humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 11, 5:41=A0pm, Tom Veal wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:29=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 3:48=A0pm, Tom Veal wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 11, 3:38=A0pm, Ignoto wrote:
>
> > > > Tom Veal wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 11, 7:34 am, Ignoto wrote:
> > > > >> Tom Veal wrote:
> > > > >>> Let me add that I've now posted an analysis of another part of t=
he
> > > > >>> Stritmatter-Kositsky Tempest project, their effort to prove that=

> > > > >>> William Strachey's True Reportory was written too late to have
> > > > >>> inspired the play:http://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/stra=
chey-and-shakespeare-.html
> > > > >> A few quick comments on this:
>
> > > > >> "The most devestating blow to the Gayley-Wright transmission mode=
l... is
> > > > >> the internal evidence of the text itself. It is certain that Stra=
chey's
> > > > >> 'letter' at least in the form in which it appeared in print in 16=
25, was
> > > > >> not transmitted on the Gates voyage- for the letter itself refers=
to the
> > > > >> voyage:
>
> > > > >> "And the fifteenth day of July, in the 'Blessing', Captain Adams
> > > > >> brought [Sasenticum and his son Kainta] to Point Comfort, where a=
t that
> > > > >> time (as well to take his leaue of the lieutenant general Sir Tho=
mas
> > > > >> Gates, now bound for England, as to dispatch the ships) the Lord
> > > > >> governor and Captain General had pitched his Tent in Algernon For=
t. The
> > > > >> king's son Kainta, the lord governor and captain general, hath se=
nt now
> > > > >> into England, until the ships arrive here again the next Spring..=
."
>
> > > > >> Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited, Review of English Studies=
,
> > > > >> Spetember 2007 at 452:
>
> > > > >> So, according to S-K the internal evidence of the letter makes it=

> > > > >> *certain* that the letter did not return with Gates? A little
> > > > >> embarrassing then, is footnote 10 (which appears as a mound of re=
fuse
> > > > >> someone has attempted to hide under the carpet, only to make the
> > > > >> unsightly mess all the more apparent), wherein it is revealed tha=
t the
> > > > >> 'traditional' argument may have recourse to the fact that words m=
ay be
> > > > >> written in *anticipation* of an event. So that which was once *ce=
rtain*
> > > > >> ('Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable') is in fact=
not
> > > > >> very *certain* at all.
>
> > > > >> But the internal evixdence doesn;t just end with the'anticipation=
'
> > > > >> argument. The narrative of the text breaks off at a point of high=
drama,
> > > > >> with Englishmen kidnapped and the natives threatened with fire, S=
trachey
> > > > >> writes "What this will worke with [the Indian Chief, Powhatan], w=
ee know
> > > > >> not as yet".
>
> > > > >> Now either the letter was written by July 15 1610 and the narrati=
ve
> > > > >> breaks off where it does just because Strachey simply does not kn=
ow what
> > > > >> will happen next; or (as S-K seem to have it) it breaks off becau=
se
> > > > >> Strachey was writing a 'story' and knew what would happen, but fo=
r some
> > > > >> bizzare reason (that reason it seems cannot fathom) decided that
> > > > >> breaking off the narrative at a decisive point and pretending tha=
t he
> > > > >> knew not what would happen would be a good way of writing a drama=
tic tale.
>
> > > > >> Which if these is more likely? If the letter was composed at a da=
te
> > > > >> later than 15 July 1610 then the break in the narrative is an ano=
maly
> > > > >> that stands in need of reasonable explanation. However any explan=
ation
> > > > >> of this anomaly is going to involve one in psychological explorat=
ions of
> > > > >> dramatic intent (and incompetence therein), which is to say, mere=

> > > > >> speculation.
>
> > > > >> If the letter was written by 15 July 1610 then no such anomaly oc=
curs-
> > > > >> the narrative of the letter is consistent with its date and surro=
unding
> > > > >> factual circumstances (the one slight anomaly, the 'anticipation'=

> > > > >> argument, above, is simply resolved). So, on the one hand we have=
a
> > > > >> narrative wholly consistent with its date and surrounding circums=
tances;
> > > > >> on the other we have a narrative of unexplained mysteries.
>
> > > > >> The July 15 1610 date is, on the basis of the the text the simple=
st and
> > > > >> best conclusion. A post July 15 1610 date violates the rule of
> > > > >> parsimony, not only going against the apparent words used in the =
text,
> > > > >> but also gtiving licence for baseless speculations as to why the
> > > > >> apparent meaning of the text is not its true meaning.
>
> > > > >> Thus the 'devestating blow' which S-K promised would show with
> > > > >> 'certainty' the illogic of the traditional account turns out to b=
e
> > > > >> nothing more than a blast of hot air. The internal narrative evid=
ence
> > > > >> supports the 15 July 1610 date.
>
> > > > > Of course, S&K have a response: "Have you not seen our arguments
> > > > > concerning after-the-fact composition, amending or elaborating upo=
n an
> > > > > earlier copy, or interference by Purchas? After-the-fact compositi=
on
> > > > > was relatively common. You might like to look at Fernando Columbus=
's
> > > > > narratives about his father, to take just one example. The events,=

> > > > > although sounding immediate, were written long afterwards; some
> > > > > occurred while Fernando was still a small child. Amending or
> > > > > elaborating on an earlier draft, or even plagiarism of other texts=
, is
> > > > > even more common today. And Purchas' rewriting, adding and removin=
g
> > > > > text, is a matter of record."
>
> > > > > In other words, *something* must have happened to make the text lo=
ok
> > > > > just like it was completed on or shortly before July 15, 1610. It
> > > > > couldn't possibly mean what it says. And therefore, it is "certain=
"
> > > > > that Strachey's letter was not transmitted to England with the Jul=
y
> > > > > 15th fleet.
>
> > > > > Of course, I hadn't "seen [their] arguments concerning after-the-f=
act
> > > > > composition, amending or elaborating upon an earlier copy, or
> > > > > interference by Purchas", which don't appear in their article. My
> > > > > precognition was on the blink and didn't allow me to read their
> > > > > comments on my post before it was written. Not that, if I had
> > > > > prognosticated them, I would have been much impressed.
>
> > > > Perhaps a consult with MM was in order?
>
> > > > In any case the publication of A True Declaration, which borrows fro=
m
> > > > the Strachey letter, is further evidence as to the 1610 date of
> > > > strachey's letter. I know S-K have textual arguments that claim Stra=
chey
> > > > was a plagiarist, but I'm afraid I just don;t find these very impres=
sive.
>
> > > > eg. from p458.
>
> > > > Jourdain, Discovery, Registered 1610:
> > > > "The Bermudas... lying seven leagues unto the sea... (108) this isla=
nd,
> > > > I mean the main island, with all the broken island adjacent, are mad=
e in
> > > > the form of a half moon, but a little more rounder, and divided into=

> > > > many broken islands" (113)
>
> > > > Strachey:
>
> > > > "The Bermudas be broken islands, five hundred of them in a manner of=
an
> > > > archipelago... and all now lying in the figure of a croissant, withi=
n
> > > > the circuit of six or seven leagues"
>
> > > > According to S-K the Strachey passage is plagiarised from Jourdain. =
This
> > > > ignores the plain fact that both Strachey and Jordain are describing=
the
> > > > *same natural object*. If descriptions of the *same* nature order di=
d
> > > > not resemble each other at some point we should wonder if they were =
even
> > > > describing the same thing. It is but a small wonder that men in Kira=
bati
> > > > and Zimbabwe can both call the moon 'round' though they have never m=
et.
>
> > > > Ign.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Better yet, S&K claim that Strachey plagiarizes from Captain John
> > > Smith when the two men describe the same object, Chesapeake Bay, as
> > > having *different* widths (Smith: 18 to 20 miles; Strachey: "seven
> > > leagues", i. e., over 23 miles).

Huh?
>
> > I dunno, I get confused on this. If they are both using nautical
> > measurement, they aren't that far apart. 7 nautical leagues =3D 21
> > nautical miles.
>
> > But neither were sailors, and they could have both been using statutue
> > miles, in which case 7 leagues is still 21 miles, but the miles are
> > shorter.
>
> > The actual distance between the capes is a bit over 14 statute miles,
> > or about 12 1/3 nautical miles. The mouth rapidly opens up, and the
> > bay is ~30 miles at its widest point.
>
> > But yet another problem is that Smith is describing the width of the
> > mouth of the bay; Strachey is giving the distance between capes. Both
> > are wrong.
>
> > What S&K do is quote Strachey's History of Travel (1612) passage,
> > which he did take from either Smith or the same source Smith got it
> > from, and use that as some kind of evidence that he plagiarized Smith
> > in True Reportory. How that is supposed to work, I don't quite know.
>
> > TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm no sailor either. Perhaps I was misled by S&K's article, which
> states (footnote 20), "One league =3D 3.3 miles".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That's the figure I found when I researched. But it now seems to me
nautical leagues were being translated into statute miles, so one
nautical league would approximate around 3.3/3.4 statute miles.
Another problem, of course, is that these kinds of measurements were
very approximate, and varied from one country to another and likely
from one period to another, so I get confused too.

Mouse