They claimed, for our first example, that the letters in the front matter of the First Folio contain a direct statement by John Heminges and Henry Condell that the Stratford man was the playwright Shakespeare — despite the fact that the letters were long ago shown to have been written all or in part by Ben Jonson.
9 - a worthy fellow
Heminges and Condell state that the works in the First Folio were written by “so worthy a friend and fellow...as was our Shakespeare”.
Despite the fact, they claim it is a matter legitimately entered as evidence Item 9 in their “Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare” brief, rather than an Oxfraudian assertion only.
To review the ongoing debate: The claim began that they had written the letters thus identified the playwright Shakespeare as the Stratford man. That failing, it became that Jonson may have written the letter of general address but he'd had nothing to do with the letter of Dedication. It is in the letter of Dedication that the Stratford man is referred to as the playwright.
Next in the Oxfraudian tactical retreat, both of the letters were a witness statement on H&Cs' behalf even if both were written by Jonson. Jonson was a mere transcriptionist.
Any effective response became defined as a “strawman” and the authority of Oxfraudia declared that all arguments were now negated as the result. H&Cs' names having been printed below the letters, the world was informed, met the same legal standard as autograph signatures signing onto the entire content of the letters. Such profound questions were put forward in support of all of this as: “What? Do you think Jonson was a liar?”
The consensus of literary experts was cited. The Oxfraudians admitted the consensus in an unguarded moment before the implications were realized. Once they were, a list of those experts was then demanded. The list being provided, and unassailable1, one of the interlocutors suddenly realized his expertise to declare what met the definition of a “consensus”. It wasn't that the finest experts who studied the letters hadn't said they were written by Jonson but that it didn't meet definition of a “consensus”. A refusal to allow him that rhetorical ploy was indignantly referred to as a personal insult.
Then, suddenly, no one could remember that the list had been provided and it was called for once again. (I will be presenting that list again.) But, having had time to prepare a response, the groundwork has already been laid to dismiss it. The reply has quietly been changed to:
Now not only doesn't it matter at all who wrote the letter but the consensus of the experts doesn't matter at all either unless they all specifically said not that H&C didn't write the letters but that they didn't “endorse” what was in the letters.
This is also an example of the general rhetorical approach of these representative Oxfrauds. Throughout they have repeated that they have no responsibility to prove their purported evidence. Instead the respondents, the world learned from them, must prove that it is not authentic or it is entered in as proven.
Enough of this ugliness for now. I prefer to present a constructive item from the expert consensus that wasn't in my original list because I didn't have the time to hunt it down.
I believe this was first reported by Ingleby in his Centurie of Prayse (1874). I quote it from page 144 of the second edition. It begins with an excerpt from the Letter of Dedication in the First Folio. What follows is Ingleby's commentary in a footnote at the bottom of the page.
Country hands reach foorth milke, creame, fruites, or what they have: and many Nations (we have heard) that had not gummes & incenfe, obtained their requefts with a leavened Cake. It was no fault to approch their Gods, by what meanes they could: And the moft, though meaneft, of things are made more precious, when they are dedicated to Temples. In that name therefore, we most humbly consecrate to your H. H. these remaines of your servant Shakespeare; that what delight is in them, may be ever your L. L, the reputation his, & the faults ours, if any be committed, by a payre so carefull to shew their gratitude both to the living, and the dead, as is
Your Lordshippes most bounden,
John Heminge.
Henry Condell.
[FN] Dedication to William, Earl of Pembroke, and Philip, Earl of Montgomery. (Prefixed to the First Folio Edition of Shakespeare's Works, 1623.)
The first part of the peroration of this address is so good as to evoke the suspicion that it is not original. Malone quotes from Morley's Dedication of a Book of Songs: to Sir Robert Cecil, 1595, a very similar passage. But in truth the beginning of the peroration is literally translated from Pliny's dedicatory epistle to Vespasian, prefixed to his Natural History (§ ed. Sillig), which runs thus:
"dis lacte rustici multaeque gentes supplicant, et mola tantum salsa litant qui non habent tura ; nee ulli fuit vitio deos colere quoquo modo posset."
That is, "country people and many nations offer milk to their gods; and they who have not incense obtain their requests with only meal and salt; nor was it imputed to any as a fault to worship the gods in whatever way they could."
The writer of the address of 1623 added " cream and fruits" in one place, and "gummes" in another: and for mola salsa appears to have, not unskilfully, caught up Horace's "farre pio" (Odes III, 23, 11. 17-20). He adds, too, very gracefully, that "the meanest things are made more precious when they are dedicated to temples." If he employed Philemon Holland's translation of Pliny (1635) he did not reproduce its words.
It has long been known that the letter includes a loose translation of a text from Pliny — one of Ben Jonson's favorite authors. A reference to the poetry of Horace is also suspected.
A “Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare” is not even remotely an attempt at being non-partisan by following the rules and proceedures of the law when the party that assembles it blatantly redefines, perverts and dismisses the law as necessary in order to declare judgement in their own favor.
1 I write this realizing that Oxfrauds assail anything that does not suit their narratives regardless.
Also at Virtual Grub Street:
- Edward de Vere and Marlowe’s Dido of Carthage. July 5, 2022. “It was an historical effort and an historical two years for Elizabethan theater.”
- The Character Montano, in Hamlet, and Polonius’ Famous Advice. May 25, 2022. “The reader may recall that Polonius calls upon Reynaldo to suggest to Laertes’ friends that he is privy to minor misbehaviors, at which he winks,…”
- The Death of Sir Edward Vere, son of the 17th Earl of Oxford and Anne Vavasour. May 8, 2022. “Mr. Sedgwick wrote to me for a prayer for Sir Edward Vere.”
- How Shakespeare gave Ben Jonson the Infamous Purge. November 7, 2021. “Of course, De Vere could not openly accuse Jonson of having outed him as Shakespeare.”
- Enter John Lyly. October 18, 2016. "From time to time, Shakespeare Authorship aficionados query after the name “John Lyly”. This happens surprisingly little given the outsized role the place-seeker, novelist and playwright played in the lives of the playwright William Shakespeare and Edward de Vere."
- Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
- Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
5 comments:
"The claim began that they had written the letters thus identified the playwright Shakespeare as the Stratford man."
Can you point to any statement where we claimed that they "had written the letters"? Because I never claimed that, and it's not the claim of the PFC.
'A “Prima Facie Case for Shakespeare” is not even remotely an attempt at being non-partisan by following the rules and proceedures of the law when the party that assembles it blatantly redefines, perverts and dismisses the law as necessary in order to declare judgement in their own favor.'
Why would you expect it to be "non-partisan?" A prima facie case is part of an adversarial process; it shifts the burden of proof to the other side to produce evidence to support their position. We've provided case law and evidentiary rules that support our position.
>> GWP: "The consensus of literary experts was cited ... Once they were, a list of those experts was then demanded. The list being provided, and unassailable 1 ... Then, suddenly, no one could remember that the list had been provided and it was called for once again. (I will be presenting that list again.)"
Can you please produce the link to where this unassailable list was previously provided?
Shown by who? Where is this consensus? Where, as Philip asks, do we claim that they wrote anything? Our PFC is independent of everything except the signature.
It is frankly impossible to believe that Ben Jonson we all know, the sometime self-proclaimed magistrate of wit and intellect, wrote the whole of what appears in H&C's preface. It's just not good enough to be Jonson and nowhere near good enough to be something Jonson submitted for prominent publication. Jonson would not be flattered by the attribution and no scholar I know has suggested that he might have done any more than a bit of sub-editing. Though any work of his in that minor role is still not supported by any tangible evidence from the time.
So while you cannot discount H&C's willingness to have their names attached to the prefatory matter—whilst it therefore stands as perfectly acceptable evidence of their intention to have it thought their own work—crucially, there are no reasons outside a bit of isolated, imaginative speculation to suspect that it isn't exactly what it appears to be.
In three comments all by people who identify as authors of the Prima Facie case we have -
"Please point to any statement where we claimed they "had written the letter"?"
"It is frankly impossible that Jonson wrote the whole of H&C's preface" "there are no reasons outside of isolated, maginative speculation to suspect that it isn't exactly what it appears to be." Since it purports to be a letter written by Heminge and Condell, despite some grammatical contortions this appears to be a statement where you claim they "had written the letter."
A blanket denial of any academic concensus or even view on Jonson's role in the Heminge and Condell, followed by an unattributed assertion that "no scholar I know has suggested that he might have done any more than a bit of sub-editing. Though any work of his in that minor role is still not supported by any tangible evidence from the time."
And the assertion that none of this matters because this is just part of your Prima Facie Case and therefore it is inappropriate to challenge either the interpretation or provenance of evidence while demanding that AntiStratfordians do just that.
Is it any wonder he accuses you of not arguing (on his platform) in good faith?
Initially, you are incorrect as to the assertion that the comments were made by people who identify as authors of the prima facie case. The PFC was written by Mr. Buchan, and I have never claimed any credit for writing it.
Additionally, from the very start of this discussion with Mr. Purdy, I have insisted that the specific language of the PFC does not state that the Dedication was written by Heminges and Condell, but that it does not matter to me, or to my argument, who wrote it. In whole or in part.
Finally, I have never asserted anything even remotely like "none of this matters because this is just part of " the PFC, "and therefore it is inappropriate to challenge either the interpretation or provenance of evidence." In fact, I have always contended that the prima facie case model is an appropriate model for the very reason that it invites challenge.
Your criticism is way off base.
Post a Comment