Shakespeare's novel
David L. Webb
Evidently Michael Brame and Galina Popova have also discovered that
Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel! I am not making
this up. Their edition of _Adventures of Freeman Jones_ is scheduled
to appear next month. I quote from the Adonis Editions web page:
"_Secret Shakespeare's Adventures of Freeman Jones_ is professionally
edited with footnotes cross-referenced to the main text. The
footnotes elucidate de Vere's play on his family name Vere and
provide clarification of his wanton wordplay. [Of course, readers
of h.l.a.s. have Art Neuendorffer to explain that.] The book is
complemented by an Afterword that expounds the evidence confirming
that the novel was indeed written by the genius we today know as
Shakespeare."
Evidently the book is the second installment of the Brame-Popova
"fingerprint trilogy," the third volume of which (to be published by
summer 2003) will be entitled _Never and For Ever_. Curiously enough,
elsewhere the Adonis Editions site informs us that
"The remaining installments of the trilogy include the two
forthcoming books:
Never and For Ever
Faerie Love
In all three volumes, two professional linguists show how linguistic
considerations bear on Shakespeare's identity, and they do so in a
way that can be understood by everyone."
Alas, I can find no information concerning _Faerie Love_. Although the
Adonis Editions site seems to be somewhat confused about which three
books comprise the trilogy, these volumes at least promise some
amusement. See
<http://www.elliottbaybook.com/events/jan03/popova.jsp>
and
<http://www.adonis-editions.com/freeman.html>
for more information.
David Webb
Tom Veal
"Never and For Ever" and "Faerie Love". The edition of "Freeman
Jones" (attributed by orthodox dullards to George Gascoigne) is a
stand-alone. Promised as follow-ons to the Trilogy are "Marlowe's
Fingerprints" and "Spenser's Fingerprints".
Judging by the hints in the text of "Shakespeare's Fingerprints",
"Faerie Love" will deal with Edward de Vere's hyperactive sex life,
including, of course, his affair with Queen Elizabeth and their
begetting of the 3rd Earl of Southampton.
We have already learned, incidentally, that de Vere wrote the Sonnets
in order to persuade his son Southampton to enter into an incestuous
marriage with his (Southampton's) half-sister Elizabeth de Vere.
(Brame/Popova do not accept the Ogburnian thesis that Elizabeth was
not really Oxenford's daughter; in fact, it looks like their analysis
of "Othello" - also to be expatiated in "Faerie Love" - depends
crucially upon Elizabeth's legitimacy.)
"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<250120031234160678%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
GKAllen
> Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel!
One discovery of many to come, no doubt. Note the company they keep:
http://www.deverestudies.org/agenda.htm
Gary
Art Neuendorffer
news:<250120031234160678%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > Evidently Michael Brame and Galina Popova have also discovered that
> > Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel!
"GKAllen" <gkal...@sbcglobal.net> wrote :
> One discovery of many to come, no doubt. Note the company they keep:
>
> http://www.deverestudies.org/agenda.htm
--------------------------------------------------
Address by Sir Derek Jacobi
to the 6th Annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference at Concordia University
13 April 2002
Dear Concordia University, Professor Wright, delegates and fellow sceptics:
Let me first thank you very much indeed for the honour you do me by
conferring upon me the conference's Vero Nihil Verius Award for Artistic
Excellence. My deep regret is that I cannot be with you to receive it in
person. I must plead the peripatetic life of the strolling player, the
vagabond, a life that keeps me traveling as a chronicler of the times, often
to bournes from which I am only too eager to return. I wish I could be with
you, but fate and the need to earn a living decree otherwise [Note: Sir
Derek, on the night of the conference's Awards Banquet, was performing with
Diana Rigg, Ian Richardson and the Royal Shakespeare Company in The Hollow
Crown at the Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington, New Zealand].
Like a growing number of interested parties, I have had grave doubts for
some time now of the validity of the Stratford man's claim to have written
some of the greatest literature the world has produced. Indeed, I must admit
that it still seems incredible to me that one mind could possibly have
encompassed such a monumental feat--but if so, that man is most likely to
have been Edward de Vere--possibly with a little collaboration.
Like you, I live in hope that an acceptable solution is possible and that
this most fascinating riddle will finally be solved. My reactions are, of
course, hardly academic, and I haven't the minutiae of knowledge or
arguments at my fingertips like your good selves--I'm still studying and
discovering--but, as an actor, my instincts and antennae tell me that only
someone connected with the vicissitudes of stage production could have
created these complex dramas. Is there indeed any incontrovertible,
unequivocal evidence that Stratford Will was even an actor? But, of course,
with doubt comes not discussion but accusation. We are labeled eccentrics
and loonies (oh, if only old Thomas had himself used a pseudonym!).
All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man must be
defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble, an industry turns
pale, and the weapons of ridicule and abuse are leveled and fired. But at
least the battle lines have been drawn, and it is heartening to see how many
recruits are enlisting in the Doubters Army: people, like myself, who cannot
reconcile the illiteracy of Shakspere's offspring alongside his own deep and
adept knowledge of medicine, art, music, geography, law and his almost
nonchalant use of metaphor from, for example, sporting activities that were
exclusively the pursuit of the aristocracy--not to mention his mastery of
history, languages and the intricacies of survival at court. The only
evidence of Shakspere's literary life was produced after he died and is open
to dispute. Nothing, while alive, apart from some shaky signatures, puts a
pen in his hand.
Legend, hearsay and myth have created this writer.
I have taken part in thirty-one of the plays so far, and I can imagine--I
can feel--someone behind the words whose education and life experiences,
whose knowledge of all strata of society, whose relationships and
temperament simply do not fit the grain hoarder, the money lender and the
entrepreneur, but chime accurately, and at times indelibly, with what we
know about de Vere. And it's not enough to say, "Oh, but the works of
Shakespeare survive whoever wrote them; it doesn't therefore matter." Yes,
it does! The disclosure of the real author would enhance not only the
historical significance but also the contemporary excitement of these
treasures for both actors and spectators; and it shouldn't be regarded as
potential professional suicide, heresy or an actor's silliness to come out
and say so.
As a performer in the public eye and therefore subject to public criticism
and attack, I am acutely conscious of the significance of accepting this
token of committed involvement in the authorship debate. My wish is that
more actors, with similar suspicions, would nail their colours to the mast
and accept whatever brickbats the eminent and learned critics have to throw.
The restrictive orthodox analysis must be open to seriously considered
debate. There must be a challenge to the selective evidence of the scholars,
based on their desire to justify their man rather than assess objective
criteria. Too much is conjecture, guesswork, allegory and assumption--what
one writer has called "a well documented blank."
However, I would also urge the anti-Stratfordian to avoid over-egging the de
Vere pudding. "The lady doth protest too much" is not a healthy slogan for
the cause. Take a lesson from we actors who constantly are told that "less
is more." Our lifeblood as performers is constant questioning, research,
analysis, intellectual and emotional honesty: the play's the thing, not the
player. Without the dramatist, we have no opportunity to strut whatever
stuff we possess, and in this particular case above all, if we could find
the true author of these exquisite dramas, the rewards for both actor and
audience would be immense. A spotlight would be thrown on hitherto
unfathomable passages, and centuries of delight would be highlighted by the
knowledge of the real events, situations and characters that guided and
informed the author's hand. Let there be vigorous and legitimate debate!
Once more, my heartfelt thanks and my sincerest regret that I cannot be with
you this evening.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman
> > Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel!
>
> One discovery of many to come, no doubt. Note the company they keep:
>
> http://www.deverestudies.org/agenda.htm
>
> Gary
What th' !!!???? Baker is only listed as a reverend! Among so many
Doctors! And near the bottom of the list. What's with these people?
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel!
> >
> > One discovery of many to come, no doubt. Note the company they keep:
> >
> > http://www.deverestudies.org/agenda.htm
> >
> > Gary
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> What th' !!!???? Baker is only listed as a reverend! Among so many
> Doctors! And near the bottom of the list. What's with these people?
The Rev'd John Baker, independent scholar; Centralia, Washington
(Perhaps John is a whirling dervish.)
--------------------------------------------------
REVE/Reave, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {REAVED}, {Reft}, or {Raft}(obs] [AS.
re['a]fian, from re['a]f spoil, plunder, clothing, re['o]fan to break (cf.
bire['o]fan to deprive of); akin to G. rauben to rob, Icel. raufa to rob,
rj[=u]fa to break, violate, Goth. bir['a]ubon to despoil, L. rumpere to
break; cf. Skr. lup to break.] To take away by violence or by stealth; to
snatch away; to rob; to despoil; to bereave. [Archaic]. ``To reave his
life.'' --Spenser.
Reeve, n. [OE. REVE, AS. gerfa. Cf. Sheriff.] an officer, steward, BAILIFF,
or governor; - used chiefly in compounds; as, shirereeve, now written
sheriff; portreeve, etc. Chaucer. Piers Plowman.
--------------------------------------------------
§ 5. Ben Jonson's Masques.
http://www.bartleby.com/216/1305.html
<<We can gather what the masque was in its outward features. A band of
masquers assume an impressive and magnificent disguise. Some sort of
explanation must be given of the nature and meaning of the disguise
culminating in the entry of the masquers, which should be as sudden and
impressive as possible. After the entry, the main or chief dance is
performed by the masquers alone. Then, the masquers "take out" partners from
among the spectators-lords if the masquers are ladies, but, more usually,
ladies, the masquers being lords. With these partners, slow dances, called
by Daniel "certain measures," are performed; and then quick dances-
"galliards and corantos." It is to these quick dances that the title "the
revels" is properly and strictly given.{The derivation of the word,
according to Skeat, is neither from reveiller, to awaken, nor from reve, to
dream, but from O.F. revel, meaning rebellion, disorder, sport, and coming
from Latin rebellare, to rebel.}
--------------------------------------------------
Reeve, v. t. [Cf. D. REVEN. See Reef, n. & v. t.] (Naut.) To pass, as the
end of a pope, through any hole in a block, thimble, cleat, ringbolt,
cringle, or the like.
Reef , n. [Akin to D. rif, G. riff, Icel. rif, Dan. rev; cf. Icel. rifa
rift, rent, fissure, rifa to rive, bear. Cf. {Rift}, {Rive}.] 1. A chain or
range of rocks lying at or near the surface of the water. See {Coral reefs},
under {Coral}.
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
news:b1153...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Ken Kaplan is listed as a "curriculum specialist." Anybody know what that
is? Is trembling-lipped whining a career requirement?
TR
Greg Reynolds
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:b1153...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > > > Evidently Michael Brame and Galina Popova have also discovered that
> > > > Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel!
> > >
> > > One discovery of many to come, no doubt. Note the company they keep:
> > >
> > > http://www.deverestudies.org/agenda.htm
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > What th' !!!???? Baker is only listed as a reverend! Among so many
> > Doctors! And near the bottom of the list. What's with these people?
> >
> > --Bob G.
Rev'd stands for Reviled, not Reverend.
What's he doing grandstanding for the Oxies, anyway?
> Ken Kaplan is listed as a "curriculum specialist." Anybody know what that
> is? Is trembling-lipped whining a career requirement?
>
> TR
On the same site, their page "Who was de Vere"
( http://www.deverestudies.org/who.html )
begins with this huge stinking lie in the very first paragraph:
+++BEGIN STINKING LIE+++
"... Margery Golding, the Countess of Oxford, was no less
distinguished than her husband in her connection to the literary
world, for she was the sister of Arthur Golding, the famous
scholar and translator of Ovidís Metamorphoses, who, as all
Shake-speare scholars acknowledge, was a primary influence
on the writer who, after years of anonymous performance and
publication of his works, eventually identified himself as "William
Shakespeare."
+++END STINKING LIE+++
What a deceitful claim! What a shabby bunch of liars!
And what fools they have eating this up!
Not only wrong, but stupid!
WHERE is evidence of anonymous performance?
WHEN did the author eventually identify himself as William Shakespeare?
Really. How can a thinking person tolerate this indignant slop?
How can an honest person accept this blatant bullshit?
Oxies, let's hear it! Do you believe these lies? Why don't
you complain so the Oxford case has integrity? Don't you
care? Are you all just going to live these lies? What a joke!
Is your hatred of Shakespeare so intense that you will
allow your fellow Oxfordians to intentionally mislead?
Or don't you even notice?
Hint to Oxfordians:
YOU'RE BEING LIED TO!
Greg Reynolds
lyra
> Evidently Michael Brame and Galina Popova have also discovered that
> Shakespeare (i.e., the Earl of Oxford) wrote a novel! I am not making
> this up. Their edition of _Adventures of Freeman Jones_ is scheduled
> to appear next month. I quote from the Adonis Editions web page:
<with various snips>
>
> that the novel was indeed written by the genius we today know as
> Shakespeare."
>
> "The remaining installments of the trilogy include the two
> forthcoming books:
> Never and For Ever
> Faerie Love
> In all three volumes, two professional linguists show how linguistic
> considerations bear on Shakespeare's identity, and they do so in a
> way that can be understood by everyone."
>
See
>
> <http://www.elliottbaybook.com/events/jan03/popova.jsp>
>
> and
>
> <http://www.adonis-editions.com/freeman.html>
>
> for more information.
Adventures of Freeman Jones (an anagram...)
True fans of De Vere? names Jon...
De Vere famous?
Jenna sent for
JAN.'s: "no fame, fortune, De Vere's...?"
lyra
Art Neuendorffer
> Greg Reynolds
--------------------------------------------------------
<<The unrealiable William Reynolds wrote that Southampton
lived in a tent in Ireland with PIERS Edmondes, a brother officer,
and the earle Sowthamton would cole and huge [embrace & hug]
him in his arms and play wantonly with him. Reynolds expected to be
believed, but even if we dismiss that report, there are signs enough
that the young earl preferred bisexual or homosexual friends.>>
- p. 177, _Shakespeare_ by Honan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
High diddle diddle,
The CAT and the fiddle,
the cow jumped over the moon
The little dog laughed
to see such Craft (Craft => Freemasonry)
and the dish ran away with the spoon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth I <=> "The Cat"
http://roundtable.iwarp.com/photo6.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<It was the custom in England's royal court to dub people with
nicknames. Elizabeth I was called "The Cat" from the way she played
with her Cabinet ministers (as if they were mice). Elizabeth's
"lap-dog" was Robert Dudley. The "dish" was Elizabeth's golden dish
carrier [Edward, Earl of Hertford] and the "spoon" was Elizabeth's
royal taster [(Lady Jane's sister) Katherine Grey => "At night all
cats are grey" - _Don Quixote_] When the 'dish & spoon' secretly
eloped, Elizabeth had them captured and confined to the Tower
of London for seven years.>> -- _The Annotated Mother Goose_
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B S wrote:
> A she or not a she... that is the question for Shakespeare
> Arts: the full story Anthony Holden
> Sunday April 21, 2002 _The Observer_
> Fresh light has been thrown on William Shakespeare's sexual orientation
> by the discovery of a previously unknown portrait of the playwright's
> patron, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton - apparently dressed
> as a woman.
> Believed to be the 'fair youth' to whom Shakespeare's early sonnets are
> addressed, Southampton is wearing lipstick, rouge and an elaborate
> double earring. His long hair hangs down in voguish feminine tresses
> and his hand lies on his heart in a rather camp gesture.
> The picture goes on display today - two days before the 438th
> anniversary of Shakespeare's birth - at Hatchlands Park, a National
> Trust property in East Clandon, Surrey, where it was found. It has been
> authenticated by experts and dated to 1590-93, when Shakespeare was
> living in the Southampton household and writing sonnets to the
> 'master-mistress of my passion'.
> For 300 years the painting has belonged to the aristocratic Cobbe
> family, the present occupants of Hatchlands, whose connections with the
> Southamptons have been traced back to the Elizabethan era and beyond.
> 'My family always believed it to be a dull portrait of a female ancestor
> called Lady Norton,' says Alec Cobbe, who inherited the picture among
> his family's collection now displayed at Hatchlands, For centuries the
> picture occupied obscure corners of the family home in Ireland. In
> Cobbe's lifetime it has been back and forth between his homes in Ireland
> and England.
> The National Trust's adviser on art and sculpture, Alastair Laing, who
> first suggested to Cobbe that the portrait was of a young man, declares
> himself 'entirely convinced' of the painting's authenticity and
> provenance. 'It is a very exciting discovery,' he said. Literary scholar
> Sir Frank Kermode also believes it to be a 'remarkable' and 'historic'
> discovery.
> Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4398248,00.html
Cobbe has now realised that the archbishop got it wrong. The 'Lady
Norton' in question 'was almost certainly' Lady Elizabeth Norton,
great-granddaughter of the third Earl himself, who inherited the
portrait from her grandfather, the fourth Earl (who had no male heir),
and passed it in the early eighteenth century to the Cobbe children of
her kinswoman, Honor Norton, eventual co-heiress of the Nortons and thus
of this painting. Uncovering the marital connection between the Cobbes
and the Wriothesleys through the Nortons 'has convinced any remaining
doubters,' Cobbe now says. 'This was the real breakthrough.'
--------------------------------------------------------------
NORtoN, Elizabeth
veRNON, Elizabeth
--------------------------------------------------------------
Birth January 11 1573, Of, Hodnet, Shropshire, England
Death aft 23 Nov 1655
Father John Of Hodnet VERNON (1546-1592)
Mother Elizabeth DEVEREUX (~1541-1583)
Marriage bef 30 Aug 1598
Wriothesley, Henry, Earl of Southampton 3th
Children Thomas (~1587-)
Penelope (1598-1667)
Thomas (1607-1667)
Penelope WRIOTHESLEY
Birth 8 Nov 1598, Tichfield, Southhamptonshire, England
Death 16 Jul 1667, Brighton?, Sussex, England, Eng
Burial Nov 1667, Brington, Northamptonshire, England
Married 1614 to Spencer, William, Baron Spencer 2nd
Child 1: Spencer, Henry, Earl of Sunderland 1st, b. 1620
Child 2: Spencer, Five Sons
Child 3: Craven, Elizabeth, Lady
Child 4: Townshend, Anne, Lady
Child 5: Spencer, Alice, Countess
Child 6: Shaftesbury, Margaret, Countess
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote:
> on page
>
> http://roundtable.iwarp.com/photo6.html
>
> there is a picture of
> Elizabeth nee Vernon,
> married to Southampton,
> that reminded me a lot
> of the recently-discovered
> "Southampton" portrait...
> maybe the portrait was of her,
> not the Earl?
> tho', their hair is remarkably similar...
> like seeing a gender switch!
> "Orlando" (by Virginia Woolf), etc.!
--------------------------------------
Excellent, mountain queen lyra!!
Southampton's ALDER ego.
(Gaullish VERN => "place of ALDERS)
Compare with a young lipsticked Southampton:
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4398248,00.html
http://roundtable.iwarp.com/photo6.html
long fingers <=> long fingers
right hand right hand
pointing up <=> pointing down
Bible <=> Prayer book?
black attire <=> white attire
black cat on table <=> white rabbit on ground
-----------------------------------------
suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.
There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did
Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the
Rabbit say to itself, 'Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be late!'
--------------------------------------------
CHAPTER 1
Looking-Glass house
One thing was certain, that the WHITE kitten had had
nothing to do with it:--it was the black kitten's fault entirely.
. . . . .
`And as for YOU,' she went on, turning fiercely upon the Red Queen, whom she
considered as the cause of all the mischief--but the Queen was no longer at
her side--she had suddenly dwindled down to the size of a little doll, and
was now on the table, merrily running round and round after her own shawl,
which was trailing behind her.
At any other time, Alice would have felt surprised at this, but she was far
too much excited to be surprised at anything NOW.
`As for YOU,' she repeated, catching hold of the little creature in the very
act of jumping over a bottle which had just lighted upon the table, `I'll
shake you into a kitten, that I will!'
CHAPTER X
Shaking
She took her off the table as she spoke, and shook her backwards and
forwards with all her might.
The Red Queen made no resistance whatever; only her face grew very small,
and her eyes got large and green: and still, as
Alice went on shaking her, she kept on growing shorter--and fatter--and
softer--and rounder--and--
CHAPTER XI
Waking
--and it really WAS a kitten, after all.
CHAPTER XII
Which Dreamed it?
`Your majesty shouldn't purr so loud,' Alice said, rubbing her eyes, and
addressing the kitten, respectfully, yet with some severity. `You woke me
out of oh! such a nice dream! And you've been along with me, Kitty-
-all through the Looking-Glass world.
Did you know it, dear?'
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.gunpowder-plot.org/d7001/g0000138.htm
> >
> > Sir Edward STANLEY of TONGe Castle, Shropshire.
> >
> > Father: Thomas STANLEY Mother: Margaret VERNON
> >
> > 1534 Margaret VERNON, the last Prioress
> > for the Nunnery at Little MARLOW
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > OL. *TONGere* (to know)
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain Queen "lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote:
> Maybe they are part of the same Vernon family
> as Southampton's wife?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wriothesley was grandson of Thomas (1505-1550)
1st Baron Wriothesley of Titchfield & Earl of Southampton
Ambassador to HUNGARY and chief secretary to Henry VIII
MARY BROWNE --- Henry Wriothesley
| (Southampton)
|
Henry Wriothesley ----- Elizabeth VERNon
(1573-1624) | {Gaullish VERN => "place of ALDERS}
|
|
Lady Penelope ---- William Spencer
(1598-1667) | 2nd Baron Spencer
| (1591-1636)
|
John 1st Baron CRAVEN --- ELIZAbeth --- Henry Howard
d.1650 d.1650
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hants.gov.uk/newforesthistory/beaulieu.htm
A Brief History of Beaulieu by Jeremy Greenwood
<<At the Dissolution, the abbey was partially demolished to provide
building materials for nearby Hurst castle. Henry VIII granted Beaulieu
(and much other property) in 1538 to Thomas Wriothesley, 1st Earl of
Southampton. For his diplomatic efforts, he was created (1544) (Baron
Wriothesley and made Lord Chancellor - an office in which he became
notorious for his severity. Protector Somerset gave Wriothesley the
earldom of Southampton. The Hampshire estates were centred on
Titchfield, another former abbey, which was the family's main house.
He was succeeded by his son Henry, who became the 2nd Earl in 1550 and
who remained a Catholic throughout his life and was, in consequence,
imprisoned in the Tower for a spell. His otherwise uneventful life was
marred by excessive expenditure so that many of the bequests in his will
could not be carried out. Even so, his will of 1581 ordered 'two faire
monuments' to be set up in Titchfield church to consist of 'portraitures
of white alabaster, one for my lorde my father and my ladye my mother,
the other for mee'. Although only made for about 15% of the
sum bequeathed for the purpose, it remains a magnificent tomb
sculpted in 1594 by GERARD JOHNSON, a Flemish refugee.
The 2nd, 3rd & 4th Earls were also later interred in the vault .
Henry Wriothesley, 3rd earl of Southampton, (1573-1624) was the second
son of Henry, 2nd Earl of Southampton and his wife Mary Browne (daughter
of the 1st Viscount Montague) and succeeded to his title in 1581 before
he had attained his eighth birthday, and consequently became, and
remained until his majority, a ward of the Crown under Lord Burghley.
Towards the end of 1585 he became a student at St. John's College,
Cambridge, from whence he graduated as M.A. in 1589. Early in this year,
or possibly while Southampton was still at Cambridge, Burghley had
opened negotiations with the Countess of Southampton with the object
of uniting the interests and fortunes of her son with his own house,
by a marriage with his own granddaughter, Lady
ELIZABETH VERE, daughter of the Earl of Oxford.
In 1598 he was in disgrace as he had married his pregnant mistress,
ELIZABETH VER-non, one of the Queen's ladies in waiting, without
the Queen's permission. He further attracted royal opprobrium during the
Irish campaign. A friend of Robert DEVEREAUX, 2nd Earl of Essex,
Southampton accompanied Essex to Ireland in 1599 as general
of the HORSE, but Elizabeth revoked his appointment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Father John Of Hodnet VERNON (1546-1592)
Mother Elizabeth DEVEREUX (~1541-1583)
John VERNON ----- Elizabeth DEVEREAUX.
(1546-1592) | (~1541-1583)
|
Elizabeth VERNON----- Henry Wriothesley
Birth: *November 8* 1598, Tichfield
Death: 16 Jul 1667, Brighton?
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth VERNON whose father, Sir John Vernon was dead: a cousin of Essex.
It had been observed at Court in 1585 that 'my Lord Southampton doth with
too much familiarity court the Fair Mistress Verrnon.' Now in January 1598
he was at last embarking on his Continental tour, setting out with Cecil to
see if Henri IV could be prevented from making peace with Spain. Sir Robert
Sidney's agent reports to him: ' I hear my Lord Southampton goes with Mr.
Secretary to France and so onwards on his travels, which course of his doth
exceedingly grieve his mistress, that passes her time in weeping and
lamenting.' Elizabeth I: 'Mr Secretary hath procured him licence to travel.
His fair mistress doth wash her fairest face with tooo many tears. I pray
God his going away bring her to no such infirmity, which is, as it were,
hereditary to her name:'
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.derbyshireguide.co.uk/travel/haddon.htm
<<Since the 12th century, only two families have held [Haddon House].
The Vernon's held the house first. Sir George Vernon is probably the
most well known. He was referred to as the 'King of the Peak' due to his
lavish hospitality at Haddon Hall. In 1558, his daughter, Dorothy Vernon
eloped with Sir John Manners. Sir George did not approve of his
daughter's marriage and it is thought that he did not extend his famous
hospitality for the wedding celebrations. When Sir George died in 1567,
the estate (which included Haddon Hall) passed to Dorothy and her
husband. From then onwards, the Manners have held the Hall. The current
owners, the Dukes of Rutland are descended from the Manners.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
from Rowse's _William Shakespeare_
<<Early in February, 'it is secretly said that my Lord of Southampton shall
be married to his fair mistress; he asked for a little respite.' He got
leave to go abroad instead. 'My Lord of Southampton hath gone and hath left
behind him a very desolate gentlewoman, that hath almost wept out her
fairest eyes. He was at Essex Haouse with 1000 [code # for Essex] and there
had much private talk in the cort below.'
With Southampton in France: 'Mistress Vernon is from Court, and lies at
Essex House; some say she hath taken a venue under the girdle and swells
upon it, yet she complains not of foul play but say the Earl of Southampton
will justify it. And it is bruited underhand that he was lately here four
days in great secret, of purpose to marry her and effected it accordingly.'
In November, 'the new Countess of Southampton is brought abed of a daughter,
and to mend her portion, the Earl her father hath lately lost 1800 crowns at
tennis in Paris.' (Had Southampton been over in England the preceding
March?)>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
luci aVERNI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Whenever a town was founded a round hole would first be dug. In the
bottom of it a stone, LAPIS manalis, which represented a gate to the
Underworld, would then be embedded. On the August 23rd, October 5th
and the 8th of November
this stone would be removed to permit the Manes
to pass through. The object of the cult rendered to them was
to appease their anger. Originally they were offered blood sacrifices,
and it is probable that the first gladiatorial combats were instituted
in their honour. Like the Greeks the Latins placed the Infernal Regions
in the centre of the earth. It could be reached by various openings -
caves, lakes , marshes. One of the most celebrated of these was Lake
Avernus in Campania, a grim and deserted spot in the neighbourhood of
Pozzuoli. The hills which surrounded it were formerly covered with woods
sacred to Hecate (luci aVERNI) and pitted with cavities through which,
according to Cicero, one called forth the souls of the dead.
Near aVERNUS the cave called the Cave of the Cumaean Sibyl
can still be seen.>> -- Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lady Penelope Wriothesley
(born Lapis Manalis: November 8, 1598
died July 16, 1667)
Married 1614 to Spencer, William, Baron Spencer 2nd
Henry's daughter Lady Penelope Wriothesley (1598-1667)
(Penelope = weaver wife of WITTY Ulysses)
and son Thomas (1607-1667) 4th Earl of Southampton
both lived long enough to oversee all the Folio's & Sonnets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
November 8, 1519, Córtez marches on the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán.
November 8, 1598, Lady Penelope Wriothesley born
November 8, 1602, Bodleian Library at Oxford opened to the public.
November 8, 1623, 16 of Shakespeare's plays registered
in the First Folio by Blount and Jaggard:
"The Twelfth Night."
"Two Gentlemen of Verona."
"I Henry VI."
"Comedy of Errors."
"Julius Caesar."
"All's Well That Ends Well."
"Measure For Measure."
"Macbeth."
"Anthony and Cleaopatra."
"Coriolanus."
"Timon of Athens."
"Cymbeline."
"The Winter's Tale."
"The Tempest."
"Henry VIII."
"As You Like It."
November 8, 1656, Edmund Halley born.
November 8, 1674, John Milton died.
He's buried near his father St. Giles Cripplegate.
November 8, 1740, Samuel Richardson's _Pamela_, first English novel.
November 8, 1793, Louvre Museum in Paris opened to the public.
November 8, 1805, Lewis & Clark reach mouth of the Columbia River.
November 8, 1837, Mount Holyoke Seminary in Massachusetts was founded,
the first American college for women.
November 8, 1864, Abraham Lincoln re-elected to 2nd term as President.
--------------------------------------------------------------
<< From letters his wife wrote while Southampton was in Ireland: She was
relieved that he was not troubled for my not being as, I protest unto you, I
infinitely desire to have been. . .and though I be not now in that happy
state yet I doubt not that in good time and, for the infinite comfort of you
and myself, God will bless me with bearing you as many boys as your own
heart desires to have.' In every letter she prayed for his return and that
'most soon I may enjoy the sight of you and ever your most faithfull love,
which will make me know myself to be the happiest woman of the world.'
However, upon his return to London, Southampton's wife & Essex's sister:
Lady Rich - Sidney's Stella- left for the country 'to shun the company that
daily were wont to visit them, because it gave offence at Court.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hants.gov.uk/newforesthistory/beaulieu.htm
<< [Henry Wriothesley] was closely involved in DEVEREAUX's
Essex's rebellion (1601) and was sentenced to death,
but this sentence was changed to life imprisonment.>>
Upon the accession (1603) of James I,
Southampton was released and restored to favour and the Beaulieu
estates were regranted to him. However he fell out with the king's
favourite, the Duke of Buckingham, in 1619 and left the court.
[Henry Wriothesley] conceived the idea of reclaiming the salt marshes
between Titchfield & the sea. A *SEA WALL*
across the mouth of the Meon was completed in 1611,
and since that time Titchfield Haven has been fresh or brackish,
although the sea has occasionally broken back in during storms.
The reclamation spelt the doom of Titchfield as a port, even though
a canal was built, and the town sank into a centuries-long decline.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3d earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, [ROT'slE]
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0846028.html
<<Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, 3d earl of , 1573-1624, English
nobleman and patron of letters. He succeeded to his title in 1581, was
educated at Cambridge, and gained favor at the court of Queen Elizabeth
I. A generous patron of such writers as Barnabe Barnes, Thomas Nash, and
John Florio, he is best known as the patron of William Shakespeare, who
dedicated Venus and Adonis (1593) and The Rape of Lucrece (1594) to him.
Some scholars have maintained that Southampton is the patron and friend
described in Shakespeare's sonnets. A friend of Robert Devereux, 2d earl
of Essex, Southampton accompanied him on military and naval expeditions
in 1596 and 1597. His secret marriage (1598) to Elizabeth Vernon, one of
Elizabeth's ladies in waiting, angered the queen greatly, and she never
forgave him. Southampton accompanied Essex to Ireland in 1599 as general
of the HORSE, but Elizabeth revoked his appointment. He was closely
involved in Essex's rebellion (1601) and was sentenced to death, but
this sentence was changed to life imprisonment. Upon the accession
(1603) of James I, Southampton was released and restored to favor. He
became interested in colonial explorations and was a member of the
Virginia Company and of the British East India Company. Although his
impetuosity involved him in a number of court brawls, Southampton became
(1619) a privy councilor. He lost favor, however, because of his
opposition to the 1st duke of Buckingham. In 1624 he volunteered, with
his son James, to lead a troop of English volunteers to fight for the
Netherlands against Spain. Shortly after arriving in the Netherlands,
both Southampton and his son died of fever.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
Art, Steph, and Derek
See how they run
They all ran after the farmer's wife
She cut off their tails with a carver's knife
Have you eVER seen such fun in your life
as Art, Steph, and Derek
Art Neuendorffer
> Art, Steph, and Derek
> See how they run
> They all ran after the farmer's wife
> She cut off their tails with a carver's knife
> Have you eVER seen such fun in your life
> as Art, Steph, and Derek
--------------------------------------------------------
"Carver of the Queen's Meat."
--------------------------------------------------------
http://guild.thebasement.org/history.php
<<In 1542, Henry Carey married Anne Morgan and had 7 sons & 3
daughters. The eldest son, George, became the second Baron Hunsdon.
George married Elizabeth Spenser, sister of the poet Edmund Spenser,
author of the famous poem, "The Faerie Queen." Their second son, John,
became Warden of the East Marches after his father. The next three
children, Thomas, Thomas, and William, all died young. Edmund came
next, followed by Robert, the youngest son. Robert became the next
Warden after his older brother, John, gave up the post as a hopeless
cause. The eldest daughter, Catherine, married Charles Howard, Earl of
Nottingham, and Lord Admiral of the Navy, the man who helped defeat the
Spanish Armada in 1588. Catherine became a Lady in Waiting to Queen
Elizabeth, and was so well-liked by the Queen that she was appointed
"Carver of the Queen's Meat." The second daughter, Philadelphia,
married Lord Thomas Scrope, who later became Warden of the Middle
Marches. Philadelphia also became a Lady in Waiting to the Queen, and
was in attendance at Elizabeth's death. The third daughter, Margaret,
married Sir Edward Hoby, one of the true intellectuals of the time.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Kylver stone
http://w1.2777.telia.com/~u222204063/go-rune-kylver.jpg
<<limestone slab that bears a 5th-century runic inscription, providing
the oldest extant record of the Germanic runic series; it was found in a
tomb in the province of Gotland in Sweden. The runes faced the inside of
a coffin and probably were intended either to protect the grave or to
bind the dead person to it. In addition to the runic alphabet, the rune
carver also carved a reinforced t-rune that looked like a fir tree and
the uninterpreted palindrome (a word that reads the same backward or
forward) sueus in order to achieve the magical protection desired.>>
Encyclopædia Britannica
--------------------------------------------------------
Rune-stones usually have the name(s) of the carver and/or
raiser(s) of the stone as well as that of the deceased.
Among Wren's distinguished assistants were the French Huguenot
ironworker Jean Tijou, who wrought the grillwork of the choir and the
iron balustrade of the southwest tower; sculptor and carver Grinling
Gibbons.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
> --------------------------------------------------
> Address by Sir Derek Jacobi
Woah, name dropper. Do you think that a truly
accomplished Shakespearean actor can intimidate us
into believing nonsense, Art? Do you think Derek
makes any sense in this address? I don't. I went
ahead and answered him. Being a good actor
does not make him a good detective, historian,
scholar, or critic. Does making fantastic pies
mean Martha Stewart is a great CEO? I didn't
think so. Do we care about the politics of an
athlete? Of course not. Would we care about the
poetry of a potentially topnotch tin miner? But
of course not.
Stay with your core competency, Derek.
> to the 6th Annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference
> at Concordia University
> 13 April 2002
>
> Dear Concordia University, Professor Wright, delegates
> and fellow sceptics:
Dear University?
And does the university then write back?
Love, U?
> Let me first thank you very much indeed for the honour you do me by
> conferring upon me the conference's Vero Nihil Verius Award for Artistic
> Excellence. My deep regret is that I cannot be with you to receive it in
> person. I must plead the peripatetic life of the strolling player, the
> vagabond, a life that keeps me traveling as a chronicler of the times, often
> to bournes from which I am only too eager to return. I wish I could be with
> you, but fate and the need to earn a living decree otherwise [Note: Sir
> Derek, on the night of the conference's Awards Banquet, was performing with
> Diana Rigg, Ian Richardson and the Royal Shakespeare Company in The Hollow
> Crown at the Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington, New Zealand].
>
> Like a growing number of interested parties, I have had grave doubts for
> some time now of the validity of the Stratford man's claim to have written
> some of the greatest literature the world has produced.
Of course, there is no 'Stratford man's claim to have written' anything.
History recorded it, not the Stratford man.
The argument is not with the one man, it is with history, Derek.
Cue the moon. Cue the baying Oxfordians. Action.
Watch Derek leave out SUBSTANCE, the one thing Oxies
never seem to recognize as vital to a real ARGUMENT.
> Indeed, I must admit
> that it still seems incredible to me that one mind could possibly have
> encompassed such a monumental feat--but if so, that man is most likely to
> have been Edward de Vere--possibly with a little collaboration.
SO,
No one man could do it : unless Derek gets to decide WHO.
What's the term for an unfounded, self-contradictory conclusion?
> Like you, I live in hope that an acceptable solution is possible and that
> this most fascinating riddle will finally be solved.
Poor Derek, living in hope, missed the acceptable solution by 400 years.
Will he state the Oxfordian case for us? Oh, that's right, there isn't one.
> My reactions are, of
> course, hardly academic, and I haven't the minutiae of knowledge or
> arguments at my fingertips like your good selves--I'm still studying and
> discovering--but, as an actor, my instincts and antennae tell me that only
> someone connected with the vicissitudes of stage production could have
> created these complex dramas.
What Derek is saying is "I wish I could rule out Shakespeare."
Acting, staging, writing for the stage, writing for the actors, who
is better-suited than Shakespeare himself?
Why pretend there are existing requirements that Shakespeare
lacks--and then refrain from mentioning them? How unfair.
Stick to acting, Derek. Writers are immune to these arbitrary
qualifications. It is corrupt to proclaim that only certain individuals
may write certain words.
It defeats the art that IS writing.
With 500 characters to intimately become, why decide that
the proud, accomplished, educated courtier is autobiographical
but not the clever, melancholy country dweller? Well, it is
because Oxfordians dismiss the writing for what it is, the creation
of drama, not the reliving of selected scattered episodes.
How unfair to dismiss Shakespeare without JUST CAUSE.
> Is there indeed any incontrovertible,
> unequivocal evidence that Stratford Will was even an actor?
I'm not believing your naive tone, Derek. Are YOU acting?
Since James named Shakespeare to the company,
there can be no other claimant. Is Derek's claim that
this was not Will Shakespeare? Who played in Sejanus
and in Every Man in His Humour? Who had other
known actors as his partners in the companies, partners
in the theatres, and as fellowes who were remembered
in the will? Shakespeare is a King's Man, Derek. He
bought a home adjacent to their winter home.
Wake us up when you controvert these historical facts!
What Derek is doing is marveling at the work. That is fair.
What is unfair is to pretend Will can't do it AND pretend
that Oxford can. Derek must honestly admit that he knows
nothing of these two mens' abilities. So he is decrying what
he does not know, only to replace it with something that he
again does not know. A meaningless exercise.
> But, of course,
> with doubt comes not discussion but accusation. We are
> labeled eccentrics and loonies (oh, if only old Thomas
> had himself used a pseudonym!).
Oxfordians only WISH they were eccentric, Derek.
It sounds so much better than blind, stubborn,
and ill-willed. But your premeditated eccentricity is
equal to pretentiousness, snobbishness, and
phoniness. Stealing an author's work and crediting a
third party without just cause is not eccentricity.
When a cult of same thinkers deny a man his
work, and then praise a man with less evidence
(none), THAT is bizarre behavior.
> All these years of academic dedication lavished
> on the wrong man must be
> defended, at all costs it seems.
Where's the Beef, Wellington?
(Can you present a case?)
> Reputations tremble, an industry turns
> pale, and the weapons of ridicule and abuse are leveled and fired.
Reputations?
Ha! Show Jonson to be a liar first.
Then show Condell and Heminges to be liars.
You are SO eager to destroy reputations, to make liars
of these men.
All the more need for you to actually provide detail!
Show your Oxfordian scaffolding behind Susanna
Shakespeare of Stratford owning a gatehouse and
garden at the Blackfriars enclave.
History is not an industry, Derek.
History is not an art form, Derek.
Quit performing. This is real. And we show our work.
> But at
> least the battle lines have been drawn, and it is
> heartening to see how many recruits are enlisting
> in the Doubters Army: people, like myself, who cannot
> reconcile the illiteracy of Shakspere's offspring
You are damaging your case with indefensible notions, Derek.
Don't PRETEND his offspring were illiterate--either show it
or lay off.
Whoever told you his family was illiterate had no evidence
and you should check nasty accusations about people before
repeating them.
You ASSUME the offspring were illiterate. Remember what you
said about reputations trembling? Well? Why go on record
slamming a man's reputation and leaving out your reasoning?
Who are you--some master critic who is infallible? Show that
Susanna and Judith are illiterate. Are two pieces of 400 year old
paper really enough for your conclusion?
Their reputation is at stake here. Are you sure?
Gateway notions are repeated assumptions that lead
to outright lies. For your own credibility, refrain from
repeating groundless assumptions. You'll have a stronger
argument if you can only resist manufacturing the conclusion.
Why don't honest Oxfordians fix Derek's obvious pretenses? Art?
> alongside his own deep and
> adept knowledge of medicine, art, music, geography, law and his almost
> nonchalant use of metaphor from, for example, sporting activities that were
> exclusively the pursuit of the aristocracy--not to mention his mastery of
> history, languages and the intricacies of survival at court.
Poor Derek doesn't understand what WRITERS do.
They write.
500 characters.
Shakespeare mastered WRITING, Derek.
Not medicine, art, music, geography, law, and sporting.
Writing preempts all those. Writing eats all that up and
spits it out. Writers even portray things that don't exist!
And don't pretend Oxford mastered those specialties, either.
[I'm disappointed, Art, that Derek has no real quarrel, just snooty retreads.]
> The only evidence of Shakspere's literary life was
> produced after he died and is open to dispute.
A phony, manmade obstacle... not a reasonable
criterion of anything, and never in history ever held
against a writer or artist. Invented to insult Shakespeare.
We have an eyewitness account by his contemporary
who says he wrote Julius Caesar. Fact, not wish.
And Oxfordians do not even have a case to refute.
Oxfordians present no likely spark at all.
In FACT,
here is the factual Oxfordian case:
He was alive, literate, English-speaking, in England some
of the Shakespearean era, and alive for most of the same.
THAT is it! No other linkage!
Derek, show your work.
> Nothing, while alive, apart from some shaky signatures, puts a
> pen in his hand.
Derek favors the man who has NO evidence.
> Legend, hearsay and myth have created this writer.
No, the Stratfordian case needs NONE of these.
History only.
> I have taken part in thirty-one of the plays so far, and
> I can imagine--I can feel--someone behind the words
> whose education and life experiences, whose knowledge
> of all strata of society, whose relationships and
> temperament simply do not fit the grain hoarder,
> the money lender and the entrepreneur, but chime
> accurately, and at times indelibly, with what we
> know about de Vere.
Everyone I know is a grain hoarder, money lender, and
entrepreneur. What tired prattle you Oxies have. How
embarrassing that you trot out this silly talk. Derek!
Admit you have nothing to dispute the FACTS that
--Shakespeare was named a servant of the royal household
--Shakespeare was indisputably a London gentleman, and
--Shakespeare was credited BY HIS PEERS with writing the work.
Snivel all you like, Sir Derek, but your own chosen definitions
are offensive and harsh. You are abnormally negative toward the man.
You are using GATEWAY NOTIONS in a world of history.
> And it's not enough to say, "Oh, but the works of
> Shakespeare survive whoever wrote them; it doesn't
> therefore matter." Yes, it does!
> The disclosure of the real author
How better could he disclose it?
You ignore the historical record! If there were more, you
would have more to ignore!
> would enhance not only the
> historical significance but also the contemporary excitement
> of these treasures for both actors and spectators; and it
> shouldn't be regarded as potential professional suicide,
> heresy or an actor's silliness to come out and say so.
Derek, listen; YOU HAVE NO FACTS to support Oxford
as Shakespeare. You have hundreds of facts you ignore
that determine Shakespeare was the author. Forget suicide,
heresy, and silliness. And admit you cannot justify or even
contribute a single piece of evidence to help make
Oxford the author.
No more bleating. Get a fact or admit you have no JUST CAUSE
to question this man you know almost nothing about.
> As a performer in the public eye and therefore subject to public criticism
> and attack, I am acutely conscious of the significance of accepting this
> token of committed involvement in the authorship debate.
Too bad you can't back your words. You are not eccentric--you are wrong.
But, YES, you are awesome in your core competency, Sir!
> My wish is that
> more actors, with similar suspicions, would nail their colours to the mast
> and accept whatever brickbats the eminent and learned critics have to throw.
Nail FACT ONE to the mast and we'll salute.
> The restrictive orthodox analysis must be open to seriously considered
> debate. There must be a challenge to the selective evidence of the scholars,
> based on their desire to justify their man rather than assess objective
> criteria. Too much is conjecture, guesswork, allegory and assumption--what
> one writer has called "a well documented blank."
Don't quit your night job.
> However, I would also urge the anti-Stratfordian to avoid over-egging the de
> Vere pudding. "The lady doth protest too much" is not a healthy slogan for
> the cause. Take a lesson from we actors who constantly are told that "less
> is more."
So the ultimate goal is to make no points at all?
Well done!
> Our lifeblood as performers is constant questioning, research,
> analysis, intellectual and emotional honesty: the play's the thing, not the
> player. Without the dramatist, we have no opportunity to strut whatever
> stuff we possess, and in this particular case above all, if we could find
> the true author of these exquisite dramas, the rewards for both actor and
> audience would be immense.
Poor Derek, he feels dishonest playing in the Stratfordian's plays.
Suffer!
> A spotlight would be thrown on hitherto
> unfathomable passages, and centuries of delight would be highlighted by the
> knowledge of the real events, situations and characters that guided and
> informed the author's hand. Let there be vigorous and legitimate debate!
Now you're talking!
Yo, Derek, is there any evidence at all that Edward de Vere
(1550-1604) wrote the works of Shakespeare? Is
there any document or testimony to link Edward
de Vere to any work of Shakespeare?
Why don't Oxfordians include the known works
attributed to Oxford when speaking of Shakespeare's
works if they believe him to be one and the same?
How did Oxford write/produce plays in court and
on stage during his travels and self-imposed exiles?
How did Oxford arrange that Cymbeline, The
Winter's Tale, The Tempest, and Henry VIII be held
six-eight years after his death before they were
first recorded, licensed, and produced?
Since Oxford was a patron himself, why did he
seek patronage from the Earl of Southampton?
Why did Oxford desperately seek income from
the licensing of tin, wool, oil, and fruit for several
years while the plays were being produced and
earning high income for the man whose name
was on the work and whose company was
presenting them?
If you want extra time to answer these simple questions,
just ask.
> Once more, my heartfelt thanks and my sincerest regret
> that I cannot be with you this evening.
Keep your night job, Derek. You are a fine actor.
But when it comes to presenting a sensible case,
don't call us, we'll call you.
Greg Reynolds
(Art, your celebrity guest idea was super but next
time, try to find one with SUBSTANCE. Got it?
However,
it did seem that he was talking and you were just
listening--so you have that part of the act down!)
Art Neuendorffer
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Address by Sir Derek Jacobi
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Woah, name dropper. Do you think that a truly
> accomplished Shakespearean actor can intimidate us
> into believing nonsense, Art?
I think an accomplished Shakespearean actor has more interesting things to
say about the Shakespeare authorship issue than does one Greg Reynolds.
> Do you think Derek makes any sense in this address?
Perfect sense.
> I don't.
No, *you* wouldn't.
> I went
> ahead and answered him. Being a good actor
> does not make him a good detective, historian,
> scholar, or critic. Does making fantastic pies
> mean Martha Stewart is a great CEO?
Have you ever eaten one of Martha's pies?
> Do we care about the politics of an athlete?
I'd love to see you in the ring with Jessy the body Ventura.
> Would we care about the
> poetry of a potentially topnotch tin miner?
Would we care about the poetry of a butcher?
> Stay with your core competency, Derek.
>
> > to the 6th Annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference
> > at Concordia University
> > 13 April 2002
> >
> > Dear Concordia University, Professor Wright, delegates
> > and fellow sceptics:
>
> Dear University?
> And does the university then write back?
> Love, U?
Something like that.
> > Let me first thank you very much indeed for the honour you do me by
> > conferring upon me the conference's Vero Nihil Verius Award for Artistic
> > Excellence. My deep regret is that I cannot be with you to receive it in
> > person. I must plead the peripatetic life of the strolling player, the
> > vagabond, a life that keeps me traveling as a chronicler of the times,
often
> > to bournes from which I am only too eager to return. I wish I could be
with
> > you, but fate and the need to earn a living decree otherwise [Note: Sir
> > Derek, on the night of the conference's Awards Banquet, was performing
with
> > Diana Rigg, Ian Richardson and the Royal Shakespeare Company in The
Hollow
> > Crown at the Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington, New Zealand].
> >
> > Like a growing number of interested parties, I have had grave doubts for
> > some time now of the validity of the Stratford man's claim to have
written
> > some of the greatest literature the world has produced.
>
> Of course, there is no 'Stratford man's claim to have written' anything.
> History recorded it, not the Stratford man.
That's because he was illiterate.
> The argument is not with the one man, it is with history, Derek.
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
> Watch Derek leave out SUBSTANCE, the one thing Oxies
> never seem to recognize as vital to a real ARGUMENT.
-------------------------------------------------------------
". . .people, like myself, cannot reconcile
the illiteracy of Shakspere's offspring alongside his own deep and
adept knowledge of medicine, art, music, geography, law and his almost
nonchalant use of metaphor from, for example, sporting activities that were
exclusively the pursuit of the aristocracy--not to mention his mastery of
history, languages and the intricacies of survival at court. The only
evidence of Shakspere's literary life was produced after he died and is open
to dispute. Nothing, while alive, apart from some shaky signatures, puts a
pen in his hand."
"Someone behind the words whose education and life experiences,
whose knowledge of all strata of society, whose relationships and
temperament simply do not fit the grain hoarder, the money lender and the
entrepreneur"
-------------------------------------------------------------
> > Indeed, I must admit
> > that it still seems incredible to me that one mind could possibly have
> > encompassed such a monumental feat--but if so, that man is most likely
to
> > have been Edward de Vere--possibly with a little collaboration.
>
> SO,
> No one man could do it : unless Derek gets to decide WHO.
> What's the term for an unfounded, self-contradictory conclusion?
Greg Reynolds.
> > Like you, I live in hope that an acceptable solution is possible and
that
> > this most fascinating riddle will finally be solved.
>
> Poor Derek, living in hope, missed the acceptable solution by 400 years.
> Will he state the Oxfordian case for us? Oh, that's right, there isn't
one.
Would you state the Stratfordian case for us? Oh, that's right, there isn't
one.
> > My reactions are, of
> > course, hardly academic, and I haven't the minutiae of knowledge or
> > arguments at my fingertips like your good selves--I'm still studying and
> > discovering--but, as an actor, my instincts and antennae tell me that
only
> > someone connected with the vicissitudes of stage production could have
> > created these complex dramas.
>
> What Derek is saying is "I wish I could rule out Shakespeare."
> Acting, staging, writing for the stage, writing for the actors, who
> is better-suited than Shakespeare himself?
Anyone who was literate.
> Why pretend there are existing requirements that Shakespeare
> lacks--and then refrain from mentioning them? How unfair.
Why deprive his daughters of an education. How unfair.
> With 500 characters to intimately become, why decide that
> the proud, accomplished, educated courtier is autobiographical
> but not the clever, melancholy country dweller? Well, it is
> because Oxfordians dismiss the writing for what it is, the creation
> of drama, not the reliving of selected scattered episodes.
The creation of drama BY SOMEONE LITERATE.
> How unfair to dismiss Shakespeare without JUST CAUSE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<His wit was in his owne power ; would the rule of it had beene so too.
Many times he fell into those things [that] could not
escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar,
one speaking to him, "Caesar thou dost me wrong".
He replied, " *CAESAR NEVER DID WRong* , but with just cause "
and such like, which were ridiculous.
But hee redeemed his Vices, with his VERtUES.
Ther-eDwasDever more in him
E E
S n N
Y a O
to be A h D
R t R
P A
P
In the difference of wits, I have obs-ERV'D ; there are many notes
And it is a little Maistry to know them : to discerne,
what EVERy nature, EVERy disposition WILL *BEARE:FOR*>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 19 =>
*CAESAR NEVER DID WR*ong
*EDWARD VERE CAIRN S*ong
"Vergil had bidden these *songs* by swift flame be turned into ashes
*Songs* which sang of thy fates, Phrygia's leader renowned.
VARIUS and TUCCA forbade, and thou, too, greatest of Caesars,
Adding your veto to theirs, Latium's story preserved.
All but twice in the flames unhappy Pergamum perished
Troy on a second pyre narrowly failed of her doom."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Is there indeed any incontrovertible,
> > unequivocal evidence that Stratford Will was even an actor?
>
> I'm not believing your naive tone, Derek. Are YOU acting?
>
> Since James named Shakespeare to the company,
> there can be no other claimant. Is Derek's claim that
> this was not Will Shakespeare?
Derek's claim is that this was not the illiterate Stratford boob.
> Who played in Sejanus
> and in Every Man in His Humour?
EVERy man?
> Who had other
> known actors as his partners in the companies, partners
> in the theatres, and as fellowes who were remembered
> in the will?
Belatedly (i.e., postumously).
> Shakespeare is a King's Man, Derek. He
> bought a home adjacent to their winter home.
> Wake us up when you controvert these historical facts!
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
> What Derek is doing is marveling at the work. That is fair.
> What is unfair is to pretend Will can't do it AND pretend
> that Oxford can.
OXFORD was WIL[UC]L
> Derek must honestly admit that he knows
> nothing of these two mens' abilities. So he is decrying what
> he does not know, only to replace it with something that he
> again does not know. A meaningless exercise.
No one knows anything for sure.
But thinking for one's self is always worthwhile.
> > But, of course,
> > with doubt comes not discussion but accusation. We are
> > labeled eccentrics and loonies (oh, if only old Thomas
> > had himself used a pseudonym!).
>
> Oxfordians only WISH they were eccentric, Derek.
> It sounds so much better than blind, stubborn,
> and ill-willed. But your premeditated eccentricity is
> equal to pretentiousness, snobbishness, and
> phoniness. Stealing an author's work and crediting a
> third party without just cause is not eccentricity.
Stratfordians are blind, stubborn, and ill-willed and steal Oxford's
work and credit a third party without just cause.
> When a cult of same thinkers deny a man his
> work, and then praise a man with less evidence
> (none), THAT is bizarre behavior.
>
> > All these years of academic dedication lavished
> > on the wrong man must be
> > defended, at all costs it seems.
>
> Where's the Beef, Wellington?
> (Can you present a case?)
I presented a case which you refuse to argue.
> > Reputations tremble, an industry turns
> > pale, and the weapons of ridicule and abuse are leveled and fired.
>
> Reputations?
> Ha! Show Jonson to be a liar first.
> Then show Condell and Heminges to be liars.
Many Stratfordians admit that Jonson lied by ghost writing for Condell
and Heminges.
> You are SO eager to destroy reputations, to make liars
> of these men.
We would ask the to lie a little further.
> All the more need for you to actually provide detail!
>
> Show your Oxfordian scaffolding behind Susanna
> Shakespeare of Stratford owning a gatehouse and
> garden at the Blackfriars enclave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q2 & Folio: "CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
A L
G E
A N
B K
O C
N N
[D] I
R
B
S
A
M
O
H
T
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> History is not an industry, Derek.
>
> History is not an art form, Derek.
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
> Quit performing. This is real. And we show our work.
>
> > But at
> > least the battle lines have been drawn, and it is
> > heartening to see how many recruits are enlisting
> > in the Doubters Army: people, like myself, who cannot
> > reconcile the illiteracy of Shakspere's offspring
>
> You are damaging your case with indefensible notions, Derek.
> Don't PRETEND his offspring were illiterate--either show it
> or lay off.
Don't PRETEND the Stratman was literate--either show it or lay off.
> Whoever told you his family was illiterate had no evidence
> and you should check nasty accusations about people before
> repeating them.
John & Judith couldn't sign their names.
> You ASSUME the offspring were illiterate. Remember what you
> said about reputations trembling? Well? Why go on record
> slamming a man's reputation and leaving out your reasoning?
> Who are you--some master critic who is infallible? Show that
> Susanna and Judith are illiterate. Are two pieces of 400 year old
> paper really enough for your conclusion?
The 1616 will pretty well excludes the Stratman from authorship.
> Their reputation is at stake here. Are you sure?
>
> Gateway notions are repeated assumptions that lead
> to outright lies. For your own credibility, refrain from
> repeating groundless assumptions. You'll have a stronger
> argument if you can only resist manufacturing the conclusion.
>
> Why don't honest Oxfordians fix Derek's obvious pretenses? Art?
Do you know the meaning of honest, Greg?
> > alongside his own deep and
> > adept knowledge of medicine, art, music, geography, law and his almost
> > nonchalant use of metaphor from, for example, sporting activities that
were
> > exclusively the pursuit of the aristocracy--not to mention his mastery
of
> > history, languages and the intricacies of survival at court.
>
> Poor Derek doesn't understand what WRITERS do.
> They write.
> 500 characters.
> Shakespeare mastered WRITING, Derek.
Obviously not with a pen.
> Not medicine, art, music, geography, law, and sporting.
He could even pronounce most of these.
> Writing preempts all those. Writing eats all that up and
> spits it out. Writers even portray things that don't exist!
Like Jonson in the First Folio.
> And don't pretend Oxford mastered those specialties, either.
>
> [I'm disappointed, Art, that Derek has no real quarrel, just snooty
retreads.]
>
> > The only evidence of Shakspere's literary life was
> > produced after he died and is open to dispute.
>
> A phony, manmade obstacle... not a reasonable
> criterion of anything, and never in history ever held
> against a writer or artist. Invented to insult Shakespeare.
> We have an eyewitness account by his contemporary
> who says he wrote Julius Caesar.
Did Julius Caesar write back?
> And Oxfordians do not even have a case to refute.
I certainly don't have a case that any of the Goon Squad feels capable
of refuting.
> Oxfordians present no likely spark at all.
> In FACT,
> here is the factual Oxfordian case:
>
> He was alive, literate, English-speaking, in England some
> of the Shakespearean era, and alive for most of the same.
>
> THAT is it! No other linkage!
here is the factual Stratfordian case:
He was illiterate, with a strong Warwickshire accent, and hoarded grain
during famines.
> Derek, show your work.
>
> > Nothing, while alive, apart from some shaky signatures, puts a
> > pen in his hand.
>
> Derek favors the man who has NO evidence.
Derek favors the man with the most evidence.
> > Legend, hearsay and myth have created this writer.
>
> No, the Stratfordian case needs NONE of these.
> History only.
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
> > I have taken part in thirty-one of the plays so far, and
> > I can imagine--I can feel--someone behind the words
> > whose education and life experiences, whose knowledge
> > of all strata of society, whose relationships and
> > temperament simply do not fit the grain hoarder,
> > the money lender and the entrepreneur, but chime
> > accurately, and at times indelibly, with what we
> > know about de Vere.
>
> Everyone I know is a grain hoarder, money lender, and
> entrepreneur. What tired prattle you Oxies have. How
> embarrassing that you trot out this silly talk. Derek!
We're not surprised that you are embarrassed, Greg.
> Admit you have nothing to dispute the FACTS that
> --Shakespeare was named a servant of the royal household
Maybe so, but Oxford was in charge of hand washing.
> --Shakespeare was indisputably a London gentleman, and
Some argue it was a woman.
> --Shakespeare was credited BY HIS PEERS with writing the work.
Not while he was alive.
> Snivel all you like, Sir Derek,
Can I snivel too?
> but your own chosen definitions
> are offensive and harsh. You are abnormally negative toward the man.
> You are using GATEWAY NOTIONS in a world of history.
Well I for one am using a GATEWAY computer.
> > And it's not enough to say, "Oh, but the works of
> > Shakespeare survive whoever wrote them; it doesn't
> > therefore matter." Yes, it does!
> > The disclosure of the real author
>
> How better could he disclose it?
It's too late for that.
> You ignore the historical record! If there were more, you
> would have more to ignore!
Henry Ford: "History is more or less bunk."
> > would enhance not only the
> > historical significance but also the contemporary excitement
> > of these treasures for both actors and spectators; and it
> > shouldn't be regarded as potential professional suicide,
> > heresy or an actor's silliness to come out and say so.
>
> Derek, listen; YOU HAVE NO FACTS to support Oxford
> as Shakespeare. You have hundreds of facts you ignore
> that determine Shakespeare was the author.
It would take hundreds of facts to make a convincing case for the
butcher of Stratford but there are only a handful of ambiguous cryptic
innuedoes.
> Forget suicide,
> heresy, and silliness. And admit you cannot justify or even
> contribute a single piece of evidence to help make
> Oxford the author.
Then Greg will threaten you with THE BOMB!
> No more bleating. Get a fact or admit you have no JUST CAUSE
> to question this man you know almost nothing about.
What do you have but ambiguous cryptic innuedoes?
> > As a performer in the public eye and therefore subject to public
criticism
> > and attack, I am acutely conscious of the significance of accepting this
> > token of committed involvement in the authorship debate.
>
> Too bad you can't back your words. You are not eccentric--you are wrong.
Too bad you can't back your words, Greg.
> But, YES, you are awesome in your core competency, Sir!
>
> > My wish is that
> > more actors, with similar suspicions, would nail their colours to the
mast
> > and accept whatever brickbats the eminent and learned critics have to
throw.
>
> Nail FACT ONE to the mast and we'll salute.
Not *that* kind of salute, Greg.
> > The restrictive orthodox analysis must be open to seriously considered
> > debate. There must be a challenge to the selective evidence of the
scholars,
> > based on their desire to justify their man rather than assess objective
> > criteria. Too much is conjecture, guesswork, allegory and
assumption--what
> > one writer has called "a well documented blank."
>
> Don't quit your night job.
You're shooting blanks, Greg.
