PROFESSOR 'IGGINS: Looney Redacts 361 Words From Oxford's Letter.
Elizabeth
On March 22, 1601 Oxford wrote a letter to his former
brother-in-law Robert Cecil.
Oxford's letter is 488 words in length.
In 1920 Thomas Looney reprinted the same letter from
Oxford to Cecil in the Oxfordian textus receptus,
Shakespeare Identified.
After Looney slashed his way through Oxford's letter
he left only 127 words. Looney then edited Oxford's syntax
to make it look more Shakespearean.
Looney excised 361 words or 74% of "Shakespeare's" letter
because it wasn't Shakespearean enough. The best of
Oxford's genuine letter is his emotional reaction to
Cecil's double dealing. That Oxford didn't make the cut.
The question is whether Oxfordians would have swooned to
Looney's romantic idealization of Oxford if Looney had
printed the historical Oxford's texts. What was Looney's
motive in redacting the letter? Have Oxfordians fallen
for a spurious earl?
------------------------------------------------------
I've posted below a line by line comparison with Looney's
version and Oxford's original letter with links. With no
html capability I'm using caps and blank spaces to show
what Looney removed and revised in Oxford's text.
------------------------------------------------------
TL = Thomas Looney
EO = Oxford
CAPS = Oxford's deleted material.
Note: Looney has taken the word "not" out of line four.
TL: It is now a year since Her Majesty
EO: It ys now a yeare sythence BY YOWRE ONLY MEANES her Magestye
TL: granted her interest in Danvers escheat.
EO: graunted her intereste in Danvers escheete.
TL: . . .I find
EO: I HADE ONLY THEN HER WOORDE FROM YOWRE MOUTHE I fynde
TL: that the lands will [not] be carried without deed.
EO: BY THYS WASTE OF TYME, that landes will not be carried wythoute
deedes.
TL: I have twice . . . moved Her Magestie . . . to
EO: I have twice therfore moved her Magestie that yt wowld
please her to
TL: to grant me that ordinary course
EO: graunte me that ordinarie course (DE BENE ESSE QUANTUM
IN NOBIS EST)
TL: whereof there are more than one hundred examples.
EO: wherof there are moore then an hundred examples.
TL: Mine answer was that 1 should receive her pleasure from you.
EO: myne answer ys that I showld receyve her pleasure from yow.
TL: But I understand by Cauley that she hath never spoken thereof.
EO: But I vnderstand by Cauley that shee hathe never spoken therof.
TL: The matter hath been heard . . .
EO: The matter hathe beene hard ACCORDINGE TO THE ORDER WITH MUCHE A
DOO
TL: twice before the judges
EO: twice before the Iugges,
EO: AND MANY ALSO STANDERS BY DYD HEARE THE SAME, THER
IN OPEN APARANCE, HER MAGESTIES TYTELL WAS QUESTIONLES,
AS FOR THE IUGGES REPORT THEY WEERE NEVER CAALD VNTO
YT, AND THE PRINCIPALL POYNTES TO CONFIRME HER MAGESTIES
TYTELL NEVER OPNED OR MOVED, BUT CONTRARIE KEPT BAKE.
SUMTHINGE HE HATHE DONE OWT OF HIS OWNE BREST THAT YS
SECRET AND I CANNOT LERNE, YF HE HAVE REPORTED NOTHINGE
TO ESCHETE TO HER MAGESTIE, THEN YS MY SUTE AS YT WAS
THE FYRST DAY,THAT YS WHERE HER MAGESTIE THOWGHT SHE
HADD NOTHINGE, THAT SHE WOWLD GRAUNT ME HER INTEREST.
THYS SUT I OBTEYNED BY YOWRE ESPETIALL MEANES, AND THIS
SHE PROMISDE ME, WHERFORE [..]
TL: . . . . I challenge that something be done whereby I may,
EO: HERVPON I chalenge that sumthynge myght be done, wherby I may
TL: upon ground, seek and try Her Majesty's right which cannot be
EO: vpon grovnde seke and trye her magesties ryght, whiche cannot be
TL: done without this deed aforesaid . . .
EO: done wythout this dede a fore SPOKEN OF. tHE COURSE WHYCHE SYLDOME
EO: OR NEVER HATHE BENE VSED BEFORE IN THIS CAUSE, TO REFER
YT TO THE IUGGES, HOW PR'IUDITIALL A PR'SIDENT I KNOW
NOT TO HER MAGESTIE, HATHE BENE OBSERUED, AND THE EFFECT
HATHE SHOWED THAT WHEARAS YT WAS PRETENDED TO BE SHORTEST,
YT HATHE BENE THE FURTHEST WAY ABOUT. AND AS THE BEGINNINGE
WAS BUT SUME OPINIONE THE END YS BUT CONFUSIONE. NOW
THERFORE THE MATTER HAVINGE BENE DIRECTED BY THIS COURSE
FOR A WHOOLE YEARES SPACE, AND COME
TL: . . .I desire to know Her Majesty's pleasure touching
EO: TO NO BETTER TERMES, my desyre ys to know her Magesties plesure
touchinge
TL: . . . her patent (de bene esse) whether she will perform it or
EO: [MY DESYRE OF] her patent, (De bene esse) whyther she will performe
yt or
TL: no
EO: noo. IF NOT THEN HAVE I BENE MOCKED, YF YE [=YEA],
THAT I MYGHT HAVE ANSWER, WHERBY I MAY VPON REASON
QUIET MY SELFE, AND NOT VPON WEARINES. HOW SOOEVER
AN ANSWER SHALBE MOST WELCOME VNTO ME, NOW BEINGE
THE BEST EXPECTATIONE OF MY TEDIOUS SUTE, THINKINGE
THERIN, MY TYME LOST, MORE PRETIOUS THEN THE SUTE
YT SELFE. THUS TAKINGE MY LEAVE FROME HACKNEY THYS
22TIE OF EO: MARCHE I REMAYNE
YOWRE ASSURED FRIENDE & BROTHERINLAVE
(signed) eDWARD oXENFORD
Looney's redacted version:
[198] Earl of Oxford to Sir Robert Cecil:
"It is now a year since Her Majesty granted her interest in Danver's
escheat. I find that the lands will be carried without deed. I have
twice moved Her Majesty to grant me that ordinary course, whereof there
are more than one hundred examples. Mine answer was that 1 should
receive her pleasure from you. But I understand by Cauley that she hath
never spoken thereof. The matter hath been heard twice before the
judges but their report hath never been made. I challenge that
something be done whereby I may, upon ground, seek and try Her
Majesty's right, which cannot be done without this deed aforesaid. I
desire to know Her Majesty's pleasure touching her patent (de bene
esse) whether she will perform it or no."
Hackney, 22nd March, 1601. (Hatfield MSS., Vol. XII.)
<http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/etexts/si/09-5.htm>
Oxford's letter in original format:
Cecil Papers 85/103 (bifolium, 305mm x 205mm), Oxford to Cecil; 22
March [1602] (W337;F707-8).
It ys now a yeare sythence by yowre only meanes her Magestye graunted
her intereste in Danvers escheete. I hade only then her woorde from
yowre mouthe I fynde by thys waste of Tyme, that landes will not be
carried wythoute deedes. I have twice therfore moved her Magestie that
yt wowld please her to graunte me that ordinarie course (de bene esse
quantum in nobis est) wherof there are moore then an hundred examples.
myne answer ys that I showld receyve her pleasure from yow. But I
vnderstand by Cauley that shee hathe never spoken therof. The matter
hathe beene hard [=heard] accordinge to the order with muche a doo
twice before the Iugges, and many also standers by dyd heare the same,
ther in open aparance, her Magesties tytell was questionles, The Lord
chyef Iustice vpon thys as in forme I was made [+to] beleue, was to
have taken the opinion of the rest of the Iugges and conferringe yt
wythe his owne to have made vp a report to her Magestie. As for the
Iugges report they weere never caald vnto yt, and the principall
poyntes to confirme her Magesties tytell never opned or moved, but
contrarie kept bake. So that vnder there hands the Lord chiefe Iustice
hathe made no report. Yet sumthinge he hathe done owt of his owne brest
that ys secret and I cannot lerne, yf he have reported nothinge to
Eschete to her Magestie, then ys my sute as yt was the fyrst day, that
ys where her Magestie thowght she hadd nothinge, that she wowld graunt
me her Interest. thys sut I obteyned by yowre espetiall meanes, and
this she promisde me, wherfore [..] Hervpon I chalenge that sumthynge
myght be done, wherby I may vpon grovnde seke and trye her Magesties
ryght, whiche cannot be done wythout this dede a fore spoken of. The
course whyche syldome or never hathe bene vsed before in this cause, to
refer yt to the Iugges, how pr'iuditiall a pr'sident I know not to
her Magestie, hathe bene obserued, and the effect hathe showed that
whearas yt was pretended to be shortest, yt hathe bene the furthest way
about. and as the beginninge was but sume opinione the end ys but
confusione. Now therfore the matter havinge bene directed by this
course for a whoole yeares space, and come to no better termes, my
desyre ys to know her Magesties plesure touchinge [my desyre of] her
patent, (De bene esse) whyther she will performe yt or noo. If not then
have I bene mocked, yf ye [=yea], that I myght have answer, wherby I
may vpon reason quiet my selfe, and not vpon wearines. How sooever an
answer shalbe most welcome vnto me, now beinge the best expectatione of
my tedious sute, thinkinge therin, my tyme lost, more pretious then the
sute yt selfe. Thus takinge my leave frome Hackney thys 22tie of Marche
I remayne
Yowre assured friende & Brotherinlave
(signed) Edward Oxenford
Addressed: To the ryght honorable my verye good Brother Sir Robert
Cecill, her Magestyes principall Secretarie [seal]
Endorsed: 1601 March 22 Erl of Oxenford to my Master
<http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/PERSONAL/020322.html>
Art Neuendorffer
> ------------------------------------------------------
> I've posted below a line by line comparison with Looney's
> version and Oxford's original letter with links. With no
> html capability I'm using caps and blank spaces to show
> what Looney removed and revised in Oxford's text.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> TL = Thomas Looney
> EO = Oxford
> CAPS = Oxford's deleted material.
> TL: It is now a year since Her Majesty
> EO: It ys now a yeare sythence BY YOWRE ONLY MEANES her Magestye
>
> TL: granted her interest in Danvers escheat.
> EO: graunted her intereste in Danvers escheete.
>
> TL: . . .I find
> EO: I HADE ONLY THEN HER WOORDE FROM YOWRE MOUTHE I fynde
>
> TL: that the lands will [not] be carried without deed.
> EO: BY THYS WASTE OF TYME, that landes
> will not be carried wythoute deedes.
----------------------------------------------
Robert SONEThouse: 77
> [T]hy *GLASSE WILL SHEW* thee how thy beauties were,
> [T]hy *DYALL* how thy pretious mynuits *WASTE* ,
> [T]he vacant leaues thy mindes imprint will beare,
> *And of this booke,this learning maist thou taste*
--------------------------------------------------------------
*The DIAL TIS NoW For BACon TO Obey*
------------------------------------------------------------
Mira. More to know
[D]id *NEUER* medle with my thoughts.
Pros. 'TIS time
[I] should informe thee farther: Lend thy hand
[A]nd plucke my Magick garment from me: So,
[L]ye there my Art: wipe thou thine eyes, haue comfort,
[The] direfull spectacle of the wracke which touch'd
[T]he VERY VERtue of compassion in thee:
[I] haue with such prouision in mine Art
[S]o safely ordered, that there is no soule
[No] not so much perdition as an hayre
betid to any creature in the vessell
[W]hich thou heardst cry, which thou saw'st sinke: Sit
[For] thou must now know farther. [downe,
Mira. You haue often
[B]egun to tell me what I am, but stopt
[A]nd left me to a bootelesse Inquisition,
[Con]cluding, stay: not yet.
Pros. The howr's now come
[T]he very minute byds thee ope thine eare,
[Obey], and be attentiue. Canst thou remember
A time before we came vnto this Cell?
--------------------------------------
> TL: I have twice...moved Her Magestie...to
> EO: I have twice therfore moved her Magestie
> that yt wowld please her to
>
> TL: to grant me that ordinary course
> EO: graunte me that ordinarie course
> (DE BENE *ESSE* *QUANTUM* IN *NOBIS* EST)
-----------------------------------------------------------
__ Hoc MOVERE et *QUANTUM* in te est perMOVERE ne necligas,
hoc enim et sibi et *NOBIS* maximi erit momenti.
Hic labor, hoc opus *ESSEt* eximie et gloriae et laudis sibi...
-- 1598 Jan 24
Letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney about Shakspere.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth wrote:
<< [The Latin] translates as
Do not neglect TO MOVE in this and, as much
as in you lies, MOVE deeply, for it will be both
to himself and us of the greatest importance.
