humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 22, 7:37 am, Art Neuendorffer
wrote:

> Elizabeth caulks up another one:

Thank you?

Would you mind stating, in plain prose,
what your theory is on the 'True' series?

I would like to have a conversation
without having to wade through piles of
word debris.

I'm trying to show that there was a
cover-up at the Virginia Company, there
are two more parts (there may be more)
including the fact that Gates and Somers
arbitrarily? changed course AGAINST
SPECIFIC ORDERS OF THE LONDON
COUNCIL, leaving the safety of the West
Indies where the ship could have weathered
the hurricane in one of the many harbors.

It has occurred to me, writing this post, that
the hole in the hull of the Sea Venture that
forced Somers to run the ship on the rocks
in Bermuda to keep it from foundering, may
have been the result of a hit below the waterline
by a Spanish cannon.

The crew and passangers would be bailing
for their lives one way or the other.

Purchas, of course, knows the story, he
sneers that the account is 'patheticall and
rhetoricall' which, in the 16th century
definitions of those words (our definitions
have changed) points directly to The Compiler,
Bacon, as the author of A True Repertory.

I've drafted a post on Purchas' marginalia
and the 16th c. definitions.

Bacon, an ex-spy, believed that dissimulation
was necessary in certain circumstances. Bacon
wrote an Essay defending dissimulation. That
would make him an ideal Compiler of A True
Repertory because it's really a beautifully written
piece of propaganda, at least the first part.

What follows is straight out of Bacon's Sylva
Sylvarum, a hundred pages of cribbing from
early Spanish travel narratives. Hey, why don't
the Oxfordians pick on the real plagiarizer?

Early Modern scholars gush over it, it's the
'finest example of American travel narrative,'
etc.

Furthermore, one of the ADMITTED rationales
for 'declining to the north' was to avoid the Spanish
shipping on the 'Trades.' Spanish ships were
well-designed and well-armed. The whole Spanish
fleet had to be reconstructed after the Armada, it
was a modern fleet.

The investors (and the king) back in London
could find reasons to continue on in Virginia if it
was 'only' a hurricane, it would be a different matter
if the Sea Venture was hit with Spanish fire
because it would mean that the Trades were
not safe for English ships, that there would be
a constant threat to colonization not to
speak of commodities.

The Stationer's Registery (controlled by the
dread Star Chamber) was in charge of censor-
ship, nothing that would harm the investments
of London merchants not to speak of James I's,
would find its way into print.

The Treaty of London (between England and
Spain) was signed the same year, 1609, that
was probably the only thing that gave the
London merchants the incentive to invest
in colonialization. Robert Cecil worked years
to achieve the Treaty, it didn't last a year.

You know what, Art, it's like I've been saying,
the Oxfordians will not read history and
Looney, a charter member of the Sir Walter
Scott fan club, only misleads the Oxfordians.

This question is really the province of historians,
the Strats made a huge mess of it, the Oxfordians
are only making it worse.