> > However, I would also urge the anti-Stratfordian to avoid over-egging
the de
> > Vere pudding. "The lady doth protest too much" is not a healthy slogan
for
> > the cause. Take a lesson from we actors who constantly are told that
"less
> > is more."
>
> So the ultimate goal is to make no points at all?
> Well done!
Have you ever eaten over-egged pudding?
> > Our lifeblood as performers is constant questioning, research,
> > analysis, intellectual and emotional honesty: the play's the thing, not
the
> > player. Without the dramatist, we have no opportunity to strut whatever
> > stuff we possess, and in this particular case above all, if we could
find
> > the true author of these exquisite dramas, the rewards for both actor
and
> > audience would be immense.
>
> Poor Derek, he feels dishonest playing in the Stratfordian's plays.
> Suffer!
Don't you ever feel dishonest promoting the illiterate Stratford boob?
>
> > A spotlight would be thrown on hitherto
> > unfathomable passages, and centuries of delight would be highlighted by
the
> > knowledge of the real events, situations and characters that guided and
> > informed the author's hand. Let there be vigorous and legitimate debate!
>
> Now you're talking!
>
> Yo, Derek, is there any evidence at all that Edward de Vere
> (1550-1604) wrote the works of Shakespeare? Is
> there any document or testimony to link Edward
> de Vere to any work of Shakespeare?
There is tons of circumstantial evidence.
The connection to the Stratman is mostly tradition.
> Why don't Oxfordians include the known works
> attributed to Oxford when speaking of Shakespeare's
> works if they believe him to be one and the same?
You mean the poems he wrote as a kid?
> How did Oxford write/produce plays in court and
> on stage during his travels and self-imposed exiles?
Could you be more specific?
> How did Oxford arrange that Cymbeline, The
> Winter's Tale, The Tempest, and Henry VIII be held
> six-eight years after his death before they were
> first recorded, licensed, and produced?
What?
> Since Oxford was a patron himself, why did he
> seek patronage from the Earl of Southampton?
Don't believe everything you read about Shakespeare.
> Why did Oxford desperately seek income from
> the licensing of tin, wool, oil, and fruit for several
> years while the plays were being produced and
> earning high income for the man whose name
> was on the work and whose company was
> presenting them?
All Oxford's correspondence with Burghley involved coded messages.
> If you want extra time to answer these simple questions,
> just ask.
>
> > Once more, my heartfelt thanks and my sincerest regret
> > that I cannot be with you this evening.
>
> Keep your night job, Derek. You are a fine actor.
> But when it comes to presenting a sensible case,
> don't call us, we'll call you.
You'll have to discuss that with the Praetorian Guard.
> (Art, your celebrity guest idea was super but next
> time, try to find one with SUBSTANCE. Got it?
Get your drugs yourself, Greg.
> However,
> it did seem that he was talking and you were just
> listening--so you have that part of the act down!)
I added a small footnote.
Art Neuendorffer
richard kennedy
doubt at all that the Stratford man wrote the
poems and plays", the Strats would be marching
in the streets, carrying signs. With the anti-
Stats it's welcome, but no big deal to know that
another reasonable man rejects the Straford man.
Greg Reynolds
My overwhelmingly obvious point is that
Oxfordianism is devoid of an argument and
that Oxfordians regard history as their own
private barnyard where anything goes.
Being an Oxfordian, Jacobi presents no
basis for his conclusions, however, being
an actor, Jacobi deals in fantasy.
WHAT'S YOUR EXCUSE, RICHARD?
We must wage peace aggressively.
--US President Dwight Eisenhower, 1957
Bob Grumman
stai...@charter.net says...
Untrue, Wack. While we DO from time to time make it known that just about
every Elizabethan scholar believes Shakespeare was Shakespeare, we just
about never make anything of the names of laymen who believe as we do, such as
Charlton Heston (before his diagnosis). That's because, unlike you, we have
something relevant to the identity of Shakespeare: evidence.
--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> >If Jacobi had come out and said, "I have no
> >doubt at all that the Stratford man wrote the
> >poems and plays", the Strats would be marching
> >in the streets, carrying signs. With the anti-
> >Stats it's welcome, but no big deal to know that
> >another reasonable man rejects the Straford man.
"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> :
> Untrue, Wack. While we DO from time to time make it known that just about
> every Elizabethan scholar believes Shakespeare was Shakespeare, we just
> about never make anything of the names of laymen who believe as we do,
such as
> Charlton Heston (before his diagnosis). That's because, unlike you, we
have
> something relevant to the identity of Shakespeare: evidence.
Was Charlton Heston the *best* you could come up with?
Art
richard kennedy
And do not disparage fantasy if you're looking
for the truth of a thing, Shakespeare did it all
the time, and with a laugh, and there is little
laughter amongst the Stratfordians, you are all
a grim lot, and sour, and we know why.
Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com> wrote in message news:<3E41DA54...@core.com>...
Alan Jones
> If Jacobi had come out and said, "I have no
> doubt at all that the Stratford man wrote the
> poems and plays", the Strats would be marching
> in the streets, carrying signs.
Marching? Signs? What nonsense! The authorship of the plays and sonnets as
a body of work is simply not an issue for "Stratfordians" (for which term
read "99 percent of those who study these works and perform the plays"). The
matter is not addressed or even considered in most university courses, for
the very good
reason that there is no coherent case either against the man from Stratford
or for any alternative. The basis for the anti-Stratfordian case is
essentially no more than disbelief that someone from an ordinary background
could have written so well. This subjective belief is thought to outweigh
the objective evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford as a distinguished poet
and playwright, and offensively implies that Shakespeare's friends were
plain liars (and presumably suborned to be so).
I wrote "as a body of work" because scholars are, of course, interested in
analysing the extent of Shakespeare's borrowing from, or collaborating with,
other authors, and perhaps the extent also to which his texts were edited or
theatrically modified after his death. That is a very different matter from
denying the Stratford authorship of the works as a whole.
Alan Jones
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
One of your problems, Art, is that you only have one context for everything:
your insane Masonic conspiracy. You ignore all other contexts. In this case,
the context was "celebrities who state their views as to who wrote the plays of
Shakespeare." I brought up Heston to demonstrate the stupidity of Kennedy's
claim that we Shakespeare-affirmers would celebrate in the streets if we could
come up with a celebrity who went on record in favor of our views. We do not
flaunt the names of those who believe as we do because what counts is evidence.
I might add, however, that very few sane people are going to go on record as
stating their belief that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, for the same reason that
they won't come out in favor of the hypothesis that Elvis is no longer living.
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
Noted celebrities on record in favour of the Stratford Shakespeare:
-James I
-Ben Jonson
-Henry Condell
-John Heminge
These notables are important in that they actually
knew what they were talking about! They met the
man and freely disclosed his identity as Shakespeare.
Unlike Art, Pat, Derek, Stephanie, Paul, and all
who obstinately close their eyes to history.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> >> >
> >> >If Jacobi had come out and said, "I have no
> >> >doubt at all that the Stratford man wrote the
> >> >poems and plays", the Strats would be marching
> >> >in the streets, carrying signs. With the anti-
> >> >Stats it's welcome, but no big deal to know that
> >> >another reasonable man rejects the Straford man.
> >
> >"Bob Grumman" <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> :
> >
> >> Untrue, Wack. While we DO from time to time make it known that just
about
> >> every Elizabethan scholar believes Shakespeare was Shakespeare, we just
> >> about never make anything of the names of laymen who believe as we do,
> >such as
> >> Charlton Heston (before his diagnosis). That's because, unlike you, we
> >have
> >> something relevant to the identity of Shakespeare: evidence.
> In article <R_-dnXuk_LH...@comcast.com>, "Art says...
> >
> > Was Charlton Heston the *best* you could come up with?
> >
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> One of your problems, Art, is that you only have one context for
everything:
> your insane Masonic conspiracy.
Masonic, yes, but I would never accuse of being insane, Bob.
> You ignore all other contexts. In this case,
> the context was "celebrities who state their views
> as to who wrote the plays of Shakespeare."
That's funny. I thought the context was:
Shakespearean actors born in October who
essentially played "the same role" in the same movie:
BRANAGH's HAMLET(1996)
Player King............................. CHARLTON HESTON
http://movieweb.com/movie/hamlet/co9.jpg
Claudius................................ DEREK JACOBI
http://movieweb.com/movie/hamlet/co3.jpg
------------------------------------------------------
<<Jacobi was picked to play the Roman emperor in "I, Claudius." "The
producer wanted a name like Charlton Heston," says Jacobi, "but I charmed
the pants off him. It was the greatest performance of my life. Suddenly
millions of people knew the guy who played Claudius.">>
------------------------------------------------------
> I brought up Heston to demonstrate the stupidity of Kennedy's claim
> that we Shakespeare-affirmers would celebrate in the streets if we could
> come up with a celebrity who went on record in favor of our views.
Shooting guns into the air to honor Heston presumably.
> We do not flaunt the names
> of those who believe as we do because what counts is evidence.
But with intellectual giants like Heston why not?
> I might add, however, that very few sane people are going to go on record
as
> stating their belief that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, for the same reason
that
> they won't come out in favor of the hypothesis that Elvis is no longer
living.
---------------------------------------------------
Lisa Marie Presley: International Spokesperson for Children's Rights
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Judith Shakespeare: Attested a 1611 document by writing "X" twice!
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> Noted celebrities on record in favour of the Stratford Shakespeare:
> -James I
> -Ben Jonson
> -Henry Condell [i.e., Ben Jonson]
> -John Heminge [i.e., Ben Jonson]
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<On 23 July 1567, at Lochleven, Mary Queen of Scots was forced
to sign an act of withdrawal in favor of her 1-year-old son,
who was crowned as James VI five days afterward at Scone.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<On 23 July 1567,
while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam, a TAILOR,
in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand, the
17-year-old Oxford killed an unarmed UNDERCOOK named
THOMAS BRINCKNELL with a thrust to the thigh.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> These notables are important in that they actually
> knew what they were talking about!
These notables are important in that they actually
knew what they were lying about!
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> They met the man and freely disclosed his identity as Shakespeare.
*****************************************************
http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com/sweet_swan_of_avon.html
by David L. Roper
<<During the massive undertaking of editing and preparing the first
collected edition of Shakespeare's plays for publication, a centre for
operations would have been needed. Wilton House in Wiltshire must rank
as first choice. It was sufficiently spacious, it boasted one of the
finest libraries in England, it had for long been a centre for literary
and scholastic excellence, it was the home of that "incomparable
brethren" to whom the first edition of the collected plays was
dedicated, one of whom was actually married to Edward de Vere's
daughter, the other brother having once been engaged to her sister.
Added to this, there was actually a room in Wilton House named after
Jonson. And only recently, among the archives, some manuscripts were
found which Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones had worked on together for a
masque performed before King James. Quite clearly, with his own room at
Wilton, Jonson was an established figure at the House, and it would have
provided an excellent setting for the editing and preparation of
Shakespeare's plays. Wilton would also have suggested an ambiguity for
the dedicatory poem he was working on, since the banks of the Avon
(East) are within easy reach of the house as it flows into the cathedral
city of Salisbury, two miles down the road.
Apart from the statue of Shakespeare in the entrance lobby, placed there
by the 9th Earl of Pembroke in 1743 to commemorate the association of
his ancestors with the publication of the First Folio edition of the
poet's plays, there is a further connection with Shakespeare. During
the middle of the 19th century, an historian, William Cory, visited
Wilton House as a guest of the then Lady Herbert. During the course of
conversation, she referred to a private letter, never before made
public, in which Lady Pembroke, the mother of the "incomparable
brethren" had written to her son asking him to bring King James and his
Court from Salisbury (where they were sheltering from an outbreak of
Plague) to see As You Like It. "We have the man Shakespeare with us" the
letter said. In keeping with all other evidence about Shakespeare, this
private letter that had been kept safe by the family for two and a half
centuries quickly disappeared.
Wilton House appears uncomfortable with this particular association.
In its introductory pamphlet to the House, it refers to - " ... a
tradition, never proven, that Shakespeare came here and acted one of his
plays." But James I visited Wilton House between 24 October and 12
December 1603, presumably in response to the invitation contained within
the 'missing letter'. To this may be added written evidence from the
Chamber Accounts dated 2nd December 1603, viz: "John Heminges, one of
his Majesty's players ... for the pains and expenses of himself and the
rest of the company in coming from Mortlake in the county of Surrey unto
the court aforesaid and there presenting before his Majesty one play.
Ł30."
The importance of the 'missing letter' and its embarrassment to Wilton
House can now be understood. For the letter must have been written some
time before James' arrival on 24 October. But this implies that
Shakespeare was already at Wilton House during the late summer and early
autumn of 1603, presumably also sheltering from the Plague. But the
acting company that performed As You Like It did not arrive until the
beginning of December. And when they came it was Heminges who received
the performance fee. Edward de Vere's protracted stay at Wilton House
presents no problem, and suggests that a close association had earlier
been established with Lady Pembroke. William Shaxpere, however, had no
reason to be at Wilton House. His home and his family were at
Stratford-upon-Avon where he could safely take refuge from the Plague,
and where he could also occupy himself with the hefty property
transactions that he had undertaken during the previous year.
A good reason has been given to infer that Oxford was at Wilton House,
sheltering from the Plague, in 1603. Equally apparently, according to
Nashe, he was there during the outbreak of Plague in 1592,
coincidentally at a time when The Merry Wives of Windsor was written. It
was also during this time that he began to form the idea of promoting
William Shakespeare as the ghost writer of his published poetry. He was
certainly there in 1597 when the marriage of his daughter, Bridget, was
arranged with Lady Pembroke. That is, before Lord Burghley's excessive
demands for his grand-daughter's settlement terminated the engagement.
Did Burghley deliberately sabotage this arrangement because he feared
the close relationship that had developed between the de Veres and the
Herberts? If not, why did he thwart the engagement? The Earl of Pembroke
was a rich prize for his grand-daughter, and everyone was pleased with
the match.
When Ben Jonson was writing his dedication for the First Folio edition
of Shakespeare's plays, and seeking phrases that were true for both
Edward de Vere and William Shaxpere, the close proximity of the River
Avon to Wilton House must have occurred to him. At that time, the Avon
meant nothing to anyone with an education in literature. To justify the
Swan of Avon epithet, it required only that de Vere had previously
enjoyed an association with the House, and that he had worked on some
of his plays there before bringing them to London for performance. It
now appears evident that this was the case. Consequently, Wilton House,
more than any other, would seem to be the reason for Jonson's now
famous but ambiguous reference to The Swan of Avon.>>
*****************************************************
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Unlike Art, Pat, Derek, Stephanie, Paul, and all
> who obstinately close their eyes to history.
Art Neuendorffer
[eyes wide shut]
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>£30."
Greg Reynolds
> "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
>
> > Noted celebrities on record in favour of the Stratford Shakespeare:
>
> > -James I
> > -Ben Jonson
> > -Henry Condell [i.e., Ben Jonson]
no, i.e., Henry Condell
> > -John Heminge [i.e., Ben Jonson]
no, i.e., John Heminge
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<On 23 July 1567, at Lochleven, Mary Queen of Scots was forced
> to sign an act of withdrawal in favor of her 1-year-old son,
> who was crowned as James VI five days afterward at Scone.>>
Goodnight you moonlight ladies
Rockabye sweet baby James VI
Deep greens and blues are the colors I choose
Won't you let me go down in my dreams
And rockabye sweet baby James VI
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> <<On 23 July 1567,
> while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam, a TAILOR,
> in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand, the
> 17-year-old Oxford killed an unarmed UNDERCOOK named
> THOMAS BRINCKNELL with a thrust to the thigh.>>
Yeah, I heard the widow got stiffed... meanwhile....
> > These notables are important in that they actually
> > knew what they were talking about!
>
> These notables are important in that they actually
> knew what they were lying about!
You're just irked that all the eyewitnesses AGREED
with each other, tossing your painfully formed version
atop history's dungheap which is getting to be a tough
toss to the top thanks to you and Elizabeth out there
all day long competing for Slopjockey of the Century.
>
> > They met the man and freely disclosed his identity as Shakespeare.
>
> *****************************************************
> http://www.dlroper.shakespearians.com/sweet_swan_of_avon.html
> by David L. Roper
I'll capitalize the words that have been spoonfed to Oxfordians (as
usual) who cannot think for themselves but will rally around anyone
who shows them a little boob:
> <<During the massive undertaking of editing and preparing the first
> collected edition of Shakespeare's plays for publication, a centre for
> operations WOULD HAVE BEEN needed. Wilton House in
> Wiltshire MUST rank as first choice.
> It was sufficiently spacious, it boasted one of the
> finest libraries in England, it had for long been a centre for literary
> and scholastic excellence, it was the home of that "incomparable
> brethren" to whom the first edition of the collected plays was
> dedicated, one of whom was actually married to Edward de Vere's
> daughter,
Was de Vere invited to his daughters' weddings?
He had such broken relationships all his life, I wonder.
> the other brother having once been engaged to her sister.
It's all adding up!
> Added to this, there was actually a room in Wilton House named after
> Jonson. And only recently, among the archives, some manuscripts were
> found which Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones had worked on together for a
> masque performed before King James. QUITE CLEARLY, with his own
> room at Wilton, Jonson was an established figure at the House, and it
> WOULD HAVE provided an excellent setting for the editing and preparation
> of Shakespeare's plays. Wilton WOULD also HAVE suggested an ambiguity
> for the dedicatory poem he was working on, since the banks of the Avon
> (East) are within easy reach of the house as it flows into the cathedral
> city of Salisbury, two miles down the road.
>< had to snip here where the Avon is only two miles away ><
> > Unlike Art, Pat, Derek, Stephanie, Paul, and all
> > who obstinately close their eyes to history.
>
> Art Neuendorffer
> [eyes wide shut]
And closing his eyes as the doggies retire
He sings out a song which is soft but it's clear
As if maybe someone could hear
Goodnight you moonlight ladies
Rockabye sweet baby James VI
Deep greens and blues are the colors I choose
Won't you let me go down in my dreams
And rockabye sweet baby James VI
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > Noted celebrities on record in favour of the Stratford Shakespeare:
> >
> > > -James I
> > > -Ben Jonson
> > > -Henry Condell [i.e., Ben Jonson]
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> no, i.e., Henry Condell
Not according to many "Shakespearean scholars."
> > > -John Heminge [i.e., Ben Jonson]
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> no, i.e., John Heminge
Not according to many "Shakespearean scholars."
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<On 23 July 1567, at Lochleven, Mary Queen of Scots was forced
> > to sign an act of withdrawal in favor of her 1-year-old son,
> > who was crowned as James VI five days afterward at Scone.>>
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Goodnight you moonlight ladies
> Rockabye sweet baby James VI
> Deep greens and blues are the colors I choose
> Won't you let me go down in my dreams
> And rockabye sweet baby James VI
Oh, that's adorable, Greg!
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<On 23 July 1567,
> > while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam, a TAILOR,
> > in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand, the
> > 17-year-old Oxford killed an unarmed UNDERCOOK named
> > THOMAS BRINCKNELL with a thrust to the thigh.>>
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> Yeah, I heard the widow got stiffed... meanwhile....
That's right. . .everything is hearsay.
> > "Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> >
> > > These notables are important in that they actually
> > > knew what they were talking about!
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > These notables are important in that they actually
> > knew what they were lying about!
Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote
> You're just irked that all the eyewitnesses AGREED
> with each other, tossing your painfully formed version
> atop history's dungheap which is getting to be a tough
> toss to the top thanks to you and Elizabeth out there
> all day long competing for Slopjockey of the Century.
-----------------------------------------------------
Hear, hear how dying Reynolds doth groan!
It irks his heart he cannot be REVEnged.
-----------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 1, Scene 4
TALBOT Hear, hear how dying Salisbury doth groan!
It irks his heart he cannot be REVEnged.
Frenchmen, I'll be a Salisbury to you:
Pucelle or puzzel, dolphin or dogfish,
Your hearts I'll stamp out with my horse's heels,
And make a quagmire of your mingled brains.
Convey me Salisbury into his tent,
And then we'll try what these dastard Frenchmen dare.
-----------------------------------------------------
Irk, v. t. [OE. irken to tire, become tired; cf. Sw. yrka to urge, enforce,
press, or G. ekel disgust, MHG. erklich disgusting; perh. akin to L. urgere
to urge, E. urge.] To weary; to give pain; to annoy.
-----------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 2, Scene 2
KING HENRY VI Ay, as the rocks cheer them that fear their wreck:
To see this sight, it irks my very soul.
Withhold REVEnge, dear God! 'tis not my fault,
Nor wittingly have I infringed my vow.
-----------------------------------------------------
As You Like It Act 2, Scene 1
DUKE SENIOR Come, shall we go and kill us venison?
And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools,
Being native burghers of this desert city,
Should in their own confines with forked heads
Have their round haunches gored.
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer