Talk:Shakespeare authorship question/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Report on Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited: Stritmatter-Kositsky

It is claimed that the idea that William Strachey's True Reportory returned to England with Gates in 15 July 1610 is an unwarranted assumption (made by the commentators Gayley and Wright) based on the fact that known primary travel documents refer to only one voyage to England after that date (which would not have been in time to influence the The Tempest), namely, De La Warre’s ship which left Virginia on 28 March 1611 and arrived in England 11 June 1610.

You are totally in error if you believe this is our argument. I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it's incorrect. In addition, De La Warre's ship returned unexpectedly to England. He was not intending to go to England at all when he left Virginia, and so it would be highly unlikely that he would be carrying any mail bound for that country. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The authors maintain that if the document had travelled on this later ship it could not have influenced the play, despite there being 19 weeks to its 1 November performance. As the authors dramatically put it, if the Strachey letter had travelled on this ship “the case for its influence on the Shakespearean play collapses”. In Ben Jonson's Prologue to Volpone, Jonson gives an insight into the time it takes to write a play stating: “five weeks fully penned it/From his own hand, without a co-adjutor,/Novice, journeyman or tutor.” So 19 weeks seems ample time for Shake-speare (whoever he was) to read the True Reportory, write the play, and rehearse the actors.

Since the letter would not have been on De La Warre's boat, this is a rather useless argument; however, that the letter would have gone to the company, that someone would have taken it up to Shakespeare, that Shakespeare would have written a highly complex play, had the roles copied, and given out to the actors, that the actors would have learned it and that the set was prepared for Whitehall in such a short amount of time, is, imo, highly unlikely. And besides, we are just editing a paper now that demonstrates that Tempest was very probably written by 1603 at latest. Another paper, coming out in December, will demonstrate that Tempest was very likely a Shrovetide play, so the best that one can say, even if one doesn't accept the dating argument, is that De La Warre's ship would have arrived after the play was performed. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The authors also assume without reason that the absence of details of other ships travelling between Virginia and England means that there were none.

Actually, Strachey says this himself in True Reportory: that the ships would reappear the next spring. So there are no other ships going or coming. Mizelmouse 23:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This aside, the authors main argument is that the True Reportory could not have accompanied Gates on 15 July 1610. The reasons they give for this are as follows:

(1) Richard Martin, a leading shareholder of the Virginia Company, wrote to William Strachey who was still in Virginia on 14 December 1610, requesting details about the soil, the natives, their attitude to the settlers, and other matters, to be conveyed by “the return of this ship [likely The Hercules which sailed from England for Virginia in Dec 1610]”. The authors inform us that “by far the simplest and most elegant solution is that Strachey answered Martin in the manuscript later published as True Reportory” in other words, Martin would not have asked these questions if he had seen the True Reportory, and so it was not written by 14 December 1610. However, the possibility is not eliminated that the True Reportory had actually reached England by that date but Martin had not had access to it, which instead argues its confidential nature, an interpretation the authors acknowledge but to which they unfairly give lesser emphasis.

We certainly don't acknowledge that the ship could have arrived in England and gone to the company without Martin having access to it. Have you done any research at all? Have you even read our paper properly? Richard Martin was Secretary of the Virginia Company in England. He presented material such as True Declaration for publication at Stationers, as Tom Reedy told me. If Martin had no access to the letter at the company, neither did anyone else. And yet, the letter going to the company and then going onto Shakespeare is the lynchpin of the Strachey theory. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) Again, in appropriate theatrical terms, the authors claim that “the most devastating blow to the Gayley-Wright transmission model ... is the internal evidence of the text itself”. The True Reportory refers to Gates' departure so must have been written after it: “And the fifteenth day of July, in the ‘Blessing,’ Captain Adams brought [Sasenticum and his son Kainta] to Point Comfort, where at that time (as well to take his leave of the lieutenant general, Sir Thomas Gates, now bound for England, as to dispatch the ships)”.

You have missed what follows, which is rather important: "The king’s son, Kainta, the lord governor and captain general hath sent now into England until the ships arrive here again the next spring, dismissing the old werowance and the other with all terms of kindness and friendship, promising further designs to be effected by him, to which he hath bound himself by divers savage ceremonies and admirations..." We wondered how the letter, or rather 23000 word manuscript could be on the ship while Strachey was writing in it that the ship had left. There is however, a copy of an earlier letter by Strachey, which might have gone on the ship. .Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the authors claim, it is not as if these events occur at the end of the document (which would have cleared up the problem) for it “continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration (registered Nov. 1610).” Closer inspection of Wright's publication of the True Reportory shows that in fact Strachey's letter continues for less than two hundred words, before terminating with some kind remarks to the “right noble lady” it was addressed to. The seventeen hundred words of the quite different True Declaration are not part of Strachey's letter and have been inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet of 1964.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that the 1700 words of True Declaration were inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet--do you mean his edition of True Reportory?--and what is more, this shows your profound ignorance of the subject, as the excerpt from True Declaration, along with other interior excerpts, were in the 1625 edition of Strachey in Purchas His Pilgrimes (1625). Wright speculates that the excerpt was added by Purchas, but this is by no means proven. Another problem is that there are other excerpts inside True Reportory, most of them redacted in the end portion. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, no events beyond 15 July 1610 are described in William Strachey's letter. If the letter was not sent with Gates back to England, why did Strachey terminate it on the date of Gates' departure and not continue adding to it?

Why does Jourdain's narrative end a month before Gates' ship goes to England? Why does the earlier Strachey letter end five weeks before there was a ship available to carry it to England--if in fact it was written then and not later? Why do any number of narratives end at a certain "satisfying" point that does not necessarily accord with either the date they were written or the date they were sent? This is a common occurrence with narratives. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(3) The authors claim that in Strachey's work Laws of 1612, William Strachey alludes to the True Reportory being incomplete: “I have both in the Bermudas, and since in Virginea beene a sufferer and an eie witnesse, and the full storie of both in due time shall consecrate unto your viewes . . . Howbet since many impediments, as yet must detaine such my observations in the shadow of darknesse, untill I shall be able to deliver them perfect unto your judgements . . .I do in the meane time present a transcript of the Toparchia or State of those duties, by which their Colonie stands regulated and commaunded”. According to the authors, Strachey is “describing True Reportory, or a lost text just like it, as not only unpublished but incomplete”. I find this to be an over-interpretation and while he might well be alluding to the True Reportory he could just as well be saying that for reasons beyond his control he is unable to publish his completed letter.

This has nothing to do with publication, but with showing the document to the Council of the Virginia Company, to whom Strachey is addressing his remarks. If you see anything about possible publication in that excerpt, please point it out.Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion is that, with high probability, the True Reportory travelled back to England with Gates on 15 July 1610 and that the authors cannot sustain their case to the contrary. (Puzzle Master 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

Your conclusion might be worth more if you had read the documents in question, which quite obviously you have not. Must dash for the airport. Will amend later as necessary.--have added some material above. Mizelmouse 23:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read them. And I noticed how you exaggerate one interpretation over another when possibilities are equally valid, try to pass off interpretations as fact, and try to dupe the reader into thinking that the Strachey letter did not end less than 200 words after he mentioned Gates' departure when it did.

I have never tried to dupe anyone. It is not my way. I have noticed, however, that you have made all sorts of egregious mistakes in setting out our case, and I'm not sure why. Of course, I would never say that you were trying to dupe people. I don't pass off interpretations as facts, by the way. When something is an interpretation, in one way or another I will say so. Not only that: the fact that one can interpret the Strachey information in so many ways, and there are so many problems with it--it wasn't published, there is an earlier version without all the sources, there is no evidence that it ever reached Shakespeare, there is evidence that the officers of the company hadn't seen it, there is evidence from Strachey's own mouth in 1612 that a document that sounds like it wasn't finished, there are other published and well-known sources that are much richer and cover more ground--significantly diminishes the likelihood that Strachey's work influenced Shakespeare.Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion that Martin must have seen the Strachey letter if it arrived is what you'd like to believe. No one has any idea who it went to when it first arrived.

In fact you're right. No one even has any idea if it DID arrive. But if it DID arrive at the company, Martin would certainly have seen it. As I said, he was the Company Secretary. He was also Strachey's friend from his theatre days.Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem I have with you, your religious zealotry that refuses to see anything else but your own pre-1604 dating agenda.

Religious zealotry? Moi? That's a laugh. I'm not religious and I'm not a zealot. In fact I started out believing that Strachey posed a real problem for Oxfordians, but I found something by mistake, and my ensuing research into the question, together with Roger's research into secondary sources, changed my mind. I think if you ask most people who have seen the evidence, they will say, for example, that the Strachey parallels, particularly the "storm set" parallels, occur in other earlier works. This having been demonstrated, it is almost impossible to hold onto the idea that Strachey was a necessary source. Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You accept whatever supports your view and reject everything else which apparently involves being nasty to your correspondent hoping he'll go away (I won't).

First of all, I wasn't nasty. I just pointed out that you hadn't read some of the material, and had for the most part interpreted what we'd said incorrectly. If you think that's nasty, you should spend a week or two on a Shakespeare newsgroup. That said, if you're not going to go away, at least read the sources you're alluding to. No matter what you say, you have not done so, and you will continue to make awful errors if you don't. Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your sidekick Ben-SPAM-Jonson (he knows what I mean) is exactly the same.

Who's being nasty now? This kind of argumentation gets you nowhere. Surely you don't think it helps? Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're perfect for each other! (Puzzle Master 23:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC))

I hope so. We've done some good work together that has been accepted by major journals. I note that in your answers this evening, you have not made any substantive argument against what I said earlier. You have just spread a bit of invective about. If you had actually researched the question, you might have been able to mount a defence of some kind. Mizelmouse 01:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Lynne, your rhetoric, enjoyable as it is, fails to dilute the points I've made!

Many of the "points" you made, such as that Wright's publisher added the material from True Declaration in the 1960s, didn't need diluting because they were just out and out wrong. I corrected you, but you haven't even acknowledged your mistakes, never mind contributed anything meaningful afterwards. Mizelmouse 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Attorney General and Solicitor General were on the Council. How do you know that the Strachey report was not for King James' benefit and one of these commissioned it on his behalf?

How did either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General commission something from Strachey for James? Strachey was in Bermuda and thought lost till he got to Virginia--not that anyone would have thought to commission anything from him anyway, even if they knew that and could have reached him, as he was almost a complete unknown. This is a new and jaw-dropping theory, I must say. Very inventive. And without even a scintilla of evidence to support it. Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

After all, Sir Francis Bacon (Solicitor General) was adviser to the king on the Virginia Colony and he was on the Council. It would make sense because King James saw The Tempest and the allusions in it to the Strachey report would then be meaningful to him.

But surely if the ms came over in September 2010, according to your theory, The Tempest would not even be thought of, never mind written, as it depended on the Strachey ms for a source. So why would whoever supposedly gave the ms to James know that it would be meaningful to him in terms of The Tempest? In any case, the question of where you got evidence for this bizarre riff on the original story still pertains. Mizelmouse 14:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Martin would certainly have seen it" is not certain when other viable possibilities are available (unless Martin was the lady addressed in the letter - that is, a transvestite!)

You're saying that James WAS a transvestite? And that Strachey would have dared address him in feminine form? In fact, I'm glad you brought up the "noble lady." It seems to me that neither an ms to the company (the traditional view) or a ms to the king would be addressed to a lady. This raises insoluble problems for the orthodox, which they skate around with all sorts of speculations. In fact, the only possible explanation for the orthodox is that as the company wished to see all mail that came in from Virginia, they got hold of the ms before it went out to its intended recipient. But then it seems odd that they would send it to Shakespeare,rather than on to the recipient, whoever she was, as it was a private "letter." Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of us knows. When no one knows we're left to estimate probabilities. I'd say there's a high probability that if Strachey finished his letter on the day of Gates' return to England it was intended to be sent with him. No events are mentioned after that day in the letter - it makes wonderful sense Lynne!

I disagree. The ms says quite plainly that the ship and the people on it had been "sent" to England. A bit of shifting around tenses can make it look as though the ship is despatched but has not sailed, but it cannot be said that this is certainly the case. And the narrative picks up again for a few words after True Declaration is printed, something people always try to ignore or explain away. There could be several reasons for this. In any event, as I've said before, many narratives of the time were "shaped" to a certain set of circumstances. Strachey also used a whole raft of sources to build True Reportory. We don't believe all those sources could have been available in Virginia, especially as much of it was burned or looted. We had said originally that we would buy the story that an earlier version went back, and was then injected with much of the sourced material later. Now that a copy of an earlier letter has been found, missing most of the sources, I think we were most likely correct.Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure you're a lovely lady but on these forums you hide it well!

Of course I'm a lovely lady, Barry. But that has nothing to do with research, which you apparently have not conducted, however lovely you yourself are. Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy. (Puzzle Master 10:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I can't. I'm working on two essays and a novel. But thanks for the thought. Same to you. Mizelmouse 14:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to leave this discussion (because I've more creative things to work on)

Yes, I've noticed that you are very creative, especially in your ability to invent scenarios and evade questions about them.Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

when I decided that I didn't want to let you get away your wild accusations. You labour under the misapprehension that I have done no work on this. But anyway, the research that I have done is not relevant to this discussion.

Actually, it is, very much so. You haven't read any alternative sources, you haven't read secondary sources on the question, that much is painfully obvious, I don't think you've even read Strachey or you'd see the problems in it, and if you've read the whole of our first paper, you misunderstood it so badly that you made egregious mistakes in responding to it. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the conclusions that you draw from your own research.

That's pretty clear, since you have little enough of your own to fall back on.Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you have done much background reading and that deserves credit. I do doubt that you draw fair conclusions from your evidence. Any theorist needs to be clear at what stage his/her theory is falsified if it is not to become a religiously held belief. I don't get the impression discussing this with you that there is any point that you would accept as contradicting your theory.

In fact, you are quite mistaken. I constantly discuss or argue our theory with someone who HAS done a lot of research, a Stratfordian, and as a result I often modify what I say or think about the subject. I believe he does also, though it takes him ages to admit it.Mizelmouse

In other words, it isn't capable of being falsified so it isn't a theory, it's a belief.

A theory is a belief that is hopefully based on evidence. As our papers are published, I believe you'll see we have plenty of that, whereas those who originated the Strachey theory and speculate on how the manuscript got to Shakespeare have no evidence at all to show that it did. All we are doing in our first paper is questioning theories people have held for years and positing alternatives. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The idea that Strachey's letter ends on the date Gates sailed suggests with high probability that it did so because it was to sail with Gates.

Um, who says it was to sail with Gates? Strachey says nothing of the sort and no one else even mentions it before 1625. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't (refuse to?) accept this point and so I think that you over-emphasise interpretations that support your case and under-emphasise ones that don't.

I have never denied that the letter MIGHT have gone back with Gates' ships, although it could not have gone in its published version, as material in the first person was certainly added after the publication of True Declaration, and other material might well have been added to the manuscript or deleted from it before it was published. Purchas, for example, Strachey's publisher, was well-known for his additions, changes, and deletions. Strachey might have had a pile of stuff before his "dear lady" adieus that was deleted by Purchas, either because he was bored or because it didn't fit his chronology. He was in fact known for doing so. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No amount of trying to demean me, my credentials, and my ability will alter this fact.

I've said nothing about your credentials--I have no idea what they are, and don't put much store by anyone's--or your ability. All I am criticising is your arguing a case without having done the requisite research. Your awful blunders attest to this. I have never before seen someone try to argue that the end portion was added by Wright's publisher in the nineteen sixties. This simply shows that you haven't read Purchas or the secondary sources. There are a terrific lot of things that I won't argue about, because I'm just not knowledgeable enough and I'd quickly look a fool. You seem to harbour no such fears. You are arguing with me on work we've spent ages researching, without even having had the grace to do your homework, and it shows. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to be more positive but that's what I actually think. Sorry. (Puzzle Master 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

You don't have to apologise. That's fine. I don't really mind what you think. The criticisms and opinions of the Stratfordian who has done the research, on the other hand, are of major importance to me and I weigh them carefully. Mizelmouse 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I had forgotten, while answering you, that you are a Baconian, in which case my question to you is this: Why, if Bacon was Shakespeare, would he need Strachey at all to write Tempest? He was extremely intelligent and very well educated--he went to Trinity, didn't he?--and would certainly have known the earlier sources such as Eden, Ariosto, and Erasmus well, probably in their original languages. He was also certainly aware of earlier travel narratives. In around 1618, Strachey even sent Bacon his later manuscript, History of Travel. Culliford, Strachey's biographer, says that this was a "last desperate attempt" but Bacon apparently took no notice of him. I imagine Bacon would have seen immediately that it was heavily plagiarised from already published sources. In any case, Bacon neither acted as Strachey's patron nor helped him publish. IMO, knowing these facts, the possibility that he would have used Strachey's True Reportory to craft Tempest is a complete non-starter, so I'm not sure why you're hanging onto the theory like an overboard sailor hanging onto a piece of wood in a stormy sea, unless it's simply to preclude other candidates. Mizelmouse 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, please forgive me for reminding you yet again of the conclusions you've drawn from your own evidence.

(a) You said that "If Martin had no access to the letter at the company, neither did anyone else". Your argument for this is that "He presented material such as True Declaration for publication at Stationers". The True Declaration was written in-house as an attempt by the Company to counter information from returning colonists about the poor conditions. While the Strachey letter blames the natives, the True Declaration blames the settlers who it claims antagonised them. The Strachey letter was not written in-house and neither was it published by the Company. It evidently was of a confidential nature. How do you know that Martin had priority over everyone else (including the Attorney General and Solicitor General who were on the Council) to the contents of this confidential missive? This is your published claim and if this is your speculation it's best to say so.

(b) You say "I have no idea what you mean when you say that the 1700 words of True Declaration were inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet". May I respectfully suggest taking a look at Wright, p. 95, who says "A True Declaration of Virginia was published by the company, out of which I have here inserted this their public testimony". These words in Wright appear less than 200 words after Strachey's mention of Gates' departure, in other words, just after the end of the Strachey letter. Of course, you know the difference between Strachey's True Reportory and the Virginia Company's True Declaration. The latter has nothing to do with Strachey although I'm puzzled why you suggest in your paper that Strachey wrote it! You say about the Strachey letter "nor do they [words about Gates' departure] constitute the conclusion of the document, which continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration". I don't get it!

(c) Gates' departure is indeed mentioned in the past tense. Not a huge problem - could have been to provide a consistent tense for the reader. Then you ask "Why does Jourdain's narrative end a month before Gates' ship goes to England? Why does the earlier Strachey letter end five weeks before there was a ship available to carry it to England--if in fact it was written then and not later? Why do any number of narratives end at a certain "satisfying" point that does not necessarily accord with either the date they were written or the date they were sent?" But Strachey's letter ends on the day the ship sails and the ships are not that frequent! Looks suspiciously like a causal connection to me!

Now, I know you enjoy attacking me but can I tempt you to lay aside your baseball bat and answer these points? (Puzzle Master 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Oh dear. It's suddenly become clear. You think that the True Declaration (registered 8 Nov 1610) was a source for William Strachey's True Reportory and was a part of Strachey's letter. But the point of the True Declaration published by the Virginia Company was to reassure potential investors of the worthiness of investing in the colony after the murder and insurrection on the colony, information which would undoubtedly have got back by word of mouth. It reads like a reinterpretation of Strachey's letter and (as I mentioned above) while Strachey blames the natives (which would not have encouraged new investors) the True Declaration acknowledges the dastardly deeds of the natives mentioned by Strachey but frames it as the settlers antagonising the natives. (Puzzle Master 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

I've just done a huge response, but there was some kind of edit conflict, and I've lost it all unless I want to merge it, which I don't have the energy to do. So I'll just say you've misunderstood the extra material at the end of TR and still attribute it to Wright, you've misunderstood about what I said about Strachey copying (interior passages)from TD, and you've misunderstood just about everything else. So unless you decide to read the sources, primary and secondary, so you have some idea of what you're talking about and what I'm talking about, I think I should just go back to finishing my novel, which is way overdue. Mizelmouse 00:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no one else editing this page when you were (see history). Looks like a case of too proud to admit you're wrong. (Bodleyman 09:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

That's total rubbish. I'd never even heard of an edit conflict till I saw it on the page, and I'd kept looking for the post for ages. It had simply disappeared, except in a form where I'd have to integrate it all. If anyone would like me to re-answer Puzzle Master's final points--which by the way, are in major error, please start a new section with just those on it, and I'll be glad to respond. With regard to the rest of your argument:

1. I always admit when I'm wrong. It's the simplest and easiest and most honest thing to do. 2. The fact that you don't understand that Puzzler's point about Wright adding end material to True Reportory is completely wrong and absolutely ludicrous shows that you haven't read the sources either. Mizelmouse 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Some folks are better at wiki editing than others. Edits get lost for many reasons. Why are you, Bodleyman, just making things worse? Perhaps you might add something substantial or read the post below and respond?Smatprt 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't wait for the novel if it's as good as the fiction Mizelmouse has been writing here. Lets' hope this is the end of all this authorship nonsense. (Felsommerfeld 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

My novels are usually pretty good, or at least, they often win awards here in Canada and good notices in the States. Make sure you buy a copy of the new one, Minerva's Voyage, when it comes out. It's for teens, which you might enjoy. By the way, our articles have nothing to do with authorship, more a second look at the primary and secondary source material with regard to Tempest and a demonstration of why some of the previous criticism is likely incorrect. Our work has been accepted by major orthodox journals, so it must have something going for it. I wonder, are you saying that truth can only be truth if written by Stratfordians? Mizelmouse 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

So maybe you should stick to writing for children. I'm also saying that there are people much smarter than you have researched The Tempest sources and they happen to be Stratfordians.

(Felsommerfeld 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

I write for adults too. I'm sure there are people who are much smarter than I, but there is no one who works harder. I didn't rely on what others had said about Tempest previously, but researched everything myself with regard to Strachey, argued it out with the only other person (a Stratfordian) who had himself done a great deal of research after seeing my first attempts, and I wrote the papers in conjunction with a professor of English, who researched all the secondary sources. I'm sorry, but I don't know who you are. Perhaps you can tell us where you've been published, and what research you've done that confirms the validity of work on Tempest by scholars such as Furness. It would be so much more appropriate if you demonstrated your own expertise in the field rather than sarcastically slamming the attempts of others to find the truth. You might also be interested to know that many orthodox scholars are now moving away from the theory that Strachey in manuscript was a necessary source for Tempest. Mizelmouse 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've attempted to put up my responses to the Puzzler twice, and they keep disappearing, perhaps because they're so long. I've sent it to someone else to try, and if that doesn't work, I'll put them somewhere else with a link. Mizelmouse 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Something I dredged up on Kathman's defense of Strachey - it's the signature at the bottom that caught my eye. And well reasoned.Smatprt 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"I've looked again at Dave Kathman's essay, and, I'm afraid, remain unconvinced. The evidence that will establish a particular text as a 'source' may take a number of forms. The easiest is, of course, a continuous recollection of an original. So, in this play, the fact that Prospero's 'Ye elves' speech is derived from Ovid's Metamorphoses via Golding's translation is inescapable. Shakespeare must either have known it off by heart, or have been referring closely to it as he wrote the speech. Dave Kathman's argument for the Strachey letter is rather that accumulation of a number of small details generates a constellation of ideas and phrases only to be found in that particular source and in The Tempest. There is, of course, a potential here for a circularity of argument - as indeed Dr Kathman recognises - in that some of the parallels he cites are fairly tangential, and could only be entertained if one first accepts the larger contention that Shakespeare had read the Strachey letter closely. I would want to argue that this is the case for virtually all the instances he collects.

So, for example, he cites Strachey's 'we... had now purposed to have cut down the Maine Mast' as a parallel to the boatswain's 'Down with the topmast', but apart from the consideration that this must have been a necessary action in any storm, one might think that Ovid's Metamorphoses 11. l. 158 in Golding's translation, which reads 'Anon the Master cryed strike the toppesayle, let the mayne / Sheete flye' is both rather closer, and derived from a source which undoubtedly Shakespeare was consulting as he wrote the play.

Kathman cites Strachey's 'Prayers might well be in the heart and lips' as precedent for the mariner's cry 'to prayers! To prayers', but, again, this is part of standard storm description, and can be found, for example, in Newton's translation of Seneca's Agamemnon: 'To prayer then apace we fall, when other hope is none'. The description of St. Elmo's fire in Ariel's speech, which Mowat also considers 'echoes only Strachey amongst the play's recognised infracontexts', has, to my mind, a analogy at least as close in Erasmus's Colloquy, 'Naufragium', where (in a modern translation) 'the blazing ball slid down the ropes and rolled straight up to the skipper ... After stopping there a moment, it rolled the whole way round the ship, then dropped through the middle hatches and disappeared'. (There are one or two other possible parallels to this source in the play.)

Overall, I would still stand by my feeling that whilst the Strachey letter is a *possible* source for The Tempest, it is not a *necessary* source, in the way that Ovid or Montaigne both are, nor does it provide a particular point of reference in the way that The Aeneid does.

In the end, of course, it's very much a matter of individual judgement - members of this list might very well, and properly, be more convinced than I. Greenblatt famously characterised source hunting as 'the elephant's graveyard' of literary criticism - and what is most interesting, and most important, are the kinds of investment one brings to tracking down sources, and the different kinds of consequence one draws from their recognition.

David Lindley, Professor of Renaissance Literature

School of English, University of Leeds"

posted by Smatprt 06:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

BARRY'S POINTS ANSWERED.

Barry: You said that "If Martin had no access to the letter at the company, neither did anyone else". Your argument for this is that "He presented material such as True Declaration for publication at Stationers".

Mouse: That is not my argument. You appear not to have understood it. That was an addendum to my argument that showed he was involved in the running of the company, including taking care of documents. My argument was actually that he was secretary of the council of the company, and so it was his job to be aware of what came in in terms of material and what was done with it.

Barry: The True Declaration was written in-house as an attempt by the Company to counter information from returning colonists about the poor conditions. While the Strachey letter blames the natives, the True Declaration blames the settlers who it claims antagonised them.

Mouse: The Strachey manuscript blames the natives? Have you read it? Strachey blames poor government, the lack of supply, as well as idle colonists, conspiracies, the lack of fish in the river, famine and illness, the indians having burned and looted, etc.

Barry: The Strachey letter was not written in-house and neither was it published by the Company. It evidently was of a confidential nature. How do you know that Martin had priority over everyone else (including the Attorney General and Solicitor General who were on the Council) to the contents of this confidential missive? This is your published claim and if this is your speculation it's best to say so.

Mouse: It's not speculation at all. Richard Martin was the SECRETARY to the Council of the Virginia Company in London.. He was an MP and a prominent lawyer. He was also a friend of Strachey's, and wrote to him in Dec 1610 on behalf of the company asking for an account of the colony. In other words, he was involved in the Council's everyday concerns. Can you suggest how the ms would have gone to the company without being seen by Martin? Confidentiality--if the ms was confidential--would be no reason, as it was the council who saw confidential materials. I have never suggested, by the way, that the AG and the SG would not have seen the Strachey document, only that Martin WOULd have seen it if it had gone to the company.

Barry: You say "I have no idea what you mean when you say that the 1700 words of True Declaration were inserted by the publisher of Louis Wright's pamphlet"

Mouse: That's because Wright didn't write a pamphlet, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Strachey didn't write a pamphlet either. He wrote a 23,000 word document.

Barry: .May I respectfully suggest taking a look at Wright, p. 95, who says "A True Declaration of Virginia was published by the company, out of which I have here inserted this their public testimony". These words in Wright appear less than 200 words after Strachey's mention of Gates' departure, in other words, just after the end of the Strachey letter.

Mouse: May I respectfully suggest YOU read Wright. He says nothing of the sort. Wright was the editor of Strachey's True Reportory, as rendered into modern spelling in the 1960's. The words above form part of Strachey's True Reportory as published in Purchas His Pilgrimes in 1625--its first publication. The argument is not whether Wright appended these words and the excerpt from True Declaration at the end of True Reportory. It is whether Strachey or Purchas did. I don't see how you could have read Wright and misunderstood it so badly, because the fact is that Wright speculates that these words were added by Purchas

Barry: Of course, you know the difference between Strachey's True Reportory and the Virginia Company's True Declaration. The latter has nothing to do with Strachey although I'm puzzled why you suggest in your paper that Strachey wrote it!

Mouse: Huh? We say nothing of the sort. We suggest that Strachey incorporated a few bits of True Declaration into the middle of the text of True Reportory, as the parallels are obvious. Wright even points out one of them.

Barry: You say about the Strachey letter "nor do they [words about Gates' departure] constitute the conclusion of the document, which continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration". I don't get it!

Mouse: Perhaps, if you read the Strachey, you would. Our theory is that Strachey added these words, which follow on directly from the rest of the text, and also added much else, when he got to London. Another theory is that Purchas added them. Either way, it contaminates the text in our opinion.

Barry: Gates' departure is indeed mentioned in the past tense. Not a huge problem - could have been to provide a consistent tense for the reader.

Mouse: But it isn't a consistent tense. The tense is slightly different, which has led to speculation that the ship might not have left.

Barry: Then you ask "Why does Jourdain's narrative end a month before Gates' ship goes to England? Why does the earlier Strachey letter end five weeks before there was a ship available to carry it to England--if in fact it was written then and not later? Why do any number of narratives end at a certain "satisfying" point that does not necessarily accord with either the date they were written or the date they were sent?" But Strachey's letter ends on the day the ship sails and the ships are not that frequent! Looks suspiciously like a causal connection to me!

Mouse: Strachey is known to have been an embroiderer, a plagiarist, and more. He might well have written the narrative, using manifold sources, to cash in on the popularity of Jourdain, etc., and shaped it to that episode only. It could, in fact, have been written well after July 10, or it might have had material added or deleted by Strachey or Purchas--who was known for that kind of thing--long after. Or Strachey might have written it by say, 1612, but not sent it. In fact, he was still sending out his other work, History of Travel, mostly unchanged, in 1618, although a first draft must have been written by 1613. I also note, as another example, that Columbus' son wrote about his father's escapades as if he were there and they had just happened. However, the son must have been about five at the time, and the narratives written much, much, later. There are many similar examples. I trust this answers your questions. If you'd like to argue further, please read the appropriate texts first.Mizelmouse 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory for you and I'm interested in your objections. Purchas published two separate documents, Strachey's True Reportory and an unknown (Virginia Company) author's True Declaration (about seventeen hundred words) in 1625 under the title of the True Reportory and Wright later did likewise.

Mouse: OK, you've lost me already. Purchas edited and published True Reportory in 1625. It appears to contain some passages (not too many)that are also in True Declaration. There is also a longish 1700 word extract from True Declaration at the end of True Reportory, This is not presented as a separate document but is included under the same chapter(s). What is more, the contents of it are mentioned in the editorial material at the beginning of chapter four, the chapter in which it appears. It all comes under the title of True Reportory in Purchas. The whole of True Declaration had been published by December 1610. Wright did not publish True Reportory at all. In 1964 he edited a modern spelling version of it, published by the University Press of Virginia. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Strachey finished writing his letter on the day Gates' ship sailed (there were only two hundred words to write)

Mouse: I've already told you that I don't believe that was the case. There is some evidence that True Reportory contains later material by people such as Smith, there is evidence of many sources that were probably not available in Virginia, there is no evidence the company ever got it, there is evidence from Strachey in 1612 in Lawes that he is "perfecting" a manuscript that sounds just like it, etc. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

and it got back to England before 8 November 1610. Someone in the Virginia Company read it and rewrote it as the True Declaration before registering it on 8 November.

Mouse: No, this is impossible. True Declaration contains material from people who evidently settled in Virginia earlier than Strachey, from a dispatch by De La Warre that Strachey might have had a hand in, from a report, possibly oral, by Sir Thomas Gates, from Jourdain, and possibly from an earlier draft of Strachey's ms or from other voyagers. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The aim of the rewrite was to reassure potential investors by countering the word-of-mouth reports that returning colonists might spread about the poor conditions.

Mouse: But for the most part True Declaration is very different from True Reportory. It would take a miracle to turn one into the other. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I want to be clear I understand your objections. (1) The secretary Richard Martin (in England) wrote to Strachey (still in Virginia) in December 1610 requesting details about the plantation that were later to be found in the Strachey letter, so he couldn't have received it at that time (and the Gates ship would have been back in England by then). Your reasoning is that being secretary, he had priority over anyone else in the company to see a confidential document and if he hadn't seen it then no one else had.

Mouse: Barry, you keep attributing to me words or ideas that are nothing to do with me. I haven't said he had priority. I said he would certainly have seen it if it went to the company as he was the Secretary of the Council of the Virginia Company. Thus, if he had not seen Strachey's ms, no one else in the company had either, because it hadn't been received by the company. There is also another point. Strachey clearly didn't mean it to be a confidential document. It was found among Hakluyt's papers in 1616 after his death, so it rather looks like Strachey had sent him the manuscript for publication. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) You also say that since Strachey mentions the Gates' departure in his letter, the letter did not go back to England with Gates. Also, Strachey could not have finished the letter in time for Gates' departure because another seventeen hundred words of the True Declaration were still to be written (or plagiarised) by Strachey before it left Virginia.

Mouse: No, it's nothing to do with plagiarism. At the end of the document that was published as True Reportory someone (Strachey? Purchas?) says, in the first person, that he has inserted part of a book called True Declaration that "was published by the company." It is impossible that this passage could have been written before Nov/December 1610, when TD was published. So either it was Strachey, who hadn't sent a finished ms back, or it was Purchas, when he was editing Strachey's ms between 1616-1625. There are other bits in the True Reportory document that appear to come from True Declaration also. They are for the most part redacted from the end portion. There is also source material in True Reportory from about 10-12 other writers such as Erasmus, Ariosto, Virgil, Acosta, Horace and Eden. In other words, it's a concoction, and used sources that of course Shakespeare had access to much earlier. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, tell me where this deviates from your theory. (Puzzle Master 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Mouse: I've told you briefly. There's much more. If you want to make a case that Bacon might have written True Declaration, that would be a very interesting take. But your other dog doesn't hunt as far as I'm concerned. Roger and I are just editing a forthcoming paper of ours that gives evidence that Tempest was written by 1603, and another that says it was a Shrovetide play is also forthcoming. I also notice that on your website you keep referring to the Strachey "pamphlet." This suggests to me you haven't read it, as it's not a pamphlet at all. It's a 23,000 - 24,000 word narrative, close to book length. You also give evidence of parallels between Shakespeare and Strachey that can be found in other much earlier and richer sources. Thanks for the conversation. Mizelmouse 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your previous response. Who do you claim wrote the True Declaration (Strachey or someone else), where do you claim it was written (Virginia or England), and when do you claim it written (a) in relation to Gates' departure (before or after) and (b) in relation to Strachey's mention in the letter of Gates' departure (before or after)? It would assist me enormously if you didn't split up my piece with your answers as its easier for me to digest if you answer in a separate statement. Best Wishes (Puzzle Master 16:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

I have given who I thought supplied material for True Declaration above, not least De La Warre, Gates, Jourdain, and possibly Strachey in the earlier letter. As far as I'm aware, there is no clue as to who put it together, but Barret published it. It was clearly written in London at the Company and the bulk had to be written after Gates arrived back in London in September 1610, as he's referenced again and again as having submitted material or having given a report, which is not extant. It might have been given orally, as I believe I said above. My guess is that True Declaration was written after Strachey's first shortish letter, but before True Reportory was finished. I have no idea whether it was written before or after Strachey wrote about Gates' departure, but I would speculate that TD was written before. What is your particular interest in this? It is hard for me not to break up your text if I'm to answer in detail. If you do not wish me to do so, perhaps you could write shorter paragraphs with one or two questions in each and give me a chance to respond before you go on. Mizelmouse 19:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question arises that Richard Martin might have been secretary to the Virginia Company but had he read the True Declaration at the time he sent his letter to Strachey (registering with the Stationers does not mean reading)? There are two reasons for suspecting that he hadn't.

(1) Richard Martin's letter to William Strachey dated 14 December 1610, which is a private and not a company letter, requests that “you would be pleased by the return of this ship to let me understand ... how the Barbarians are content with your being there, but especially how our own people ... endure labor, whether willingly or upon constraint.” If he had read the True Declaration (registered 8 November 1610) he would have learnt that “Powhaton ... but layed secret ambushes in the Woods, that if one or two dropped out of the Fort alone, they were indangered." (Purchas, 1625, p.1757) and "our mutinous Loyterers would not sow with prouidence" (p.1757) So why in that case would he have asked?

(2) The only people that we can say with certainty might have received a report on the state of the colony at the time, written or verbal, were the Virginia Council because the True Declaration informs us: "The Councell of Virginia (finding the smalnesse of that returne, which they hoped should have defrayed the charge of a new supply) entred into a deepe consultation, and propounded amongst themselves, whether it were fit to enter into a new contribution, or in time to send for home the Lord La-ware, and to abandon the action. They resolued to send for Sir Thomas Gates, who being come, they adiured him to deale plainely with them, and to make a true relation of those things which were presently to be had, or hereafter to be hoped for in Virginia. Sir Thomas Gates with a solemne and sacred oath replied, that all things before reported were true:" (p.1758) Now the Second Virginia Charter lists over 700 people associated with the settlement: adventurers (investors) and colonists. Evidently listed according to status, the knights are at the top, followed by doctors, captains, a long list of merchants, drapers, haberdashers and grocers and then we find Richard Murrettone [Martin] at over 600th on the list. There are 52 Council members listed who are all either Lords, Earls or knights, except three and Richard Martin is not among them. So the Second Virginia Charter (May 1609) does not confirm that he was highly regarded in the Company. (see http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1601-1650/virginia/chart02.htm)

The implication here is that the printing and publication of the True Declaration might have occurred some weeks after its registration so not only had Martin not seen the published version by December 1610, he had not been privy to its contents before publication either. So one could not expect him to have seen the Strachey letter had it arrived on the Gates ship. (Puzzle Master 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Allow me to kick in here briefly and make a few points. (1)Martin certainly would have seen True Declaration because he was one of the Virginia Company council members whose name appears on the Stationers register.

Hi Tommy! Do we have to argue here as well? Yay for saying that Martin would have seen TD. Perhaps he even wrote it. What d'you think? Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) The "answers" to Martin's questions Lynne cites are not answers, but part of the history of the colony up to July 15. Martin is not asking for information he already has, part of which is in True Declaration. Martin is asking Strachey for his honest opinion on the situation of the colony, including its relations with the Indians. He is not asking for reasons why the colony failed until De La Warr got there, which is what Strachey wrote in his letter. Therefore, the "answers" in the letter are not in response to Martin's letter.

We've argued this about a hundred times. Martin's letter is December 10th, not much time for Strachey to describe what has happened to the colony since Gates departed. Part of the information may well be in True Declaration, but as you say, Martin is asking Strachey for the "real story." Little did he realise that Strachey would send him material he already had from other sources, mixed in with his own comments--at least, I think they were his own comments, but perhaps you and I still have more sources to discover. And Strachey is certainly not only commenting on the colony before DLW got there. He was hardly there himself before that. Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(3) The letter as written is not the Virginia history Strachey said he hoped to write in the preface to his Lawes. In that preface Strachey said he would write what he had seen both in Virginia and Bermuda, but the only Virginia experiences in the letter stop at July 15. Strachey was there for more than a year later, including the time Dale was governor, and he witnessed a lot more noteworthy events during that time that he meant to write about in his uncompleted History of Travel into Virginia Brittania, as is obvious from his projected table of contents he wrote to Northumberland. It is likely, though, that Strachey would have used some of the material in the letter, given his habit of recycling his material.

He said he'd been an eye witness in Virginia and Bermuda and would tell the full story of both eventually. He says nothing about writing a history of Virginia, but of being "Remembrancer of all accidents, occurrences, and undertakings," presumably during his time there. You're right that by September or so 1611 he had an extra year of Virginia to write about, and that's something to consider. But the truth is that he talks about his experiences in Bermuda in TR but not History of Travel, which DOES purport to be a history of Virginia. My guess is that he divided his experiences in Virginia between TR and HT and added to HT the texts of many who were there before him. That doesn't mean he wrote TR before July 1610, but that he planned it that way. I believe he had to get back to England to add some of the sources to both works, for which he apparently used the same library, consisting in part of Erasmus, Eden, Ariosto (?)Acosta, etc.Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition, a textual study that I am currently writing of all the documents involved strongly suggests the direction of influence runs from the Strachey letter to True Declaration, and not vice versa.

I disagree, as you knew I would. This problem has become much more complicated by the discovery of a copy of an earlier, much briefer, letter, which Roger and I had posited might be the case in our Strachey paper. It is much more probable, imo, that the earlier letter--which is missing many of the source materials (and by the way, parallels to Tempest)--went back to London in 1610. There's also another problem--the report of Gates is not extant, so that makes figuring out Strachey's contributions to TD, if there were any, much more difficult. Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: there is no plausible evidence that the Strachey letter was written after July 15, 1610, or that it did not reach England in September, 1610.Tom Reedy 01:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh rubbish. There is no plausible evidence that it did. ;) Let's take this elsewhere, please, or I'll never finish my novel. Mizelmouse 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Barry: Whatever it says on the document, Martin was a prominent lawyer and a member of middle temple, and was secretary of the council and I believe its counsel from around 1610. His appointment was too late to go on the charter as he obtained his position after the document was written. I know he was in competition with John Donne for the post. I really have no idea what you're talking about, Barry. As Richard Martin was one of the three people who presented True Declaration to the Stationers Register on November 8th, of course he had read the document. It says "Published by advise and direction of the Councell of Virginia, London" and he (for about the tenth time) was its secretary. I can't imagine how you can say he wouldn't have seen the document that other council members would have seen and that he personally took to the SR. I'm sort of stunned at your suggestion, which goes against all the evidence.

What is more, if Strachey's True Reportory had gone to the Company, Martin would definitely have seen it, as he was a friend from Strachey's theatre days and Strachey's link with the Company itself.

Again, please, if you wish me to answer at the end of your comments rather than breaking them up, make them short. Thank you. Mizelmouse 01:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I can see that Martin might have seen the True Declaration, realised it was just a sanitised version of events and (having shares in the Company) wanted to know the real situation from Strachey. However, he could not then have seen the Strachey letter (which contains the real situation) and one then has to decide whether it was because he had no access to it or because it had not arrived.

Lynne, I think one has to be careful in claiming on the basis of parallels that one document is a source for another when the authors have had shared experiences. Jourdain was in the same shipwreck that Strachey was in, so one might expect reference to the same events. If the Eden and Erasmus sources describe shipwrecks they (or their informants) were in, then of course one can expect common descriptions with Strachey.

No, the truth is that Strachey took many of the so-called storm parallels, which are very identifiable, from them. He certainly used Eden. He even says so in one place. He must have taken from Ariosto, Erasmus, or Tomson, or perhaps a blend of them and others including Virgil. The description of St. Elmo either came from Eden, or Erasmus or Tomson, or De Ulloa or again, a blend of them. They all contain excellent and rather intricate descriptions. He might even have used Pliny. But the real kicker is that if he took these descriptions from earlier literature--and we're sure he did--they were available to Shakespeare too, especially as we see similar descriptions in earlier Shakespeare plays. Mizelmouse

As far as The Tempest is concerned, the real test is this, does it contain parts of Strachey that are not in Jourdain, Eden or Erasmus? (Puzzle Master 12:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

The answer to that, Barry, is a resounding NO. Not only can Eden and Erasmus and/or Ariosto replace Strachey, these sources are much richer, with far more parallels, both verbal and thematic, as our articles will hopefully show when published. Mizelmouse 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether the elements are unique to Strachey is not the point. A large number of the elements in the play--theme, plot, names, verbal similarities--can be found in one topical source, Strachey's letter.

No, this is simply not true. Most of the names cannot be found in Strachey's material. And the plot elements are not strong at all. Two of the four names that are found are from Eden, and Strachey lets us know that. The people on the Sea Venture are Englishmen and the island is unpeopled. The "characters" in Eden are Spanish (as in Tempest), include the very people named by Shakespeare, such as Ferdinand and Alonso, kings of Naples, and the islands are populated. The conspiracies in fact are much closer in Eden. Strachey is not one source, in any case, it is a collection of sources, as he is a copier of the first order. Theme, plot, names and verbal similarities can be found +++ in our two main sources when compared to Strachey. Tell me, do you believe Strachey made up all the material for St. Elmo's fire, or do you believe he got it from a multitude of other sources? Strachey used at least 10 texts to write TR. Why is Strachey allowed so many sources but Shakespeare allowed just one? Mizelmouse

That they can all be found in various scattered sources does not invalidate Strachey as the likeliest source.

Um, as I said, we only need two texts, not "various scattered sources." And yes they do invalidate Strachey as the likeliest source, or at least, they make it much less probable, because if you look at Eden, for example, it is a much stronger source than Strachey, with many more verbal and thematic parallels, AND it contains most of Stachey's parallels--the ones that aren't already in Shakespeare's earlier work, that is. In addition, Eden is a very famous published source, which scholars acknowledge HAD to be used by Shakespeare. We are not positing scattered sources. Again, we are positing two, and you know that, to replace the multitude of sources that Strachey and co used. Mizelmouse

One poster on another venue illustrated it thusly: "If a local market sells a soup mix that contains nine different ingredients, and I serve you a bowl of soup that contains those nine ingredients, you can't DISPROVE that I bought the soup at the local market by showing that I could have gotten two of the ingredients in it from a different local market, and a third ingredient from your cousin Jack, and the fourth from a mail order outfit, and the fifth and sixth from my own backyard garden, and had the other three on a trip to Shanghai in 1967. Our mouse seems not to be able to follow this line of reasoning, I have no idea why. True, by finding all the parallels in other sources than Strachey, you can show that it is invalid to say Shakespeare MUST have read Strachey, but you can't show that it is invalid to say he very probably did."

I'm not sure you're supposed to import material from another venue. I hope you got the bunny's permission. Nevertheless, the answer, for yet another time, is this. I can and I do say that it's unlikely that Shakespeare used Strachey. We can make all the significant parallels and many more from two ingredients, Eden and either Ariosto or Erasmus. At first I went with Erasmus. Now I know more, I would tend to go with Ariosto, because it contains a wealth of parallels outside of the storm set. Many of the parallels to Tempest were also in Shakespeare's earlier works. IMO, it's ridiculous to look to Strachey for themes and parallels that Shakespeare had already used much earlier. Eden, Ariosto, and Erasmus were very famous sources, published over and over again in several languages (and used before by Shakespeare), as opposed to Strachey, which even if written before Tempest was composed, which I doubt, was in manuscript. And whilst the other texts were easily obtainable, no one has ever been able to give an an iota of proof that the Strachey ms was available or got to Shakespeare. If it existed at the time, it was the manuscript of an unknown, not mentioned until 1625. We can make our case, which is much stronger than the "Bermuda" case, from two sources plus Shakespeare, as I've said; we show a variety of sources simply to show how common this kind of material was at the time. To make the Bermuda sources work, you have to use at least four of them: True and Sincere Declaration, True Declaration, Strachey, and Jourdain, besides making an argument based on Montaigne. Montaigne is derived from Eden. And now there's an earlier Strachey letter, it doesn't hurt to say that many, many of the parallels are missing, especially the verbal ones. Taken all in all, I think it much more likely that Shakespeare used himself and two other very famous texts as his sources. If we can place the plays earlier, I can say definitely that he did not use Strachey. Mizelmouse

Which is why her and Roger's paper tries to eliminate Strachey in another way by attempting to demonstrate that the letter was written after the first performance of The Tempest.

Tom Reedy 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tom, you know this not to be the truth. We did the paper simply to get Strachey out the way as a necessary source before starting on our own source and dating essays. We've also got a table up online which shows parallels in other sources. If we had not done both of those things, people would have said, as you continue to do, "What about the Strachey letter?" over and over again when we attempted to present new sources. Tell me, are we going to resuscitate our entire discussion all over again? Because I'm getting rather tired of our repeating the same things over and over, and if I don't finish my novel, I won't get paid. Mizelmouse 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Earlier the following exchange occurred.

Barry: You say about the Strachey letter "nor do they [words about Gates' departure] constitute the conclusion of the document, which continues for another seventeen hundred words of text, mostly inserted, with attribution, from True Declaration". I don't get it!

Mouse: Perhaps, if you read the Strachey, you would. Our theory is that Strachey added these words, which follow on directly from the rest of the text, and also added much else, when he got to London.

I don't think this is the case and I think that the Strachey letter finished on the day when the Gates ship sailed. The Strachey letter taken up to the day of Gates' departure is written in chronological order and finishes with compliments to the noble lady less than two hundred words later. If Strachey continued to write his letter in Virginia after mentioning Gates' departure,and wrote True Declaration on the end of it as Gates left him behind, then it makes no sense because he would then be repeating facts. For example:

I didn't mean that he literally wrote True Declaration. I meant that we believe he added the words from the already written and published True Declaration to his ms when he got back to London, although we don't rule out the possibility that Purchas did so. Mizelmouse

Right! For the first time I'm absolutely clear about your meaning! So in that case, in Virginia, after mentioning Gates' departure in his letter, he added nothing and his letter really did finish 200 words later. So writing more lines did not occur as an impediment to the letter being given to Gates. If he did not give his finished letter to Gates he must have been really annoyed with himself for just missing that ship! (Puzzle Master 10:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

(1a) Reportory: "there were [those], who conceiued that our Gouernour indeede neither durst, nor had authority to put in execution, or passe the act of Iustice vpon anyone, how treacherous or impious so euer" (Purchas, p.1744)

(1b) Declaration:"euery man ouer-ualuing his owne worth, would be a Commander: euery man vnderprizing anothers value, denied to be commanded." (p.1756)

(2a) Reportory: " rather then the dwellers would step into the Woods a stones cast off from them, to fetch other fire-wood: and it is true, the Indian killed as fast without, if our men stirred but beyond the bounds of their Block-house, as Famine and Pestilence did within" (p.1749)

(2b) Declaration: "Powhaton ... but layed secret ambushes in the Woods, that if one or two dropped out of the Fort alone, they were indangered." (p.1757)

(3a) Reportory: "[mariners] ... as when the Trucke-Master for the Colony, in the day time offered trade, the Indians would laugh and scorne the same, telling what bargains they met withall by night" (p.1751)

(3b) Declaration: "mariners ... who for their priuate lucre partly imbezeled the prouisions, partly preuented our Trade with the Indians making the Matches in the night, and forestalling our Market in the day" (p.1757)

(4a) Reportory: "And with this Idleness ... not imployed to the end for which they were sent hither, no not compelled (since in themselues vnwilling) to sowe Corne for their owne bellies" (p.1749)

(4b) Declaration: "our mutinous Loyterers would not sow with prouidence" (p.1757)

(5a) Reportory: “wee haue thousands of goodly Vines in euery hedge” p.1750

(5b) Declaration: "the Land aboundeth with Vines" p.1758

It also indicates in the True Declaration that it was written in London:

Declaration: "here at home the monyes came in so slowly, that the Lord Laware could not be dispatched till the Colony was worne and spent with difficulties" (p.1758)

While Strachey was still in Virginia, the True Declaration (registered November 1610) reports what Gates was doing in London:

Declaration: "The Councell of Virginia (finding the smalnesse of that returne, which they hoped should have defrayed the charge of a new supply) entred into a deepe consultation, and propounded amongst themselves, whether it were fit to enter into a new contribution, or in time to send for home the Lord La-ware, and to abandon the action. They resolued to send for Sir Thomas Gates, who being come, they adiured him to deale plainely with them, and to make a true relation of those things which were presently to be had, or hereafter to be hoped for in Virginia. Sir Thomas Gates with a solemne and sacred oath replied, that all things before reported were true:" (p.1758)

The point that really settles it for me, though, is that this last piece says that Gates was sent for to issue a report to the Council. Had Gates compiled his own notes? It would have been more natural to use Strachey's for his presentation which after all, has Gates as its subject being entitled "A true reportory of the wracke, and redemption of Sir Thomas Gates Knight; vpon, and from the Ilands of the Bermudas: his comming to Virginia, and the estate of that Colonie then, and after, vnder the gouernment of the Lord La Warrre, Iuly 15. 1610." and which we note is signed off July 15 1610 the day Gates sailed. (p.1734) (Puzzle Master 23:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC))

One final point: this last passage of the True Declaration is near the end of the document and says "Thomas Gates with a solemne and sacred oath replied, that all things before reported were true". Had Purchas or anyone else added or removed material from the original True Declaration of November 1610 for the 1625 publication, then it would have corrupted the statement about what it was Gates in 1610 was claiming on oath to be true. In other words, we could not know which parts of the now altered 1625 True Declaration Gates had originally said were true (and there is no differentiation between a 1610 and 1625 version in Purchas). So we can take it that the 1610 and 1625 versions are identical. (Puzzle Master 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Barry, I'm really sorry, but at this point I haven't a clue what you're trying to say, which is no doubt my fault. I'll try to find someone to translate. Mizelmouse 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, Lynne. It's no longer relevant to my argument now that I'm clear (from your above comment) that Strachey was not writing parts of the True Declaration in Virginia after mentioning Gates' departure in his letter. (Puzzle Master 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for letting me know, Barry, because the "expert" I consulted was a little unsure of what you meant also. Best wishes. Mizelmouse 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mega-lead

This article has a lead that is larger than many articles. The TOC doesn't even show on my monitor - and I have a hi-res monitor. I tried shortening it by splitting the bulk off with a new section and it was reverted.

It seems to me a short intro is reasonable, but a huge intro is just an article that is not well laid out. --Michael Daly 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is quite long so the lead is going to be long. Look at the article on William Shakespeare as a good example of similiar length. According to the MOS, the lead should mention the major points discussed in the article and should be no more than 4 paragraphs. The present article seems to meet those descriptions.Smatprt 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:lead - The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.Smatprt 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Balance

Why does this article spend so little space on the overwhelmingly held view of Academics that William Shakespeare is the real author? Anyone coming fresh to this issue would think it is a a lived debate; in reality it is nothing of the sort. The academic community has all but given up on the argument on the grounds that all the evidence points one way. Even the term 'Stratfordian' is considered absurd as it suggests there is an issue at stake. My suggestion is that there should be a separate article dealing with the orthordox position and the reasoning behind it. I fear that this article is always going to end up being colonised by obessives.

--John Price (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the following if you haven't managed to find any serious research against Mr Shakspere of Stratford 'The Shakespeare Puzzle'. It requires the flexibility to accept new evidence and a willingness to think for oneself, both of which I am assuming here. (Puzzle Master (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

Minor introduction changes

I made some minor changes to the introduction to make it slightly more concise and balanced. I felt that 'no writings of any kind' was sufficient, 'detailed will' was a matter of opinion and that 'any school or schools he might have studied at is a matter of speculation' was better suited to go in front of the 'no records of admission' part of the sentence. That the 29,000 words included variations of the same word is information from Bill Bryson's book on Shakespeare which I believe is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.10.50 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arguments from a Shakespeare professor

To fellow Shakespeare scholars: I would like to incorporate some if not all of the following list of arguments into the Shakespearean authorship article. They are:

13. There is not one smidgen of evidence to prove decisively that the author had to have traveled to France and Italy in order to write the plays. Even Italian scholars have not been able to prove that he had been there. Italy was a traditional place to set a play and local color was available in London and his sources.

14. There is not one speck of valid evidence that the author had to have been a courtly gentleman to know of courtly language, manners, hawking, tennis and other kingly sports. Almost everyone was interested in sports then as they are now. We may know the terms as observers, not as participants

15. There is not one trace of evidence to prove that Shakespeare's education, reading, sources, and conversations with knowledgeable persons could not have given him his large literary vocabulary. The plays indicate he could write. His name as an actor in Jonson's plays and his own indicates he could read, or else how could he have read and memorized his lines? It is not being presumptuous or arguing in a circular manner to say that if Shakespeare wrote the plays then he had to have the knowledge to do it.

16. There is not one modicum of proof that the author had to have had a formal legal education to have written the plays and poems. Law was often used by all dramatists as figurative language. All of Shakespeare's plays have a legal basis.

17. There is not one corpuscle of evidence to prove that the 17th Earl of Oxford or his father-in-law William Cecil, Lord Burleigh, ever destroyed any or all the evidence linking Oxford to the plays to protect Oxford and his reputation.

18. There is not one flyspeck of evidence to hint that the Stratford-upon-Avon authorities purposely destroyed the school records which, Oxfordians say, would have revealed that Shakespeare had never gone to school there and therefore could not have written the Works - thereby destroying their thriving Shakespeare industry.

19. There is not one tittle of evidence to prove that there was a universal conspiracy of silence among those who knew that Oxford had written the Works, but would not reveal it. What a coup it would have been for the one who would reveal it, if there were anything to reveal. If there were other conspiracies, they are not analogous here. To say that there was no conspiracy and that the authorship was an "open secret" seems ridiculous. How could the secret have been kept open yet unrevealed until 1920? It is against the nature of man.

20. There is not one scruple of evidence to prove that because Shakespeare engaged in necessary business ventures to invest his money and necessary legal suits to protect his rights, that he wrote only for money and had no interest in his plays. He earned money, there were no banks as we know them, he invested it, he lent it, and expected to be paid back at the then usual rate. Those seemingly paltry sums for which he sued were not paltry then when you could buy three loaves of bread for a penny. With 240 pence to the pound that would be the equivalent of 720 loaves for a pound sterling. At a cost of about $1.50 for moderately priced good bread today, a pound would equal $1070. But values were different then. I can't imagine anyone paying a thousand dollars for a one pound Folio in 1623. When Pope wrote that Shakespeare "for gain not glory winged his roving sprite, and grew immortal in his own despite," it was his opinion.

21. There is not one granule of evidence to prove that the word "ever-living" in the Sonnet dedication indicates that the author was dead in 1609 as was Oxford who had died in July of 1604. If "ever-living" was widely used of dead celebrities, in the Sonnet dedication it refers to a living immortal. There is no surrounding evidence to disprove it. Printing had been introduced into England in 1477; there were many words and meanings that had not yet appeared in print.

22. There is not one dust-speck of proof to indicate that the occurrences of "ever" in various lines indicate that they are either direct or indirect references to E ver, i.e., Edward Vere.

23. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate that any of Oxford's heirs attempted in any way to retrieve their father's hidden fame - especially since all the so-called need for the presumed concealment was over, if there ever was a need which has never been proved.

24. There is not one smithereen of evidence to prove that any of the early plays which were seeming sources for the later plays were the early work of Oxford.

25. There is not one crumb of verifiable evidence that the Shakespeare monument in Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon was redesigned to put a pillow and pen in Shakespeare's lap rather than what appeared to have been a sack of grain in the presumed original or that that presumed original ever actually existed. A painting of the monument, before the refurbishing in 1747, reveals that it was essentially what we have now. Other similar existing monuments of the period have similar pillows. The Dugdale engraving with the seeming sack was obviously made from a poor sketch of which there are many in Dugdale's work.

26. There is not a penny's worth of evidence to prove that because Shakespeare stored and sold grain at one time or another that he was therefore a grain merchant rather than a dramatist, or a hoarder of grain in time of need. He owned land, it was farmed, it was stored, and it was inventoried. There is no record that he sold it for gouging prices

27. There is not a drop of evidence to prove that if Shakespeare's father, mother, wife, and children were illiterate then Shakespeare was also illiterate. There were, by the way, other literate "marksmen" who knew how to write but also signed with their mark when they chose to. A cross was a religious symbol.

28. There is not one blip of evidence or likelihood to prove that the forty-three-year-old Oxford, if he wrote the works, would even deign to write, the servile, submissive, and self-abnegating dedication to the seventeen-and-a-half-year-old Earl of Southampton that prefix both Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.

40. There is not a spark of evidence to prove that if it were widely known that Oxford was the author of the plays and poems he would have to have feared for his life.

41. There is not a smitch of evidence to prove that the Earl of Southampton was the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth and Oxford.

42. There is not drip of evidence to prove that there is so much court gossip and there are so many recognizable noble individuals in the plays and poems that every effort had to be taken to keep the author secret lest their identity might be deduced or discovered. Biographical conjectures relating the plays and Sonnet personages to the Oxford family are pure conjectures.

43. There is no evidence to prove that Shakespeare left London near the turn of the century in 1604 or was bribed to leave London. to leave the dramatic field open to Oxford. On the other hand Oxfordians say Shakespeare received a dispensation from the Queen to write plays on courtly personalities and controversial historical subjects. If the plays and poems were so socially revelatory of private family affairs and dangerous politically, why were they permitted to be published later?

44. There is no evidence to disprove that the man who is buried in the grave at Stratford-upon-Avon is not the actor/dramatist whose arms (awarded to his father, John) were later disputed in the Herald's office London noting Shakespeare as "ye player", the more especially since those arms are displayed on the monument on the chancel wall of Holy Trinity in Stratford and the inscription on the monument below the effigy specifically and punningly refers to the decedent's leavmg "living art, but page, to show his wit", and also compares him to Socrates and Virgil, hardly a reference to an illiterate yokel. The fact that the inscription reads as though the body was within the wall merely tell us that the carver was not aware of the burial in the floor of the church.

45 There is not a drop of evidence to prove that any theory based on drawing short lines ("match-sticks") through lines of the sonnets which have the letters of Oxford's name under them proves that Oxford was the author.

46 There is no valid proof that the sonnets reveal Oxford as the author by initial letters, acrostics or so called ambiguous lines.

47. There is not shard of evidence to prove that the annotations in the recently discovered Oxford copy of the Oxford family Bible were not there when the book was purchased.

48. There is no valid proof that the correspondences between Oxford's language and Shakespeare's proves that they are one and the same person. Mere knowledge of the same words is not enough; it is their use that counts.

49. There is no proof that Shakespeare's Warwickshire speech would have been unintelligible in London.

50. It is interesting but proves nothing that Disraeli, Emerson, Whitman, Clemens/Twain, Whittier, Lord Palmerston, Prince Bismarck, Galsworthy, Freud, Charley Chaplin, Lesley Howard, and a small army of others doubted the authorship of Shakespeare. Were any of them solid scholars in Shakespeare? Sow the seeds of doubt and doubters will spring up. Would the publication of an even longer list of such non-professional believers make the Oxfordian thesis more credible?

51. If it be said that there is a lack of positive evidence for Shakespeare, there is no valid evidence for Oxford beyond two or three references to Oxford as a penner of comedy only, none to tragedy. The uncontested name, portrait, and preliminary encomia in the Folio compiled by his colleagues are all that is necessary for proof of Shakespeare's authorship.

52. To say that to believe that Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems is unimaginable and beyond reason is to indicate that the speakers themselves have spent their reason to imagine and reason that Oxford is the likely author.

53. The language of poetry does not require anyone to believe that the author is being autobiographical when he speaks of his impending death or old age or being lame. One of my own very first poems when I was about eighteen speaks of my fears of death. If there is anything really autobiographical in the Sonnets, it has not yet been discovered.

54. Oxfordian writers and speakers are most convincing when discussing the authorship problem among themselves, when they quote other Oxfordians as evidence, and have no orthodox scholar at hand to present the opposing evidence. When the current Earl of Oxford (Lord Burford) lectures alone, he is very convincing. When he and I presented our evidence before over 900 people in a "trial" at historic Faneuil Hall in Boston on November 12, 1993, the fourteen member jury decided in favor of Shakespeare. A reference to the crowd at this "trial" is made with pride by Oxfordians, but it does not mention that the Lord Burford lost his case.

55. One of the most vociferous objectors to the authorship question I know (this was many years ago), was a man who did not own any orthodox books about Shakespeare. There are well-read scholars among the Oxfordians, but it would seem that they read orthodox biography not to learn the truth but to find points to quibble about. Quibble as they can, they cannot rail the name or attribution of the forty-five pre-Folio plays to Shakespeare, corroborated as it also is by other documentary evidence.

56. There is absolutely no valid evidence to prove that Oxford or the Pembrokes were either leaders or members of a consortium to write the Works.

57. There may be doubts, but mostly no evidence to prove that if a tradition was written down for the first time after Shakespeare's death that it can't also be true - unless it is too ridiculous to believe - for example that Shakespeare was given a thousand pound gift for the use of his name, to leave London, or whatever.

58. Oxfordians protest widely against the term genius when applied to Shakespeare because to accept the validity of "genius" would explain Shakespeare - a truly assimilative genius. If Oxford could be a genius, so could Shakespeare.

59. It is no proof to say that if no letters from Shakespeare exist he therefore did not know how to write.

60. Is it proof of the "great conspiracy of silence" that Oxford was the hidden author because no monument to Oxford remains, no letters, no tribute to the great loss that the world of drama had sustained, because all Oxfordian evidence was purposely destroyed, and that THAT lack of evidence IS evidence enough to prove that Oxford wrote the plays and poems?

61. It seems peculiar thinking to say that because there is no evidence for Oxford he is therefore the concealed author of the plays and poems and then to say that all the evidence for Shakespeare's authorship is invalid and manufactured?

62. Can it be reverse proof that Oxford’s monument was destroyed because there was or was not a tribute to his dramatic craftsmanship on it?

63. There is no evidence whatsoever that Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth prevailed on Oxford not to reveal that he was the author of the works attributed to Shakespeare.

64. It is incomprehensible to believe that Ben Jonson talked with Drummond of Hawthornden about Shakespeare and wrote about him in his "Discoveries" and elsewhere, that he did so while knowing, as it is claimed, that the author was really Oxford.

65. It is proof that Shakespeare was not the author of his works because there are fifty allusions to Ben Jonson's death, but none to Shakespeare’s? Jonson was fortunate in having a friend to start collecting tributes which were printed in Jonsonus Virbius?. Jonson was poet laureate and a scholar and translator besides.

66. While Ward Elliott of Claremont-McKenna College admits that more computer testing remains to be done, I find it impossible to believe that the many tests his group has done showing the disparity between the vocabulary, grammar, phraseology, sentence length and structure, and punctuation of Shakespeare and the so-called claimants will show that any of them are the possible authors. As with Cinderella, others may have her qualities, but if the shoes don't fit, the other similarities mean nothing. Elliott wrote that he was looking for the fingerprints of the author, but the two authors did not match. He also put it another way. He said that the results of their group’s studies might be compared to a blood test. If Shakespeare is Type A positive then Oxford tested out to be Type Z negative! Professor Elliott has since published an article that once again shows, by many verbal and grammatical tests, the absolute impossibility of Oxford being the author.

67. There is not a shard of evidence to prove that Dr. John Hall thought his father-in-law William Shakespeare was of no importance because he left him out of his book of medical cases - Select Observations. The first volume of his notes covering the year 1616 has been lost.

68. There is not a pellet of proof that the silence of Susanna Hall or the neigboring Rainsfords, the Earl of Southampton, Philip Henslowe, Edward Alleyn and others about Shakespeare as a playwright means that Shakespeare was not the author. Camden's mention of Shakespeare "as one of the most pregnant wits of our time" in his Remaines Concerning Britain of 1605 discounts all of the possible silences.

69. There is not one scintilla of verifiable evidence in Oxford's extant letters intimating that he had written any of the works of Shakespeare.

70. There is not a DNA particle of evidence to prove that even if Greene was not the author of the Groatsworth of Wit that it has any significance as to the authorship of Shakespeare.

71. There is not a microscopic bit of evidence for the elimination of Shakespeare as author of his works in saying that the absence of "of Stratford" after all the references to Shakespeare mean that they cannot be used as prove that Shakespeare of London and Shakespeare of Stratford are the same man. The monument, the testimony of the sightseers who came there as a tribute to the memory of the poet, the historians and others is proof enough.

72. If Shakespeare did not sign his will himself, as has been claimed, it still does not prove that Shakespeare did not write the plays.

73. There is no proof that the Ashbourne portrait of Shakespeare is Oxford as shown by an imagined Oxford crest on a ring that he is wearing. The portrait has already been proved to be a forgery as it relaltels to Sshakespeare.

74. If you cite the absence of Shakespeare from Peacham’s lists of great writers as evidence that Shakespeare was not worthy to be cited, be sure to mention also that the noted historian William Camden did include Shakespeare in a similar list.

Though there is more to be said, this is a good place to stop writing. There are more specific Oxfordian "proofs" that can be alluded to, but I believe that they all can be denied by extrapolating from the foregoing precepts. When we separate facts from opinions there is nothing left.

I firmly believe my six dozen statements eliminate Oxford and all other claimants to the Works of Shakespeare. If the Oxfordians wish to continue the debate, they must start with a whole new set of proofs and not repeat those here demolished. I promise to listen. Write to me at avon4 at Juno(dot)com for the missing numbers or for a spirited discussion of the aforementioned points.

--Louis Marder (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is also no "concrete" evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford ever wrote anything. Leaving rings to a couple of actors (and this section of his will was interlined) is hardly evidence. "Swan of Avon" is hardly evidence. The statue in Stratford proves absolutely nothing. Green's attack is open to interpretation - again nothing concrete there. Fake portraits? Other forgeries? Visitors to Stratdford years after his death? Again - nothing "concrete" there. "Proof enough"? What kind of proof is "proof enough"? Thus the question. Smatprt (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Louis, Perhaps you might profit from reading the following because the research against Shakspere has advanced from the points you believe are the issue. It will cost you nothing except your time. http://barryispuzzled.com/shakpuzz.pdf By the way, "corpuscle of evidence", "modicum of ...", "trace ..." ... did you have a large dictionary of synonyms at hand?! Puzzle Master (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

She was an italian jewish woman!

It is now alleged that Amelia Bassano Lanier actually wrote those famous dramas. She was an italian jewish dame living in England and the first one to publish a poems book of her own in 1611. The events of her life match well with topics found in "Shakespeare's" dramas. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Restored Summary / Neville Expansion

I restored my edits to the page which introduce a summary of the educational arguments for alternative authorship and expand the section on Sir Henry Neville. I don't appreciate my edits being reverted. If you don't like my edits then improve them, don't delete them. The need for a debate point summary and inclusion of a section for Sir Henry Neville are glaringly obvious needs for the page. If anything we need to go further than the edits I have made which are only a step in the right direction. Right now the article is a wall of text and needs more organization. One basic way to do this is to summarize the main points into a list as I have done and refer to the appropriate paragraph below for details. Also, the trivial mention of Neville understates his importance as a contender. His claim is at least as good as the others from a factual point of view. I realize he is a "new" contender and does not have the history the others do, but that in itself should not be a reason for marginalizing his appearance. John Chamberlain (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that much of what you right violates either wp:or or wp:npov. You are obviously a Neville supporter, so you are going to have to be careful to cite your sources and be prepared to cite numerous academic references to support your additions about Neville. Otherwise, you run into problems with wp:undue weight.

Don't get me wrong, I am an authorship doubter and have signed the declaration. But you might want to review the rules and policies of editing, otherwise you end up hurting the overall defendability of the article. Also, Wikipedia frowns on "lists", and encourages prose instead. In terms of expanded Neville stuff, all from one book, then you'll better to add them to the article on Neville under the authorship theory section. Smatprt (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Stratford Hijacking of This Page

I notice that most of the article seems to have been written or heavily edited by people who believe Shakespeare was the author of the plays and apparently consider challenges to Shakespeare authorship trivial. I think it is rather obnoxious for those people to be imposing their viewpoint on a page that is specifically created to state the case for the authorship challenge. Stratfordites have the main page to go on about Shakespeare as much as they like. The authorship questioners don't go to the main page and start mutilating it with doubts and anti-stratfordian edits, so I think they deserve the same courtesy on their page.

People who come to this page want to know the arguments for the authorship controversy so please respect that. John Chamberlain (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the page wasn't "specifically created to state the case for the authorship challenge". It was created to present a balanced unbiased explanation of the question. That means being honest about the fact that ours is a minority viewpoint in the world of Shakespeare scholarship, and presenting a balanced look at both sides of the question. Smatprt (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI - staunch stratfordians have come to this page and accused it of having the exact opposite slant - that it was terribly balanced toward the authorship doubters. The fact that you came here and thought the opposite gives me hope that maybe the article is pretty balanced. I mean - both sides are a little upset that their POV isn't represented strong enough. I think that is usually a good sign :) Smatprt (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple of your summary points into the prose of the appropriate sections. Check it out and let me know what you think. I also moved the Neville stuff to the article on Neville, which could certainly use some expansion. That's really the best place to go into detail about the Neville theory and where your book will be appropriately usable as a resource. (On this page, references are usually trumped by the more academic sources and those that have achieved a general consensus by a number of scholars.) Smatprt (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Main arguments against Shakspere as author

To me, the main arguments against Shakspere do not consist of an interpretation of the work as autobiographical and finding parallels in it with one's candidate. This might be true of the Oxfordian case but it is not true of the Baconian case. I see two main problems with Shakspere as author. There is evidence that the Strachey letter which sourced The Tempest was restricted to members of the Virginia Company council of which Shakspere was not a member. In other words, it it very unlikely he would have seen it. Also there is evidence that Shakspere's company did not act The Comedy of Errors at it's first known performance at Gray's Inn 1594 and that it was performed by the Gray's Inn players. Facts also point to the Inns of Court law schools excluding outsiders such as Shakspere in the 1590's so it is very unlikely that any work of his would have been performed there. In other words, the author of The Comedy of Errors was most likely a lawyer. See Baconian theory article for more details. Puzzle Master (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Jonson collected plays for First Folio

The traditional propaganda is that since Heminge and Condell have two dedications in the First Folio then they must have collected the plays together. Note the following.

One of Ben Jonson's biographers David Riggs believes his contribution to Shake-speare’s First Folio ran deeper than a couple of commendatory verses:

"… the men who prepared the folio for the press (and Jonson may well have been one of them) remade Shakespeare in Jonson’s image. Heminge’s and Condell’s prefatory letter “To the Great Variety of Readers” echoes Jonson’s Induction to Bartholomew Fair … The prefatory poems by Jonson, Hugh Holland, James Mabbe, and Leonard Digges transform Shakespeare into a specifically literary figure whose works have achieved the status of modern classics; the closest analogue to these tributes are the poems prefixed to Jonson’s 1616 folio. The scribes who prepared the copy for the Shakespeare folio abandoned the “light pointing” or “playhouse punctuation” of the Shakespeare quartos and adopted the so-called logical pointing that Jonson had employed in his Works (1616). The extensive use of parentheses, semicolons and end-stopped lines in the 1623 folio owes more to Jonson’s example than to Shakespeare’s habits of composition" (see Riggs, David, Ben Jonson : A Life (Harvard University Press: 1989), p.276).

The “echo” that Riggs refers to in the Induction from Bartholomew Fair concerns Jonson's address to his audience:

"and it shall be lawful for any man to judge his six-pen'orth, his twelve-pen'orth, so to his eighteen pence, two shillings, half a crown, to the value of his place, provided his place get not above his wit"

In Shake-speare's First Folio dedication “To the Great Variety of Readers” which has the names John Heminges and Henry Condell at the end, we find:

"Judge your six-pen'orth, your shilling's worth, your five shillings' worth at a time, or higher, so you rise to the just rates, and welcome."

So there is evidence here that Heminge and Condell's First Folio letter was written by Ben Jonson and so it is not demonstrated that Heminge and Condell organized the First Folio printing. Puzzle Master (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Claim that Oxford is the most popular candidate

This is a dubious claim not worthy of entry into an encyclopedia. Unless a reference is provided showing the results of a statistical survey amongst anti-Stratfordians then the claim has no basis, whoever espouses it. What's more, being placed in the lead, it reads like propaganda from an Oxfordian editor hoping to recruit to his cause on the basis of what is popular is cool to subscribe to. I strongly object to this! Puzzle Master (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Campaign to delete this article

This theory has been around for 200 years and has got nowhere. That says it all. It's a crank theory maintained by cranks and should not be included in a serious encyclopedia. What's more, most academics think so and who are we to question their wisdom? If you want this article deleted then sign below. Felsommerfeld (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Felsommerfeld has missed the point about the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. While I would certainly agree that it is a crank theory, the point is that it is a notable crank theory, and should therefore be included. PatGallacher (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Also, we've got a procedure to discuss deleting articles. If you want to do so, open a discussion at WP:AFD. AndyJones (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• See WP:NOTE, WP:DEL, and Wikipedia's policy on so-called "crank theories. This is a significant theory and has every right to be here. In the past 200 years, this theory has become more and more popular; the phrase "shakespeare did not exist" gets almost 3 million hits on Google. Wikipedia's job is to report notable items, not to make judgements on whether items are "maintained by cranks" or not. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify ... does the "Red" in your name indicate that you are: (a) a Liverpool fan, (b) embarrassed, or (c) left-wing?! Felsommerfeld (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• It refers to my Viking ancestry. Vikings, or for that matter, most humans, do not appreciate personal attacks. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • What?! But I believe you! One other thing though, and this is a serious point. Wikipedia is not a gossip newspaper that tries to get attention from the brainless bored by discussing every crazy theory the unhinged have ever thought of. It should be an oracle of seriously researched knowledge. If you don't believe that then all that's left is anarchy. Felsommerfeld (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Does an article need to have more than almost 90 reliable sources to be considered "seriously researched"? Again, just because you disagree with Anti-Stratfordians, it doesn't mean this article will be deleted. It is a notable and well established theory. The article does not meet the deletion policy, and so should not be deleted. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I looked up "crank" in the dictionary and it seems to mean acting impulsively. I've contributed both to the Shakespeare Authorship and Baconian theory articles, and I think that, in general, I've considered the facts carefully. For the non-esoteric Baconian theory, which actually rests on documentary evidence, I've considered them very carefully. So, while these articles might not sit well with some people's ingrained beliefs, the idea that only cranks contribute to them is factually inaccurate. Neither do I agree that the theory has "got nowhere". Anyone who claims this has simply not bothered to examine all the arguments. It is easy to avoid doing the work of checking the facts of these alternative ideas by lazily dismissing them with the label "crank"; or by reading superficial and incomplete accounts of these arguments in popular Stratfordian books and believing that one has the complete picture. The real arguments actually need a bit of work to locate because it is a simple fact that mainstream publishers are unlikely to examine a non-Stratfordian view that is not popular enough to sell. Also the idea that only institutionalized researchers are smart enough to research these issues is absurd! I think everyone should find out for themselves as much as possible about these alternative candidates before forming an opinion. One other observation I'd like to make. Entering a forum and demanding the deletion of an article without discussing what parts of the article are perceived to be in error is unquestionably impulsive behaviour. It is an unfortunate characteristic of human nature that people sometimes project onto others what they are themselves guilty of! Puzzle Master (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • So I take it then that you support deletion. Felsommerfeld (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, very funny. Shall we just take it that he doesn't? AndyJones (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

PuzzleMaster/Barryispuzzled violations

It appears Barry is in attack mode once again. I added in several sections to the Bacon theory article, got thanked by Barry on my talk page, then attacked here and elsewhere. I'm not sure but is this the definition of passive/aggressive? :) The good news is that he and other editors actually thanked me for making the Bacon theory article more balanced and more eligible for GA. Regarding Barry's accusations above, Barry is misleading everyone by saying my edits were against the recommendations of the reviewers. The independent reviewers are not part of Barry's 2-man consensus. Just check the talk page and see for yourself. And his attempt at banning me for daring to touch his article resulted in a quick and immediate "NO" from the first administrator he whined to. Dredging up similar attacks that resulted in numerous administrators denying action and chastising the complainers about deleting properly referenced material (my pet peev) is just a smokescreen and a method of bullying other editors away from "his" article. Same old... Smatprt (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)