Reading meanings into Shakespeare; was Phenomenal Genius
Gary Kosinsky
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>I do _not_ say that you are wrong here.
>Why are you being so dense -- or finding
>it so hard to see my point? I've agreed
>with you on this several times. Let's try
>to go through it once again.
>
>Strats have not a clue as to the meaning of
>any of the plays or poems. (What else is to
>be expected when you've got wrong the
>author, the audience, the circumstances and
>date of composition and the whole context?)
>However, everyone can sense that the works
>are great, and there is a story to be told
>about them, so there is a market for books
>claiming to explain them. But every one
>produced is fraudulent. As you say, their
>authors put out absurd sets of theories,
>reading in all kinds of nonsense.
>
>Surely that is all self-evident? Yet both of
>you pretend to believe that Strats have got
>the basics right. So how do _you_ account
>for the rakes of nonsense splurged out
>upon the innocent public?
>
>No other great writer generates a small
>fraction of the critical nonsense we see
>written about Shakespeare.
>
>Why is that?
It's an interesting question, Paul. The thing is, regardless
of who wrote the plays, the texts themselves remain the same. And it
is an examination of the texts that is resulting in these varied
studies and analyses. Thus, if these analysts are reading theories
into the works that simply aren't there, they are reading them in
regardless of who the author is. You seem to be suggesting that the
authorship question is somehow related to these misreadings, but I
don't think it is. Quite possibly you believe that there is some
profound philosophical/religious/political meaning contained in the
works, only that 'Strat' commentators have missed it while you have
stumbled onto it. I'm questioning whether there is **any** profound
philosophical/religious/political meaning in the works at all.
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
> On Tue, 20 May 2003 18:54:24 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
> >No other great writer generates a small
> >fraction of the critical nonsense we see
> >written about Shakespeare.
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> It's an interesting question, Paul. The thing is, regardless
> of who wrote the plays, the texts themselves remain the same.
No, they don't. This an absurd doctrine.
In order to understand the meaning of a
passage, you must know what the author
intended. If you are completely mistaken
about his identity and about the
circumstances in which he wrote the text,
then you are almost certain to misread it.
When you don't know who wrote the text,
you will be inclined to reduce its meaning
to the lowest common denominator. If the
author wraps up a set of complex meanings
into an allegorical story, you will miss the
allegories and read the story as being some
kind of simple fairy tale.
> And it
> is an examination of the texts that is resulting in these varied
> studies and analyses. Thus, if these analysts are reading theories
> into the works that simply aren't there, they are reading them in
> regardless of who the author is.
When the whole basis of their reading is a
mistaken fairy tale, then they are liable to
read in all manner of nonsense. Those who
understand the author's meaning will not
read in that nonsense. Strats are trying to
make sense of a code they are not in a
position to begin to comprehend.
> You seem to be suggesting that the
> authorship question is somehow related to these misreadings, but I
> don't think it is.
I find it hard to see how you fail to grasp
my position. Think of any author whose works
you like; then think of another; imagine that
somehow you thought the works of the first
were written by the second. What sense
could you make of them? "War and Peace"
by Mark Twain? "Huckleberry Finn" by
Emile Zola?
> Quite possibly you believe that there is some
> profound philosophical/religious/political meaning contained in the
> works, only that 'Strat' commentators have missed it while you have
> stumbled onto it. I'm questioning whether there is **any** profound
> philosophical/religious/political meaning in the works at all.
Thanks for your honesty. But that's about
as good an argument against Stratfordianism
as you can get. Although, ironically, in many
ways I agree with you. There's no particular
'programme' in the manner of DesCartes,
Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, Newton or Marx.
In fact, he rejects all such programmes --
especially religious ones.
The deep philosophical / religious / political
meanings can be reduced to the expression
of a profound humanity, a marvellous sense
of humour, an openness to all manner of
thoughts and the courage to express them.
Perhaps it could be called 'humanism' --
but it involves a deep respect for the opinions
and feelings of others -- in a word for toleration.
It is the basis for 'freedom of speech', for
property rights, for the rule of law, and for
representative government (leading to
democracy). It is implicitly as clear a
'programme' for the English (and to a large
extent, the American) form of government,
as could be stated.
The poet was, necessarily, aware of all that.
He could not have achieved all he did without
that consciousness. In any case, he tells us
that often enough.
Paul.
Gary Kosinsky
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message news:3eca8b03...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> On Tue, 20 May 2003 18:54:24 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
>> >No other great writer generates a small
>> >fraction of the critical nonsense we see
>> >written about Shakespeare.
>> >
>> >Why is that?
>>
>> It's an interesting question, Paul. The thing is, regardless
>> of who wrote the plays, the texts themselves remain the same.
>
>No, they don't. This an absurd doctrine.
Don't be silly. Of course the words in the works (the texts)
are not going to magically change if a different author is discovered.
>In order to understand the meaning of a
>passage, you must know what the author
>intended.
Which in many cases will be accomplished by a reading of the
text which he or she has written.
> If you are completely mistaken
>about his identity and about the
>circumstances in which he wrote the text,
>then you are almost certain to misread it.
But you're assuming that there is a deeper meaning in the
works of Shakespeare. It's this premise that I'm questioning.
>When you don't know who wrote the text,
>you will be inclined to reduce its meaning
>to the lowest common denominator. If the
>author wraps up a set of complex meanings
>into an allegorical story, you will miss the
>allegories and read the story as being some
>kind of simple fairy tale.
Okay. But my question remains: did Shakespeare wrap up a set
of complex meanings into his plays?
>> And it
>> is an examination of the texts that is resulting in these varied
>> studies and analyses. Thus, if these analysts are reading theories
>> into the works that simply aren't there, they are reading them in
>> regardless of who the author is.
>
>When the whole basis of their reading is a
>mistaken fairy tale, then they are liable to
>read in all manner of nonsense. Those who
>understand the author's meaning will not
>read in that nonsense. Strats are trying to
>make sense of a code they are not in a
>position to begin to comprehend.
I suppose that if one was dealing with an allegorical work,
knowing something about the author and his beliefs would help you
further understand the work in question. On the other hand, if the
only way to understand the work is to know something about the author
and his beliefs, doesn't that suggest he didn't do a very good job of
writing his allegory in the first place?
>> You seem to be suggesting that the
>> authorship question is somehow related to these misreadings, but I
>> don't think it is.
>
>I find it hard to see how you fail to grasp
>my position. Think of any author whose works
>you like; then think of another; imagine that
>somehow you thought the works of the first
>were written by the second. What sense
>could you make of them? "War and Peace"
>by Mark Twain? "Huckleberry Finn" by
>Emile Zola?
I fail to grasp your position partly because of questions like
these. I honestly don't see why a change in authorship would change
my appreciation of either of these works. I read "War and Peace"
years ago, and I still don't know that much about Tolstoy, but I
recall that I still enjoyed the story. I've never read "Huckleberry
Finn", but I don't see why I should be concerned about who wrote it.
Are you suggesting the only way to enjoy these two novels is to have a
thorough understanding of each author's biography?
Some nice thoughts there, Paul. I'll have to wait for your
book, though, wherein you demonstrate, citing chapter and verse (or
act and scene) how Shakespeare does all this in his plays.
- Gary Kosinsky
Paul Crowley
> >> It's an interesting question, Paul. The thing is, regardless
> >> of who wrote the plays, the texts themselves remain the same.
> >
> >No, they don't. This an absurd doctrine.
>
> Don't be silly. Of course the words in the works (the texts)
> are not going to magically change if a different author is discovered.
If you intercepted a (possibly garbled) message
off the radio about secret weapons would it
matter if it was from Osama Bin Laden as
against it being from George Bush? The whole
sense of the message will be different. Much
the same applies to literary texts -- probably
even more so.
> > If you are completely mistaken
> >about his identity and about the
> >circumstances in which he wrote the text,
> >then you are almost certain to misread it.
>
> But you're assuming that there is a deeper meaning in the
> works of Shakespeare. It's this premise that I'm questioning.
Not at all. No one questions that there are
many obscure paragraphs, sentences and
phrases in the canon. Often, if you know the
identity of the poet and his addressee and,
roughly, the circumstances, then you can
understand the meaning. It can be quite a
simple one, and not any 'deep' sense
commonly read in by Strats. For example
"Let me not to the marriage of true minds
admit impediments" is Oxford sarcastically
expressing his pissed-off feelings about
the Queen spending all her time talking to
Ralegh -- instead of him.
> >When you don't know who wrote the text,
> >you will be inclined to reduce its meaning
> >to the lowest common denominator. If the
> >author wraps up a set of complex meanings
> >into an allegorical story, you will miss the
> >allegories and read the story as being some
> >kind of simple fairy tale.
>
> Okay. But my question remains: did Shakespeare wrap up a set
> of complex meanings into his plays?
Yes and no. In many ways his meanings are
quite simple (as in the example above). In
other ways, there are vastly more complex.
Strats read in complexity where there is none,
and see simplicity where the complexity is
intense. They get everything wrong.
> >> And it
> >> is an examination of the texts that is resulting in these varied
> >> studies and analyses. Thus, if these analysts are reading theories
> >> into the works that simply aren't there, they are reading them in
> >> regardless of who the author is.
> >
> >When the whole basis of their reading is a
> >mistaken fairy tale, then they are liable to
> >read in all manner of nonsense. Those who
> >understand the author's meaning will not
> >read in that nonsense. Strats are trying to
> >make sense of a code they are not in a
> >position to begin to comprehend.
>
> I suppose that if one was dealing with an allegorical work,
> knowing something about the author and his beliefs would help you
> further understand the work in question. On the other hand, if the
> only way to understand the work is to know something about the author
> and his beliefs, doesn't that suggest he didn't do a very good job of
> writing his allegory in the first place?
Only IF you believe that he should have
made it easy for everyone to understand.
You have no good reason to believe that
-- unless you are a Stratfordian. But since
it is obviously the case that he did NOT
make it easy, you have a good reason for
not being a Stratfordian.
> >> You seem to be suggesting that the
> >> authorship question is somehow related to these misreadings, but I
> >> don't think it is.
> >
> >I find it hard to see how you fail to grasp
> >my position. Think of any author whose works
> >you like; then think of another; imagine that
> >somehow you thought the works of the first
> >were written by the second. What sense
> >could you make of them? "War and Peace"
> >by Mark Twain? "Huckleberry Finn" by
> >Emile Zola?
>
> I fail to grasp your position partly because of questions like
> these. I honestly don't see why a change in authorship would change
> my appreciation of either of these works. I read "War and Peace"
> years ago, and I still don't know that much about Tolstoy, but I
> recall that I still enjoyed the story. I've never read "Huckleberry
> Finn", but I don't see why I should be concerned about who wrote it.
That's an incredible -- if very Stratfordian
thing to say.
> Are you suggesting the only way to enjoy these two novels is to have a
> thorough understanding of each author's biography?
I'm sure that they are 'enjoyed' at a 'comic
strip' level by many who have no such
understanding. But there a truer one does
very much require a sound appreciation of
the history of the country, and a knowledge
of the author and his other works.
Paul.
Elizabeth Weir
> >
> >The deep philosophical / religious / political
> >meanings can be reduced to the expression
> >of a profound humanity, a marvellous sense
> >of humour, an openness to all manner of
> >thoughts and the courage to express them.
> >Perhaps it could be called 'humanism' --
> >but it involves a deep respect for the opinions
> >and feelings of others -- in a word for toleration.
> >It is the basis for 'freedom of speech', for
> >property rights, for the rule of law, and for
> >representative government (leading to
> >democracy). It is implicitly as clear a
> >'programme' for the English (and to a large
> >extent, the American) form of government,
> >as could be stated.
> >
> >The poet was, necessarily, aware of all that.
> >He could not have achieved all he did without
> >that consciousness. In any case, he tells us
> >that often enough.
>
> Some nice thoughts there, Paul. I'll have to wait for your
> book, though, wherein you demonstrate, citing chapter and verse (or
> act and scene) how Shakespeare does all this in his plays.
The reason that a line from Hamlet can express a
volume of Kirkegaard is because the philosopher
who wrote the plays is the greatest aphorist of
all time.
Bacon wrote in aphorisms and the Novum Organum is
written in aphorisms and as Jonson said, "It is a book."
David L. Webb
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
> "Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:3ecc38e7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
> > >> It's an interesting question, Paul. The thing is, regardless
> > >> of who wrote the plays, the texts themselves remain the same.
> > >No, they don't. This an absurd doctrine.
> > Don't be silly. Of course the words in the works (the texts)
> > are not going to magically change if a different author is discovered.
> If you intercepted a (possibly garbled) message
> off the radio about secret weapons would it
> matter if it was from Osama Bin Laden as
> against it being from George Bush? The whole
> sense of the message will be different. Much
> the same applies to literary texts -- probably
> even more so.
One hesitates to point out the obvious, but the plays of Shakespeare
have little in common with "a (possibly garbled) message off the radio
about secret weapons." It's really sad the way many of the most
clueless anti-Stratfordians feel compelled to reduce sublime poetry to a
tedious roman à clef or some silly secret code. Baconians are notorious
for this sort of thing, but the more eccentric Oxfordians (relatively
speaking, of course) exhibit the same depressing tendency.
> > > If you are completely mistaken
> > >about his identity and about the
> > >circumstances in which he wrote the text,
> > >then you are almost certain to misread it.
> > But you're assuming that there is a deeper meaning in the
> > works of Shakespeare. It's this premise that I'm questioning.
> Not at all. No one questions that there are
> many obscure paragraphs, sentences and
> phrases in the canon. Often, if you know the
> identity of the poet and his addressee and,
> roughly, the circumstances, then you can
> understand the meaning.
Mr. Crowley was of course singularly successful in his application of
this methodology to the Ray Mignot sonnet.
> It can be quite a
> simple one, and not any 'deep' sense
> commonly read in by Strats. For example
> "Let me not to the marriage of true minds
> admit impediments" is Oxford sarcastically
> expressing his pissed-off feelings about
> the Queen spending all her time talking to
> Ralegh -- instead of him.
Were it not for Art Neuendorffer's classic comedic suggestion that
the addressee of Sonnet 20 was the Earl of Oxford's penis, this exegesis
would perhaps be the funniest I've seen in quite a while.
> > >When you don't know who wrote the text,
> > >you will be inclined to reduce its meaning
> > >to the lowest common denominator. If the
> > >author wraps up a set of complex meanings
> > >into an allegorical story, you will miss the
> > >allegories and read the story as being some
> > >kind of simple fairy tale.
Better a simple fairy tale than a silly secret code or a ridiculous
roman à clef.
...which Mr. Crowley conspicuously lacks...
> and a knowledge
> of the author and his other works.
...which Mr. Crowley blatantly lacks...
Gary Kosinsky
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message news:3ecc38e7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> >> It's an interesting question, Paul. The thing is, regardless
>> >> of who wrote the plays, the texts themselves remain the same.
>> >
>> >No, they don't. This an absurd doctrine.
>>
>> Don't be silly. Of course the words in the works (the texts)
>> are not going to magically change if a different author is discovered.
>
>If you intercepted a (possibly garbled) message
>off the radio about secret weapons would it
>matter if it was from Osama Bin Laden as
>against it being from George Bush? The whole
>sense of the message will be different. Much
>the same applies to literary texts -- probably
>even more so.
Okay, Paul, I think I'm seeing where the confusion lies. When
I talk about analysts reading meanings into Shakespeare, I'm talking
about those who examine the texts, and from those texts develop their
theories about Shakespeare's philosophy, or spiritual meaning, or
political intent.
You, on the other hand, seem to be treating the plays almost
as political satires. And I would agree that a complete understanding
of such a satire does indeed depend on a knowledge, if not of the
author himself, at least of the times or subject which he was
satirizing.
A common example, which I think you've used yourself, is
"Animal Farm". On a very basic level, it is simply a story about a
bunch of animals who take over a farm. On a slightly deeper level,
but without knowing anything about the author or the times in which he
wrote, one can see a general moral in the story along the lines of:
changing an unjust situation can sometimes result in a new situation
which is as unjust or even more unjust than the situation it replaced.
However, the story is fully appreciated when one knows the historical
times in which the author wrote, and one realizes that the story is
inspired by and parodies events in a real country (Russia) and that
its characters are modelled on real people (Lenin and Trotsky as I
recall. Which one was Snowball?), and that the author is passing
judgement on the events in that country (Orwell apparently wasn't too
keen on the Russian revolution when he wrote the book.)
So fine, to fully appreciate satire, one has to know something
about the subject being satirized.
The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
I would say 'no'.
- Gary Kosinsky
Gary Kosinsky
Weir) wrote:
>The reason that a line from Hamlet can express a
>volume of Kirkegaard is because the philosopher
>who wrote the plays is the greatest aphorist of
>all time.
>
>Bacon wrote in aphorisms and the Novum Organum is
>written in aphorisms and as Jonson said, "It is a book."
Which begs the question whether a line from Hamlet does indeed
express a volume of Kirkegaard (with whom I'm unfamiliar), or whether
the author was a philosopher.
- Gary Kosinsky
Elizabeth Weir
I used that example because I saw an article--maybe it was a
book chapter--that analysed a line from Hamlet in terms of
Kirkegaard's philosophy. Kirkegaard is very popular for
Shakespeare theses, right up there with Freud.
Art Neuendorffer
> It's really sad the way many of the most clueless anti-Stratfordians
> feel compelled to reduce sublime poetry to a
> tedious roman à clef or some silly secret code.
[F]alling in love with Shak
[I]s falling for make - believe.
[F]alling in love with Shak
[I]s playing the fool.
[C]aring too much
[I]s such as you now fancy.
[L]earning to trust
[I]s just for children at school
I fell in love with Shak
One night when the moon was full.
I wasn't wise with eyes unable to see.
I fell in love with Shak "our ever-living"
But Shak fell out of me.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Baconians are notorious for this sort of thing,
> but the more eccentric Oxfordians (relatively speaking,
> of course) exhibit the same depressing tendency.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://slate.msn.com/id/2081574/
<<Near the start of _A Mighty Wind_, the audience is present at the reunion
of the 1960s folk threesome the Folksmen (Alan Barrows, Mark Shubb, and
Jerry Palter), ... [who] speak affectionately of their old label,
Folktown-although they note that after a while, they were demoted to its
sister label, Folktone, a cheaper outfit with less distribution ("no
distribution," pipes up Shubb) and two-color covers instead of four-color.
Also, there was no hole in the center of the record-and they all chime in
that, yes, that was often a problem: If you didn't drill the hole correctly,
the record would wobble like crazy on the turntable. But if you did, they
aVER, that was some classic folk music.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
Eccentric, n. 1. A circle not having the same center as another
contained in some measure within the first.
"His own ends, which must needs be often
eccentric to those of his master." --Bacon.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.danbbs.dk/~erikoest/nipper.htm
<<Nipper the dog was born in Bristol in Gloucester, England in 1884 and so
named because of his tendency to nip the backs of visitors' legs. When his
first master Mark Barraud died destitute in Bristol in 1887, Nipper was
taken to Liverpool in Lancashire, England by Mark's younger brother Francis,
a painter. In Liverpool Nipper discovered the Phonograph, a cylinder
recording and playing machine and Francis Barraud "often noticed how puzzled
he was to make out where the voice came from". This scene must have been
indelibly printed in Barraud's brain, for it was three years after Nipper
died that he committed it to canvas. Nipper died in September 1895, having
returned from Liverpool to live with Mark Barraud's widow in
Kingston-upon-Thames in Surrey, England. (Nipper the dog was buried in
Kingston upon Thames, in an area that is now the rear car park of Lloyds
Bank in Clarence Street. As one enters the bank there is a plaque on the
wall stating this. ) In 1898 Barraud completed the painting and registered
it on 11 February 1899 as "Dog looking at and listening to a Phonograph".
Barraud then decided to rename the painting "His Master's Voice" and tried
to exhibit it at the Royal Academy, but was turned down. He had no more luck
trying to offer it for reproduction in magazines. "No one would know what
the dog was doing" was given as the reason! Next on Barraud's list was The
Edison Bell Company, leading manufacturer of the cylinder phonograph, but
again without success. "Dogs don't listen to phonographs," the company said.
Barraud was given the advise to repaint the horn from black to gold, as this
might better his opportunity for a sale. With this in mind, in the summer of
1899 he visited 31 Maiden Lane, home of the newly formed Gramophone Company,
with a photograph of his painting and a request to borrow a brass horn. As
Barraud later wrote in an article for The Strand magazine: "The manager, Mr
Barry Owen asked me if the picture was for sale and if I could introduce a
machine of their own make, a Gramophone, instead of the one in the picture.
I replied that the picture was for sale and that I could make the alteration
if they would let me have an instrument to paint from." On 15 September
1899, The Gramophone Company sent Barraud a letter making him a formal offer
for the picture, which he immediately accepted. He was paid £50 for the
painting and a further £50 for the full copyright. The deal was finally
confirmed on 4 October 1899 when a representative from The Gramophone
Company saw the amended painting for the first time. This painting made its
first public appearance on The Gramophone Company's advertising literature
in January 1900, and later on some novelty promotional items. However, "His
Master's Voice" did not feature on the Company's British letter headings
until 1907. The painting and title were finally registered as a trademark in
1910.>>
-----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
When my brother was five years old he named his parakeet RCA Victor.
lyra
>Gary Kosinsky wrote in message news:<3eceace4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> > On 23 May 2003 00:36:53 -0700, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > >The reason that a line from Hamlet can express a
> > >volume of Kirkegaard is because the philosopher
> > >who wrote the plays is the greatest aphorist of
> > >all time.
> > >
> > >Bacon wrote in aphorisms and the Novum Organum is
> > >written in aphorisms and as Jonson said, "It is a book."
> >
> > Which begs the question whether a line from Hamlet does indeed
> > express a volume of Kirkegaard (with whom I'm unfamiliar), or whether
> > the author was a philosopher.
>
> I used that example because I saw an article--maybe it was a
> book chapter--that analysed a line from Hamlet in terms of
> Kirkegaard's philosophy. Kirkegaard is very popular for
> Shakespeare theses, right up there with Freud.
Soren Kierkegaard's name apparently means churchyard.
I first came across a reference to him in the
J. D. Salinger books.
I seem to recall he was a very depressed man!...
maybe his name didn't help!
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's really sad the way many of the most clueless anti-Stratfordians
> > feel compelled to reduce sublime poetry to a
> > tedious roman à clef or some silly secret code.
> [F]alling in love with Shak
> [I]s falling for make - believe.
> [F]alling in love with Shak
> [I]s playing the fool.
>
> [C]aring too much
> [I]s such as you now fancy.
> [L]earning to trust
> [I]s just for children at school
>
> I fell in love with Shak
> One night when the moon was full.
> I wasn't wise with eyes unable to see.
> I fell in love with Shak "our ever-living"
> But Shak fell out of me.
The less said about this VERse (which one cannot even begin to
dignify by the designation "doggerel") the better.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > Baconians are notorious for this sort of thing,
> > but the more eccentric Oxfordians (relatively speaking,
> > of course) exhibit the same depressing tendency.
You already proved my point _ipso facto_ above, Art.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2081574/
>
> <<Near the start of _A Mighty Wind_,
"A mighty wind"? Is that a coVERt reference by Masonic conspirators
to Aubrey's anecdote about Oxford, Art? If not, why did you bring it
up? Another aneuendor...@comicass.nut core dump?
> the audience is present at the reunion
> of the 1960s folk threesome the Folksmen (Alan Barrows, Mark Shubb, and
> Jerry Palter), ... [who] speak affectionately of their old label,
> Folktown-although they note that after a while, they were demoted to its
> sister label, Folktone, a cheaper outfit with less distribution ("no
> distribution," pipes up Shubb) and two-color covers instead of four-color.
> Also, there was no hole in the center of the record-and they all chime in
> that, yes, that was often a problem: If you didn't drill the hole correctly,
> the record would wobble like crazy on the turntable. But if you did, they
> aVER, that was some classic folk music.>>
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
Another lunatic aneuendor...@comicass.nut Rorschach riff,
evidently.
Lorenzo4344
>From: "David L. Webb" david....@dartmouth.edu
>Date: 5/27/2003
> The less said about this VERse (which one cannot even begin to dignify by
the designation "doggerel") the better.
It's a sub-divison of the genre, Dave - Sly-doggerel. Any real student of the
field knows the distinctions. Hound- doggerel, Handsome-doggerel... Study up.
This is apparently over your head...
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > It's really sad the way many of the most clueless anti-Stratfordians
> > > feel compelled to reduce sublime poetry to a
> > > tedious roman à clef or some silly secret code.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > [F]alling in love with Shak
> > [I]s falling for make - believe.
> > [F]alling in love with Shak
> > [I]s playing the fool.
> >
> > [C]aring too much
> > [I]s such as you now fancy.
> > [L]earning to trust
> > [I]s just for children at school
> >
> > I fell in love with Shak
> > One night when the moon was full.
> > I wasn't wise with eyes unable to see.
> > I fell in love with Shak "our ever-living"
> > But Shak fell out of me.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> The less said about this VERse (which one cannot even
> begin to dignify by the designation "doggerel") the better.
You don't like Yale alumni COLE PORTER?
------------------------------------------------------
http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/discussion/9.html
Neil Ellenoff asked:
What is the connection between "The Pirates of Penzance "
and Cole Porter's "Out of this World"?
Arthur Robinson replied:
The one that occurs to me first is the song
"Climb up the mountain" referring to Mount Olympus
(which, of course, was the rocky mountain originally
referred to in "Climbing over rocky mountain" in 1871).
Another: is the opening song of Porter's _Out of this World_
contains the phrase "Brek-ek-ek-ek coax," which is straight
from "the croaking chorus of the Frogs of Aristophanes."
Henry A. Stephens Jr. asked:
Now the next question: I assume the speaker is stuttering,
so what is a Brek coax?
Arthur Robinson replied: "Brek-ek-ek-ek co-ax co-ax"
(co-ax is two syllables) is what the frogs sing in Aristophanes'
comedy FROGS, ca. 405 BC (I should have checked the
Greek before writing this, but I think this is right). Apparently
Greek frogs, instead of saying "Ribbet ribbet," croak this way.
Greek frogs, of course, croak in the Greek alphabet,
which I can't do on e-mail (I transliterated the above).
Other Fun Frog Facts: "Brek-ek-ek-ek co-ax" etc. apparently became
the chant (or cheer?) for the Yale rowing (?) team. Cole Porter was
a Yale student (also Harvard, I believe), which is probably why
he incorporated this into his song in Out of this World.
Also, when Burt Shevelove (also a Yale grad) & Stephen Sondheim
adapted Aristophanes' Frogs for a performance in the Yale swimming pool
in 1974, I assume part of the joke was that this chant was familiar to Yale
students; the croaking chorus was sung while Charon was rowing Dionysus
across the pool. (If anyone is interested in how Sondheim translated
"Brek-ek-ek-ex co-ax co-ax," I believe it was
"Brek-ek-ek-ek co-ax co-ax.")
--------------------------------------------------------
Yale Daily News for the week of February 9, 1942
<<Presentation of Cup Featured Saturday. "A feature event in Saturday's
aquatic festival was the presentation [shown in a picture] above--Jack
Leggett giving Howie Johnson the Dramatic Association Cup. The cup was
awarded by the Dramatic to the Swimming Association for the participation
of members of the Yale swimming team in the Dramatic production of
'The Frogs.' The handsome trophy bears the inscription:
'From the Yale Dramatic Association to the Yale Swimming Association
/ in Appreciation / "The Frogs" / November, 1941.'
Around the top, ''Brek-ek-ek-ex coax coax,' is inscribed."
--------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > http://slate.msn.com/id/2081574/
> >
> > <<Near the start of _A Mighty Wind_,
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> "A mighty wind"?
> Is that a coVERt reference by Masonic conspirators
> to Aubrey's anecdote about Oxford, Art?
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES ON ARISTOPHANES ' FROGS
http://www.angelfire.com/art/archictecture/articles/frogs.html
The chorus & Xanthias sing in turn on the need for
courage & caution in playing the role of HERACLES.
ACTION. Aeacus returns accompanied by at least two
personal attendants. He orders them to bind "HERACLES".
Xanthias first shows fight, but when Aeacus calls up
some police as reinforcements, Xanthias tries to deny
that he ever came to Hades before or stole Cerberus.
Ditylas ("Thicky"), Skobylas ("Baboon"), and Pardokas ("Farter")
are perhaps parodies of Scythian or Thracian names.
---------------------------------------------------------
PardOkas / OkasPard ("Farter") / OxFart
-------------------------------------------------------
_Why I'm Not an Oxfordian:_ by Jerome Harner
http://www.sirbacon.org/harneroxford.htm
In his 1679 book, "Brief Lives",
John Aubrey had the following story about De Vere:
"This Earle of Oxford, making of his low obeisance to Queen Elizabeth,
happened to let a Fart, at which he was so abashed And ashamed that he went
to Travell, 7 years. On his return The Queen welcomed him home, and sayd, My
Lord, I had Forgott the Fart."
I had happened across a passage in BURTON's Anatomy of Melancholy
that supported Aubrey's tale. BURTON said:
"Or as he did, of whom Felix Plater speaks, that thought he had some of
Aristophanes' frogs in his belly, still crying Brecececex, coax, coax, oop,
oop, and for that cause studied physic seven years, and travelled all over
most part of Europe to ease himself;"
That BURTON's 1621 book referred to the same incident Aubrey recorded in his
1679 Brief Lives can, I think, be accepted as a self-evident fact. Without
this independent testimony it would have been necessary to heed the comment
of antiquary Anthony Wood that Aubrey was "roving and magotie-headed" and
discount his story about de Vere.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How Abu Hasan Brake Wind" - Richard BURTON Arabian Nights translation
"O my mother, tell me the day when I was born; for such an one of my
companions is about to take an omen for me." And the mother answered,
"Thou wast born, O my daughter,
on the very night when Abu Hasan farted."
Now Abu Hasan no sooner heard these words than he rose up
from the bench, and fled away saying to himself,
"Verily thy FART hath become a date,
which shall last for EVER and EVER;
And Abu Hasan returned to India and there abode in self-exile.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/chambernac/sturrock.htm
The frog is the one creature whose characteristic call is spelt
out in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, after the form
found for it by Aristophanes, Ancient Greek frogs went,
in the ODQ's transliteration, "brekekekex coax, coax".
---------------------------------------------------------
What clashes here of wills gen wonts,
oystrygods gaggin fishy-gods!
Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek!
Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualu Ualu Ualu! Quaouauh!
And even if Humpty shell fall frumpty times as
awkward again in the beardsboosoloom of all our
grand remonstrancers there'll be iggs for the
BREKKERS come to mournhim, sunny side up with
care.... But all they are all there scraping along
to sneeze out a likelihood that will solve and salve
life's robulous rebus, hopping round his middle
like kippers on a griddle, O...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/chambernac/sturrock.htm
Brisset's nineteenth-century French frogs went, more curtly,
"coa, coa" - "coasser" is the standard French verb meaning "to croak".
This gurgled monotone would have struck all but a rarely attuned listener as
thin evidence on which to conclude that frogs were the earliest
language-users. Brisset, however, was rarely attuned, so taken up with the
acoustic aspect of language that he accorded it an all-embracing precedence
over the semantic. What he heard the frogs coming out with was not the
meaningless - to a human ear -"coa", but the common interrogative pronoun,
quoi? In his own charming account:
"Un jour que nous observions ces jolies petites bêtes,
en répetant nous-même ce cri: coac, 1'une d'elles nous répondit,
les yeux interrogateurs et brillants, par deux ou trois fois:
Coac. II nous était clair qu'elle disait: quoi que tu dis?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertue monument engraving (in Pope's Shakespeare) 1723
Sir Joshua Reynolds born July 16, 1723
Byron sails on the HERCULES for GREECE July 16, 1823
*Jean Baptiste Charbonneau* met Duke of Wittenberg 1823
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 1, Scene 2
BOTTOM I could play ERCLES rarely. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES ON ARISTOPHANES ' FROGS
http://www.angelfire.com/art/archictecture/articles/frogs.html
<<Xanthias sets out on his lonely tour round the infernal lake. Charon
orders Dionysus aboard. Dionysus, being unused to boats makes a stupid
mistake. Doubtless in production the actor took this opportunity for
much comic business. The famous Frogs' chorus (which though lasting only
60 lines gave the play its title) begins. There is dispute about whether
the Frogs were seen or not. Either way ARISTOPHANES exploits some
skilful rhythmic effects in the chorus, as the Frogs try to make
Dionysus row faster and he tries to make the speed slow down. Besides
the variation in rhythm we should also assume that the volume and speed
were also varied in the original production, but the surviving text
contains no indication of this. During the chorus Dionysus presumably
does some very irregular and comical effects of oarsmanship in Charon's
boat. Much of the delight for the original audience will have arisen
from the fact that they themselves knew a great deal about rowing.
The marsh was probably represented by the orchestra:
Xanthias runs round the outside edge of it.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Things FLOW about so here!" she said at last in a plaintive tone, after
she had spent a minute or so in vainly pursuing a large bright thing,
that looked sometimes like a doll and sometimes like a workbox, and was
always in the shelf next above the one she was looking at. "And this one
is the most, provoking of all--but I'll tell you what---" she added,
as a sudden thought struck her,
"I'll follow it up to the VERy top shelf of all.
It'll puzzle it to go through the ceiling, I expect!"
But even this plan failed: the "thing" went through the ceiling
as quietly as possible, as if it were quite used to it.
"Are you a child or a teetotum?" the Sheep said as she took up another
pair of needles. "You'll make me giddy soon, if you go on turning round
like that." She was now working with fourteen pairs at once,
and Alice couldn't help looking at her in great astonishment.
"How can she knit with so many?" the puzzled child thought to herself.
"She gets more and more like a PORCUPINE EVERy minute!"
"Can you row?" the Sheep asked, handing her
a pair of knitting-needles as she spoke.
"Yes, a little--but not on land--and not with needles---" Alice was
beginning to say when suddenly the needles turned into oars in her
hands, and she found they were in a little boat, gliding along
between banks: so there was nothing for it but to do her best.
"FEATHER!" cried the Sheep, as she took up another pair of needles.
This didn't sound like a remark that needed any answer, so Alice said
nothing, but pulled away. There was something very queer about the
water, she thought, as every now and then the oars got fast in it, and
would hardly come out again.
"FEATHER! FEATHER!" the Sheep cried again, taking more needles.
"You'll be catching a crab directly."
"A dear little crab!" thought Alice. "I should like that."
"Didn't you hear me say 'FEATHER'?" the Sheep cried angrily,
taking up quite a bunch of needles.
"Indeed I did," said Alice: "you've said it very often--and VERy loud.
Please, where are the crabs?"
"In the water, of course!" said the Sheep, sticking some of
the needles into her hair, as her hands were full. "FEATHER, I say!
"Why do you say 'FEATHER' so often?" Alice asked at last,
rather vexed. "I'm not a bird!"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Metamorphoses By Ovid
Translated by Sir Samuel Garth, John Dryden, et al
The Peasants of Lycia transform'd to Frogs
Hence too she fled the furious stepdame's pow'r,
And in her arms a double godhead bore;
And now the borders of fair Lycia gain'd,
Just when the summer solstice parch'd the land.
With thirst the Goddess languishing, no more
Her empty'd breast would yield its milky store;
When, from below, the smiling valley show'd
A silver lake that in its bottom flow'd:
A sort of clowns were reaping, near the bank,
The bending *O S I E R*, and the bullrush dank;
The cresse, and water-lilly, fragrant weed,
Whose juicy stalk the liquid fountains feed.
The Goddess came, and kneeling on the brink,
Stoop'd at the fresh repast, prepar'd to drink.
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE FROGS by Aristophanes
http://eserver.org/drama/aristophanes/the-frogs.txt
EURIPIDES "Bacchus, who, clad in FAWNSKINS, leaps and bounds
TORCH and THYRSUS in the choral dance along Parnassus"
AESCHYLUS Lost his bottle of oil.
DIONYSUS Ah me, we are stricken-with that bottle again!
POOH, POOH, that's nothing. I've a prologue
He'll never tack his bottle of oil to this:
"No man is blest in every single thing.
One is of noble birth, but lacking means.
Another, baseborn,"
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/inlight/art/lit_6.htm
<<The drama has provided a favourable environment for satire
ever since it was cultivated by Aristophanes,
working under the extraordinarily open political conditions
of 5th-century Athens. In a whole series of plays-
-The Clouds, The Frogs, Lysistrata, and many others--Aristophanes
lampoons the demagogue Cleon by name, violently attacks Athenian
war policy, derides the audience of his plays for their gullible
complacency, pokes fun at Socrates as representative of the new
philosophical teaching, stages a brilliantly parodic poetic competition
between the dramatists Aeschylus and Euripides in Hades, and in general
lashes out at contemporary evils with an uninhibited and unrivalled
inventiveness. But the theatre has rarely enjoyed the political freedom
Aristophanes had--one reason, perhaps, that satire more often appears in
drama episodically or in small doses than in the full-blown Aristophanic
manner. In Elizabethan England, Ben Jonson wrote plays that he called
"comicall satyres"--Every Man Out of His Humour, Poetaster--and there
are substantial elements of satire in Shakespeare's plays--some in
the comedies, but more impressively a dark and bitter satire in
Timon of Athens, Troilus and Cressida, Hamlet, and King Lear.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Delia Bacon: Hawthorne's Last Heroine* by Nina Baym
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/baym/essays/last_heroine.htm
<< Delia Bacon had been victimized in a nasty little scandal
that fractured the New Haven Congregational community in 1847. Her
brother Leonard Bacon, a minister, formally accused Alexander McWhorter,
also a minister, of attempting to evade an engagement with Delia Bacon
by defaming her. Leonard was backed by the town clergy, McWhorter by
the Yale faculty. The evidence supported Leonard's claim, but the church
proceedings that followed produced only the equivalent of a slap on the
wrist for the culprit and exposed Delia Bacon to public humiliation.
The bad showing by the Yale Congregationalists in this
episode delighted Boston Unitarians, and endeared
Delia Bacon especially to the women.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb wrote at HLAS:
<<But I'm sorry, Art -- that was tactless of me. I remarked above
that you covet Stephanie's LOCK on the h.l.a.s. CCC (Cretinous
Chronological Contretemps) award. I'm aware of how keenly you covet
the *other* award upon which Stephanie has a virtual LOCK, the one
for comic confusions of names. Your identification of Peter Gay
the EMERITUS YALE historian with..., ...not even Stephanie
can seriously threaten your LOCK on the Crackpot Cryptography
and Nutcase Numerology
awards.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1832 The Skull & Bones secret society is founded at Yale U.
http://www.tlwinslow.com/timeline/time183x.html
Jan 27, 1832 CHARLES (LEWIS CARROLL) DodGson born
c. Jan 27, 1832 Goethe's Faust completed
Mar 22, 1832 Goethe dies
May 4, 1832 Mercury TRANSIT of the sun
May 20, 1832 EVARIste (pERcIVAl) GALOIS duels
Jul 22, 1832 Napoleon II dies
Sep 21, 1832 Sir Walter Scott dies
Nov 14, 1832 Catholic CHARLES CARROLL dies
Nov 29, 1832 Louisa May Alcott born
Dec 15, 1832 Gustave Eiffel born
---------------------------------------------------------------
4 May 1699 => Gulliver sets sail from Bristol
[8 year - 1.5 day Venus cycle]
3 May 1707 => Henry Fielding born
6 May 1707 => Gulliver observes SUNRISE MERCURY TRANSIT
at *Fort St. George, India*
------------------------------------------------------------------
Masonic girl's group: "Job's daughters"
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The friends of Job lived in different places, at intervals of 300
miles one from the other. Nevertheless they all were informed of
their friend's misfortune at the same time, in this way: Each one had
the pictures of the others set in his crown, and as soon as any one
of them met with reverses, it showed itself in his picture. Thus
the friends of Job learnt simultaneously of his misfortune, and
they hastened to his assistance. The four friends were related
to one another, and each one was related to Job.
