humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

> > (There's no reason why you should have, but you never responded to m
> > post outlining how easy and indeed likely it was for Shakespeare to
> > have had access to the damned Strachey account in the autumn of 1610 -
> > when Leonard Digges visited Thomas Russell at his house in Aldington
> > near Stratford. We know of Shakespeare's links to both men - close
> > links - and we know that Shakespeare was in Stratford at this time
> > from a London legal document. Was Stratford so full of events that
> > autumn that Shakespeare wouldn't have found time to talk with Digges
> > and look at the letter he had brought to show his stepfather? =A0I know
> > it's inconvenient for your theory, but you could at least try to show
> > why it is unlikely to have occurred.)
>
> Hi John,
>
> I thought I answered that post, sorry.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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?
>
> > Best wishes
>
> > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

> I thought I answered that post, sorry.
>
> 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.

Do we know enough about the "chain of custody" to declare it to be
"complex and precarious"? I agree that it is certainly within the
bounds of possibility that Digges took a manuscript with him.

>
> 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.

We have the date on the letter - 15th July. Doubtless you have reasons
to discard this date, but it is at least "a little evidence" and not
incompatible with being a report of an event on the 24th June.

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.

Why is it imporbable that Strachey wrote varying versions of the
letter for various audiences? No doubt he polished a "final" version
once he came within reach of a library. An earlier version neither
strengthens nor weakens the theory.

>
> 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 evidence
> controverting it, including
> a) the fact that it was addressed to a noble lady

This isn't incontrovertible evidence. The "Lady" may either be a
literary device or Strachey's attempt at achieving some kind of
patronage, or the addressee of the version of the letter that was
later published. It's mysterious but can't be used as evidence one way
or the other.

> 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.

Again, this isn't incontrovertible evidence of anything - why
shouldn't he refer to an ms. in the process of being written if the ms
was being written?

>
> 3. You have the further problem of how the ms got to Digges.

Digges and his brother were members of the consortium who paid for the
failed expedition. It would have been incumbent on Strachey to
communicate to them what had happened. If a long account was written
of the storm, Digges and the other consortium members would have been
first in the queue to see it.

>
> 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.

Why accord "Stratfordians" such deference here where you wouldn't
anywhere else? What evidence is there that it was ever intended as a
"secret"? It was a literary performance - a secret account would
surely have stuck to the facts alone. If was secret how did it fall
later into hands of those who published it? If it was secret why is it
addressed to a "Lady" (assuming this was a real addressee) who wasn't
part of the consortium? The evidence that it was a secret document
looks very weak to me.

You're suggesting
> that Digges showed it to his stepfather?

Why would he not? He'd lost money in the venture, the least he could
retrieve would be the sharing of the excitement of the account of the
storm and wreck.

> 5. It was addressed to the lady. You're saying that Digges took a
> document addressed to someone else up to show his stepfather?

We don't know the status of the addressee - it is easily conceivable
that this was an embellishment of a version of the letter. We can't be
certain that what was eventually published was word-for-word what
Strachey handed around the consortium. You've already identified
different versions yourself.

>
> 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?

You know as well as I do that copying was a thriving industry at this
date and it would have been relatively cheap and easy to have even
long documents copied. The inclination may have come from having to
account for the failure of the venture to those who paid for it.


>
> 7. You then have to explain how that secret document got to
> Shakespeare.

I haven't been persuaded that it was "secret" - internal evidence
suggests it wasn't ever intended to be secret - it was a literary
performance. The Digges-Russell-Shakespeare-Stratford part of the
issue is there in the historical record with every reason to suppose
that this very newsworthy account would provide a key forcus for a
stay at Russells Aldington house.

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.

You'll agree that the maybes and perhapses lie on both sides. You are
too ready to accept the assumptions that accord with your theory and
too willing to reject those that don't. It proves (not that proof was
needed :)) that you are human.

>
> 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,

"sheer weight" worries me - what about the quality? We'll see.

Tempest was a
> Shrovetide and not a Hallowmas play. This would narrow Shakespeare's
> opportunity to write it.

If you can narrow it to less than a fortnight, you'll have me worried.
Shakespeare's whole career was a training in rapid composition - re-
using plots and scenarios, bulking out your scenes with borrowings -
he could have written a play like the Tempest in a very short space of
time. We have Jonson's comments on the quickness of Shakespeare's
writing and evidence from other playwrights of what would seem to us
very quick composition.

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.

But that says more about what you want to believe than what would have
been the facts. We know how adaptable and quick these playwrights were
- able to perform at very short notice and compose plays on topical
stories with very quick turnarounds. You know the theatrical evidence
for this as well as I do - why assume it was so difficult in this
case?

>
> 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.

That's a surprise : )

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.

You've already done sterling work on establishing the commonality of
literary references. Establishing beyond doubt that the Tempest was a
sole or necessary source for anything is made well nigh impossible as
your own research shows.

>
> There's another very big problem. Shakespeare had used most of the
> themes and plot elements before.

Which makes a rapid writing of the play even more plausible.

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.

Are you trying to suggest that Strachey couldn't have written his
letter without first reading the Tempest?? Your own research will have
shown you how well nigh impossible it would be to establish a sequence
of influence.

>
> 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.

You know that I don't agree with you here. You've amassed a huge
number of references and proved that both Shakespeare and Strachey
shared a centuries-old kitty of storm and wreck imagery. What I
haven't seen are references which taken together are closer to the
Tempest than Strachey. I know you disagree, but there we have it -
we'll have to agree to disagree. It is a matter of judgement rather
than "fact" and I find Strachey closer in overall feel to Shakespeare,
alongside some close verbal parallels. If it weren't for your
(invented, I think) obstacles to Digges' bringing the ms. to Aldington
even you would have to concede that there are some close parallels.

>
> 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.

And ditto - but I will wait to read the articles.

>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
>

>
> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -