tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post8836041036482962828..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: A.D. Wraight and a Patron’s Property by Cecilia BusbyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-34883538858573175612013-10-24T05:03:05.768-04:002013-10-24T05:03:05.768-04:00Ms. Busby's explanation makes perfect sense to...Ms. Busby's explanation makes perfect sense to me.RRaymonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-91761693561721884852013-10-20T05:48:04.324-04:002013-10-20T05:48:04.324-04:00Hi Cecilia,
My apologies, as under no circumstanc...Hi Cecilia,<br /><br />My apologies, as under no circumstances did I mean to imply that “any kind of speculation can be useful”. If it is baseless and nonsensical, I’d rather people keep it to themselves. <br /><br />However, there is also speculation founded on slim but tantalising evidence, which may still be worth exploring. Whilst the first attempt may be far from feasible, the subsequent discussion could bring us closer to some ‘most probable’ explanation. It was only this process to which I was referring; and I also intended my comments to be seen in the context of the blog, rather than books. <br /><br />Personally, I think text books should be the culmination of this process, rather than instigators of it; so, in this respect, I think we agree. That said, I don’t think the example you cite, in Dolly’s book, contradicts this, to any great extent. The fact this has gone unremarked upon for 20 years or so, tends to imply it was not all that outlandish. These things can always be made to look foolish or irrational, once the most probable explanation is there for all to see. How many of us have not, at some time, had to state, “Of course, now you point it out, it’s so obvious!” Also, would we have been having this discussion, discovering the lovely joke, if Dolly had not speculated on it, I wonder? <br /><br />As for anyone that might be antagonised by sound and reasoned logic, please continue to upset them. I try my best, but the more the merrier.Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-17274346524843665282013-10-19T17:00:33.664-04:002013-10-19T17:00:33.664-04:00Can I just add, though, that this blog is indeed a...Can I just add, though, that this blog is indeed a very open and transparent forum, where I've come across any number of really great and eye-opening arguments - my contribution was not meant to be antagonistic at all - just an example of how easy it can be to get carried away. And as Peter said, once you 'read' that piece of Thorpe's with the right key, it's such a witty and immediately understandable joke that I couldn't resist sharing it.C.J.Busbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288574235370421625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-82045548423386717502013-10-19T16:25:17.766-04:002013-10-19T16:25:17.766-04:00Thanks to both of you for taking the time to read ...Thanks to both of you for taking the time to read this and comment - I have to agree with Anthony Kellet that the Marlovians in general strike me as a very sane bunch genuinely trying to tease out important bits of information that might shed light on the uncanny similarity and serial writing lives of of Marlowe and Shakespeare. I have been particularly impressed with Peter Farey's many fascinating, well researched and well argued pieces on this blog. I'd also like to say that I really enjoyed Wraight's book and learnt a lot from it. However, I do slightly disagree with Anthony Kellet's idea that any kind of speculation can be useful. Maybe on a blog like this, where ideas are knocked around and discussed - but when publishing a book or article in the mainstream press or academic journals, too much deviation from what can reasonably be backed up with evidence does tend to do damage to the wider argument.C.J.Busbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12288574235370421625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-20646305357367969942013-10-19T08:06:10.773-04:002013-10-19T08:06:10.773-04:00Thank you Cecilia. For me, the intriguing thing ab...Thank you Cecilia. For me, the intriguing thing about this article is that there can be hardly a single Marlovian who hasn't read Dolly Wraight's <i>The Story That the Sonnets Tell</i> at least once, and who isn't also familiar with the opening scene of <i>Antony and Cleopatra</i> in which Philo says "Sir, sometimes when he is not Antony / He comes too short of that great property / Which still should go with Antony." Yet, as far as I know, this is the first time Dolly's interpretation of the Thorpe letter has been questioned in the nearly two decades since she first wrote it. And once this meaning is pointed out it seems so obvious, doesn't it? What we conspiracy hunters thought of as something dark and imprenetrable unless one knew the hidden meaning suddenly becomes, as you put it, "a hilarious in-joke between two publishers about the manners of great men." And it <i>is</i> funny, isn't it?<br /><br />Where I would perhaps diverge slightly from what you say, however, is that I wouldn't blame Dolly Wraight so much for this error, but those of us (including myself, whom she thought of as one of her most dedicated opponents) who simply took her word for it! <br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-27347721983545382002013-10-19T02:22:24.625-04:002013-10-19T02:22:24.625-04:00From outset, I should make it clear that I think t...From outset, I should make it clear that I think the main thrust of this piece is logical and reasonable, and I understand the objective of warning against wild speculation; with its inherent reputational risks.<br /><br />However, I have three points I would like to make, which I feel are important.<br /><br />First, I have to say that I am a tad reluctant to “have some sympathy” with orthodox Stratfordian scholars, for the few outlandish speculations Marlovians might propose. The wild flights of fancy through which we have to plough, annually, far exceed all those for the other proposed authors, combined. Moreover, the perpetual misunderstanding of Marlovian ideas, shown by virtually every orthodox scholar I’ve witnessed, seems to demonstrate they’ve not even bothered to consult Wikipedia on the matter; let alone any more detailed source.<br /> <br />Second, I would caution anyone, visiting this blog for the first time, against taking the main article as the most valuable part of your inquiry. More than any other group, extolling the virtues of a particular candidate (including those promoting William Shaksper of Stratford), here you will find that any item, containing flawed logic or speculative low-probability scenarios, will be challenged and countered in the posts below it; without exception. Moreover, and what is so refreshing here, these debates, refutations and disagreements happen in an open and transparent format.<br /> <br />So, if anyone leaves the blog, having read only the item in question, they are not adequately qualified to rehearse any views about Marlovians or their credibility. This can only be done, with any integrity, once sufficient people have had time to respond, and those responses have been read.<br /><br />Third, whilst I cannot speak for everyone, most here are trying to find the truth of the authorship question. I also believe the majority continue that search with the same adherence to sound logic, which caused them to arrive here in the first place. However, these exchanges cannot happen without theories being forwarded for discussion. The fear of proposing scenarios, because it may “make us look bad”, is also unacceptable, to me. Sometimes it is necessary to ask, “Could it be possible…” <br /><br />In asking these questions, I can guarantee, faithfully, you will not have many people extolling the virtues of any crackpot theory, merely because it suits their candidate. If it is without foundation, the reasons will be made clear, or you will be asked to think on another, more probable explanation.<br /><br />The important point, for the visitor, is to read that subsequent discussion; and then you may feel free to describe Marlovian scholarship as you will.<br />Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.com