User talk:Nishidani: Difference between revisions
John Carter (talk | contribs) →Ebionites: new section |
|||
Line 544: | Line 544: | ||
:::Im talking about you having some refs that look like <nowiki><ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}:{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> instead of <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}</ref><ref>{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref></nowiki> There a particular reason for that? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
:::Im talking about you having some refs that look like <nowiki><ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}:{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> instead of <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}</ref><ref>{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref></nowiki> There a particular reason for that? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
::::There was a pretext for that, and pretexts are not good reasons. Basically. I put refs saying more or less the same thing in the same line space, to ratchet down the escalating ref ladder at page bottom. A fucking dopey lurk I admit to create a false impression that we're thinking light rather than weighed down by referential ballast. It's a hang over from the academic pleistocene or plasticene, i.e. mean them days back in the 60s when one page bottom reference gave several sources in succession. I'll see what Tom reedy does, but it should be raised at the end of his review. I imagine he'll go to this in Johnny Weissmuller fashion, with machete hacking away at the huggermugger jungle of bloats and quotes and notes. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani#top|talk]]) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) |
::::There was a pretext for that, and pretexts are not good reasons. Basically. I put refs saying more or less the same thing in the same line space, to ratchet down the escalating ref ladder at page bottom. A fucking dopey lurk I admit to create a false impression that we're thinking light rather than weighed down by referential ballast. It's a hang over from the academic pleistocene or plasticene, i.e. mean them days back in the 60s when one page bottom reference gave several sources in succession. I'll see what Tom reedy does, but it should be raised at the end of his review. I imagine he'll go to this in Johnny Weissmuller fashion, with machete hacking away at the huggermugger jungle of bloats and quotes and notes. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani#top|talk]]) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[Ebionites]] == |
|||
You had previously contributed to discussion regarding this subject. There is currently a concern, primarily on my part, whether this article takes a stand which seems to indicate that the name was used to refer to a single, specific group, which I believe the evidence of sources does not support. You appear to be rather knowledgable in the field, and I believe any input you might have on the article talk page could be very valuable. Thank you. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:21, 6 June 2010
The West Bank/Judea and Samaria Problem
Personal work section notes. I get headaches and am as slow as a wet week, in dragging up diffs, and even have a geezer's trouble in following these arguments all over several pages, so I can't really make an adequate case. So I'll have to make my contribution in the next few days, according to the fashion I normally work after, when I did work, in the real world. Reflecting from principles, through to the problem, the evidence and conclusions. Apologies to anyone reading this. It's written to help myself get some order into this chat, not to guide others.
- An editorial split between those in favour of using 'Judea & Samaria' to designate (a) parts of, or (b) all, or (c) all of the West Bank and parts of Israel, and those who oppose the usage, except on those specific pages devoted to (i) Samaria (ii) Judea (iii) the administrative territory known in Israel as 'Judea & Samaria'.
- The 'Judea and Samaria' school holds that (a) these are geographical and historical designations predating the West Bank (b) used in a variety of sources published in Israel and abroad to denote the territory, or parts of it, known as the West Bank (c) and that opposition to the employment of these words in wiki constitutes an 'ethnic-based discrimination' against both Israeli and Jewish people.(d) specifically, that MeteorMaker, Pedrito and myself have conducted a campaign to denigrate or deprecate Jewish terms in the I/P area, a kind of ethnic cleansing of nomenclature, in a way that lends substance to fears our position is motivated by, well let's call a spade a spade, anti-semitism.
- The 'West Bank' school asserts that (a) these terms have an intrinsic denotative vagueness because they refer to different geophysical, administrative and political terrains depending on historical period, and that to use the terms of the territorially bounded and defined area known internationally as the West Bank creates cognitive dissonance (b) that these terms, as documented, were used under the British Mandate, then dropped for 'West Bank', which has remained to this day the default term of neutral usage internationally and in international law and diplomacy (c) that, after the Israeli conquest of the West Bank, in 1967, the terms 'Judea & Samaria' were pushed onto the political agenda by an extremist settler group, Gush Emunim, then adopted by the Likud government in 1977, and imposed by government decree on the Israeli mass media, which suppressed the international term, West Bank (d) that, as documented, the terms 'Judea and Samaria' have a potent ideological charge as appropriative nomenclature, renaming Palestinian land presently occupied, annexed or expropriated illegally by Israel (ICJ judgement 2004), over which Israel has no sovereignty, where Israel is establishing illegal settlements at least half of which on land with private Palestinian title, and with its own Arabic toponyms, and erasing the traditional native nomenclature by creating a neo-biblical toponomy (d) that reliable secondary sources explicitly define the term as partisan, even in contemporary Hebrew and Israeli usage (e) that the evidence for usage overwhelmingly documents the prevalence of 'West Bank' (northern, southern) in neutral sources, whose neutrality is affirmed also by the very sources that otherwise employ the words 'Samaria and Judea' adduced by the former school, (f) that if explicitly attested partisan Israeli toponymy and administrative nomenclature is allowed on non-Israeli territory, then by WP:NPOV criteria, automatically this would mean the corresponding Palestinian toponymy and nomenclature, often covering the same areas, would have to be introduced (g)that in this whole debate, the West Bankers have not even represented the Palestinian side, which is absent, invisible, while the Israeli side is being treated as though its national naming were on terms of parity and neutrality with international usage (h) that wiki criteria, WP:NPOV, WP:Undue, WP:RS, WP:NCGN etc. require that neutral terminology, particularly as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, be employed. (i) If we are to allow Israeli terminology to be generally employed in denoting territory over which Israel exercises no sovereignty, but is simply, in law, an occupying belligerent, a very dangerous precedent, with widespread consequences for articles where ethnic conflicts exist, would be created.
(ii)Note on language, naming as an appropriative act of possession and dominion.
'According to the aboriginal theory, the ancestor first called out his own name; and this gave rise to the most sacred and secret couplet or couplets of his song. The he 'named' (tneuka) the place where he had originated, the trees or rocks growing near his home, the animals sporting about nearby, any strangers that came to visit him, and so forth. He gave names to all of these, and thereby gained the power of calling them by their names; this enabled him to control them and to bind them to his will.'[1]
Wa’-yitser’ Yĕhôwāh’ (Adonai) ĕlôhīm’ min-hā'ădāmāh’ kol-‘ha’yath’ ha’-sādeh’ wĕ'ēth kol-ôph ha’-shāma’yim wa’-yāvē ‘ el-hā'ādām’ li-r'ôth mah-yiqrā-lô’ wĕ-kôl ăsher yiqrā-lô’ hā'-ādām‘ ne’pfesh ‘ha’yāh’ hû shĕmô. (20) Wa’- yiqrā’ hā'-ādām‘ shēmôth….
‘And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names.. .' [2]
Wa-‘allama ādama l-asmā’a kullahā,
In Thomas Pynchon's novel Mason & Dixon, the narrator Cherrycoke recounts, against the huge backdrop of seismic shifts in the political and scientific world of that time, the story of the eponymous figures who have undertaken to draw a scientific map of the wilderness and terrain between Pennsylvania and Maryland:
‘what we were doing out in that Country together was brave, scientifick beyond my understanding and ultimately meaningless, - we were putting a line straight through the heart of the Wilderness, eight yards wide and due west, in order to separate two Proprietorships, granted when the World was yet feudal and but eight years later to be nullified by the War for Independence.”
Late in the novel, the Chinaman of the piece remarks:
‘To rule forever, . .it is necessary only to create, among the people one would rule, what we call . . Bad History. Nothing will produce Bad History more directly nor brutally, than drawing a Line, in particular a Right Line, the very Shape of Contempt, through the midst of a People,- to create thus a Distinction betwixt’em. –’tis the first stroke.-All else will follow as if predestin’d, into War and Devastation.’ [4]
The dispute here in wiki, like the historical reality it refers to, has its ‘Bad History’. In the novel, the apparently empirical task of defining boundaries is found unwittingly implicated in the later travails of American history, with its exceptionalism, erasure of native peoples, of possible alternative worlds, of Frostian paths never taken. American innocence and pragmatic realism, in the innocuous work of two surveyors, is swept up in the torment of power: cartographic principles embody an Enlightenment’s reach into the unknown, while, applied, to the ends of order and control, they inadvertently engender violent confusion and disarray. What is the ‘right line’ to take on nomenclature, when history’s line demarcating Israel and the West Bank was drawn by war, then the West Bank was occupied in the aftermath of war, and the world of Israeli settlers begins to redraw the map? One thing that happens is that the complexities have drawn editors into a minor war, as Pynchonesque as it is Pythonesque. There is one difference: most the cartographers say one thing, and Israel, the controlling power, asserts a different terminology. So what’s in a name?
Before the world was tribalized and invested by the collateral damage or fall-out from the Tower of Babel, God assigned to the mythical forefather of all, ‘man’ or Adam, the faculty to name the world, though God himself had exercised this right in naming the light (or) day (yom) and the darkness (hôshek) night(layĕlāh) (Gen.1.5) There was only one name for each thing, and in later European thought the primordial language employed in this taxonomy was to be called ‘the Adamic vernacular’[5]. The thesis was that the pristine jargon employed by Adam, being pre-Babelic, represented the true name for every object: every thing had a proper name intrinsic to its nature. The Greeks, as we see in Plato’s Cratylus, were much prepossessed by the philosophical crux of the correctness of names (ὀρθότης τῶν ὀνομάτων): did names have an intrinsic relation to, or represent, things, or was the link arbitrary.[6]. The Confucian school’s doctrine of the Rectification of names (zhèngmíng: 正名). In the Bible itself the Hebrew text is full of the magic of words, of the power of words themselves to alter reality, a belief testified to in Isaiah:
'So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please.'[7]
Modernity, especially after Ferdinand Saussure (1916), has opted, correctly, for the latter position, and disposed of the magical force of naming. But nationalism, another product of modernity, reintroduced it, via the backdoor, in a new sense. Naming was an act of assertive territorial control, of defining ethnic rights over land, especially as Anthony Smith argues, ethnie are defined also by attachment to a specific geophysical reality, the ‘homeland’ that defines in good part their identity [8]). Since national identities are a political construct, the inculcation of a uniform language, and the use of its lexicon to define or redefine the landscape, are crucial instruments in forging a national sense of common tradition. Nationalism demanded toponymic unison, and linguistic conformity.
John Gaddis, glossing James Scott’s recent book on North Dakota roads and maps, remarks on maps that they reflect
‘what states try to do to those portions of the earth’s surface they hope to control, and to the people who live upon them. For it’s only by making territories and societies legible – by which he means measurable and hence manipulable – that governments can impose and maintain their authority. “These state simplifications,” he writes, are “like abridged maps.” They don’t replicate what’s actually there, but “when allied with state power, (they) enable much of the reality they (depict) to be remade.” [9]
The idea of a nation as a territorial unit speaking one language over that territory is a parlously modern ideology, one engineered by nation-builders into a plausible if specious semblance of commonsense. As Massimo d’Azeglio is said to have remarked at the dawn of the Italian Risorgimento, ‘we have made Italy: our task now is to make Italians’[10], 95% of whom could neither read, write and nor often even speak ‘Italian’.
Imperialism, venturing into terra incognita to appropriate foreign land and incorporate it into an empire, went side by side with nationalism, which was a form of internal colonization over, and homogenization of, the disparate cultures that made up an historically defined territory. For the natives, their indigenous naming is ‘essentially a process of asserting ownership and control of place and landscape’[11]
Daphne Kutzner, in her analysis of the role of Empire in classic children’s fiction, looks at the question from the perspective of the intrusive Empire and its refraction of imperial renaming as reflected in popular books, notes that
‘Naming a place gives the namer power over it, or at least the illusion of power and control. Colonial powers literally transform a landscape once they rename it and begin reshaping it.’ [12]
Terra incognita is the foreigner’s name for an ostensibly empty landscape which, had they taken the trouble to learn the local languages, would have revealed itself to be replete from every rocky nook to crannied gulley with ancient toponyms. The tendency was one of erasure, and, as with introduced fauna and flora [13], the landscape was consistently remade as it was renamed to familiarize the alien by rendering it recognizable, a variation on the landscape settlers came from. The new mapping, as often as not, represent as much the settler’s mentality, as the queerly new features of the foreign landscape under toponymic domestication.[14]
Australia is somewhat the extraordinary exception, and broke with the gusto for imperial nomenclature. There, following the pattern set by the earlier land surveyor Thomas Mitchell and his assistant Philip Elliott that “the natives can furnish you with names for every flat and almost every hill” (1828), native names were adopted in a standarized English form for both euphony and their characteristic relation to the landscape, and indeed a resolution was passed as early as 1884 which established the priority of native names in international usage.[15]
Often imperialism and nationalism go hand in hand. Napoleon’s troops, in 1796, could hardly communicate with each other, such were the grammatical, semantic and syntactical rifts between the various provincial patois at the time. By 1814, Napoleon had formed a European empire, and millions of provincials spoke the one, uniform language of the French state’s army. When two nations, or ethnie, occupy the same territory, the historical victor’s toponymic choices, dictated by the victor’s native language, and as articulated in bureaucratic documents and maps, usually determines what names are to be used. However, the presence of two distinct ethnie on the same national soil creates fissiparous tensions in nomenclature. Speaking of French and British conflict in Canada over areas, Susan Drummond, remarks that, 'Symbolic appropriation of a territory is a critical index of control’, and notes that, as late as 1962, the Québec cartographer Brochu, invoked the political dimension of place names as important, in the conflict with the majoritarian English heritage of Canada over the naming of the northern Inuit lands. [16]
Again, in another familiar example, Alfonso Pérez-Agote notes that Spain has its Basque Autonomous region, Euskadi. But the original force of that name covers an area beyond the administrative and territorial units of Spain, and Basque nationalists evoke its symbolic territory, comprising also the Basque area of Navarre in France. Euskadi has, on one level, within Spanish administrative discourse, a ‘territorial political objectification’, and on another level, in Basque nationalism, a ‘non-administratively objectified’ territory extending into a neighbouring country.[17]. The analogy with Israeli and Palestinian nationalism is close. In Israeli discourse, Israel or Eretz Israel can denote Israel and its outriding West Bank, while Palestine, which is the favoured term of West Bank Arabs for the land they inhabit, also can refer to the whole neighbouring territory of Israel as well.
The anomaly, in comparative terms, is that history has settled the question, whatever local separatist nationalisms, revanchist or irredentist, may claim, except for such places as ‘Palestine’. For there, while Israel is a constituted state, it emerged the victor, manu militari in a conflict that gave it control over a contiguous land, but has no recognized legal right, since that land is defined as and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory. Acts of unilateral annexation, the extension of administrative structures, settlements, toponymic remapping, and widescale expropriation of land in Palestinian title, is not only not recognized, but judged ‘illegal’ by the highest international bodies of law. All major encyclopedias (Encyclopædia Britannica, Encarta etc.,), except Wiki, maintain a strict neutrality, and, in recognition of the fraught difficulties, adopt the neutral toponymic convention of ‘(northern/southern) West Bank’ in order to avoid lending their prestige to the partisan politics of the parties in this regional conflict.
(iii)The specific instance of Palestine and the West Bank
When the British wrested control over Palestine from the Ottomans in the First World War, and established themselves there to administer the region, Selwyn Troen notes that, 'naming also became part of the contest for asserting control over Palestine'.[18]. As early as 1920 two Zionists advising the British Mandatory authority on everything regarding the assignment of Hebrew names, fought hard for the restoration of Hebraic toponymy, and when, with such places as Nablus, or indeed 'Palestine' itself, were given non-Hebrew names, they protested at the designations as evidence of discrimination against Jews. The point is made by the Israeli historian and cartographer Meron Benvenisti:-
'When the Geographical Committee for Names, which operated under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society (the only body authorized to assign names throughout the British Empire, decided to call the Mandatory geopolitical entity “Palestine” and the city whose biblical name was Shechem, “Nablus” these Jewish advisers saw this as an act of anti-Jewish discrimination, and a searing defeat for Zionism.'[19]
One pauses to reflect. We are being accused here of 'anti-Jewish/Israeli discrimination' for refusing to insert Israeli toponyms into the West Bank. Nothing is said of the logic of this POV-pushing, i.e. that a Palestinian reader might well regard a Wiki endorsement of suc h foreign nomenclature as a 'searing defeat', and adduce it as proof of 'anti-Palestinian discrimination' both by Zionist editors, and Wikipedia itself.
Since Zionism took root, and especially since Israel was founded, the making of a people, living in a defined territorial unit and speaking one language, has followed the universal pattern of modernity. The landscape, full of Arabic words, had to be renamed, often according to Biblical terminology, but, more often, by the invention of Biblical-sounding names. To do this, a good part of the 10,000 odd Arabic toponyms collected by Herbert Kitchener, T. E. Lawrence and others in surveying that part of the Middle East had to be cancelled, and replaced with Israeli/Hebrew terms, to remake the landscape and its topographic songlines [20] resonate with historical depth. Hebrew is a ‘sacred tongue’ (Leshon HaQodesh:לשון הקודש), the Bible describes the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, and the dispossession of its indigenous peoples, who were not part of the chosen: the pattern is repeated in modern times, down to the renaming. The revival of Hebrew, with its potent shibboleths, understandably exercises a powerful hold over the new culture of the country.
The problem is, as Steven Runciman pointed out in the mid-sixties, that the part assigned to Israel by the UN deliberation of 1947 was the western, non-Biblical part, whilst the part assigned to a future Palestinian state, what we now call the West Bank, is precisely the area most infused with Biblical associations cherished by the Jewish people, with sites and names redolent of the founding myths and realities of their ancient forefathers. Israelis, in their secular land, mostly dwell where the Philistines dwelt. The Palestinians dwell where the ancient Jewish tribes once settled. The tensions simmer between the secular Israel, which thrives in its new Mediterranean world, and the religiously-identified Israel that aspires to return to a geophysical space where origins and the present, the sacred nomenclature of the Bible and the modern world of Jewish life, might at least, once more overlap, in an ‘Adamic’ harmony congruent with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
(iv)The Negev Precedent With the foundation of Israel, and in the aftermath of the 1948 war, the vast Negev and part of the Arava were captured, and Ben Gurion duly established a Negev Names Committee to ‘hebraize’ the landscape’s features, its mountains, valleys and springs. The area already had a rich Arab toponymy, and some on the committee thought these terms might be preserved as a ‘democratic gesture towards the Arab population of the new state.’ It was not to be. The nomadic Bedouin who dwelt throughout the area were rounded up and expelled by force. They had terms for everything, but with their uprooting and displacement, Benvenisti notes, ‘an entire world, as portrayed in their toponomastic traditions, died.' [21] Ben Gurion wrote to the committee setting forth his view that:-
We are obliged to remove the Arabic names for reasons of state. Just as we do not recognize the Arabs’ political proprietorship of the land, so also we do not recognize their spiritual proprietorship and their names.[22]
Political pressure and ‘the influence of patriotic arguments’ prevailed over those who, like S.Yeibin, thought the erasure of Arab names, many of which might preserve an archaic Hebrew origin. Yeibin thought this a disaster:-
‘With a clap of the hand they were wiping out an entire cultural heritage that must certainly conceal within it elements of the Israeli-Jewish heritage as well. The researchers did indeed endeavour to identify all those names that had a link to ancient Hebrew ones in an attempt “to redeem, as far as possible, names from the days of yore.” [23]<
Any Arabic toponym in short only interested the topographers in so far as it might provide a clue to reconstructing the hypothetical Hebraic original that might lie behind it. This consideration, however, often created a mess of concocted pseudo-traditional names. The hebraization of such Arabic toponyms did not restore the historic past, but invented a mythical landscape, resonant with traditionalist associations, that had, however, no roots in Jewish tradition. The most striking geologic formation in the Negev, Wadi Rumman was rewritten as if that word disguised an ancient Hebrew Ram ('elevated'), whereas the Arabic term it was calqued from actually meant 'Pomegranate Arroyo', for example.[24]
Reflecting on Benvenisti’s account in his larger study of language conflict in the Middle east, the Palestinian expatriate scholar Yasir Suleiman makes remarks that,
’By assigning Hebrew names anew to places on the map, the committee was therefore ‘redeeming’ these places from the corrupt and ‘alien’ Arabic names that they have acquired over the centuries’
and likens this process of linguistic erasure of Arabic and the reconstitution of Hebrew metaphorically to the nakba:-
‘The cartographic cleansing of the Negev map of Arabic place names and their replacement by Hebrew names is an enactment of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians from their homeland’ [25]
The record is therefore one of a linguistic cleansing of Palestine of any trace of its long Arabic history, and, as we shall see, an attempt to remodel Arabic usage in the territories Israel conquered and controls, to conform with Hebrew. Toponyms can only retain some semblance of an Arabic form, if that form is suspected to camouflage, in turn, an original Hebraic name. Adapting the reborn Hebrew[26] language to the alien realities of the Palestinian landscape, the obvious problem was that the nomenclature for much of the flora and fauna, not to speak of the landscape itself, was infused with the very language, Arabic, a revarnished Hebrew had to compete with. As early as 1910 Jacob Fichman, a member of the Language Council, stated that Hebrew:
‘will not digest the new names of plants, especially those which have been taken from the Arabic language’ and that these borrowed names ‘will always be like atrophied limbs’ for ‘despite the fact that the Arabic language is our sister language in the family of Semitic languages, it has no foundation in our |psyche ’[27]
Hebrew was thus to be programmatically sealed off from Arabic, to prevent atrophisation, and cultivate purism by means of a fake Biblical antiquarianism. Theodor Adorno, writing in the melancholic aftermath of the Holocaust on the effects of cultural purism, once remarked on the purging of foreign words from German undertaken by nationalists intent restoring an ideal of cultural authenticity. He saw this as part of the pathology of nationalism in Germany. Foreign words were treated as if they were 'the Jews of language' (Fremdwörter sind die Juden der Sprache)[28]. In expunging the landscape and the human world of Palestine of its Arabic language, of landscape and culture, Zionism likewise treated Arabic as German or French linguistic purists treated loan-words in their own languages, or, later, actual Jews in their midst, as foreign bodies to be expelled, or expunged if a proper 'foundation for an authentically Jewish psyche' were to be successfully engineered. One would call this ironic, were it not so tragically melancholic in its unintended resonances.
(v)The West Bank. History and Naming The relationship between demographic displacement and the loss of one's landscape through the erasure of its traditional placenames in Palestine has been remarked on by Paul Diehl.
‘The exclusive attachment to territory is reflected in the naming and renaming of places and locations in accordance with the historic and religious sites associated with the dominant political group. Not only did the outflow of Palestinian refugees bring about a change in the Jewish-Arab demographic rations, it brought about the replacement of an Arab-Palestinian landscape with a Jewish-Israeli landscape. The names of abandoned villages disappeared from the map and were replaced with alternative Hebrew names . . Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank have taken on biblical names associated with the specific sites as a means of expressing the Jewish priority in these places and the exclusive nature of the territorial attachment. Modern Israeli and Palestinian maps of Israel/Palestine possess the same outer borders, but the semantic content of the name is completely different.. The means by which new landscapes are created to replace or obliterate former landscapes is a good example of the way in which metaphysical and symbolic attachment to territory is translated into concrete realities on the ground.’ [29]
In 1950, when King Abdullah, of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, unilaterally annexed the territory he had conquered in 1948, he changed the name of his country to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which incorporated the remaining fragment of Palestine as aḍ-Ḍiffä l-Ġarbīyä, or 'the West Bank' of that kingdom. The usage is still current in German (Westjordanland). Though only Britain recognized his annexation, the word itself found ready acceptance in, and was not, 'forced on', the international community, as Binyamin Netanyahu argued. [30]
In 1967, Israel conquered what the world knew as ‘The West Bank’, the Biblical heartland, and a decree calling it ‘Judea and Samaria’ was issued by the Israeli military on December 17 that year with the explicit definition that it would be identical in meaning for all purposes to the West Bank region[31] to replace the interim terms 'Occupied Territories' (ha-shetahim ha-kevushim), and ‘the Administered Territories’ (ha-shetahim ha-muhzakim) in use since the immediate aftermath of the June war.[32] The term 'Judea and Samaria' however was rarely used until Likud took power[33]. The Labour Government never enacted a settlement policy, though Gush Emunim, an extremist settler ground with a fundamentalist ideology, pressed settlement, and propagated the terminology ‘Judea and Samaria’. When the Likud party, the maximalist, expansionist party with strong ties to both religious and ultra-Zionist groups and traditions, was elected in 1977, it imposed Samaria and Judea as the vox propria in modern Hebrew on the mass media, expressly forbidding the use of the international term West Bank[34][35]. Notably, the government's imposing of these terms on Israeli usage was seen as a prerequisite for an envisioned settlement policy, since accepting the terms would predispose the public to accepting the policy.[36]
Gideon Aran describes the achievement:
‘The importance of changing names in the process of conquering territory is well known. Assimilation of the name “Judea and Samaria” in normal and official language, as well as in jargon, attests to G(ush)E(numin)’s political and cultural achievements.' [37]
The Camp David Accords negotiations of and the final agreement, in 1979, only underline how great was the linguistic rift between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's position and the American government intent on brokering an agreement.
‘Begin consistently proved to be the most extreme member of his delegation, insisting on seemingly innocent terms such as “autonomy” as opposed to “self rule,” on the labelling of the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria” in the Hebrew text, and on the use of the phrase “undivided Jerusalem.'[38]
A huge amount of wrangling between the American negotiators and Begin revolved around this term.
‘for what must have been the tenth time, he (Begin) objected to the term West Bank, giving a lesson to the president on the geographic and historical appropriateness of the term and the importance of using the words Judea and Samaria.’ [39]
Begin refused to back down from his ‘rock-hard’ intransigence on using ‘Judea and Samaria’ and at the Camp David signing ceremony, (March 26,1979) several interpretive notes were required to be added as annexes to the basic documents, one specifically dealing with the West Bank, which President Carter annotated with his own hand with the words:
‘I have been informed that the expression ‘West Bank’ is understood by the Government of Israel to mean ‘Judea and Samaria’. [40]
An ambitious programme of colonising settlement, toponomastic Hebraisation and cultural Judaization was undertaken, and indigenous Palestinians were shifted off their land, in a repetition of the Negev programme, which forms the precedent. The programme took wing especially after the unprovoked[41]invasion of Lebanon in 1982, whose key political objectives included ousting the refugee Palestinian resistance in the para-state[42] on Israel’s northern flank from Lebanon, where the PLO projected a 'state in waiting' image that threatened Israel’s plans for long-term control over the West Bank. The war was, the head of the IDF said at the time, ‘part of the struggle over the Land of Israel[43]. It aimed to further the isolation of Palestinians on the West Bank by depriving them of close support, halt the rise to political respectability of the PLO, which embodied Palestinian nationalist aspirations, and deprive that body of its claims to be a political partner in the peace process for Israel’s normalization of its relations with the outside world. [44] One calculation, a minority view entertained by both Ariel Sharon and Raphael Eytan, however, was that, expelled from Lebanon, the PLO would be forced to return to Jordan, topple king Hussein, and establish a Palestinian state there to satisfy Palestinian national ambitions that Israel would thwart on the West Bank. [45]
Changing the realities of occupied territory by the manipulation of language, Hebrew, Arabic, and in controllable sources like the global Wikipedia, became a programmatic goal. The settlers were in fact 'colonists' in the old sense, but Israeli English usage has here prevailed in the politics of the culture wars to determine how the international community perceives the dynamics of that area. The corresponding Hebrew usage is complex (see Israeli Settlements), but continuity with the biblical setlement of Eretz Yisrael is evoked by referring to Jewish settlers as mitnahalim. The root *n-h-l directly evokes a passage in the Book of Numbers[46] where each tribe is assigned its portion on entering Canaan, or the Land of Israel, particularly as ' in the pledge by the tribes of Gad and Reuben that they will fight on the west side of the Jordan river to help the other tribes take possession of their assigned portions'[47] Settlers, qua, mitnahalim are not colonizing anybody's land, in this usage: they are simply taking up their 'assigned portions' as those were marked out by God to the Chosen People.
Rashid Khalidi has remarked how the Israeli authorities themselves try to engineer the way Palestinians think in Arabic by tampering with that language's natural idiom in the Arabic broadcasts they authorize. Over Israeli Arabic channels, one does not hear Jerusalem referred to, as it is customarily in Arabic, and by Palestinians, as Bayt al-Maqdis ('The House of Sanctity') or Al Quds al-Sharif ('The Noble Holy Place'). Arabic usage as sanctioned by Israel speaks rather of Urshalim ('Jerusalem') or Urshalim/al-Quds ('Jerusalem Al-Quds'). The purpose is to diffuse a variety of Arabic names for places that are calques on the Hebrew terms chosen for the area.[48].
This goes right through the bureaucratic language, a form of linguistic colonization that reinforces the physical occupation of the west Bank by cultural re-engineering. A new travel permit was imposed on the colonized Palestinians in the West Bank in 2002, and required of any of them wishing to travel in that area. This was issued, printed and released by Israeli authorities who call it in Arabic Tasrih tanaqul khas fi al-hawajiz al-dakhiliyya fi mantaqat yahuda wa al-samara. ('Special Travel Permit for the Internal Checkpioints in the Area of Judea and Samaria.'). Here, Palestinians who must travel in the West Bank, for them 'Filastin', are required to obtain a document which requires that area to be referred to by the settler term, 'Judea and Samaria'. It is this form of Arabic which they are expected to use in negotiating their way with Israeli authorities through checkpoints. But West Bank Palestinians simply abbreviate it and refer to their tasrih dakhili (Checkpoint permit), [49], thereby eluding the settler term imposed on them.
A proposal is now being made to apply the principle of Hebraization, as of 2009, even to those places within Israel which the world designates by traditional toponyms, such as Jerusalem (Yerushalayim) Nazareth (Natzrat) and Jaffa (Yafo).[50][51]
(vi) Analysis of Ynhockey's suggestions
‘Mapmaking was one of the specialized intellectual weapons by which power could be gained, administered, given legitimacy and codified’ [52]
'Mapmaking is not, however, solely an instrument of war; it is an activity of supreme political significance – a means of providing a basis for the mapmaker’s claims and for his social and symbolic values, while cloaking them in a guise of “scientific objectivity.” Maps are generally judged in terms of their “accuracy”, that is, the degree to which they succeed in reflecting and depicting the morphological landscape and its “man-made” covering But maps portray a fictitious reality that differs from other sorts of printed matter only in form.'[53]
After 1967 ‘Cartographers . .had many options, which tended to reveal their political proclivities. Those who were sympathetic to Israel labelled the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai as “administered territories” and used the phrase “Judea and Samaria” for Jordan’s former West Bank. They also included all of Jerusalem within Israeli territory,. Mapmakers who were ideologically neutral generally referred to “occupied territory” and maintained the term “West Bank”. . . In the post-1993 period a Palestinian Authority has been established in the West Bank and Gaza, yet there is no actual independent state of Palestine. Most international maps have stayed with the terms “West Bank” and “Gaza” but maps published by the Palestinian Authority describe these areas as “Palestine.” Furthermore, Palestinian Authority maps usually leave out Israel and assign its territory to “Palestine,” with the added designation that it is “occupied territory.”Arthur Jay Klinghoffer, Harvey Sicherman, The power of projections: : how maps reflect global politics and history, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 pp.37-8
We are dealing with a defined territory and its naming. User:Ynhockey would make tidy distinctions, define the bound geographical territory (CIA Factbook) as just a political reality, and use Judea and Samaria for all other contexts. In his own work on Wiki, much of it admirable, we find many maps. Examine the following map he authored and uploaded, and which is employed on the Battle of Karameh
The central colour, a washed acquamarine tint, allows one to highlight the field of movement in the battle, and blurs the neat territorial division between the West Bank, and Jordan. But note that, in a wholly unnecessary manner, Israel is stamped in large bold characters and made to overlay the West Bank, which is placed diminutively in parentheses. Willy-nilly, the impression is that the West Bank is some territorial hypothesis or province within Israel. Whether Ynhockey meant to give the reader this impression or not is immaterial. Maps, as one source already quoted noted, reflect the cognitive bias of the mapmaker as much as an interpretation of a landscape, and here the bias is that the West Bank is under Israel, behind Israeli lines, a subset of that state. It is a fine example of what many cartographers and historians of cartography argue: the making of maps, and toponymic nomenclature in them, serves several purposes, to clarify, as here, a battle landscape, for example, but also to impose or assert power, or claims, or blur facts. Objectively, User:Ynhockey has loaded wiki with a map that cogs our perceptions, tilting them to an annexationist assumption. Indeed, unlike the Israeli government so far, his map actually looks like it has the West Bank annexed.
- ^ T.G.H.Strehlow, Songs of Central Australia,Angus & Robertson, Sydney 1971 p.126; cited by Barry Hill, Broken Song: T.G.H.Strehlow and Aboriginal Possession, Knopf, 2002 pp.436f.
- ^ Genesis, ch.2, verses 19-20, with apologies for my transcription
- ^ For a fascinating study on both the figure of Adam in Islamic tradition, and on commentaries on this particular text specifically, see M.J.Kister, ‘Ādam: A Study of Some Legends in Tafsīr and Hadīt Literature,’ in Joel L. Kraemer (ed.) Israel Oriental Studies, Volume XIII, BRILL, 1993 pp.112-174, p.140
- ^ Thomas Pynchon, Mason & Dixon, Jonathan Cape, London 1997, pp.8,615
- ^ George Steiner, After Babel, Oxford University Press 1975 p.58
- ^ Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms,, vol.1, tr.Ralph Manheim, Yale UP 1955 pp.119ff.,p.122
- ^ Isaiah 5:11. For this and other passages, see S.J.Tambiah ’s 1968 Malinowsky lecture, "The Magical Power of Words," (the ancient Egyptians, the Semites and Sumerians all believed that “the world and its objects were created by the word of God; and the Greek doctrine of logos postulated that the soul or essence of things resided in their names (pp.182-3). My attention was drawn to this particular essay by Tambiah by Brian Vickers, Occult and scientific mentalities in the Renaissance, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p.96
- ^ Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origin of Nations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1986 passim
- ^ John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, Oxford University Press US, 2004, p.131
- ^ Abbiamo fatto l'Italia. Ora si tratta di fare gli Italiani
- ^ Regis Stella, Imagining the Other: The Representation of the Papua New Guinean Subject, University Of Hawaiʻi Press, 2007 p.169 gives many Papuan examples. Compare his remark elsewhere in the same book, ‘In indigenous cultures . .(t)he most important means of taking control of the landscape is by naming, Naming provides the equivalent of a title deed, imbues power and identity to that which is named, gives the named place a presence, confers a reality, and allows it to be known.’ Ibid pp. 40-41
- ^ M. Daphne Kutzer, Empire's Children:Empire and Imperialism in Classic British Children's Books, Routledge, 2000 p.120
- ^ Alfred W. Crosby, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, Cambridge University Press, 1986
- ^ ‘Maps are a kind of language, or social product which act as mediators between an inner mental world and an outer physical world. But they are, perhaps first and foremost, guides to the mind-set which produced them. They are, in this sense, less a representation of part of the earth’s surface than a representation of the system of cognitive mapping which produced them,’ N.Penn, “Mapping the Cape: John Barrow and the First British Occupation of the Colony, 1794-1803.” in Pretexts 4 (2) Summer 1993, pp.20-43 p.23
- ^ John Atchison, ‘Naming Outback Australia,’ in Actes du XVI Congrès international des sciences onomastiques, Québec, Université Laval, 16-22 August 1987, Presses Université Laval, 1987 : pp.151-162 p.154-5
- ^ Susan Gay Drummond, Incorporating the Familiar, McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 1997 p.32 .
- ^ Alfonso Pérez-Agote, The Social Roots of Basque Nationalism, University of Nevada Press, 2006 p.xx
- ^ Selwyn Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: Dreams, Designs, and Realities in a Century of Jewish Settlement, Yale University Press, 2003 p.152
- ^ Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape:The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2000 pp.12-13 cf.'Suffused with the sense that “it is impossible for a present-day Hebrew map not to identify by name the places of Hebrew settlement mentioned in the Bible and in post-biblical Hebrew literature,” they set about identifying these sites and putting them on “Hebrew maps,” which they placed opposite the official Mandatory maps.’
- ^ Cf.Bruce Chatwin, The Songlines, Jonathan Cape, London 1987
- ^ Benvenisti, ibid, p.19
- ^ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, op.cit.p.14. The Arabic names were also found ‘morose’ and ‘offensive’ . As one member put it: ‘Many of the names are offensive in their gloomy and morose meanings, which reflect the powerlessness of the nomads and their self-denigration in the face of the harshness of nature’ (ibid.p.17). On the committee see also his memoir, Meron Benvenisti, Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life, tr. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta, University of California Press, 2007 p.72.
- ^ Benvenisti, ibid. p.17, p.18
- ^ ‘The name of the Ramon Crater, for example, perhaps the most dramatic geological formation in the Negev, “is derived from the Hebrew adjective ram (meaning elevated), “states an Israeli guidebook. The fact that its name in Arabic was Wadi Rumman (Pomegranate Arroyo), . . was not considered worthy of mention’ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid. p.19
- ^ Yasir Suleiman, A War of Words: Language and Conflict in the Middle East, Cambridge University Press, 2004 p.161, p.162.
- ^ cf.Shalom Spiegel, Hebrew Reborn,, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia 1930, Meridian Book reprint 1962. Shalom Spiegel was Sam Spiegel's more distinguished and erudite brother.
- ^ Yasir Suleiman, A War of Words, ibid p.140
- ^ Theodor Adorno, Minima moralia: Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben (1951), in Rolf Tiedemann (ed.) Gesammelte Schriften, Bd.4, Suhrkamp, 1980 p.123
- ^ Paul Francis Diehl, A Road Map to War, Vanderbilt University Press, 1999, pp.15-16.
- ^ 'The term West Bank was forced onto the international lexicon only after Jordan conquered the territory in 1948'. Binyamin Netanyahu, A Durable Peace: Israel and Its Place Among the Nations, Warner Books, (1993) 2000 p.20. Netanyahu's dislike of the term (and his faulty memory for dates), is mirrored by the Palestinian poet, Mourid Barghouti, evidence if ever of the neutrality of the term: cf.‘I did not realize what it meant to be a refugee until I became one myself. When the Israeli army occupied Deir Ghassanah and the whole eastern part of Palestine in 1967, the news bulletins began to speak of the occupation of the Israeli defense forces of the West Bank. The pollution of language is no more obvious than when concocting this term: West Bank. West of what? Bank of what? The reference here is to the west bank of the River Jordan, not to historical Palestine. If the reference were to Palestine they would have used the term eastern parts of Palestine. The west bank of the river is a geographical location, not a country, not a homeland. The battle for language becomes the battle for the land. The destruction of one leads to the destruction of the other. When Palestine disappears as a word, it disappears as a state, as a country and as a homeland. The name of Palestine itself had to vanish. . .The Israeli leaders, practicing their conviction that the whole land of Palestine belongs to them would concretize the myth and give my country yet another biblical name: Judea and Samaria, and give our villages and towns and cities Hebrew names. But call it the West Bank or call its Judea and Samaria, the fact remains that these territories are occupied. No problem! The Israeli governments, whether right or left or a combination of both, would simply drop the term occupied and say the Territories! Brilliant! I am a Palestinian, but my homeland is the Territories! What is happening here? By a single word they redefine an entire nation and delete history.’ Mourid Barghouti, 'The Servants of War and their Language', in International parliament of Writers, Autodafe, Seven Stories Press, 2003 pp.139-147 pp140-1
- ^ Emma Playfair, International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories: Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Oxford University Press, 1992 p. 41.
- ^ Ran HaCohen, 'Influence of the Middle East Peace Process on the Hebrew Language' (1992), reprinted in Michael G. Clyne (ed.), Undoing and Redoing Corpus Planning, Walter de Gruyter, 1997, pp.385-414, p.397.
- ^ Shlomo Gazit, Trapped Fools: Thirty Years of Israeli Policy in the Territories, Routledge, 2003 p. 162
- ^ 'The terms “occupied territory” or “West Bank” were forbidden in news reports.'Ian S. Lustick, 'The Riddle of Nationalism: The Dialectic of Religion and Nationalism in the Middle East', Logos, Vol.1, No.3, Summer 2002 pp.18-44, p. 39
- ^ 'Begin was happy to castigate the media and the intelligentsia for their views, real and imaginary, and their use of politically incorrect language. Israeli television was now instructed to use “Judea and Samaria’ for the administered territories, annexation became ‘incorporation’ and the Green Line suddenly disappeared from maps of Israel and the West Bank'. Colin Shindler, A History of Modern Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2008 p.174
- ^ 'The successful gaining of the popular acceptance of these terms was a prelude to gaining popular acceptance of the government’s settlement policies'.Myron J. Aronoff, Israeli Visions and Divisions: Cultural Change and Political Conflict, Transaction Publishers, 1991. p. 10.
- ^ Gideon Aran, 'Jewish Zionist Fundamentalism: The Block of the Faithful in Israel (Gush Enumin),', in American Academy of Arts and Sciences, University of Chicago Press, 1994 pp.265-344, p.291, p.337
- ^ Zeev Maoz, Defending the Holy Land: a critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy, University of Michigan Press, 2006 p.441
- ^ William B. Quandt, Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967, Brookings Institution Press, 2001, rev.ed.2001 p.130
- ^ William B.Quandt, Peace process, ibid. p.134. This was then accompanied by a formal note to Begin (September 22,1978), it which it was registered that ‘(A) In each paragraph of the Agreed Framework Document the expressions “Palestinians” or “Palestinian People” are being and will be construed and understood by you as “Palestinian Arabs”. (B)In each paragraph in which the expression “West Bank” appears, it is being, and will be, understood by the Government of Israel as Judea and Samaria.’ William B. Quandt, Camp David: peacemaking and politics, Brookings Institution Press, 1986 p.387
- ^ Howard Jones, Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897,Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd.ed. 2001 p.469
- ^ Rex Brynen, Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon, Westview Press, Boulder, 1990 p.2
- ^ James Ron, Frontiers and ghettos: state violence in Serbia and Israel, University of California Press, 2003 p.180. Decoded, the statement means, 'invading Lebanon secures the West Bank for Israel and thus achieves the Biblical borders set forth more or less in the Tanakh's account of the early kingdoms'
- ^ Eric J. Schmertz, Natalie Datlof, Alexej Ugrinsky, President Reagan and the world, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997 p.44.
- ^ See Uri Bar-Joseph, Israel's National Security Towards the 21st Century, Routledge, 2001 p.185
- ^ Numbers, 32:18
- ^ David C. Jacobson, Does David still play before you? Israeli poetry and the Bible, Wayne State University Press, 1997 p.50
- ^ Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity: The construction of modern national consciousness, Columbia University Press, 1998 p.14
- ^ Nigel Craig Parsons,The Politics of the Palestinian Authority: From Oslo to Al-Aqsa, Routledge, 2005 p.299
- ^ Jonathan Cook, Israeli Road Signs, Counterpunch 17-19, July 2009
- ^ Nir Hasson, Give Arab train stations Hebrew names, says Israeli linguist, Haaretz 28/12/2009
- ^ John Brian Harley, David Woodward, The History of Cartography: Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean, Humana Press, 1987 p.506, cited Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid.p.13
- ^ Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape, ibid. p.13
On the fraudulence or illiteracy of those who propose an alternative candidature for Shakespeare's works. A note for Wikipedians unfamiliar with the facts.
Each of the following historical notices, which, taken together, according to the core principles of historiography suffice abundantly to confirm, if ever doubted, the traditional attribution of Shakespeare's works to Shakespeare, must be finangled, talked round, cast under suspicion, subject to the hermeneutics of conspiratorial blindsiding, denied or ignored by those who propose the fringe lunatic proposition that someone else, unknown to Shakespeare or his contemporaries, wrote the works contained in the First Folio. Uniquely, Shakespeare's evidentiary record is subject to a radical Pyrrhic scepticism that would deny the face value of the empirical documentary record. The challenge which the various and variegated proponents of the Shakespeare Authorship Question pose is not to Shakespeare's identity, which is secure, but to the fundamental principles of historical analysis, to historical writing itself. Were one to generalize the implicit working methods of these sceptics to the general field of documentary analysis, the discipline of history itself would be erased as an impossible undertaking, except as the quest for latent codes and ingenious signing ciphers, which however would subordinate the aesthetic thrust of great writing to an overriding neurotic tic of toying endlessly with cryptograms, just in case the author feared readers would believe, or disbelieve as the case may be, the evidence of the name on the frontispiece.[1] One seminal reason for the fact that their amateurish fumblings are ignored by mainstream scholarship is that they refuse to recognize (and thereby underwrite their incompetence as reliable commentators) how all history is written. No other writer or historical figure of distinction before modern times could survive the same pseudo-tests that have been devised by those enchanted by the afflatus of alternative candidature to attempt to undermine what the solid facts of the Elizabethan and Jacobean records attest. That the madness of methodless method is attached uniquely to him betrays one of the residual collateral consequences of the old cult of bardolatry, an inquisitive obsession with the identity and life of a poet about whom, as with most early writers and poets, little is known. To leaven out the bare record, therefore, one seizes on a better known contemporary and retrofits his biography to the works universally attributed to the otherwise little-known bard of Stratford, and by this antic ruse one fudges an impression that finally we know more about the author than the skimping austeries of history otherwise permit us to know. The result is farce, as with the Oxfordian candidate Edward de Vere, whose most recent biographer tells us that, among other things, this aristocrat, otherwise known for some stray scraps of limp to middling verse, (which, as thorough computerized testing has proven,[2] shares nothing with Shakespeare's style) was an 'egotist, thug, sodomite, atheist, vulture, traitor, murderer, rapist, pederast, adulterer, libeler, fop, playboy, truant, tax evader, drunkard, snob, spendthrift, deadbeat, cheat, blackmailer, malcontent, hypocrite, conspirator, and ingrate,'[3] all undoubtedly indispensable traits required to write the world otherwise written by the industrious middle-class gentleman, Shakespeare of Stratford, whom all of his contemporaries spoke of as endowed with an amiably sweet temper, natural wit and with a gift for rapid, fluent, mellifluous composition. Attachment to these theories belongs to the type of hysterical popular delusion surveyed by Charles Mackay in his path-finding essay Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds(1841), which by chance happened, with premonitory intelligence, to have been published just 4 years before Delia Bacon started off the hare of the first hypothesis of alternative authorship.
Witnesses to Shakespeare:
‘intelligent and knowledgeable bibliophiles contemporary with both the historical William Shakespeare and the historical 17th earl of Oxford (as well as the historical Christopher Marlowe and the historical Sir Francis Bacon), consistently attributed the canonical Shakespeare plays and poems to William Shakespeare, never to Oxford (or Marlowe or Bacon), even in the privacy of their personal libraries and notebooks.’ [4]
Group A.
(a)’The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus, & Adonis: but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of Hamlet', Prince of Denmarke, haue it in them, to please the wiser sort. ...
Harvey also refers to Shakespeare in a second note which runs:-
"Sir Edward Dier ... His Amaryllis, & Sir Walter Raleighs Cynthia," followed by Spenser, Constable, France, Watson, Daniel, Warner, Chapman, Silvester, Shakespeare, & the rest of owr florishing metricians.'
(a)’much ye same w{i}th y{a}t in Shakespeare.’
Alan Nelson comments:
Possibly it is indeed Buc's, and comparison is being made with Henry IV Part 2 (1600), which Henry V much resembles, particularly in its title-page, except that Henry IV Part 2 carries an attribution to William Shakespeare.
(b) In Buc’s personal copy of George a Greene (1599) we read an annotation dated sometime between 1599 and 1605, where the future Master of the Revels shows he inquired of two men of the theatre about the identity of the author, writing on the title page:
Written by ... a minister, who acted
the piners part in it himself. Teste W. Shakespeare (as W.Shakespeare has born witness (to me))
Ed. Juby saith that this play was made by Ro. Greene
In Alan Nelson’s words, the annotation proves that Buc consulted William Shakespeare, together with Edward Juby (of the Admiral’s Men) as reliable witnesses concerning theatrical events dating back to the Christmas season of 1593-94[5]
- (3) John Harington(?1561-1612), the Queen’s nephew and godson, in two lists of quarto plays in his possession in 1609 refers to
K. Leir of Shakspear.
King Leyr. W. Sh.
distinguishing it from the anonymous King Leire (1605), which he called "King Leire.: old." Furthermore, Nelson argues, that:’ Sir John Harington, in the privacy of his personal notebook (the Arundel-Harington manuscript), had no hesitation in naming Oxford as an author - but only of such poems as have been ascribed to him by Professor Steven May.’
- (4) Edward Alleyn, (1566-1626), Shakespeare’s fellow action, wrote in a list of books his own, that he possessed, ‘a book shaksper sonnetts 5d’
- (5) Humphrey Dyson(d. 1633), a notary with pervasive connections to people in the theatrical world of his day, was a book collector, and in his catalogue 6 quartos are listed, one being "Troilus and Cressida" whose title-page, after ‘Written by William Shakespeare’ he annotated in the following way
& printed amongest his workes.
Meaning he considered both Troilus and Cressida and the Folio to be Shakespeare’s works.
(a) regarding his London reading of Shakespeare’s plays in 1606 he registers that
'His recorded reading of Shakespeare is confined to 1606 (consisting in) Romeo and Iulieta Tragedie; loues labors lost comedie; the passionat pilgrime; The rape of lucrece, A midsommers nights Dreame comedie.’
(b) Drummond compiled a list of the books in his library, attributing both
"Venus & Adon." and "the rap of Lucrece" to Schaksp in 1611
(c) Books from his library preservd at Edinburgh University include two Shakespeare quartos: Love's Labors Lost (1598) and Romeo and Juliet (1599) , the latter of which, since the title page is anonymous, is annotated by Drummond as Shakespeare’s work.
Wil. Sha.
- (7) Robert Burton(1577-1640), who aside from being the author of The Anatomy of Melancholy, was an Oxford academic playwright, owned Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece (1600) and Venus and Adonis (1602), the latter of which, on the title-page, carries an ascription in a contemporary hand: "by Wil. Shakespeare."
- (8) John Rous (1574-1652), in a note on books given to the Library by Robert Burton in his Last Will and testament" contains the following two confirmatory annotations
Venus and Adonis by Wm Shakespear Lond. 1602
The rape of Lucrece by Wm Shakespear Imp{er}fet.’
As Alan Nelson comments, ‘Rous's entries testify to his acceptance of the received attribution of these separately-published poems’ [6]
Group B. Fellow writers, historians and poets, contemporary to him, who mention Shakespeare.
- (9) Robert Greene, 1592[7], or as 'posthumously ventriloquised' by Chettle (Katherine Duncan-Jones: see 10), alludes to Shakespeare, 'Yes, trust them not: for there is an upstart Crow[8], beautified with our feathers, that with his Tygers hart wrapt in a Players hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is, in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey.'[9]
- (10) Henry Chettle, 1592, in the epistle, 'To those Gentlemen his Quondam acquaintance'[10], appears to use Greene (above 9) to attack Shakespeare. Very quickly then, Chettle apologized for his remarks, in a second text.[11]
- (11) [[Richard Field|Richard Field (1561-1624), Shakespeare's fellow Stratfordian, now London printer, to whom he sold the rights of Venus and Adonis in 1593. It is to Barnfield that we owe the innovative spelling William Shakeʃpeare, for his fellow-Stratfordian's monicker,[12] Richard Stonley (1621-, Teller of the Exchequer under Queen Elizabeth who purchased a copy that year on June 12, entered the author's name in his diary as Shakspere.[13] Unlike modern sceptics, this clerkish Shakespeare contemporary could see no existential difference between Shakeʃpeare and Shakspere.
- (12)Richard Barnfield (1574-1620), a poet and Oxford graduate in the 1598 appendix of Poems in divers Humors to his The Encomium of Lady Pecunia (printeed by G.S. for John Jaggard) is to be found the earliest praise of Shakespeare.[14]
- And Shakespeare thou, whose hony-flowing Vaine,
- (Pleasing the World) thy praises doth obtaine.
- Whose Venus and whose Lucrece (sweete, and chaste)
- Thy name in fames immortall Booke haue plac't.
- Live euer you, at least in Fame liue euer:
- Well may the Bodye dye, but Fame dies neuer.
The last two lines, with the repeated Live euer probably account for the otherwise enigmatic dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets (1609). Certain poems by Barnfield in the 1598 volume were attributed to Shakespeare in the 1599 edition of The Passionate Pilgrim by William Jaggard.</ref>
- (13) The poet Thomas Edwards, in (1593?) 1595 alludes top Shakespeare in referring to Adon.[15]
- (14) William Covell, 1595
- (15) the author of Willobie his Avisa,1594
- (16) Francis Meres (1665-1647), distinguished between Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford in 1598 in his Palladis Tamia. Wits Treasury. Being the Second party of Wits Commonwealth.<Park Honan, ibid.pp.263</ref>
- (17) John Weever, 1599
- (18) the Cambridge author(s) of the Parnassus plays,1599,1601, in the third (The Second Part of the Return from Parnassus), Shakespeare's fellow actor William Kempe is made to say (a):
'Few of the university [men] pen plays well, they smell too much of that writer Ovid, and that writer Metamorphosis, and talk too much of Proserpina and Jupiter. Why, here's our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O that Ben Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up Horace giving the poets a pill, but our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him bewray his credit.'[16]
and (b)
- 'Let this duncified world esteem of Spencer and Chaucer . .I'll worship sweet Mr.Shakspeare, and to honour him will lay his Venus and Adonis under my pillow,'[17]
- (19) Robert Chester's Loves Martyr (1601) appears, along with some other, short, poems by several theatrical poets, such as Ben Jonson, George Chapman and John Marston. Among these there is one signed by 'William Shakespeare.' The untitled poem is known known as The Phoenix and the Turtle. The volume was printed by Shakespeare's fellow Stratfordian, Richard Field.[18]
- (20)John Manningham, a student at the Middle Temple, and a 'a friend of William Shakespeare's friend and "cousin" Thomas Greene, who was then finishing up his studies at the Middle Temple and would move to Stratford the following year,'[19] wrote down in his diary in March 1602, either having heard it from his room-matye Edward Curle, or from the Inner Temple gossip, William Towse, the anecdote on howthe anecdote on how Shakespeare intercepted Richard Burbage's assignation with a lady, so that William the Conqueror preceded Richard 111, the role Burbage was acting. [20]
- (10) Henry Chettle, who had criticized and apologized for doing so, Shakespeare in 1592 published his England's Mourning Garment in 1603 once more critical of Shakespeare for failing to mourn the Queen's death in verse.[21]
- (21) Anthony Scoloker, in the Epistle to the Reader of his Daiphantus, or the Passions of Loue, 1604, writes that 'It should be . .like Friendly Shakespeare's tragedies . . it should please all, like Prince Hamlet'.'[22]
- (22)John Poulett in a letter to his uncle Sir Francis Vincent from Paris, October 10, 1605, wrote:
'The danger in these sports makes them seem good, men seeme in them as actors in a Tragedye, and my thinkes I could play Shackesbeare in relating." [23]
- (23) William Camden, the leading historian of his day, 1605, refers to Shakespeare as one of the most 'pregnant wits' of his day. [24][25]
- (24) John Davies the poet in his The Scourge of Folly, called Shakespeare “our English Terence, . . making Shakespeare out to be a playwright, in 1610.[26]
- (25) John Webster in his The White Devil, mentions ‘the right happy and copious industry of Master Shake-speare in 1612.
- (26) Leonard Digges, raised 'in a village on the outskirts of Stratford-upon-Avon in the 1590s'[27]refers familiarly to Will Shakespeare as England’s Lope de Vega, in sonnet-writing,1613. [28]
- (27)Thomas Freeman wrote an 'epigram' in praise of Shakespeare, 1614.[29]
- (28) Francis Beaumont in a letter to Ben Jonson, 1615 ca.[30]
- (29) Edmund Howes (fl. 1602–1631) in an amended edition of John Stow (ca.1525-1605's Annales (1580), in 1615, published a list of 'Our moderne, and present excellent Poets', where poets are listed 'according to their priorities as neere I could,' Shakespeare figures 13th among the 27 listed "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman." Priorities here means 'social rank'.[31]
- (30) William Basse, poem on Shakespeare 1616-1623[32]
- (31) John Taylor, mentions Shakespeare who ‘did in art excell’, in his The Praise of Hemp-seed, 1620[33]
- (32) Ben Jonson (a)gossiped about him to William Drummond in 1619, (b)wrote a long eulogy of him as the 'Soul of the Age' and 'Swan of Avon', 1623, and (c)mentions him as someone he loved and honoured ‘this side Idolatry’ in his posthumous notes 1641
- (33) Hugh Holland wrote a laudatory poem in the First Folio,1623
- (26) Leonard Digges, stepson of Shakespeare’s Stratford friend Thomas Russell, and a poet, scholar and translator wrote a poem in his honour for the First Folio 1623[34], and (b) mentions him in a text of 1640.
- (34) James Mabbe, poet and scholar wrote a poem to his memory in the First Folio 1623
- (35) Michael Drayton, Shakespeare’s fellow poet and native of Warwickshire, mentions Shakespeare in his elegy to Henery Reynolds,1627
- (36)An anonymous hand wrote the following verses in the 1620s into a copy of the First Folio, and also transcribed there verses from the Stratford monument, meaning he visited and checked them.
- Here Shakespeare lies whom none but Death could Shake,
- And here shall lie till judgement all awake,
- When the last trumpet doth unclose his eyes,
The wittiest poet in the world shall rise. [35]
- (37) John Milton wrote a sonnet on the 'admirable dramatick poet W.Shakespeare', 1630[36]
- (38) In the The Banquet of Jests, in 1630, a work attributed by some to Archibald Armstrong there is a jest (Jest no. 259) entitled Stratford upon Avon which runs: "One travelling through Stratford upon Avon, a Towne most remarkeable for the birth of famous William Shakespeare, and walking in the Church to doe his devotion, espyed a thing there worthy observation ...." [37] [38]
- (39) (a)A Lieutenant Hammond on tour from Norwich, in his diary 1634 made the following entry after a visit to "Stratford Towne":
‘In that dayes trauell we came by Stratford vpon Auon, where in the Church in that Towne there are some Monuments ... Those worth obseruing and which wee tooke notice of were these...A neat Monument of that famous English Poet, Mr. William Shakespeere; who was borne heere.’[39][40]Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page).
- (40) Thomas Heywood, the most prolific dramatist, in his Hierarchie of the Blessed Angels, 1635 mentions Shakespeare
- (32) Ben Jonson in his Timber or Discoveries Made Upon Men and Matter, ('1641 but written before August 1637) wrote of Shakespeare's defects.[41]
- (41) William D’Avenant’s ode entitled "In Remembrance of Master William Shakespeare," appeared in 1638 in his Madagascar.
- (37) John Milton, in his L'Allegro (1632-1638) writes of: 'Sweetest Shakespeare, Fancy's child.'
- (42) James Mervyn writes of 'Beaumont, Fletcher, Shakespeare, and a train of glorious poets'[43]
- (43) Thomas Bancroft’s two poems mention Shakespeare, 1639[44][45]
- (44)Benson's re-edition of the Poems, in 1640 contains an anonymous "An Elegie on the death of that famous Writer and Actor, M. William Shakespeare."
- (45))Benson's 1640 edition also contains a poem by John Warren on 'lofty Shakespeare'[46]
- (26)Benson's edition also contains a longer poem on Shakespeare by Leonard Digges,'"Upon Master William Shakespeare, the Deceased Authour, and his Poems", dated to between 1630 and 1634.[47][48]
- (46)Richard Hunt, a Stratford district vicar who identified the Stratford man with the great London actor William Shakespeare.[49][50][51]
- (47)Sir John Suckling,(1609-1642) in his posthumous Fragmenta Aurea (1646) completed some lines of a draft he found of Lucrece, perhaps coming into his hands from his friend William Davenant, 1606-1668, Shakespeare's godson, completed them, and attributed them to Shakespeare, as is clear from the title 'A Supplement of an imperfect Copy of Verses of Mr.Wil.Shakespeare' [52][53]
- (48) Sir Richard Baker in his Chronicle of the Kings of England, in 1643 under ‘“The Raign of Queen Elizabeth,” refers to Shakespeare in a concluding of “Men of note in her time”,[54]
- (49)John Hales,(1584 - 1656) before 1656 is reported by John Dryden to have said,'that there was no subject of which any poet ever writ, but he would produce it much better treated of in Shakespeare'[55]
Group C. Fellow actors
- (4) Edward Alleyn, (1566-1626), Shakespeare’s fellow action, wrote in a list of books his own, that he possessed, ‘a book shaksper sonnetts 5d’
- (50) Henry Condell (1576?-1627)
- (51) John Heminges (1556-1630)
- (52) Augustine Phillips in his will, executed 5 May 1605, bequeathed, "to my Fellowe William Shakespeare a thirty shillings peece in gould,' as well as similar sums to other actors in the King's Men.[56]
Group D. Fellow Stratfordians who knew him in London
- (11) Richard Field, London printer and Shakespeare's fellow Stratfordian. Shakespeare makes a patent allusion to him in Cymbeline, Act IV.Sc.2,l.375, in the name Richard du Champ.[57]
- (53) Middle Temple attorney and Shakespeare's 'cousin',Thomas Greene, Shakespeare's Stratford houseguest for at least a year, wrote in his diary of having visited Shakespeare and his son-in-law John Hall (himself a Queens' College, Cambridge graduate in medicine), after the latter two had riddene down to the city, a day after himself, on 16th of Nov.1614. Stratford Shakespeare, against, is the London Shakespeare, and did not retire to the idiocy of rural life permanently, but kept travelling there.[58]
Group E. Noblemen.('Licensed players who enjoyed royal or noble patronage were categorised as high-ranking household servants'[59]
- (54) Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton was addressed by Shakespeare in two prefatory letters in the dedications appended to his two narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and Lucrece to 1593,1594. In the second volume, Lucrece, Shakespeare writes of 'the warrant of your honourable disposition' which has been interpreted as suggesting payment.[60]
- (55)Queen Elizabeth 1 'rewarded' Shakespeare, along with his fellow actors, all servants of The Lord Chamberlain's Men, with a payment of £13.6s.8p and £6.13s.4d from the Exchequer from the Royal Chamber Accounts for performing before her in 1594,[61], at Greenwich Palace on the 26th and 28 Dec. of that year, payment being made on March 15, 1595.Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page)..[62] - (57)Francis Manners, the 6th. Earl of Rutland, and a former friend of Southampton's, hired Shakespeare to devise for the royal tournament at Belvoir an impresa (emblem with motto), along with Richard Burbage to paint it, in 1613. Shakespeare would not have been engaged to write the motto unless his abilities as a creative writer were acknowledged by such men of the nobility.[63]
- (58/59)William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke and his brother Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke were hailed as patrons in the preface to the First Folio (1623). In the preface to the 1647 folio edition of Beaumont and Fletcher's works, reference is made to the Pembroke brothers as 'patrons to the flowing compositions of the then expired sweet swan of Avon, Shakespeare'.[64]
- ^ 'Which is, given the absence of evidence, the only form of 'evidence' readily adducible by the school of cryptic night. As Charles Nicholl writes recently:'Of course, there is another reason why coded messages loom so large in the quest to prove that someone else wrote the works of Shakespeare. They are required precisely because of the absence of any overt messages – otherwise known as historical evidence – to that effect. It is one of the many weaknesses of the anti-Stratfordian case that not a whisper is heard of any such suspicion until the mid-nineteenth century. In the crowded, intimate, gossipy world of the Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre, in the letters and diaries and epigrams of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, in the ad personam jibes that were flung about “like hailstones” in the so-called War of the Theatres at the turn of the century, no one makes any allusion to this incredible sleight of hand being perpetrated, year after year, play after play, by the most popular writer of the day.'Charles Nicholl, 'Yes, Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.' The Times, 21 April, 2010
- ^ Ward E.Y. Elliott, Robert J. Valenza,'Oxford by the numbers: What are the odds that the Earl of Oxford could have written Shakespeare's poems and plays?'in Tennessee Law review,Vol. 72, (2004) pp.323-452
- ^ Joseph Sobran,A Flawed Life of Oxford, (review of Alan H.Nelson's Monstrous adversary: the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Univerity of Liverpool Press, 2003), in Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Fall 2003.
- ^ Alan H.Nelson, Eight Witnesses to Shakespeare’s authorship of books attributed to him.
- ^ Alan H.Nelson, ‘Stratford Si! Essex No! (An open-and-shut case),' ‘Symposium: Who wrote Shakespeare? An evidentiary puzzle’, in Tennessee Law Review Fall, 2004
- ^ Alan H. Nelson, ‘Eight Witnesses to Shakespeare (seven new)’
- ^ The case for Greene, and against Chettle, has been made recently by Richard Westley, 'Computing Error: Reassessing Austin’s Study of Groatsworth of Wit,' in Literary and Linguistic Computing, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2006, pp.363-378.
- ^ the image derives from Greene's own authentic writings, his Francesco's Fortunes(1590), where, blending and anecdote from Macrobius about an ambitious crow is taught to say Ave Caesar with an image from Horace (Epistles, 1.iii), where Celsus is warned:'not to pilfer from other writers any longer, lest those he has robbed should return one day to claim their feathers, when like the crow . .stripped of its stolen splendour . . he would become a laughing-stock.' (John Dover Wilson, 'Malone and the Upstart Crow', in Shakespeare Survey, 4 (1951), pp.56-68, cited Katherine Duncan-Jones, 'Shakespeare, the Motley Player,' in The Review of English Studies, N.S. Vol.60, No.247 pp.723-742, p.732.
- :quid mihi Celsus agit, monitus multumque monendus
- privatas ut quaerat opes, et tangere vitet
- scripta Palatinus quaecumque recipit Apollo,
- ne, si forte suas repetitum venerit olim
- grex avium plumas, moveat cornicula risum
- furtivis nudata coloribus?
- Κολοιὸς δἐ, συνιδὼν ἑαυτὸν δυσμορφἰᾳ περικείμενον, ἄπελθὼν καὶ τὰ ἀποπἰπτοντα τῶν ὀρνέων πτερὰ συλλεξάμενος,ἑαυτῷ περιέθηκε καὶ προσεκόλλησε.Συνέβη οὖν ἐκ τούτου εὑειδέστερον πάντων γεγονέναι.Ἑπέστη οὖν ἠ ἠμέρα τῆς προθεσμίας καὶ ἥλθον πάντα τὰ ὂρνεα πρὸς τὸν Δία. Ό δἐ κολοιός ποικἰλος γενόμενος ἧκε καὶ αὑτός. Τοῦ δἐ Διὸς μέλλοντος χειροτονῆσαι αὑτοῖς τὸν κολοιόν βασιλἐα διὰ τῆν εὑπρέπειαν, ἀγανακτἡσαντα τὰ ὂρνεα, ἒκαστον τὸ ῖδιον ἀὐτοῦ πτερὸν ἀφείλετο. Οὓτω τε συνέβη ἀῦτῷ ἀπογυμνωθέντι κολοιόν πάλιν γενέσθαι.
- Tumens inani gragulus superbia
- pinnas, pavoni quae deciderant, sustulit,
- seque exornavit. deinde, contemnens suos
- immiscet se ut pavonum formoso gregi,'
- illi impudenti pinnas eripiunt avi,'
- fugantque rostris.
- ^ The passage closely echoes Nashe's 1589 attack,prefixed as an epistle to Greene's Menaphon, on uneducated arriviste poets who 'intrude themselves to our eares as the alcumists of eloquence', and 'who (mounted on the stage of Arrogance) thinke to out-brave better pennes with the swelling bombast of bragging blanke verse'.Howard Baker, 'The Formation of the Heroic medium,' in Paul J.Alpers (ed.), Elizabethan Poetry: Modern Essays in Criticism, Oxford University Press, 1967 pp.126-168 p.130.
- ^ Appended to Greenes Groatsworth of Wit, and argued by by John Jowett to be Chettle's work (but see Richard Westley, above (9),) in his 'Johannes Factotum: Henry Chettle and Greene's Groatsworth of Wit,' in Publications of the Bibliographical Society of America, 87 (1993), pp.453-486. Cited Katherine Duncan-Jones, 'Shakespeare, the Motley Player,' in The Review of English Studies, N.S. Vol.60, nO.247 pp.723--742, p.730 n.24
- ^ 'About three moneths since died M. Robert Greene, leauing many papers in sundry Booke sellers hands, among others his Groats-worth of wit, in which a letter written to diuers play-makers, is offensiuely by one or two of them taken, and because on the dead they cannot be auenged, they wilfully forge in their conceites a liuing Author: and after tossing it two and fro, no remedy, but it must light on me. How I haue all the time of my conuersing in printing hindred the bitter inueying against schollers, it hath been very well knowne, and how in that I dealt I can sufficiently prooue. With neither of them that take offence was I acquainted, and with one of them I care not if I neuer be: the other, whome at that time I did not so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I haue moderated the heate of liuing writers, and might haue vsde my owne discretion (especially in such a case) the Author beeing dead, that I did not, I am as sory, as if the originall fault had beene my fault, because my selfe haue seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exelent in the qualitie (i.e.,profession) he professes: Besides, diuers of worship haue reported, his vprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writing, that aprooues his Art.' Cf.Katherine Duncan-Jones, ibid.p.736
- ^ Park Honan, Shakespeare. A life,, Oxford University Press,1999 p.172. Honan writes: 'Field probably inserted a neutral e between the two syllables of the last name - 'Shak' and 'ʃpeare' - because, in a Tudor press, both k and the long letter ʃ kerned (that is, the face of each letter projected beyond the tiny body behind it, and when set together such letters bent or broke in printing)'.
- ^ Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life,Oxford University Press US, 2nd.rev.ed. 1987 p.176.
- ^ in a piece entitled A Remembrance of some English Poets, alongside Spenser, Daniel and Drayton.
- ^
- Adon deaftly masking thro,
- Stately troupes rich conceited,
- Shew'd he well deserved to,
- Loues delight on him to gaze,
- And had not loue her self intreated,
- Other nymphs had sent him baies.
- ^ Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'
- ^ Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life,' 1987 p.176
- ^ Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'
- ^ Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'
- ^ Park Honan, ibid.p.263
- ^ ::Nor doth the silver tonged Melicert
- Drop from his honey muse one sable teare
- To mourne her death that graced his desert,
- And to his laies opend her Royall eare.
- Shepheard remember our Elizabeth,
- And sing her Rape, done by that Tarquin, Death.
- ^ Leslie Hotson, Shakespeare by Hilliard: A Portrait Deciphered, University of California Press, 1977 p.133
- ^ Park Honan, Shakespeare: A Life 286
- ^ 'These may suffice for some poeticaldescriptions of our ancient poets; if I would come to our time, what a world could I present to you out of Sir Philkip Sidney, Ed. Spenser, Samuel Daniel, Hugh Holland, Ben.Jonson, Th.Campion, Mich. Drayton, George Chapman, John Marston, William Shakespeare, and other most pregnant witts of these our times, whom succeeding ages may justly admire.'Cited James G. McManaway,Authorship of Shakespeare, ibid.p.31
- ^ Coriolanus is generally dated after 1605 on the basis of a number of verbal parallels Menenius' fable of the belly and Adrian IV's 'wise speech' in Camden. See Philip Brockbank (ed.) Coriolanus, Arden ed.(1976)Cengage Learning EMEA, 2001 pp.24,27f.
- ^
- To our English Terence, Mr. Will. Shake-speare.
- Some say (good Will) which I, in sport, do sing,
- Had'st thou not plaid some Kingly parts in sport,
- Thou hadst bin a companion for a King;
- And, beene a King among the meaner sort.
- Some others raile; but, raile as they thinke fit,
- Thou hast no railing, but a raigning Wit:
- And honesty thou sow'st, which they do reape;
- So, to increase their Stocke which they do keepe.
- ^ Jonathan Bate,The Genius of Shakespeare, Oxford University Press US, 1998,p.72
- ^
- Will Baker:Knowinge/that Mr.Mab:was to/sende you this Booke/of sonets, wch with Spaniards/here is accounted of their/lope de Vega as in Englande/we sholde of or:Will/Shakespeare, I colde not/but insert thus much to/you, that if you like/him not, you muste neuer/neuer reade Spanishe Poet.' Leo:Digges'. Cited Paul Morgan, 'Our Will Shakespeare' and Lope de Vega: An Unrecorded Contemporary Document,' in Allardyce Nicoll (ed.),Shakespeare Survey, (16),Cambridge University Press, 2002 reprint, pp.118-120: Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life, ibid.p.313
- ^
- To Master W. Shakespeare.
- Shakespeare, that nimble mercury, thy braine
- Lulls many hundred Argus-eyes asleepe,
- So for for all thou fashionest thy vaine;
- At the horse-foot fountain thou has drunk full deep:
- Vertue's or vice's theame to thee all one is;
- Who loves chaste life, there's Lucrece for a teacher;
- WHo list read lust, there's Venus and Adonis,
- True modell of a most lascivious leatcher.
- Besides in plaies thy wit windes like Meander,
- Whence needy new-composers borrow more
- Thence Terence doth from Plautus and Menander.
- But to praise thee aright I want thy store;
- The let thine owne works thine own worth upraise,
- And help t'adorn thee with deserved bays.
- But to praise thee aright I want thy store;
- ^
- . . . here I would let slip
- (If I had any in me) scholarship,
- And from all Learning keep these lines as clear
- As Shakespeare's best are, which our heirs shall hear.
- ^ Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'.
- ^
- Renowned Spenser, lie a thought more nigh
- To learned Chaucer, and rare Beaumont lie
- A little nearer Spenser to make room
- For Shakespeare in your threefold, fourfold tomb.
- To lodge all four in one bed make a shift
- Until Doomsday, for hardly will a fifth
- Betwixt this day and that by fate be slain
- For whom your curtains may be drawn again.
- If your precedency in death doth bar
- A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,
- Under this carved marble of thine own
- Sleep rare tragedian Shakespeare, sleep alone,
- Thy unmolested peace, unshared cave,
- Possess as lord not tenant of thy grave,
- That unto us and others it may be
- Honor hereafter to be laid by thee.
- ^
- In Paper, many a Poet now suruiues
- Or else their lines had perish'd with their liues.
- Old Chaucer, Gower, and Sir Thomas More,
- Sir Philip Sidney who the Lawrell wore,
- Spencer, and Shakespeare did in Art excell,
- Sir Edward Dyer, Greene, Nash, Daniel,
- Siluester Beaumont, Sir Iohn Harington,
- Forgetfulnesse their workes would ouer run,
- But that in Paper they immortally
- Doe liue in spight of Death, and cannot dye.
- ^
- TO THE MEMORIE
- of the deceased Authour Maister
- W. S H A K E S P E A R E.
- Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
- The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
- Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
- And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
- Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
- When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
- Fresh to all Ages : when Posteritie
- Shall loath what's new, thinke all is prodegie
- That is not Shake-speares; ev’ry Line, each Verse
- Here shall revive, redeeme thee from thy Herse.
- Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as Naso said,
- Of his, thy wit-fraught Booke shall once invade.
- Nor shall I e’re beleeve, or thinke thee dead.
- (Though mist) untill our bankrout Stage be sped
- (Imposible) with some new straine t’out-do
- Passions of Juliet, and her Romeo;
- Or till I heare a Scene more nobly take,
- Then when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake.
- Till these, till any of thy Volumes rest
- Shall with more fire, more feeling be exprest,
- Be sure, our Shake-speare, thou canst never dye,
- But crown’d with Lawrell, live eternally.
- ^ >Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'
- ^
- What needs my Shakespeare for his honour'd Bones
- The labour of an age in piled Stones?
- Or that his hallow'd reliques should be hid
- Under a star-ypointing Pyramid?
- Dear son of memory, great heir of Fame,
- What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name?
- Thou in our wonder and astonishment
- Hast built thyself a live-long Monument.
- For whilst to th'shame of slow-endeavouring art
- Thy easie numbers flow, and that each heart
- Hath from the leaves of thy unvalu'd Book
- Those Delphick lines with deep impression took,
- Then thou our fancy of itself bereaving,
- Dost make us Marble with too much conceaving;
- And so Sepulcher'd in such pomp dost lie,
- That Kings for such a Tomb would wish to die.
- ^ Alan Nelson, Tennessee Law Review, remarks: ’These words merely set the scene for the joke itself, which is so lame I pass over it. I repeat the contemporary characterization, however, of Stratford-upon-Avon: "a Towne most remarkeable for the birth of famous William Shakespeare."
- ^ James G. McManaway,Authorship of Shakespeare, Folger Shakespeare Library 1962 p.31
- ^ Alan Nelson, in Tennessee Law Review, ibid.
- ^ James G. McManaway,Authorship of Shakespeare, Folger Shakespeare Library 1962 p.31.
- ^ De Shakespeare nostrat[i]. — I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line*. My answer hath been, " Would he had blotted a thousand," which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance, who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted ; and to justify mine own candor, for I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature ; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometime it was necessary he should be stopped. "Sufflaminandus erat" as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him: "Caesar, thou dost me wrong." He replied : "Caesar did never wrong but with just cause;" and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned.' *An allusion to Heminges and Condell's remark in the First Folio that '(Shakespeare's) mind and hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered with that easinesse, that wee have scarce received from him a blot in his papers'.John Freehafer, 'Leonard Digges, Ben Jonson, and the Beginning of Shakespeare Idolatry,' in Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, (Winter, 1970), pp. 63-75, p.67.
- ^
- "In Remembrance of Master William Shakespeare."
