humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 19, 3:05=A0pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:



> > > > I think that anybody in any position of authority at all was probabl=
y
> > > > obliged to report to the council.
>
> > > > TR
>
> > > I have come back to this, Tom. You are saying that anyone in any
> > > position of authority at all was probably obliged to report to the
> > > council?
>
> > > Here is a list of the people who would therefore definitely be
> > > involved in the reportage, according to Strachey's list of the
> > > council:
>
> > > De la Warre
> > > Gates
> > > Somers
> > > Percy
> > > Wainman
> > > Newport
> > > Strachey himself.
>
> > > This omits the lower dignitaries, but possibly since they are in minor=

> > > positions of authority, you would include them also.
>
> > Well, we have reports from Gabriel Archer, John Radcliff, William
> > Brewster, Robert Tindall, George Percy, Francis Perkins, Edward Maria
> > wingfield, Peter Winne, John Smith, Alexander Whitaker, Samuel Argall,
> > Ralph Hamor and John Rolfe.
>
> Faith, here's an equivocator, that could swear in both the scales
> against either scale. We're talking about September/October of 1610.

I was giving you examples of the people who made reports to illustrate
the various degrees of authority they did or did not have.

> Or at least, I assume we are. If you're talking about any old time,
> Strachey's could have been given to the council at any old time also.
> Then the passage in Lawes could come into play.
>
>
>
> > Yet you're saying the secretary of the colony wouldn't make a report.
> > I think the extant evidence tends to be contradictory to your notion.
>
> No, I didn't say that at all. I wasn't discussing my position. I said
> if you think everyone was obliged to put in a report at that time--

Where did I say that? I thought I said "I think that anybody in any
position of authority at all was probably obliged to report to the
council." and I said that in response to your suggestion that
"recording secretaries are not obliged to write reports."

In any case, I think a report from Strachey would have been welcomed,
and I daresay his personality was such that he would be eager to send
one. and I venture furhter to say that he would make sure that his
report was a good effort and stood out as an outstanding example, IOW,
much like the letter that we have.

> which is what you suggested--then he would have had to also. But how
> could one possibly figure out what it was and what it influenced, if
> anything, in TD, with all those other reports floating around? On the
> other hand, if everyone didn't have to make a report, as you say
> below, he didn't either.
>
> > > =A0There are at
> > > least eleven of them.
>
> > > But to go back to the first seven:
>
> > > 1. Yes, we have a dispatch from DLW, but there's at least one more
> > > that's missing, according to TD.
>
> > There are two reports from DLW that the council would have read. Given
> > that the returning ship was DLW's first opportunity to report back to
> > the council, those two could have been all that they received. But I
> > think he probably did make other reports, although a report on what
> > happened in Bermuda would not be among them, being that he wasn't
> > there.
>
> There was one that we have to the council. Wasn't the other a private
> letter?

To Cecil, who had strong ties to the Virginia company and had great
influence. Otherwise why would anyone send him a report? Yet both DLW
and Somers do in this instance, and DLW, Dale, Newport and Ratcliff do
on other occasions.

> > > 2. No, we do not have Gates' report, either oral or written or both,
> > > although we know he gave some kind of report and have clues to what he=

> > > said.
>
> > Very good clues, given that the November, 1610, publication outlined
> > what he told them.
>
> It's wrong in places though, so it may be wrong in others. He may have
> said much more, also, than what appear in the document to be his
> thoughts on the matter.
>
> > > 3. I can't remember offhand, but I think Somers' letter was private,
> > > which means we may not have his report to council. You could put me
> > > right on that if I'm wrong.
>
> > Although the letter was addressed to Cecil and not the council, the
> > same way DLW's second letter was, there is no good reason to think the
> > council didn't read it.
>
> There's no absolute reason to think that they did. But it's possible.

The fact that he had strong influence and ties to the company lends
weight to the idea that they did.

> > > 4. No, we don't have a report from Percy, though according to you he
> > > probably made one other than to his brother.
>
> > We have several reports from Percy. Whether he sent one on this
> > occasion is doubtful, because he signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
>
> Good God, isn't that just what I said about Strachey? That imo he
> didn't need to send a separate report because he signed the DLW?
>
>
>
> > > 5. No we don't have Wainman's report, although according to you he
> > > would have made one.
>
> > He signed the one signed by DLW, et al.
>
> So did Strachey. You've now done a complete turnaround.

Apparently there are several factors at work in these communications.

There is, first, what I intend to write. Then there is what I actually
wrote, then there is what I think I wrote. And then there is what you
think I wrote, and then what I think you wrote in responding to what
you thought I wrote.

If you think I have done a complete turnaround I suggest either you
don't completely understand what I wrote or you are imposing your own
idea of what I wrote into what I actually wrote.

Is that clear?

