The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 24.0059 Tuesday, 12 February 2013
[1] From: John Briggs <
Date: February 11, 2013 7:17:47 PM EST
Subject: SHAKSPER: S.A. Tannenbaum & The Revels Accts
[2] From: Tom Reedy <
Date: February 11, 2013 10:55:29 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels
[3] From: William Sutton <
Date: February 12, 2013 6:49:02 AM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <
Date: February 11, 2013 7:17:47 PM EST
Subject: SHAKSPER: S.A. Tannenbaum & The Revels Accts
Talking of John Payne Collier—he also “discovered” Manningham’s Diary. It is generally thought that he can’t have forged the Twelfth Night entry, but the somewhat absurd story of Richard Burbage and “William the Conqueror” must at least be questioned.
John Briggs
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tom Reedy <
Date: February 11, 2013 10:55:29 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels
Just going on memory here, but IIRC the Revels Account were proved authentic by a study of the wormholes, which penetrated the writing in the same manner as they penetrated the paper.
Tannebaum has some very good work to his credit, but as Gerald wrote, his imperious nature was his downfall, not only because it put others off, but it prevented him from considering the possibility that he might have not been right all the time.
Tom Reedy
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Sutton <
Date: February 12, 2013 6:49:02 AM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Tannenbaum & Revels
Hi everyone,
Personally I’d never heard of Tannebaum though a look at his bibliography on his wiki entry shows he may merit investigation for his bibliographies of Drayton, Sydney, Marlowe, etc.
Seriously though he debunks the entire revels accounts as a Collier forgery?!
Here’s a link to those accounts:
These accounts start in 1571 and cover the entire period until the closing of the theatres. Just how encyclopaedic was Collier supposed to have been? What an invention?
Gerald mentions the 1604-1611 aspects of the revels accounts and backs it up with other detractors (Dyce, Ingleby, Halliwell-Phillipps, Stopes, and others). But do they deny those bits only or the entire accounts?
Reading through the introduction of the link above Collier is noted as not having seen or over-looked several accounts. How did he manage this if he wrote them?
I found this info on Tannenbaum’s collected works:
http://www.lib.unc.edu/mss/inv/t/Tannenbaum,Samuel_Aaron.html#d1e267
and an extra 2 Shakespeare related works which are available to view through the ever brilliant archive.org
The first is on Sir Thomas More and the now lost art of bibliotics:
“Bibliotics” may be defined as the science which studies the characteristics of a document for the purpose of determining its genuineness or spuriousness and of establishing the identity of the person who wrote it. The best books dealing with this subject are Mr. Albert S. Osborn’s Questioned Documents (Rochester, 1910), The Problem of Proof (N. Y., 1922), and Dr. Persifor Frazer’s Bibliotics, or the Study of Documents (Phila., 1894).
and the other is a defence of Shakespeare’s coat of arms grant.
Both can be found here:
http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Tannenbaum%2C+Samuel+Aaron%2C+1874%3F-1948%22
Curiously yours,
William Sutton