humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 12, 4:38=A0pm, Ignoto wrote:
> 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/strach=
ey-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 Strach=
ey'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 t=
o 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 Thoma=
s
> >>>>>> 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 refu=
se
> >>>>>> 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 *cert=
ain*
> >>>>>> ('Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable') is in fact n=
ot
> >>>>>> 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 d=
rama,
> >>>>>> with Englishmen kidnapped and the natives threatened with fire, Str=
achey
> >>>>>> 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 dramati=
c 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 anoma=
ly
> >>>>>> that stands in need of reasonable explanation. However any explanat=
ion
> >>>>>> of this anomaly is going to involve one in psychological exploratio=
ns 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 occu=
rs-
> >>>>>> the narrative of the letter is consistent with its date and surroun=
ding
> >>>>>> 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 circumsta=
nces;
> >>>>>> 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 te=
xt,
> >>>>>> 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 eviden=
ce
> >>>>>> 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-fac=
t
> >>>>> 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 Strac=
hey
> >>>> was a plagiarist, but I'm afraid I just don;t find these very impress=
ive.
> >>>> eg. from p458.
> >>>> Jourdain, Discovery, Registered 1610:
> >>>> "The Bermudas... lying seven leagues unto the sea... (108) this islan=
d,
> >>>> 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. T=
his
> >>>> 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 e=
ven
> >>>> describing the same thing. It is but a small wonder that men in Kirab=
ati
> >>>> and Zimbabwe can both call the moon 'round' though they have never me=
t.
> >>>> 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 =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".
>
> http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=3D...=

>
> ROTFL

Let's see. Except for complaining about a dubious point that I had
already retracted, Dr. Stritmatter has let over six years go by since
I posted a series of criticisms of his book on Oxenford's Geneva
Bible: http://stromata.tripod.com/id288_march_16_2002.htm
http://stromata.tripod.com/id288.htm http://stromata.tripod.com/id317_august=
_17_2002.htm
http://stromata.tripod.com/id459_january_20_2004.htm
http://stromata.tripod.com/id459_february_3_2004.htm

*Obviously*, then, since "he refuses to respond", he has "abandoned"
his thesis, and his fellow believers "might wish to consider the
possible implications of the desertion".