Mouse
grand master
  
Reged: 08/09/2001
Posts: 5674
Loc: Toronto, Ontario
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It will be interesting to see how many adherents this new heresy picks up. I predict that no Stratfordian will accept it, and few Oxfordians, Baconians or Marlovians. It will get a few who are doubters with no candidate, though--maybe...
Maybe Mark Rylance?
"This is a pioneering book. I can't imagine that any scholar or student, actor or enthusiast of Shakespeare will be able to ignore it. I for one welcome and celebrate this book not only for its discoveries and clear style of expression, but for the wonderful partnership of a University professor and an independent scholar which gave it birth. "
Mark Rylance, Actor, Artistic Director Shakespeare's Globe 1996-2005 and Chairman of the Shakespearean Authorship Trust
(http://www.pearsoned.co.uk/Bookshop/detail.asp?item=100000000124119)
Actually, no, I don't think so. Notice how careful he is to praise the book without saying that he subscribes to its theory.
-------------------- Mouse
|
johnmr
veteran

Reged: 18/11/2001
Posts: 38
Loc: England, close to Hedingham Ca...
|
|
Lynne,
As has been delicately pointed out by neufer, the new candidate is not mine, but Brenda James's. And if you know what happened to the Tay Bridge, you will guess my prognosis for the book. But even if the book is a flop, it would be unwise to rule out the new man on that basis alone.
I have not read the final version of the book, which after all is written by novices in the field (Bill would probably not admit this). I would accordingly expect it to contain a number of easily-spotted errors. None of these would detract (in my view) from the fact that the new man makes an attractive candidate. For example, he was a protégé of Burghley and married one of his nieces, he was a close friend of Southampton, and travelled for four years on the continent in his youth, so he had the right background to write the canon (if he did so).
As for the Strachey letter, I doubt whether it is one of the "main pieces of evidence", even if the blurb makes a point of it. I would agree with you that there are huge problems with the idea that it had anything to do with the Tempest.
In answer to your final query, I am not aware of any "really strong evidence", but then I haven't read the book. And in any case, some people are hard to convince (me, for instance!).
johnmr
|
neufer
grand master
 
Reged: 18/03/2003
Posts: 2148
Loc: Maryland, P.G.
|
|
Quote:
johnmr: I would expect [_The Truth Will Out_] to contain a number of easily-spotted errors. None of these would detract (in my view) from the fact that the new man makes an attractive candidate. For example, he was a protégé of Burghley and married one of his nieces, he was a close friend of Southampton, and travelled for four years on the continent in his youth, so he had the right background to write the canon (if he did so).
So it helps for a candidate to be:
1) a protégé of Burghley 2) an inlaw of Burghley 3) a close friend of Southampton and 4) a continental traveller.
That's nice to know. 
------------------------------------------------------- The Merchant of Venice (Folio) Act 2, Scene 2
Gob. Marrie God forbid, the boy was the VERiE staffe of my age, my VERiE prop.
Lau. Do I look like a cudgell or a houell-post, a staffe or a prop: doe you know me Father.
Gob. Alacke the day, I know you not yong Gentle- man, but I praie you tell me, is my boy God rest his soule aliue or dead.
Lan. Doe you not know me Father.
Gob. Alacke sir I am sand blinde, I know you not.
Lan. Nay, indeede if you had your eies you might faile of the knowing me: it is a wise Father that knowes his owne childe. Well, old man, I will tell you newes of your son, giue me your blessing, TRUTH WILL come to light, murder cannot be hid long, a mans sonne may, but IN THE END TRUTH WILL out.
Gob. Praie you sir stand vp, I am sure you are not Lancelet my boy. Code:
"IN THE END TRUTH WILL" . _ H _ _ W H E N R I N E U I L L _ T ___ T _ _ _ D _____ T . ----------------------------------------------- . "VEIL LYNN HERE" ___ {anagram} "HENRY NEVILLE"
<<As part of a routine research project, Brenda James applied a 16th century code-breaking technique to a small passage of Shakespeare's writing. What she discovered will stun the literary world. She discovered the true identity of the man who wrote Shakespeare's works. The question of who actually wrote Shakespeare's plays has been the subject of furious discussion amongst scholars for over 150 years. Everything known about the facts of William Shakespeare's life seems incompatible with the extraordinary genius of his plays and poems. How could a man who left school at 13 & apparently never left England have authored complex poetry or so enigmatically describe Renaissance Venice?
Many alternative candidates have been put forward - Francis Bacon, the Earl of Oxford, Elizabeth I - but none have stood up to serious scrutiny. Until now. James's code-breaking revealed the name of a prominent Elizabethan courtier embedded in the text. Intrigued, she wanted to find out more. In a county public records office, she came across a notebook containing clear stage directions & annotations for a Shakespearean play, which would not be staged until 2 years later. As the investigation continued, the evidence mounted. Her finished work reveals that the owner of the notebook - related to William Shakespeare, Francis Bacon and Henry VIII - is in fact the true author of all of Shakespeare's works. The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare will change everything we know about the greatest figure in English literature.>> ----------------------------------------------------------- >From Sir George Greenwood's "The Northumberland Manuscript," 1922
<<At the top of the left-hand column stands the name of NEVILL, twice written, and not far below it is the punning motto of the NEVILL family, Ne vile velis. "Perhaps,'' says Mr. Burgoyne, "this gives a clue to the original ownership of the volume as it seems to indicate that the collection was written for or was the property of some member of the NEVILL family." It is suggested that this was Sir Henry NEVIL (1564- 1615), Bacon's nephew, and a friend of Essex.>> -----------------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Art
|
Joe_Eldredge
grand master
 
Reged: 28/09/2001
Posts: 3087
Loc: Marthas Vineyard
|
|
I would like to report an irrational use of the word "rational". Joe
-------------------- ignojo
|
Bookman1974
veteran
Reged: 04/10/2005
Posts: 29
Loc: Oxford, England
|
|
This story has just broken nationally in England, with an author interview this morning on BBC Radio and features in two major newspapers. For the full text of the articles see:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article317235.ece
AND
The Times:Now Falstaff gets the role of man who wrote Shakespeare
The Independent article includes:
"Extraordinary new historical evidence suggests that Shakespeare's plays were not written by the assumed bard, but by a politician descended from King Edward III and John of Gaunt.
A British scholar and former university lecturer, Brenda James, and a historian, Professor William Rubinstein, of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, are proposing that the real Shakespeare was an English courtier and diplomat called Sir Henry Neville.... the new suggestion is backed by a vast amount of startling evidence suggesting that Neville, a man never before associated with the mystery, wrote all the plays attributed to Shakespeare. The claims will be published in a book due to be launched this month at Shakespeare's Globe theatre in London by its artistic director, the actor Mark Rylance."
Edited by titus (05/10/2005 09:29)
|
neufer
grand master
 
Reged: 18/03/2003
Posts: 2148
Loc: Maryland, P.G.
|
|
Julian Day wrote HLAS:
> ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g. ------------------------------------------------------ Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale! ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
<<His life has been found to mirror the evolution of The Bard's works so precisely that the authors believe that it cannot be dismissed as coincidence. In the history plays, Neville's ancestors - for instance, Richard Nevil, the Earl of Warwick in Henry VI, Part II - are described with an accuracy that could have been written only by someone with Neville's knowledge. His ancestors, such as John of Gaunt, in Richard II, are always mentioned sympathetically. The authors have unearthed in Lincolnshire's Public Record Office a notebook of 1602 belonging to Neville while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Crucially, they say, it includes background notes for the procession in Henry VIII some 11 years before the play was produced. >> ------------------------------------------------------ Was that before or after Henry VIII's actual procession? ------------------------------------------------------ <<They also discovered that, as a director of the London Virginia Company, a trading venture, Neville had access to a 20,000-word letter detailing the Bermuda shipwreck of 1609, "a base" for The Tempest two years later. Shakespeare could not have known of this letter, they say, as releasing it might have devalued the shares in the Virginia Company.>> ------------------------------------------------------ The Strats needn't worry since they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter. ------------------------------------------------------ <<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters, which they found to be eloquent and "Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Did Henry write: "I am that I am?" ------------------------------------------------------ <<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University, stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the mysterious dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again. ------------------------------------------------------ <<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>> ------------------------------------------------------ ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!! ------------------------------------------------------ <<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book. He told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates and the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are compelling in themselves. There are no awkward bits.">> ------------------------------------------------------ But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!! ------------------------------------------------------ <<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>> ------------------------------------------------------ But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile. ------------------------------------------------------ <<In contrast, Neville, an almost exact contemporary of Shakespeare (1564-1616), travelled extensively to the Continent, visiting various places that featured in the plays.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Henry probably returned home and told Will EVERything! ------------------------------------------------------ <<From 1601-03 Neville was imprisoned in the Tower for his part in an attempt to overthrow the Queen. Professor Rubinstein said that the trauma - "his head was almost chopped off" - would explain the seminal change in the plays, when he moved from comedies and histories to tragedies and problem plays; a break unexplained in Shakespeare's life.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Based upon the DROESHOUT, Shakspere's head WAS chopped off ...which explains why Titus Andronicus was written so early. ---------------------------------------------------------------- <<The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare will be published on October 25 by Longman.>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- *October 25, 2005* _The Truth Will Out_ ______ - 55x11 ---------------------- *October 25, 1400* [St.Crispin's day] Chaucer died. ______ + 18x11 ---------------------- *October 25, 1598* Letter from Richard Quiney asking for a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever been found addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford. ---------------------------------------------------------------- *October 25, 1415* [St.Crispin's day] Agincourt
Ogburn: <<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt was elaborated in _The Famous Victories_.
Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/fvh52..JPG
-------------------- Art
|
Detobel
grand master
  
Reged: 23/08/2004
Posts: 787
|
|
Quote:
Julian Day wrote HLAS:
> ..according to articles in the British press today, e.g. ------------------------------------------------------ Only the Strats are capable of pre-release publicity on this scale! ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1811620,00.html
<<His life has been found to mirror the evolution of The Bard's works so precisely that the authors believe that it cannot be dismissed as coincidence. In the history plays, Neville's ancestors - for instance, Richard Nevil, the Earl of Warwick in Henry VI, Part II - are described with an accuracy that could have been written only by someone with Neville's knowledge. His ancestors, such as John of Gaunt, in Richard II, are always mentioned sympathetically. The authors have unearthed in Lincolnshire's Public Record Office a notebook of 1602 belonging to Neville while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Crucially, they say, it includes background notes for the procession in Henry VIII some 11 years before the play was produced. >> ------------------------------------------------------ Was that before or after Henry VIII's actual procession? ------------------------------------------------------ <<They also discovered that, as a director of the London Virginia Company, a trading venture, Neville had access to a 20,000-word letter detailing the Bermuda shipwreck of 1609, "a base" for The Tempest two years later. Shakespeare could not have known of this letter, they say, as releasing it might have devalued the shares in the Virginia Company.>> ------------------------------------------------------ The Strats needn't worry since they can always reference Kositsky & Stritmatter. ------------------------------------------------------ <<Such evidence was strengthened by Neville's letters, which they found to be eloquent and "Shakespearean" in tone and vocabulary.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Did Henry write: "I am that I am?" ------------------------------------------------------ <<Ms James, a former English lecturer at Portsmouth University, stumbled across Neville after cracking the secret of the mysterious dedication to Shakespeare's sonnets.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Apparently, Henry had been drinking with the sailors again. ------------------------------------------------------ <<She claims that, hidden in the text is a clue that points to Neville - on which she will elaborate in her next book.>> ------------------------------------------------------ ONE WHOLE CLUE!!!! ------------------------------------------------------ <<After seven years of research she contacted Professor Rubinstein of University College Wales and an Associate of The Shakespeare Authorship Trust, a body set up to provide a "neutral forum". Although agnostic in the authorship debate, he agreed to co-write the book. He told The Times yesterday: "The coincidences of Neville's dates and the chronology of the plays are so overwhelming, they are compelling in themselves. There are no awkward bits.">> ------------------------------------------------------ But there are ALWAYS awkward bits!!! ------------------------------------------------------ <<Shakespeare had no Court experience and did not apparently ever visit the Continent - yet his writings show him deeply familiar with court life, Elizabethan high politics and Italy and France.>> ------------------------------------------------------ But Shakspere had extensive small claims Court experience and he was also inContinent...hence the dung pile. ------------------------------------------------------ <<In contrast, Neville, an almost exact contemporary of Shakespeare (1564-1616), travelled extensively to the Continent, visiting various places that featured in the plays.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Henry probably returned home and told Will EVERything! ------------------------------------------------------ <<From 1601-03 Neville was imprisoned in the Tower for his part in an attempt to overthrow the Queen. Professor Rubinstein said that the trauma - "his head was almost chopped off" - would explain the seminal change in the plays, when he moved from comedies and histories to tragedies and problem plays; a break unexplained in Shakespeare's life.>> ------------------------------------------------------ Based upon the DROESHOUT, Shakspere's head WAS chopped off ...which explains why Titus Andronicus was written so early. ---------------------------------------------------------------- <<The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare will be published on October 25 by Longman.>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- *October 25, 2005* _The Truth Will Out_ ______ - 55x11 ---------------------- *October 25, 1400* [St.Crispin's day] Chaucer died. ______ + 18x11 ---------------------- *October 25, 1598* Letter from Richard Quiney asking for a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever been found addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford. ---------------------------------------------------------------- *October 25, 1415* [St.Crispin's day] Agincourt
Ogburn: <<The historic role of the 11th Earl of Oxford at Agincourt was elaborated in _The Famous Victories_.
Apart from Henry IV, his son & brothers, Oxford is the only nobleman on the English side in the play!>>
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/fvh52..JPG
Sadly for Rubinstein, PennyMcCarthy has convincingly argued that the orthodox chronology, which Neville's lifespan fits so well, must be wrong, Nashe (and one could add Jonson) quoting from plays which to a great deal Shakespeare had still to pen.
An argument rooted in the chronology is as rotten as its root.
Robert
|
socialaffairs
first post
Reged: 05/10/2005
Posts: 1
|
|
The think tank the Social Affairs Unit http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk has just published a piece on its website by William D. Rubinstein where sets out his as to why Sir Henry Neville is the true author of Shakespeare's plays. Title: Is Sir Henry Neville the true author of Shakespeare's plays? William D. Rubinstein discusses the Shakespeare "authorship question" and explains why he believes that Shakespeare's plays were really written by Sir Henry Neville
Link: http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000600.php
|
neufer
grand master
 
Reged: 18/03/2003
Posts: 2148
Loc: Maryland, P.G.
|
|
Quote:
Robert: Sadly for Rubinstein, PennyMcCarthy has convincingly argued that the orthodox chronology, which Neville's lifespan fits so well, must be wrong, Nashe (and one could add Jonson) quoting from plays which to a great deal Shakespeare had still to pen. An argument rooted in the chronology is as rotten as its root.
Any argument that requires more than one type written page will not sway the establishment.
This is a mind game an we are up against masters: -------------------------------------------------------- Now Falstaff gets the role of man who wrote Shakespeare By Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent _The Times_ October 05, 2005
<<ENTER stage left: a dramatic new candidate for the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. The real author of the works that have been attributed to William Shakespeare for more than 400 years has beenunmasked, according to research.
A book to be published this month by a leading academic publisher, with a foreword by Mark Rylance, the artistic director of the Globe, will claim that the greatest plays and verse in the English language were written by Sir Henry Neville (c1562-1615). He was a leading Elizabethan figure, though a minor character in today's history books.
Whether Shakespeare's Stratford-on-Avon birthplace will be consigned to a tourists' backwater, and the vast publishing industry devoted to him condemned to pulp, remains to be seen, but the authors, the academics Brenda James and William Rubinstein, are in no doubt that they have finally uncovered the 'real Bard'.
They say that Neville, a rotund man nicknamed 'Falstaff' by close friends, had the *virtue* - unlike Shakespeare, who lacked an appropriate background - of being an educated man of culture, a courtier and a well-travelled linguist.>> -------------------------------------------------------- "is there no *vertue* extant?" -------------------------------------------------------- [Henry the Fourth, Part One (1598 Quarto) 2.4]
Enter Falstaffe.
Poin. Welcome Iacke, where hast thou bin?
Falst. A plague of al cowards I say, and a vengeance too, mar-ry and Amen: giue me a cup of sacke boy. Eare I lead this life long, ile sow neatherstocks and mend them, and foote them too. A plague of all cowards. Giue me a cup of sacke rogue, is there no *vertue* extant?
he drinketh.
Prin. Didst thou neuer see Titan kisse a dish of butter, pittifull harted Titan that melted at the sweet tale of the sonnes, if thou didst, then behold that compound.
Falst. You rogue, heeres lime in this sacke too: there is no- thing but rogery to be found in villanous man, yet a cowarde is worse then a cup of sacke with lime in it. A villanous cowarde. Go thy waies old Iacke, die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood be not forgot vpon the face of the earth, then am I a shotten herring: there liues not three good men vnhangde in England, and one of them is fat, and growes old, God helpe the while, a bad world I say, I would I were a weauer. I could sing psalmes, or any thing. A plague of all cowards I say still.
Prin. How now *Wolsacke* , what mutter you?
Falst. A kings sonne, if I do not beat thee out of thy kingdom with a dagger of lath, and driue all thy subiects afore thee like a flock of wild geese, ile neuer weare haire on my face more, you prince of Wales. ------------------------------------------------------ http://webpages.charter.net/stairway/WOOLPACKMAN.htm
<<M.H. Spielmann makes a revealing remark in his Studies in the First Folio, 1924, as follows, speaking of the Woolman's age, his moustache: 'The portrait is no portrait at all: it shows us a sickly, decrepit old gentleman, with a falling moustache, much more than fifty-two years old. Had Shakspeare really been such in his last illness would the London sculptor have so rendered him? Do sculptors, in their monuments, represent the great departed in their dying state, pressing pillows to their stomachs?' (Spielmann, see http) Of course if the effigy is of John Shakspeare, he was an old gentleman indeed, and might have been decrepit. He was seventy when he died. The 'pillow' was a woolpack, any Englishman would have twigged to that.
Hal to Falstaff, 'How now, *Woolsack*?'
In 1725 the English Antiquarian artist George *Vertue* engraved the Shakspeare monument for Alexander Pope's edition of Shakespeare's plays.
This is the first time we are shown the figure of Shakspeare writing on a cushion. But the figure is wearing the head of the well-known Chandos portrait of Shakspeare, as all close observers agree, the nicely trimmed-up head of a much younger man, nothing like the head that Dugdale pictured, nor yet very much like the head as we see it today. Vertue (not an eyewitness in 1725) ignores the published eyewitness testimony of the Woolpack Man in Holy Trinity, and instead gives us an imagined version of the monument, a sort of speculation perhaps, a suggestion of how the monument might be improved if were to honor a great poet, and not merely a gentleman of local renown.
*Vertue* also differs from the proved eyewitnesses in setting down the inscription beneath the figure, entering new text both of words and phrasing. Vertue's picture in Pope's edition is an invention, being unlike the eyewitness images of the Woolpack Man, and also unlike the monument as we see it today.>> -------------------------------------------------------- "Is there no *Vertue* extant?" -------------------------------------------------------- [Henry the Fourth, Part One (Folio) 2.4]
Enter Falstaffe.
Poin. Welcome Iacke, where hast thou beene?
Fal. A plague of all Cowards I say, and a Vengeance too, marry and Amen. Giue me a cup of Sacke Boy. Ere I leade this life long, Ile sowe nether stockes, and mend them too. A plague of all cowards. Giue me a Cup of Sacke, Rogue. Is there no *Vertue* extant?
Prin. Didst thou neuer see Titan kisse a dish of Butter, pittifull hearted Titan that melted at the sweete Tale of the Sunne? If thou didst, then behold that compound.
Fal. You Rogue, heere's Lime in this Sacke too: there is nothing but Roguery to be found in Villanous man; yet a Coward is worse then a Cup of Sack with lime. A vil- lanous Coward, go thy wayes old Iacke, die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood be not forgot vpon the face of the earth, then am I a shotten Herring: there liues not three good men vnhang'd in England, & one of them is fat, and growes old, God helpe the while, a bad world I say. I would I were a Weauer, I could sing all manner of songs. A plague of all Cowards, I say still.
Prin. How now *Woolsacke* , what mntter you?
Fal. A Kings Sonne? If I do not beate thee out of thy Kingdome with a dagger of Lath, and driue all thy Sub- iects afore thee like a flocke of Wilde-geese, Ile neuer weare haire on my face more. You Prince of Wales?
-------------------- Art
|
Mouse
grand master
  
Reged: 08/09/2001
Posts: 5674
Loc: Toronto, Ontario
|
|
Quote:
The think tank the Social Affairs Unit http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk has just published a piece on its website by William D. Rubinstein where sets out his as to why Sir Henry Neville is the true author of Shakespeare's plays. Title: Is Sir Henry Neville the true author of Shakespeare's plays? William D. Rubinstein discusses the Shakespeare "authorship question" and explains why he believes that Shakespeare's plays were really written by Sir Henry Neville
Link: http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000600.php
We have just had a flurry of new posters. Who are you all, I wonder. Are you Bill Rubinstein? I've been trying to find out if we're related as my great uncle lived in NY and was a Rubinstein.
Big question: Who transcribed the documents? Were they in italic or secretary? Secretary is pretty hard to read, as I've found to my cost, so which expert did the work?
Regards,
-------------------- Mouse
|
kenkap
grand master
  
Reged: 21/09/2001
Posts: 2682
|
|
I want to see the explanation of why a Yorkist descendent would write blatant Tudor propaganda. Also what explains the particular attention to the Oxford, Clifford, Stanley ancestors? And how about those stars and suns? About Henry V being written in 1600. From Mark A's site by Barrell"
"To Oxfordians generally Olivier's Henry V presents numerous points of unusual interest. Those that focus attention upon the patriotic motivation of the play are especially worthy of heed. For they can be shown to emphasize most graphically the arguments put forth by proponents of the dramatist Earl that Henry V was well known to Elizabethan audiences several years before Olivier (in accordance with orthodox conjecture) dates its initial presentation at the Globe in 1600.
Factually speaking, no contemporary record can be produced to chow that this play was first publicly given at the Globe or any other English playhouse in the year 1600. The assumption is based on the following circumstances:
There is a memorandum in the Stationers' Register dated 4 August and assigned conjecturally to 1600 signifying that application had been made by parties unmentioned to publish Henry V, together with As You Like It and Much Ado About Nothing. But along-side these titles appears the notation: "To be stayed." This injunction was effective in the case of As You Like It, no printing of which is known before the First Folio. However, there were evidently uncontrolled stage version of Much Ado and Henry V then in the hands of actors and their piratical publishing associates. For during the same year of 1600 quartos of both plays were issued. The cut stage version of Henry V states that it was printed "by Thomas Creede, for Tho. Millington and John Busby." It is entitled, "THE CHRONICLE HISTORY OF HENRY the fift With his battle fought at Agin Court in France. Togither with Auntient Pistoll. As it hath bene sundry times played by the Right honorable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants." Laurence Olivier reproduces the first part of this title-page as a stage placard in the introductory scenes of the film. But it is to be noted that Creede and his fellow pirates make no mention of "William Shakespeare" as the author. This fact is of significance. It proves how well the authorship of authentic Shakespeare plays was concealed from the printing house ferrets and their undercover allies of the stage even at this late day. Surreptitious sleuths of the type that stole the Shakespeare scripts usually have special talents for knowing the origin and ownership of the property they pilfer. Yet none of these gentry connected the authorship of the seven Shakespeare plays that were printed in various garbled. paraphrased and cut versions between 1590 and 1597 1 with the pen-name that became so striking a hallmark of quality with its appearance on Venus and Adonis early in 1593."
Wrote it pretty darn fast. Eh?
Ken
|
titus
grand master
  
Reged: 26/09/2001
Posts: 775
Loc: Caledon East, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Quote:
This story has just broken nationally in England, with an author interview this morning on BBC Radio and features in two major newspapers. For the full text of the articles see:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article317235.ece
...
The Independent's article points out, like a lot of others, that the evidence for Oxford is circumstantial without stating that the evidence for all the candidates is circumstantial. Otherwise we wouldn't have a controversy. And what they should further point out is that the pile of circumstantial evidence for Oxford (well documented in Mark Anderson's book) is considerably higher than any other candidate's pile. So far, anyway. We'll see if Henry Neville's pile changes at all when the James/Rubenstein book gets published.
|
Katharine
grand master
  
Reged: 08/09/2002
Posts: 4651
|
|
Here's the link to today's (10-5) BBC interview:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/index.shtml
-------------------- http://kcligon.typepad.com
|
titus
grand master
  
Reged: 26/09/2001
Posts: 775
Loc: Caledon East, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Quote:
.....
Sadly for Rubinstein, PennyMcCarthy has convincingly argued that the orthodox chronology, which Neville's lifespan fits so well, must be wrong, Nashe (and one could add Jonson) quoting from plays which to a great deal Shakespeare had still to pen.
An argument rooted in the chronology is as rotten as its root.
Robert
It seems to me that they are going to have to prove why the Orthodox chronolgy is correct. They are, after all, saying Orthodoxy got the author completely wrong. Why should the Orthodox chronology be any better? We have been down this path before and all that has turned up as possibly being written post-1604 has been the Tempest and Henry VIII. Well, the Tempest evidence (Strachey letter) has been pretty much shot down by Roger and Lynne's work and IIRC, the Henry VIII has never been compelling. Even Dr. Rubenstein isn't entirely convinced, saying it was "apparently written" in 1613. I wonder if he knows anything about Roger and Lynne's paper. He doesn't mention the Tempest at all.
|
Detobel
grand master
  
Reged: 23/08/2004
Posts: 787
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
.....
Sadly for Rubinstein, PennyMcCarthy has convincingly argued that the orthodox chronology, which Neville's lifespan fits so well, must be wrong, Nashe (and one could add Jonson) quoting from plays which to a great deal Shakespeare had still to pen.
An argument rooted in the chronology is as rotten as its root.
Robert
It seems to me that they are going to have to prove why the Orthodox chronolgy is correct. They are, after all, saying Orthodoxy got the author completely wrong. Why should the Orthodox chronology be any better? We have been down this path before and all that has turned up as possibly being written post-1604 has been the Tempest and Henry VIII. Well, the Tempest evidence (Strachey letter) has been pretty much shot down by Roger and Lynne's work and IIRC, the Henry VIII has never been compelling. Even Dr. Rubenstein isn't entirely convinced, saying it was "apparently written" in 1613. I wonder if he knows anything about Roger and Lynne's paper. He doesn't mention the Tempest at all.
From the previews I've seen the presumed Henry VIII notes would have written in 1601 or so.
To me it begins to look like a horse trade, as if James/Rubinstein would say to orthodoxy: "Here is another horse. At least look to it in the case in the future you would be running into more serious troubles. You would have not much to change. The lifespan is correct, your chronology you can stand by it, there would be little to change."
Robert
|
|