humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 15, 11:40=A0am, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:



> I think it is within the bounds of possibility that Digges took the ms
> up to Stratford, but unlikely because the chain of custody is so
> complex and precarious.
>
> Here are a few of the problems with the "letter" getting to
> Shakespeare in Stratford in time for him to write the play:
>
> 1. There is precious little evidence that True Reportory was finished
> by the time the ship left Virginia in July 1610.

There is in fact no evidence that it wasn't finished by that time and
much evidence that it was, including the date of the letter, the
obvious ending of the letter, and the fact that parts of it are quoted
and summarized by the Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A
True Declaration of the estate of the Colony in Virginia*, parts that
are found in no other accounts.

> This theory is
> weakened even further, imo, by the discovery of a copy of what looks
> to be an earlier letter from Strachey, much more workmanlike, with
> many fewer sources.

The existance of one does not obviate the existance of the other, nor
does one suggest the chronology of the other except in the minds of
people who are accustomed to making leaps in logic.

> 2. If it did go on the boat, it might have got to the company, but
> there's no evidence to show that it did.

There is in fact much evidence that it did get to the company,
including the fact that parts of it are quoted and summarized by the
Virginia Co. publication of November 1610, *A True Declaration of the
estate of the Colony in Virginia*, and the fact that it was found in
the effects of Richard Hakulyt, a leading director of the company,
after he died.

> There is evidence
> controverting it, including
> a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady
> b) the fact that Strachey talks to the company of a ms that sounds
> very much like it as not being finished or sent to them yet.

The MS of which you speak Strachey refers to as the "full story" of
his experiences in Bermuda and Virginia. Since the letter ends just
before the ships sailed in mid-July, he could hardly have been
referring to the letter. In fact, most historians believe he was
referring to *The History of Travel in Virginia Brittania*, an
unfinished work which his biographers think he probably began in
Virginia.

But of course you know all this already.

TR


>
> 3. You have the further problem of how the ms got to Digges.
>
> 4. If the ms got to Digges, there are manifold problems with his
> taking it up to Stratford. According to most Stratfordians, it was a
> "secret" document, because it was often negative. You're suggesting
> that Digges showed it to his stepfather?
>
> 5. It was addressed to the lady. You're saying that Digges took a
> document addressed to someone else up to show his stepfather?
>
> 6. Clearly Digges could not have taken the original, as it didn't
> belong to him. He would have had to copy out over 23,000 words to show
> in Stratford. You think he had the time and inclination to do that?
>
> 7. You then have to explain how that secret document got to
> Shakespeare. If all the other ducks were in a row, you could do this,
> but they're not. There are already so many speculations, so many
> maybes and perhapses, that the theory is sinking under the weight of
> them.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
>
> Very soon our article will be out in the Shakespeare Yearbook
> suggesting that from the sheer weight of the evidence, Tempest was a
> Shrovetide and not a Hallowmas play. This would narrow Shakespeare's
> opportunity to write it. The ship got in sometime in September.
> According to you, Shakespeare was in Stratford and it couldn't have
> reached him until November. He would have had to read it, write the
> play, go to London, a journey of several days, have it copied, have it
> rehearsed, have the set made for a Whitehall production, and get it on
> the stage by February. No matter what others here say, I can't see
> that happening.
>
> Shortly after our Shrovetide article comes our dating article, which
> dates the play to no later than 1603 and possibly earlier than that.
> I'm not interested in discussing stylistic arguments at the moment,
> because I think our evidence trumps it. I will be more than willing to
> discuss them after our article is published. But suffice it to say we
> have at least four texts that appear to be alluding to Tempest.
>
> There's another very big problem. Shakespeare had used most of the
> themes and plot elements before. Strachey had not. Shakespeare was
> famous, Strachey was not. Strachey had written only a couple of poems
> before True Reportory. At least one scholar has said one of them was
> influenced by King Lear. Interestingly, we know that Strachey was
> involved in Blackfriars as a sharer by at least 1605, before which we
> believe Tempest was written. Strachey is known to have copied other
> sources. He might well have copied from Tempest, though we don't make
> a point of it.
>
> This also brings up another point. Any parallels between Strachey and
> Shakespeare were in much earlier and more famous works, all of them
> available to Shakespeare by the 1590's, 1603 if one insists on his
> using the English translation of Montaigne. He didn't need Strachey at
> all to write Tempest. In fact looking at two or three these earlier
> texts shows that Shakespeare almost certainly went to them rather than
> Strachey, as they are much richer sources which are much closer to
> Tempest.
>
> Taking everything that I've said into consideration (and much more, as
> we've done six articles with more to follow), your theory seems highly
> unlikely to us.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>
> > Best wishes
>
> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -