Ray Mignot sonnet
bookburn
Here again is the questioned sonnet submitted by Ray Mignot
on the hlas line:
If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
Full well thy feeble life (with sports well crammed,
Disdaining love which cradles beauty best)
Would stand the hazard of thy rage inflamed,
And shout as though a cryer in the streets,
Descanting upon war or brawls abroad,
That Time will cram thee hard between his sheets,
As all dead beauties, bodies all, are awed.
But thy face summers in its campaign still,
Vanity in thine ears crams all the world
And stops the words who pleaseth not thy will,
A fort against which gunstones black are hurled.
Mark! No heir will fight for thee in hell,
If time, in war, destroys thy beauty's spell.
Mark line 10:
Peter Groves
news:119v3s9...@corp.supernews.com...
> (quote)
> Here again is the questioned sonnet submitted by Ray Mignot
> on the hlas line:
>
>
> If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
For anyone with even half a brain, the very first line gives the game away.
Only someone as abysmally ignorant as Crowley could imagine that Shakespeare
(or any Elizabethan) could write such ungrammatical nonsense as "he that
knowest".
Peter G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
was neutral about who wrote it, but leaning more and more against
Shakespeare as time went on. I frankly didn't know "he that knowest"
was bad grammar. But Shakespeare was not always all that
grammatical--especially when needing a rhyme.
There's also the problem of picking up all the details, even the most
obvious, of something one is newly and unexpectedly exposed to. So I
wouldn't fault Crwley all that much--if it weren't for his obtuse
certainty that he knows ten times more about poetry than anyone else
posting to HLAS.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:1117772265.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Well, Peter, I fear I have to admit I'm abysmally ignorant, then. I
> was neutral about who wrote it, but leaning more and more against
> Shakespeare as time went on. I frankly didn't know "he that knowest"
> was bad grammar. But Shakespeare was not always all that
> grammatical--especially when needing a rhyme.
>
But this is not an example of the kind of grammatical fluidity I suspect
you're thinking of, it's the sort of gross error only a learner could
make -- a bit like saying "I goed" (not to mention that "knowest" doesn't
even rhyme with "best"). In any case the point, surely, is that Crowley
sets himself up as a connoisseur of matters Elizabethan.
Peter G.
Peter Farey
Peter Groves wrote:
>
> "bookburn" quoted:
> >
> > If beauty's time were brief, then he that knowest
>
> For anyone with even half a brain, the very first line
> gives the game away. Only someone as abysmally ignorant
> as Crowley could imagine that Shakespeare (or any
> Elizabethan) could write such ungrammatical nonsense
> as "he that knowest".
Funny you should say that, Peter, as only yesterday it
occurred on me for the first time that the last line of
Sonnet 73 must be ungrammatical.
That time of yeare thou maist in me behold,
When yellow leaues, or none, or few doe hange
Vpon those boughes which shake against the could,
Bare ruin'd quiers, where late the sweet birds sang.
In me thou seest the twi-light of such day,
As after Sun-set fadeth in the West,
Which by and by blacke night doth take away,
Deaths second selfe that seals vp all in rest.
In me thou seest the glowing of such fire,
That on the ashes of his youth doth lye,
As the death bed, whereon it must expire,
Consum'd with that which it was nurrisht by.
This thou perceu'st, which makes thy loue more strong,
To loue that well, which thou must leaue ere long.
Shouldn't that be "which thee must leaue ere long"
(i.e. objective, as it's the poet doing the leaving)?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Robert Stonehouse
'You see this, and it makes your love all the more powerful
in loving thoroughly this thing which, before long, you must leave.'
That is, you must die, and leave (whatever it is) soon. Because you
understand this, you love it, in the time you have left, more strongly
than you otherwise would. It is the addressee who is going to die.
Maybe (whatever it is) will also die (in some sense), but that is not
what we are being told about at the moment. The grammar makes that
clear - nothing wrong with the grammar.
Or have I missed the point?
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Indeed -- and not merely as *a* connoisseur, but as *the* unique
connoisseur. His readings are oracular and authoritative; everyone else
is just a Strat or quasi-Strat Yank (even Oxfordian British expatriates
residing in Canada).
> Peter G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
related words? It seems correct to me. What is it, plural when it
should be singular? A certainly am a sub-expert in this area, going by
movies, probably--and memories of childhood church texts. Also, while
on the subject, is "doth" just "does?" "Art"
are?" Is there a good book specifically on this sort of thing?
Hope I'm not being too much of a pest.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:1117840040....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It's second person (singular), used by "Ray Mignot" as though third-person:
I am, I was; I do, I did; I know, I knew
thou art, thou wast/wert; thou dost, thou didst; thou knowest, thou knewest
(or know'st, knew'st)
he is. he was, he doth, he did; he knows/knoweth, he knew
"wert" appears to be the subjunctive form of "wast": cp. from <The Tempest>:
I do not think thou canst, for then thou wast not
She said thou wast my daughter; and thy father
Thou wast that did preserve me. Thou didst smile.
And, for thou wast a spirit too delicate
What is this maid with whom thou wast at play?
vs.:
What wert thou, if the King of Naples heard thee?
Thou wert but a lost monster [if ...]
So: "he that knows" or "he that knoweth" (the <-eth> form was a bit
old-fashioned even then, which is why the KJV favours it).
One of the most comprehensive books on Early Modern English grammar is E A
Abbott's <Shakesperean Grammar>; there's also a book that came out in the
last year or so, but I cannot remember by whom.
Peter G.
Peter Groves
news:d7osqh$l8u$2$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
You might think so, but it's not ungrammatical; it's just saying something
slightly surprising. There are other interesting undercurrents of reproach
beneath the resignation of this sonnet (e.g. the reference to ruined abbeys
in line 4, suggesting an image of decay that is not natural and seasonal but
the result of human violence an negligence).
PeterG.
David Kathman
> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:1117840040....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Peter, could you quickly summarize the proper grammar of "knowest" and
> > related words? It seems correct to me. What is it, plural when it
> > should be singular? A certainly am a sub-expert in this area, going by
> > movies, probably--and memories of childhood church texts. Also, while
> > on the subject, is "doth" just "does?" "Art"
> > are?" Is there a good book specifically on this sort of thing?
> >
> > Hope I'm not being too much of a pest.
> >
> > --Bob G.
> >
>
> It's second person (singular), used by "Ray Mignot" as though third-person:
>
> I am, I was; I do, I did; I know, I knew
> thou art, thou wast/wert; thou dost, thou didst; thou knowest, thou knewest
> (or know'st, knew'st)
> he is. he was, he doth, he did; he knows/knoweth, he knew
I don't want to sound snooty or anything (though I fear I will), but
this is absolutely basic stuff for reading early modern English. For
me it's second nature, and it's always jarring to encounter somebody
who misuses "doth" or "hast". I realize that my linguistics background
(including quite a bit of work on the history of the English language)
makes me unusual, and that nobody is a native speaker any more of that
part of the language, but I'm still surprised that people have such a
hard time internalizing the rules. One common mistake I often see is
when people use "thou" with the "-eth" ending, as in "thou maketh"; I
guess they figure that those two elements are both "foreign" and not
part of modern English, so they must go together.
[snip]
> One of the most comprehensive books on Early Modern English grammar is E A
> Abbott's <Shakesperean Grammar>; there's also a book that came out in the
> last year or so, but I cannot remember by whom.
It's by Jonathan Hope, and it's called "Shakespeare's Grammar". It was
published as part of the Arden series, but as far as I know it's still
only available in hardcover, which I don't understand at all.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Alan Jones
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:bn10a1lh5rre3qm95...@4ax.com...
That interpretation makes good sense. Or perhaps the final couplet extends
the theme into a generalisation going beyond the particular relationship of
poet and addressee: the "thou" here might equally be the reader. Yet
another, perhaps less likely but also grammatical, involves a different
sense of "leave" as "take your leave of" - the young addressee knows he will
soon have to leave the poet in his grave and therefore loves him the more
strongly while there is time.
Alan Jones
Peter Farey
Robert Stonehouse wrote:
It seems so to me. The four sonnets 71-4 all concern the
poet's forebodings about what will happen when *he* dies,
which he seems to think will be fairly soon. The 'this'
he refers to is the fact (as he sees it) that this is
going to happen, and which he says the addressee perceives
too. It is great that he still loves the poet even though
the poet is about to leave him by dying.
The grammar is only correct (in my view) at the expense of
the poem's making any sense at all.
Peter Farey
Peter Groves wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > That time of yeare thou maist in me behold,
> > When yellow leaues, or none, or few doe hange
> > Vpon those boughes which shake against the could,
> > Bare ruin'd quiers, where late the sweet birds sang.
> > In me thou seest the twi-light of such day,
> > As after Sun-set fadeth in the West,
> > Which by and by blacke night doth take away,
> > Deaths second selfe that seals vp all in rest.
> > In me thou seest the glowing of such fire,
> > That on the ashes of his youth doth lye,
> > As the death bed, whereon it must expire,
> > Consum'd with that which it was nurrisht by.
> > This thou perceu'st, which makes thy loue more strong,
> > To loue that well, which thou must leaue ere long.
> >
> > Shouldn't that be "which thee must leaue ere long"
> > (i.e. objective, as it's the poet doing the leaving)?
>
> You might think so, but it's not ungrammatical; it's
> just saying something slightly surprising.
Too surprising for me, I'm afraid. The rest of the poem
is all about what he sees as his imminent death (in fact
the theme of all four sonnets 71-4), and if I die
tomorrow I'll be leaving a wife and two sons; they
won't be leaving me.
> There are other interesting undercurrents of reproach
> beneath the resignation of this sonnet (e.g. the
> reference to ruined abbeys in line 4, suggesting an
> image of decay that is not natural and seasonal but
> the result of human violence and negligence).
He is certainly feeling pretty sorry for himself, but
I see no indication of his expecting to be abandoned by
the addressee because of his allegedly imminent demise.
In fact, the other three sonnets of the group seem to be
concerned about the exact opposite.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
years I equated eth-verbs with est-verbs. Knoweth and knowest. I
don't think I knew they were a pair, just used one or the other as not
only meaning the same thing but BEING the same word!
As for knowing these things, I don't think it strange that a layman
with an interest in early English literature would not. You rarely
need to know any of it to understand the material. The reverse
snootiness that only a pedant would know it, though, is just as bad; it
can certainly be helpful--and interesting. Not that Dave's remarks on
this seemed snooty. I took no offense at all from them.
Side-note: just the other day I realized that I've always assumed that
those of my mathematical poems in the form of algebraic equations would
be easy to understand for anyone; I forgot that algebra is not second
nature for everyone, even many who actually had it in school.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
I don't read it that way. I read it that the speaker is going to die, and
he's explaining the significance of what he's been saying to the addressee
in the previous verses:
"Understanding the meaning of what I've been saying makes your love
stronger, and it is a human truism that what you know will not exist soon
you love all the better for it (the emotional equivalence of scarcity =
value)."
Whether the grammar is correct or not, I don't have a clue. A lot of
Shakespeare's sonnets seem to me to have incomplete grammar, where one word
is used in place of a phrase.
TR
Robert Stonehouse
Ditto. But John Moore, You English Words (Collins, London, 1961) gives
a Gloiucestershire version of "the negative present tense of 'To be'
I byunt
Thee bissent
'E yunt".
Peter Groves
news:1117886706.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The article cited recently by John Kennedy
(http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) is devoted mainly to
showing (experimentally) that the cognitively incompetent overestimate their
own competence precisely because of their (meta-)cognitive incompetence: it
explains how ignorant buffoons like Gangleri, Kennedy R. and Innes can post
nonsense about (say) Latin without embarrassment. But the authors also
point out that the highly competent (in a given field) underestimate their
competence because of a "false consensus" effect: they assume that everyone
knows what they take for granted. Until recently I simply assumed that
everyone on this list (ignorant buffoons excepted) knew about Early Modern
English verb-forms.
--
Peter G.
"The production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or
opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts
that are relevant to that topic." Harry Frankfurt, <On Bullshit>
Spam Scone
Peter Groves wrote:
>
> The article cited recently by John Kennedy
> (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) is devoted mainly to
> showing (experimentally) that the cognitively incompetent overestimate their
> own competence precisely because of their (meta-)cognitive incompetence: it
> explains how ignorant buffoons like Gangleri, Kennedy R. and Innes can post
> nonsense about (say) Latin without embarrassment.
I have small Latin and less Greek, but even I found this recent (May
22) example funny:
"In which case he is hoist by his own petard. Nil agit exemplum, litem
quod
lite resolve, said Horace, intending to convey that an example is
nothing to
the purpose, which decides one controversy by creating another....
Sunday afternoon stuff. Its all too, too... while we had rather think
of all
tu-tu
Tot homines, quot sententiae, [so many many men are we, so many minds -
after Horace]
Coûte que coûte, Phil"
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Montiverdi...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:1117886706.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Thanks much, Peter! Amazing information for me: I think all these
> > years I equated eth-verbs with est-verbs. Knoweth and knowest. I
> > don't think I knew they were a pair, just used one or the other as not
> > only meaning the same thing but BEING the same word!
> >
> > As for knowing these things, I don't think it strange that a layman
> > with an interest in early English literature would not. You rarely
> > need to know any of it to understand the material. The reverse
> > snootiness that only a pedant would know it, though, is just as bad; it
> > can certainly be helpful--and interesting. Not that Dave's remarks on
> > this seemed snooty. I took no offense at all from them.
> >
> > Side-note: just the other day I realized that I've always assumed that
> > those of my mathematical poems in the form of algebraic equations would
> > be easy to understand for anyone; I forgot that algebra is not second
> > nature for everyone, even many who actually had it in school.
> >
> > --Bob G.
> The article cited recently by John Kennedy
> (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) is devoted mainly to
> showing (experimentally) that the cognitively incompetent overestimate their
> own competence precisely because of their (meta-)cognitive incompetence: it
> explains how ignorant buffoons like Gangleri, Kennedy R. and Innes can post
> nonsense about (say) Latin
...not to mention Old English, Russian, etc. The effect also
explains "Dr." Faker's farcical forays into number theory, paleography,
and planetary science, Mr. Streitz's ill-advised ventures into fluid
mechanics and biology, and Elizabeth Weird's comically clueless
pontifications on countless subjects -- mathematics, modern foreign
languages, history, classics, physics, Latin, English, etc. But as the
amusing "Mente videbor(i)" thread demonstrated, Richard Kennedy's
incompetence is not confined to his ignorance of Latin -- indeed, in
that thread, Kennedy displayed an inability to count to four or to
distinguish the letter "C" from the letter "E".
> without embarrassment. But the authors also
> point out that the highly competent (in a given field) underestimate their
> competence because of a "false consensus" effect: they assume that everyone
> knows what they take for granted.
Indeed -- for example, most of the sane, rational participants in
this forum assume that their interlocutors can read English.
> Until recently I simply assumed that
> everyone on this list (ignorant buffoons excepted) knew about Early Modern
> English verb-forms.
Since some of them confidently assure us that Old English survived
into the nineteenth century, perhaps some of them are not even aware of
the *existence* of Early Modern English, let alone familiar with its
verb forms. Indeed, some of the most irremediably ignorant are far more
interested in VER B.S. than in VERBS.
Richard Kennedy
the tp of Minerva Britanna. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with
two provisos. One: he must keep his joint in his pants during the
discussion, and Two: he must read and UNDERSTAND Drummond's rules,
below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Drummond, friend of Ben Jonson, wrote a small piece on
anagrams, included in the published edition of his "Works" -
Edinburgh, 1711. Herein he sets out the rules of the game, and
something of the history of anagrams, evidently to instruct the reader
in this common, witty, and delightful trifling about with words and
letters. Everyone can play.
My purpose in reprinting this is to make clear that it would be quite
proper for MENTE VIDEBOR to be anagrammed as TIBI NOM DE VERE. That is,
"By the mind I shall be seen," may very well be answered by the
solution "My name is De Vere." The solution answers the prompt
perfectly except that in the solution there is an extra "i", but which
is fair, as you will see by rules 1, 2, and 3. Does anyone have any
other solution to this that supplies a name and makes sense? Here's
the
essay, William Drummond of Hawthornden.
_________________________________________________________
Character of a perfect Anagram
Anagrams are Names turned, because they are Inversions of Letters so
transposed that without any Adjunction, Repetition or Diminution of
others than these which are in the Name and Sirname of a Person, there
is a Devise or Period perfectly made up in Sense; and the Orthography
must be strictly observed, if it be not for Excellency, that this Rule
is dispensed with.
The oldest Example that we have, is in Lycophron, who, of the Name of
Ptolemy King of Egypt, [Greek], makes [Greek]; and of the Queen
Arsinoe's Name [Greek], [Greek].
But as the Spirit of Man is more prone to Evil than Good, ordinarly Men
use to make Anagrams rather on Vice than Virtue. The Beginning of
Anagrams is very old: It is likely, they have their Original from the
Hebrews, who not only had Names in great Veneration and Respect, but
the Letters of Names, and the Mysteries of the Cabalists are vailed up
in Letters, from whom the Grecians had them.
1. In an Anagram there must not be fewer nor more nor other Letters,
but the same, and as many as in the name. It is named also by the
Greeks [Greek], which is the transposition of letters.
2. >Anagramma est clausula quae ex artificiosa literarum omnium, neque
plurium, alicujus nominis transpositione componitur. Dicitur proprie
clausula, id quod aliquid claudit.< It is called a sentence. >Est
nagrammatismus particula orationis, & quatuor plus minus dictiones
continet,cum tamen unam persaepe contineat.
This is the Law of an Anagram, That no Letter be added, nor any taken
away. This admitteth some Exceptions, which is, That some one or other
Letter may be omitted; but with great Judgment, That that Letter be no
principal Letter of the Name, which is omitted: But such, without which
the Name may consist. For when the same
Letters occur many times in the Name, then the Omission of one or more
is pardonable; especially for some excellent Sense that agreeth to the
Person, as in that of Auratus PIERRE DE RONSARD, ROSE DE PINDARE, of
four R's, two are omitted.
3. A Letter may easily be omitted, without whose Help, the Name by it
self may stand; as H, which placed behind, after Consonants, seemeth
not much to alter the Power of the Name; which Letter some of the
Latins have abolished, thinking it rather an Aspiration than a Letter.
4. It was said, that no Letter should be taken away; yet, if there be
any great Reason, a Letter may be added as >relligio, repperit<; or
rather a Letter may be doubled, as when two Letters occur in the Name,
one may be abolished, so one of Necessity may be doubled.
5. All Diphthongs may be separated >per Diaeresin<; and even so, two
Vowels >per Synaeresin<, may be conjoin'd, which Auratus practiced in
the Name of Jesus, [Greek].
6. So some think, the Diphthong being forgot, we may use and take only
the last and founding Letter: But, for the most part, we must keep
Orthography, as it is vulgarly and by approved Authors used; and if we
adjoin a Letter, let us add one of these which make up the Name, that
we seem not so much to have adjoined one, as doubled it. So a Jesuit
doubled the Letter S, in the Anagram of >Ignatius de Loyola; O iguis a
Deo illatus<; and another turn'd it, >Lita ei anguis doli<.
7. If it be asked, Whether adjecting or omitting be more to be
tolerated? I answer, Adjecting; for so by Nature we are prepared
rather to take, than have an Loss.
8. It is sometime lawful to change one Letter into another, That is,
for one letter to put another, which is the admitting of one, and
omitting of another: Yet, I would think, these Letters must be such as
may change into others, as D. into T. which the Spaniards use in the
Latine Cado for Cato.
9. A double Letter, not unhappily, may be changed into a simple, as Z.
into S. I would say, divided as Z into S D.
10. But the Conclusion is, the Anagrammatism is so much the more
perfect, the farther it be from all License.
11. The Definition says, >Alicujus nominis<, which is to be understood
of proper Names, yet not only in Persons, but in Names of other Things,
may an Anagrammatism be made. By Name, here is to be understood
generally the Sirname, Fore-name, affixed Name, as Publius Cornelius
Scipio Africanus; or the Name of any Dignity.
12. Ye may use one Name, as Valesius, Laus Jesu; for many Nations have
but one Name, but oftner the Name and Sirname are turned. 13. It is to
be observed, That not only Names of Men, but the Names of any other
Thing, as Trees, Floods, Towns, may be turned, as Roma, Mora. Cur
varios tamdiu remoratur Roma clientes,
Forte quod inverso nomine Roma Mora est.
14. There is in the Definition, (Transposition) because if any Sense be
in the Name of Letters not transposed it is not so much an Anagram as
>equivoque<, as Anna Grame, Anagram,
- - - What needs an Anagrame,
Since that her very Name is Anna Grame.
David L. Webb
"Richard Kennedy" <kenn...@charter.net> wrote:
> Webb mentions anagrams, despising my practice with the Mente Videbor on
> the tp of Minerva Britanna. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with
> two provisos. One: he must keep his joint in his pants during the
> discussion, and Two: he must read and UNDERSTAND Drummond's rules,
> below.
The thread in question discussed Peacham, not Drummond; the former
adhered to far more rigorous rules than the latter, as Terry Ross very
patiently explained to you (and as you would know had you actually read
Peacham).
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/acda3b39fda23b9c?dmode=source&hl=en>
The fact that you cannot count, cannot distinguish "C" from "E", and
cannot tell Latin from multilingual, macaronic nonsense makes it rather
pointless to attempt remediation of your incompetence. As Terry said in
the thread in question:
****************************************
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, Richard Kennedy wrote:
Something or other, I suppose. Since he pretends to be responding to me,
and since he pretends to have read and understood both Peacham and the
Friedmans, and since he is unable to deal with what either I or Peacham
or the Friedmans have actually said (he cannot even transcribe
accurately the seven letters in "Mabella" or the four letters in
"Hinc"), it seems pointless to offer any response to his nonresponsive
post except to repeat what I said earlier today.
Kennedy cites the Friedmans, whom he does not appear to have read (psst
-- look in the index under "anagram" to save the crisis that would occur
if you had to read an entire book).
The Friedmans tell us that demonstrably genuine ciphers cannot rely on
anagrams, because anagrams do not produce unique outcomes. A cipher must
have exactly one solution; an anagram is typically one of a number of
"solutions," and the fact that many solutions are possible means that
none can be considered the unique "correct" solution. Remember that
Peacham himself provided two anagrams for "Theodosia Dixon" and six for
"Amie Mordaunt." Here is part of what the Friedmans say about anagrams:
"In the absence of a key, any lengthy sequence of letters with the normal
proportions of high, medium, and low-frequency vowels and consonants may
be anagrammed in a large number of ways. Hence there may be as many
'solutions' as the solver's ingenuity can produce and each will be as
valid as any other, but none will carry any objective conviction. There
is always room for doubt unless the man who composed the anagram
recreates his own message from it; for only he knows for certain what
message he intended to conceal." (Friedmans 113)
Thus EVEN IF Peacham had presented readers with a name or a phrase and
asked us to form anagrams upon it, there would be no way to tell that any
solution we came up with was the one unique solution Peacham had in mind
-- in fact, Peacham might well have had several in mind, or if he had
been presented with a multitude of solutions by various readers, he
might well have found many of them acceptable.
So far as we know, Peacham never attempted to convey a secret message by
means of an anagram. Even if he had so attempted, we could never be sure
which of the many possible solutions was the one solution that would have
conveyed some hypothetical unique meaning. We do know that Peacham found
anagrams amusing -- the sort of thing that might be produced at dinner as
a token of one's wit. We do not find that he ever suggested that they
were a useful means of conveying secret messages.
It appears that Kennedy has seen a version of *Minerva Britanna*, but is
perhaps so new to the English alphabet that he cannot transcribe the
letters before him, and therefore accuses Peacham of anagramming
misdemeanors.
Here's but one example (from many) of Kennedy's fumbling with the
alphabet. There is an anagram on page 92 of *Minerva Britanna* that I
listed thus:
92 | Mabella Colarde. | Bella, alma corde.
Kennedy gives this:
> MABELLE COLARDE
>
> BELLA, ALMA CORDE
>
> An "E" is added to the prompt.
> An "L" is left out of the surname "Collarde."
Here is a scan of the top of page 92:
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/pix/mabella1.gif
The text reads,
Amor coniugalis aeternis.
To my Louing and most kind frendes, Mr Christopher Collarde, and
Mrs Mabell Collarde his wife, of St Martines in the feildes.
Mabella Colarde.
Bella, alma corde.
A marginal note reads "Anagramma Au-/thoris."
If Kennedy looks at page 92 again, I hope will exercise greater care this
time. He should look at the letters one at a time. Now, he got off to a
splendid start by getting the first six letters of the name perfectly,
with no mistakes. The he decided that the terminal "a" of "Mabella"
really should have been an "E". Let's take a closer look:
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/pix/mabella2.gif
The name anagrammed is "Mabella Colarde" while the anagram is "Bella,
alma corde."
If it is absolutely necessary, I suppose I could produce an even closer
enlargement, but I think this one really should be good enough. If
Kennedy will look real hard, he will see that the seventh letter of
"Mabella" is shaped very much like the second letter, and does not really
resemble the fourth letter all that much:
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/pix/mabella2.gif
Thus this anagram uses ALL and only the letters of the name. That it is
intended to be an anagram is indicated by Peacham's very helpful marginal
note "Anagramma Authoris," which tells us that the anagram is of
Peacham's own devising. If Kennedy looks throughout the entire volume,
he will see that every one of the anagrams Peacham gives is noted as an
"Anagramma."
I think Kennedy is further troubled by what may see to him to be
liberties with the spelling of Mrs. Collarde's name. Peacham gives the
name in English as "Mabell Colarde" in the heading of the emblem, and
then he transmogrifies the name into "Mabella Colarde" before
anagramming. If Kennedy searches high and low throughout Minerva
Britanna, he will find this sort of thing often. Peacham will use a
Latin or Italian version of an English name -- and (horrors!) the
resulting anagrams are often not even in English either! Somebody call
a cop! Of course, Shakespeare's and Marlowe's and Spenser's and
Jonson's names were spelled differently at different times (this may be
news to Kennedy), and the same is doubtless also true of the Collardes
(or Collards or Colards or Colardes) and Peacham's other friends. As
Kennedy becomes more familiar with the literature of the period, such
matters should prove less unsettling to him.
Kennedy being Kennedy, he will continue to post his list of Peacham's
"errors" until the trump of doom. Anyone more clear-eyed than he will
see that in every single example, Kennedy makes errors of the kind I have
described in this one instance.
Where on the title page do we find an anagram by Peacham? There is none.
There are many words (any set of which may be the subject of anagramming
by the reader, just as any set of words in any text may be), but there is
no label "Anagramma," and there is no set of expressions that uses the
same letters. With a single exception, Peacham's genuine anagrams are
based on names or titles, and there is indeed a name on the title page:
"Henry Peacham." While there is no anagram of this name on the title
page, there is one on page 177. I listed the anagram thus:
177 | Henricus Peachamus. | Hinc super haec Musa.
Here is Kennedy's version:
> HENRICUS PEACHAMUS
>
> HINE SUPER HAC, MUSA
>
> There are two "Cs" in the name, only one in the anagram.
Uh, no, there are actually TWO C's in the anagram:
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/pix/hp1.jpg
Here the anagram is given first, and then the name:
Hinc super haec, Musa.
Henricus Peachamus.
I think Kennedy's alphabet boo-boo this time is caused by his
unfamiliarity with italic type (if he looks at the image closely, he will
see that there is a loop of the "e" in "super" that is not present in the
"c" of "Hinc" or the "c" of "haec." I think he may also be hampered by
an unfamiliarity with Latin, otherwise he would know that "Hinc" is much
more likely than "HINE." He also mistranscribes "haec" as "HAC,"
mistaking the digraph "ae" for an "A," and as a result does not even
notice that his transcribed anagram contains fewer letters than the name
"Henricus Peachamus." We might note that just as elsewhere Peacham
chose to anagram on "Mabella Colarde" rather than "Mabell Collarde,"
here he anagrams "Henricus Peachamus" rather than "Henry Peacham."
Once again (as is the case with EVERY genuine anagram in *Minerva
Britanna*), Peacham labels the anagram as an anagram: "Anagramma Nominis
Authoris" reads the marginal note.
To repeat: every one of Kennedy's instances of Peacham's supposed loose
standards in anagramming is subject to some of the criticisms I have here
presented on his failed analyses of the "Mabella Colarde" and "Henricus
Peachamus" anagrams. He actually did make one good point (not that he
understood it), and if he promises to go back and try to correct his
blunders, I will let him know which of his observations about a Peacham
anagram was correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Groves
"Richard Kennedy" <kenn...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1118015769.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Webb mentions anagrams, despising my practice with the Mente Videbor on
> the tp of Minerva Britanna. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with
> two provisos. One: he must keep his joint in his pants during the
> discussion, and Two: he must read and UNDERSTAND Drummond's rules,
> below.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>
> William Drummond, friend of Ben Jonson, wrote a small piece on
> anagrams, included in the published edition of his "Works" -
> Edinburgh, 1711. Herein he sets out the rules of the game, and
> something of the history of anagrams, evidently to instruct the reader
> in this common, witty, and delightful trifling about with words and
> letters. Everyone can play.
>
> My purpose in reprinting this is to make clear that it would be quite
> proper for MENTE VIDEBOR to be anagrammed as TIBI NOM DE VERE. That is,
> "By the mind I shall be seen," may very well be answered by the
> solution "My name is De Vere." The solution answers the prompt
> perfectly except that in the solution there is an extra "i", but which
> is fair, as you will see by rules 1, 2, and 3.
As if to illustrate my point about ignorant buffoons and their urge to
parade their ignorance, up pops Kennedy: he's been told on numerous
occasions what "tibi" means, but the unteachable moron just can't seem to
hang on to it. Since he can't tell 'mine' from 'thine', if he pays you a
visit you'd better count the spoons before he goes.
--
Peter G.
"The production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or
opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts
that are relevant to that topic." Harry Frankfurt, <On Bullshit>
> Does anyone have any
gangleri
Once again (as is the case with EVERY genuine anagram in *Minerva
Britanna*), Peacham labels the anagram as an anagram: "Anagramma
Nominis Authoris" reads the marginal note.
Then groveling Echo:
As if to illustrate my point about ignorant buffoons and their urge to
parade their ignorance, up pops Kennedy: he's been told on numerous
occasions what "tibi" means, but the unteachable moron just can't seem
to hang on to it. Since he can't tell 'mine' from 'thine', if he pays
you a visit you'd better count the spoons before he goes.
Finally - you made your bed, now sleep in it:
As in 6339 + 8642 + 10552 = 25533,
and
12300 + 1 + 345 + 4951 + 7936 = 25533,
where
6339 = MENTE VIDEBORI;
8642 = VIVITUR IN GENIO;
10552 = CÆTERA MORTIS ERUNT,
and
12300 = Anagramma Nominis Authoris;
1 = Monad;
345 = Triangle 3:4:5 [Foundation of MAN-Beast's Psyche];
4951 = Shake-Speare; and
7936 = Edward Oxenford.
****
The Saga-Shakespeare Cipher Key and Calculator is posted on the
Internet at http://www.light-of-truth.com/gunnartomasson/ciphers.htm
Richard Kennedy
are the rules, and if you or Terry don't
wish to play by the rules, go play with
yourselves.
David L. Webb
"Richard Kennedy" <kenn...@charter.net> wrote:
> won't do, webb, read drummond, those
> are the rules,
They are not Peacham's rules, as you would know if you had read
Peacham, or if you had read Terry Ross with any comprehension.
[...]
Peter Groves
"gangleri" <gunnar....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1118025877.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Richard Kennedy
set of rules for the anagrams of Peacham's day,
show us. Right now you're just showing off
your mouth, which is full of tish, as always.
Richard Kennedy
Scudamore cipher, he can't help you.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Are you implying that I'm not an ignorant buffoon!!??
--Bob G.
Jim KQKnave
<1117863175.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
"David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I don't want to sound snooty or anything (though I fear I will), but
> this is absolutely basic stuff for reading early modern English.
You mean "writing imitation early-modern English". There is no
need to know the distinctions to the letter because the
inflections
are superfluous (otherwise they would not have been dropped in
the first place). I don't need to know the exact rules to
understand the following:
"...for if I hang, old Sir John hangs with me,
and thou knowest he is no starveling." (1H4)
It simply becomes "you know" in the reader's mind.
>For
> me it's second nature, and it's always jarring to encounter somebody
> who misuses "doth" or "hast". I realize that my linguistics background
> (including quite a bit of work on the history of the English language)
> makes me unusual, and that nobody is a native speaker any more of that
> part of the language, but I'm still surprised that people have such a
> hard time internalizing the rules.
They don't internalize the rules because they don't need to.
>One common mistake I often see is
> when people use "thou" with the "-eth" ending, as in "thou maketh"; I
> guess they figure that those two elements are both "foreign" and not
> part of modern English, so they must go together.
The mistakes aren't that mysterious, especially when
Shakespeare contains examples such as:
"Thou must tell that knowest." (T&C)
"'He that thou knowest thine, HAMLET.'" (Ham)
and Shakespeare didn't use "knoweth" at all, as
far as I can see.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
John W. Kennedy
> You mean "writing imitation early-modern English". There is no
> need to know the distinctions to the letter because the
> inflections
> are superfluous (otherwise they would not have been dropped in
> the first place).
Not always. Some idioms still relied on them, and in some complex
sentences, they are necessary disambiguators.
> I don't need to know the exact rules to
> understand the following:
>
> "...for if I hang, old Sir John hangs with me,
> and thou knowest he is no starveling." (1H4)
>
> It simply becomes "you know" in the reader's mind.
Only in the mind of a "reader" who is insensitive to nuance.
>>For
>>me it's second nature, and it's always jarring to encounter somebody
>>who misuses "doth" or "hast". I realize that my linguistics background
>>(including quite a bit of work on the history of the English language)
>>makes me unusual, and that nobody is a native speaker any more of that
>>part of the language, but I'm still surprised that people have such a
>>hard time internalizing the rules.
>
>
> They don't internalize the rules because they don't need to.
As long as they don't mind semiliteracy.
>>One common mistake I often see is
>>when people use "thou" with the "-eth" ending, as in "thou maketh"; I
>>guess they figure that those two elements are both "foreign" and not
>>part of modern English, so they must go together.
>
>
> The mistakes aren't that mysterious, especially when
> Shakespeare contains examples such as:
>
> "Thou must tell that knowest." (T&C)
> "'He that thou knowest thine, HAMLET.'" (Ham)
My God! man, do you even know contemporary English grammar?
--
John W. Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
David L. Webb
<27cb2862063b5602...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
Jim KQKnave <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
> <1117863175.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I don't want to sound snooty or anything (though I fear I will), but
> > this is absolutely basic stuff for reading early modern English.
>
> You mean "writing imitation early-modern English". There is no
> need to know the distinctions to the letter because the
> inflections
> are superfluous (otherwise they would not have been dropped in
> the first place). I don't need to know the exact rules to
> understand the following:
>
> "...for if I hang, old Sir John hangs with me,
> and thou knowest he is no starveling." (1H4)
This is second person, not third person, as in the Ray Mignot sonnet.
The verb endings are "thou knowest" (second person) but "he knoweth"
(third person).
> It simply becomes "you know" in the reader's mind.
> >For
> > me it's second nature, and it's always jarring to encounter somebody
> > who misuses "doth" or "hast". I realize that my linguistics background
> > (including quite a bit of work on the history of the English language)
> > makes me unusual, and that nobody is a native speaker any more of that
> > part of the language, but I'm still surprised that people have such a
> > hard time internalizing the rules.
>
> They don't internalize the rules because they don't need to.
One need not understand the rules of English grammar to understand an
ungrammatical utterance such as "She are my sister"; however, if one
wishes to *speak and write* like a native speaker and not merely to
understand passively, then one must observe the grammatical rules of the
tongue.
> >One common mistake I often see is
> > when people use "thou" with the "-eth" ending, as in "thou maketh"; I
> > guess they figure that those two elements are both "foreign" and not
> > part of modern English, so they must go together.
> The mistakes aren't that mysterious, especially when
> Shakespeare contains examples such as:
>
> "Thou must tell that knowest." (T&C)
>
> "'He that thou knowest thine, HAMLET.'" (Ham)
Again, this is correct use of the *second person* verb ending; "he
that knowest" is not, because the subject is in the third person.
> and Shakespeare didn't use "knoweth" at all, as
> far as I can see.
Shakespeare quite routinely uses "he hath" (for instance, one search
engine records 322 instances) the correct third person form of the verb
"to have"; he *never* uses "he hast," since "hast" is the second person
form; "thou hast" is correct (e.g., "O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart
in twain"), while "he hast" is incorrect, since it employs a second
person verb form with a third person subject pronoun. You will find the
same pattern regarding "dost" and "doth," "lovest" and "loveth," etc.
Peter and Dave are not saying that "knowest" is never correct, only
that it is not correct with a third person subject. It would be like
writing "he know," "you is," or "she are" in contemporary English -- in
simple sentence structures, it would certainly be understood, but it
would also be ungrammatical and hence sound jarringly wrong. The fact
that Shakespeare never uses "knoweth" simply means that he never uses
the verb "to know" in the third person singular present indicative.
Jim KQKnave
5FB9D0.084...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>
"David L. Webb" <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> In article
> <27cb2862063b5602eb5353e44e5d5...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <1117863175.562152.123...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> > "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > I don't want to sound snooty or anything (though I fear I will), but
> > > this is absolutely basic stuff for reading early modern English.
> >
> > You mean "writing imitation early-modern English". There is no
> > need to know the distinctions to the letter because the
> > inflections
> > are superfluous (otherwise they would not have been dropped in
> > the first place). I don't need to know the exact rules to
> > understand the following:
> >
> > "...for if I hang, old Sir John hangs with me,
> > and thou knowest he is no starveling." (1H4)
>
> This is second person, not third person, as in the Ray Mignot sonnet.
> The verb endings are "thou knowest" (second person) but "he knoweth"
> (third person).
I'm quite aware of that. You and Kennedy have missed
entirely the point of my examples. The point of the above
example was to show that you don't need to know the first/
second/third person distinctions because a modern reader
automatically reads it as "you know".
>
> > It simply becomes "you know" in the reader's mind.
>
> > >For
> > > me it's second nature, and it's always jarring to encounter somebody
> > > who misuses "doth" or "hast". I realize that my linguistics background
> > > (including quite a bit of work on the history of the English language)
> > > makes me unusual, and that nobody is a native speaker any more of that
> > > part of the language, but I'm still surprised that people have such a
> > > hard time internalizing the rules.
> >
> > They don't internalize the rules because they don't need to.
>
> One need not understand the rules of English grammar to understand an
> ungrammatical utterance such as "She are my sister"; however, if one
> wishes to *speak and write* like a native speaker and not merely to
> understand passively, then one must observe the grammatical rules of the
> tongue.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. But how many people
are going to need to speak and write early modern English?
Most people don't "internalize" the rules because most people
are only reading that form of English.
>
> > >One common mistake I often see is
> > > when people use "thou" with the "-eth" ending, as in "thou maketh"; I
> > > guess they figure that those two elements are both "foreign" and not
> > > part of modern English, so they must go together.
>
> > The mistakes aren't that mysterious, especially when
> > Shakespeare contains examples such as:
> >
> > "Thou must tell that knowest." (T&C)
> >
> > "'He that thou knowest thine, HAMLET.'" (Ham)
>
> Again, this is correct use of the *second person* verb ending; "he
> that knowest" is not, because the subject is in the third person.
I am aware of that. The point of the example is that it
is understandable how the mistake "he that knowest" could
come about, because there are examples in Shakespeare where
"he that" and "knowest" are in proximity.
>
> > and Shakespeare didn't use "knoweth" at all, as
> > far as I can see.
>
> Shakespeare quite routinely uses "he hath" (for instance, one search
> engine records 322 instances) the correct third person form of the verb
> "to have"; he *never* uses "he hast," since "hast" is the second person
> form; "thou hast" is correct (e.g., "O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart
> in twain"), while "he hast" is incorrect, since it employs a second
> person verb form with a third person subject pronoun. You will find the
> same pattern regarding "dost" and "doth," "lovest" and "loveth," etc.
>
> Peter and Dave are not saying that "knowest" is never correct, only
> that it is not correct with a third person subject. It would be like
> writing "he know," "you is," or "she are" in contemporary English -- in
> simple sentence structures, it would certainly be understood, but it
> would also be ungrammatical and hence sound jarringly wrong. The fact
> that Shakespeare never uses "knoweth" simply means that he never uses
> the verb "to know" in the third person singular present indicative.
I know, I know, I know. The point of pointing out that
Shakespeare never writes "he that knoweth" is that if
you are writing an imitation of an Elizabethan sonnet and
checking each phrase to make sure that there is a counterpart
in genuine Shakespeare, if you see "he that thou knowest", but
don't see "he that knoweth", you might be inclined to
make the error.
In the original thread ("Oxford sonnet?", dec 1998),
not a single person pointed out the error in the sonnet,
that includes Webb and J.W. Kennedy. In fact J.W. Kennedy
had lots of complaints about supposed errors in the
sonnets that were all shown to have counterparts in
genuine Shakespeare writings (like "words who pleaseth").
I find all of this after-the-fact righteousness very
amusing.
Peter Groves
that they'd made this small mistake, would at least have the grace to keep
quiet: they wouldn't keep defending it with the absurd claim that grammar
doesn't matter (add: so there, na na na naa na, etc).
--
Peter G.
"The production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or
opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts
that are relevant to that topic." Harry Frankfurt, <On Bullshit>
"Jim KQKnave" <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6e455bb81cc1fa...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
David L. Webb
<da6e455bb81cc1fa...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
Jim KQKnave <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <David.L.Webb-
> 5FB9D0.084...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>
> "David L. Webb" <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <27cb2862063b5602eb5353e44e5d5...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> > Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <1117863175.562152.123...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> > > "David Kathman" <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't want to sound snooty or anything (though I fear I will), but
> > > > this is absolutely basic stuff for reading early modern English.
> > > You mean "writing imitation early-modern English". There is no
> > > need to know the distinctions to the letter because the
> > > inflections
> > > are superfluous (otherwise they would not have been dropped in
> > > the first place). I don't need to know the exact rules to
> > > understand the following:
> > >
> > > "...for if I hang, old Sir John hangs with me,
> > > and thou knowest he is no starveling." (1H4)
> > This is second person, not third person, as in the Ray Mignot sonnet.
> > The verb endings are "thou knowest" (second person) but "he knoweth"
> > (third person).
> I'm quite aware of that.
Then I fail to see why you cited the example you chose above; "thou
knowest" is grammatically correct, while "he that knowest" is not, and
your citation does nothing whatever to vitiate the jarringly
ungrammatical sound of the latter.
> You and Kennedy have missed
> entirely the point of my examples. The point of the above
> example was to show that you don't need to know the first/
> second/third person distinctions because a modern reader
> automatically reads it as "you know".
Only an ignorant or tin-eared modern reader does so. As I already
noted, a reader will not *misunderstand* an utterance like "She are my
sister," but such a reader can scarcely fail to notice that it is
ungrammatical. Similarly, even a modern reader accustomed to reading
Elizabethan texts can scarcely fail to notice that the first line of the
"Ray Mignot" sonnet is ungrammatical.
> > > It simply becomes "you know" in the reader's mind.
No, it becomes "you know" only to those unfamiliar with the grammar
of Early Modern English or the hopelessly tin-eared, as both Peter
Groves and Dave Kathman have already correctly pointed out.
> > > >For
> > > > me it's second nature, and it's always jarring to encounter somebody
> > > > who misuses "doth" or "hast". I realize that my linguistics background
> > > > (including quite a bit of work on the history of the English language)
> > > > makes me unusual, and that nobody is a native speaker any more of that
> > > > part of the language, but I'm still surprised that people have such a
> > > > hard time internalizing the rules.
> > > They don't internalize the rules because they don't need to.
Modern readers don't need to internalize the rules that govern verb
conjugation in modern English either, in the sense that an utterance
like "You is my friend" will scarcely be misunderstood; nevertheless,
competent speakers exposed to standard English *do* internalize the
rules, and they avoid writing such jarringly ungrammatical sentences.
By the same token, competent readers of Early Modern English internalize
such patterns not because they are *necessary* for comprehension, but
because the patterns are *there* and are invariant, and noticing them is
something that a competent language learner does as a matter of course.
I am *far* from a habitual reader of Early Modern English, yet I noticed
it immediately.
> > One need not understand the rules of English grammar to understand an
> > ungrammatical utterance such as "She are my sister"; however, if one
> > wishes to *speak and write* like a native speaker and not merely to
> > understand passively, then one must observe the grammatical rules of the
> > tongue.
> Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
If it was obvious to you, then I fail to see why you cited an
irrelevant grammatically correct example in defense of a grammatically
incorrect one; I was simply trying to explain the point already made by
both Peter Groves and Dave Kathman, a point that it certainly seemed
that you misunderstood.
> But how many people
> are going to need to speak and write early modern English?
> Most people don't "internalize" the rules because most people
> are only reading that form of English.
Competent readers internalize such patterns as a matter of course,
simply because that's what attentive readers do. Even learners of
foreign tongues, while they may not always speak grammatically, often
note that something sounds amiss if they read something ungrammatical.
> > > >One common mistake I often see is
> > > > when people use "thou" with the "-eth" ending, as in "thou maketh"; I
> > > > guess they figure that those two elements are both "foreign" and not
> > > > part of modern English, so they must go together.
> > > The mistakes aren't that mysterious, especially when
> > > Shakespeare contains examples such as:
> > >
> > > "Thou must tell that knowest." (T&C)
> > >
> > > "'He that thou knowest thine, HAMLET.'" (Ham)
> > Again, this is correct use of the *second person* verb ending; "he
> > that knowest" is not, because the subject is in the third person.
> I am aware of that.
Then I still fail to see why you cited an irrelevant grammatically
correct example in defense of a grammatically incorrect utterance.
> The point of the example is that it
> is understandable how the mistake "he that knowest" could
> come about, because there are examples in Shakespeare where
> "he that" and "knowest" are in proximity.
Huh?! There are examples in Shakespeare where "he" occurs in
proximity to "known," but surely you don't expect an utterance like "he
known" to escape detection, even by the most oblivious reader.
> > > and Shakespeare didn't use "knoweth" at all, as
> > > far as I can see.
> > Shakespeare quite routinely uses "he hath" (for instance, one search
> > engine records 322 instances) the correct third person form of the verb
> > "to have"; he *never* uses "he hast," since "hast" is the second person
> > form; "thou hast" is correct (e.g., "O Hamlet, thou hast cleft my heart
> > in twain"), while "he hast" is incorrect, since it employs a second
> > person verb form with a third person subject pronoun. You will find the
> > same pattern regarding "dost" and "doth," "lovest" and "loveth," etc.
> >
> > Peter and Dave are not saying that "knowest" is never correct, only
> > that it is not correct with a third person subject. It would be like
> > writing "he know," "you is," or "she are" in contemporary English -- in
> > simple sentence structures, it would certainly be understood, but it
> > would also be ungrammatical and hence sound jarringly wrong. The fact
> > that Shakespeare never uses "knoweth" simply means that he never uses
> > the verb "to know" in the third person singular present indicative.
> I know, I know, I know. The point of pointing out that
> Shakespeare never writes "he that knoweth" is that if
> you are writing an imitation of an Elizabethan sonnet and
> checking each phrase to make sure that there is a counterpart
> in genuine Shakespeare, if you see "he that thou knowest", but
> don't see "he that knoweth", you might be inclined to
> make the error.
So you would expect a reader who encountered the utterance "He whom
you know" in a writer's canon but could not find an instance of "He that
knows" to conclude that "He that know" is grammatically correct?! If
so, your expectations are rather bizarre -- but that's exactly the
modern English analogue of what you're proposing.
> In the original thread ("Oxford sonnet?", dec 1998),
> not a single person pointed out the error in the sonnet,
> that includes Webb and J.W. Kennedy.
Of course not! Good Lord, man, have no sense of humor? I was
certainly not about to spoil the fun of watching ignorant and
inattentive but nonetheless invincibly self-confident anti-Stratfordians
make asses of themselves; indeed, I winced when John Kennedy voiced his
own suspicions, fearing that Crowley and others might be tipped off
before they had a chance to air their preposterous pontifications.
Although I had no clear idea who the "Ray Mignot" author might be, I
assumed that the grammatical gaffe -- in the very first line -- was an
intentional trap for the ignorant and tin-eared. It would not have been
sporting to have given the game away!
Of course, as events proved, I need not have worried -- as Peter
Groves already noted, and as Richard Kennedy obligingly demonstrated,
ignorant buffoons delight in parading their ignorance, whether the
subject be rudimentary grammar of Early Modern English, classical or
modern foreign languages, history, special relativity, etc., and in the
case of the more clueless buffoons like Crowley, Faker, and Elizabeth
Weird, they evidently cannot be deterred from such comic exhibitions.
> In fact J.W. Kennedy
> had lots of complaints about supposed errors in the
> sonnets that were all shown to have counterparts in
> genuine Shakespeare writings (like "words who pleaseth").
> I find all of this after-the-fact righteousness very
> amusing.
There is no "righteousness" involved on my part, after-the-fact or
otherwise. Rather, I was trying to explain the point that both Peter
Groves and Dave Kathman made already, a point that certainly appeared to
have eluded you -- that the first line of the sonnet was obviously,
jarringly ungrammatical. I yield to none in my admiration of the "Ray
Mignot" sonnet -- indeed, it furnished one of the most amusing
demonstrations in the history of the newsgroup of the comic credulity of
the clueless. Crowley obligingly opined that it was genuine, and even
Peter Wilson emerged from the woodwork long to inquire of "Ray Mignot"
who his professor was. It just goes to show that the fondest hopes are
nursed by the fondest dopes.
gangleri
What's your point?
Richard Kennedy
It isn't wise of Webb to bang on someone's tin ear, when during the
hot days of the Funeral Elegy he had no opinion of the wretched
poem. He couldn't make up his mind. Maybe it was by Shakespeare,
maybe not. He couldn't see any good in it, but then again he couldn't
see anything bad in it. He was an innocent bystander, and the great
brassy hooting of Kathman, Foster, et al, passed him by, and Webb
couldn't say diddly about the poem, talk about tin ears is not your
best hold, Webb.
John W. Kennedy
> In fact J.W. Kennedy
> had lots of complaints about supposed errors in the
> sonnets that were all shown to have counterparts in
> genuine Shakespeare writings (like "words who pleaseth").
> I find all of this after-the-fact righteousness very
> amusing.
"Words who pleaseth" is as completely impossible in EMnE as would be
"words which pleases" in MnE. As nearly as I can recall, my one error
was to question the use of "who" instead of "which" or "that", which,
although irregular in EMnE, happens to be a recognized personal quirk of
Shakespeare's.
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
Jim KQKnave
"John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Jim KQKnave wrote:
> > In fact J.W. Kennedy
> > had lots of complaints about supposed errors in the
> > sonnets that were all shown to have counterparts in
> > genuine Shakespeare writings (like "words who pleaseth").
> > I find all of this after-the-fact righteousness very
> > amusing.
>
> "Words who pleaseth" is as completely impossible in EMnE as would be
> "words which pleases" in MnE. As nearly as I can recall, my one error
> was to question the use of "who" instead of "which" or "that", which,
> although irregular in EMnE, happens to be a recognized personal quirk of
> Shakespeare's.
What, here? O nation, that thou couldst remove!
That Neptune's arms, who clippeth thee about,
Would bear thee from the knowledge of thyself! - King John
David L. Webb
"Richard Kennedy" <kenn...@charter.net> wrote:
> Webb writes: "Only an ignorant or tin-eared modern reader..." etc.
> It isn't wise of Webb to bang on someone's tin ear, when during the
> hot days of the Funeral Elegy he had no opinion of the wretched
> poem.
No, I definitely had an opinion; I did not much like the poem, as I
said quite clearly. However, my dislike of it did *not* mean that the
proposed Shakespeare authorship could be categorically ruled out --
whoever Shakespeare may have been, he/she certainly did not take my
aesthetic preferences into account when writing his/her poetic works.
> He couldn't make up his mind. Maybe it was by Shakespeare,
> maybe not. He couldn't see any good in it, but then again he couldn't
> see anything bad in it.
Oh, I saw *plenty* that I didn't particularly like (although I don't
think that the poem as is irredeemably awful as some of its detractors
have claimed); however, as noted above, my subjective aesthetic opinion
of the poem is utterly irrelevant to the question of its attribution.
> He was an innocent bystander, and the great
> brassy hooting of Kathman, Foster, et al, passed him by, and Webb
> couldn't say diddly about the poem, talk about tin ears is not your
> best hold, Webb.
The attribution of the poem relies upon subtle stylistic judgments
*far* beyond my expertise; when one lacks sufficient expertise in a
discipline to make an informed judgment, it is prudent to retain an
agnostic attitude, a point evidently lost upon inveterate buffoons like
Richard "Nom tibi de Vere" Kennedy.
By contrast, in the case of the "Ray Mignot" sonnet, it was evident
from the very first line (at least, to anyone possessing even a cursory
familiarity with the grammar of Early Modern English) that the sonnet
could not have been written by an Elizabethan. That Richard Kennedy did
not notice the grammatical gaffe is indeed remarkable, since it requires
only a modest familiarity with the grammatical structure of Early Modern
English, not a well-developed ear for stylistic nuances.
John W. Kennedy
> In article <Latpe.67067$NZ1....@fe09.lga>
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Jim KQKnave wrote:
>>
>>>In fact J.W. Kennedy
>>>had lots of complaints about supposed errors in the
>>>sonnets that were all shown to have counterparts in
>>>genuine Shakespeare writings (like "words who pleaseth").
>>>I find all of this after-the-fact righteousness very
>>>amusing.
>>
>>"Words who pleaseth" is as completely impossible in EMnE as would be
>>"words which pleases" in MnE. As nearly as I can recall, my one error
>>was to question the use of "who" instead of "which" or "that", which,
>>although irregular in EMnE, happens to be a recognized personal quirk of
>>Shakespeare's.
>
>
> What, here? O nation, that thou couldst remove!
> That Neptune's arms, who clippeth thee about,
> Would bear thee from the knowledge of thyself! - King John
As I pointed out back in 1998, this is hyperbaton, the antecedent of
"who" being "Neptune".
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Richard Kennedy
Shakespeare's sonnets, if someone was not hoaxing us, and >that<
should be our first investigation. And I was right, it was some
clownish business put up for our amusement.
As for the Funeral Elegy, being a lousy poem, I was all for
investigation. David Webb has nothing to list but this excuse:
"The attribution of the poem relies upon subtle stylistic judgments
*far* beyond my expertise; when one lacks sufficient expertise in a
discipline to make an informed judgment, it is prudent to retain an
agnostic attitude, a point evidently lost upon inveterate buffoons like
Richard "Nom tibi de Vere" Kennedy."
No, Webb, and tish for you, it was cowardice on your part. Anyone with
such big poetic chops as you claim for yourself would have known from
the first few lines that it couldn't have been by Shakespeare. A
puppy wrote it.
But you are not alone in your shame. How many Shakespeare scholars are
there in America, a few hundred, I suppose, and thousands of your own
amateur status. And how many protested the poem? Name six. And you are
not amongst them. Look how far Foster got with his scheme, all the way
to three college texts riding his high hog. The discussion went on for
weeks, there are over 500 lines of the wretched poem, and your best
reply was something like "Duh, I don't know, I'm a prudent
man." Tish and bosh, you and virtually all teachers of Shakespeare
were content to let the thing pass. You're a coward with the rest of
them, Webb. Either that or you're truly helpless about poetry and
will take instruction from the likes of Donald Foster, not knowing the
arrogance and ornament of deception from true scholarly investigation.
Obviously, a coward must put in a bite if he can, like a worm being
stepped on, and Webb puts out his nibble that I am a "buffoon". No
harm done, and another example of the baby-toothed tribe he runs with.
Jim KQKnave
> > What, here? O nation, that thou couldst remove!
> > That Neptune's arms, who clippeth thee about,
> > Would bear thee from the knowledge of thyself! - King John
>
> As I pointed out back in 1998, this is hyperbaton, the antecedent of
> "who" being "Neptune".
Want to define "hyperbaton" for us? My dictionary
and every online reference defines it as merely inversion of
normal word order.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
David L. Webb
"Richard Kennedy" <kenn...@charter.net> wrote:
> First off, the Mignot poem. I said it could pass as well as some of
> Shakespeare's sonnets,
Not with a glaring grammatical gaffe in the very first line -- but in
view of Richard "Nom tibi De Vere" Kennedy's complete incomprehension of
Latin grammar, it is perhaps overly exacting to expect him to be
familiar with the grammar of Early Modern English.
> if someone was not hoaxing us, and >that<
> should be our first investigation. And I was right, it was some
> clownish business put up for our amusement.
>
> As for the Funeral Elegy, being a lousy poem, I was all for
> investigation. David Webb has nothing to list but this excuse:
>
> "The attribution of the poem relies upon subtle stylistic judgments
> *far* beyond my expertise; when one lacks sufficient expertise in a
> discipline to make an informed judgment, it is prudent to retain an
> agnostic attitude, a point evidently lost upon inveterate buffoons like
> Richard "Nom tibi de Vere" Kennedy."
>
> No, Webb, and tish for you, it was cowardice on your part.
It is not cowardice to maintain an agnostic attitude concerning
matters about which one lacks the requisite expertise; however, as Peter
Groves reminds us, ignorant buffoons delight in parading their ignorance
publicly, and hence are deaf to the dictates of prudence.
> Anyone with
> such big poetic chops as you claim for yourself
Can Richard Kennedy furnish any quotation in which I have claimed
"big poetic chops"? Of course not. First, I have never made any such
claim -- indeed, I have repeatedly and explicitly *denied* possessing
the requisite expertise. Second, Richard Kennedy has never yet backed
up the absurd utterances that he apparently invents or hallucinates and
then attributes to others, so one certainly does not expect him to do so
now. The reasons for this conspicuous failure of his may be complex,
but there are two obvious explanations: first, Kennedy is demonstrably
incapable of using a search engine, and second, even if he were not so
afflicted, his dysfunctional memory would not permit him to recall
pertinent search keywords anyway -- indeed, Kennedy cannot even recall
what he has said *himself*, let alone what was said by anyone else:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/a66fec1b59d8475a?dmode=source&hl=en>
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/833465491320323e?dmode=source&hl=en>
> would have known from
> the first few lines that it couldn't have been by Shakespeare. A
> puppy wrote it.
Someone competent in the rudiments of Early Modern English grammar
would have known from the very first line that the "Ray Mignot" sonnet
was not written by an Elizabethan. That determination demands no "big
poetic chops," which I have never claimed anyway; rather, it requires
only a nodding familiarity with grammar, a familiarity evidently not
shared by Richard Kennedy or Paul Crowley.
> But you are not alone in your shame.
There is no shame whatever in having no opinion on a question that
falls well outside one's expertise -- except of course to buffoons, who
delight in exhibiting their ignorance and incompetence.
> How many Shakespeare scholars are
> there in America, a few hundred, I suppose, and thousands of your own
> amateur status. And how many protested the poem? Name six. And you are
> not amongst them. Look how far Foster got with his scheme, all the way
> to three college texts riding his high hog. The discussion went on for
> weeks, there are over 500 lines of the wretched poem, and your best
> reply was something like "Duh, I don't know, I'm a prudent
> man." Tish and bosh, you and virtually all teachers of Shakespeare
> were content to let the thing pass. You're a coward with the rest of
> them, Webb. Either that or you're truly helpless about poetry and
> will take instruction from the likes of Donald Foster,
I have never claimed any expertise in Elizabethan poetry. Nor have I
ever "take[n] instruction" from Donald Foster -- indeed, although
intrigued, I remained *unconvinced* by Foster's proposed attribution,
although I wisely recognized that I lacked the expertise to have an
informed opinion, and hence remained undecided. Had I in fact taken
instruction from Foster, I don't know whether he could have taught me
much about poetry or not. Had Richard Kennedy taken instruction from
someone like Foster, the former might at least have learned a few of the
rudiments of the grammar of Early Modern English -- but here perhaps I
overestimate Kennedy's receptivity to instruction; Peter Groves has
characterized Kennedy as "unteachable," and perhaps he is right:
"...what distinguishes anti-Strat nutters like Crowley, Weir and
Kennedy is their grotesque and unteachable confidence in expressing
opinions about matters on which they must know they are ignorant."
"He's such an unteachable idiot -- he still doesn't get it. I am
reminded of that 'TIBI NOM DE VERE = My name is De Vere' rubbish he
kept posting."
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/7de1718a107d2dfa?dmode=source&hl=en>
> not knowing the
> arrogance and ornament of deception from true scholarly investigation.
>
>
> Obviously, a coward must put in a bite if he can, like a worm being
> stepped on, and Webb puts out his nibble that I am a "buffoon".
It was Peter Groves who applied the term to Kennedy, but I fear that
I must agree: I can think of no better word for someone who, lacking
even minimal competence in the areas in question, persists in parading
his ignorance concerning Latin,
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/fc67fefc8c30fe6d?dmode=source&hl=en>
his inability to distinguish various letters of the English alphabet, or
even to count to four,
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/aba7dcfcc6d06e88?dmode=source&hl=en>
his inability to distinguish text from commentary,
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/38e4bc54a07cb953?dmode=source&hl=en>
and even his inability to use a dictionary:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/99d6651690d03cd5?dmode=source&hl=en>.
The prudent profess agnosticism when confronted with questions outside
their expertise, but buffoons rush in where the prudent fear to tread.
Richard Kennedy
cowardice in the face of Prof. Donald Foster and the mighty copper
giant Shaxicon. Simply, you were afraid to go against the great engines
of a tenured academic and a carrot-dicing robot, that's my opinion.
You say:
"It is not cowardice to maintain an agnostic attitude concerning
matters about which one lacks the requisite expertise...."
Come, now, Webb, no one would believe this of you. You're one of the
well-known spouters at HLAS, a very whale of hot wind, a plume of quick
and ignorant opinion, and the stink of fish.
Naturally, a man wishes not to be a coward, and so you wish to talk of
several other things, I understand entirely, and I trust that others
will also understand. You're a sheepshead, Webb, and I doubt you've
ever been outside the fold in your life.
David L. Webb
"Richard Kennedy" <kenn...@charter.net> wrote:
> Webb, you defend at all points except to answer to the charge of
> cowardice in the face of Prof. Donald Foster
In nothing does an incompetent buffoon reveal himself more plainly
than in the professed belief that reserving judgment on questions in
which one lacks the pertinent expertise constitutes "cowardice." I am
grateful to Richard Kennedy for furnishing a demonstration far more
convincing than any I could have devised of Peter's point concerning
ignorant buffoons.
> and the mighty copper
> giant Shaxicon.
Huh? I have never opined that the Shaxicon methodology was
definitive, except in jest:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/c849273e92b193c4?dmode=source&hl=en>.
> Simply, you were afraid to go against the great engines
> of a tenured academic
The idea that I am somehow intimidated by a "tenured academic" is
surely among Kennedy's most amusing fantasies (or hallucinations); I
work among tenured academics every day.
> and a carrot-dicing robot, that's my opinion.
Richard Kennedy has been warned repeatedly about the peril of
imprudently expressing strong opinions on matters of which he is
uninformed -- but the chief hallmark of an ignorant buffoon is an
unseemly, almost pathological eagerness to do exactly that. (It is
unfair, however, to hold Kennedy to that standard; indeed, if he only
expressed opinions concerning matters of which he was moderately well
informed, then all evidence thus far suggests that he would perforce
remain forever mute.)
> You say:
>
> "It is not cowardice to maintain an agnostic attitude concerning
> matters about which one lacks the requisite expertise...."
>
> Come, now, Webb, no one would believe this of you. You're one of the
> well-known spouters at HLAS, a very whale of hot wind, a plume of quick
> and ignorant opinion,
I generally strive *not* to express strong opinions on subjects of
which I am utterly ignorant, a prudent trait not shared by ignorant
buffoons, and one that I must really enjoin Richard Kennedy to strive to
cultivate. Fortunately, I am moderately conversant in the grammar of my
native tongue, so I am not easily misled by modern pastiches containing
jarring grammatical errors:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/17f2f4c358e856cc?dmode=source&hl=en>.
Moreover, I know how to use a dictionary, so I am not easily misled by
the comic blunders of incompetent dictionary users:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/99d6651690d03cd5?dmode=source&hl=en>.
Finally, I can tell text from commentary, and I can read books (not just
their indices), so I am not readily misled by the blunders of buffoons:
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m
sg/38e4bc54a07cb953?dmode=source&hl=en>.
> and the stink of fish.
Fish is reputed to be brain food. Small wonder that Richard Kennedy
exhibits an aVERsion to partaking of it.
> Naturally, a man wishes not to be a coward,
If by "coward" Kennedy means someone who wisely withholds judgment on
matters in which he lacks expertise (and indeed, in view of what Kennedy
has written above, he does appear to be laboring under the delusion that
that is what the word means -- as we have seen, Kennedy's competence in
the use of a dictionary is not up to the usual middle school standard),
then I am not in the least offended or distressed by the use of the
epithet. Indeed, it is rather like being called some four-letter word
by a child who is dimly aware that the word in question is provocative,
but is utterly unfamiliar with its meaning.
> and so you wish to talk of
> several other things, I understand entirely, and I trust that others
> will also understand. You're a sheepshead, Webb, and I doubt you've
> ever been outside the fold in your life.
This last sentence is particularly funny, betraying as it does both
Richard Kennedy's utter unfamiliarity with the scientific literature and
his farcical inability to use a library.