humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 12, 3:17=A0pm, Tom Veal wrote:
> 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 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 fr=
om
> > >>>> the Strachey letter, is further evidence as to the 1610 date of
> > >>>> strachey's letter. I know S-K have textual arguments that claim Str=
achey
> > >>>> was a plagiarist, but I'm afraid I just don;t find these very impre=
ssive.
> > >>>> eg. from p458.
> > >>>> Jourdain, Discovery, Registered 1610:
> > >>>> "The Bermudas... lying seven leagues unto the sea... (108) this isl=
and,
> > >>>> I mean the main island, with all the broken island adjacent, are ma=
de in
> > >>>> the form of a half moon, but a little more rounder, and divided int=
o
> > >>>> many broken islands" (113)
> > >>>> Strachey:
> > >>>> "The Bermudas be broken islands, five hundred of them in a manner o=
f an
> > >>>> archipelago... and all now lying in the figure of a croissant, with=
in
> > >>>> 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 describin=
g the
> > >>>> *same natural object*. If descriptions of the *same* nature order d=
id
> > >>>> 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 Kir=
abati
> > >>>> 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 =3D 21
> > >> nautical miles.
>
> > >> But neither were sailors, and they could have both been using statutu=
e
> > >> 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

Went to the link, the post has been taken down:

We cannot proceed.

There was a problem looking up the post in our database.

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.


> 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.htmhttp://stromata.tr=
ipod.com/id288.htmhttp://stromata.tripod.com/id317_august_17_2002.htmhttp://=
stromata.tripod.com/id459_january_20_2004.htmhttp://stromata.tripod.com/id45=
9_february_3_2004.htm

Did you cover the fact that it's the Calvinist
Puritan Anne Cecil's Geneva Bible? That's her
'juvenile hand' as Kathman put it. Stritmatter
leaped to the conclusion that Oxford, a Roman
Catholic, decided to (blasphemously) make notes
in a bible he dare not read per the anathema of the
Council of Trent for plays he might want to write
decades later.


> *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".