>
>
>
> > > 6. No we don't have Newport's report, although we know from a letter
> > > from an ambassador that he made one.
>
> > Could you fill me in on this?
>
> He made two, in fact, one private and one public:
>
> =A0When Captain Christopher Newport, who brought the first colony to
> Jamestown, returned to England with the two small vessels, the
> Blessing and the Hercules, in 1610, Velasco wrote to Philip III that
> Newport
>
> ... has secretly reported the misery suffered by those who remain
> there [Virginia] and said that if Lord de la "Warca" [Warre] who
> recently went there as Governor, had delayed three days longer, the
> island would have been abandoned by the 300 persons who had remained
> alive out of 700, who had been sent out. In order to encourage the
> merchants, at whose expense this expedition is undertaken, so that
> they may persevere in it, he has publicly given out great hopes, and
> thus they have formed several Companies by which men will be sent out
> in assistance, and they have determined, that at the end of January of
> the coming year, three ships shall sail, with men, women and ministers
> of their religion, and with a full supply of arms and ammunition for
> all. Thus I have been told by "Guillermo Monco" [Sir William Monson]
> whom I consider a trustworthy and very intelligent man, who knows all
> about this business, as some of the sailors who came over in those
> small vessels, were servants of his and all the others intimate
> friends and dependents of his; and the same I have heard from other
> sources, all of which agree in this. I think this plan might be
> brought to nought with great facility, if Y. M. [Your Majesty] were
> pleased to command that a few ships should be sent to that part of the
> world, which would drive out the few people that have remained there,
> and are so threatened by the Indians that they dare not leave the fort
> they have erected....
>
> (from a deciphered letter of Don Alonso de Velasco to
> the King of Spain, dated London, 30 September 1610;
> qtd. in Brown, i:418-9)

Hmm. I don't have my Brown here; I wonder why Haile left that out of
his compilation.

> > > 7.We possibly have Strachey's report; either the B or part of the P
> > > letter as published or there might be another report altogether.
>
> > Why, yes, that's what I've been saying. So you agree with me?
>
> Roger and I always felt that there might be an earlier report that
> went back. All we've said is that the P letter could not have gone
> back in its entirety, in our opinion. But actually, I was just in that
> post adopting your stance--that everyone in any position of
> responsibility had to make a report--and seeing what that meant. But
> now you've completely changed your position.
>
>
>
> > > So you have two choices:
>
> > > Either you're wrong and all those in positions of authority, including=

> > > Strachey, didn't have to submit a report,
>
> > They all signed the one signed by DLW, and some of them made other
> > reports.
>
> Wow. See your previous post, in which you write that anyone in a
> position of authority probably had to send a report.

I still think it probable, although that is immaterial to the fact of
whether Strachey sent the letter on the July, 1610, ship.

> > > or you're correct, which means that there are so many missing reports
> > > we can't possibly determine what Strachey's contribution was.
>
> > So you've invalidated both our positions? mine being we can tell what
> > Strachey's contribution was by reading his letter,
>
> I've certainly invalidated yours. We cannot say that, just as we
> cannot say what his contribution was to Tempest by reading his letter.
> There's a matter of when the "letter" was finished, and also the
> question of other sources. We've seen over and over again that
> material thought to be taken by Shakes from Strachey was in fact
> available in other earlier texts that Strachey had copied.

All that is immaterial to whether Strachey's letter was sent on the
July, 1610, ship.

> >and yours being
> > that you can definitely say that Strachey's letter was not received by
> > the council in September 1610.
>
> I cannot definitely say that some part of TR did not get to the
> council.

Then you cannot definitely say that all of it didn't.

> Our position when we wrote the essay was that because of a
> multitude of other factors, we think the complete TR could not have
> gone back on Gates' boat.

All of those factors have been discussed and none of them hold up
under scrutiny. In fact, the extant evidence suggests it did go back
on Gates' boat.

> We mentioned the possibility of an earlier
> letter--which we now know about--meaning an early version of TR, which
> is in fact the earlier letter. I haven't changed my position at all.
> I'm simply saying that if everyone had to submit a report, we cannot
> know from that what, if any, of the influence came from Strachey. You
> invalidated your own position, but now you appear to have done an
> about turn.
>
>
>
> > Seems to me you've invalidated your own thesis.
>
> No, not at all.

When you admit there is no certainty in any interpretation of the
record, you invalidate all interpretations, including your own. You
don't seem to understand this. You seem to think that casting doubt on
ANY interpretation only affects my position and leaves yours still
standing.

> You've totally invalidated your own by saying
>
> 1. Everyone in a position of authority had to submit a report (and so
> Strachey had to). This would mean so much info is not available to us
> that we have no idea what he sent that was reported in TD.
>
> and then you changed your stance to
>
> 2. Everyone didn't have to submit a report as they signed the DLW
> letter, which meant that Strachey, who likewise didn't have to submit
> a report, may not have sent material back on Gates' ship at all.

Whether they had to send a report or not is immaterial to whether
Strachey's letter went on the July, 1610, ship, so all this is just a
red herring to drag across the trail.

TR


>
> Sigh,
> Mouse
>
> > TR
>
> > > Mouse- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -