The Strats have long ago gained control of a user-generated “encyclopedia” page and made it an authority on Cumulative Evidence. There it is in the encyclopedia! Such evidence is absolutely illegitimate!
Why, one may ask, after thousands of years of crediting cumulative evidence as among the more powerful categories are we to suddenly and utterly reject it? Because it sorts heavily in the favor if the Earl of Oxford, that's why. If Rational Analysis has to do without one of its most rational and powerful tools in order to save the Stratford man, then so be it!
So then, Mark Johnson sets to work. Out of dozens of correspondences between the masques of King James's court circa December 27, 1604/5 he chooses one and addresses it as if no other evidence is provided to support it.
Among the dozens of facts he does not think to mention is that the only eye-witness account comes from two letters by Dudley Carleton — only one of which gives even the slightest description of the wedding masque itself.
Moreover, I address numerous descriptions in the letters of Carleton of other masques, in the book, and in none of them does he mention anything about the creations of Inigo Jones although we know from other records (including letters of others) that stunning “special effects” had been created for the productions he “described”. Carleton was interested in court politics and it is this and little or nothing else that he describes in his letters. He was always careful to name the noblemen and/or women that had performed the masques, the value of any gifts that were given and to report court gossip.
From Ben Jonson's description of his Masque of Blackness, danced eight days after the Herbert-Vere wedding masque, however, we do know that there was a mechanical sea in the hall where both masques were performed. We also know from literature on royal masques, and variously recorded details of the masques of the following 15+ years, that costumes and sets were reused if at all possible from one masque or production to another. The Christmas masques of the previous year included costumes for a wizard, the goddesses Iris, Ceres and Juno, a set with a cell /cave large enough for a man to enter and a temple of Juno, all of which are present in The Tempest. Both masques also featured a mechanical “rack,” that floated above the ground, so popular that it was repeatedly embellished for use in productions throughout nearly all of the period.
The fish-man costumes created for the scenes necessitated by the mechanical sea, in The Masque of Blackness, explain the long mysterious fact that Ariel and Calaban wear fish-man costumes in The Tempest,
Philip Buchan observes, for his part,
I quote at some length from Act IV of Shakespeare's The Tempest — the act long understood to have been a masque — by way of answer and invite the reader to decide for themself.
Prospero. Therefore take heede,
As Hymens Lamps shall light you.
*
*
*
Iris. Ceres, most bounteous Lady, thy rich Leas
Of Wheate, Rye, Barley, Fetches, Oates and Pease;
Thy Turphie-Mountaines, where live nibling Sheepe,
And flat Medes thetchd with Stover, them to keepe:
Thy bankes with pioned, and twilled brims
Which spungie Aprill, at thy hest betrims;
*
*
*
Ceres. Highest Queene of State,
Great Iuno comes, I know her by her gate.
Juno. How do’s my bounteous sister? goe with me
To blesse this twaine, that they may prosperous be,
And honourd in their Issue.
[They Sing]
Juno. Honor, riches, marriage, blessing,
Long continuance, and encreasing,
Hourely joyes, be still upon you,
Iuno sings her blessings on you.
Earths increase, foyzon plentie,
Barnes, and Garners, never empty.
Vines, with clustring bunches growing,
Plants, wtth goodly burthen bowing:
Spring come to you at the farthest,
In the very end of Harvest.
Scarcity and want shall shun you,
Ceres blessing so is on you.
Ferdinand. This is a most majesticke vision, and
Harmonious charmingly: may I be bold
To thinke these spirits ?
Prospero. Spirits, which by mine
Art I have from their confines call’d to enact
My present fancies.
Fer. Let me live here ever,
So rare a wondred Father, and a wise
Makes this place Paradise.
Pro. Sweet now, silence: Juno and Ceres whisper seriously,
There’s something else to doe: hush, and be mute
Or else our spell is mar’d.
Juno and Ceres whisper, and send Iris on employment.
Iris. You Nimphs Cald Nayades of ye windring brooks
With your sedg’d crownes, and ever-harmelesse lookes,
Leave your crispe channels, and on this greene-Land
Answere your summons, Juno do’s command.
Come temperate Nimphes, and helpe to celebrate
A Contract of true Love: be not too late.
Enter Certaine Nimphes.
You Sun-burn’d Sicklemen of August weary,
Come hether from the furrow, and be merry,
Make holly day: your Rye-straw hats put on,
And these fresh Nimphes encounter every one
In Country footing.
Enter certaine Reapers (properly habited:) they joyne with the Nimphes, in a gracefull dance, towards the end where-of, Prospero starts sodainly and speakes, after which to a strange hollow and confused noyse, they heavily vanish.1
This is only a small part of what Shakespeare's The Tempest: a Wedding Masque for Susan de Vere has to offer. You will never look at The Tempest or Susan de Vere's relationship to her father in the same light again. The references in the play to events after the death of Edward de Vere, in June 1604, are fully explained. And the reader can look forward to much more; much of it never before introduced into the realm of the Shakespeare Authorship Debate.
1 Furness, Horace Howard. A Variorum Edition... of Shakespeare: The Tempest (1897). 190-1, 194-5, 206-210,
Also at Virtual Grub Street:
- Rocco Bonetti's Blackfriars Fencing School and Lord Hunsdon's Water Pipe. August 12, 2023. “... the tenement late in the tenure of John Lyllie gentleman & nowe in the tenure of the said Rocho Bonetti...”
On Shakespeare's lameness and historical-fiction biography, etc. August 5, 2023. “Those who support Sogliardo of Stratford and other authorship candidates generally stop by from time to time to remark...”
- Shakespeare CSI: Sir Thomas More, Hand-D. April 22, 2023. “What a glory to have an actual hand-written manuscript from the greatest English writer of all time!”
- Robert Greene and the Construction Shakespeare (Almost) Never Used. August 9, 2022. 'Our first foray “staring intently into” the texts of Robert Greene has noted that his work utilized far fewer feminine endings than Shakespeare’s.'
A 1572 Oxford Letter and the Player’s Speech in Hamlet. August 11, 2020. “The player’s speech has been a source of consternation among Shakespeare scholars for above 200 years. Why was Aeneas’ tale chosen as the subject?”
- 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.
9 comments:
You misspelled Carleton in your article. See the text you quoted from me for the correct spelling.
When you say "There it is in the encyclopedia!", why don't you actually provide a link to where you found it in Wikipedia? When you say "The Strats have long ago gained control of a user-generated “encyclopedia” page," why not link to the page showing that "Strats" have edited the page and inserted the language you disagree with?
You could also define what you mean by "cumulative evidence." Just a quick google search of "cumulative evidence definition" gives us this: "Cumulative evidence is additional evidence that supports a point that has already been established." Sorry, what you are claiming isn't an established point, except in your own mind. Shakespeare of Stratford's claim is well established, according to virtually all scholars, (see e.g. our prima facie case) and supported by lots of additional "cumulative evidence," that supports the claim from independent sources. Lots of this supporting evidence is available on https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/.
You obviously do not understand the nature of cumulative evidence. The definition of cumulative from the Pocket Oxford Dictionary 5th edition, 1974, p 201 is: "Representing the sum of many items; depending on many small indications."
In the case of something like the authorship issue, most of the evidence will be circumstantial, a word commonly bandied about by Stratfordians, yet many do not know what it means in practice.
William P. Richardson in The Law of Evidence (section 111 at 68, 3rd ed. 1928) defines circumstantial as "Evidence of some collateral fact, from which the existence or non-existence of some fact in question, may be inferred as a probable consequence."
Note that the evidence can be used to disprove a fact as well as affirm the truth of one. It is the principle behind courts of law and the scientific method. Cumulative circumstantial evidence can be used to establish previously unknown facts as well, such as that a little-known high-ranking earl wrote using the pen name William Shakespeare.
You employ the logical fallacy of popular wisdom where a fact seems to be true just because so many people affirm it. At one time it was affirmed popular wisdom that stones could not fall from the sky, until the mass of evidence proved the popular wisdom was false.
Stratfordians also use dubious authorities to prove their points, which is another logical fallacy. Scholars who support the Stratfordian paradigm want to preserve their tenures, maintain high-paying speaking engagements, and continue getting lucrative book contracts, so they obviously would argue against doubters fearing that were the truth to come out, their incomes would fall and their reputations (such as they are among doubters) would crumble.
Perhaps the most serious fallacy Stratfordians use is the ad hominem attack. The adage in law is if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, attack the witnesses. This is when the ad hominem attacks are useful. I am not saying you use them, but I am pointing out another logical fallacy which the Stratfordians employ to get the facts on their side. But the facts are not on their side at all.
The most you can say about the Stratford man was he was a businessman, money lender, and tax avoider. There is zero evidence he wrote a line.
These are facts which those living inside of the echo chamber/epistemic bubble that is Stratfordianism will never admit exist.
I could go on about the nature of evidence and the Stratfordian belief system, but I have things to do, so have a nice day.
Actually, I'm asking what Gilbert's definition of cumulative evidence is that he refers to in the article. He says: "The Strats have long ago gained control of a user-generated “encyclopedia” page and made it an authority on Cumulative Evidence. There it is in the encyclopedia! Such evidence is absolutely illegitimate!
Why, one may ask, after thousands of years of crediting cumulative evidence as among the more powerful categories are we to suddenly and utterly reject it?"
Gilbert doesn't tell us what encyclopedia he's referring to or what page refers to cumulative evidence that he claims "the strats have long ago gained control of." Looking on Wikipedia, I couldn't find a page referring to that phrase. And apparently, you couldn't find it either since you switched to discussing circumstantial evidence instead of cumulative evidence.
And far from being "among the more powerful categories," cumulative evidence in a legal case can lead to its exclusion in a legal case. Cumulative evidence that is "needlessly presented" can be ruled to have a probative value that is substantially outweighed by being cumulative. In other words, if you've provided sufficient evidence to prove your point, presenting additional evidence on the same question can be a waste of the court's time.
However, I do appreciate this paragraph pf your response:
"Stratfordians also use dubious authorities to prove their points, which is another logical fallacy. Scholars who support the Stratfordian paradigm want to preserve their tenures, maintain high-paying speaking engagements, and continue getting lucrative book contracts, so they obviously would argue against doubters fearing that were the truth to come out, their incomes would fall and their reputations (such as they are among doubters) would crumble.
Perhaps the most serious fallacy Stratfordians use is the ad hominem attack."
So first you undertake a clear ad hominem attack on Stratfordians, attacking their motives rather than their arguments, and then decry ad hominem attacks. I love the irony.
You may have hit on the problem, though -- Purdy goes on and on about "cumulative" evidence, when the word he wanted was "circumstantial." Because circumstantial evidence is indeed quite powerful evidence, and is used all the time in both history and law. Purdy doesn't understand that there's a distinction between circumstantial evidence, where the evidence (e.g. fingerprints of the suspect at the scene of a crime) necessarily and logically lead to establishing a fact (that the suspect was at the scene of the crime); and rationalization and special pleading, where adverse evidence can be explained away by a far-fetched and illogical explanation of how it is consistent with Gilbert's pre-determined narrative. Oddly, Purdy doesn't mention "circumstantial evidence" in his article. So thanks for helping me understand what he's trying to say -- he just mixed up the terms circumstantial and cumulative.
Thanks for pointing out my own use of an ad hominem, though there is ample reason to believe the motivation behind denying counterevidence by Stratfordians is based on income and academic status.
You are correct in demanding which encyclopedia he refers to. It would be nice to be able to correct their error.
How is Gilbert's narrative "pre-determined"? Is it through conceptual bias, linkage blindness, or perhaps cherry-picking the evidence? If that is the case with his story, how is it different than the Stratfordian tale? The primary accusation doubters make toward Stratfordians is that they exhibit all three traits to the inability of seeing how their evidence is essentially irrelevant to their case. You also imply that how Gilbert's explanation with regard to adverse evidence is "far-fetched and illogical". How is that so? Could you provide examples and reasons why it is as you describe?
The comment about the Wikipedia page was a continuation of my recent post "Shakespeare Authorship and Cumulative Evidence," Philip, where the page is identified by name. I don't link to bogus pages. Only named it because there was no other choice. Anyway, here's a link to "Shakespeare Authorship and Cumulative Evidence." https://gilbertwesleypurdy.blogspot.com/2024/08/shakespeare-authorship-and-cumulative.html
Post a Comment