Sturley tacks on a Latin schoolbook line from Virgil:
This is the labour, this is the work that
would be exceedingly to his honour and praise.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
In the KJV translation of Psalm 46:
- "WERE MOVED" are the 100th & 101st words.
["MOVED" is, in fact, the middle word of the KJV psalm
Also note that:
in the Great Bible "the earth is moved"/"She is removed"
while in KJV "the earth is removed"/"She is moved"]
"were MOVEd" is an anagram for "Edw.Vere, O.M."
.............................................................................
In the Great Bible of 1539 translation of Psalm 46:
- "MUCH ADO" are the 100th & 101st words.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> TL: whereof there are *more than one hundred* examples.
> EO: wherof there are *moore then an hundred* examples.
>
> TL: Mine answer was that 1 should receive her pleasure from you.
> EO: myne answer ys that I showld receyve her pleasure from yow.
>
> TL: But I understand by Cauley that she hath never spoken thereof.
> EO: But I vnderstand by Cauley that shee hathe never spoken therof.
>
> TL: The matter hath been heard . . .
> EO: The matter hathe beene hard
> ACCORDINGE TO THE ORDER *WITH MUCHE A DOO*
--------------------------------------------------------
King Richard II (Folio) Act 5, Scene 5
Groo. I was a poore Groome of thy Stable (King)
When thou wer't King: who trauelling towards Yorke,
*WITH MUCH ADOO* , at length haue gotten leaue
To looke vpon my (sometimes Royall) masters face.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/index.htm
1600 Aug 23 Stationer's Register:
Two bookes, the one called *MUCHE A DOO* about nothinge.
--------------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 4, Scene 5
OSWALD: Madam, *WITH MUCH ADO*:
Your sister is the better soldier.
-------------------------------------------------------
Venus and ADOnis Stanza 114
Ceasing their clamorous cry till they have singled
*WITH MUCH ADO* the cold fault cleanly out;
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
gangleri
Thanks for posting "Looney's redacted version" of Edward Oxenford's
letter.
In the context of the Shakespeare Authorship Issue, the "redaction"
signals one of two things -
1. That Looney was an intellectual shyster, or
2. That there is more to the redacted version than meets the eye.
The first alternative does not square with the image of the man which I
found on the Internet just now, reported by someone who knew him well.
The second alternative would mirror what I am persuaded is in fact the
case - that the First Folio comprised the works of Edward Oxenford as
"redacted" and augmented by Francis Bacon and Ben Jonson.
I expect to post more on the subject matter tomorrow.
For now, let me just note that, immediately after the "redacted"
version, there comes the following quotation:
"If Her Majesty's affections be forfeits of men's estates we must
endure it." (Cipher Value 33354)
That, indeed, is the philosophy of the Shakespeare Authors - for all
the world's a stage etc. and "There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will."
On October 7, 1601, Edward Oxenford chose to "endure it" and left his
"Booke from her Magestie" for "Cosen Bacon and Seriant Harris to perfet
yt" - and Looney proceeds to refer to this in his text.
As in 33354 + 708 + 1601 = 35663,
And that gets us straight to THE Shakespeare Mystery, as in 1 + 35662 =
35663, where
1 = Monad/Her Magestie/God; and
35662 = A Poore Stratfordian Player's Houre Vpon the Stage.*
* From 'baptism' as Gulielmus filius Johannes Shakspere, 17252, on
April 26, 1564, to The End, 100, and 'burial' as Will Shakspere gent,
10026, on April 25, 1616 as in 17252 + 2602 + 1564 + 100 + 10026 + 2502
+ 1616 = 35662.
***
So what do I make of all this?
Looney KNEW the facts of the matter, as safe-guarded for the past 400
years by "the grand possessors" - portrayed in Mozart's masonic 'Magic
Flute' as Sarastro and associates in The Temple of the Sun.
And why didn't Looney come straight out and say so?
SILENCE is a Pythagorean watchword: Don't Throw Pearls Before Swine.
Elizabeth
Stop sabotaging my threads.
Thanks,
Elizabeth
gangleri
of the name Sarastro.
It is 5163.
Might Sarastro be the Masonic counterpart to Prospero, 5452 as in 5163
+ 5452 = 10615?
Perhaps - as in 4000 - 1000 + 7615 = 10615, where
4000 = Flaming Sword erupting out of the
- 1000 = Darkness of Ignorance, commanding the Prince of Darkness,
7615 = Get thee hence, Satan. (Matt. 4:10)
Art Neuendorffer
> Stop sabotaging my threads.
----------------------------------------------------
The Winter's Tale Act 3, Scene 2
Officer: You here shall swear upon this sword of justice,
That you, *Cleomenes and Dion* , have
Been both at Delphos, and from thence have brought
The *SEAL'D-UP* oracle, by the hand DEliVER'D
Of great Apollo's priest; and that, since then,
You have not dared to break the holy seal
Nor read the *SECRETS* in't.
------------------------------------------------------
" . .for I am aduised, that I may passe my Booke
from her Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured
to my cosen *Bacon and Seriant Harris* to perfet yt."
Elizabeth wrote:
> Neuendorffer thinks that "Booke" means Oxford
> is handing off the First Folio to his editor Bacon.
"Whiche beinge doone, I know to whome
formallye to thanke, but reallye they shalbe,
and are from me, and myne,
to be *SEALED VP* in an
*AETERNALL* remembrance to yowre selfe."
----------------------------------------------------
The Winter's Tale Act 3, Scene 1
DION: when the oracle,
Thus by Apollo's great divine *SEAL'D UP* ,
Shall the contents discoVER, something rare
Even then will rush to knowledge.
------------------------------------------------
' *Dan Chaucer* , well of English undefiled,
On Fame's *ETERNAL* beadroll worthy to be filed.'
-- Spenser: Faërie Queene, book iv. canto ii. 32.
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth wrote:
> I've posted below a line by line comparison with
> Looney's version and Oxford's original letter with links.
> TL = Thomas Looney
> EO = Oxford
> CAPS = Oxford's deleted material.
> TL: It is now a year since Her Majesty
> EO: It ys now a yeare sythence BY YOWRE ONLY MEANES her Magestye
>
> TL: granted her interest in Danvers escheat.
> EO: graunted her intereste in Danvers escheete.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*DAN* VERS
------------------------------------------------------
*DAN* (Brewer Dictionary of Phrase & Fable)
A title of honour, common with the old poets, as Dan Ph'bus,
Dan Cupid, Dan Neptune, Dan Chaucer, etc. (Spanish, don.)
"That old Dan Geffrey, in whose GENTLE spright
The pure well-head of poesie did dwell."
-- Spenser: _Two Cantos of Mutability,_ Cant. VII.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Florio was [Southampton's] Italian tutor. In 1594 at his Titchfield
residence the Earl entertained his friends Charles & Henry *DAN-VERS*
who were on the run after killing one Henry Long on 4 October in
an interfamily feud. The Earl secreted the two in a lodge in his
park, provided food, spent the night with them, and helped arrange
their flight to France. When the local sheriff came by ferry
to investigate the escape, several of the Earl's servants,
including " *Signior* Florio, an Italian, "
threatened to throw the sheriff overboard.>>
-- _Shakespeare the Man_ by Rowse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quarto: This *signior* Iunios gyant dwarffe, dan Cupid,
Folio: _ This *signior* Iunios gyant drawfe, don Cupid,
moby: __ This senior-junior, giant-dwarf, Dan Cupid;
------------------------------------------------------
> TL: . . .I find
> EO: I HADE ONLY THEN HER WOORDE FROM YOWRE MOUTHE I fynde
>
> TL: that the lands will [not] be carried without deed.
> EO: BY THYS WASTE OF TYME, that landes
> will not be carried wythoute deedes.
----------------------------------------------
Robert SONEThouse: 77
> [T]hy *GLASSE WILL SHEW* thee how thy beauties were,
> [T]hy *DYALL* how thy pretious mynuits *WASTE* ,
> [T]he vacant leaues thy mindes imprint will beare,
> *And of this booke,this learning maist thou taste*
--------------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 5, Scene 1
Priest: A contract of *ETERNAL* bond of love,
Confirm'd by mutual joinder of your hands,
Attested by the holy CLOSE OF LIPS,
Strengthen'd by interchangement of your RINGS;
And all the ceremony of this compact
*SEAL'D* in my function, by my testimony:
Since when, my *WATCH* hath told me,
<< [The Latin] translates as
Two bookes, the one called *MUCHE A DOO* about *NOTHINGE*.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TL: twice before the judges
EO: twice before the Iugges,
EO: AND MANY ALSO STANDERS BY DYD HEARE THE SAME, THER
IN OPEN APARANCE, HER MAGESTIES TYTELL WAS QUESTIONLES,
AS FOR THE IUGGES REPORT THEY WEERE NEVER CAALD VNTO
YT, AND THE PRINCIPALL POYNTES TO CONFIRME HER MAGESTIES
TYTELL NEVER OPNED OR *MOVED*, BUT CONTRARIE KEPT BAKE.
SUMTHINGE HE HATHE DONE OWT OF HIS OWNE BREST THAT
*YS SECRET* AND I CANNOT LERNE, YF HE HAVE REPORTED
*NOTHINGE*
TO ESCHETE TO HER MAGESTIE, THEN YS MY SUTE AS YT WAS
THE FYRST DAY,THAT YS WHERE HER MAGESTIE THOWGHT SHE
HADD *NOTHINGE*,
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Veal
And why does he not follow Pythagoras' injunction? Is he greater than
four centuries' worth of "grand possessors"?
Another of the indicia of the crank is that he casually discloses
"secrets" that have for generations allegedly been closely guarded and
dangerous to know.
gangleri
To whom do you address these questions?
Gangleri
P.S. I thought you had promised to keep your snout out of my postings.
gangleri
that it remain unknown - except to its (apparently) Pythagorean/Masonic
"grand possessors" - forever.
That would have been dumb tomfoolery on their part.
Here (in translation) is what Francis Bacon's personal secretary Dr.
William Rawley wrote in his preface to 'Manes Verulamiani' - a
collection of thirty-two Latin elegies on Bacon's death:
"Let it suffice to lay these Foundations in the name of the present
age, every age will enlarge and adorn this Edifice; but to what Age is
given to set the finishing hand is manifest only to God, the Fates, and
Tom Veal."
Oops!
Editorial correction:
"...is manifest only to God and to the Fates."
Tom Veal
hand"? Congratulations!
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth.
>
> Thanks for posting "Looney's redacted version" of Edward Oxenford's
> letter.
>
> In the context of the Shakespeare Authorship Issue, the "redaction"
> signals one of two things -
>
> 1. That Looney was an intellectual shyster, or
I don't think Looney was an intellectual shyster
(I don't think Looney was an intellectual or a shyster).
I think Looney was so convinced that Oxford was
Shakespeare that he felt justified in editing Oxford's
letter. How could it be wrong if Oxford was really
Shakespeare?
I'm not indicting Looney. We've cracked the genetic
code. We've got iPods. It's time for the Oxfordians to
let go of 1920.
> 2. That there is more to the redacted version than meets the eye.
>
> The first alternative does not square with the image of the man which I
> found on the Internet just now, reported by someone who knew him well.
Who. Looney?
> The second alternative would mirror what I am persuaded is in fact
the
> case - that the First Folio comprised the works of Edward Oxenford as
> "redacted" and augmented by Francis Bacon and Ben Jonson.
Spend some time researching the historical Oxford.
> I expect to post more on the subject matter tomorrow.
>
> For now, let me just note that, immediately after the "redacted"
> version, there comes the following quotation:
>
> "If Her Majesty's affections be forfeits of men's estates we must
> endure it." (Cipher Value 33354)
>
> That, indeed, is the philosophy of the Shakespeare Authors - for all
> the world's a stage etc. and "There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
> Rough-hew them how we will."
There's no Shakespearean trope there, Gunnar. Oxford
meant it literally.
In the 16th century "affection" didn't mean love as
it does now, it meant "a bent of mind" and it had
to have an object, in this instance the Queen's objective is
the "forfeit of mens' estates." She has a bent of mind,
a passion, a want, for some estates to be forfeited.
The downside of the feudal system was that there was an
incentive for the sovereign to execute earls in order
to "escheat" their estates. The last four Tudors
executed forty-seven earls or at least that's what I've
read.
The Danvers escheat (also a noun) is the subject
of the 1601 and 1602 letters, but the 1596 letter
seems to be about something Lord Burghley wants
Oxford to do to Essex. Oxford tells Cecil he declined
Burghley's request.
It's likely that Burghley, the Queen and Cecil are plotting
to do something to curtail Essex' growing political power.
There's not much doubt among historians that the
Cecils were trying to turn the Queen against Essex.
The Queen did strip Essex of his monopolies leaving him
in a cash flow crisis which would cause him to forfeit
estates.
In the letter (of 1596) Oxford tells Cecil that he didn't
want to do whatever Burghley had in mind but he also
says that he and Cecil will have to "endure" (continue)
in carrying out the Queen's scheme to the effect
that "we might as well endure because the Queen always
gets what she wants."
I think it's very possible that Cecil told Oxford that he
(Oxford) was doing duty for the Queen when Oxford
was unknowingly working for Cecil.
In the letter that is the subject of this thread Oxford is
angry because he caught Cecil in a lie. Cecil told Oxford
in the previous year (1601) that the Queen asked Cecil to
speak for her in regard to Oxford's interest in the Danvers
estates.
The fact that a year later Oxford had not heard from
Cecil and had not received his deed from the Queen
caused Oxford to got to "Cauley" to ask Cauley if the
Queen had given instructions to Cecil in regard to
Oxford's suit. Cauley told Oxford that the Queen gave
no instructions to Cecil.
Too bad there's not a third letter.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Philling Station
Elizabeth wrote:
> ________________________________________________________
>
> On March 22, 1601 Oxford wrote a letter to his former
> brother-in-law Robert Cecil.
>
> Oxford's letter is 488 words in length.
>
> In 1920 Thomas Looney reprinted the same letter from
> Oxford to Cecil in the Oxfordian textus receptus,
> Shakespeare Identified.
>
> After Looney slashed his way through Oxford's letter
> he left only 127 words. Looney then edited Oxford's syntax
> to make it look more Shakespearean.
>
> Looney excised 361 words or 74% of "Shakespeare's" letter
> because it wasn't Shakespearean enough. The best of
> Oxford's genuine letter is his emotional reaction to
> Cecil's double dealing. That Oxford didn't make the cut.
>
> The question is whether Oxfordians would have swooned to
> Looney's romantic idealization of Oxford if Looney had
> printed the historical Oxford's texts. What was Looney's
> motive in redacting the letter? Have Oxfordians fallen
> for a spurious earl?
I've long wondered why no one has investigated Looney searching for
examples of such fraud. Thank you, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Kos-itsky,
Strit-matter, Kap-lan, et al, are silent. I wonder why?
gangleri
Chess One
"Tom Veal" <Tom...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1130985716.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "SILENCE is a Pythagorean watchword: Don't Throw Pearls Before Swine."
> - The Great Gangleri
>
> And why does he not follow Pythagoras' injunction? Is he greater than
> four centuries' worth of "grand possessors"?
>
> Another of the indicia of the crank is that he casually discloses
> "secrets" that have for generations allegedly been closely guarded and
> dangerous to know.
Chaucer becomes a crank! Why did he encipher a great chunk of his own title?
Shall we trust his own comment on it, which was to the same effect as "Don't
Throw Pearls Before Swine"?
This is often taken to mean that the pearls are wasted, but can as well be
seen as a responsible concern - not placing perils before swine, so to
speak.
Phil Innes
gangleri
> signals one of two things -
> 1. That Looney was an intellectual shyster, or
I don't think Looney was an intellectual shyster
(I don't think Looney was an intellectual or a shyster).
I think Looney was so convinced that Oxford was
Shakespeare that he felt justified in editing Oxford's
letter. How could it be wrong if Oxford was really
Shakespeare?
I'm not indicting Looney. We've cracked the genetic
code. We've got iPods. It's time for the Oxfordians to
let go of 1920.
> 2. That there is more to the redacted version than meets the eye.
> The first alternative does not square with the image of the man which I
> found on the Internet just now, reported by someone who knew him well.
Who. Looney?
***
Here is the Internet piece in question:
JOHN THOMAS LOONEY (1870-1944)
By Professor The Revd. V. A. Demant, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. As
printed in Shakespearean Authorship Review # 8 - Autumn 1962, pp 8-9.
John Thomas Looney, who first attributed the authorship of the
"Shakespearean" plays and sonnets to Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl
of Oxford, was a master at an elementary school in Low Fell, Gateshead,
County Durham. As my father and he were close friends in personal and
intellectual interests, our families met in close intimacy for several
years. In my student period I came to know Looney as a philosopher and
guide. I am therefore able to say something of the man himself and of
his search for a solution of the authorship problem.
Looney, who came of Manx origin, was a person of broad philosophical,
religious and literary interests. He was deeply impressed by greatness
in the past of the European tradition, and he felt it his calling to
transmit an appreciation of this greatness to the younger gneration.
For some years he belonged to a group of English followers of Auguste
Comte, the French philosopher and social thinker, who started the
original intellectual system known as Positivism. Comte later founded a
religious society known as theistic beliefs, called the Church of
Humanity. Comte was a progressive intellectually in the 19th century,
but socially a conservative of the counter revolution in France. Looney
derived from Comte a strong sense of the continuity of history and of
the community basis of individual enterprise. Looney eventually
loosened his connection with the Positivist movement and latterly
became drawn again to the Church of England, with considerable respect
for Catholicism. Looney's reading included English poets from Chaucer
to Wordsworth, Tennyson, Byron and Burns; writers like Carlyle,
Emerson, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer; novelists like Walter
Scott and Thackeray. He was also at home with Homer, Dante and, of
course, Shakespeare. He presented to me a copy of Carlyle's works
with a special injunction to read "Heroes" before I was twnety. Another
present of his to me was George Tyrrell's Lex Orandi.
I would describe Looney as a sage. He was not in the least like many
supporters of minority movements with a cause, going about with a chip
on the shoulder and an obsessional neurosis. One would never know from
his general conversation that he was producing a shattering
contribution to the authorship question. He was not by temperament an
anti-conformist, nor did he preen himself for the role of espousing an
unpopular view. The appearance of Shakespeare Identified in 1920
surprised his acquaintances. He had dropped hints to me towards the end
of the 1914-18 war, that the Stratfordian authorship was impossible to
hold, and that he was setting about deliberately to find, if possible,
the true author. This was all the result of a conviction borne upon his
mind after years of teaching Shakespearean plays to schoolboys, some of
the plays were studied over and over again. He has described this
process in his introduction to "Shakespeare" Identified.
Even after the publication, Looney never brought up the "Shakespeare"
question spontaneously in my conversations with him. But when I asked
he was ready to answer questions and explain. Two phases of his
thinking I remember quite well. There was first the negative conviction
that what we know of William Shakespeare is quite incompatible with the
author revealed through the plays and sonnets. This was not a matter of
social class, or education or even of ideas. It concerned the
unconscious attitudes of the world and life. Quite early on Looney had
to meet the criticism that his was a "snob" view, holding that a man
who had not been to a university and was of bourgeois origin could not
be a literary giant. Looney somewhat resented the stupidity of this
criticism. Certainly, he maintained, genius arises in any social milieu
and is quite independent of formal education (witness Burns). But some
background and peculiar personal attitudes indeliberately colour a
man's work, and another man without them cannot produce counterfeits.
Then, secondly and positively, Looney looked around the large mass of
Elizabethan lyrical poetry to find evidence elsewhere of the same
mentality and style used by the author of Shakespeare's sonnets and
plays. This put Looney on the track of Edward de Vere, some of whose
poems have survived under de Vere's own name or initials E. O. (Earl
of Oxford). Further when Looney was asked how such a deception as to
the authorship could be carried through and maintained, he would
expound the peculiar literary atmosphere of the Elizabethan age and
then enumerate, from cultural and literary history, several examples of
what had been successful literary hoaxes for a long time.
Thomas Looney had embarked upon his task with a restrained but
determined sense of literary responsibility. He was the last man to try
to be merely clever. I recall his tall figure, his scholar's air
given by the poise of his shoulders, his gently aquiline nose and his
trimmed beard, his benign and dignified bearing, and the frequent
sparkle in his eyes. I would say of Looney: here was a man who
commanded confidence in the authorship question because he was not
one-eyed about that, but wise in other fields as well.
[More extensive biographical notes on John Thomas Looney (1870-1944)
are found in Ruth Loyd Miller's 3rd edition of Looney's
"Shakespeare" Identified, Vol I, pp xxix-xxxi; 647-659.]
Art Neuendorffer
> > Looney excised 361 words or 74% of "Shakespeare's" letter
> > because it wasn't Shakespearean enough. The best of
> > Oxford's genuine letter is his emotional reaction to
> > Cecil's double dealing. That Oxford didn't make the cut.
> >
> > The question is whether Oxfordians would have swooned to
> > Looney's romantic idealization of Oxford if Looney had
> > printed the historical Oxford's texts. What was Looney's
> > motive in redacting the letter? Have Oxfordians fallen
> > for a spurious earl?
Philling Station wrote:
> I've long wondered why no one has investigated Looney searching for
> examples of such fraud. Thank you, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Kos-itsky,
> Strit-matter, Kap-lan, et al, are silent. I wonder why?
Neuen-dorffer wasn't silent.
Looney left out the best parts(, i.e., those parts
that indicate that Oxford wrote the Cecil in code).
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Veal
Hmm, "21" is the 147 gates of hell. And dividing 2103 by 3 gives 701 -
MAN-Beast of the Seventh Day, plus the monad.
So much significance! How rapturously glad we all are that the Great
Gangleri has been chosen by God and the Fates to reveal the Secrets of
the Ages to us.
gangleri wrote:
> Oink!
LynnE
Philling Station wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > ________________________________________________________
> >
> > On March 22, 1601 Oxford wrote a letter to his former
> > brother-in-law Robert Cecil.
> >
> > Oxford's letter is 488 words in length.
> >
> > In 1920 Thomas Looney reprinted the same letter from
> > Oxford to Cecil in the Oxfordian textus receptus,
> > Shakespeare Identified.
> >
> > After Looney slashed his way through Oxford's letter
> > he left only 127 words. Looney then edited Oxford's syntax
> > to make it look more Shakespearean.
> >
> > Looney excised 361 words or 74% of "Shakespeare's" letter
> > because it wasn't Shakespearean enough. The best of
> > Oxford's genuine letter is his emotional reaction to
> > Cecil's double dealing. That Oxford didn't make the cut.
> >
> > The question is whether Oxfordians would have swooned to
> > Looney's romantic idealization of Oxford if Looney had
> > printed the historical Oxford's texts. What was Looney's
> > motive in redacting the letter? Have Oxfordians fallen
> > for a spurious earl?
>
> I've long wondered why no one has investigated Looney searching for
> examples of such fraud. Thank you, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Kos-itsky,
> Strit-matter, Kap-lan, et al, are silent. I wonder why?
Well, I was silent till I had a chance to look at the book rather than
the webpage. Now I have. Looney has standardised and modernised the
spelling, which is perfectly acceptable. He also says he is going to
talk of "one passage," so it's acceptable too that he doesn't quote the
entire letter. What he's obviously missed is the ellipses. Since he
puts them in other passages, and since their omission doesn't change or
strengthen the case in any way, I would assume, although I am somewhat
surprised, that this was a mistake. But of course, Looney, like all of
us, made mistakes. For example, he thought that The Tempest wasn't by
Shakespeare.
Regards,
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
> But of course, Looney, like all of us, made mistakes.
> For example, he thought that The Tempest wasn't by
> Shakespeare.
But of course, LynnE, like all of us, makes mistakes.
For example, she thinks that the numbero uno Comedy: _The Tempest_
was actually written before June 24, 1604
and went by the name _The Tragidy of the Spanish Maz_
Art Neuendorffer
gangleri
I just read Looney's Appendix on the authorship of The Tempest - he
provided a great deal of both substantive and technical detail in
support of his conclusion.
If the other side of the argument has been posted on the Internet, I
would appreciate it if you would kindly provide a link to it.
Gangleri
Sweetie Cat
Hi Gangleri,
Almost every scholar there is, both Strat and non-Strat, has concluded
that The Tempest is at least substantially by Shakespeare. It is such a
non-starter that it isn't that there aren't too many arguments
asserting that it is, either on the web or anywhere else. It is
generally accepted.
To me The Tempest sounds like pure Shakespeare. I can't imagine anyone
else having written, for instance, Ariel's "Full fathom five..." or
his "dive into the fire" speech, and so have never entertained one
moment of doubt that Shakespeare wrote the play. My guess is that
Looney, probably unconsciously, was uncomfortable about the authorship
of Tempest because he, like everyone else at the time, accepted the
current wisdom that the play depended on the Bermuda pamphlets of 1610.
This would have interfered with his thesis that Oxford was Shakespeare.
Regards,
Lynne
Sweetie Cat
that but for the theory that Edward de Vere was the writer of
Shakespeare's plays we might never have been led to suspect the
authenticity of The Tempest" (530).
I do not find his arguments in Appendix 1 against the play being by
Shakespeare in the least convincing, and in fact it was the Tempest
that was in the past the greatest obstacle to my acceptance of Oxford
as Shakespeare.
Regards,
Lynne
gangleri
Here are some examples from Looney's Appendix of what I referred to as
"technical detail":
...we have already had occasion to draw attention to the blank verse of
the first important piece of dialogue in the play: that between
Prospero and Miranda in which the former is relating the story of his
misfortunes. A minute inspection of this discloses the fact that much
of it is not verse at all in the true sense, but merely prose,
artificially cut up into short strips: precisely as, in an earlier
chapter, we saw was actually done in "Coriolanus." Versification, which
is fundamentally the breaking up of utterances into short pieces, or
lines, according to some rule, always implies that, in a general way,
the pause, formed by the end of the line corresponds to a pause,
however slight, in the spoken utterance; the exceptions to this only
serving to emphasize the rule. When the connection between the last
word of one line and the first word of the next is too close, and such
connections become too frequent, the sense of versification is lost and
it becomes merely dismembered prose.
Take then the two first lines of this dialogue:
"If by your art, my dearest father, you have
Put the wild waters in this roar, allay them."
Now, it is hardly possible to get two words more closely connected in
spoken utterances than a Principal and an Auxiliary Verb, when no
adverb comes between them, as in the case of this, verb, "have put."
Nor is this the only example of its kind. Broken up in precisely the
same way we have the verb,
"had Burnt" (III. 1.); "will Revenge" (III. 2.);
"have Incensed" (III. 3.); "have Been" (V. 1.);
"have Received" (V. 1.); "must Take" (V. 1.)
Taking "Hamlet" as our standard for measuring Shakespeare's style of
versification, we do not find a single example of this defect in the
great masterpiece.
Continuing our examination of this dialogue, we find, a few lines
further on, this, passage:
"It should the good ship so have swallow'd, and
The fraughting souls within her."
[449] This "and" at the end of lines in "The Tempest" is quite a
feature of its author's style. We pointed it out in the passage "and
Are melted into air." We find it repeated three times in this short
dialogue:
"and A prince of power;"
"and She said;"
the third being in the above quotation.
In exactly the same way we have:
"and My strong imagination" (II. 1.)
"and I'll seek" (III. 3.)
"and Harmonious charmingly" (IV. 1.)
Again, not once does this defect appear in "Hamlet."
We have also instances of the conjunction "but" placed at the end of
lines
"but For every trifle" (II. 2.)
"but The mistress" (III. 1.)
"but If thou dost break" (IV. 1.)
Nor does this defect once appear in "Hamlet."
Examples also occur of lines ending in other Conjunctions, to which may
be added Conjunctive Pronouns and Conjunctive Adverbs:
"who Art ignorant" (1. 2.)
"that Hath kept with thy remembrance" (1. 2.)
"who To trash for over topping" (1. 2.)
"that A noble Neapolitan" (1. 2.)
"that I prize" (1. 2.)
"for He's gentle" (1. 2.)
"whom We all were" (II. 1.)
"that We say befits" (II. 1.)
"which Lie tumbling" (II. 2.)
And so it continues on to end of the play. Yet never once does this
form of intimate connection between the end of one line and the
beginning of the next appear in "Hamlet." How it is possible to hold,
in face of a comparison of this kind, that the versification of both
plays came from the same pen, is most difficult to understand.
***
I don't know what to make of it - but the difference in "technical
detail" between it and 'Hamlet' strikes me as too great to be
accidental if one accepts that the same mind authored the two plays.
If the mind was that of Edward Oxenford, some two decades would have
passed between the time of writing and the text's publication in the
First Folio.
Considering the (apparent) editorial decisions whereby parts of key
passages in Hamlet - (Horatio's comments on "the mightiest Julius" in
Act I, Sc. i and Hamlet's comments on "This heavy-headed revel east and
west" in Act I, Sc. v) - were left out of the First Folio despite their
having been in the 1611 version, one would have expected the editor(s)
of the First Folio to have felt no compunction in ironing out the
difference in "technical detail" if, for some reason, it had been
present in the play's text as left by Oxenford.
Yet the editor(s) didn't do so.
In the circumstances, this would seem to imply
(a) that Oxenford was not the author, or
(b) that the editor(s) didn't do a proper job.
Sweetie Cat
I have the book, Gangly. Actually, I have two copies: a new one from
the late Ruth Miller, sent very kindly, just before she died, and a
first edition that I bought for my husband one Christmas, which cost me
hundreds. One of my dogs has chewed the spine off it-- a true case of
"Eat, bark, moan, and inwardly digest."
I don't feel that Looney did a really scientific job of comparing
Tempest to the other plays. Most of his examples appear to come from
Hamlet, and I think Hamlet may have been much, much earlier than
Tempest. We would need to see Tempest compared to *every other play* in
the canon, and to recognise it was constructed very differently, with
very different grammatical structure, to be confident that it wasn't
written by Shakespeare. With my limited experience (but extremely good
ear, most of the time), I am certain it was, in the main, by
Shakespeare, although there are one or two loose ends which suggest to
me we may not have it either in its entirety or totally untampered
with.
Regards,
Lynne
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth wrote:
> > ________________________________________________________
> I've long wondered why no one has investigated Looney searching for
> examples of such fraud. Thank you, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Kos-itsky,
> Strit-matter, Kap-lan, et al, are silent. I wonder why?
Lynne wanted a footnote and that request produced
Bacon's eight letters as well as Looney's abbreviated
letter. This is the beauty of the Internet.
The Internet is going to accelerate scholarship because
the thousands of forums and e-lists online create a jurying
process at a preliminary level before bad theories are published
(cast in concrete).
This forum has potential to advance scholarship but it
refuses to take a serious question which impacts on
many disciplines (literature, history, politics, philosphy,
law, etc) seriously.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Tom Veal
English verse technique or with Shakespeare. He seems to think that
enjambment is some kind of terrible defect, whereas it is a common
feature of blank verse, one that Shakespeare employed with increasing
frequency as he grew older.
Elizabeth
gangleri wrote:
> > In the context of the Shakespeare Authorship Issue, the "redaction"
> > signals one of two things -
(edit) Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > 1. That Looney was an intellectual shyster, or
>
> I don't think Looney was an intellectual shyster
> (I don't think Looney was an intellectual or a shyster).
> I think Looney was so convinced that Oxford was
> Shakespeare that he felt justified in editing Oxford's
> letter. How could it be wrong if Oxford was really
> Shakespeare?
>
> I'm not indicting Looney. We've cracked the genetic
> code. We've got iPods. It's time for the Oxfordians to
> let go of 1920.
>
> > 2. That there is more to the redacted version than meets the eye.
>
> > The first alternative does not square with the image of the man which I
> > found on the Internet just now, reported by someone who knew him well.
>
> Who. Looney?
Gunnar wrote:
> ***
> Here is the Internet piece in question:
>
> JOHN THOMAS LOONEY (1870-1944)
>
> By Professor The Revd. V. A. Demant
[ . . .]
The formatting on this post is all balled up so I'll
just jump in. I don't find any contradictions
in Demant's defense of Looney and Looney's Shakespeare
Identified. I think Looney got wrapped up in his subject,
I think the standards of literary scholarship were much
less defined in that era, I think Looney's editors didn't
take a close look at his manuscript. The responsibility
is with Oxfordians, many of them qualified scholars, who
work in an era with a higher set of standards.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Chess One
"Sweetie Cat" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1131048427.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I don't feel that Looney did a really scientific job of comparing
> Tempest to the other plays. Most of his examples appear to come from
> Hamlet, and I think Hamlet may have been much, much earlier than
> Tempest. We would need to see Tempest compared to *every other play* in
> the canon, and to recognise it was constructed very differently, with
> very different grammatical structure, to be confident that it wasn't
> written by Shakespeare. With my limited experience (but extremely good
> ear, most of the time), I am certain it was, in the main, by
> Shakespeare, although there are one or two loose ends which suggest to
> me we may not have it either in its entirety or totally untampered
> with.
And this is just the cumulation of Hughes Godess title, Lynne, and as a
poet, he also had a good ear. I would say that structure was even his main
concern. Cordially, Phil
> Regards,
> Lynne
>
Elizabeth
> Philling Station wrote:
> > I've long wondered why no one has investigated Looney searching for
> > examples of such fraud. Thank you, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Kos-itsky,
> > Strit-matter, Kap-lan, et al, are silent. I wonder why?
>
> Well, I was silent till I had a chance to look at the book rather than
> the webpage. Now I have. Looney has standardised and modernised the
> spelling, which is perfectly acceptable. He also says he is going to talk
> of "one passage,"
Looney created one passage out of the pieces left
over after he chopped two passages from Oxford's
letter but retained the lines that come before, between
and after.
The MLA is not going to give that a pass.
> so it's acceptable too that he doesn't quote the
> entire letter.
Looney doesn't inform his reader.
> What he's obviously missed is the ellipses.
The ellipses at the end of this line?
(T)hys sut I obteyned by yowre espetiall meanes, and
this she promisde me, wherfore [..].
Looney must have seen the whole letter since he cites
the Hatfield MSS, not a printed source. That means
there's more missing than than we knew.
> Since he
> puts them in other passages . . .
With annotations?
> and since their omission doesn't change or
> strengthen the case in any way . . .
Looney selected the lines that make Oxford look
like Shakespeare while he omitted the lines which,
taken with the letter written in 1601, show that Oxford
caught Cecil in a lie and that Oxford doesn't know his
way around the law of escheat.
The law of escheat was settled law. Shakespeare knew
escheat and, not coincidently, it comes into the plays
at the same time the widows who, under law, lost their
entire dower shares after their husbands (a hundred
and forty of them were executed by Elizabeth), took their
hopeless suits to court. Bacon had to represent the Queen
in these gut-wrenching suits so it is no wonder that he
added "dower" to "life and liberty" as a due right in his
brief for Calvin's Case.
Here's one of Oxford's lines that Looney excised:
The Lord Chiefe Iustice yet sumthinge he hathe done
owt of his owne brest that ys secret and i cannot lerne,
yf he have reported nothinge to eschete to her magestie.
If Oxford were Shakespeare he wouldn't be asking Cecil
why the Queen did not receive Danvers' escheat. There
was no way under law that she could not receive it. When
was Hamlet written? If Oxford is still asking questions about
escheat in 1602, Oxford is not the author of Hamlet.
Again, I'm not picking on Looney. Looney wrote a popular
book. Looney did not misrepresent his qualifications. What
I don't understand is why Oxfordianism, which has so many
qualified schoolars, so uncritically accepts the proofs of
of unqualified scholars like Looney and the Ogburns.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
The law of escheat was settled law. Shakespeare knew
escheat and, not coincidently, it comes into the plays
at the same time the widows who, under law, lost their
entire dower shares after their husbands (a hundred
and forty of them) were executed by Elizabeth, These
widows took their hopeless suits to court (law could
be made through common law trials, the object would
be to make the law of escheat in regard to treason
consistent with the law of escheat in regard to
felony in which widows could keep their share of the
estate and the heirs could inherit that share).
Peter Farey
Tom Veal wrote:
>
> The quoted passage suggests that Mr. Looney wasn't very
> familiar with English verse technique or with Shakespeare.
I found his words on the opening Prospero/Miranda dialogue
quite extraordinary: "A minute inspection of this discloses
the fact that much of it is not verse at all in the true
sense, but merely prose, artificially cut up into short
strips". Now we know where "KQKnave" got it from.
> He seems to think that enjambment is some kind of terrible
> defect, whereas it is a common feature of blank verse, one
> that Shakespeare employed with increasing frequency as he
> grew older.
Indeed. In fact it is interesting to do a quick count of lines
where Shakespeare has used 'and' or 'but' as the first part of
an enjambment. If one does, one can almost say precisely when
he started to make use of them. Using Gary Taylor's dates, it
comes out like this for the 'last' 12 plays:
AWEW (1604/5) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
Tim (1605) 'and' (0) 'but' (0)
KL (1605/6) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
Mac (1606) 'and' (2) 'but' (1)
A&C (1606) 'and' (5) 'but' (5)
Per (1607) 'and' (4) 'but' (0)
Cor (1608) 'and' (15) 'but' (4)
WT (1609) 'and' (8) 'but' (5)
Cym (1610) 'and' (7) 'but' (8)
Tem (1611) 'and' (7) 'but' (4)
H8 (1613) 'and' (9) 'but' (3)
2NK (1613/4) 'and' (8) 'but' (1)
On the other hand I can find *not one* example in any play by
Shakespeare which Taylor has given an earlier date than these.
Paul will no doubt explain why Cymbeline is nevertheless one
of Shakespeare's earlier plays.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Philling Station
Elizabeth wrote:
> LynnE wrote:
> > Philling Station wrote:
>
> > > I've long wondered why no one has investigated Looney searching for
> > > examples of such fraud. Thank you, Elizabeth. Meanwhile, Kos-itsky,
> > > Strit-matter, Kap-lan, et al, are silent. I wonder why?
> >
> > Well, I was silent till I had a chance to look at the book rather than
> > the webpage. Now I have. Looney has standardised and modernised the
> > spelling, which is perfectly acceptable. He also says he is going to talk
> > of "one passage,"
>
>
> Looney created one passage out of the pieces left
> over after he chopped two passages from Oxford's
> letter but retained the lines that come before, between
> and after.
>
> The MLA is not going to give that a pass.
Nor would any respectable historian.
I am. I wonder how many other examples of his "creative" editing are to
be found?
Looney wrote a popular
> book. Looney did not misrepresent his qualifications. What
> I don't understand is why Oxfordianism, which has so many
> qualified schoolars, so uncritically accepts the proofs of
> of unqualified scholars like Looney and the Ogburns.
Any port in a storm? Oxfordians are hardly spoiled for choice of
supporters.
Sweetie Cat
Well, Neil, you could check through the whole book and let us know. And
then I'll check through a "Stratfordian" book. I have one in mind. And
I've certainly checked through all the traditional work on The Tempest,
and have seen, if not creative editing, extremely creative ideas that
twist the original texts.
>
> Looney wrote a popular
> > book. Looney did not misrepresent his qualifications. What
> > I don't understand is why Oxfordianism, which has so many
> > qualified schoolars, so uncritically accepts the proofs of
> > of unqualified scholars like Looney and the Ogburns.
>
> Any port in a storm? Oxfordians are hardly spoiled for choice of
> supporters.
No one should uncritically accept anything, whether it's written by
Looney or Ogburn or anyone else. But the truth is that one is more
likely, psychologically, to agree with that which fits one's own
perspective and ideas, whether one is Oxfordian, Baconian, or
"Stratfordian." I have tried hard to fight this bias, although it's
extremely difficult. How hard have you tried?
Regards,
Lynne
Sweetie Cat
> The quoted passage suggests that Mr. Looney wasn't very familiar with
> English verse technique or with Shakespeare. He seems to think that
> enjambment is some kind of terrible defect, whereas it is a common
> feature of blank verse, one that Shakespeare employed with increasing
> frequency as he grew older.
I'm actually not sure he's talking about enjambement as opposed to
end-stopped, Tom. Rather a more fuzzy concept about "closely related
words" such as different parts of a verb phrase or clauses after
conjunctions beginning lines. He feels, for some reason, that these
separations wouldn't occur if the writer were Shakespeare. I would say
that appreciation of verse technique certainly wasn't Looney's strong
point.
I agree with you that Shakespeare employed enjambement more and more
often as he grew older--this is one of the ways we can tell the later
from the earlier works--and I see it as freeing the verse from earlier
constraints--in other words, a very desirable change.
Regards,
Lynne
gangleri
I found Peter Farey's information -
Indeed. In fact it is interesting to do a quick count of lines
where Shakespeare has used 'and' or 'but' as the first part of
an enjambment. If one does, one can almost say precisely when
he started to make use of them. Using Gary Taylor's dates, it
comes out like this for the 'last' 12 plays:
AWEW (1604/5) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
Tim (1605) 'and' (0) 'but' (0)
KL (1605/6) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
Mac (1606) 'and' (2) 'but' (1)
A&C (1606) 'and' (5) 'but' (5)
Per (1607) 'and' (4) 'but' (0)
Cor (1608) 'and' (15) 'but' (4)
WT (1609) 'and' (8) 'but' (5)
Cym (1610) 'and' (7) 'but' (8)
Tem (1611) 'and' (7) 'but' (4)
H8 (1613) 'and' (9) 'but' (3)
2NK (1613/4) 'and' (8) 'but' (1)
- very interesting.
While the dating of the plays may be disputed, the fact that it was
done without regard to the point at issue ("ands" and "buts" etc.)
suggests that there was indeed a break in the author's style at some
point - around 1604 if the dating is accepted as roughly valid.
It would be interesting - and possibly helpful in the context of the
Authorship Issue - to check how known examples of the Earl of Oxford's
writings compare with the pre- and post-1604 pattern of "ands" and
"buts" in the Shakespeare plays.
Peter Farey
I'm not sure what the point of that would be. For example,
Marlowe never used 'and' and 'but' in this way, and I would
have been very surprised if he had, given how much earlier than
this he was writing.
The point is, of course, that this adds enormous support to
the accuracy of Taylor's dating (together with that of every
other Shakespearean scholar who has come up with such a list)
and knocks a huge hole in any theory involving someone who is
presumed (without good reason to think otherwise) to have died
before 1605.
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey wrote:
> I'm not sure what the point of that would be. For example,
> Marlowe never used 'and' and 'but' in this way, and I would
> have been very surprised if he had, given how much earlier than
> this he was writing.
>
> The point is, of course, that this adds enormous support to
> the accuracy of Taylor's dating (together with that of every
> other Shakespearean scholar who has come up with such a list)
> and knocks a huge hole in any theory involving someone who is
> presumed (without good reason to think otherwise) to have died
> before 1605.
There is little good reason to believe that Oxford died before
1605; in fact the ONLY TWO sources we have for this DISAGREE
TOTALLY with each other on exactly where Oxford was buried!!!
Lord Oxford's earlier works were published
under the names E.O., L.O. & MAR-L.O.
The MELIFLUOUS Earl then went to live on the isle of MELITA
where his ancestors were all noble Knights of St. Malta.
(and where an earlier "I am that I am" man was shipwrecked).
Art Neuendorffer
gangleri
> It would be interesting - and possibly helpful in the context
> of the Authorship Issue - to check how known examples of the
> Earl of Oxford's writings compare with the pre- and post-1604
> pattern of "ands" and "buts" in the Shakespeare plays.
I'm not sure what the point of that would be. For example,
Marlowe never used 'and' and 'but' in this way, and I would
have been very surprised if he had, given how much earlier than
this he was writing.
Comment:
Thanks for this additional information.
As for "what the point would be", let me list a few.
1. If Marlowe was the "real" Shakespeare, the fact that he "never used
'and' and 'but' in this way" would imply a marked stylistic change in
his writing some 10-15 years after his official "death".
2. If Oxenford's writing style is judged to mirror that of Marlowe
(which I believe to have been a pseudo-historical figure on par with
the Stratfordian) then that would remove one objection to the
hypothesis that "Marlowe" was one of Oxenford's pen names.
3. If the post-1604 "Shakespeare" material reflects editorial work by
some third party or parties on pre-existing plays, then that might
account for the marked stylistic change.
4. If the stylistic change is *not* evident in the Sonnets (1609),
then that would seem to imply one of two things: (i) that they were
written before 1604 or thereabouts or, if they were completed after
1604, (ii) that "Shakespeare" continued to use his pre-1604 writing
style in the Sonnets while adopting a different style in the following
plays:
> AWEW (1604/5) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
> KL (1605/6) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
> Mac (1606) 'and' (2) 'but' (1)
> A&C (1606) 'and' (5) 'but' (5)
> Per (1607) 'and' (4) 'but' (0)
> Cor (1608) 'and' (15) 'but' (4)
5. If the Sonnets are judged to have been written - or finalized -
after 1604, then absence therein of analogous stylistic changes would
present problems for the Stratfordian theory of the case - the theory
that the Stratfordian's writing style changed markedly after 1604.
Alan Jones
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1131127538.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[discussion concerning an increasing use of enjambement in later Shakespeare
plays]
> 3. If the post-1604 "Shakespeare" material reflects editorial work by
> some third party or parties on pre-existing plays, then that might
> account for the marked stylistic change.
The change doesn't involve simply the "and" and "but" usage - that's the
most extreme form of enjambement, and the one that's fairly easy to reduce
to figures. There is a general tendency in the "late" period, if the
generally accepted dates are valid, for the verse to become rhythmically
"looser": more like intensely heightened prose in varied phrase lengths. The
sentence structures are also often more intricate, sometimes even tortuous,
though for that very reason - as delivered by a skilled actor - powerfully
expressive of emotion. I don't see how an editor could produce this style
from a copy text in more formal and largely end-stopped verse.
> 4. If the stylistic change is *not* evident in the Sonnets (1609),
> then that would seem to imply one of two things: (i) that they were
> written before 1604 or thereabouts or, if they were completed after
> 1604, (ii) that "Shakespeare" continued to use his pre-1604 writing
> style in the Sonnets while adopting a different style in the following
> plays:
>
>> AWEW (1604/5) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
>> KL (1605/6) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
>> Mac (1606) 'and' (2) 'but' (1)
>> A&C (1606) 'and' (5) 'but' (5)
>> Per (1607) 'and' (4) 'but' (0)
>> Cor (1608) 'and' (15) 'but' (4)
>
> 5. If the Sonnets are judged to have been written - or finalized -
> after 1604, then absence therein of analogous stylistic changes would
> present problems for the Stratfordian theory of the case - the theory
> that the Stratfordian's writing style changed markedly after 1604.
There's no particular reason why lyric verse, intended for the reader of the
written or printed page, should follow a similar pattern to dramatic verse,
intended for a theatre audience. But many of the Sonnets present verbal
intricacy as challenging as that of the "big" speeches in the late plays,
even if the rhythmic patterning is tighter (perhaps related to the
requirements of the fixed rhyme scheme).
Alan Jones
gangleri
the most extreme form of enjambement, and the one that's fairly easy to
reduce to figures. There is a general tendency in the "late" period, if
the generally accepted dates are valid, for the verse to become
rhythmically "looser": more like intensely heightened prose in varied
phrase lengths. The sentence structures are also often more intricate,
sometimes even tortuous, though for that very reason - as delivered by
a skilled actor - powerfully expressive of emotion. I don't see how an
editor could produce this style from a copy text in more formal and
largely end-stopped verse.
Comment:
Thanks for very enlightening comments on these complex issues.
With respect to Looney's comments on the stylistic differences between
Hamlet and The Tempest, I would have expected that salient aspects of
post-1604 stylistic patterns would be apparent to the trained eye in
the First Folio version of Hamlet - and, for that matter, also in
Macbeth and Julius Caesar.
I would be interested in any comments you may have on this point.
Elizabeth
Gunnar,
The "and" pauses are the habit of an orator as well as an
actor (Bacon was both). An orator has to have pregnant pauses
or the audience will not hang on every word.
As in most of his essays, Bacon (like the author of The Tempest),
starts off with a prose introduction, then goes into something
between oration and verse. Note the absence of pauses in the
prose intro:
OF GREAT PLACE
Men in great place are thrice servants: servants of the sovereign
or state; servants of fame; and servants of business. So as they
have no freedom; neither in their persons, nor in their actions,
nor in their times. It is a strange desire, to seek power and to
lose
liberty: or to seek power over others, and to lose power over a
man's self.
Here's the first line of the body of the essay arranged
as a verse.
The rising unto place is laborious; and
By pains, men come to greater pains; and
It is sometimes base; and
By indignities, men come to dignities.
or
The rising unto place is laborious;
And by pains, men come to greater pains;
And it is sometimes base;
And by indignities, men come to dignities.
In his article defending Edward Bysshe's theory of meter,
Groves says that some one-syllable words get the spoken
length of words with two short syllables. The word "and"
appears to be one of those words.
Bacon frames the first two "and" lines with drawn out
"pains" and "base" and then puts "dignities" with
three quick syllables at the end. Very effective. One
would almost think Bacon was a poet.
Bacon's line in the original punctuation:
The rising unto place is laborious; and by pains, men come to
greater pains; and it is sometimes base; and by indignities, men
come to dignities.
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mike_donnelly/bacon.htm>
Cordially,
Elizabeth
ignoto
No verse nor prose were alike (so men say)
Till lizzay wrenche'd all the feet away
gangleri
Re.
One would almost think Bacon was a poet.
Comment:
I have often wondered what Shelley saw in Bacon -
"Lord Bacon was a poet. His language has a sweet and majestic rhythm
which satisfies the sense, no less than the almost superhuman wisdom of
his philosophy satisfies the intellect; it is a strain which distends
and then bursts the circumference of the reader's mind and pours itself
forth together with it into the universal element with which it has
perpetual sympathy."
- which Bacon's detractors seem to have missed.
And whether John Aubrey's comment more than a century earlier -
"His Lordship was a good Poet, but conceal'd..."
- may have some bearing on the Shakespeare Authorship Issue.
Elizabeth
Rawley was referring to the foundations
of scientific philosopy, not the foundations
of crankery.
There is a single piece of evidence, if you
want to call it that, stuck on the front of
one of Bacon's treatises reprinted in the 1660s,
long after his death. It was not put there
by Bacon, nor his executors but by some printer
who probably wanted some decoration on the front
of his piracy.
I don't know what the symbol is but it could be a
compass or something like that which of course those
dedicated to the promulgation of crankery will
turn into a conpiracy.
That's all there is. There is no evidence that
Bacon had anything to do with masonry -- there
wasn't any until Milton and Newton -- nor would
he.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Sweetie Cat wrote:
> No one should uncritically accept anything, whether it's written by
> Looney or Ogburn or anyone else. But the truth is that one is more
> likely, psychologically, to agree with that which fits one's own
> perspective and ideas, whether one is Oxfordian, Baconian, or
> "Stratfordian."
My difference of opinion with Oxfordians is that they
seem to take an emotional approach to the authorship
question which I see as a problem in forensics.
Imagine that The Tempest is a crime scene. Some would-be
author or authors-- Bacon, Marlowe, Oxford, the playbroker,
Neville, Derby -- have stolen the play. The only way to
determine which suspect is the true author of the Shakespeare
works and which are guilty of theft is to apply the usual
procedures. Investigate the crime scene, collect the physical
evidence, question the witnesses, try to reconstruct the crime,
obtain warrants and search the houses of the suspects for evidence,
question their friends and relatives, take the suspects in for
questioning and try to break their stories. I've run out of
analogies.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Paul Crowley
news:dkff0f$o9l$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Tom Veal wrote:
> > He seems to think that enjambment is some kind of terrible
> > defect, whereas it is a common feature of blank verse, one
> > that Shakespeare employed with increasing frequency as he
> > grew older.
>
> Indeed. In fact it is interesting to do a quick count of lines
> where Shakespeare has used 'and' or 'but' as the first part of
> an enjambment. If one does, one can almost say precisely when
> he started to make use of them. Using Gary Taylor's dates, it
> comes out like this for the 'last' 12 plays:
>
> AWEW (1604/5) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
> Tim (1605) 'and' (0) 'but' (0)
> KL (1605/6) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
> Mac (1606) 'and' (2) 'but' (1)
> A&C (1606) 'and' (5) 'but' (5)
> Per (1607) 'and' (4) 'but' (0)
> Cor (1608) 'and' (15) 'but' (4)
> WT (1609) 'and' (8) 'but' (5)
> Cym (1610) 'and' (7) 'but' (8)
> Tem (1611) 'and' (7) 'but' (4)
> H8 (1613) 'and' (9) 'but' (3)
> 2NK (1613/4) 'and' (8) 'but' (1)
The man was clearly a machine, who had
no idea what a run-on line was, nor a
feminine ending, nor even -- probably-- a
rhyme. He had no education, so no one
ever told him what these things were.
He did it all naturally. He no more
thought about what he was doing than
we think about breathing.
That's why it makes sense to analyse his
work in this way. Of course we could
never apply this kind of principle to
ANY other writer of ANY other era.
And we don't -- ever.
We would not dream of subjecting the
work of the truly great writers of today --
such as Peter Farey or Lynne Kositsky.
to such a study. Unlike the ignorant
Stratman, who could not possibly have
known what he was doing, these supreme
stylists are intensely conscious of how
they use words and would never dream
producing work that would allowing the
application of such a crude measure.
Oops, I forgot. As it happens neither of
these 'greats' believe that the Stratman
was author of the works -- but, ah well,
it makes no difference. Stratfordian
rules pulled from the depths of the Strat
'thinking' will always appeal to them.
> On the other hand I can find *not one* example in any play by
> Shakespeare which Taylor has given an earlier date than these.
> Paul will no doubt explain why Cymbeline is nevertheless one
> of Shakespeare's earlier plays.
How is it possible to be so stupid?
It should be made illegal for certain
people ever to quote figures. That
category would probably include all
Strats, and those who adopt any
aspect of Strat thinking.
Paul.
gangleri
How do you relate the following comments from the 'Manes Verulamiani'
to your thesis that Francis Bacon was not - could not possibly be -
Crank Master par excellence?
C.D. of King's College wrote:
"Filled is the world with thy writings."
R.C. of Trinity College wrote:
"Thou art the jewel most precious of letters concealed."
Or how does Ben Jonson's poem 'On Lord Bacon's Sixtieth Birthday'
square with your hypothesis - especially the opening four lines:
Hail, happy genius of this ancient pile!
How comes it all things so about thee smile?
The fire, the wine, the men! and in the midst
Thou stand'st as if some mystery thou didst!
[Note: In Pythagorean number symbolism, the Sixtieth Birthday is
viewed as some sort of milestone in Man's Spiritual evolution.]
Finally, in the Dedication of his 'Epigrammes', which Ben Jonson
described as the "ripest of [his] studies", he distinguished between
two period's in his own life, with that "ripest of [his] studies" being
a product of the first period -
"For when I made them I had nothing in my conscience to expressing of
which I did need a CIPHER."
Might Ben have served his apprenticeship with the Master of Crankery -
Francis Bacon as "one of the fathers of Salomon's House", who gave the
story-teller private lessons in something - "scientific philosophy" to
you, "crankery" to me - stating at the outset:
"God bless thee, my son; I will give thee the GREATEST JEWEL I have.
For I will impart unto thee, for the love of God and men, a RELATION*
of the true state of Salomon's House."
That's "greatest jewel" as in "Thou art the jewel most precious of
letters concealed."
And taking leave of the apprentice at instruction's end with the words:
"God bless thee, my son, and God bless this RELATION* which I have
made. I give thee leave to publish it [CIPHER reference in Ben
Jonson's Dedication of the Epigrams?], for the good of other nations;
for we here are in God's bosom, a land unknown."
Might that be "a land unknown" as in Abraham Cowley's 'Ode to the Royal
Society'?
Bacon, like Moses, led us forth at last,
The barren wilderness he past,
Did on the very border stand
Of the blest promis'd land
And from the mountain's top of his exalted wit,
Saw it himself, and shew'd us it.
* The OED has the following entry under "relation":
"1605 BACON Adv. Learn. I. Vol # 2 The propositions of Euclyde...being
demonstrate, our mind accepteth of them by a kind of relation (as the
Lawyers speak) as if we had knowne them before."
As in the Pythagorean Crank Idea that ALL Knowledge is Remembrance?
P.S. What do you mean by "foundations of scientific philosophy"?
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth.
>
> How do you relate the following comments from the 'Manes Verulamiani'
> to your thesis that Francis Bacon was not - could not possibly be -
> Crank Master par excellence?
> C.D. of King's College wrote:
>
> "Filled is the world with thy writings."
Bacon had no money, no office. England was
a very poor nation with a very small bureaucracy
that operated on corruption. Bacon had no money
to buy an office. He finally got an office but
only by dedicating The Advancement of Knowledge
to James I.
England's wealth was concentrated in the aristocracy.
A schoolmaster with a unversity MA made ten pounds a year,
Oxford inherited the wealth of seventeen earls but Oxford
was indigent compared to the Percys and Howards.
When Bacon was waiting twenty-five years for an office,
he had to turn to seeking patronage from his aristocratic
friends and relatives. They did not want scientific
treatises on the tides. They wanted plays and poems
with dedications that made them look good.
Bacon could not put his name on his own works
or sell them without ruining his chances for office
(his father was evicted from Court for two years
for printing a book on law under the name of his
law clerk -- which was not only a huge financial
setback, it nearly destroyed his career).
The Puritan Lord Burghley wrote a treatise against
young men writing poetry. Plays were unthinkable to
Burghley but the aristocracy wanted plays.
Literary works were valuable only to printers
and the thieving brokers who sold stolen manuscripts
for a few pounds (this is Green's gripe in Groatsworth
-- the Crow is a playbroker who pretends to have
written the plays he's only fenced).
The Venus and Adonis went through seventeen
editions and made its printer rich but the
author didn't get a penny from the printer
(Southampton was generous).
Lady Anne Bacon's letters document the fact that
Bacon went hundry. She rushes pigeon pies to his
lodging (Athony gets the dove pies because Bacon
was only "her ward not her son"). Bacon had permanent
lodgings at Gray's Inn inherited from his father
but no cash.
If Bacon was the center of some influential
cabal he would not have missed meals or been thrown
into debtors prison or had to borrow from his
mother and brother. In order to call Bacon a
conpirator you have to make the poverty of
twenty-five years of his life a ruse.
Oxford, a product of aristocratic narcissism
(scientists have found that inbreeding really
does produce selfish genes) could not have
written the Shakespeare works because Oxford's
record shows the narrowness of his concerns. Oxford
had economic security -- the Queen protected
his estate from debtors -- James I did the same
for Bacon after his "fall: --while the stiped
suplimented his income. One of his biographers
writes that the Countess would hide the chattel
when the creditors pounded on the door.
Oxford's obsessions don't change over the decades.
He's writing the same letter in 1602 that he wrote
in the 1570s. He wants money, he wants Burghley,
Cecil or the Queen to help him. That's the scope
of Oxford's interests.
Oxford's title gave his life great stability,
there was only so much his enemies could do to
him. Bacon had none of that security, his life,
after the end of his childhood, was rocked with
one crisis after another and those crises start
to show up in the plays after 1598.
> R.C. of Trinity College wrote:
>
> "Thou art the jewel most precious of letters concealed."
Bacon wasn't exactly concealed, there was a
law that allowed a writer to sue if he used a pseudonym
and someone outed him. Bacon wrote anonymously and
the aristracy had no motive to expose his authorship.
His competition did out him and Whitgift came along
behind and burned their works. Cockburn has done
about thirty pages on Certain Satyres and the Vergidemiarum
which identify Bacon as the author of the Faerie Queene,
Tamerlaine and the Shakespeare works. Hall and Marsten
even make a classial allusion to the Stratford playbroker
who "drinkes from Bacon's bole" a reference to one
of the classical playwrights who wrote behind a mask.
> Or how does Ben Jonson's poem 'On Lord Bacon's Sixtieth Birthday'
> square with your hypothesis - especially the opening four lines:
>
> Hail, happy genius of this ancient pile!
> How comes it all things so about thee smile?
> The fire, the wine, the men! and in the midst
> Thou stand'st as if some mystery thou didst!
Jonson worked for Bacon as a scribe so he knew
what Bacon wrote. Scribes probably started the
rumors.
> [Note: In Pythagorean number symbolism, the Sixtieth Birthday is
> viewed as some sort of milestone in Man's Spiritual evolution.]
I am not interested in Pythagorean number systems.
It's obvious that creation would have to be mathematically
consistent or it would not be stable but the authorship
question is about real evidence not mathematical chimera.
> Finally, in the Dedication of his 'Epigrammes', which Ben Jonson
> described as the "ripest of [his] studies", he distinguished between
> two period's in his own life, with that "ripest of [his] studies" being
> a product of the first period -
>
> "For when I made them I had nothing in my conscience to expressing of
> which I did need a CIPHER."
Bacon didn't need a cipher. He later came up
with the precursor to the genetic code (and the
binary code pirated and coverted to numbers by
Leibniz who just happened to work as a secretary
for the dedicatee of the Cryptographia Cryptomenytices
-- what are the odds) in his abcderium theory.
Bacon was a grammarian who believed that man
had to retrieve the "alphabet of nature," which
had been lost in the Fall from Eden (Bacon was a
Christian to the bone). Bacon essentially described
what Crick would eventually see after Crick took a
a hit of LSD. The ABCDerium. Bacon rejected math-
based science and rightly warned against it.
Eric McLuhan of the University of Toronto has written
on Bacon's grammatical theory of nature (it's not
crankery, it's Christian Renaissance science).
> Might Ben have served his apprenticeship with the Master of Crankery -
> Francis Bacon as "one of the fathers of Salomon's House", who gave the
> story-teller private lessons in something - "scientific philosophy" to
> you, "crankery" to me - stating at the outset:
That's a metaphor from The New Atlantis. There wasn't
any Salomon's House. Jonson had beautiful italic
handwriting and he worked in the scriptorium at Twickenham.
There are two references to that scriptorium in 1595 and 1601.
> "God bless thee, my son; I will give thee the GREATEST JEWEL I have.
> For I will impart unto thee, for the love of God and men, a RELATION*
> of the true state of Salomon's House."
Someone at Cambridge probably saw The New Atlantis
in circulation, a manuscript that Bacon espressly forbid
Rawley to publish. Utopian literature is dangerous,
Bacon knew it, we've lost hundreds of Bacon's manuscripts--
-- but manuscripts written for the COMMENTARY ONLY of
other scholars have gotten out. Bacon didn't write in
solitary, he circulated his drafts.
> That's "greatest jewel" as in "Thou art the jewel most precious of
> letters concealed."
There are many references to Bacon
as a concealed poet. He calls himself a
concealed poet. It would be nice if the Baconians
would get this stuff together but at this time
it's scattered all over the place so you can't
get the full impact of it.
> And taking leave of the apprentice at instruction's end with the words:
>
> "God bless thee, my son, and God bless this RELATION* which I have
> made. I give thee leave to publish it [CIPHER reference in Ben
> Jonson's Dedication of the Epigrams?], for the good of other nations;
> for we here are in God's bosom, a land unknown."
No. The English were not ready for that kind of
esoterica in Bacon's lifetime. Bacon was the 'greatest
cipherer of his generation' but it was turned to the
defense of England, not hocus pocus. One of Bacon's
ciphers was in military use up to WWII when better
ciphers were invented.
> Might that be "a land unknown" as in Abraham Cowley's 'Ode to the Royal
> Society'?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Bacon was a Christian from birth to death.
Due to the lingering influence of English Catholicism
(much milder and more liberal than Italian or
Spanish Catholicism) Bacon is always trying to
mediate between the Henrician Catholicism of
his father and the ultra Calvinism of his mother.
That mediation is the essence of the Shakespeare
plays.
The Shakespeare plays are Christian works
written over the Geneva Study Bible. Whole
plots are taken from chapters of the Bible.
The "undiscovered" plot for The Tempest is
Isaih xxix. Scholars have noticed this and it
fits every line. A believer wrote the Shakespeare
works which are suffused with religious thought and
morality.
Oxford, a Catholic, did not write them. Oxford
could not crack the cover of a bible without
calling down papal anathema. I noted in another
post that he reciprocated Anne Cecil's gift of
the Folger Bible with Erasmus' Catholic New Testament.
Anne Cecil is the best candidate for the annotations
in the Folger Bible ("Shakespeare's bible" so-called)
since the hand is small and juvenile and the marginalia
very tentative. Cecil was a knowledgeable Calvinist at
fourteen.
There's not the slightest hint of the bible in Oxford's
letters and poems. Bacon's letters and treatises
are as crammed with biblical references as the Shakespeare
plays.
> Bacon, like Moses, led us forth at last,
> The barren wilderness he past,
> Did on the very border stand
> Of the blest promis'd land
> And from the mountain's top of his exalted wit,
> Saw it himself, and shew'd us it.
For twenty five years Bacon had to write for
patronage or starve. His works were printed
anonymously or under the names of others.
> * The OED has the following entry under "relation":
>
> "1605 BACON Adv. Learn. I. Vol # 2 The propositions of Euclyde...being
> demonstrate, our mind accepteth of them by a kind of relation (as the
> Lawyers speak) as if we had knowne them before."
Relation as in "to relate," Gunner.
> As in the Pythagorean Crank Idea that ALL Knowledge is Remembrance?
Bacon was a Renaissance man. He drew
from his predecessors and was loyal to none
of them.
> P.S. What do you mean by "foundations of scientific philosophy"?
The new science of induction which was born from
philosophy and law.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Bianca Steele
> gangleri wrote:
> > Elizabeth.
> >
> > How do you relate the following comments from the 'Manes Verulamiani'
> > to your thesis that Francis Bacon was not - could not possibly be -
> > Crank Master par excellence?
> > As in the Pythagorean Crank Idea that ALL Knowledge is Remembrance?
>
> Bacon was a Renaissance man. He drew
> from his predecessors and was loyal to none
> of them.
You cannot argue honestly that Bacon was not loyal.
>
> > P.S. What do you mean by "foundations of scientific philosophy"?
>
> The new science of induction which was born from
> philosophy and law.
Terrific, Elizabeth. You appear to have made an airtight case that
only Bacon, the Freemason in embryo, could have written the canon of
Shakespeare plays. But he cannot possibly have written what we have
under his name; Shakespeare did.
----
Bianca Steele
Tom Veal
(http://www.uchronia.net/bib.cgi/label.html?id=squidiscov). In this
alternate history tale, conclusive evidence is discovered that Bacon
wrote the works of Shakespeare. That raises the question of how one man
could have produced two utterly different oeuvres, which is resolved
when scholars recognize that Shakespeare was the real Bacon.
gangleri
The new science of induction which was born from philosophy and law.
Comment:
There is no "science of induction".
As for Bacon's views on the method of "induction", a modern student of
Bacon's thought has commented as follows:
"At the beginning of the _Novum Organum_, Bacon declared that two kinds
of induction exist, both starting out "from the senses and particulars"
and both ending in "the highest generalities". He called one of these
methods the "anticipation of nature", the other the "interpretation of
nature". The first, in Bacon's view, was responsible for what he saw
as the sterile and unproductive character of much contemporary science,
while he argued for the second as the right procedure to adopt if
science was to make any substantial and more rapid advance." (Peter
Urbach, 'Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science', Open Court, 1987, p.
25)
Which of these two methods of "induction" represent what you construe
as "these Foundations" in Dr. Rawley's prefatory comments on 'Manes
Verulamiani'?
"Let if suffice to lay these Foundations in the name of the present
age; every age will enlarge and adorn this Edifice; but to what Age is
given to set the finishing hand is manifest only to God and to the
Fates."
P.S. Your construction of Rawley's statement implies that the EDIFICE
in question is the METHOD of Induction - a construction which strikes
me as unpersuasive.
Peter Groves
news:1131156907.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
While it's gratifying to be mentioned as an authority of sorts, I have to
say that I don't recall anything in that article that answers to this
paraphrase. the closest approximation seems to be the following passage,
but it concerns Latin rather than English:
'Central to classical Latin metre is the phonological feature of syllabic
weight or "length," which functions as a kind of exchange-value, two
so-called "short" syllables being in most places metrically equivalent to
one "long" one, so that lines with the same underlying structure may have
very different numbers of syllables. Literary English verse of Bysshe's
period, on the other hand, resembles the modern Romance vernaculars that
Lancelot treats of in being metrically isosyllabic: once rule-governed
prosodic contractions and so-called "feminine" endings have been allowed
for, all the lines in a given metrical tradition such as heroic verse will
indeed have "a certain Number of Syllables."<3>'
Peter G.
Peter Groves
news:jy_af.18221$R5....@news.indigo.ie...
We all knew that Crowley has a tin ear, but his taking <Cymbeline> for an
early play puts the tin lid on it.
It was Tennyson's favourite play, incidentally, partly (I suspect) because
of the complex late-stage versification.
Peter G.
Elizabeth
> While it's gratifying to be mentioned as an authority of sorts,
> I have to
> say that I don't recall anything in that article that answers to this
> paraphrase.
I tried to find your paper but it's disappeared from
Google cache. I probably confused English rules
for syllables with classical rules.
> the closest approximation seems to be the following passage,
> but it concerns Latin rather than English:
> 'Central to classical Latin metre is the phonological feature of syllabic
> weight or "length," which functions as a kind of exchange-value, two
> so-called "short" syllables being in most places metrically equivalent to
> one "long" one, so that lines with the same underlying structure may have
> very different numbers of syllables.
Unless you're comparing only Neo-classical to
Romantic verse (or verses in Romantic vernacular),
I don't know if that's always the case. The first
Sonnet that come up in a search has two unstressed
syllables at the start of Line 3. The poet had a
great line but he couldn't start it with the insubstantial
"yet." "Yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb" is trite.
1. Who will believe my verse in time to come,
2. If it were filled with your most high deserts?
3. Though yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb
I think a prose syllable at the start gives the
subject -- heaven knows the poet's verse is but
a tomb -- weight. You just drop your voice on the
first two syllables which gives the line gravity.
There's a lot of "though yet" type metre in the first
syllables in lines of hymns, something Bacon would
know about. The infamous "translations of Psalms"
Strats use to disqualify Bacon from Shakespeare authorship,
are the lyrics of hymns, not poems. The Calvinst aristocracy
took up hymn writing hyms (they were low Church -- the
congregation provided the music). Mary Sidney and
George Herbert made stabs at "translating" the Psalms
to hymns.
With a few substitutions Sonnet XVII could be sung as
a hymn. It has some very hymn-like lines. I note that
the poet ends all the lines with stretched syllables as
those found at the end of lines in hymns. Only Bacon and
Neville were raised on low Church hymns and Neville's
authorship is a joke. Read his unshakespearean dialogues
(do Nevillians have a tin ear? yes).
4. Which hides your life, and shows not half your parts.
5. If I could write the beauty of your eyes,
6. And in fresh numbers number all your graces,
7. The age to come would say 'This poet lies;
8. Such heavenly touches ne'er touched earthly faces.'
9. So should my papers, yellowed with their age,
10. Be scorned, like old men of less truth than tongue,
11. And your true rights be termed a poet's rage
12. And stretched metre of an antique song:
13. But were some child of yours alive that time,
14. You should live twice, in it, and in my rhyme.
> Literary English verse of Bysshe's
> period, on the other hand, resembles the modern Romance vernaculars that
> Lancelot treats of in being metrically isosyllabic: once rule-governed
> prosodic contractions and so-called "feminine" endings have been allowed
> for, all the lines in a given metrical tradition such as heroic verse will
> indeed have "a certain Number of Syllables."<3>'
Bysshe belived that there would still be "a certain number
of syllables" but as I read it Bysshe also believed that the
reader would be able to locate the same stresses on the same
syllables that the poet intended. That's a function of dialect,
isn't it?
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Peter Farey
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> The first
> Sonnet that come up in a search has two unstressed
> syllables at the start of Line 3. The poet had a
> great line but he couldn't start it with the insubstantial
> "yet." "Yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb" is trite.
>
> 1. Who will believe my verse in time to come,
> 2. If it were filled with your most high deserts?
> 3. Though yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb
>
> I think a prose syllable at the start gives the
> subject -- heaven knows the poet's verse is but
> a tomb -- weight. You just drop your voice on the
> first two syllables which gives the line gravity.
There isn't a 'prose syllable' at the start. This is a
perfectly normal iambic pentameter with 'yet' stressed
and 'heaven' spoken as a single syllable - heav'n.
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> There isn't a 'prose syllable' at the start. This is a
> perfectly normal iambic pentameter with 'yet' stressed
> and 'heaven' spoken as a single syllable - heav'n.
Thank you (I'd rather hear it from you than Groves).
On the other hand, had I not erred I would not have
considered that the Sonnets might be influenced by hymns.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Peter Groves
> Peter Groves wrote:
>
> > While it's gratifying to be mentioned as an authority of sorts,
> > I have to
> > say that I don't recall anything in that article that answers to this
> > paraphrase.
>
> I tried to find your paper but it's disappeared from
> Google cache.
It's still there, though the journal <Versification> has changed its URL (to
http://oregonstate.edu/versif/ if anyone's interested)
> I probably confused English rules
> for syllables with classical rules.
>
You're in good company: the traditional account of English metre does
something similar (one can be a Stratfordian without being a champion of
orthodoxy for its own sake).
>
> > the closest approximation seems to be the following passage,
> > but it concerns Latin rather than English:
> > 'Central to classical Latin metre is the phonological feature of
syllabic
> > weight or "length," which functions as a kind of exchange-value, two
> > so-called "short" syllables being in most places metrically equivalent
to
> > one "long" one, so that lines with the same underlying structure may
have
> > very different numbers of syllables.
>
> Unless you're comparing only Neo-classical to
> Romantic verse (or verses in Romantic vernacular),
> I don't know if that's always the case.
Again, this refers only to the metre of classical Latin: my point was to
show how unsuitable it is as a model for discussing English versification.
> The first
> Sonnet that come up in a search has two unstressed
> syllables at the start of Line 3. The poet had a
> great line but he couldn't start it with the insubstantial
> "yet." "Yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb" is trite.
>
> 1. Who will believe my verse in time to come,
> 2. If it were filled with your most high deserts?
> 3. Though yet heaven knows it is but as a tomb
>
"Heaven", like "seven", even" and so on, is regularly (though not exclusivel
y) monosyllabic in Shakespeare's verse: it would have sounded more or less
like "hen". Compare the Shakespearean word for a week, a "sennight" or
seven-night, as in "A sennight's speed. Great Jove, Othello guard,".
> I think a prose syllable at the start gives the
> subject -- heaven knows the poet's verse is but
> a tomb -- weight. You just drop your voice on the
> first two syllables which gives the line gravity.
>
>
> There's a lot of "though yet" type metre in the first
> syllables in lines of hymns, something Bacon would
> know about. The infamous "translations of Psalms"
> Strats use to disqualify Bacon from Shakespeare authorship,
> are the lyrics of hymns, not poems. The Calvinst aristocracy
> took up hymn writing hyms (they were low Church -- the
> congregation provided the music). Mary Sidney and
> George Herbert made stabs at "translating" the Psalms
> to hymns.
>
>
> With a few substitutions Sonnet XVII could be sung as
> a hymn. It has some very hymn-like lines. I note that
> the poet ends all the lines with stretched syllables
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Well, to a rather small extent: on the whole Modern English stress has been
relatively stable over time and space, but there are exceptions. Australian
newsreaders, for example, have started talking about <PROtestors> instead of
<proTEStors>, which I think is the influence of American English, and
Shakespeare seems to have put secondary stress on the first syllable of
words like <complete>.
Peter G.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Elizabeth
>
Peter Groves
> Peter Farey wrote:
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > There isn't a 'prose syllable' at the start. This is a
> > perfectly normal iambic pentameter with 'yet' stressed
> > and 'heaven' spoken as a single syllable - heav'n.
>
>
> Thank you (I'd rather hear it from you than Groves).
Peter's ear is impeccable, but I'm beginning to wonder whether those who can
actually hear the metre of Shakespeare and Marlowe are a dying breed, even
among critics, actors and aficionados of Shakespeare -- even on this site,
there are those like Crowley, Knave, gangleri and bookburn who wouldn't
recognise a pentameter if it bit them on the leg. The editors of a recent
'scholarly' edition of <Pericles> reject the idea of multiple authorship
because they can hear no difference between the first two and the last three
acts of the play.
Peter G.
Art Neuendorffer
> Peter's ear is impeccable, but I'm beginning to wonder whether those who can
> actually hear the metre of Shakespeare and Marlowe are a dying breed, even
> among critics, actors and aficionados of Shakespeare --
One doesn't have to rely on humans.
Any half decent computer analysis will clearly show that early
Shakespeare and Marlowe are a closer match than early Shakespeare and
late Shakespeare. That's because L.O. wrote Marlowe first, then early
Shakespeare and finally (post 1604 from the isle of Malta) late
Shakespeare.
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
> Peter's ear is impeccable, but I'm beginning to wonder whether those who can
> actually hear the metre of Shakespeare and Marlowe are a dying breed, even
> among critics, actors and aficionados of Shakespeare -- even on this site,
> there are those like Crowley, Knave, gangleri and bookburn who wouldn't
> recognise a pentameter if it bit them on the leg. The editors of a recent
> 'scholarly' edition of <Pericles> reject the idea of multiple authorship
> because they can hear no difference between the first two and the last three
> acts of the play.
Nearly half a century ago, C. S. Lewis was bemoaning the metrical
deafness of many of his students. It was his understanding that, in
order to "cure children of 'sing-song' readings" (which, as he remarks,
the intelligent ones will outgrow on their own), they were actually
being taught to recite verse as though it were prose. I don't remember
being taught that, but I don't remember being taught much of anything
about meter beyond the obvious; neither can I remember being taught to
recite anything where the motive was the recitation and not the
memorization entailed.
(On the other hand, I wasn't taught anything about prose rhythms at all.
If I were not an Anglican, and so had not some academic knowledge of the
Book of Common Prayer, I wouldn't even know the meaning of the word
"cursus" -- to this day I am utterly in awe of Cranmer's abilities in
that direction.)
I have certainly encountered some amazing errors. I once had a director
who told me that /all/ pentameter lines were to be spoken as
end-stopped, no matter how enjambed. I think I weaned him away from
that, a little.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
John W. Kennedy
> You're in good company: the traditional account of English metre does
> something similar (one can be a Stratfordian without being a champion of
> orthodoxy for its own sake).
The Augustans, of course, made it temporarily true, by fiat. But it was
more a matter of importing French rules than Latin. (A curious irony,
for French is, metrically, even more unlike Latin than English is.)
Alexander Pope
Spat in Shakespeare's face with his
Neoclassic thump.
> Again, this refers only to the metre of classical Latin: my point was to
> show how unsuitable it is as a model for discussing English versification.
Although, of course, English poets have experimented with quantity, from
time to time, with varying degrees of success (I've done it myself), and
quantity is one of the many elements active in the Old English
alliterative line. It can also be used as an expressive device, as,
famously, in the last line of the sestet written by Lord Peter Wimsey in
"Gaudy Night", "And dying so, sleep that sweet sleep no more."
Sprung meter is not generally described, as far as I know, in terms of
quantity, but it could be so analyzed.
> Well, to a rather small extent: on the whole Modern English stress has been
> relatively stable over time and space, but there are exceptions. Australian
> newsreaders, for example, have started talking about <PROtestors> instead of
> <proTEStors>, which I think is the influence of American English, and
> Shakespeare seems to have put secondary stress on the first syllable of
> words like <complete>.
Americans in recent decades have pronounced the verb as "PROtest" about
as often as "proTEST", but I've never once heard "PROtestors".
> and Shakespeare seems to have put secondary stress on the first syllable of
> words like <complete>.
And seems usually to say "reVENue" and "MIlan".
Paul Crowley
news:DwQbf.11121$Hj2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > Indeed. In fact it is interesting to do a quick count of lines
> > > where Shakespeare has used 'and' or 'but' as the first part of
> > > an enjambment. If one does, one can almost say precisely when
> > > he started to make use of them. Using Gary Taylor's dates, it
> > > comes out like this for the 'last' 12 plays:
> > >
> > > AWEW (1604/5) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
> > > Tim (1605) 'and' (0) 'but' (0)
> > > KL (1605/6) 'and' (1) 'but' (0)
> > > Mac (1606) 'and' (2) 'but' (1)
> > > A&C (1606) 'and' (5) 'but' (5)
> > > Per (1607) 'and' (4) 'but' (0)
> > > Cor (1608) 'and' (15) 'but' (4)
> > > WT (1609) 'and' (8) 'but' (5)
> > > Cym (1610) 'and' (7) 'but' (8)
> > > Tem (1611) 'and' (7) 'but' (4)
> > > H8 (1613) 'and' (9) 'but' (3)
> > > 2NK (1613/4) 'and' (8) 'but' (1)
If we all did not know Peter (and his sense
of numbers) better, I'd be certain that this
list was a piss-take.
> We all knew that Crowley has a tin ear, but his taking <Cymbeline> for an
> early play puts the tin lid on it.
How could I not know that the percentages
of run-on lines and feminine endings are
inexorably tied to head-hair cover and to
hardening arteries; and that as the Stratman
became older and balder, he had no choice
except to use them more . . ?
But isn't it a shame that Groves cannot make
one single coherent statement about the
dating of Cymbeline which does not rely
on such arguments -- powerful as they
are . . .?
Paul.
Mark Cipra
news:%92cf.66266$rE2....@fe10.lga...
You *must* have that backwards. You've never heard "proTEStors", right?
>
> > and Shakespeare seems to have put secondary stress on the first syllable
of
> > words like <complete>.
>
> And seems usually to say "reVENue" and "MIlan".
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> "Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
> obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
> that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
> shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
> -- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana
Lewis)
--
"If you want to be in show business, you should be spayed first." Jeannette
(The Full Monty)
(Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by e-mail!)
Elizabeth
Bianca Steele wrote:
> Elizabeth wrote:
> Terrific, Elizabeth. You appear to have made an airtight case that
> only Bacon, the Freemason in embryo,
I made a case that Bacon was NOT a "freemason
in embryo." .
> could have written the canon of
> Shakespeare plays.
I didn't really touch on Bacon's authorship of
the Shakespeare plays.
Cockburn, a barrister who knows evidence,
spent 800 pages on on Bacon's case and failed to
cover it. The sheer size of the Baconian case apparently
discourages Baconians from attempting to marshall the
evidence. Instead they look for shortcuts like ciphers and
esoteric nonsense that only harms their position. I'm sure the
ciphers are in there but they aren't esoteric messages,
they're essentially anagrams for his patrons. Word games
for a bored aristocracy.
> But he cannot possibly have written what we have
> under his name; Shakespeare did.
You're a Strat? I thought you were an Oxfordian.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
gangleri
> ....The sheer size of the Baconian case apparently
> discourages Baconians from attempting to marshall the
> evidence. Instead they look for shortcuts like ciphers and
> esoteric nonsense that only harms their position. I'm sure the
> ciphers are in there but they aren't esoteric messages,
> they're essentially anagrams for his patrons.
1. You're sure there are ciphers in there - but you don't know what
they are.
2. You don't know what they are - but they aren't esoteric messages.
3. You don't know what they are - but they're essentially anagrams for
his patrons.
In other words, you have no clue what Baconian ciphers may or may not
be present in the Shakespeare opus.
Also, would 'The Phoenix and the Turtle' acrostic FRANCISCO BACONO
exemplify what you term "esoteric nonsense"?
If the acrostic was placed there by or on behalf of Francis Bacon, then
your assertion that possible Baconian ciphers in the Shakespeare opus
were "essentially anagrams for his patrons" would not square with the
facts of the matter.
Elizabeth
> ignoto wrote:
>
> No verse nor prose were alike (so men say)
>
>
> (ta tum ta tum ta tum ta tum ta tum) (5 feet)
Where are you getting "AY like?" The stress is on not
on "a" it's on LIKE -- aLIKE'.
If I read your version as it sounds, "no VERSE nor PROSE
were a LIKE SO men SAY" the metre unravels:
ta TUM ta TUM ta ta TUM TUM ta TUM.
It should be "No verse nor prose were so alike,
men say."
Are you telling me that Aussies say AY like? I
don't believe it.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
>
> EW Wrote:
>
> No verse nor prose were so alike (men say)
>
> ignoto wrote:
>
> no VERSE nor PROSE were so Alike (men SAY)??
>
> EW: Had to fix that.
>
> ignoto wrote:
>
> Till lizzay wrenche'd all the feet away
>
> till LIZZay WRENCH'ed ALL the FEET aWAY
>
> EW:
>
> Wrench-ed feet? And what about "were alike
> (so men say)?"
>
> ignoto wrote:
>
> metrical feet, your bacon versification was 'limping'
Elizabeth
> (C.J. Squire's satire) raises the question of how one man
> could have produced two utterly different oeuvres, which is resolved
> when scholars recognize that Shakespeare was the real Bacon.
Edwin Bormann, a co-author of Mommsen's Corpus
Inscriptionum Latinarum (just to give you a sense of
Bormann's qualfications and yes, I've browsed Mommsen's
work although not all nineteen volumes), indentified Bacon's
verses -- some quite hilarious -- concealed in what you
refer to as Bacon's "utterly different oeuvres."
Most of Bormann's examples are end-rhymed but here's
one I saved from his book that shows Bacon's internal
rhyme scheme:
As thy favours have increased upon me, so have thy corrections;
so as thou hast been always near me, O Lord; And e'er as my worldly
blessings were exalted,
(the rhyming begins)
so secret darts from thee have pierced me;
(three rhymes on a long e)
and when I have ascended before men,
I have descended in humiliation before thee.
(four rhymes on "en" and two rhymes on a short i)
for thee.
(a fourth rhyme on a long e).
This is not coincidental, as Bormann shows
in a two-hundred and seventy-page book. I've found
examples in Bacon's Essays. It also tends to answer
the question Gunnar asked above: Why do so many literary
figures including poets like Shelley see so much poetry
in Bacon's works?
Cordially,
Elizabeth
seaker
were private theatres in 2000 homes, what is YOUR SOURCE?
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%92cf.66266$rE2....@fe10.lga...
>>as often as "proTEST", but I've never once heard "PROtestors".
> You *must* have that backwards. You've never heard "proTEStors", right?
No, it's "PROtestors" I've never heard.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Clark
> Mark Cipra wrote:
<snip>
> > You *must* have that backwards. You've never heard "proTEStors", right?
>
> No, it's "PROtestors" I've never heard.
What part of the country are you from? In the northwest, it's always
PROtestors.
- 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
Elizabeth
seaker wrote:
> A simple for ELIZABETH - In one of your postings, you claimed there
> were private theatres in 2000 homes, what is YOUR SOURCE?
I read it recently but I can't find it. If this subject
is of interest to you I found a source that might give you
some idea of the scope of traveling actors troupes.
As throughout wester Europe, one strand of English theatrical
activity grew out of all-male institutions -- grammar schools,
universities and chapel choirs. Another strand grew out of the
work of small traveling troupes with toured throughout England
and whoe activites are now being chronicled in Records of Early
English Drama (REED) volumes.
In Enacting Gender on the English Renaissance Stage, ed.
Viviana Comensoli, Anne Russell - Literary Criticism (1999)
Page 183.
Cordially,
Elizabeth
Mark Cipra
news:_q6dnXGYveK...@comcast.com...
> "John W. Kennedy" wrote
> > Mark Cipra wrote:
> <snip>
> > > You *must* have that backwards. You've never heard "proTEStors",
right?
> >
> > No, it's "PROtestors" I've never heard.
>
> What part of the country are you from? In the northwest, it's always
> PROtestors.
>
Ditto, here in the Rust Belt. It seems to me I've never heard a broadcaster
say anything else, either. Unless it's one of those Canadians. :)
>
> - 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
>
>
--
Mark Cipra
news:1131577442....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A simple for ELIZABETH - In one of your postings, you claimed there
> were private theatres in 2000 homes, what is YOUR SOURCE?
>
Yes, this seems high, unless we're (perhaps "even if") we're just describing
residences with big halls that could be used as theaters.
Chess One
"Clark" <cl...@NOhollowaySPAMpages.com> wrote in message
news:_q6dnXGYveK...@comcast.com...
>> Mark Cipra wrote:
> <snip>
>> > You *must* have that backwards. You've never heard "proTEStors",
>> > right?
>>
>> No, it's "PROtestors" I've never heard.
>
> What part of the country are you from? In the northwest, it's always
> PROtestors.
Its a No' THEST ah
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" wrote
>
>>Mark Cipra wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>You *must* have that backwards. You've never heard "proTEStors", right?
>>
>>No, it's "PROtestors" I've never heard.
>
>
> What part of the country are you from? In the northwest, it's always
> PROtestors.
NE NJ, in the NYC commuter zone.
I suppose it's possible that I hear it, and don't believe I heard it....
--
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"