1) Eliphaz, king of Teman, was a son of Esau;
2) BILDAD, Zophar, and ELIHU were cousins, their fathers,
3) Shuah, Naamat, and Barachel, were the sons of Buz,
4) who was a brother of Job and a nephew of Abraham.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Transit => ELIHU / UALU => JOB
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.indiaprofile.com/monuments-temples/fortgeorge.htm
<<In 1687 ELIHU YALE took over as Governor of *Fort St. George*
YALE came to Madraspattinam in 1672 as a 24 year Company writer.
In 15 years he had risen to Governorship. He served as Governor from
1687 to 1692. He continued to live in the city after his retirement,
amassing a fortune. He donated £560 to the Collegiate School
in Connecticut, USA. For the assistance bestowed upon
the institution ensured Elihu's remembrance by posterity
when they named the school after him: YALE University.>>
Expelled from YALE University for prankish behavior in 1805:
American novelist James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851).
---------------------------------------------------------------
'LOCK-SMASHER'
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://copperlily.com/scarletinside/tradwill.html
<<The Forresters Manuscript calls the traditional 'Robin Hood rescuing
Will Stutely' [in Child's collection 141] ballad 'Robin Hood and Will
ScatheLOCK', thus suggesting another confusion between two characters
in the legend. And in an earlier prose version of the story contained
in the ballad 'Robin Hood and Allen 'a Dale' (Sloane manuscript 780
written c1600), the forlorn lover whose bride the outlaws rescue
is NOT Allen, a later invention, but SCARLOCK.
Confused Identity?
Will has had a variety of names throughout his history: SCARLETt,
ScadLOCK, ScarLOCK, ScatheLOKe, ScarLOK, ScaLOK, ScareLOCK,
Scarllett, ScadLOCKe, ScardeLOCKe, SHIRLOCK, SkirLOCK etc.
This could mean that there were in fact several men with similar
names in Robin's band, or that the name kept changing as the
ballads & stories were passed on orally. But basically it
seems that the names divide down into versions of two names:
SCARLET & ScatheLOCKe. The latter means 'LOCK-SMASHER.'>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
loren...@aol.com (Lorenzo4344) wrote:
No, nothing Art posts can be classified as sly-doggerel; rather, all
of it is mad-doggerel.
Lorenzo4344
> No, nothing Art posts can be classified as sly-doggerel; rather, all
>of it is mad-doggerel.
Not all. Some is just astray-doggerel, and none here will deny the occasional
junkyard-doggerel. But enough with detail. Art's got derange.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
John W. Kennedy
> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
> I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
> I would say 'no'.
The Shakespeare deniers have as many "theories" about that as they have
about their other phantasies. Shakespeare, it seems, was a liberal
monarchist empirical atheist democratic merchantilist Catholic communist
reactionary Protestant coprophilic Copernican comical-pastoral geocentrist.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams: "Judgement at Chelmsford"
John W. Kennedy
> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
> I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
> I would say 'no'.
The Shakespeare deniers have as many "theories" about that as they have
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> > The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
> > satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
> > Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
> > knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
>
> > I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
> > I would say 'no'.
> The Shakespeare deniers have as many "theories" about that as they have
> about their other phantasies. Shakespeare, it seems, was a liberal
> monarchist empirical atheist democratic merchantilist Catholic communist
> reactionary Protestant coprophilic Copernican comical-pastoral geocentrist.
Sounds like a Peronist.
Paul Crowley
> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
>
> I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
> I would say 'no'.
It is to me astounding that anyone would think
of saying that Shakespeare's plays were NOT
commentaries on his times. He tells us quite
explicitly that they are:
HAMLET . . .
Good my lord, will you see the players well
bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used; for
they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the
time: after your death you were better have a bad
epitaph than their ill report while you live.
Stratfordians work on the basis that the poet had
no interest whatever in the events or the politics
of his day. Well, that makes sense . . . after all
how many of his plays were about recent rulers
of the country? Or about the problems they faced?
Or about the problems of the country when under
a particularly weak or vicious ruler . . ? Or how
many were about other regimes and similar
problems of government and the dangers of a
breakdown in the civil order?
Whenever an ordinary playwright dealt with such
an issue, he did so with trepidation. You can
sense the tension and the anxiety in every line
and every phrase. (How will they read this . . . ?
Have I gone too far with that . . . ? Hadn't I better
make it a bit more clear that I mean nothing
seditious here . .? I had better crawl a bit more
here towards the king here . . ).
That fear is conspicuously absent from Shake-
speare's work.
Why?
Paul.
Jimbosir
>Stratfordians work on the basis that the poet had
>no interest whatever in the events or the politics
>of his day.
Not true. I consider myself a Stratfordian and I think that the poet (i.e.
Shakespeare
of Stratford) had an interest in the events and politics of his day.
MENTOR (:-)
Tom Reedy
news:20030603151809...@mb-m03.aol.com...
When Crowley talks about "Stratfordians" and what they believe, he is
actually addressing a mental construct that resides in his head. That way he
can be right every time. Thankfully, the man is not dangerous, despite
living in a fantasy world of his own making.
TR
Bob Grumman
>
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
>news:3eceabc4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
>> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
>> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
>> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
>>
>> I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
>> I would say 'no'.
>
>It is to me astounding that anyone would think
>of saying that Shakespeare's plays were NOT
>commentaries on his times. He tells us quite
>explicitly that they are:
No, he doesn't; Hamlet does--for dramatic reasons.
>HAMLET . . .
> Good my lord, will you see the players well
> bestowed? Do you hear, let them be well used; for
> they are the abstract and brief chronicles of the
> time: after your death you were better have a bad
> epitaph than their ill report while you live.
>Stratfordians work on the basis that the poet had
>no interest whatever in the events or the politics
>of his day.
Provide evidence that even ONE Stratfordian works on that basis. What you can't
understand, Paul, is the possibility that Shakespeare wrote plays intended,
first, to entertain a variety of people, and second, at times, to
express his opinions on various matters, including politics. Hence, I guess it
can't occur to you that others work on THAT basis. The choice is not between
plays as commentaries on topical trivialities concerning politicians and as
"nothing" but "entertainments," but FROM a continuum (remember that word?) that
runs from one of those extremes to the other. You seem to see the plays as
primarily political, and dealing with specific events and people whereas we see
them as primarily works of art that MAY sometimes deal with a specific event or
person but not at length. Except, of course, the histories.
>Well, that makes sense . . . after all
>how many of his plays were about recent rulers
>of the country? Or about the problems they faced?
>Or about the problems of the country when under
>a particularly weak or vicious ruler . . ? Or how
>many were about other regimes and similar
>problems of government and the dangers of a
>breakdown in the civil order?
>
>Whenever an ordinary playwright dealt with such
>an issue, he did so with trepidation. You can
>sense the tension and the anxiety in every line
>and every phrase. (How will they read this . . . ?
>Have I gone too far with that . . . ? Hadn't I better
>make it a bit more clear that I mean nothing
>seditious here . .? I had better crawl a bit more
>here towards the king here . . ).
You can, I'll take your word for that, Paul. I can't.
>That fear is conspicuously absent from Shake-
>speare's work.
>
>Why?
>
>Paul.
You got me, Paul. I know it couldn't have been because he thought high-ranking
nobles were immune from punishment for doing or saying the wrong thing. And if
it was because the queen really liked his writing, that would hold if he were a
commoner, too.
--Bob G.
>
Paul Crowley
news:Oc7Da.29354$rO.27...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Jimbosir" <jimb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030603151809...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> > >Paul Crowley said
> >
> > >Stratfordians work on the basis that the poet had
> > >no interest whatever in the events or the politics
> > >of his day.
> >
> > Not true. I consider myself a Stratfordian and I think that the poet (i.e.
> > Shakespeare of Stratford) had an interest in the events and politics of
> > his day.
> > MENTOR (:-)
>
> When Crowley talks about "Stratfordians" and what they believe, he is
> actually addressing a mental construct that resides in his head.
So, Tom and Jimbosir, tell us which of the
canonical plays contains the highest number
of references to current political events?
And perhaps you'd give us a few examples
of the clearest references in that play?
Or which of the sonnets has the most and
clearest references?
> That way he can be right every time.
It must be wonderful to be able to bullshit
all the time in the way you do -- and NEVER
answer questions. (When are you going
to respond on Sonnet 126?)
Btw, I am replying to Gary -- who is a
remarkably honest Strat. He is not ashamed
to articulate Strat thinking (unlike you -- but
then all you have between your ears is
shit). Gary wrote:
> >> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
> >> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
> >> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
> >> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
> >>
> >> I would say 'no'.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
[..]
> >That fear is conspicuously absent from Shake-
> >speare's work.
> >
> >Why?
>
> You got me, Paul. I know it couldn't have been because
> he thought high-ranking nobles were immune from punishment
> for doing or saying the wrong thing. And if it was because the
> queen really liked his writing, that would hold if he were a
> commoner, too.
You have no idea at all as to how things
worked then, have you? (Actually, you also
have no idea as to how things work now.)
Very low-status individuals are NOT allowed
to comment on the activities of very high-
status ones -- even in the presence of the
top dog himself (or herself).
A commoner was simply not in a position
to criticise a noble -- it would be a breach
of many of the most basic rules of that
society.
In American terms, think of George
Washington encouraging his slaves
to openly criticise Thomas Jefferson.
Paul.
Tom Reedy
news:Zs9Da.16597$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
Here is another delusion Crowley suffers from: He believes that if no one
argues against his hallucinatory world that he's proved his case.
Actually, Crowley, Bob Grumman has been assigned by the Trust to counter
your arguments. He has more patience with morons than I do. Apparently
somewhere deep down in Bob's mind he believes you're capable of
understanding common logical argument. I don't happen to share his
optimistic outlook about your capabilities, so I don't bother. But it is fun
to poke through the bars with a stick every now and then. (You're one of the
few idiots whose posts I read. I never fail to get a kick out of the
jaw-droppingly ignorant and stupid things you write.)
TR
Gary Kosinsky
<slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>"Gary Kosinsky" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message news:3eceabc4...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>
>> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
>> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
>> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
>> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
>>
>> I suspect you would give a qualified 'yes' to that question.
>> I would say 'no'.
>
>It is to me astounding that anyone would think
>of saying that Shakespeare's plays were NOT
>commentaries on his times.
As I've said before, Paul, I guess I'm just going to have to
wait for your book wherein you spell out all the parallels between the
plays and Elizabethan current events.
- Gary Kosinsky
Bob Grumman
>> >speare's work.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> You got me, Paul. I know it couldn't have been because
>> he thought high-ranking nobles were immune from punishment
>> for doing or saying the wrong thing. And if it was because the
>> queen really liked his writing, that would hold if he were a
>> commoner, too.
>You have no idea at all as to how things
>worked then, have you? (Actually, you also
>have no idea as to how things work now.)
The latter is certainly true. I do know that human beings are not the robots
you rigidnikally believe them to be.
>Very low-status individuals are NOT allowed
>to comment on the activities of very high-
>status ones -- even in the presence of the
>top dog himself (or herself).
>A commoner was simply not in a position
>to criticise a noble -- it would be a breach
>of many of the most basic rules of that
>society.
Ah, so which aristocrats wrote "The Isle of Dogs?"
>In American terms, think of George
>Washington encouraging his slaves
>to openly criticise Thomas Jefferson.
>
>Paul.
Washington may have encouraged it. Jefferson and he were in opposite political
parties. But I should remind you, Paul, that Shakespeare was not a slave, nor
even in the lowest class of the time. He was what I call middle-class, because
that's what it was, regardless of whether the term was in use then or not.
Aside from that, we (those of us who are sane, that is) don't know for sure
whom, if anyone, Shakespeare criticized in his plays, or exactly how perceptive
the powers that be were, and how tolerant. How can you believe Elizabeth could
let Oxford say anything he wanted to because he was a super-genius, but not
possibly be so taken with the literary genius of a commoner as to let him say
whatever he wanted to, if he did so indirectly--that is, without naming names?
She allowed some commoners into her government, and confidence--why not The
Greatest Writer in History, even if he was not titled?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> > > "Jimbosir" <jimb...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:20030603151809...@mb-m03.aol.com...
> > > >
> > > > Not true. I consider myself a Stratfordian and
> > > > I think that the poet (i.e. Shakespeare of
> > > > Stratford) had an interest in the events
> > > > and politics of his day.
> > > > MENTOR (:-)
The only evidence we have for the interests
of the poet/playwright lies in the poems and
the plays. So you should be able to
demonstrate his interest in the events and
politics of the day.
> > > When Crowley talks about "Stratfordians" and what they believe, he is
> > > actually addressing a mental construct that resides in his head.
> >
> > So, Tom and Jimbosir, tell us which of the
> > canonical plays contains the highest number
> > of references to current political events?
> > And perhaps you'd give us a few examples
> > of the clearest references in that play?
> >
> > Or which of the sonnets has the most and
> > clearest references?
> >
> > > That way he can be right every time.
> >
> > It must be wonderful to be able to bullshit
> > all the time in the way you do -- and NEVER
> > answer questions. (When are you going
> > to respond on Sonnet 126?)
>
> Here is another delusion Crowley suffers from: He believes that if no one
> argues against his hallucinatory world that he's proved his case.
Tom and Jimbosir . . . this NG is for
discussing Shakespeare and his works.
Here you both put forward a theory about
him and them. How come you can't
back it up?
Caught out bullshitting again?
What a surprise!
Paul.
KQKnave
writes:
>
>>A commoner was simply not in a position
>>to criticise a noble -- it would be a breach
>>of many of the most basic rules of that
>>society.
>
>Ah, so which aristocrats wrote "The Isle of Dogs?"
Crowley's parallel universe is amazing, isn't it?
Apparently, he believes that there was no need for such
an office as the Master of Revels, or that plays
were censored. Astounding.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Phil
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> The question then arises: were Shakespeare's plays political
> satires or commentaries on his times, similar in fashion to "Animal
> Farm", which can only be truly appreciated if one has a thorough
> knowledge of the people, politics and current events of the time?
For me Sonnet 104 is not about a "person" but his love the "leap year".
without truly appreciating that in 1582 some leap years were to be killed
off it is difficult to understand why he would write such words about the
leap year. In 1582 it was decided that three leap years every 400 years
would be killed off.
"To me, fair friend, you never can be old,"
To me, leap year, you never can be old
"For as you were when first your eye I ey'd,"
Play on the calendar "Ides"
"Such seems your beauty still. Three winters cold,
Have from the forests shook three summers' pride,
Three beauteous springs to yellow autumn turn'd,
In process of the seasons have I seen,
Three April perfumes in three hot Junes burn'd,
Since first I saw you fresh, which yet are green."
Here the words are all about the "calendar year"
The years between a leap year is three years.
"Ah! yet doth beauty like a dial-hand,"
Time, time, time
"Steal from his figure, and no pace perceiv'd;"
Here the proposed new calendar has the leap years
extra day stolen.
"So your sweet hue, which methinks still doth stand,
Hath motion, and mine eye may be deceiv'd:
For fear of which, hear this thou age unbred:
Ere you were born was beauty's summer dead."
The leap year every fourth year had stood from 45 BCE
until 1582.
Just some thoughts
Phil
Clark
> >> >That fear is conspicuously absent from Shake-
> >> >speare's work.
> >> >
> >> >Why?
> >>
> >> You got me, Paul. I know it couldn't have been because
> >> he thought high-ranking nobles were immune from punishment
> >> for doing or saying the wrong thing. And if it was because the
> >> queen really liked his writing, that would hold if he were a
> >> commoner, too.
>
> >You have no idea at all as to how things
> >worked then, have you? (Actually, you also
> >have no idea as to how things work now.)
>
> The latter is certainly true. I do know that human beings are not the
robots
> you rigidnikally believe them to be.
>
> >Very low-status individuals are NOT allowed
> >to comment on the activities of very high-
> >status ones -- even in the presence of the
> >top dog himself (or herself).
>
> >A commoner was simply not in a position
> >to criticise a noble -- it would be a breach
> >of many of the most basic rules of that
> >society.
>
> Ah, so which aristocrats wrote "The Isle of Dogs?"
Would that be the step-son of a bricklayer, the mostly self-educated
commoner, and frequently jailed, Ben Jonson (along with Thomas Nashe)?
Unfortunately, "The Isle of Dogs" is lost, but as an extant example of how a
commoner could rather freely comment on the activities of a noble, Jonson
dished out plenty of high-handed moralizing advice to the newly arrived King
James in his "Panegyre" of 1603 (in which he also rather blatantly alludes
to Henry VIII as an example of a bad King):
http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692panegyre.htm
And then there was that smirking reference to the King selling knighthoods
in "Eastward Ho" (though that one landed him in jail once again).
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare web page at:
http://hollowaypages.com/Shakespeare.htm
And my new Ben Jonson web site at:
http://hollowaypages.com/Jonson.htm
Tom Reedy
news:n%gEa.75070$DV.9...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> "Bob Grumman" wrote
>
<snip>
> > >A commoner was simply not in a position
> > >to criticise a noble -- it would be a breach
> > >of many of the most basic rules of that
> > >society.
> >
> > Ah, so which aristocrats wrote "The Isle of Dogs?"
>
> Would that be the step-son of a bricklayer, the mostly self-educated
> commoner, and frequently jailed, Ben Jonson (along with Thomas Nashe)?
> Unfortunately, "The Isle of Dogs" is lost, but as an extant example of how
a
> commoner could rather freely comment on the activities of a noble, Jonson
> dished out plenty of high-handed moralizing advice to the newly arrived
King
> James in his "Panegyre" of 1603 (in which he also rather blatantly alludes
> to Henry VIII as an example of a bad King):
> http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692panegyre.htm
Was anyone else struck by Jonson's inappropriate diction in a poem that was
ostensibly "A PANEGYRE, ON THE HAPPY ENTRANCE OF JAMES, our Sovereign?"
I'm referring to lines 10-15:
Where Men commit black Incest with their Faults,
And snore supinely in the stall of Sin:
Where Murther, Rapine, Lust, do sit within,
Carowsing humane Blood in Iron Bowls,
And make their Den the Slaughter-house of Souls:
From whose foul reeking Caverns first arise
just a few lines after speaking of the "heaven," "joys," "favor," and
"glory" of the king.
It brings to mind the lines in his eulogy for Shakespeare:
And thine to ruine, where it seem'd to raise.
These are, as some infamous Baud, or Whore,
The meaning of the lines is commendatory taken in context with the poem, but
the diction he uses seems out of place in a poem of that nature.
This type of diction, whether conscious or unconscious (and he was too good
and studied a writer to have been unconscious of it) betrays the character
of Ben Jonson. It was once said of Al Jolson that he wasn't just envious of
another singer's success, he was also envious if someone had a successful
laundromat. Jonson seems to have had much the same competitiveness in his
character.
TR
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Was anyone else struck by Jonson's inappropriate diction in a poem that was
>ostensibly "A PANEGYRE, ON THE HAPPY ENTRANCE OF JAMES, our Sovereign?"
>
>I'm referring to lines 10-15:
>
>Where Men commit black Incest with their Faults,
>And snore supinely in the stall of Sin:
>Where Murther, Rapine, Lust, do sit within,
>Carowsing humane Blood in Iron Bowls,
>And make their Den the Slaughter-house of Souls:
>From whose foul reeking Caverns first arise
>
>just a few lines after speaking of the "heaven," "joys," "favor," and
>"glory" of the king.
>
>It brings to mind the lines in his eulogy for Shakespeare:
>
>And thine to ruine, where it seem'd to raise.
>These are, as some infamous Baud, or Whore,
>
>The meaning of the lines is commendatory taken in context with the poem, but
>the diction he uses seems out of place in a poem of that nature.
>
>This type of diction, whether conscious or unconscious (and he was too good
>and studied a writer to have been unconscious of it) betrays the character
>of Ben Jonson.
