The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 28.020 Sunday, 15 January 2017
[1] From: William Blanton <
Date: January 13, 2017 at 3:53:17 PM EST
Subj: Heather Wolfe, Folger Library Curator
[2] From: Julia Griffin <
Date: January 13, 2017 at 5:49:15 PM EST
Subj: Re: SHAKSPER: Wolfe
[3] From: Ian Steere <
Date: January 14, 2017 at 10:20:56 AM EST
Subj: Wolfe Article
[4] From: Richard A. Strier <
Date: January 14, 2017 at 1:19:06 PM EST
Subj: RE: SHAKSPER: Wolfe
[1]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: William Blanton <
Date: January 13, 2017 at 3:53:17 PM EST
Subject: Heather Wolfe, Folger Library Curator
Re Tom Reedy's post of January 13, 2017.
Harry Berger’s recent post impliedly cast doubt on my identification of Lorenzo in MV as representing Shakespeare, and of Shakespeare writing himself into the play as such and acting the part.
One item of textual evidence that I did not include in my post is the following (from the First Folio):
ANTONIO:
So please my Lord the Duke, and all the Court
To quit the fine for one halfe of his goods,
I am content: so he will let me have
The other halfe in use, to render it
Upon his death, unto the Gentleman
That lately stole his daughter.
(4.1.375-381)
Note that Shakespeare capitalized the word “Gentleman.” That Gentleman was Lorenzo. Shakespeare was writing MV in 1596, just when he was successful in obtaining for his father (and himself) the coat of arms and the distinction of being a Gentleman (the exact date being October 20, 1596). I grant that this is not what one might call definitive proof, but it is at least some proof. Reliable evidence concerning Shakespeare’s life has mostly come in drips and drabs. This drabby evidence was written by Shakespeare himself, and is thus worthy of some consideration.
Respectfully
Bill
- -
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Julia Griffin <
Date: January 13, 2017 at 5:49:15 PM EST
Subject: Re: SHAKSPER: Wolfe
Thank you to Tom Reedy for clarifying this - I think. I should perhaps make clear that I am not now and have never been a believer in any odd theory about Shakespeare, who was obviously both the Man from Stratford and the Player; but I’m not sure this new evidence is going to do much to convince those who don’t already accept that well-attested identity. The point is the name William, which connects the armigerous one with the author named in the Folio? But we already had that connection, as Dr. Reedy points out, from the tomb monument itself.
What Heather Wolfe did was discover documents that included his first name, William, therefore removing any ambiguity about who was referred to as a player,
OK; but I can’t see that more proof about the player is either here or there, from an Oxfordian’s point of view. Sorry if I’m being dense.
Hardy, forgive me. I know this is nearing thin ice - and I fear Oxfordians seem to like my original post ...
Julia (who will shut up on this topic now)
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ian Steere <
Date: January 14, 2017 at 10:20:56 AM EST
Subject: Wolfe Article
I think that Tom Reedy’s reply, together with his and David Kathman’s excellent essay (SHAKSPER, January 13, 2017) miss what I took to be the point of Julia Griffin’s comment: that many anti-Stratfordian theories now accept essentially all the arguments put forward, or referred to, by Tom in his post. Instead, these theories look to circumvent - with the hypothesis that the player-become-rich-gentleman-landowner from Stratford was induced to pass off, as his own, scripts written and supplied to him by someone else.
Of course, that hypothesis depends on a number of improbable assumptions - including, for example, that over the course of some 20 years many fellow players and professionals in the business (including some known or inferred play-writing collaborators) would remain ignorant and/or silent about the deception. However, rebuttal of the circumventing hypothesis becomes strengthened when evidence which positively conflicts with it comes into play.
In my previous post I noted that the form of the pen-name, “William Shakespeare”, first appeared with the dedication of Venus & Adonis (and I showed why there was nothing strange or untoward about its adoption by the player from Stratford). I also pointed out that the presence of the many puns in the dedication - too numerous and too cohesive to be dismissed as flukes - precluded disguise of the author’s identity.
I appreciate that Hardy will not permit debate here about Authorship (although I am not, of course, challenging this). He may, however, permit debate of the limited statements made in the last sentence of the above paragraph. In any case, I am happy, as always, to receive reasoned comments privately.
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard A. Strier <
Date: January 14, 2017 at 1:19:06 PM EST
Subject: RE: SHAKSPER: Wolfe
Thanks to Tom Reedy and David Kathman for a very useful summary of the (overwhelming) evidence for Shakespeare’s authorship of the plays. Nice job!
Richard Strier
Sulzberger Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus
Department of English
University of Chicago