Globe and Mail report
Tom Reedy
Face-off over a portrait
Intriguing things came out at a forum on the reputed
Shakespeare likeness, writes STEPHANIE NOLEN, including
Oxfordians
By STEPHANIE NOLEN
Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - Print Edition, Page R5
TORONTO -- The announcement sent gasps through a quiet
lecture hall: last Saturday morning in Toronto, a noted
British art historian revealed that she had found John
Sanders.
Not, it turned out, the John Sanders. But a John
Sanders, who painted portraits in Jacobean England. And
that was enough to set the crowd atan interdisciplinary
symposium on the Sanders portrait of Shakespeare
buzzing.
The portrait, owned by a retired Ottawa engineer named
Lloyd Sullivan and made public in The Globe and Mail
last May, may be the only portrait of William
Shakespeare painted from life. Its sitter is identified
as Shakespeare in a label on the back, and the
painting's date of 1603 (though not the identity of the
sitter) has been authenticated through a battery of
scientific and art-historical analysis. According to
family lore, it was painted by John Sanders, a minor
actor in Shakespeare's company. But neither Sullivan
nor various experts had been able to find any record of
such an actor -- or painter.
But on Saturday, Tarnya Cooper, an expert in
Elizabethan portraiture who teaches at University
College London and is the acting curator of 16th- and
17th-century collections at Britain's National Portrait
Gallery, told a crowd of scientists, academics and lay
folk that she had found a family of painting Sanderses
in London.
"I found 'John Sanders' as a painter active in London
in the 1640s . . . in the Guildhall manuscripts
archive, the court minutes for the painter-stainers,"
she said. The records, for what was in essence a trade
association of apprentice painters, survive from 1623.
Clearly this John Sanders (an apprentice at the time,
so likely in his early 20s) did not create the Sanders
portrait in 1603. But Cooper suggested it was
nonetheless an important clue. "Like most tradesmen,
sons of painters frequently followed in their father's
footsteps," she explained. "So although this John
Sanders is not the individual, we can link with the
family tradition of a Sanders portrait. The information
does provide clear evidence that a Sanders family were
practising artists in the later 17th century. . . . In
these records, 'John Sanders' (or occasionally
Saunders) is documented as a painter of coats of arms
who is made free of the company [became a fully-fledged
painter] on July 13, 1647. . . ."
The records also revealed that this John Sanders later
had a son of the same name who was also a painter,
suggesting that John Sanders was a family name, Cooper
added.
This was an important revelation for Sullivan (who was
in the audience and who called Cooper's news
"exciting") because the mysterious identity of the
artist, and the fact that the Sanders attribution rests
only in oral tradition, is a key criticism of those who
doubt the Sanders sitter is Shakespeare.
"I was completely astonished to find him," Cooper
admitted later.
Alexandra Johnston, director of the Records of Early
English Drama project at the University of Toronto
(which, with the Art Gallery of Ontario, organized the
symposium) pronounced herself well pleased with
"Picturing Shakespeare," saying the event's unusual mix
of Shakespeareans, forensic experts and curious
civilians had been a greater success than she dared
hope. While no firm conclusion on the sitter's identity
was reached, there was plenty of "lively debate," she
said.
A pair of British costume experts, who dissected the
doublet worn by the portrait sitter for all the
information it holds, were symposium favourites. Jenny
Tiramani, the director of theatre design at the
Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London and an expert in
the clothing practices of actors in Shakepeare's time,
revealed new clues from the "laces" (or decorative
braid) in the doublet.
Tiramani had experts at the Globe recreate the
decorative pattern in the doublet with a number of
different fabrics, using methods and materials from the
early 1600s. Consensus from the symposium-goers
mirrored Tiramani's own conclusions. "I couldn't make
wool or leather look like the painting. Only silver
thread" on silk satin recreates the look of the
portrait.
And that is indeed a clue. Until 1604, England had
sumptuary laws which strictly governed who could wear
what colours, fabrics and styles of decoration. Only
earls, marquises and dukes could wear purple silk, for
example.
"People dressed to the top of what they were allowed,"
Tiramani explained, noting that Elizabethans were quick
to modify their wardrobe as soon as a small jump in
social status put new options (such as silver laces)
open to them. "Silk lace on silk satin was something
only a gentleman could wear," she said -- and 1603 was
the earliest the social-climbing Shakespeare would have
been permitted such ornamentation.
But while Tiramani's small samples of doublet stitching
had people buzzing, the main source of chatter at the
symposium had little to do with the Sanders portrait.
The conference was (in the words of one startled
organizer) "infiltrated" by a small band of
"Oxfordians" -- those who believe that Edward de Vere,
the 17th Earl of Oxford, actually wrote the plays
attributed to William Shakespeare.
The Oxfordians in the crowd were in fact fairly easy to
identify, because they wore large buttons reading
"Oxford is Shakespeare" and because they raised their
hands immediately at the end of every lecture to make
some case for their hero -- asking a costume historian
whether a mere playwright could possibly have known
enough about court dress to accurately describe the
gold and pearl on King Henry's coronation robes, for
example.
The Oxfordians were particularly keen to get their
metaphoric hands on Erin Blake, an expatriate
Vancouverite who serves as curator of art at the Folger
Shakespeare Library in Washington. Blake spoke about
the various putative portraits of Shakespeare,
including one called the Ashbourne, which the Folger
owns and which a 1940 restoration revealed to be a
portrait of another British noble, altered to look like
other images of Shakespeare. Blake had no sooner
flipped the last page of her notes when the Oxfordians
began to grill her about the Ashbourne ear.
"The ear?" asked Blake.
As she explained later, Oxfordians "believe the Folger
has repeatedly damaged the painting to disguise that
the Earl of Oxford is the true sitter, in order to
bolster the claim that he wrote the plays, not the man
from Stratford." Blake reassured her audience that she
has "looked carefully at all the evidence in Ashbourne
files" and there is "nothing out of the ordinary." But
the Oxfordians, led by amateur art historian Barbara
Buriss, allege among other points that the Folger has
changed the shape of the Ashbourne sitter's ear so it
looks less like the Earl's is known to have looked.
They seemed unpersuaded by Blake's assurances that
there had been no tampering with the painting.
"I also can't prove the painting wasn't deposited by
space aliens," the curator said with a sigh shortly
after leaving the lectern.
Nothing, it appears, irritates a room full of
Shakespeareans more than Oxfordians: By the end of the
conference, as the Earl's supporters tried to make one
last point, they were shouted down by an angry tide of
hissing, paper-rattling, symposium participants. And
then the Stratfordians, as they're known, retired to
the University Art Centre for a bracing drink, with the
whimsical face of the Sanders sitter looking out over
them.
The Globe's Stephanie Nolen is co-author of the book
Shakespeare's Face, which tells the story of the
Sanders portrait.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All
Rights Reserved.
David Kathman
Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Oxfordians in question were Bill Boyle, Roger
STritmatter, and Lynne Kositsky, who sat together for
most of the talks. Roger sprinted up to ask the first
question after the first talk on Friday, but then was
pretty much ignored for the rest of the conference.
Barbara Burris was also there, and probably some other
Oxfordians I don't know.
There was another article in the Globe and Mail the day
before the conference, on Thursday, which quoted me.
Stephanie Nolen also interviewed me for this one, but
they must have figured that I had my day in the sun.
I did find a John Sanders who almost certainly knew
John Heminges personally; they were both members of the
Grocers' Company in London, and were from neighboring
towns in Worcestershire. But Tarnya Cooper's discovery
was pretty interesting, too. All in all, it was a
pretty good conference. Nothing definitive on the
portrait, but lots of interesting talks and discussion.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Art Neuendorffer
> From http://globeandmail.com/
>
> Face-off over a portrait
>
> Intriguing things came out at a forum on the reputed
> Shakespeare likeness, writes STEPHANIE NOLEN,
> including Oxfordians
>
> By STEPHANIE NOLEN
>
> Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - Print Edition, Page R5
>
> TORONTO -- The announcement sent gasps through a quiet
> lecture hall: last Saturday morning in Toronto, a noted
> British art historian revealed that she had found John
> Sanders.
> Nothing, it appears, irritates a room full of
> Shakespeareans more than Oxfordians: By the end of the
> conference, as the Earl's supporters tried to make one
> last point, they were shouted down by an angry tide of
> hissing, paper-rattling, symposium participants. And
> then the Stratfordians, as they're known, retired to
> the University Art Centre for a bracing drink, with the
> whimsical face of the Sanders sitter looking out over
> them.
> -------------------------------------------------------
Very mature.
Art N.
Spam Scone
As opposed to dragging in nutcase charges of the Folger altering
paintings?
I suspect you're just upset they wouldn't let you in with your
inflated pig's bladder.
Art Neuendorffer
>>>From http://globeandmail.com/
>>>
>>>Face-off over a portrait
>>>
>>>Intriguing things came out at a forum on the reputed
>>>Shakespeare likeness, writes STEPHANIE NOLEN,
>>> including Oxfordians
>>>
>>>By STEPHANIE NOLEN
>>>
>>>Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - Print Edition, Page R5
>>>
>>>TORONTO -- The announcement sent gasps through a quiet
>>>lecture hall: last Saturday morning in Toronto, a noted
>>>British art historian revealed that she had found John
>>>Sanders.
>>>Nothing, it appears, irritates a room full of
>>>Shakespeareans more than Oxfordians: By the end of the
>>>conference, as the Earl's supporters tried to make one
>>>last point, they were shouted down by an angry tide of
>>>hissing, paper-rattling, symposium participants. And
>>>then the Stratfordians, as they're known, retired to
>>>the University Art Centre for a bracing drink, with the
>>>whimsical face of the Sanders sitter looking out over
>>>them.
>>>-------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Very mature.
Spam Scone wrote:
> As opposed to dragging in nutcase charges
> of the Folger altering paintings?
"The ear?"
---------------------------------------------------
"The ear?" asked Blake.
---------------------------------------------------
> I suspect you're just upset they wouldn't let you
> in with your inflated pig's bladder.
I would never get
between Barbara Buriss & Blake with but a bladder.
Art Neuendorffer
Lynne
> The Oxfordians in question were Bill Boyle, Roger
> STritmatter, and Lynne Kositsky, who sat together for
> most of the talks. Roger sprinted up to ask the first
> question after the first talk on Friday, but then was
> pretty much ignored for the rest of the conference.
> Barbara Burris was also there, and probably some other
> Oxfordians I don't know.
>
Now, now, David, you know I sat on my own most of the time up at the
back because my immune system is down. And I hardly squeaked right
through the conference. We were all, in fact, as quiet and respectful
as everyone else. There were at least twelve (out of the closet)
Oxfordians there, not just Roger and Bill and me, and Nolen only went
for the jugular with us in her article to divert attention away from
the fact that the majority of invited speakers said that either the
Sanders wasn't William Shakespeare or it could never be proven to be.
We didn't infiltrate, by the way. I had asked Professor Johnston
months ago if we would be welcome and she replied in the affirmative.
We paid our registration just like everyone else and were all
fascinated by what we learned about early vernacular portraiture. I
enjoyed your talk.
We kept our questions on the Ashbourne to the end because we were
asked to. And if everyone's so sure the Ashbourne isn't The Earl of
Oxford, why is the Folgers so careful not to submit it to the same
tests, such as fluorescence to show evidence of overpainting, that the
Sanders underwent?
It was nice to meet you.
Lynne
Greg Reynolds
Lynne wrote:
Lynne, why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
from the Earl of Southampton?
I'll sit down and wait for your answer. I expect it
to be a hugely imaginary work, because there is
no sensible explanation for it, because it is ridiculous,
and because it effectively dismisses Oxfordianism.
But, please tell.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer
> why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
> from the Earl of Southampton?
How do you know he was seeking patronage?
The poetry was all dedicated to Southampton
(Mr. W.H.) as 'the onlie begetter'
(whatever that meant).
(And what if he was seeking patronage;
he wasn't the wealthiest earl.)
> there is no sensible explanation for it,
> because it is ridiculous,
> and because it effectively dismisses Oxfordianism.
There are a hundred more sensible explanations than
the illiterate Stratford boob knowing Southampton.
Art Neuendorffer
Lorenzo4344
>From: Greg Reynolds eve...@core.com
>Date: 11/30/2002
>Lynne, why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
>from the Earl of Southampton?
I don't know what Lynne thinks, Greg, but these...
VENUS AND ADONIS
I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolished lines to your
lordship...
THE RAPE OF LUCRECE
The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end...
... are dedications.
You show me the plugging for pence parts.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Greg Reynolds
> >Subject: Re: Globe and Mail report
> >From: Greg Reynolds eve...@core.com
> >Date: 11/30/2002
>
> >Lynne, why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
> >from the Earl of Southampton?
>
> I don't know what Lynne thinks, Greg,
Let's hope she understands the question. It would help.
> but these...
>
> VENUS AND ADONIS
> I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolished lines to your
> lordship...
>
> THE RAPE OF LUCRECE
> The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end...
>
> ... are dedications.
Good work!
I'll show the entire context below and we can figure it out together!
> You show me the plugging for pence parts.
>
> Lorenzo
> "Mark the music."
Stick to the music, Lorenzo, because you sure have trouble marking the words.
Pence is YOUR idea, not mine!
I said patronage. You then flew away on a tangent, wow how amazing..
Art also saw pound signs. Just look up "patronage" and learn that it means
(from 3 different sources):
pa·tron·age
1. The support or encouragement of a patron, as for an institution or cause.
2. Support or encouragement proffered in a condescending manner
3. The trade given to a commercial establishment by its customers:
4. Customers or patrons considered as a group; clientele
5. a. The power to distribute or appoint people to governmental or political positions.
b. The act of distributing or appointing people to such positions.
c. The positions so distributed or filled.
6. The right to grant an ecclesiastical benefice to a member of the clergy.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
patronage
1. Special countenance or support; favor, encouragement, or aid, afforded to a
person or a work; as, the patronage of letters; patronage given to an author.
2. Business custom.
3. Guardianship, as of a saint; tutelary care.
4. The right of nomination to political office; also, the offices, contracts, honors,
etc., which a public officer may bestow by favor.
5. (Eng. Law) The right of presentation to church or ecclesiastical benefice; advowson.
--Blackstone.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Wow, still no "plugging for pence" mentions, Lorenzo.
Here's the definition of patronage in Shakespeare's time,
when the word was a verb:
patronage
Pa"tron*age\, v. t. To act as a patron of; to maintain; to defend. [Obs.] --Shak.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Oxfordians plugged in the money aspect, I was speaking of the above
aspects of patronage (using the word's definition and not the Oxfordian
misinterpretations).
Following is what Lorenzo omitted. I will offset the patronage-seeking
with **double stars**. Shakespeare is sublimating to the Earl
that there be "harvest" and "greater worth."
Note that the first piece, V&A is formal and humble, because the two
are not acquainted (as Oxforde and Southampton would surely be) and that
the second, RoL, is more familiar and self-assured, due to the natural
progression of their relationship based on some consideration (patronage!):
Venus and Adonis (1593)
'Vilia miretur vulgus; mihi flavus Apollo
Pocula Castalia plena ministret aqua.'
TO THE
RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLY,
EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND BARON OF TICHFIELD.
RIGHT HONORABLE,
I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how
the world will censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burden
only, if your honour seem but pleased, I account myself highly praised, and vow to take
advantage of all idle hours, till I have honoured you with some graver labour. But if the
first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a
**god-father,**
and **never after ear so barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest.**
**I leave it to your honourable survey,** and your honour to your heart's content; which
I wish may always answer your own wish and the world's hopeful expectation..
Your honour's in all duty,
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.
[To EAR land is to plough it and prepare it for cultivation, as the poet
is doing to the patron, Southampton here.]
The Rape of Lucrece (1594)
TO THE
RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLY,
Earl of Southampton, and Baron of Tichfield.
The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end; whereof this pamphlet, without
beginning, is but a superfluous moiety. The warrant I have of your honourable
disposition, not the **worth** of my untutored lines, makes it assured of acceptance. What I
have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours.
**Were my worth greater,** my duty would show greater; meantime, as it is, it is bound to
your lordship, to whom I wish long life, still lengthened with all happiness.
Your lordship's in all duty,
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.
+++
SO, forget the cash. Tell me how the erstwhile powerful
Earl of Oxforde, Lord Great Chamberlain, has to wimp
and moan and coddle and beg and plead and kiss and
hug and emasculate himself publicly to gain the favor
of the lesser earl.
The real Shakespeare needed this protection of a noble,
whereas Oxforde did not! In fact Oxforde provided just
such patronage to many others.
SO, Oxfordianism is a house of mirrors full of people
who can't explain what they're looking at.
Mark that!
If you can understand the question as written, jump
right in, Lorenzo. I'm always ready to learn about this
earl that you speak of.
Yowrs in all kindenes,
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
> > from the Earl of Southampton?
>
> How do you know he was seeking patronage?
Because he signed his pseudonym!
(rim shot.)
> The poetry was all dedicated to Southampton
> (Mr. W.H.) as 'the onlie begetter'
> (whatever that meant).
Okay, have bigger problems if you like, Art.
Why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
from the Earl of Southampton and call WH
the onlie begetter.
> (And what if he was seeking patronage;
> he wasn't the wealthiest earl.)
I wonder if Lynne would handle this question
as ineptly as you, Art, stepping all over yourself.
I will hold you to your words, so make them good.
Now you've accepted that for money, the Earl of
Oxforde would publicly humble himself to the Earl of
Southampton. Yes?
> > there is no sensible explanation for it,
> > because it is ridiculous,
> > and because it effectively dismisses Oxfordianism.
>
> There are a hundred more sensible explanations than
> the illiterate Stratford boob knowing Southampton.
Yeah. The king was hallucinating when he named
the exact same person as royal servant, bought him
scarlet cloth for the royal (coronation) procession,
and ordered that his drama be presented. And
Southampton never heard anything about it.
It is more sensible for you to ignore history and talk
about boobs, Art. That's why you're failing here at HLAS.
You ignore the material. And you don't play nice with the
others. For instance, Mr Neuendorffer, you have been
making fun of the Stratford person, but consider that he
had a loyal wife and family, extensive property holdings
in Stratford and London, a royal appointment by King
James, and great fame until this very day! The earl had
none of these things and do you know why?
Because he was a boob. He couldn't even swing
a tomb or a will or a friend.
Greg Reynolds
Lynne
> Lynne, why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
> from the Earl of Southampton?
>
> I'll sit down and wait for your answer. I expect it
> to be a hugely imaginary work, because there is
> no sensible explanation for it, because it is ridiculous,
> and because it effectively dismisses Oxfordianism.
> But, please tell.
>
> Greg Reynolds
Well, Greg, I do write hugely imaginary works because I'm an author.
Look for me on Amazon.ca (I'm not, however, as imaginative as Nolen
was about us in her supposedly objective article.) But if you're
sitting waiting for an answer from me about patronage, you'll be
waiting for a long time. Other people on this thread have already
answered at least as well as I could. And besides, you didn't answer
my question. Why not subject the Ashbourne to a full battery of tests
at the CCI which will really show if, when, and how much the portrait
has been messed around with? Wouldn't that end the speculation to
everyone's satisfaction?
It's time for people to stop ridiculing one another and seek the truth
in a relatively sane way.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
>>>why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
>>> from the Earl of Southampton?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> How do you know he was seeking patronage?
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> Because he signed his pseudonym! (rim shot.)
William Shake-speare was Oxford's pseudonym?
>> The poetry was all dedicated to Southampton
>> (Mr. W.H.) as 'the onlie begetter'
>> (whatever that meant).
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> Okay, have bigger problems if you like, Art.
> Why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
> from the Earl of Southampton and call WH
> the onlie begetter.
I don't know for sure.
>> (And what if he was seeking patronage;
>> he wasn't the wealthiest earl.)
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> I wonder if Lynne would handle this question
> as ineptly as you, Art, stepping all over yourself.
Probably not.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> I will hold you to your words, so make them good.
> Now you've accepted that for money, the Earl of
> Oxforde would publicly humble himself to the Earl of
> Southampton. Yes?
In my opinion the Earl of Oxforde allowed himself to be
publicly humiliated in order to get his works published.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/etexts/si/09-1.htm
<<For, not merely in an odd sentence, but as the burden
of some of his most powerful sonnets, he tells us in the
plainest of terms, that he was one whose name had fallen
into disrepute and who wished that it should perish with him.
"No longer mourn for me when I am dead,
Than you shall hear-the surly sullen bell;
Give warning to the world that I am fled
From this vile world, with vilest worms to dwell;
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it."
"My name be buried where my body is,
And live no more to shame nor me nor you."
"Or I shall live your epitaph to make,
Or you survive when I in earth am rotten,
From hence your memory death cannot take,
Although in me each part will be forgotten.
Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
Though I, once gone, to all the world must die."
"Alas, 'tis true, I have gone here and there,
And made myself a motley to the view."
"Thence comes it that my name receives a brand."
"Your love and pity doth the impression, fill,
Which vulgar scandal stamp'd upon my brow."
When to all this we find him adding the fear
"That every word doth almost tell my name,"
-----------------------------------------------------
>>Greg Reynolds wrote:
>>> there is no sensible explanation for it,
>>> because it is ridiculous,
>>>and because it effectively dismisses Oxfordianism.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> There are a hundred more sensible explanations than
>> the illiterate Stratford boob knowing Southampton.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> Yeah. The king was hallucinating when he named
> the exact same person as royal servant, bought him
> scarlet cloth for the royal (coronation) procession,
> and ordered that his drama be presented.
You think the king involved himself in such details?
> And Southampton never heard anything about it.
You think Southampton involved himself in such details?
> It is more sensible for you to ignore history and talk
> about boobs, Art.
I've followed the "history" of this particular boob
very carefully, Greg.
> That's why you're failing here at HLAS.
The reason I'm failing (to attract much of a following)
here at HLAS is that the subject is so complicated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'Shakespeare has surface beneath surface, to an immeasurable depth,
adapted to the plummet-line of EVERy reader. His works present many
phases of TRUTH, each with scope large enough to fill a contemplative
mind. WhatEVER you seek in him you will surely discoVER, provided you
seek TRUTH. There is no exhausting the various interpretation of his
symbols; and a thousand years hence a world of new readers will possess
a whole library of new books, as we ourselves do, in these volumes
old already.' -- (Our Old Home, p. 106) Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1863.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> You ignore the material.
When it comes to the illiterate Stratford boob
I can't see any material:
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<So the Emperor went along in the procession under the splendid
canopy, and all the people in the streets and at the windows
said, 'How matchless are the Emperor's new clothes!
That train fastened to his dress, how beautifully it hangs!'
No one wished it to be noticed that he could see nothing,
for then he would have been unfit for his office,
or else very stupid.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Chamberlain's Book of Accounts for 15 March 1604
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/SHAX/lc1604.html
"Dramatic Records: The Lord Chamberlain's Office,"
PRO LC 2/4/5
Players
862.William Shakespeare [4.5 RC]
863.Augustine Phillipps [4.5 RC]
864.Lawrence ffletcher [4.5 RC]
865.Iohn Hemming{es} [4.5 RC]
866.Richard Burbidge [4.5 RC]
p. 79
867.William Slye [4.5 RC]
868.Robert Armyn [4.5 RC]
869.Henry Cundell [4.5 RC]
870.Richard Cowley [4.5 RC]
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosicrucians should:
1) use R.C. as their only seal and character.
2) wear no special habit.
3) choose their successors.
[Seligmann's _The History of Magic & the Occult_ p.288]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> And you don't play nice with the
> others. For instance, Mr Neuendorffer, you have been
> making fun of the Stratford person, but consider that he
> had a loyal wife and family, extensive property holdings
> in Stratford and London, a royal appointment by King
> James, and great fame until this very day! The earl had
> none of these things and do you know why?
Because he allowed himself to be publicly humiliated
in order to get his works published.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"No longer mourn for me when I am dead,
Than you shall hear-the surly sullen bell;
Give warning to the world that I am fled
From this vile world, with vilest worms to dwell;
Nay, if you read this line, remember not
The hand that writ it."
"My name be buried where my body is,
And live no more to shame nor me nor you."
"Or I shall live your epitaph to make,
Or you survive when I in earth am rotten,
From hence your memory death cannot take,
Although in me each part will be forgotten.
Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
Though I, once gone, to all the world must die."
"Alas, 'tis true, I have gone here and there,
And made myself a motley to the view."
"Thence comes it that my name receives a brand."
"Your love and pity doth the impression, fill,
Which vulgar scandal stamp'd upon my brow."
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> Because he was a boob. He couldn't even swing
> a tomb or a will or a friend.
He got published.
Art Neuendorffer
Bob Grumman
> at the CCI which will really show if, when, and how much the portrait
> has been messed around with? Wouldn't that end the speculation to
> everyone's satisfaction?
No. It has already been sufficiently tested to convince everyone but wacks
that it's what the Folger says it is.
> It's time for people to stop ridiculing one another and seek the truth
> in a relatively sane way.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
Another wack who thinks that ridicule and the search for truth can't
co-exist.
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
Lynne wrote:
> >
> > Lynne, why did the Earl of Oxforde seek patronage
> > from the Earl of Southampton?
> >
> > I'll sit down and wait for your answer. I expect it
> > to be a hugely imaginary work, because there is
> > no sensible explanation for it, because it is ridiculous,
> > and because it effectively dismisses Oxfordianism.
> > But, please tell.
> >
> > Greg Reynolds
>
> Well, Greg, I do write hugely imaginary works because I'm an author.
> Look for me on Amazon.ca (I'm not, however, as imaginative as Nolen
> was about us in her supposedly objective article.) But if you're
> sitting waiting for an answer from me about patronage, you'll be
> waiting for a long time. Other people on this thread have already
> answered at least as well as I could. And besides, you didn't answer
> my question. Why not subject the Ashbourne to a full battery of tests
> at the CCI which will really show if, when, and how much the portrait
> has been messed around with? Wouldn't that end the speculation to
> everyone's satisfaction?
Well, Lynne, the science escapes me so don't
expect an answer soon. But I don't think
that Oxfordians experience "satisfaction" so
I'll guess no.
> It's time for people to stop ridiculing one another and seek the truth
> in a relatively sane way.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
The truth is you have no explanation. Oxford did
not seek Southampton's patronage and Oxfordianism
is therefore null and void.
NEXT!
Greg Reynolds
(don't get me wrong--Oxfordianism is Bliss--I just can't find the time for it)
Art Neuendorffer
> Oxford did not seek Southampton's patronage
> and Oxfordianism is therefore null and void.
That's the silliest thing I ever heard.
Art N.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
For me it was when you called Cadfael a Franciscan.
Might as well make him a Jesuit for Christ's sake.
G-Rey
BCD
> In my opinion the Earl of Oxforde allowed himself to be
> publicly humiliated in order to get his works published.
***Public humiliation has not usually been considered a prerequisite to
publication. In fact, as all published writers know, public humiliation
inevitably *follows* publication rather than to precede it. The humiliation
which precedes publication is supplied privately, by one's publisher, during
the contract negotiations.
> [...]
> He got published.
***Given a willing author, how difficult was it in Shakespeare's era to get
published?
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Web Site: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor
Visit unknown Los Angeles: http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
Art Neuendorffer
>>>Oxford did not seek Southampton's patronage
>>>and Oxfordianism is therefore null and void.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> That's the silliest thing I ever heard.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> For me it was when you called Cadfael a Franciscan.
> Might as well make him a Jesuit for Christ's sake.
Might as well make him a Stratfordian:
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jmucci.com/ER/store/controversy.htm
In an interview in The Washington Times, 4/25/1997,
Sir Derek Jacobi said:
"I agreed to put my name to a school of thought
that maintains that the earl, Edward de Vere,
was the author of the plays. Where did this Shakespeare come from? Where
did all that knowledge and eloquence and truth come from? ... I am
highly suspicious of that gentleman from Stratford on Avon, ... I'm
pretty convinced our playwright wasn't that fellow. This opinion is very
unpopular with the good burghers of Stratford, I realize, but they also
make their living on the legend of Shakespeare's local origins. I don't
think it was him."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<From the Oxford Society Newsletter, Spring 2000, after Gielgud died.
"In 1994 a london Newspaper reported that Gielgud had signed Charles
Boyle's petition calling for an academic inquiry into the question of
Shakespeare's identity. In the same year Gielgud replied to Richard
Whalen's request for an introduction to his book, Skakespeare, Who Was
He? He said that he admired the book , adding, "I confess to being
very inclined to side with you and the Oxfordians, but I do not relish
the idea of being personally involved in the inevitable discussions
and contradictions which will ensue...a mere actor like myself cannot
bring myself to muddle in such controversial matters."
He was being discrete. Derek Jacobi, who has no such compunctions,
stated at an Oxfordian dinner that Gielgud avoided the debate due to
the mud slinging and anger that would be directed at him so late in
life.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mud slinging!!!" Can you imagine?
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>> In my opinion the Earl of Oxforde allowed himself to be
>> publicly humiliated in order to get his works published.
BCD wrote:
> ***Public humiliation has not usually been considered a prerequisite to
> publication. In fact, as all published writers know, public humiliation
> inevitably *follows* publication rather than to precede it. The humiliation
> which precedes publication is supplied privately, by one's publisher, during
> the contract negotiations.
Public humiliation inevitably *follows*
any anti-Stratfordain publication to be sure.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>> He got published.
>
> ***Given a willing author, how difficult was it
> in Shakespeare's era to get published?
How difficult was it to cleave someone's right hand by means
of a cleaver driven through the wrist by a mallet?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cd.sc.ehu.es/FileRoom/documents/Cases/155stubbs.html
http://mitglied.tripod.de/gruselberg/spdb/Judge/acttan.htm
<<In 1579 a middle-aged lawyer called John STUBBS (c.1543-1591) was
sentenced to public mutilation at Westminster for having written a "lewd
and seditious" pamphlet against Queen Elizabeth's proposed marriage to
the French king's brother ("The Discoverie of a Gaping Gulf Where into
England is Likely to be Swallowed by another French Marriage,"). Copies
of the book were burned in the kitchen stove of Stationer's Hall. It
took the executioner three blows to CLEAVE his right hand by means of a
CLEAVER driven through the wrist by a mallet; before STUBBS fainted he
"put off his hat with his left and said with a loud voice, 'God save the
Queen'". Camden, who witnessed this appalling scene, records that. "The
multitude standing about was altogether silent, either out of horror of
this new and unwonted punishment, or else out of pity towards the man".
(STUBBS regained Elizabeth's favour in later years, and had a career
in parliament.)>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David Kathman
kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
>>
>> The Oxfordians in question were Bill Boyle, Roger
>> STritmatter, and Lynne Kositsky, who sat together for
>> most of the talks. Roger sprinted up to ask the first
>> question after the first talk on Friday, but then was
>> pretty much ignored for the rest of the conference.
>> Barbara Burris was also there, and probably some other
>> Oxfordians I don't know.
>>
>
>
>Now, now, David, you know I sat on my own most of the time up at the
>back because my immune system is down.
OK, maybe you didn't always sit together, but you did for
the opening talk when I first saw you, and for at least
some of the time after that.
>And I hardly squeaked right
>through the conference. We were all, in fact, as quiet and respectful
>as everyone else.
You were, certainly, but one could argue about Stritmatter
and Boyle. Roger was rather annoying in his questioning
after that opening talk, and a few hours later he was
passing out some sort of handout to everyone as they left
Sandy Leggatt's talk that evening. What was that, anyway?
I didn't take one, but it looked like something to do
with the Ashbourne portrait. And several of the Oxfordians,
primarily Bill Boyle, were getting on everybody's nerves
with their barrage of questions about the Ashbourne portrait
after Erin Blake's talk.
>There were at least twelve (out of the closet)
>Oxfordians there, not just Roger and Bill and me, and Nolen only went
>for the jugular with us in her article to divert attention away from
>the fact that the majority of invited speakers said that either the
>Sanders wasn't William Shakespeare or it could never be proven to be.
I think Alan Nelson was the only one who said he didn't think
it was Shakespeare; pretty much everybody else said there
wasn't enough evidence to say, which is what I expected.
>We didn't infiltrate, by the way. I had asked Professor Johnston
>months ago if we would be welcome and she replied in the affirmative.
>We paid our registration just like everyone else and were all
>fascinated by what we learned about early vernacular portraiture. I
>enjoyed your talk.
Thanks. And I never said you infiltrated anything. I knew
some of you were likely to be there, though I wasn't sure who.
>We kept our questions on the Ashbourne to the end because we were
>asked to. And if everyone's so sure the Ashbourne isn't The Earl of
>Oxford, why is the Folgers so careful not to submit it to the same
>tests, such as fluorescence to show evidence of overpainting, that the
>Sanders underwent?
You'd have to ask Erin Blake and/or Jean-Marie Corbeil,
but I assume it's because the cost of such tests would not
be enough to justify any minor incremental information
that might be gained. Everyone has known since 1940 that
the portrait was overpainted, and the restoration during
the 1970s and 1980s revealed a lot about the nature of
that overpainting. Bill Boyle collared me at the reception
Friday night and was going on and on and on, most excitedly,
about what he had heard the CCI tests showed and how they
supposedly proved a massive coverup by the Folger, but I
honestly couldn't follow him at all. I agree with Alan Nelson
that the idea that the portrait was originally of Oxford is so
ludicrous as to not be worth discussing
>It was nice to meet you.
>Lynne
It was nice to meet you, too.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Lynne
Thanks so much for the kind words, Bob. I'm so glad I have more
serious things to worry about than your dissing me, or I might just
get upset. I find it extremely interesting that people on this forum
think it perfectly fine to make horribly insulting remarks to others
they don't know at all. And I thought the conversation was supposed to
be about Shakespeare.
I'll go back in my shell now.
Best wishes,
Lynne Kositsky
Multi-award winning wack in Ontario
Mark Steese
news:8e6ba82f.02120...@posting.google.com, on the day of 01
Dec 2002:
[snip]
> It's time for people to stop ridiculing one another and seek the truth
> in a relatively sane way.
Unfortunately, anti-Shakespeareans have already found and rejected the
truth about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays: William Shakespeare of
Stratford wrote them, and the poems as well. There is no serious doubt
about the matter, and will be none unless the antis can turn up
documentary evidence for one of their candidates, or indeed for anyone
other than Shakespeare. After a century-and-a-half of anti-
Shakespeareanism there is not a single document to support Bacon, Oxford,
Marlowe, Derby, or whoever - not a manuscript leaf of Shakespeare in
their hand, not a single reference in their own personal papers, not a
single hint by any of their contemporaries that anyone other than
Shakespeare wrote the plays. The antis complain about the paucity of
evidence for Shakespeare without ever acknowledging that there is *no*
evidence for their own candidates.
If the antis wish to avoid ridicule, they must produce evidence: until
they do, there is no reason to take them more seriously than proponents
of the belief that the Apollo lunar landings were a hoax.
-Mark Steese
--
It was the saying of Bion, that though the boys throw stones at frogs in
sport, yet the frogs do not die in sport but in earnest. - Plutarch
Mark Steese
news:8e6ba82f.02120...@posting.google.com, on the day of 01
Dec 2002:
[snip]
>> >Why not subject the Ashbourne to a full battery of tests
>> > at the CCI which will really show if, when, and how much the
>> > portrait has been messed around with? Wouldn't that end the
>> > speculation to everyone's satisfaction?
>>
>> No. It has already been sufficiently tested to convince everyone but
>> wacks that it's what the Folger says it is.
>>
>> > It's time for people to stop ridiculing one another and seek the
>> > truth in a relatively sane way.
>> >
>> Another wack who thinks that ridicule and the search for truth can't
>> co-exist.
>
> Thanks so much for the kind words, Bob. I'm so glad I have more
> serious things to worry about than your dissing me, or I might just
> get upset. I find it extremely interesting that people on this forum
> think it perfectly fine to make horribly insulting remarks to others
> they don't know at all.
Why do you consider that worse than writing things like the following:
"And if everyone's so sure the Ashbourne isn't The Earl of Oxford, why is
the Folgers so careful not to submit it to the same tests, such as
fluorescence to show evidence of overpainting, that the Sanders
underwent?"
The clear implication here is that the management of the Folger
Shakespeare Library is deliberately withholding the Ashbourne portrait
from scrutiny for fear that it will prove to be a painting of Edward de
Vere. In fact, no one outside of a handful of anti-Shakespeareans
believes that the portrait is anything other than an altered painting of
Sir Hugh Hamersley. It was first claimed to be a portrait of Shakespeare
in 1847, and there has never been any scholarly support for that claim;
even if it were originally a portrait of Edward de Vere, what difference
would it make? I see no grounds for you to imply cowardice or any sort
of underhanded motive on the part of the Folger's directors, and I see no
means by which baseless innuendoes of this sort will help anyone search
for truth.
Greg Reynolds
Lynne wrote:
Have you any reason to give Oxford credit for Shakespeare's work, Lynne?
Or are you just insulting someone you don't know?
How easily you accuse others.
I find it insulting that you, without cause, deprive a man of his work.
You just arbitrarily ignore the historical record and believe instead
in your unfounded, unreliable account. That, Lynne, is "horribly insulting."
Since you can't explain why Oxford sought
patronage from Southampton, I think you have no
business making any conclusions at all. You're the fraud,
yet you want us to believe that Shakespeare was a fraud.
When did he bash another's reputation without cause?
When did Shakespeare lie about another's credentials?
No one here will insult you anywhere close to how you have
insulted Shakespeare, Lynne, someone you "don't know at all."
And you fancy yourself a writer?
I fancy you a wobble-head doll.
> I'll go back in my shell now.
This newsgroup is for thinking people who explain themselves
and for wacks who don't know what they are talking about.
If you are just another Shakespeare hater, sorry there's no vacancy
here.
Please explain why Oxford sought Southampton's patronage
or just keep your silly little hateful thoughts to yourself--the ones
you can't seem to justify because others already did.
> Best wishes,
> Lynne Kositsky
> Multi-award winning wack in Ontario
Oxfordian, ha! You are a common thief of intellectual property.
I guess tearing down a writer makes you think yourself a better writer.
Greg Reynolds
Bob Grumman
> > > in a relatively sane way.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Lynne
> >
> > Another wack who thinks that ridicule and the search for truth can't
> > co-exist.
> >
> > --Bob G.
>
> Thanks so much for the kind words, Bob. I'm so glad I have more
> serious things to worry about than your dissing me, or I might just
> get upset. I find it extremely interesting that people on this forum
> think it perfectly fine to make horribly insulting remarks to others
> they don't know at all.
I don't know about "perfectly fine," but it is certainly reasonable to
characterize people one doesn't know at all on the basis of the stupid
things they say.
> And I thought the conversation was supposed to
> be about Shakespeare.
And about reactions to him and his work, etc.
> I'll go back in my shell now.
>
> Best wishes,
> Lynne Kositsky
> Multi-award winning wack in Ontario
Likewise back from Bob Grumman, multi-non-awarded wack in Port Charlotte,
Florida (but sane about who wrote Shakespeare)
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>>>Why not subject the Ashbourne to a full battery of tests
>>>>at the CCI which will really show if, when, and how much the portrait
>>>>has been messed around with? Wouldn't that end the speculation to
>>>>everyone's satisfaction?
>>>
>>>No. It has already been sufficiently tested to convince everyone
>>> but wacks that it's what the Folger says it is.
>>>
>>>>It's time for people to stop ridiculing one another and seek the truth
>>>>in a relatively sane way.
>>>>
>>>>Best wishes,
>>>>Lynne
>>"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Another wack who thinks that ridicule and the search for truth can't
>>>co-exist.
>>>
> Lynne wrote:
>
>>Thanks so much for the kind words, Bob. I'm so glad I have more
>>serious things to worry about than your dissing me, or I might just
>>get upset. I find it extremely interesting that people on this forum
>>think it perfectly fine to make horribly insulting remarks to others
>>they don't know at all. And I thought the conversation was supposed to
>>be about Shakespeare.
>
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> Have you any reason to give Oxford credit for Shakespeare's work, Lynne?
> Or are you just insulting someone you don't know?
> How easily you accuse others.
And the Oscar for the best dramatic performance
by an HLAS member goes to. . .
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> I find it insulting that you, without cause, deprive a man of his work.
> You just arbitrarily ignore the historical record and believe instead
> in your unfounded, unreliable account. That, Lynne, is "horribly insulting."
>
> Since you can't explain why Oxford sought
> patronage from Southampton, I think you have no
> business making any conclusions at all. You're the fraud,
> yet you want us to believe that Shakespeare was a fraud.
> When did he bash another's reputation without cause?
--------------------------------------------------------------
<< 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.>> -- Ben Jonson
----------------------------------------------------------
*CAESAR NEVER DID WR* ong
*EDWARD VERE'S CAIRN*
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> When did Shakespeare lie about another's credentials?
When did Lynne hoard grain?
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> No one here will insult you anywhere close to how you have
> insulted Shakespeare, Lynne, someone you "don't know at all."
> And you fancy yourself a writer?
And you fancy yourself a latex salesman?
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> I fancy you a wobble-head doll.
I fancy you a wascally wabbit.
> Lynne wrote:
>
>>I'll go back in my shell now.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> This newsgroup is for thinking people who explain themselves
> and for wacks who don't know what they are talking about.
That's true.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> If you are just another Shakespeare hater,
> sorry there's no vacancy here.
----------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 5, Scene 1
ANTONIO
To-day, my lord; and for three months before,
No interim, not a minute's vacancy,
------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 3, Scene 4
QUEEN GERTRUDE Alas, how is't with you,
That you do bend your eye on vacancy
And with the incorporal air do hold discourse?
Forth at your eyes your spirits wildly peep;
And, as the sleeping soldiers in the alarm,
Your bedded hair, like life in excrements,
Starts up, and stands on end.
--------------------------------------------------------
Antony and Cleopatra Act 1, Scene 4
OCTAVIUS CAESAR If he fill'd
His vacancy with his voluptuousness,
Full surfeits, and the dryness of his bones,
Call on him for't: but to confound such time,
That drums him from his sport, and speaks as loud
As his own state and ours,--'tis to be chid
As we rate boys, who, being mature in knowledge,
Pawn their experience to their present pleasure,
And so rebel to judgment.
Act 2, Scene 2
DOMITIUS ENOBARBUS
Whistling to the air; which, but for vacancy,
Had gone to gaze on Cleopatra too,
And made a gap in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> Please explain why Oxford sought Southampton's patronage
> or just keep your silly little hateful thoughts to yourself
And the Oscar for the best dramatic performance
by an HLAS member goes to Greg Reynolds.
>>Best wishes,
>>Lynne Kositsky
>>Multi-award winning wack in Ontario
Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> Oxfordian, ha! You are a common thief of intellectual property.
> I guess tearing down a writer makes you think yourself a better writer.
Always the gentleman, Greg.
Art Neuendorffer
BCD
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >> In my opinion the Earl of Oxforde allowed himself to be
> >> publicly humiliated in order to get his works published.
> BCD wrote:
>
> > ***Public humiliation has not usually been considered a prerequisite to
> > publication. In fact, as all published writers know, public humiliation
> > inevitably *follows* publication rather than to precede it. The
humiliation
> > which precedes publication is supplied privately, by one's publisher,
during
> > the contract negotiations.
>
> Public humiliation inevitably *follows*
> any anti-Stratfordain publication to be sure.
*** "God's in his heaven, all's right with the world."
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >> He got published.
>
> > ***Given a willing author, how difficult was it
> > in Shakespeare's era to get published?
>
> How difficult was it to cleave someone's right hand by means
> of a cleaver driven through the wrist by a mallet? [...]
> (STUBBS regained
> Elizabeth's favour in later years, and had a career in
parliament.)>>
***I take it, then, that your answer is Art-ful code for "not very." But
does anyone have a less oracular answer to the question?: "Given a willing
author, how difficult was it in Shakespeare's era to get published?" If the
answer really is "not very" (and perhaps even if it isn't), and fun with
cleavers and mallets proceedeth not from the mere fact of publication but
rather from a supposed seditious and lewd nature to the work published (and
I'd like to know of any Elizabethan who called the Shakespearean oeuvre
seditious and /or lewd), the unique strategy of public humiliation merely in
order to gain publication would seem to be a bit useless. Going by your
example, however, it should perhaps be considered as a productive
preliminary to a career in Parliament.
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> When did Lynne hoard grain?
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Matthew 7:2 (KJV)
And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you
that hear shall more be given.
Mark 4:24 (KJV)
Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down,
and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your
bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be
measured to you again.
Luke 6:38 (KJV)
(I have to go to the John.)
SO, by having the grain to mete out MORE than a measure,
the happy town of Stratford always had more than its share.
By the way, Art, there was never a conviction (wow, sounds
like the Oxfordian think tank).
Greg Reynolds
Abe
Ashbourne portrait that alterations were revealed by x-ray and
infrared photography executed by Barrell who published his findings in
"Scientific American", including:
the courtier's lace ruff had been painted over to resemble a
commoner's plain collar;
the boar-crest of the seal ring on the thumb had been obscured;
the Trentham coat of arms in the upper left hand corner had been
painted over and the date changed;
the initials C.K for Cornelius Ketel had been painted out;
and the hairline was moved back to make him to appear bald?
I really would like to know. Maybe someone knows how to access the
actual article?
Thanks
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<3DE63468...@comcast.net>...
Spam Scone
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3DEA395F...@comcast.net...
> > In my opinion the Earl of Oxforde allowed himself to be
> > publicly humiliated in order to get his works published.
>
> ***Public humiliation has not usually been considered a prerequisite to
> publication. In fact, as all published writers know, public humiliation
> inevitably *follows* publication rather than to precede it. The humiliation
> which precedes publication is supplied privately, by one's publisher, during
> the contract negotiations.
This is very true.
Neil Brennen, author of "Sharp Play: The Life and Games of Sydney
Sharp" (publication date 2003)
Art Neuendorffer
>
>> When did Lynne hoard grain?
>
>
> For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with
> what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> Matthew 7:2 (KJV)
>
> And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what
> measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you
> that hear shall more be given.
> Mark 4:24 (KJV)
>
> Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down,
> and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your
> bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be
> measured to you again.
> Luke 6:38 (KJV)
>
> (I have to go to the John.)
And, as the sleeping soldiers in the alarm,
Your bedded hair, like life in excrements,
Starts up, and stands on end.
> SO, by having the grain to mete out MORE than a measure,
> the happy town of Stratford always had more than its share.
>
> By the way, Art, there was never a conviction
> (wow, sounds like the Oxfordian think tank).
>
The Stratfordians don't have any conviction?
Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Can I just ask is the following allegations true regarding the
> Ashbourne portrait that alterations were revealed by x-ray
> and infrared photography executed by Barrell who published
> his findings in "Scientific American", including:
> the courtier's lace ruff had been painted over
> to resemble a commoner's plain collar;
> the boar-crest of the seal ring on the thumb had been obscured;
> the Trentham coat of arms in the upper left hand corner had been
> painted over and the date changed;
> the initials C.K for Cornelius Ketel had been painted out;
> and the hairline was moved back to make him to appear bald?
> I really would like to know. Maybe someone knows
> how to access the actual article?
> Thanks
Check out:
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Ashbourne-Part_II_Winter_2002.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Ashbourne.htm
<<The so-called "Ashbourne Shakespeare" portrait, which surfaced in the
19th century at the Ashbourne Free school in Derbyshire. Charles Wisner
Barrell, in a controversial 1940 Scientific American article, revealed
the painting to be the lost Cornelius Ketel portrait of Edward de Vere,
17th earl of Oxford. A 1993 article by William Pressley, published in
the Shakespeare Quarterly, claims the portrait is actually of Hugh
Hamersley, a former mayor of London, but says nothing about the lost
Ketel of Oxford. New research by Shakespeare Fellowship founding member
Barbara Burris, published in a series of articles in the Fellowship's
quarterly journal, Shakespeare Matters, demonstrates the spurious
character of the Pressley/Folger claim and shows why Barrell's original
deciphering of the painting as the lost Ketel of Oxford is the still
most plausible account of this enigmatic painting.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ashbour2.htm
And clear evidence of changes in the portrait were found.
To sum them up:
1) The portrait had been altered.
2) The original hairline had been raised an inch or more,
transforming the sitter into a balding individual resembling the
Droeshout rendering.
3) The original ruff around the neck had been altered. The original
ruff appears to have been twice the size of the new one, and the
original appears to have been
of the fluted pattern worn by Elizabethan courtiers.
4) The gold paint used for the lettering in the upper left is the
same as the gold paint used in the middle of the thumb ring and the
middle of the book crest.
5) Under the dab of gold paint on the thumb ring was the
unmistakable ghostly outline of a boar's head, one of the devices of the
Earls of Oxford.
6) Under the gold painted inscription in the upper left are the
outlines of a coat of arms nearly identical to that used by the Trentham
family. Oxford married
Elizabeth Trentham in 1592. The Ashbourne portait's name comes from
an estate in the "Ashbourne" addition to Derbyshire. The Ashbourne
addition was one of
the properties of Elizabeth Trentham Cockayne, a great-grand-niece
of Oxford's wife, Elizabeth Trentham, the Countess of Oxford.
7) The inscription of the original artist can be seen in the lower
right. They are C.K. and drawn in a manner that makes it virtually
certain that the portrait's
painter was Cornelius Ketel, a Dutch portrait painter (1548-1616).
Dr. Speilman had originally theorized that the painting was by a Dutch
or Flemish painter.
Also, in a 1604 account of Ketel's career, mention is made of
portraits he did of the Duke of Oxford (Edward de Vere) and others of
Elizabeth's court. The Ketel
portrait of Oxford has never turned up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashbourne Portrait
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/book2.html
<<This magnificent painting shows a nobleman in almost full length. The
subject's right arm is resting atop a "memento mori" skull, his hand
holding a gilt book with 4 red drawstrings. He wears a ring on the thumb
of his left hand. For perhaps a century this painting was said to be
Shakespeare, and when it came into the possession of the Folger
Shakespeare Library it was prominently and proudly presented as a
remarkable portrait of Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon.
There was quite a shock when Scientific American published an
illustrated article on the Ashbourne Shakespeare, in the January, 1940
issue. The article reported that an X-ray analysis of the canvas had
found that the image had been altered and over-painted. Identification
of some of the hidden material : a boars head on the thumb ring, and the
Heraldic Arms of the Trentham family in the upper left portion of the
painting led researcher and author Charles Wisner Barrell to conclude
that the sitter in the painting is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of
Oxford. At some point in the past 400 years someone severely re-worked
the portrait to make a man with a full head of hair look something like
the high-foreheaded cartoon image of Shakespeare from the First Folio.
X-ray analysis has shown that the original hairline had been raised by
several inches. The subject in the painting wears a huge fluted
courtiers ruff in the original. The over-painting reduces the ruff to
gentleman's proportions and style. The forgers used gold paint to do the
phony inscription in the upper left, Aetatis suae 47 Anno 1611, which
gives a correct age for Shakespeare of Stratford, who was born in 1564.
The same gold paint was used to alter the sitter's thumb ring, to
highlight his belt, and to obliterate the markings on the book the man
is holding. The X-ray of the thumb ring shows the remnant of a boar's
head, the symbolic badge of the Earl of Oxford. Beneath the fake
inscription at the upper left are the remains of a coat of arms that
were nearly obliterated by the forgers. The identification of the
correct family represented by the coat of Arms is still being debated.
But the arms do match the family of Elizabeth Trentham, the Countess
Oxford (de Vere's second wife.) The provenance of the painting also
points to the Trenthams. The Ashbourne portrait emerged from the estate
of Elizabeth Trentham Cockayne, the great-grand-niece of Elizabeth
Trentham, the Countess of Oxford.
The initials C. K. in the lower right identify the painter as Cornelius
Ketel, (1548-1616), the Dutch portrait artist. A contemporary account of
Ketel's workshop from the year 1604, lists many portraits which Ketel
had painted for Elizabethan dignitaries. A full size portrait of Oxford
is listed in that account. Though the painting had been thought lost or
destroyed, Barrell's identification in 1940 showed that The Ashbourne
painting of Shakespeare is really an over-painting of the lost Ketel
portrait of Oxford !
Since Barrell's work, the Ashbourne painting has been taken off
general display, and the trustees of the Folger have mounted a
counterattack that attempts to identify the sitter with a Mr. Hammersley
of London. Of all the known portraits of Shakespeare, all but one are
modeled on the first folio image. They all face left. Only the Ashbourne
Portrait depicts the real person who was Shakespeare, and the proof is
buried in the basement of the Folger Shakespeare Library of Washington
DC>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashbourne Part II by Barbara Burris
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Ashbourne-Part_II_Winter_2002.pdf
<<Only the well known art expert M. H. Spielmann, who examined the
painting in 1910, cautiously remarked upon discordant elements in the
painting that contradicted the official view of a Shakespeare portrait
of the Stratford man. These dissonant elements included the problems
with the inscription, nobleman's dress, neck ruff, age of the sitter and
similarity of the costume to the Earl of Morton who died in 1581, thirty
years before the 1611 date on the painting. Spielmann's reference to the
similarity of the Ashbourne costume with the costume of the Earl of
Morton, who died in 1581, that intrigued me and sent me off in the
direction of researching the costume to learn the true date of the
painting.
Costume is the single most reliable and universally respected method of
dating portraits whose dates are unknown or in dispute. The dating of
costume is a reliable means for dating a painting within a range of a
few years and sometimes even within a year or two. Just as we can date
1920s, 30s, or 50s pictures from our familiarity with the clothes, hair
styles and objects in those times, so art experts rely on extensive
knowledge of the changes in fashion and in painting styles in dating
portraits. As in our own time, fashion in Elizabethan and Jacobean
England generally changed by decades, with some overlap of course,
especially at the beginning and end of a decade.
The late 1570s dating of the painting by costume also confirms Charles
Wisner Barrell's X-ray examination of the Ashbourne that revealed a
portrait of Edward de Vere beneath the overpainting into Shake-speare.
And it places the painting back in its correct time frame when the Dutch
painter Cornelius Ketel- whose initials were exposed beneath the
overpainting by Barrell's X-rays-was in England from 1573 to 1581, and
was known to have painted a portrait of Oxford. At this point you might
be asking why all the fuss over a portrait? The answer is best expressed
by quoting from a February 1982 letter from the Folger Shakespeare
Library when the Library was proclaiming Hugh Hamersley, former Lord
Mayor of London in 1627/8 as the painting's subject. The letter,
intended for Geoffrey M. Lemmer, conservator of the Baltimore Museum of
Art giving him instructions about the portrait, states that, "...the
portrait is an important document in the controversy over the true
authorship of Shakespeare's works."
Ruth Loyd Miller notes that "there are at least 12 altered portraits
(into Shakespeare) of undoubted Elizabethan or Jacobean composition.
Until very recent times 6 of these paintings had been held by various
members of the old English Aristocracy and had no connection whatsoever
with Stratfordian ownership." For example, the Hampton Court portrait of
Shake-speare, which Barrell found to be an over-painted portrait of
Oxford holding the sword of state (blacked out), did not leave the
collection at Penshurst Place, seat of the Sidney-Herbert families,
until it was given to King William IV. This was the same Sidney family
of whom Mary Sidney's sons, the earls of Pembroke and Montgomery, were
the "incomparable brethern" to whom the 1623 Folio was dedicated.
Oxford's daughter Susan was married to the Earl of Montgomery, one of
these two "incomparable brethern." Miller adds that, "Of the 12 genuine
'Renaissance studies' of Shakespeare listed by The Encyclopedia
Britannica, 8 depict him wearing the attire of a nobleman." One of the
most interesting of these is the portrait of Shake-speare in nobleman's
garb formerly in the Tudor collection at Windsor Castle, given by Queen
Victoria to the novelist Lord Lytton. "Another is the miniature called
'Shakespeare' acquired by the Earl of Oxford (2nd creation) about 1719
showing the bard in the dress of a 16th century nobleman."
The inscriptions Which brings us to the issue of inscriptions.
Spielmann's suspicions about the 1611 inscription on the Ashbourne that
was in a different paint from the original paint and stood out in slight
relief above the rest of the painting were correct. "Whether or not it
(the inscription) is a later addition is an open question; but the fact
must not be lost sight of that the colour of it corresponds to that of
the book-cover gold and that of the thumb-ring and is in sharp contrast
to that on the belt and glove." Spielmann maintained the Jacobean dating
in spite of contrary evidence, but he added later that, "The picture is
pretty clearly an original and no copy; and obviously represents a
gentleman of the early years of Jacobean rule, who, if the 'AETATIS SUAE
47' is to be trusted, looked young for his age" (emphasis added). Oxford
in 1580 would have been around 30 years of age, not age 47, as in the
inscription on the painting, which fit the age of the man from Stratford
in 1611. Clearly the over painting of the full head of hair above the
forehead was intended to make the sitter look older to fit the
inscription age. The point is that inscription dates and names on
portraits can be and have at times been wrong either by mistake or by
design.
The fact that the St. Alban's has the name Edward de Vere blazoned
across it does not counter the primary costume evidence that Sir Roy
Strong used to date this painting circa 1565. The costume proves that
the inscription is wrong in the St. Alban's portrait. The style of the
doublet and the high collar with its tiny lace edged in black that is a
precursor of the ruff, in the St. Alban's portrait belongs to the period
of the late 1550s or 1560s. Sir Roy Strong has dated it circa 1565.
Because of the intertwined ribbon of black and white (the Queen's
personal colors, not the Oxford colors) suspending the Oxford boar, I
would date it from 1558 (when the Queen came to the throne) to 1562 when
its sitter, most likely John De Vere, the 16th Earl of Oxford died.
Because the sitter appears to be in his early 40s and the costume is of
the early 1560s it cannot be Edward de Vere who was in his teens in the
1560s.
Using the same costume dating methods and evidence for the Ashbourne,
the 1611 date on the inscription, as Spielmann suspected and Barrell
confirmed with Xrays, is wrong: it is not the original inscription. The
1611 date is a false date added later. Additionally, Barrell's X-rays
confirmed that the original inscription in the Ashbourne portrait had
been rubbed out so vigorously that holes were made in the canvas,
although ghostly remnants of letters could still be seen.
In conclusion, the circa 1579-80 costume in the Ashbourne Shake-speare
portrait eliminates as subjects both the Stratford man and Hugh
Hamersley, who would have been 14 and 15 years old respectively in 1580.
The costume is that of a nobleman. Looney discovered in 1920 that the
nobleman poet playwright Edward de Vere was the author behind the
Shakespeare mask. The Dutch painter Cornelius Ketel, whose initials
Barrell found in the painting through X-rays, was in England from 1573
to 1581. Hatton introduced Ketel as a painter to Elizabeth's Court in
1578. Van Mander notes Ketel painted a portrait of Oxford. In 1580
Harvey mocked Oxford's wearing of large French Camerick ruffs. Barrell's
X-ray examination revealed a large circular ruff under the visible ruff.
Lord Russell's 1580 French ruff fits perfectly over the outlines of this
hidden ruff.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ashbourne Portrait: Why It's Not the Earl of Oxford
by David Kathman
<<In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell, an Oxfordian, had X-rays made of the
Ashbourne Portrait, which revealed that the painting had been altered at
some point in the past to look more like Shakespeare (in particular, the
hairline had been pushed back to make the subject bald). Barrell claimed
that the original portrait had been of the Earl of Oxford; he claimed
that a coat of arms visible in his X-ray photos was that of the Earl's
second wife, and that the subject's ring depicted a boar, one of the
Earl's symbols. He also found initials which he interpreted as "C.K.,"
which he in turn interpreted as referring to Cornelius Ketel,
who painted one of the two known portraits of Edward de Vere.
Barrell published his findings in Scientific American and
got quite a bit of media attention.
However, in 1979 the painting undewent a restoration in preparation for
a Folger exhibition. Some of the paint was removed, and it turned out
that the coat of arms in the painting was not that of Oxford's second
wife at all, but that of Sir Hugh Hamersley, a prominent member of the
Haberdasher's Company and onetime Lord Mayor of London. Also, the
painting contains the age of the sitter (47 years old) and the date
(1611), which fits Shakespeare; however, the restoration revealed that
the last "1" in the date had been altered from a 2." Hugh Hamersley, it
turns out, was born in 1565 (one year after Shakespeare), and thus was
47 years old in 1612. It is now universally accepted, even by most
Oxfordians (except for a few extreme militants) that the original
portrait was of Hugh Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of
Oxford. Details of all this can be found in an article by William L.
Pressley in Shakespeare Quarterly, 1993, pp. 54-72, called "The
Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass.">>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<GILBERT Shakspere was a HABERDASHER at St. Bride's in 1597 when he &
a local shoemaker put up £19 bail, in the court of Queen's Bench, for
the clockmaker William SAMPSON>> - Honan's _Shakespeare a Life_ p.229.
The HABERDASHER heapeth wealth by hats. --GASCOIGNE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.T.S.: "OPEN EXPRESSLY FOR POORE MEN'S CHILDREN"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<The Merchant Taylors' School was founded in Suffolk Lane, Upper
Thames Street, London in 1561 by the Merchant Taylors' Company,>>
http://www.kwtelecom.com/heraldry/livery/pierson.html
<<The lion in the arms of the Merchant Taylors is the lion
of England and may be connected with royal favours,
as the company was granted a number of royal letters patent
and included many royal personages in its list of members.
Several kings of England have been Freemen of the Company. Both the
Merchant Taylors & the Haberdashers received in charters granted
by Henry VII the distinctive epithet of "Merchant".>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8 days before Shakspere his brother-in-law
William HARTTE
the HATTER died.
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The (MAD) Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this;
but all he said was,
'Why is a RAVEN like a WRITING-DESK?'>>
[A. Poe & Dante wrote on both.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry EIGHT Act 5, Scene 4
Man That fire-drake did I hit three times on the head,
and three times was his nose discharged against me;
he stands there, like a mortar-piece, to blow us.
There was a HABERDASHER's wife of small wit near him,
that railed upon me till her pinked PORRINGER
fell off her head, for kindling such a combustion
in the state. I missed the meteor once,
and hit that woman; who cried out 'Clubs!'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lady Clara Vere de Vere (1842) - Alfred Lord Tennyson
Lady Clara Vere de Vere,
*OF ME YOU SHALL NOT WIN RENOWN* :
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ECHOES (1883) -- Lewis Carroll
Lady Clara Vere de Vere
Was EIGHT years old, she said:
Every ringlet, lightly SHAKEN, ran itself in golden thread.
She took her little PORRINGER:
*OF ME YOU SHALL NOT WIN RENOWN* :
For the baseness of its nature shall have strength to drag her down.
"Sisters and brothers, little Maid?
There stands the Inspector at THY DOOR:
Like a DOG, he hunts for BOYS who know not two and two are four."
"KIND HEARTS ARE MORE THAN CORONETS,"
She said, and wondering looked at me:
"It is the DEAD unhappy night, and I must hurry home to tea."
--------------------------------------------------------------
'Kind-HARTE's Dream' ARE MORE THAN CORONETS,
----------------------------------------------------------
The City Livery Companies and Their Heraldry
http://www.kwtelecom.com/heraldry/livery/pierson.html
© L G Pierson, 1986
The Poulters are alone among the livery companies in the use of
a crest CORONET, that of a mural crown in lieu of the wreath.
Many phrases in common usage have originated
from the livery companies of the City of London:
"on tenterhooks" from the double-ended hook in the Clothworkers' arms;
"baker's dozen" in the efforts of the Bakers' provision of the vantage
loaf to avoid all risks of incurring a fine for short weight;
"all at sixes and sevens" some say originated in the struggle of the
Merchant Taylors and the Skinners Companies for sixth and seventh place
in the table of precedence;
"hallmarking" from the marking of precious metals at Goldsmiths Hall;
and at the completion of his apprenticeship the aspiring smith submits
to the Wardens of the Company of Goldsmiths his "masterpiece". The word
has come to mean a work of art of exceptional merit, but originally it
meant only the first piece of craftsmanship made by the apprentice
entirely on his own to prove that he had mastered his craft.
The Haberdashers found a commercial winner in the pin.
It is said that £50,000 was paid annually to import
this little item, but by the end of the reign of Elizabeth I
the Haberdashers were making it themselves. Essential to the
well-dressed woman, whose husband made her suitable allowance,
the trade soon gave rise to the expression "pin money".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Does _Ulysses_ end at 3:24 am June 17, 1904?
(324 = 3 x 3 x 3 dozen)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A hackney car, number three hundred and twentyfour, driver Barton James
of number one Harmony avenue, Donnybrook, on which sat a fare, a young
gentleman, stylishly dressed in an indigoblue serge suit made by George
Robert Mesias, tailor and cutter, of number five Eden quay, and wearing
a straw hat very dressy, bought of John Plasto of number one Great
Brunswick street, hatter. Eh?
FLORRY What?
( A hackneycar number three hundred and twentyfour, with a
gallantbuttocked mare, driven by James Barton, Harmony Avenue,
Donnybrook, trots past. Blazes Boylan and Lenehan sprawl swaying
on the sideseats. The Ormond boots crouches behind on the axle.
Sadly over the crossblind Lydia Douce and Mina Kennedy gaze .)
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the Hatter said,
turning to Alice again.
"No, I give it up," Alice replied: "what's the answer?"
"I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter.
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
<snips, including very interesting discussions on the Ashbourne...
a painting I loathe, and hope *isn't* Oxford...>
> 8 days before Shakspere his brother-in-law
> William HARTTE
> the HATTER died.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<The (MAD) Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this;
> but all he said was,
> 'Why is a RAVEN like a WRITING-DESK?'>>
>
> [A. Poe & Dante wrote on both.]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the Hatter said,
> turning to Alice again.
> "No, I give it up," Alice replied: "what's the answer?"
> "I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter.
> -------------------------------------------------------
Cervantes (anagrams)
Raven sect
carven set
rents cave
nave, crest
net R.C. vase
net save R.C.? (the fishermen's nets [apostles])
crave?...sent!
verse?...can't?
Vere?...scan't (scan it)
car events?
even carts?
Well, it's an interesting way to pass the time
till anything is found...!
lyra
lyra
clue...it's raven gem
clue...it's raven Meg
clue...sign *Ver*, "mate"?
lyra
Art Neuendorffer
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 8 days before Shakspere his brother-in-law
>> William HARTTE
>> the HATTER died.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>><<The (MAD) Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this;
>> but all he said was,
>> 'Why is a RAVEN like a WRITING-DESK?'>>
>>
>> [A. Poe & Dante wrote on both.]
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>"Have you guessed the riddle yet?" the Hatter said,
>> turning to Alice again.
>> "No, I give it up," Alice replied: "what's the answer?"
>> "I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
lyra wrote:
> Cervantes (anagrams)
>
> Raven sect
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECT (Gr. hairesis, usually rendered "heresy", Acts 24:14; 1 Chr. 11:19;
Gal. 5:20, etc.), meaning properly "a choice," then "a chosen manner of
life," and then "a religious party," as the "sect" of the Sadducees
(Acts 5:17), of the Pharisees (15:5), the Nazarenes, i.e., Christians
(24:5). It afterwards came to be used in a bad sense, of those holding
pernicious error, divergent forms of belief (2 Pet. 2:1; Gal. 5:20).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECT, n. [F. secte, L. sects, fr. sequi to follew] Those following a
particular leader or authority, or attached to a certain opinion; a
company or set having a common belief or allegiance distinct from
others; in religion, the believers in a particular creed, or upholders
of a particular practice; especially, in modern times, a party
dissenting from an established church; a denomination; in philosophy,
the disciples of a particular master; a school; in society and the
state, an order, rank, class, or party.
He beareth the sign of poverty, And in that SECT
our Savior saved all mankind. --Piers Plowman.
As of the SECT of which that he was born, He kept his lay,
to which that he was sworn. --Chaucer.
The cursed SECT of that detestable and false prophet Mohammed. --Fabyan.
As concerning this SECT [Christians], we know that
everywhere it is spoken against. --Acts xxviii. 22.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECT, n. [L. secare, sectum, to cut.] A cutting; a scion. --Shak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 5, Scene 3
GARDINER
Do not I know you for a favourer
Of this new SECT? ye are not sound.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 2, Scene 2
Provost All SECTs, all ages smack of this vice;
and he To die for't!
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Winter's Tale Act 5, Scene 1
Gentleman
This is a creature,
Would she begin a SECT, might quench the zeal
Of all professors else, make proselytes
Of who she but bid follow.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Othello, The Moor of Venice Act 1, Scene 3
IAGO
If the balance of our lives had not one
scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the
blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us
to most preposterous conclusions: but we have
reason to cool our raging motions, our carnal
stings, our unbitted lusts, whereof I take this that
you call love to be a SECT or scion.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timon of Athens Act 3, Scene 5
First Senator You undergo too strict a paradox,
Striving to make an ugly deed look fair:
Your words have took such pains as if they labour'd
To bring manslaughter into form and set quarrelling
Upon the head of valour; which indeed
Is valour misbegot and came into the world
When SECTs and factions were newly born:
He's truly valiant that can wisely suffer
The worst that man can breathe, and make his wrongs
His outsides, to wear them like his raiment,
carelessly,
And ne'er prefer his injuries to his heart,
To bring it into danger.
If wrongs be evils and enforce us kill,
What folly 'tis to hazard life for ill!
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 5, Scene 3
KING LEAR No, no, no, no! Come, let's away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out;
And take upon's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies: and we'll wear out,
In a wall'd prison, packs and SECTs of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"the founder of so vile a SECT"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Quixote by Cervantes - Translated by John Ormsby
PART 1 CHAPTER VI
OF THE DIVERTING AND IMPORTANT SCRUTINY WHICH THE CURATE AND
THE BARBER MADE IN THE LIBRARY OF OUR INGENIOUS GENTLEMAN
The first that Master Nicholas put into his hand was "The four books
of Amadis of Gaul." "This seems a mysterious thing," said the curate,
"for, as I have heard say, this was the first book of chivalry
printed in Spain, and from this all the others derive their birth
and origin; so it seems to me that we ought inexorably to condemn
it to the flames as the founder of so vile a SECT."
"Nay, sir," said the barber, "I too, have heard say that this is the
best of all the books of this kind that have been written, and so,
as something singular in its line, it ought to be pardoned."
"True," said the curate; "and for that reason let its life be
spared for the present. Let us see that other which is next to it."
"It is," said the barber, "the 'Sergas de ESPLANDIAN,'
the lawful son of Amadis of Gaul."
"Then verily," said the curate, "the merit of the father must not be
put down to the account of the son. Take it, mistress housekeeper;
open the window and fling it into the yard and lay the foundation
of the pile for the bonfire we are to make."
The housekeeper obeyed with great satisfaction, and the worthy
"ESPLANDIAN" went flying into the yard to await with all patience
the fire that was in store for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The solution to the problem was given by the Reverend Edward Everett
Hale. Reverend Hale discussed the origin of the name California in
a paper he read before the American Antiquarian Society in Boston
on April 30, 1862. It is interesting that he based his conclusions
on the romance Las Sergas de ESPLANDIAN discussed above.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
Vere mug in castle?
(like a christening mug, maybe)
lyra
also......
Musgrave line, etc.
Miguel de Cervantes (anagram)
de Vere mug in castle......