Taking these lines out of context makes it difficult to understand their
original purpose. I don't think that envy put the words there, I think it
was just Jonson's natural style to integrate contrasts. In his poem
"To Elizabeth, Countess of Rutland", written to a woman, he begins by
talking of "poets" and "our muses' springs", and ends describing
how Nature made the Countess superior to her father's work (Sidney
and his Arcadia). In the middle he has the lines
(Save that masculine issue of his brain)
No male unto him.
The presence of "male" and "masculine" is strange in a poem to
a countess, but it's just a perfectly legimate way to create tension,
followed by release, so the poem has a pleasing arc to its action.
This is especially necessary in poems such as panegyrics, where
the subject matter is usually of little interest to anyone but the object
of the poem. He does something similar in "To Lucy, Countess of Bedford",
where the second line reads "I asked a Lord a buck, and he denied me",
and even on a smaller scale, contrasting one line with another, as
in his ode to Penshurst estate, where he contrasts "ruddy satyrs"
in one line with "lighter fauns" in the next. It's just part of his style;
he was no Keats.
Tom Reedy
news:20030607140244...@mb-m03.aol.com...
The lines are excerpted from the poem Clark links to in the previous
message.
> I don't think that envy put the words there, I think it
> was just Jonson's natural style to integrate contrasts. In his poem
> "To Elizabeth, Countess of Rutland", written to a woman, he begins by
> talking of "poets" and "our muses' springs", and ends describing
> how Nature made the Countess superior to her father's work (Sidney
> and his Arcadia). In the middle he has the lines
> (Save that masculine issue of his brain)
> No male unto him.
> The presence of "male" and "masculine" is strange in a poem to
> a countess, but it's just a perfectly legimate way to create tension,
> followed by release, so the poem has a pleasing arc to its action.
I haven't read that poem. However, in the "Epistle to Elizabeth, Countess of
Rutland," (online at http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/forest12.htm)
he spends half the lines getting in digs at others.
> This is especially necessary in poems such as panegyrics, where
> the subject matter is usually of little interest to anyone but the object
> of the poem. He does something similar in "To Lucy, Countess of Bedford",
> where the second line reads "I asked a Lord a buck, and he denied me",
> and even on a smaller scale, contrasting one line with another, as
> in his ode to Penshurst estate, where he contrasts "ruddy satyrs"
> in one line with "lighter fauns" in the next. It's just part of his style;
> he was no Keats.
Well, part of his "style" seems to me to be back-biting, as evidenced by the
Drummond commentary and Timbers. He rarely praised without taking some of it
back; I guess you could call that integrating contrasts. And it does reveal
his character.
TR
Clark
> "KQKnave" wrote
There's plenty in Jonson's work that shows his competitiveness, but I don't
think this is an example. Jonson actively sought to portray himself as the
arbiter of morals for the Court. His heavy moralizing and the censure of
behavior that he thought inappropriate in this "Panegyre" is an example of
the role of moral arbiter that he is promoting for himself. I see the
change in diction as Jonson shifting into his full "preacher" mode.
> > Taking these lines out of context makes it difficult to understand their
> > original purpose.
>
> The lines are excerpted from the poem Clark links to in the previous
> message.
>
> > I don't think that envy put the words there, I think it
> > was just Jonson's natural style to integrate contrasts. In his poem
> > "To Elizabeth, Countess of Rutland", written to a woman, he begins by
> > talking of "poets" and "our muses' springs", and ends describing
> > how Nature made the Countess superior to her father's work (Sidney
> > and his Arcadia). In the middle he has the lines
> > (Save that masculine issue of his brain)
> > No male unto him.
> > The presence of "male" and "masculine" is strange in a poem to
> > a countess, but it's just a perfectly legimate way to create tension,
> > followed by release, so the poem has a pleasing arc to its action.
Actually, it's not strange at all. The poem begins by saying how noble
Elizabeth's father was, goes on to say that although he never had an male
children to carry on his line (except for his "masculine" verse), if he had
lived he would be so pleased with how she turned out that he would have
preferred her to his most proud production, his book. It's a pleasing arc,
but I don't see it as an "integrated contrast."
Here's the poem:
L X X I X.
To Elizabeth Countess of Rutland.
That Poets are far rarer Births than Kings,
Your Noblest Father prov'd: like whom, before,
Or then, or since, about our Muses springs,
Came not that Soul exhausted so their store.
Hence was it, that the Destinies decreed
(Save that most masculine Issue of his Brain)
No Male unto him: who could so exceed
Nature, they thought, in all, that he would fain.
At which, she happily displeas'd, made you:
On whom, if he were living now, to look,
He should those rare, and absolute Numbers view,
As he would burn, or better far his Book.
> I haven't read that poem. However, in the "Epistle to Elizabeth, Countess
of
> Rutland," (online at
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/forest12.htm)
> he spends half the lines getting in digs at others.
> > This is especially necessary in poems such as panegyrics, where
> > the subject matter is usually of little interest to anyone but the
object
> > of the poem. He does something similar in "To Lucy, Countess of
Bedford",
> > where the second line reads "I asked a Lord a buck, and he denied me",
The reason for the reference to asking a buck of a lord and being denied
was, of course, so that in the next line he could show how generous Lucy was
in giving him a gift before he ever asked. He is highlighting the contrast,
but it's all in the name of praising his subject. Here's a link to the
epigram: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm#LXXXIV
> > and even on a smaller scale, contrasting one line with another, as
> > in his ode to Penshurst estate, where he contrasts "ruddy satyrs"
> > in one line with "lighter fauns" in the next. It's just part of his
style;
> > he was no Keats.
>
> Well, part of his "style" seems to me to be back-biting, as evidenced by
the
> Drummond commentary and Timbers. He rarely praised without taking some of
it
> back; I guess you could call that integrating contrasts. And it does
reveal
> his character.
It was an element of his character, but Jonson could be effusively
extravagant in his praise of others. In the "Epigrams" alone there are
several examples:
To William Camden: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm#XIV
To John Donne: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm#XXIII
To Beaumont: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm#LV
To Edward Allyn: http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm#LXXXIX
Etc.
Of course, there are also a lot of back-biting diatribes in the "Epigrams."
Jonson had a temper, and could be preachy, contemptuous, and competitive.
But he was also human, and showed great warmth for a number of his
contemporaries. He and Drummond didn't really hit it off, so it's probably
a bit misleading to judge him by Drummond's notes (and even Drummond said
that Jonson was harder on himself than he was on others).
Tom Reedy
Right. What is supposed to be a public compliment for James is used to
further Jonson's ambition of becoming the moral arbiter for the Court. You
don't see any competitiveness here?
But my original observation was Jonson's inappropriate diction for a poem
meant as a compliment to the King. And I did point out that the meaning of
the lines is commendatory taken in context with the entire poem, but
bringing in the type of diction he uses seems out of place in a poem of that
nature.
<snip>
> Of course, there are also a lot of back-biting diatribes in the
"Epigrams."
> Jonson had a temper, and could be preachy, contemptuous, and competitive.
> But he was also human, and showed great warmth for a number of his
> contemporaries. He and Drummond didn't really hit it off, so it's
probably
> a bit misleading to judge him by Drummond's notes (and even Drummond said
> that Jonson was harder on himself than he was on others).
There is no doubt Jonson was a complicated artist, and I'm not taking him to
task for being a human being. I'm just pointing out that writing a poem
ostensibly in praise of a person and using that type of diction -- even
while claiming the poem's subject is an example of everything opposite of
those descriptions -- subtly links that person with those attributes in the
mind of the reader.
TR
Bob Grumman
>There is no doubt Jonson was a complicated artist, and I'm not taking him to
>task for being a human being. I'm just pointing out that writing a poem
>ostensibly in praise of a person and using that type of diction --
I'm unclear on what you mean by "diction," Tom. Do you mean use of negative
words? That would be change of tone, I would think. The words themselves seem
high rhetoric, same as the rest of the poem (I would guess, not having the poem
at hand).
even
>while claiming the poem's subject is an example of everything opposite of
>those descriptions -- subtly links that person with those attributes in the
>mind of the reader.
TR
I can't agree with that. Contrasts are a main basis of lasting poetry.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
>
> >There is no doubt Jonson was a complicated artist, and I'm not taking him
to
> >task for being a human being. I'm just pointing out that writing a poem
> >ostensibly in praise of a person and using that type of diction --
>
> I'm unclear on what you mean by "diction," Tom. Do you mean use of
negative
> words? That would be change of tone, I would think. The words themselves
seem
> high rhetoric, same as the rest of the poem (I would guess, not having the
poem
> at hand).
Diction = choice of words.
> even
> >while claiming the poem's subject is an example of everything opposite of
> >those descriptions -- subtly links that person with those attributes in
the
> >mind of the reader.
>
> TR
>
> I can't agree with that. Contrasts are a main basis of lasting poetry.
Whatever. I just think if I were praising a monarch, I would use more
abstractions when referring to evils, and I certainly wouldn't bring up
incest or suggest blood drinking.
But that's just me.
TR
> --Bob G.
>
>
Bob Grumman
>to
>> >task for being a human being. I'm just pointing out that writing a poem
>> >ostensibly in praise of a person and using that type of diction --
>>
>> I'm unclear on what you mean by "diction," Tom. Do you mean use of
>negative
>> words? That would be change of tone, I would think. The words themselves
>seem
>> high rhetoric, same as the rest of the poem (I would guess, not having the
>poem
>> at hand).
>
>Diction = choice of words.
Okay, I guess. I think of diction as choice of words based on what they are as
words outside their meanings--as when comparing, say, the diction of the average
dock-worker to that of an average philosophy professor.
>> even
>> >while claiming the poem's subject is an example of everything opposite of
>> >those descriptions -- subtly links that person with those attributes in
>the
>> >mind of the reader.
>>
>> TR
>>
>> I can't agree with that. Contrasts are a main basis of lasting poetry.
>
>Whatever. I just think if I were praising a monarch, I would use more
>abstractions when referring to evils, and I certainly wouldn't bring up
>incest or suggest blood drinking.
>
>But that's just me.
>
>TR
Everyone would use different images, and some would not use contrasts. I just
don't see that using an extremely negative image in a poem in praise of someone
would taint the person being praised. For instance: my speaking of the
anti-Stratfordian regurgitated, bacteria-ridden split-pea soup that the clear
waters of your thought part for a few seconds when you deign to enter the
authorship fray, whether effective or not, surely does not make you look bad, it
doesn't seem to me.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
Obviously our notions of the effects of language are different. I'm pretty
sure if I were writing an appreciation of a dead poet who was a friend, I
would avoid using the word "whore," for example.
> For instance: my speaking of the
> anti-Stratfordian regurgitated, bacteria-ridden split-pea soup that the
clear
> waters of your thought part for a few seconds when you deign to enter the
> authorship fray, whether effective or not, surely does not make you look
bad, it
> doesn't seem to me.
Now there's an example of the difference in our use of language. I challenge
you to diagram that sentence. You might not have said what you think you
said.
TR
> --Bob G.
>
>
KQKnave
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> writes:
LXXIX To Elizabeth, Countess of Rutland
That poets are far rarer births than kings,
Your noblest father proved: like whom, before,
Or then, or since, about our muses springs,
Came not that soul exhausted so their store.
Hence was it, that the destinies decreed
(Save that most masculine issue of his brain)
No male unto him: who could so exceed
Nature, they thought, in all, that he would feign.
At which, she happily displeased, made you:
On whom, if he were living now, to look,
He should those rare, and absolute numbers view,
As he would burn, or better far his book.
He wrote lots of poems that were digs at someone specific;
that's what many of his poems are, such as "To Sir Voluptuous
Beast", "On Something that Walks Somewhere" etc. But does
this tell us about his personality or about the fact that he was
trying to imitate the epigrams of Martial?
John Donne likewise wrote Satires:
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/satire3.htm
but try reading his elegies. A list is at
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/donnebib.htm
Is Donne's diction appropriate for elegies?
From Donne's Elegie I:
If, swollen with poison, he lay in his last bed,
His body with a sere bark covered,
Drawing his breath as thick and short as can
The nimblest crocheting musician,
Ready with loathsome vomiting to spew
His soul out of one hell into a new,
etc.
A large part of what Jonson was doing was simply part of the literary style
of the times. He says himself in Timber, "Indeed, nothing is of more
credit, or request now, than a petulant paper, or scoffing verses."
As far as the Panegyre is concerned, Riggs, in his biography of Jonson,
says about this poem that "The shared elitism of the poet and the King,
which is implicit in all of the early works that Jonson addressed to James,
becomes fully explicit in the "Panegyre"." Riggs also notes that the
goddess Themis in the poem gives James the advice that James himself
gave to Prince Henry in his *Basilikon Doron*, so that work should be
checked before ascribing too much of the diction solely to Jonson.
http://www.stoics.com/basilikon_doron.html
For example, I find in this work:
"Praie, as ye finde your heart moveth you pro renata: but see that
yee sute no unlawfull thinges, as revenge, luste, or such like;"
and
"Above all then (my Sonne) labour, to keepe sounde this conscience
which manie prattle of, but over-fewe feele: especiallye be carefull to
keepe it free from two diseases, which it useth oft to bee infected with,
to witte, Leaprosie, and Superstition: the former is the mother of
Atheisme: the other of Heresies. By a Leaprouse conscience, I meane;
a cauterized conscience (as PAULL calleth it) [I. Tim. 4.2.] being become
senselesse of sinne, through sleeping in a carelesse securitie, as King
DAVIDS was, after his murther and adulterie."
and
"But as this seuere Iustice of yours vpon all offences would bee but
for a time, (as I haue alreadie said) so is there some horrible crimes
that yee are bound in conscience neuer to forgiue : such as Witch-craft,
wilfull murther, Incest, (especially within the degrees of consanguinitie)
Sodomie, poisoning, and false coine."
In his "Panegyre", Jonson says of King James
"Again, the glory of our Western World
Unfolds himself: and from his Eyes are hurled
(To day) a thousand radiant Lights, that stream
To every nook and angle of his realm.
His former rays did only clear the sky;
But these his searching beams are cast, to pry
Into those dark and deep concealed vaults,
Where men commit black incest with their faults,
And snore supinely in the stall of sin:
Where murther, rapine, lust, do sit within,
Carowsing human blood in iron bowls,
And make their den the slaughter-house of souls:"
So Jonson merely seems to be describing James as James
saw himself.
Riggs also says that James himself "prized earthy humor and broad
repartee" and "was hardly a model of Roman gravitas," so that too must
be considered when reading Jonson's writings about James.
>
>> This is especially necessary in poems such as panegyrics, where
>> the subject matter is usually of little interest to anyone but the object
>> of the poem. He does something similar in "To Lucy, Countess of Bedford",
>> where the second line reads "I asked a Lord a buck, and he denied me",
>> and even on a smaller scale, contrasting one line with another, as
>> in his ode to Penshurst estate, where he contrasts "ruddy satyrs"
>> in one line with "lighter fauns" in the next. It's just part of his style;
>> he was no Keats.
>
>Well, part of his "style" seems to me to be back-biting, as evidenced by the
>Drummond commentary and Timbers. He rarely praised without taking some of it
>back; I guess you could call that integrating contrasts. And it does reveal
>his character.
Well, Timber and Drummond are not poems. I don't think you
can determine much about his personality from the diction of
the poems, because the diction has an artistic purpose. What
does the diction of sonnets 66, 110, 112 tell us about Shakespeare?
Does it tell us more than the diction of his sonnet 18?
For example, Jonson's poem on the estate of Penshurst:
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/penshurst.htm
At one point in the middle of praising the estate, he suddenly brings
in his own gluttony:
Where comes no guest, but is allow'd to eat,
Without his fear, and of thy lord's own meat :
Where the same beer and bread, and self-same wine,
That is his lordship's, shall be also mine.
And I not fain to sit (as some this day,
At great men's tables) and yet dine away.
Here no man tells my cups ; nor standing by,
A waiter, doth my gluttony envý :
But gives me what I call, and lets me eat,
And even here he complains about some "great men's tables".
No doubt that there is in Jonson a constant barking at
what he didn't like in society, but you can find that in
other poets, including Shakespeare. I think that once
you separate out what Jonson was trying to do deliberately,
what was appropriate for his audience, and what was
the fashion of the times, there isn't much diction left
to ascribe to his personality.
Bob Grumman
>> anti-Stratfordian regurgitated, bacteria-ridden split-pea soup that the
>clear
>> waters of your thought part for a few seconds when you deign to enter the
>> authorship fray, whether effective or not, surely does not make you look
>bad, it
>> doesn't seem to me.
>
>Now there's an example of the difference in our use of language. I challenge
>you to diagram that sentence. You might not have said what you think you
>said.
>
>TR
What is it about weekends that every once in a while gets you and me into these
dopey discussions? I'm not going to diagram my sentence but I'll try to
paraphrase: Assume I said, "The clear waters of your thought part the
anti-Stratfordian regurgitated, bacteria-ridden split-pea soup for a few seconds
when you deign to enter the authorship fray." Let's put aside the literary
effectiveness or lack thereof of what I've said. I claim it would not make you
look bad.
Note: I doubt our use of language is that much different. I just write
convolutedly when more or less shooting the breeze, and often am too lazy at
those times to clarify what I've said.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
If I may interpose, I suspect Tom is pointing to your use of "it doesn't
seem to me" for (presumably) "it seems to me"
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
>> >> anti-Stratfordian regurgitated, bacteria-ridden split-pea soup that the
>> >clear
>> >> waters of your thought part for a few seconds when you deign to enter
>the
>> >> authorship fray, whether effective or not, surely does not make you
>look
>> >bad, it
>> >> doesn't seem to me.
SNIP
>If I may interpose, I suspect Tom is pointing to your use of "it doesn't
>seem to me" for (presumably) "it seems to me"
>
>Peter G.
>
Ah. That, I thought, was a standard colloquialism, but maybe it's weird usage.
If I were taking pains, I would have said, "doesn't seem to me to make you look
bad, at all."
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> The leap year every fourth year had stood from 45 BCE
> until 1582.
Not so. Due to a confusion in idiom (in Latin, Monday is "four days
before" Thursday), the first leap years were every _three_ years. When
the mistake was discovered, after 9 BC, they were skipped altogether
until things had gotten back in step in 8 AD.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams: "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Phil
John
The error in counting only three years was
as you say corrected to every fourth year
very early in the Julian calendar's history.
However the main thrust was that to write
about the 'leap year' as an entity at the end
of the 16th century is very plausible. That
changing the leap year that had stood
unaltered for nearly 1600 years would
have been viewed as topical. The change
decreed from Rome would also have added
to the debate, which as we know England did
not follow until finally agreeing in 1752.
When I read Sonnet 104 to me his "fair friend"
who never can be old is the leap year.
" To me fair friend you never can be old,
For as you were when first your eye I eyed,
Such seems your beauty still: three winters cold,
Have from the forests shook three summers' pride,
Three beauteous springs to yellow autumn turned,
In process of the seasons have I seen,
Three April perfumes in three hot Junes burned,
Since first I saw you fresh which yet are green.
Ah yet doth beauty like a dial hand,
Steal from his figure, and no pace perceived,
So your sweet hue, which methinks still doth stand
Hath motion, and mine eye may be deceived.
For fear of which, hear this thou age unbred,
Ere you were born was beauty's summer dead."
Phil
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vRsHa.18640$gs5.12...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Phil
> The error in counting only three years was
> as you say corrected to every fourth year
> very early in the Julian calendar's history.
> However the main thrust was that to write
> about the 'leap year' as an entity at the end
> of the 16th century is very plausible. That
> changing the leap year that had stood
> unaltered for nearly 1600 years would
> have been viewed as topical. The change
> decreed from Rome would also have added
> to the debate, which as we know England did
> not follow until finally agreeing in 1752.
> When I read Sonnet 104 to me his "fair friend"
> who never can be old is the leap year.
>
I would be interested to hear some views, was
Shakespeare interested in calendars and/or time keeping
any more than the average English author of his period?
Could the subject be a 'leap year', after all his friend
does appear in the fourth year?
Phil