humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 21, 1:26 pm, "Peter Farey"
wrote:
> Tom Reedy wrote
> (in the ever less relevantly titled "Best authorship
> attribution credentials" thread):
>
>
>
>
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > I'm on my way out the door just now, but I'll get back
> > > > to this next week.
>
> > > I'd welcome some discussion of this. In my opinion the idea
> > > that it was a message from the 'Fair Youth' is an interest-
> > > ing one even if the rest is just as JWK described it.
>
> > I reread Foster's article last night, and I now agree
> > with him completely. IIRC, the last time I read it I had
> > some reservations about the Thorpe examples he used, but
> > I can't think of what they were anymore, and in any case
> > that was about two years ago.
>
> > I can see how the secretary "S" could be confused with an
> > "H" (see the sixth and ninth examples of "H" in the Jean
> > de Beauchesne alphabet at
> >http://www.english.cam.ac.uk/ceres/ehoc/alphabets.html),
> > but that wouldn't explain the wider, unpointed gap between
> > the "H" and "ALL," so it seems most probable it was meant
> > to read "SH."
>
> That's good. So for the sake of *this* discussion, let us
> accept Foster's claims that "Mr.W.H." is in fact William
> Shakespeare, "our ever-living poet" is God, and "that
> eternity" is an after-life in heavenly bliss. OK? This
> appears to be something which JWK would also be prepared
> to accept and which Dave Kathman seems to be not entirely
> averse to either.
>
> My question remains, nevertheless. Was the "well-wishing
> adventurer" really Thomas Thorpe, or was he someone else
> for whom TT was simply passing on the message?
>
> Don Foster says (p.44) "Thorpe is without question the
> well-wishing adventurer", but I'm not sure that the evid-
> ence he gives really supports that conclusion.
>
> As I pointed out earlier, he had this to say about the
> unusual order in which the elements of the message are
> presented. :
>
> Many authors (Robert Greene, George Gascoigne,
> Thomas Lodge, and so on) used this formulaic greet-
> ing (with slight variations) for virtually all their
> dedications. The only noteworthy difference between
> Thorpe's epigraph and these others, apart from the
> extra pointing, is that his signature appears at the
> bottom, rather than before "wisheth," so that his
> verb and direct object are necessarily transposed -
> "To [the addressee], happiness and eternity wishes
> [the epistler]," rather than the usual "To [the
> addressee], [the epistler] wishes happiness and
> eternity."
>
> He suggests that Thorpe "doubtless inverted the order
> to prevent the reader from mistaking the second appos-
> itive, "the well-wishing adventurer", for a reference
> to "W.H."". But to do this Thorpe had no need to
> change the order to such an extraordinary extent.
> Even if he had had to use the same words (which of
> course he didn't have to) the sequence I suggested
> would have easily solved that problem:
>
> TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
> THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
> Mr.W.H.
> .
> THE.WELL-WISHING.
> ADVENTVRER.
> T.T.
> IN.SETTING.
> FORTH.
> .
> WISHETH.
> ALL.HAPPINESSE.
> AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
> PROMISED.
> BY.
> OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
>
> By moving the initials to the end, however, he makes
> it possible to interpret it not just as it appears
> above but for the well-wisher in fact to be a separ-
> ate person. Whilst the subject of the verb 'wisheth'
> is clearly the "well-wishing adventurer", the init-
> ials "T.T." should really be within the body of the
> text for it grammatically to say that he was too.
>
> Secondly, Foster claims that the meaning of "setting
> forth" is fairly obvious; "like a merchant-adventurer
> setting forth, Thorpe has set forth a book in a comm-
> ercial adventure." He goes on to give an example of
> the words "set forth" meaning "publish". What he does
> not do, however, is to notice that the setting forth
> in the publishing sense is transitive ("set forth a
> booke") whereas the usage here is intransitive, which
> would usually indicate the start of a *journey* of
> some sort. In any case, the significant characteristic
> of a merchant-adventurer was not just the risky
> mercantile element, but the fact that the trade was
> carried on *overseas*, which is certainly not in any
> way relevant to Thorpe in this context.
>
> Thirdly, there is no dedication as such. Foster tells
> us that "Thorpe well knew how to address a social sup-
> erior, as is evident in his dedications to Pembroke
> in *St. Augustine* and *Epictetus*." We may therefore
> wonder why no dedication to some noble wasn't included
> with the Sonnets as it had been for *Venus and Adonis*
> and *The Rape of Lucrece*. It would surely not have
> been beyond his wit to find someone who could not
> possibly have been associated with their content in
> any way if that was considered a problem. If, on the
> other hand, the writer of the introductory epistle
> were a noble himself, and the publication a gift to
> the poet, that would certainly explain it.
>
> The main reason for suggesting that, rather than
> Thorpe, the 'epistler' was for example either the Earl
> of Southampton or of Pembroke would be the proximity
> of the date of the registration of the Sonnets to
> that of the granting of the 2nd Virginia Charter.
>
> The Sonnets were entered in the Stationers' Company
> Register on Saturday 20th May 1609. Just *three days*
> later, Tuesday 23rd May, the second Virginia Charter
> was granted:
>
> "and that suche counsellors and other officers maie
> be appointed amonngest [the members] to manage and
> direct their affaires [as] are willinge and readie
> to adventure with them; as also whose dwellings are
> not so farr remote from the cittye of London but
> that they maie at convenient tymes be readie at hande
> to give advice and assistance upon all occacions
> requisite.... And further wee establishe and ordaine
> that Henrie, Earl of Southampton, William, Earl of
> Pembrooke, [followed by fifty other named people]
> shalbe oure Counsell for the said Companie of
> Adventurers and Planters in Virginia."
>
> Were those who stayed behind referred to as adventurers,
> though? The following makes it quite certain:
>
> "And finallie, oure will and pleasure is ... that all
> and singuler person and persons which shall at anie
> time or times hereafter adventure anie somme or sommes
> of money in and towards the said plantacion...and
> shalbe admitted by the said Counsell and Companie as
> adventurers of the said Colonie,...and shalbe enrolled
> in the booke or record of the adventurers of the said
> Companye, shall and maie be accompted, accepted, taken,
> helde and reputed Adventurers of the said Collonie..."
>
> The granting of the Charter and the planned voyage must
> have been very big news, and the members would have
> borne the name 'adventurer' with some pride (and poss-
> ibly resented anyone else using it) so it seems unlikely
> that anyone other than those members or the voyagers
> themselves would, without good reason, have spoken of
> himself as an "adventurer...setting forth" that May.
>
> Given that the two most popular candidates for the
> Sonnets' "fair youth" are the first two names on that
> list, therefore, might not the "well-wishing adventurer"
> in fact be one of them? If we take it, as seems quite
> likely, that the poet had been sending the sonnets as
> 'verse letters' to his friend over many years, is it
> not possible for the latter to have had them published
> as a gift to him now, whilst taking care to protect his
> own identity?
>
> Finally, Don Foster points out (n.2) that "It is worth
> note in passing that in 1609 Thorpe clearly had not yet
> had any association with Pembroke, either direct or
> indirect..." which, if true, may perhaps push the ident-
> ity of the true writer a little more Southamptonwards?
>
> As far as I know, this is a quite reasonable suggestion
> which has never yet been given a decent airing anywhere.
> It would therefore be quite nice if just a few of our
> more sensible contributors could join in this time?

I find your speculations interesting, but ultimately unprovable in the
absence of any material evidence, so I really don't know what there is
to discuss.

> It
> may not surprise anyone to know that I find 'debating'
> anything with Art, Paul or Michael to be a complete
> waste of time.

And yet we've all had our day when--out of frustration or just to try
to set the record straight for unwary readers--we've attacked them
head-on. And it hasn't been a complete waste of time: witness the
latest attempt by Dom. While he has not and will not make any progress
on Crowley's insane beliefs, his posts are quite interesting and
informative.

> Surely we at HLAS can still do better than that.

I've about come to the conclusion that not very many intelligent
people are interested in discussing authorship or its related topics,
and most of those that are interested are not all that intelligent--
Crowley, Art N., MM, etc.

TR

> Peter F.
>
>