humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On 2 Apr, 21:35, "Peter Farey"
wrote:
> John Andrews wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > John Andrews wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > Surely an anti-Stratfordian belief should be based
> > > > primarily on dissatisfaction with the accepted view that
> > > > William Shakespeare is the author rather than on the
> > > > finding of a hidden message which would not exist if
> > > > Shakespeare is the author?
>
> > > In my view this precisely where most anti-Stratfordian
> > > theories fail. I believe it is almost as foolish to say
> > > that William Shakespeare could never have developed
> > > into the brilliant playwright we believe him to be as
> > > it is to claim that Marlowe couldn't have developed
> > > into 'Shakespeare'.
>
> > We agree on this.
>
> My goodness! Are you sure?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Second, that the most likely single explanation for the
> > > > > many anomalies surrounding Marlowe's apparent death at
> > > > > Deptford is that it was actually faked, using a substit-
> > > > > ute body, and that Marlowe was instead sent into exile
> > > > > with a changed identity (but still, of course, with a
> > > > > playwriting ability second to none at that time).
>
> > > > As I've said to you before, if Marlowe's death was
> > > > faked, with the support of important nobles and polit-
> > > > icians, there would be no anomalies for you to find -
> > > > they would have faked it without the obvious blunders
> > > > you believe you have found. It's a perfect example of
> > > > evidence of a plot being, in fact, the exact opposite.
>
> > > Funnily enough, the only 'obvious blunder' that I can
> > > think of in my list of anomalies (see my post to Tom)
> > > is the one about Danby having done it on his own. As
> > > a result of Nigel (Ignoto) pointing out something in
> > > Google Books, however, I now think that there could
> > > have been a legitimate way for this to have happened
> > > - if Danby has *also* been a county coroner for Kent.
> > > The inquest would still have been void - since he did
> > > not include a statement to that effect in his report -
> > > but that error would have been far less noticeable.
>
> > > What this would do, of course, is remove that as one of
> > > my anomalies, but it would create another interesting
> > > fact. If they had wanted a faked death to take place
> > > somewhere (a) at which Danby could legally officiate on
> > > his own, (b) which was within the verge (so that the
> > > whole legal process was under the direct control of the
> > > Privy Council) and (c) was as near as possible to the
> > > place of John Penry's execution, then in the whole of
> > > England there was only one place that would have
> > > matched those criteria - Deptford Strand.
>
> > But with the anomaly removed we are left with a cut and
> > dried case of a public inquest carried out to a high
> > standard in the presence of the corpse.
>
> This was just one of a host of anomalies - an important
> one certainly, but only one nevertheless.
>
> > No writer of the age has such a clear and documented
> > death. There may be room for debate and discussion about
> > WHY Marlowe died, but there's no room for doubt about
> > the fact that he did.
>
> And therefore no room for "debate and discussion" and you
> are just here to *tell* me that I'm wrong? Sorry to disapp-
> oint you John, but it will take a little more than that
> to get me to reconsider my conclusions.


We're here for debate and discussion so I would be disappointed in you
if you were to abandon your conclusions in the face of the
overwhelming evidence. Just so long as you're prepared to admit that
your conclusions exist on a thin layer of speculative ice.


>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Third, that the first time we ever hear the name Will-
> > > > > iam Shakespeare unambiguously associated with the works
> > > > > we think of as his was just a few days after Marlowe's
> > > > > apparent death. This was in *Venus & Adonis*, which he
> > > > > described (very ambiguously) as "the first heir of my
> > > > > invention".
>
> > > > "Just a few days" surely indicates the existence of
> > > > what we call a coincidence rather than a deep laid plot.
>
> > > Yes it could be. Just as it could have been a coincid-
> > > ence that it was bought by an employee of the man I see
> > > behind the deception, Lord Burghley. This was Richard
> > > Stonley, an elderly gentleman for whom - given his usual
> > > taste in books - this was a rather surprising purchase.
>
> > I imagine that the lascivious and sexual content of the
> > poem would have made it the "Lady Chatterly's Lover" of
> > its day - that book too ended up in many otherwise res-
> > pectable homes for reasons other than its literary merit.
>
> A poor analogy. "Lady Chatterley's Lover" became notor-
> ious because of the original ban on its publication, and the
> Penguin trial which overturned it. In contrast, at the time
> Richard Stonley bought one of the very first copies of
> *Venus and Adonis* nobody would have known anything
> at all about it beyond what the title suggested - not among
> the tellers at the Exchequer at least.

I don't think you can know this. Apart from the fact that
salaciousness was harder to come by in 1593 than it was in the 1960's,
we don't know how quickly word would get round about the contents of
such a poem. That is was a poem, in itself, would give it higher
status than any of Shakespeare's plays. As you admit, the title alone
is suggestive enough. Why should a teller at the Exchequer have any
different attitude to a newly printed poem than anyone else? It is a
fact that he bought the poem, but what that fact tells us is the
subject only of speculation.

>
> My point, which you have side-stepped, was the fact that
> this very early copy was bought by an employee of the
> man whom I claim to have been one of the prime movers
> in the deception. This is a coincidence.

If we had a time machine and could walk with Stonley to St Paul's or
Charing Cross and stand with him while he bought the poem and follow
him home to see him read it we might have a better idea of what the
significance of his possession of such a book tells us. You keep
emphasising that it was a "very early" copy - but in my experience
that is when most people buy books - when they are new.

>
>
> > > Another coincidence could be those lines from Ovid
> > > which Marlowe had translated as:
>
> > > Let base-conceited wits admire vilde things,
> > > Fair Phoebus lead me to the Muses' springs.
>
> > > and which continued (to the end of Book One):
>
> > > About my head be quivering myrtle wound,
> > > And in sad lovers' heads let me be found.
> > > The living, not the dead, can envy bite,
> > > For after death all men receive their right:
> > > Then though death rakes my bones in funeral fire,
> > > I'll live, and as he pulls me down, mount higher.
>
> > But this is a literary commonplace not a coded message.
>
> I don't give a toss how much of a commonplace it was.
> The fact that it says "Then though death rakes my bones
> in funeral fire,/ I'll live" is another coincidence.

I need hardly point out that as a commonplace, it's value to you as a
unique expression of Marlowe's impending death and resurrection is
compromised. There's a better explanation of what the words mean than
your interpretation.

>
> > There are many alternative examples of exactly the
> > same idea throughout Renaissance literature. It would
> > presuppose that Marlowe knew of his forthcoming
> > "death" which, for me, is at odds with the confused
> > and somewhat random nature of Marlowe's final months
> > of life.
>
> Under my scenario they would actually have mentioned to
> him that his death was to be faked, and he would cert-
> ainly have had the chance to suggest these lines if he
> considered them appropriate. That they are is another
> coincidence.

How far in advance of the faking of his death do you think Marlowe
knew of it, Peter?

>
> > The lines "The living, not the dead, can envy bite..."
> > isn't about continuing life in another guise (for how
> > long? How could he have known?) but about posthumous
> > reputation. When |Marlowe write "I'll live" he means
> > it in exactly the same way as he means "...in sad
> > lovers' heads let me be found".
>
> Well it was really Ovid who meant those things

Yes - we're talking about a translation...

and it
> was certainly the way Marlowe would have understood
> them too at the time he translated it. This would not, of
> course, prevent him from using them several years later
> in a way which could have had quite a different meaning
> to certain people, such as Stonleys boss or the Earl of
> Southampton.
>
> Again, however, you are dodging the point, which is
> that, if I am right, Stonley's buying it is a coincidence no
> matter what Marlowe actually 'meant' by it.

Isn't this method becoming a staple of your argument, Peter? "No
matter how speculative and unlikely fact XXXXXXX may be, we must allow
it to count towards my conclusion...." If one isn't prepared to
subejct such coincidences to commonsense tests of plausibility it's
little wonder how far you are able to construct your elaborate (and in
my view fantastic) theories.

>
> > > The almost universally accepted similarity of the style
> > > of Venus & Adonis to that of (not yet published)
> > > Hero & Leander could be considered a coincidence too.
> > > But at some point we have to start asking just how many
> > > 'coincidences' there can be before they begin to show
> > > a recurring pattern.
>
> > By definition a coincidence is a coincidence
>
> Precisely, and at some point we have to start asking
> whether there must be some causal connection which means
> that they should no longer be thought of as coincidences.
> I thought you would understand that.

Doesn't everything hinge on "at some point"? The buying of a copy of
Venus and Adonis in your narrative is allowed to contribute towards a
network of agents working on the death and resurrection of Christ.
Marley - but it's likelier Stonley just bought a new poem. If we
found, subsequently, a letter from Stonley to, say, Southampton,
telling him that he would be passing some manuscripts through soon
from Europe for registering and performance etc. etc. then my attitude
to your theory would change. Unlike the many dozens of unambiguous
pieces of documentary evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays - you
have nothing on paper to support your theory.

>
> > and experience shows us that there can be very many of
> > these which may seem to show a recurring pattern, but
> > they are simply random facts.
>
> Like Rosencrantz calling 'heads'?

As I said above, not only do you have to use speculation to weave
together your pieces of, at best, ambiguous pieces of "evidence" you
simultaneously have to disgard the plain in-front-of-your-nose
evidence that Marlowe died in 1593 and the other guy actually wrote
the plays. It's not as though you are constructing your theory in a
vacuum - you have to elbow out of your way inconveniently bulky pieces
of true record.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > And there's precious little ambiguous about the many
> > > > attributions of the early plays to Shakespeare that
> > > > have come down to us. Have many other people found
> > > > the phrase "the first heir of my invention" *very*
> > > > ambiguous?
>
> > > My use of the word 'very' was really to point up the
> > > contrast with the unambiguousness I had just ment-
> > > ioned. However it is also possible that in the back of
> > > my mind were Empson's words: "if we must choose any
> > > one meaning, then we owe it to Shakespeare to choose
> > > at least one he intended and one embracing as many
> > > meanings as possible, that is, the most difficult
> > > meaning".
>
> > Empson was a very naughty man and he has led you
> > astray here.
>
> I don't think so. I'm not even sure that I know what he
> means. On the other hand I do believe that there are
> several levels of ambiguity, don't you?

Naturally.

>
> > Haven't you ever felt, when reading "Seven Types of
> > Ambiguity", or even more so "The Structure of Complex
> > Words" that his cleverness becomes an end in itself
> > and sheds light only intermittently?
>
> Can't claim to have ever read them. I only remembered
> the quotation from Bate's "The Genius of Shakespeare"
> as it happens.

You'll get a scolding from Groves of Academia.

>
> > > > Remembering that plays wouldn't necessarily be seen
> > > > as high status literary works? It is simply a euph-
> > > > emisitic expression of the fact that the poem is the
> > > > first published literary work, isn't it?
>
> > > Deliberate ambiguity requires at least two meanings,
> > > and that would indeed be one of them.
>
> > And would you ever find the second meaning unless you
> > were obsessed with finding it?
>
> Why do you find it necessary to do this John?

To irritate you, of course. (Teehee)

I'm not
> obsessed with anything, I merely find this a particularly
> interesting subject and enjoy spending time on it.

Good description of an obsession, I'd say.

And
> if I am following a theory which has the 'invention'
> of a new author ("The action of devising, contriving,
> or making up; contrivance, fabrication") at the heart
> of it, it is bloody obvious that the phrase "first heir
> of my invention" in reference to the first known public-
> ation coming from him might also have something to
> do with that sort of thing.

Well, if it's a "might", then according to the Peter Farey rules of
argumentation that equals a "must"!

>
> > (And have any other readers concurred with your reading
> > of the lines?)
>
> I doubt it. Only those who have a reason for doubting that
> it ...


Did you fall asleep at this point, Peter?

Best wishes

John

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