humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 17, 2:20=A0pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:15=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 1:53=A0pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 1:12=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 11:38=A0am, John Andrews >
> > > > s...@johnpandrews.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > On 16 Feb, 07:55, "Peter Farey" =

> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > John Andrews wrote:
> > > > > > > > > (There's no reason why you should have, but you never
> > > > > > > > > responded to my 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 Shake-
> > > > > > > > > speare wouldn't have found time to talk with Digges and
> > > > > > > > > look at the letter he had brought to show his stepfather?
> > > > > > > > > I know it's inconvenient for your theory, but you could
> > > > > > > > > at least try to show why it is unlikely to have occurred.)=

>
> > > > > > and
>
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > Whilst I don't accept Lynne's contention that *The
> > > > > > Tempest* was written in 1603 or thereabouts, I don't
> > > > > > accept these statements either.
>
> > > > > > I may be wrong, but there is as far as I know no record
> > > > > > of Leonard Digges having ever been connected with the
> > > > > > Virginia Company (which I take to be the consortium you
> > > > > > mention) whether as one of the 52 members of its Council
> > > > > > or even one of the 655 individuals listed as its members.
>
> > > > > > His elder brother Sir Dudley was a member of both groups,
> > > > > > but appears fourth from the end of the Council list, with
> > > > > > no fewer than 15 'Lords' and 33 other knights apparently
> > > > > > ahead of him in the pecking order. That he would have
> > > > > > been anywhere near first in the queue to see the document,
> > > > > > let alone have the opportunity to take a personal copy of
> > > > > > it for his brother's use, simply beggars belief.
>
> > > > > > I'll tell you who were listed as Virginia Company members,
> > > > > > by the way - 'John Andrews the elder' and 'John Andrews
> > > > > > the younger' of Cambridge.
>
> > > > > > Peter F.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > Peter - I haven't looked at the original lists. In Hulme and Sherm=
an's
> > > > > "The Tempest and its Travels" (2000) it says that Dudley Digges wa=
s a
> > > > > member of the Council of the Virginia Company along with his broth=
er.
> > > > > Digges was also a generous sponsor of a number of other explorator=
y
> > > > > voyages such as Hudson's search for the northwest passage. Michael=

> > > > > Wood in his Shakespeare history also mentions the Digges brothers =
as
> > > > > members of the Consortium. It appears that Digges was a leading an=
d
> > > > > influential sponsor of exploration in the period. Money talks - Di=
gges
> > > > > may not have been the noblest sponsor but perhaps he was a generou=
s
> > > > > and influential one.
>
> > > > > The only evidence that the letter was secret was the fact that it
> > > > > wasn't published at the time whereas other accounts were but we ca=
n
> > > > > all think of good reasons for this other than the fact of the docu=
ment
> > > > > being secret. It may have not met with company approval as Mouse
> > > > > suggests. There may have been too many other accounts for a publis=
her
> > > > > to be interested. Its form as a letter may have been offputting...=
Any
> > > > > number of good reasons occur. To ASSUME it was a secret document g=
oes
> > > > > against its very literary style - it isn't a dry factual report, a=
s
> > > > > you know. It was written as an entertainment.
>
> > > > I don't think Strachey considered it a secret document, but I am sur=
e
> > > > the Virginia company did once it read the story of the nearly-
> > > > successful mutiny on Bermuda and the blame put on the management for=

> > > > the failure of the colony. In fact, it was only after the dissolutio=
n
> > > > of the Virginia Company in 1624 that the letter was published. Going=

> > > > by Strachey's introduction to the 1612 *For the Colony in Virginia
> > > > Brittania: Laws Divine, Moral and Martial*, it appears he had been
> > > > censored, as he writes "since many impediments, as yet must detain
> > > > such my observations in the shadow of darkness, until I shall be abl=
e
> > > > to deliver them perfect unto your judgements."
>
> > > > Lynne and Roger interpret that to mean that Strachey's *True
> > > > Reportory* wasn't written yet. However, "perfect UNTO YOUR JUDGMENTS=
"
> > > > could mean any number of things, one of which would be "until you
> > > > change your mind" or "until I write it the way you want it written."=

>
> > > > TR
>
> > > I agree; however, you seem to be ignoring this bit:
>
> > > "since many impediments, as yet must detain
> > > such my observations in the shadow of darkness..."
>
> > > which seems to be saying that even any "unperfected" observations
> > > haven't been shown to them either.
>
> > It doesn't make any sense that they would not have received any kind
> > of report from the former secretary of the colony. I think Strachey is
> > here naming the company as one of the impediments.
>
> I would think that recording secretaries are not obliged to write
> reports.

I would think that ship's captains were not obliged to give any
reports, either, but here we are both of us thinking he did.

> The dispatch went back with DLW,

You mean Gates.

> which Strachey signed.

Strachey and DLW and Weinman and Gates.

> Anything else is pure conjecture.

I think that anybody in any position of authority at all was probably
obliged to report to the council.

TR

>
>
>
>
>
> > TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -