan, Padua, Verona,
Bergamo, or Mantua) on the coast.
Nor ones that give the Mediterranean tides.
Nor ones that put clocks into Ancient Rome.
And the reason is that theatre managers don't like them. They
instruct playwrights to fix such errors as soon as they learn of
them, and generally they learn about them pretty quick. So
Shake-speare must have been exempt from the power of theatre
managers, and able to indulge a quirky sense of humour. That
fits our man. It rules out yours.
Paul.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> And the reason is that theatre managers don't like them. They
> instruct playwrights to fix such errors as soon as they learn of
> them, and generally they learn about them pretty quick. So
> Shake-speare must have been exempt from the power of theatre
> managers, and able to indulge a quirky sense of humour. That
> fits our man. It rules out yours.
>
Note his theatre-manager-reaction-to-errors-in-plays continuum:
it has one reaction: correct errors.
Note his playwrights-with-status-to-indulge-in-quirky-humor continuum:
it has one notch, for nobles. None for a playwright who was extremely
successful and didn't like making trivial changes, for instance, or
all the other kinds of playwrights (like a son-in-law, say) who may
have been allowed to do what he wanted in his plays.
That you're obstinately against reason is NOT the only thing that makes
you a rigidnik, Paul. Another is your resistance (incapacity for?)
continuumism.
--Bob G.
Nigel Davies
>> >Why was the
>> >study at New Place broken in to and books, documents, papers owned by Susanna
>> >Shakespeare stolen?
>
> I'll bet that they don't use the word 'study'.
Well, that's where you lose yet another bet, Paul. The records explicitly state
"studdy".
I should have listened to Dave K long ago that typing a word for your benefit is
a waste of time but I'll make another exception in this case and transcribe a
key passage of the court records for you. Maybe knowing the contemporary court
records' description of the study at New Place being full of valuable books
might encourage you to be more circumspect in your views instead of so
jaundiced.
The court transcriptions are are re-printed in "William Shakespeare and his
daughter Susanna" by Frank Marcham and "The Shakespeare Documents" by B.Roland
Lewis if you're really interested.
Suit for recovery of debt brought by Baldwin Brookes, mercer of Stratford upon
Avon against Susanna Hall, nee Shakespeare, owner of New Place, Stratford upon
Avon and her son-in-law Thomas Nashe, Gent., against the estate of Susanna's
husband John Hall who died 2 years earlier:
"...that hee was seised of Two Messuages and of certayne Land meadowe & pasture
contayninge by estimacion ffoure yard Land wth thappurtennces lyeinge wthin the
parishes of Stratford vppon Avon old Stratford Bishopton and welcombe in the
Countye of Warwicke and of one Messuage lyeings and beinge in Blackefriers
London in the right of the Defendant Susan as given to her the said Susan by the
last Will and testament of Willm. Shackspeare gent her late father...men of
meane estate or worth violently and forceablie to breake open the house in
Stratford aforesaid where theis Defendantes dwell and inhabite And that the said
Bayliffes Did then and there break open the Doores and studdy of the said howse
and Rashlye seise vppon and take Divers bookes boxes Deskes moneyes bonds bills
and other goods of greate value as well weh were of the said John Halls as of
the proper goods of this Defendant Thomas Nashe the perticulers or value whereof
theis Defendants saie they are not able to expresse...".
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
Paul Crowley
>More rigidnikry from Paul Crowley:
>
>> And the reason is that theatre managers don't like them. They
>> instruct playwrights to fix such errors as soon as they learn of
>> them, and generally they learn about them pretty quick. So
>> Shake-speare must have been exempt from the power of theatre
>> managers, and able to indulge a quirky sense of humour. That
>> fits our man. It rules out yours.
>>
>Note his theatre-manager-reaction-to-errors-in-plays continuum:
>it has one reaction: correct errors.
Oh gawd . . how tedious. The rigidnikry is entirely in your own
mind. I could put qualifiers into everything . . . and I would
if I was writing a paper for a learned journal. But here we're
all short of time. I write quickly, we all read quickly. In
many (if not most) contexts, qualifiers are expected to be read
in -- except by, of course, rigidnikal dopes for whom everything
has to be spelt out.
>None for a playwright who was extremely
>successful and didn't like making trivial changes,
But the errors are there (and are most conspicuous) in the
earliest of the plays -- the 2 gents of Verona -- when no
Stratfordian maintains their man had become an established
playwright nor that he was someone who could afford to tell
theatre managers where to get off.
> or
>all the other kinds of playwrights (like a son-in-law, say) who may
>have been allowed to do what he wanted in his plays.
What on earth are you rambling on about? I suggest a nice cup of
tea. But don't dunk your cookies. You know how it makes you
dribble.
Paul.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
"And the reason is that theatre managers don't like them. They
instruct playwrights to fix such errors as soon as they learn of
them, and generally they learn about them pretty quick. So
Shake-speare must have been exempt from the power of theatre
managers, and able to indulge a quirky sense of humour. That
fits our man. It rules out yours."
"Note," observed I, "his theatre-manager-reaction-to-errors-in-plays
continuum: it has one reaction: correct errors."
Paul: "Oh gawd . . how tedious. The rigidnikry is entirely in your own
mind. I could put qualifiers into everything . . . and I would
if I was writing a paper for a learned journal. But here we're
all short of time. I write quickly, we all read quickly. In
many (if not most) contexts, qualifiers are expected to be read
in -- except by, of course, rigidnikal dopes for whom everything
has to be spelt out."
Paul, you almost always leave out even small qualifiers. Just look
at your statement:
"And the reason is that theatre managers don't like (errors)."
Okay, but why not "the reason is that MOST theatre managers
don't like errors." Easy enough to write and more accurate but your
mind-set is such that you habitually fail to think of adding even
such a minute qualifier.
"They instruct playwrights to fix such errors as soon as they learn of
them, and generally they learn about them pretty quick."
Ah, "generally!" You aren't hopeless. But the "They instruct"
sentence sound rigidnikally certain to me. Why not a "generally"
there? I'd still disagree with your statement since I think most
theatre managers care only about money, and if a lot of people come
to their theatres, they couldn't care less what errors might be in
the plays performed there. But I would not call your statement
rigidnikal. Nor, as an isolated example, could it be considered
necessarily rigidnikal (the way you have it). It's only that you
HABITUALLY express yourself in this way that makes me consider
you a rigidnik.
"So Shake-speare must have been exempt from the power of theatre
managers, and able to indulge a quirky sense of humour."
MUST have been. Plus the suggestion that the power of theatre
managers was absolute.
"That fits our man. It rules out yours."
Now we are to your conclusion, and it is black and white. If it
does not say that only a noble supported by the queen like you
claim Oxford was could have gotten away with these errors (when we
add what you have said elsewhere about this), what does it say?
Why does it RULE OUT our candidate rather than simply lend support
to yours? Why could you not have said, "That fits our man better
than yours?" That actually would have taken you less time to write.
I say you couldn't say that because that's not how your mind works.
I would have argued with such a statement but not characterized it
as rigidnikal.
> But the errors are there (and are most conspicuous) in the
> earliest of the plays -- the 2 gents of Verona -- when no
> Stratfordian maintains their man had become an established
> playwright nor that he was someone who could afford to tell
> theatre managers where to get off.
>
> > or
> >all the other kinds of playwrights (like a son-in-law, say) who may
> >have been allowed to do what he wanted in his plays.
>
> What on earth are you rambling on about? I suggest a nice cup of
> tea. But don't dunk your cookies. You know how it makes you
> dribble.
>
I was trying to indicate that there are many reasons a theatre manager
might allow a playwright's errors to stand besides the rank of the
playwright, one being that the playwright was a son-in-law whom
he indulged for his daughter's sake. Your stance tends to suggest
that you rigidnikally fail to consider such possibilities.
--Bob G.
John W Kennedy
> MUST have been. Plus the suggestion that the power of theatre
> managers was absolute.
Not to mention the laughable notion that writers are that easily
herded. Right now, I'm trying to get a screenplay corrected from
"crest" to "shield," "arms," "coat of arms," or anything else that is
correct where "crest" is not. (It's a common genteelism that drives
people who actually know the first thing about heraldry absolutely
nuts.) The best I could get out of the writer was a promise that he'd
think about it.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
volker multhopp
> >> > But if Foster saw the Strachey letter, and didn't
> >> >know Strachey or the Tempest, he would snap, "That's Shakespeare!",
> >> >because of all the rare-word lemmas that would fall strike him.
> >> This is absurd. There are few rare words in the parallels
> >> between the accounts of the wreck of the Sea Venture
> >> and The Tempest. Foster's analysis of rare words would
> >> therefore be useless.
> >Nonsense, unless you have a perverse definition of "few". The majority
> >of Dave's verbal parallels are rare words.
> The majority of Dave's verbal parallels involve phrases or combinations
> of words taken together, like "Dido" and "Aeneas" considered together,
> or "sharp north wind" or "bear up".
My essay looked at various word combinations, like "Dido/Aeneas",
"berry/water", "toad/beetle/bat", "owl/bat" and found them pre-existing
in the canon. "Bear up" (twice in *Tempest*) also pre-exists-- in
Winter's Tale-- Foster would say this construction is entering WS's
vocabulary late in WS's career.
> Shaxicon does not consider
> phrases. For example, of the 11 parallels
> in Dave's "Miscellaneous Verbal Parallels" (the least important
> portion of his paper, I might remind you) there are 5 rare words:
> ague, glut, hoodwink, bosky and amazement.
You're extremely wrong. First the "miscellaneous verbal parallels" are
only a small portion of Dave's verbal parallels-- you're waving a red
herring. Worse, you egregiously miscount-- 8 of 11 terms are rare,
fosterally.
> You don't know if the occurrence of the same rare words in
> Strachey and Tempest might not be any more than chance would
> indicate, so you can't put words in Foster's mouth.
If it's not above chance, then there is no Strachey-Tempest connection,
and the dating thing collapses.
> Furthermore, whether a word is rare or not is irrelevant to Kathman's
> argument, because he is considering words, phrases and plot
> parallels AND THEIR CONTEXT, and this kind of analysis is
> not something that Shaxicon can do, so bringing Foster and
> Shaxicon into the argument is irrelevant and it is just another
> one of your smokescreens.
You're willing to believe the most absurd pronouncements of Shaxicon
when it brings alive your bladder-faced hero, eg:
[quote]
H5: SHAXICON indicates that Shakespeare probably played the French
Constable and Exeter in the Quarto version (in 1599, while also playing
Exeter in a revival of 1H6). In F1 Henry V, Shakespeare appears to have
performed Bishop Ely and Montjoy, and probably, on some occasions, the
Chorus.
[endquote]
but you deny its simplest, most obvious conclusions when it doesn't suit
you.
But my argument is not really Shaxicon-based. The verbal parallels
between Strachey and Tempest are undeniable, but I demonstrated that
they already pre-existed in the canon. No one has shown that even one
of those verbal parallels pre-existed in Strachey. The stories of
Tempest and Strachey are very different, but where there are connections
of incidents, we can see them in sources Shakespeare was likely to have
used: Montaigne, Robert Eden, but especially the Bible and commedia
dell'arte.
The best Stratford argument, to put it succinctly, is to say Strachey
merely reported these particular incidents, therefore he was not, as I
claim, influenced by Shakespeare. The problem is, the other sources for
the Sea-Venture do not report these few detailed parallel incidents.
The only reasonable conclusion is the Strachey letter was cribbed from
the Tempest.
--Volker
Paul Crowley
<nda...@emirates.net.ae> wrote: [in the 'Literacy' thread]
>>> >Why was the
>>> >study at New Place broken in to and books, documents, papers owned by Susanna
>>> >Shakespeare stolen?
>I should have listened to Dave K long ago that typing a word for your benefit is
>a waste of time but I'll make another exception in this case and transcribe a
>key passage of the court records for you. Maybe knowing the contemporary court
>records' description of the study at New Place being full of valuable books
>might encourage you to be more circumspect in your views instead of so
>jaundiced.
Thanks for transcribing those court records. But it gets worse
and worse for the Stratford case. And you should be more
circumspect in your descriptions -- the situation was very
different from that outlined in your question above. Nothing was
'stolen'. Bailiffs broke in to take some valuables as surety for
a claimed debt. In doing this they would have been acting as
officers of the court and would have been obliged to carefully
look after any distrained goods and be able to return them in
good condition when required under the due process of the law.
Furthermore, they would only be interested in items of value --
as is clear from the text. Old papers and documents usually have
none.
>"And that the said
>Bayliffes Did then and there break open the Doores and studdy of the said howse
>and Rashlye seise vppon and take Divers bookes boxes Deskes moneyes bonds bills
>and other goods of greate value as well weh were of the said John Halls as of
>the proper goods of this Defendant Thomas Nashe the perticulers or value whereof
>theis Defendants saie they are not able to expresse...".
This was, presumably, in 1637 when Charles I, who was an avid fan
of Shakespeare, was on the throne, and the playwright's name was
famous. Yet we hear nothing of him. No one comments on his
books or his papers. Had they been removed by court officers we
should have heard -- either from his family or from the court
itself. But yet again, as always, silence reigns.
The papers of the great writer _would_ have had value -- even if
old and loose. Were they taken by the bailiffs or weren't they?
We have not one peep on the matter. Were they disturbed or
destroyed? Not one peep. Even if they hadn't been much
disturbed, wouldn't it have suited the family's case to suggest
that they were? Not one peep.
Here we have the desecration of a 'holy shrine' where the names
of 'Falstaff', 'Romeo', 'Malvolio', 'Justice Shallow',
'Dogberry', etc., may well have been conceived, and where some of
the scenes about them would have been written. Most educated
people in the country would know those characters -- or know of
them. Surely the scandalous nature of the act would have been
emphasised? If the Strat theory had any validity, everyone in
the town would have known the situation. The bailiffs would have
known exactly what they were doing -- they would have been local
men. But not one peep.
Why was everyone so reluctant to use his name? Had he been
involved in some scandal? Was he unmentionable for some reason?
But there is _nothing_ in the Stratfordian mythos that suggests
anything of that nature.
I didn't know that John Hall had lived at New Place nor that he
died there. I knew _he_ had a study, but somehow I thought he
spent all his working life in Stratford at the other house (the
name of which I forget -- (Hall's Place?)) near the Church, where
his memory is commemorated.
However, he was highly educated, wrote in Latin, and had
prepared his own material for the press. Why did he do _nothing_
as regards his famous father-in-law? Surely that study would
have contained material of immense value and extraordinary
interest? He would have been surrounded with it. He could
readily have put much of it together for publication. It's not
as if he died suddenly at a young age. Nor could he have been
ignorant of the (alleged) stature of his father-in-law. He had
Michael Drayton and at least one other poet and several
aristocrats as patients. Or if his wife (the Stratman's
daughter) was literate, why didn't she? Or the rest of that
(allegedly) literate family? Or all the literate friends and
neighbours?
The house was visited by the most eminent people. Queen
Henrietta Maria stayed there for three days in 1643. Admittedly
that was during the civil war, but nothing should have stopped
her -- or any of the other visitors -- acquiring some of the
Great Bard's writings, and making a note about it, or publishing
it later. Nothing makes the slightest sense here -- which is, as
we all know, routine for Stratfordia.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>Either a mark on a legal document isn't a good predictor of literacy (in
>which case, your argument falls completely apart) or literate men vastly
>outnumbered literate women in every class but the highest.
I'd really like to see a sound historical analysis of this. Can
you quote one? Remember that it was men (especially literate
men) who were predominant in the completion of legal documents.
They initiated and defended most legal actions. Property-owing
but poorly-literate men who completed a lot of legal documents
would have been under some pressure to learn how to sign their
names; such a pressure would have applied to relatively few
women.
>If literate women were greatly favored over illiterates, middleclass
>fathers who failed to educate their daughters would have severely damaged
>their marriage prospects. But in fact, the Elizabethans seemed to have
>worried more about overeducating their daughters than they did about
>undereducating them.
I doubt if the instillation of basic literacy ever constituted
'over-education' in the eyes of _literate_ Elizabethan fathers.
Can you quote one example?
>I'm curious. What sort of money do you think would have indicated
>literacy?
The literacy percentage rates are 'fairly' well-known. They were
lower in early Tudor times than in later ones; and they steadily
improved thoughout the next 300 years. They were much lower in
the country than in the towns and cities, especially London. But
once you have a prevailing literacy rate for an area at a certain
time, then the father's income (and the grandfather's) would be a
good guide to the literacy of the children. If the literacy rate
was L% then we could say the richest (L-P)% would probably be
literate -- where P is an allowance for professions where it was
required and for a certain proportion of 'special cases'.
>Who told you that he seems to have acquired most of it from his wife?
>It doesn't seem to be true.
It is the strong impression conveyed by Schoembaum and Sidney
Lee. They talk at length of her money, and mention little about
his inheritance.
>> No. Customs do _not_ vary quite a bit with regard to this.
>> Think about it. Either a community has a tradition of illiteracy
>> OR it has one of literacy. Historically, social classes and
>> families have crossed over -- and rarely made the transition
>> back.
>
>Historically, communities have a tradition of illiteracy until the first
>school is built.
I was referring to 'groups' within 'communities' (there is no
settled terminology here) e.g. those in the tenements and
trailer sites who have much lower rates of literacy, independent
of the current laws about schooling and its provision.
>Rubbish again. I'll say it again, Access to schools is the main factor in
>literacy. In any country which builds schools, the literacy rate rises
>dramatically.
England built a lot of schools in the reign of Edward VI
(1547-53). It still has significant illiteracy -- as does the
USA. This was not the pattern in Sweden which introduced
schooling around 1800, rapidly achieving near-100% literacy which
it has maintained since.
>OK. I'm curious. How many bibles were printed? And if you know, how
>many other religious books or pamphlets of lesser cost were printed? I'm
>particularly interested in books like *The Small Catechism*.
I don't have the details about bible numbers and costs. But they
are readily available. I read them some time ago. I doubt if
there's much good information on the other religious texts -- but
it could well be findable with a web search.
>I've never heard of anyone avoiding literacy because they were afraid they
>might read something illegal. It sounds quite ridiculous, rather like
>stumbling around with your eyes closed so that you won't see anything bad.
>I do believe you're making this stuff up.
You are missing the point -- deliberately? Remember the 'Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution' in China and Pol Pot in Laos?
It was much safer in those countries at those times not be able
to read. (And in most countries in this century it has been much
safer not to able to write clearly -- as an author on politics.)
While Tudor England was not the same, it shared certain aspects.
When illiterate parents were considering the expense, family
disruption, probable loss of income, and personal humiliation of
having their children taught a skill they would never acquire,
the political dimension was yet another discouragement. They
would remember that in the last purge (of Henry VIII, Edward VI,
Mary or Elizabeth) it was only the literate people who were
persecuted.
>What I'm doing is ignoring an insignificant downside.
If literacy was so wonderful, why did it take hundreds of years
to become near-universal -- when the education of boys was free?
>Place two sets of handwriting in front of me. I can easily compare the
>two. It doesn't matter if one of them is Hand D or whatever. But place
>another scrap of handwriting in front of me and ask me if it's my
>father's and it's a different process with a different result.
And Susannah had various samples of handwriting in front of her.
Only one or two of the manuscript books were in her husband's
hand.
>Memories are notoriously unreliable. The fact that you can identify your
>father's handwriting may have more to do with the context in which you've
>found your samples(and what your samples say) than any real ability.
And the context of the books brought out from the study by
Susannah Hall should have informed her what they were, or were
likely to be -- if she had occasion to examine them before ---
which, IF she was literate, she would highly probably have often
done.
>I really don't know what kind of winter leisure activities Susanna was
>likely to have occupied her time with. I'd guess that you don't either.
There was not a great range of activities available to her.
That's why various forms of sewing (such as embroidery) were so
common.
>I'll point out that de Vere's relations and descendents don't seem to
>have been any great Shakes.
