humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

Tom Veal wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:29 pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 3:48 pm, Tom Veal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 11, 3:38 pm, 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 the
>>>>>>> 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/strachey-and-shakespeare-.html
>>>>>> A few quick comments on this:
>>>>>> "The most devestating blow to the Gayley-Wright transmission model... is
>>>>>> the internal evidence of the text itself. It is certain that Strachey's
>>>>>> 'letter' at least in the form in which it appeared in print in 1625, 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 at that
>>>>>> time (as well to take his leaue of the lieutenant general Sir Thomas
>>>>>> Gates, now bound for England, as to dispatch the ships) the Lord
>>>>>> governor and Captain General had pitched his Tent in Algernon Fort. The
>>>>>> king's son Kainta, the lord governor and captain general, hath sent 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 refuse
>>>>>> someone has attempted to hide under the carpet, only to make the
>>>>>> unsightly mess all the more apparent), wherein it is revealed that the
>>>>>> 'traditional' argument may have recourse to the fact that words may be
>>>>>> written in *anticipation* of an event. So that which was once *certain*
>>>>>> ('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, Strachey
>>>>>> writes "What this will worke with [the Indian Chief, Powhatan], wee know
>>>>>> not as yet".
>>>>>> Now either the letter was written by July 15 1610 and the narrative
>>>>>> breaks off where it does just because Strachey simply does not know what
>>>>>> will happen next; or (as S-K seem to have it) it breaks off because
>>>>>> Strachey was writing a 'story' and knew what would happen, but for some
>>>>>> bizzare reason (that reason it seems cannot fathom) decided that
>>>>>> breaking off the narrative at a decisive point and pretending that he
>>>>>> knew not what would happen would be a good way of writing a dramatic tale.
>>>>>> Which if these is more likely? If the letter was composed at a date
>>>>>> later than 15 July 1610 then the break in the narrative is an anomaly
>>>>>> that stands in need of reasonable explanation. However any explanation
>>>>>> of this anomaly is going to involve one in psychological explorations 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 occurs-
>>>>>> the narrative of the letter is consistent with its date and surrounding
>>>>>> 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 circumstances;
>>>>>> on the other we have a narrative of unexplained mysteries.
>>>>>> The July 15 1610 date is, on the basis of the the text the simplest 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 be
>>>>>> nothing more than a blast of hot air. The internal narrative evidence
>>>>>> 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 upon an
>>>>> earlier copy, or interference by Purchas? After-the-fact composition
>>>>> 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 removing
>>>>> text, is a matter of record."
>>>>> In other words, *something* must have happened to make the text look
>>>>> 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 July
>>>>> 15th fleet.
>>>>> Of course, I hadn't "seen [their] arguments concerning after-the-fact
>>>>> 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 from
>>>> the Strachey letter, is further evidence as to the 1610 date of
>>>> strachey's letter. I know S-K have textual arguments that claim Strachey
>>>> was a plagiarist, but I'm afraid I just don;t find these very impressive.
>>>> eg. from p458.
>>>> Jourdain, Discovery, Registered 1610:
>>>> "The Bermudas... lying seven leagues unto the sea... (108) this island,
>>>> I mean the main island, with all the broken island adjacent, are made 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, within
>>>> 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 did
>>>> 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 Kirabati
>>>> and Zimbabwe can both call the moon 'round' though they have never met.
>>>> 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).
>> I dunno, I get confused on this. If they are both using nautical
>> measurement, they aren't that far apart. 7 nautical leagues = 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 = 3.3 miles".

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=45147&an=&page=&vc=1

ROTFL