- Beware (delighted Poets!) when you sing
- To welcome Nature in the early Spring;
- Your num'rous Feet not tread
- The Banks of Avon; for each Flowre
- (As it nere knew a Sunne or Showre)
- Hangs there, the pensive head.
- Each Tree, whose thick, and spreading growth hath made,
- Rather a Night beneath the Boughs, than Shade,
- (Unwilling now to grow)
- Looks like the Plume a Captain weares,
- Whose rifled Falls are steept i'th teares
- Which from his last rage flow.
- The piteous River wept it selfe away
- Long since (Alas!) to such a swift decay;
- That read the Map; and looke
- If you a River there can spie;
- And for a River your mock'd Eie,
- Will find a shallow Brooke.
- ^ John MacKinnon Robertson, The Baconian Heresy a Confutation (1913)Kessinger Publishing, reprint 2003 p.21
- ^ J Shapiro, 2010, 265-273
- ^ David Kathman, ‘Shakespeare's Eulogies,’
- ^ J. M. Robertson, The Baconian Heresy a Confutation, ibid p.21
- ^ John Freehafer, 'Leonard Digges, Ben Jonson, and the Beginning of Shakespeare Idolatry,' in Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, (Winter, 1970), pp. 63-75, p.64
- ^
- Vpon Master WILLIAM S H A K E S P E A R E,
- the Deceased Authour, and his P O E M S .
- Poets are borne not made, when I would prove
- This truth, the glad rememberance I must love
- Of never dying Shakespeare, who alone,
- Is argument enough to make that one.
- First, that he was a Poet none would doubt,
- That heard th’applause of what he sees set out
- Imprinted; where thou hast (I will not say
- Reader his Workes for to contrive a Play:
- To him twas none) the patterne of all wit,
- Art without Art unparaleld as yet.
- Next Nature onely helpt him, for looke thorow
- This whole Booke, thou shalt find he doth not borrow,
- One phrase from Greekes, nor Latines imitate,
- Nor once from vulgar Languages Translate,
- Nor Plagiari-like from others gleane,
- Nor begges he from each witty friend a Scene
- To peece his Acts with, all that he doth write,
- Is pure his owne, plot, language exquisite,
- But oh ! what praise more powerfull can we give
- The dead, then that by him the Kings men live,
- His Players, which should they but have shar’d the Fate,
- All else expir’d within the short Termes date;
- How could the Globe have prospered, since through want
- Of change, the Plaies and Poems had growne scant.
- But happy Verse thou shalt be sung and heard,
- When hungry quills shall be such honour bard.
- Then vanish upstart Writers to each Stage,
- You needy Poetasters of this Age,
- Where Shakespeare liv’d or spake, Vermine forbeare,
- Least with your froth you spot them, come not neere;
- But if you needs must write, if poverty
- So pinch, that otherwise you starve and die,
- On Gods name may the Bull or Cockpit have
- Your lame blancke Verse, to keepe you from the grave:
- Or let new Fortunes younger brethren see,
- What they can picke from your leane industry.
- I doe not wonder when you offer at
- Blacke-Friers, that you suffer : tis the fate
- Of richer veines, prime judgements that have far’d
- The worse, with this deceased man compar’d.
- So have I seene, when Cesar would appeare,
- And on the Stage at half-sword parley were,
- Brutus and Cassius : oh how the Audience,
- Were ravish’d, with what wonder they went thence,
- When some new day they would not brooke a line,
- Of tedious (though well laboured ) Catilines;
- Sejanus too was irksome, they priz’de more
- Honest Iago, or the jealous Moore.
- And though the Fox and subtill Alchimist,
- Long intermitted could not quite be mist,
- Though these have sham’d all the Ancients, and might raise,
- Their Authours merit with a crowne of Bayes.
- Yet these sometimes, even at a friends desire
- Acted, have scarce defrai’d the Seacoale fire
- And doore-keepers : when let but Falstaffe come,
- Hall, Poines, the rest you scarce shall have a roome
- All is so pester’d : let but Beatrice
- And Benedicke be seene, loe in a trice
- The Cockpit Galleries, Boxes, all are full
- To heare Maluoglio that crosse garter’d Gull.
- Briefe, there is nothing in his wit fraught Booke,
- Whose sound we would not heare, on whose worth looke
- Like old coyned gold, whose lines in every page,
- Shall passe true currant to succeeding age.
- But why doe I dead Sheakspeares praise recite,
- Some second Shakespeare must of Shakespeare write;
- For me tis needlesse, since an host of men,
- Will pay to clap his praise, to free my Pen.
- ^ Paul H.Altrocchi, 'Sleuthing an enigmatic Latin annotation,' in Shakespeare Matters, Summer, 2003, pp.16-19
- ^ Alan H. Nelson and Paul H. Altrocchi, 'William Shakespeare, “Our Roscius”,' in Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 60, Number 4, Winter 2009, pp. 460-469.
- ^ 'It's possible . .that Hunt's addition of Shakespeare as its third worthy suggests that histheatrical fame hadf also contributed to the town's ercantile prosperity, in which case literary pilgrimages may have begun every earlierthan we thought.' Katherine Duncan-Jones, 'Shakespeare, the motley player,' ibid.p.729
- ^ In Suckling's version we have:
- Out of the bed the other fair hand was
- On a green satin quilt, whose perfect white
- Looked like a daisy in a field of grass
- And showed like unmelt snow unto the sight..
- Without the bed her other fair hand was
- On the green coverlet, whose perfect white
- Show'd like an April daisy on the grass,
- With pearly sweat, resembling dew of night.
- Her eyes, like marigolds, had sheath'd their light,
- And canopied in darkness sweetly lay,'
- Till they might open to adorn the day.'
- ^ Suckling also wrote in 1636:
- The sweat of Jonson's learned brain
- And gentle Shakespeare's easier strain.Caroline Healey Dall, What We Really Know about Shakespeare, (1886), BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009 p.129
- ^ ‘After such men, it might be thought ridiculous to speak of Stage Players; but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserves remembring, and Roscius the Comedian is recorded in History with such commendation, it may be allowed us to do the like with some of our Nation. Richard Bourbidge, and Edward Allen, two such Actors, as no age must ever look to see the like: and, to make their Comedies compleat, Richard Tarleton, who for the Part called the Clowns Part, never had his match, never will have. For Writers of Playes, and such as had been Players themselves, William Shakespeare, and Benjamin Johnson, have specially left their Names recommended to posterity.’ Cited Alan H. Nelson and Paul H. Altrocchi, 'William Shakespeare, “Our Roscius”,' in Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 60, Number 4, Winter 2009, pp. 460-469, p.468.
- ^ J. Dryden, An Essay of Dramatic Poetry (1668), cited John Freehafer, 'Leonard Digges, Ben Jonson, and the Beginning of Shakespeare Idolatry,' in Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, (Winter, 1970), pp. 63-75, p.70.
- ^ Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'
- ^ 'It seems that Shakespeare here makes a complimentary allusion to the printer of the two poems which strongly influenced the style of Cym. The French form may be due to the fact that Field's wife was French or it may be a form that he himself sometimes affected. Hew certainly called himself 'Ricardo del Campo' in his Spanish publications'. J.M.Nosworthy (ed.), 'Cymbeline, Arden Shakespeare, 195, note ad loc.
- ^ Park Honan, ibid.pp.232,239,387; Samuel Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: a compact documentary life,ibid.p.283.
- ^ Katherine Duncan-Jones, 'Shakespeare, the Motley Player', ibid.p.727
- ^ Park Honan, 'Shakespeare. A life,' 1999 p.
- ^ Peter Quennell, Shakespeare: The poet and his background, (1963) Penguin 1969 p.148: 'To William Kempe, William Shakespeare and Richard Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyne, upon the Councille's warrant dated at Whitehall XVth Marcij 1594, for two severall comedies or enterludes shewed by them before her majestie in Christmas tyme laste part viz St. Stephen's daye and Innocents daye...' (Public Record Office, Pipe Office, Declared Accounts No. 542, f. 207b).
- ^ Sir George Home, of the Great Wardrobe, in his accounts, lists "Players" who received four yards of red cloth apiece for the King's investiture of King James on 15 March 1604. The list runs: "William Shakespeare, Augustine Phillipps, Lawrence Fletcher, John Hemminges, Richard Burbidge, William Slye, Robert Armyn, Henry Cundell, and Richard Cowley." Tom Reedy and David Kathman, 'How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts,'
- ^ 'Item 31 Martii to Mr Shakespeare in gold about my Lord's impreso 44s. To Richard Burbage for painting and making it in gold 44s.'Peter Levi, ibid. p.345. Park Honan, ibid.193. This was doubted by Mrs Stopes in 1908, who thought the payment was to another William Shakespeare, and Price backs this argument. But there is no evidence for that William Shakespeare predating 1617.
- ^ Scott McCrea, The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question,2005 p.10
sandbox refs
Is there a particular reason you are combining multiple references into one on that page? nableezy - 20:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the format you suggested, and indeed am in your debt for creating it. It makes a neat distinction aesthetically between source and commentary that appeals to me, but it doubles up footnoting. This last point is problematical because we are under constraints to keep the article within reasonable limits. The text is relatively short, the templates have leavened it out to 120k, the division of end and footnotes adds to the appearance of padding and finally, I thought it the proper move to prepare before my co-editor, Tom Reedy, who apparently would like the notes to follow the source citation, starts his review (in the Elizabethan sense of that word). His argument is, I imagine, that those who eventually will examine this version, and compare it to the other, will appreciate the sources quoted in extenso directly in the footnote they click onto, rather than having to double click to see the source in the footnote, and then the content of that source in the endnote.
- Of course I did this in deference to the other editor's needs to have an integrated text before him, and ease the process of editorial review. When we have both completed a final revision, this important distinction can be reconsidered for re-inclusion. Thanks however for the templates, which are on the record if it is decided to split the text into footnotes and endnotes (technically of course, endnotes should contain only material that elaborates on what is unclear in the text, whereas footnotes should just provide the material backing the text as it is.) I'm glad you're keeping those lynx-eyes out on our activities. We need'em.Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Im talking about you having some refs that look like <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}:{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> instead of <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}</ref><ref>{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> There a particular reason for that? nableezy - 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- There was a pretext for that, and pretexts are not good reasons. Basically. I put refs saying more or less the same thing in the same line space, to ratchet down the escalating ref ladder at page bottom. A fucking dopey lurk I admit to create a false impression that we're thinking light rather than weighed down by referential ballast. It's a hang over from the academic pleistocene or plasticene, i.e. mean them days back in the 60s when one page bottom reference gave several sources in succession. I'll see what Tom reedy does, but it should be raised at the end of his review. I imagine he'll go to this in Johnny Weissmuller fashion, with machete hacking away at the huggermugger jungle of bloats and quotes and notes. Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Im talking about you having some refs that look like <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}:{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> instead of <ref>{{harvnb|blah|1990|p=12}}</ref><ref>{{harvn|bblah2|2000|p=210}}</ref> There a particular reason for that? nableezy - 16:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You had previously contributed to discussion regarding this subject. There is currently a concern, primarily on my part, whether this article takes a stand which seems to indicate that the name was used to refer to a single, specific group, which I believe the evidence of sources does not support. You appear to be rather knowledgable in the field, and I believe any input you might have on the article talk page could be very valuable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)