But Oxfordians do not push the 'genetic genius' notion.
Certainly good genes are important -- but what mainly matters are
the family, class, social, educational, political, and other
contexts. Oxford University has a somewhat higher proportion of
literary figures than the average coal mine or ship yard of about
the same size (or, say, West Point to take another educational
institution). Wouldn't you say, old bean?
>Let's see. It's 1594. My name is Judith and I'm 9 years old. My dad is
>Will Shakespeare. When I was four, he took off for the bright lights of
>London. I see him for a month or so each spring or summer. He tells us
>that he's really successful playwright
And that's all? He doesn't tell great stories? Sing wonderful
songs? Make up amusing verses? Write pretty things that he puts
on the wall and get us to learn by heart? Tell us about the high
life -- the playhouses, the court, the houses of the great lords
and ladies -- the way they dress, dance, walk and talk? He
doesn't tell us about the famous actors -- who often come to
Stratford on a summer tour? He doesn't bring them to the
second-best house in Stratford? He doesn't let his daughters see
or meet the nobles and the Earls when they pass through?
>but mom tells us he's a no-good
>so-and-so for splitting when times were tough. Maybe I take an interest
>and maybe I don't.
Maybe you don't take an interest? What world . . . . ? So you
think Shakespeare was just an average no-good deserting father?
>The available evidence is so limited that I can come up with a large
>number of scenarios that fit. Do you want some more?
I want something that fits the ordinary children I know and the
ordinary dads -- as well as something special from that very
special father -- something that fits in with the author of the
canon.
>He was a wealthy man of relatively high status at the time William
>became of school age. It would have been a breach of custom for
>him to have kept William out.
There were no such 'customs' established by that time. The
school itself had been going only about 20 years. We can take it
that all the literate fathers sent their sons to the school.
They would take maybe about half the places. For the rest I
agree it would _generally_ be the more wealthy. But I doubt if
John's wealth was enough to count here. Anyway it would be those
who believed that their sons would have to leave the town to make
a living like, say, the father of Richard Field. If John
Shakespeare's business had appeared viable when he was around
seven, he probably believed that William would have no such need.
And if the education was poor -- for which there's good reason to
believe it was, with the rapid turnover of teachers at that time,
then he could well have been wasting his time there. Maybe he
went for a short time and was then taken out to help his father
in the business. That's what his signatures would indicate.
>For someone who argues authorship, you are strangely ignorant on the
>presumed early life of Shakespeare. It is usually supposed that he when
>he went to London, he first acted and wrote plays. The poems appear later
>after the plague had closed the theaters for an extended period of time.
I find the whole 'presumed early life of Shakespeare in London'
such nonsense that I can never retail it. The absurdity of
writing 'Venus & Adonis' _followed_by_ the juvenile trash of 'The
Rape of Lucrece' _after_ some of the great plays (like Richard
II, or Loves Labour's Lost) had been written, is so absurd that
it's a complete proof to me of the tin ear and utter ignorance of
all the Stratfordians who support such notions -- i.e. nearly all
of them.
>Well, let's see. He didn't live with them and he didn't go to their
>mother's funeral. It sounds like there's a very good chance that he was
>inattentive.
Their mother's funeral occurred during the Armada, as far as I
recall. If so, you are being quite unfair here. But what would
be new about that?
Paul.
nda...@emirates.net.ae
> Thanks for transcribing those court records. But it gets worse
> and worse for the Stratford case.
Sure it does. William Shakespeare of Stratford's home had a "studdy" full of
"books of great value". That's a killer piece of evidence against William
Shakespeare of Stratford being literate, having a study, and having books.
> Nothing was
> 'stolen'. Bailiffs broke in to take some valuables as surety for
> a claimed debt. In doing this they would have been acting as
> officers of the court and would have been obliged to carefully
> look after any distrained goods and be able to return them in
> good condition when required under the due process of the law.
Read the passage again. Better still, read the whole court records in the
sources I quoted. Baldwin Brookes was described in the case as a low-life.
His tenure as mercer of Stratford was very short-term. I don't have my
references immediately to hand at the moment but I believe it was as less
than 2 years. Unheard of. This very action of breaking into Shakespeare's
residence regarding a disputed debt may well have resulted in his eviction
from that position for abuse of authority.
> Furthermore, they would only be interested in items of value --
> as is clear from the text. Old papers and documents usually have
> none.
The character reference of Brookes in this very case and his short tenure in
office suggetss he was maliciously motivated. The case explicitly refers to
documents. I agree that the documents per se would have negligible financial
value - that is why they would have been in the now lost inventory of personal
effects attached to the will rather than in the will itself along with the
silver, rings, etc..
> No one comments on his
> books or his papers. Had they been removed by court officers we
> should have heard -- either from his family or from the court
> itself. But yet again, as always, silence reigns.
"Should"? Why should we have heard this? Is Elvis Presley always referred to
as "Elvis Presley, the singer" just in case anyone is confused as to which
Elvis Presley we're talking about? Has it ever occurred to you that naming
William Shakespeare was enough by itself without insulting people's
inteligence as to which particular Wiliam Shakespeare people meant?
The court case was against the estate of Hall which included New Place left
to Susanna (his wife) and the belongings in it that were seized. The books
were listed at the very beginning of a line of items of "great value".
Sufficient informaton is there to know what was going on and to prosecute the
case without getting emotional about low-level detail to suit a pedant 400
years later.
> The papers of the great writer _would_ have had value -- even if
> old and loose. Were they taken by the bailiffs or weren't they?
> We have not one peep on the matter.
The case explicitly states documents and books of great value.
> Were they disturbed or destroyed? Not one peep.
Immaterial. The case was the unlawful seizure of personal effects belonging
to Susanna Hall and part of the estate of her husband. Tellingly, Brookes
didn't go through the courts to recover this disputed debt, he broke into the
defendant's home. Very interestingly, once this case was finished Susanna
counter-sued against Brookes for the damage effected to her house and the
articles that were removed and not returned. This indicates that Brookes lost
this case thereby showing him to have acted unlawfully and not being the
responsible official you typically jump to conclusions about to save your
pro- Oxford dementia. Also, it sadly indicates that the manuscripts and
source-books we would all love to have available to us today may well have
been lost at this point.
> Even if they hadn't been much
> disturbed, wouldn't it have suited the family's case to suggest
> that they were? Not one peep.
What stupid speculation. The integrity of the Shakespeare family shines
through in this case alone. They clearly don't resort to methods that
immediately spring to your mind.
> Surely the scandalous nature of the act would have been
> emphasised? If the Strat theory had any validity, everyone in
> the town would have known the situation. The bailiffs would have
> known exactly what they were doing -- they would have been local
> men. But not one peep.
They were local men and Brookes who directed this event lost his position as
mercer of Stratford after a very brief time. All evidence of uproar in the
community and removal from office of the protagonist. All gets worse for the
Stratford case doesn't it, Paul?
> Why was everyone so reluctant to use his name? Had he been
> involved in some scandal? Was he unmentionable for some reason?
> But there is _nothing_ in the Stratfordian mythos that suggests
> anything of that nature.
Huh? William Shackspeare was explicitly named in the court case.
> However, he was highly educated, wrote in Latin, and had
> prepared his own material for the press. Why did he do _nothing_
> as regards his famous father-in-law? Surely that study would
> have contained material of immense value and extraordinary
> interest?
Huh? He did. He had it secured in the study at New Place.
> He could
> readily have put much of it together for publication. It's not
> as if he died suddenly at a young age.
Huh? The works had already been published in 1609 and 1623. Remember? You're
really flailing about in desperation here.
> The house was visited by the most eminent people. Queen
> Henrietta Maria stayed there for three days in 1643.
Mmm. Why would someone of that stature visit a deceased grain merchant's
house, I wonder?
> Admittedly
> that was during the civil war, but nothing should have stopped
> her -- or any of the other visitors -- acquiring some of the
> Great Bard's writings, and making a note about it, or publishing
> it later.
Err..Paul. 1643 was after 1637. Six years after this event when arguably what
Shakespeare left behind of his original works was stupidly seized and is now
lost.