Wild Bill
gary bleasdale
plays. It is so obvious that a man of the theatre wrote them. They smell of
the yard and grease paint. It is plain to me, an actor, that he wrote for
actors in a repertory company. I cannot imagine an aristocrat in the
sixteenth/seventeenth century lowering himself to please groundlings,
middle-class businessmen in the middle galleries and lesser aristocratic
lights in the upper. I cannot imagine an aristocrat from any period writing
anything meaningful and lasting. Oxfordians? Please, come on, it's just
snobbishness, isn't it?
P. Hammond
Birthplace of WS, and River Avon
Neuendorffer
>
> Shakespeare, the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon, was the man who wrote the
> plays. It is so obvious that a man of the theatre wrote them. They smell of
> the yard and grease paint.
"Smell of the yard and grease paint:"
CANTERBURY
Then hear me, gracious sovereign, and you peers,
That owe yourselves, your lives and services
To this imperial throne. There is no bar
To make against your highness' claim to France
But this, which they produce from Pharamond,
'In terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant:'
'No woman shall succeed in Salique land:'
Which Salique land the French unjustly gloze
To be the realm of France, and Pharamond
The founder of this law and female bar.
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe;
Where Charles the Great, having subdued the Saxons,
There left behind and settled certain French;
Who, holding in disdain the German women
For some dishonest manners of their life,
Establish'd then this law; to wit, no female
Should be inheritrix in Salique land:
Which Salique, as I said, 'twixt Elbe and Sala,
Is at this day in Germany call'd Meisen.
Then doth it well appear that Salique law
Was not devised for the realm of France:
Nor did the French possess the Salique land
Until four hundred one and twenty years
After defunction of King Pharamond,
Idly supposed the founder of this law;
Who died within the year of our redemption
Four hundred twenty-six; and Charles the Great
Subdued the Saxons, and did seat the French
Beyond the river Sala, in the year
Eight hundred five. Besides, their writers say,
King Pepin, which deposed Childeric,
Did, as heir general, being descended
Of Blithild, which was daughter to King Clothair,
Make claim and title to the crown of France.
Hugh Capet also, who usurped the crown
Of Charles the duke of Lorraine, sole heir male
Of the true line and stock of Charles the Great,
To find his title with some shows of truth,
'Through, in pure truth, it was corrupt and naught,
Convey'd himself as heir to the Lady Lingare,
Daughter to Charlemain, who was the son
To Lewis the emperor, and Lewis the son
Of Charles the Great. Also King Lewis the Tenth,
Who was sole heir to the usurper Capet,
Could not keep quiet in his conscience,
Wearing the crown of France, till satisfied
That fair Queen Isabel, his grandmother,
Was lineal of the Lady Ermengare,
Daughter to Charles the foresaid duke of Lorraine:
By the which marriage the line of Charles the Great
Was re-united to the crown of France.
So that, as clear as is the summer's sun.
King Pepin's title and Hugh Capet's claim,
King Lewis his satisfaction, all appear
To hold in right and title of the female:
So do the kings of France unto this day;
Howbeit they would hold up this Salique law
To bar your highness claiming from the female,
And rather choose to hide them in a net
Than amply to imbar their crooked titles
Usurp'd from you and your progenitors.
Art Neuendorffer
bookburn
<ga...@bleasy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Shakespeare, the actor from Stratford-upon-Avon, was the man who wrote the
>plays. It is so obvious that a man of the theatre wrote them. They smell of
>the yard and grease paint. It is plain to me, an actor, that he wrote for
>actors in a repertory company. I cannot imagine an aristocrat in the
>sixteenth/seventeenth century lowering himself to please groundlings,
>middle-class businessmen in the middle galleries and lesser aristocratic
>lights in the upper. I cannot imagine an aristocrat from any period writing
>anything meaningful and lasting. Oxfordians? Please, come on, it's just
>snobbishness, isn't it?
Possibly these pretenders are elitists who hope to rescue {liberate)
their man from middle class America. What pain they must go through
witnessing lowbrow performances [Wishbone) for couch potatoes. Now
that The Globe Theatre in London is a national resource, perhaps the
current generation of royals who did theatre at college will finally
bring about "claiming" Shakespeare by exhuming his grave and reburying
him in Westminister Abbey.
>
>
John W. Kennedy
> I cannot imagine an aristocrat from any period writing
> anything meaningful and lasting.
Here you go too far.... Marcus Aurelius. James I of Scotland (not
James VI/I). Charles d'Orleans. Lord Byron. One of the Mongkuts of
Siam (not the famous one).
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Neuendorffer
>
> I look at it from a slightly different perspective. What aristocrat, with
> Shakespeare's talent, would *need* to write genre plays for the public
> stage? And what choice would a middle-class poet, with Shakespeare's talent
> (and who needed to earn a living and support a family), have *but* to write
> for the masses?
Do you really think that this was written (or EVEN ADAPTED) "for the
masses?":
Clark
Shakespeare's talent, would *need* to write genre plays for the public
stage? And what choice would a middle-class poet, with Shakespeare's talent
(and who needed to earn a living and support a family), have *but* to write
for the masses?
- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare website at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm
John W. Kennedy wrote in message <376A8F8E...@ibm.net>...
Clark
it a couple of times now. It is, of course, from Henry V, I, ii. The
prologue to Henry V has a line reading "can this cockpit hold The vasty
fields of France? or may we cram Within *this wooden O* the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?"
Henry V was written in the spring or summer of 1599 (it's dated by a
contemporary reference to the military exploits of Essex in Ireland).
Assuming the play was produced in the spring or summer of 1599,
Shakespeare's company was performing plays to the "masses" at the "Theatre"
in Shoreditch at the time. If it was acted later in 1599, it was performed
at the newly constructed "Globe". The "wooden O" referred to in the
prologue is one of these two *public* theaters.
Since Shakespeare makes it clear in the prologue that the play *is* being
performed in the public theater, where the "masses" were referred to as
"groundlings" (and charged a penny for the privilege), it's pretty clear
that Canterbury's speech *WAS* written for the masses.
Other than the fact that you apparently find it hard to understand, what
makes you think it wasn't?
-- Clark
Visit my Shakespeare website at:
http://members.home.net/cjh5801/Shakespeare.htm
Neuendorffer wrote in message <376B0AA3...@erols.com>...
>Clark wrote:
>>
>> I look at it from a slightly different perspective. What aristocrat,
with
>> Shakespeare's talent, would *need* to write genre plays for the public
>> stage? And what choice would a middle-class poet, with Shakespeare's
talent
>> (and who needed to earn a living and support a family), have *but* to
write
>> for the masses?
>
Neuendorffer
> Henry V was written in the spring or summer of 1599 (it's dated by a
> contemporary reference to the military exploits of Essex in Ireland).
> Assuming the play was produced in the spring or summer of 1599,
> Shakespeare's company was performing plays to the "masses" at the "Theatre"
> in Shoreditch at the time. If it was acted later in 1599, it was performed
> at the newly constructed "Globe". The "wooden O" referred to in the
> prologue is one of these two *public* theaters.
>
> Since Shakespeare makes it clear in the prologue that the play *is* being
> performed in the public theater, where the "masses" were referred to as
> "groundlings" (and charged a penny for the privilege), it's pretty clear
> that Canterbury's speech *WAS* written for the masses.
It's pretty clear just from reading it that Canterbury's speech *WAS
NOT* written for the masses. But it is quite possible that a play
written SPECIFICALLY for the royal court (and/or the inns of court)
underwent minor modifications (such as having a "Drama for Dummies"
Chorus/Prologue tacked on) when later presented to a somewhat baffled
public. (To make it even more acceptable to the public it later had a
"Drama for Dummies" fake playwright tacked on.)
> Other than the fact that you apparently find it hard to understand, what
> makes you think it wasn't?
Did ANYONE in this SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever write a letter
to say that they had actually gone to the Globe to see some Shakespeare
play?????
Clark
> It's pretty clear just from reading it that Canterbury's speech *WAS
>NOT* written for the masses. But it is quite possible that a play
>written SPECIFICALLY for the royal court (and/or the inns of court)
>underwent minor modifications (such as having a "Drama for Dummies"
>Chorus/Prologue tacked on) when later presented to a somewhat baffled
>public. (To make it even more acceptable to the public it later had a
>"Drama for Dummies" fake playwright tacked on.)
Art, who else but the "ignorant masses" would need to have Canterbury tell
them what the Salique Law was? Do you really think the educated aristos
needed a quick lesson in history before the play got underway?
>> Other than the fact that you apparently find it hard to understand, what
>> makes you think it wasn't?
>
> Did ANYONE in this SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever write a letter
>to say that they had actually gone to the Globe to see some Shakespeare
>play?????
There are numerous contemporary accounts of Shakespeare's plays being
performed before the general public. The 1608 Quarto of Lear refers to "his
Maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe on he Bancke-side." The
1609 Quarto of Troilus and Cressida says that it "was acted by the Kings
Maiesties seruants at the Globe." The same for the quartos of Pericles and
Othello.
The manuscript by Simon Forman mentions several of Shakespeare's plays
performed before the public at the Globe. John Manningham showed his
familiarity with Burbage and Shakespeare in his diary entry of 1602. The
misadventure of the Earl of Essex's men playing Richard II before the public
at the Globe would seem to be too well known to need mentioning.
In the First Folio, Hugh Holland refers to Shakespeare's plays being
performed at the Globe.
And just what sort of "letter" would you expect an illiterate "groundling"
to leave to history?
Neuendorffer
>
> > It's pretty clear just from reading it that Canterbury's speech *WAS
> >NOT* written for the masses. But it is quite possible that a play
> >written SPECIFICALLY for the royal court (and/or the inns of court)
> >underwent minor modifications (such as having a "Drama for Dummies"
> >Chorus/Prologue tacked on) when later presented to a somewhat baffled
> >public. (To make it even more acceptable to the public it later had a
> >"Drama for Dummies" fake playwright tacked on.)
>
>
> Art, who else but the "ignorant masses" would need to have Canterbury tell
> them what the Salique Law was? Do you really think the educated aristos
> needed a quick lesson in history before the play got underway?
Oh, great! So Henry V is one of the "ignorant masses" that
Canterbury is explaining Salique Law history too IYO?
> >> Other than the fact that you apparently find it hard to understand, what
> >> makes you think it wasn't?
> >
> > Did ANYONE in this SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever write a letter
> >to say that they had actually gone to the Globe to see some Shakespeare
> >play?????
>
> There are numerous contemporary accounts of Shakespeare's plays being
> performed before the general public. The 1608 Quarto of Lear refers to "his
> Maiesties seruants playing vsually at the Gloabe on he Bancke-side." The
> 1609 Quarto of Troilus and Cressida says that it "was acted by the Kings
> Maiesties seruants at the Globe." The same for the quartos of Pericles and
> Othello.
But did ANYONE in your SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever write a
letter
to say that they had actually gone to the Globe to see some Shakespeare
play?
(I don't believe that your SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever
existed.)
> The manuscript by Simon Forman mentions several of Shakespeare's plays
> performed before the public at the Globe.
Yes, Simon Forman (doctor to Shakspere's Silver Street 'super' and
esteemed astrologer) was the ONLY man EVER to leave a written record
(_Booke of Paies_ 1611) of seeing Shakespeare's plays at the Globe. A
few weeks
later Forman commits suicide. Sounds a little suspicious to me. :-)
> John Manningham showed his
> familiarity with Burbage and Shakespeare in his diary entry of 1602.
That was Middle Temple hall where
they MIGHT POSSIBLY understand what Canterbury was talking about.
> The
> misadventure of the Earl of Essex's men playing Richard II before the public
> at the Globe would seem to be too well known to need mentioning.
Nothing like a Shakespeare play to rile up the angry masses. :-)
> In the First Folio, Hugh Holland refers to Shakespeare's plays being
> performed at the Globe.
"His dayes are done, that made the dainty Playes,
Which made the Globe of heav'n and earth to ring."
Which are his "dainty Playes" anyhow?
> And just what sort of "letter" would you expect an illiterate "groundling"
> to leave to history?
I personally don't expect any "letter" from an illiterate
"groundling."
I don't expect illiterate "groundling" to even stick around
for the end of Canterbury's Salique Law history lesson.
(I also don't expect a "letter" from an illiterate playwright
and, indeed, there is none to be had.)
Art Neuendorffer
Clark
>> Art, who else but the "ignorant masses" would need to have Canterbury
tell
>> them what the Salique Law was? Do you really think the educated aristos
>> needed a quick lesson in history before the play got underway?
>
> Oh, great! So Henry V is one of the "ignorant masses" that
> Canterbury is explaining Salique Law history too IYO?
So now you're claiming that the speech Shakespeare gave Canterbury was an
accurate record of an historical event? IMO, you're being a bit too naive
to be believed.
> But did ANYONE in your SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever write a
>letter
>to say that they had actually gone to the Globe to see some Shakespeare
>play?
>
> (I don't believe that your SUPERINTELLIGENT general public ever
>existed.)
I don't think it takes a SUPERINTELLIGENT general public to understand
Canterbury's speech. Just because you have contempt for the average man, it
doesn't mean that someone need a university education to appreciate
Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
> Yes, Simon Forman (doctor to Shakspere's Silver Street 'super' and
>esteemed astrologer) was the ONLY man EVER to leave a written record
>(_Booke of Paies_ 1611) of seeing Shakespeare's plays at the Globe. A
>few weeks
>later Forman commits suicide. Sounds a little suspicious to me. :-)
Schoenbaum, in WS: Records and Images, records that Simon Forman died on
Thursday, September 8, 1611. To quote Schoenbaum, "after dinner, feeling
very well, [Forman] took a pair of oars at Southwark to cross to Puddle
Dock. While rowing in mid-stream he collapsed, crying 'An impost, an
impost', and died. In Shakespearian fashion, a 'most sad' wind storm
immediately followed the event. So Forman's friend, the astrologer William
Lilly, reports. Some have suggested, without any supporting evidence, that
Forman committed suicide."
I guess paranoid conspiracy theorists will find something "suspicious" about
anything. :-)
>> The
>> misadventure of the Earl of Essex's men playing Richard II before the
public
>> at the Globe would seem to be too well known to need mentioning.
>
> Nothing like a Shakespeare play to rile up the angry masses. :-)
The attempt was comically (or tragically) inept, but the fact that it
happened is a matter of historical record. The important thing is that
Essex's men *thought* it would work. If the would-be topplers of the throne
expected the ill-educated masses, who were their contemporaries, would
understand Shakespeare, why don't you? The attempt didn't fail because the
masses didn't understand the significance of the play, it was because Essex
seriously misjudged the will of the people.
> I personally don't expect any "letter" from an illiterate
>"groundling."
> I don't expect illiterate "groundling" to even stick around
> for the end of Canterbury's Salique Law history lesson.
Then it's rather odd that Henry V was and is one of Shakespeare's all-time
most popular plays, don't you think?
Neuendorffer
>
> > Oh, great! So Henry V is one of the "ignorant masses" that
> > Canterbury is explaining Salique Law history too IYO?
> So now you're claiming that the speech Shakespeare gave Canterbury was an
> accurate record of an historical event? IMO, you're being a bit too naive
> to be believed.
If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. I'm so naive as to believe
that a mere commoner could get away with that sort of thing in the 16th
century.
> I don't think it takes a SUPERINTELLIGENT general public to understand
> Canterbury's speech. Just because you have contempt for the average man, it
> doesn't mean that someone need a university education to appreciate
> Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
It takes MORE than a university education to appreciate
Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
> > Yes, Simon Forman (doctor to Shakspere's Silver Street 'super' and
> >esteemed astrologer) was the ONLY man EVER to leave a written record
> >(_Booke of Paies_ 1611) of seeing Shakespeare's plays at the Globe. A
> >few weeks
> >later Forman commits suicide. Sounds a little suspicious to me. :-)
>
> Schoenbaum, in WS: Records and Images, records that Simon Forman died on
> Thursday, September 8, 1611. To quote Schoenbaum, "after dinner, feeling
> very well, [Forman] took a pair of oars at Southwark to cross to Puddle
> Dock.
Ehh. . . What's "Puddle Dock?"
> While rowing in mid-stream he collapsed, crying 'An impost, an
> impost', and died. In Shakespearian fashion, a 'most sad' wind storm
> immediately followed the event. So Forman's friend, the astrologer William
> Lilly, reports. Some have suggested, without any supporting evidence, that
> Forman committed suicide."
>
> I guess paranoid conspiracy theorists
> will find something "suspicious" about anything. :-)
I certainly find the death of Simon Forman "suspicious."
> >> The misadventure of the Earl of Essex's men playing Richard II
> >> before the public at the Globe
> >> would seem to be too well known to need mentioning.
> >
> > Nothing like a Shakespeare play to rile up the angry masses. :-)
>
> The attempt was comically (or tragically) inept,
> but the fact that it happened is a matter of historical record.
Well no one has less respect for the "historical record" than me.
> The important thing is that
> Essex's men *thought* it would work. If the would-be topplers of the throne
> expected the ill-educated masses, who were their contemporaries, would
> understand Shakespeare, why don't you?
IF "would-be topplers of the throne" expected that ill-educated masses
would understand Shakespeare (which I STRONGLY DOUBT)
then they were DEAD WRONG!
> > I personally don't expect any "letter" from an illiterate
> >"groundling."
> > I don't expect illiterate "groundling" to even stick around
> > for the end of Canterbury's Salique Law history lesson.
>
> Then it's rather odd that Henry V was and is one of Shakespeare's all-time
> most popular plays, don't you think?
The Bible is the all-time most popular book but
very few people read or understand it.
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> Neuendorffer wrote
>
> > Oh, great! So Henry V is one of the "ignorant masses" that
> > Canterbury is explaining Salique Law history too IYO?
Clark wrote:
> So now you're claiming that the speech Shakespeare gave Canterbury was an
> accurate record of an historical event? IMO, you're being a bit too naive
> to be believed.
If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive as to
Terry Ross
> If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
> the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
> words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive as to
> believe
> that a mere commoner could get away with that sort of thing in the 16th
> century.
Mere commoner historians beat Shakespeare to it. The archbishop's Salic
Law speech is taken from Shakespeare's sources. According to W. G.
Boswell-Stone in *Shakespeare's Holinshed*, Halle in his version had
quoted the archbishop directly, while Holinshed shortened the speech and
put it into indirect discourse. Here is Holinhed's version of the
archbishop's remarks
"against the surmised and false fained law Salike, which the Frenchmen
alledge euer against the kings of England in barre of their iust title to
the crowne of France. The verie words of that supposed law are these: 'In
terram Salicam mulieres ne succedant;' that is to saie, 'Into the Salike
land let not women succeed.' Which the French glossers expound to be the
realme of France, and that this law was made by king Pharamond; whereas
yet their owne authors affirme, that the land Salike is in Germanie,
betweene the riuers of Elbe and Sala; and that when Charles the great had
ouercome the Saxons, he placed there certeine Frenchmen, which hauing in
disdeine the dishonest maners of the Germane women, made a law, that the
females should not succeed to any inheritance within that land, which at
this daie, is called Meisen: so that, if this be true, this law was not
made for the realm of France, nor the Frenchmen possessed the land Salike,
till foure Hundred and one and twentie yeares after the death of
Pharamond, the supposed maker of this Salike law; for this Pharamond
deceassed in the years 426, and Charles the great subdued the Saxons, and
placed the Frenchmen in those parts beyond the riuer of Sala, in the yeare
805.
"Moreouer, it appeareth by their owne writers, that king Pepine, which
deposed Childerike, claimed the crown of France, as heire generall, for
that he was descended of Blithild, daughter to king Clothair the first.
Hugh Capet also, (who usurped the crowne, vpon Charles duke of Loraine,
the sole heire male of the line and stocks of Charles the great,) to make
his title seeme true, and appeare good, (though in deed it was starke
naught,) conueied himself as heire to the ladie Lingard, daughter to king
Charlemaine, sonne to Lewes the emperour, that was son to Charles the
great. King Lewes also, the tenth, (otherwise called saint Lewes,) being
verie heire to the said vsurper Hugh Capet, could neuer be satisfied in
his conscience how he might iustlie keepe and possesse the crowns of
France, till he was persuaded and fullie instructed, that queene Isabell
his grandmother was lineallie descended of the ladie Ermengard, daughter
and heire to the aboue named Charles duke of Loraine; by the which
marriage, the bloud and line of Charles the great was againe vnited and
restored to the crowne & scepter of France: so that more clere than the
sunne it openlie appeareth, that the title of king Pepin, the claime of
Hugh Capet, the possession of Lewes; yea, and the French kings to this
daie, are deriued and conueied from the heire female; though they would,
vnder the colour of such a fained law, barre the kings and princes of this
realme of England of their right and lawfull inheritance."
Shakespeare set Holinshed's version of the archbishop's remarks in
pentameter. Some of Shakespeare's lines are 100% Holinshed, while many
others are lightly modified so they will scan. For example, where
Holinshed has
yet their owne authors affirme,
that the land Salike is in Germanie,
betweene the riuers of Elbe and Sala,
Shakespeare has
Yet their own authors faithfully affirm
That the land Salique is in Germany,
Between the floods of Sala and of Elbe
I don't know why Art imagines that it would have been "EXTREMELY awkward"
for Shakespeare to have transcribed the scene from Holinshed. If
Shakespeare had had Holinshed open before him as he wrote the scene he
would have found it EXTREMELY easy.
For some anti-Stratfordians, similarities of expression between
Shakespeare and candidate X are meant to impress us as evidence that
candidate X was the real Shakespeare. Since some passages in Shakespeare
are much more similar to passages in Holinshed than any passages in
Marlowe or Oxford are to Shakespeare, these anti-Stratfordians should
shift their allegiance to the "real author" Ralph Holinshed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark
> If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
>the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
>words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive as to
>believe
>that a mere commoner could get away with that sort of thing in the 16th
>century.
You can't be serious, Art. Shakespeare did not exist in isolation. Jonson,
Marlowe, Marston, Webster, Chapman, Fletcher, and all the other playwrights
of the day "put words in the mouths" of noblemen and kings in their plays.
Surely you are familiar with their work.
England had fought a hundred year war because of Canterbury's interpretation
of the Salique Law. Do you really think the concept was so obscure? 400
years from now people might miss an allusion to Pearl Harbor, but even now,
nearly 58 years after the fact, most people would recognize it as the United
States' entry into World War II.
>> I don't think it takes a SUPERINTELLIGENT general public to understand
>> Canterbury's speech. Just because you have contempt for the average man,
>> it doesn't mean that someone need a university education to appreciate
>> Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
>
> It takes MORE than a university education to appreciate
> Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
Spare us your snobbery. Any difficulty people have today in appreciating
Shakespeare, or understanding his dialogue, is caused by his topical
allusions and use of the then-current idiom. People of Shakespeare's own
day were aware of the events Shakespeare alluded to, and spoke his idiom.
The plays were written for the people who paid to see them.
>> > Yes, Simon Forman (doctor to Shakspere's Silver Street 'super' and
>> >esteemed astrologer) was the ONLY man EVER to leave a written record
>> >(_Booke of Paies_ 1611) of seeing Shakespeare's plays at the Globe. A
>> >few weeks
>> >later Forman commits suicide. Sounds a little suspicious to me. :-)
>>
>> Schoenbaum, in WS: Records and Images, records that Simon Forman died on
>> Thursday, September 8, 1611. To quote Schoenbaum, "after dinner, feeling
>> very well, [Forman] took a pair of oars at Southwark to cross to Puddle
>> Dock.
>
> Ehh. . . What's "Puddle Dock?"
I assume it was the name of a dock on the Thames. Perhaps someone with your
advanced education can further enlighten us on the geography of the banks of
the Thames in 1611.
>> While rowing in mid-stream he collapsed, crying 'An impost, an
>> impost', and died. In Shakespearian fashion, a 'most sad' wind storm
>> immediately followed the event. So Forman's friend, the astrologer
William
>> Lilly, reports. Some have suggested, without any supporting evidence,
that
>> Forman committed suicide."
>>
>> I guess paranoid conspiracy theorists
>> will find something "suspicious" about anything. :-)
>
> I certainly find the death of Simon Forman "suspicious."
Hence the allusion to paranoid conspiracy theorists.
>> >> The misadventure of the Earl of Essex's men playing Richard II
>> >> before the public at the Globe
>> >> would seem to be too well known to need mentioning.
>> >
>> > Nothing like a Shakespeare play to rile up the angry masses. :-)
>>
>> The attempt was comically (or tragically) inept,
>> but the fact that it happened is a matter of historical record.
>
> Well no one has less respect for the "historical record" than me.
>
>> The important thing is that
>> Essex's men *thought* it would work. If the would-be topplers of the
throne
>> expected the ill-educated masses, who were their contemporaries, would
>> understand Shakespeare, why don't you?
>
> IF "would-be topplers of the throne" expected that ill-educated masses
> would understand Shakespeare (which I STRONGLY DOUBT)
> then they were DEAD WRONG!
Then what do you think was their motivation for performing Richard II?
>> > I personally don't expect any "letter" from an illiterate
>> >"groundling."
>> > I don't expect illiterate "groundling" to even stick around
>> > for the end of Canterbury's Salique Law history lesson.
>>
>> Then it's rather odd that Henry V was and is one of Shakespeare's
all-time
>> most popular plays, don't you think?
>
> The Bible is the all-time most popular book but
> very few people read or understand it.
You really need to get out more.
KQKnave
<tr...@bcpl.net> writes:
>For some anti-Stratfordians, similarities of expression between
>Shakespeare and candidate X are meant to impress us as evidence that
>candidate X was the real Shakespeare. Since some passages in Shakespeare
>are much more similar to passages in Holinshed than any passages in
>Marlowe or Oxford are to Shakespeare, these anti-Stratfordians should
>shift their allegiance to the "real author" Ralph Holinshed.
>
Holy Cow! Marloxinshed!
Jim
KQKnave
kqk...@aol.comspamslam (KQKnave) writes:
>Holy Cow! Marloxinshed!
>
Sorry, that should be: Marloxenshed
Jim
Neuendorffer
>
>> If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
>> the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
>> words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive
>> as to believe that a mere commoner could get away with
>> that sort of thing in the 16th century.
Terry Ross wrote:
>Mere commoner historians beat Shakespeare to it. The archbishop's Salic
>Law speech is taken from Shakespeare's sources. According to W. G.
>Boswell-Stone in *Shakespeare's Holinshed*, Halle in his version had
>quoted the archbishop directly, while Holinshed shortened the speech and
>put it into indirect discourse.
>For some anti-Stratfordians, similarities of expression between
>Shakespeare and candidate X are meant to impress us as evidence that
>candidate X was the real Shakespeare. Since some passages in Shakespeare
>are much more similar to passages in Holinshed than any passages in
>Marlowe or Oxford are to Shakespeare, these anti-Stratfordians should
>shift their allegiance to the "real author" Ralph Holinshed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"RALPH" Holinshed!
Is that what "NORTON" calls him?
(Why not "RALPHY BOY?")
-------------------------------------------------------------
The mysterious RAPHAEL Holinshed was named for
the mysterious Neoplatonic Italian painter RAPHAEL
who painted _St.George Fighting the Dragon_ (1504-06)
[ http://metalab.unc.edu/cgfa/raphael/p-raphae36.htm ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.G.(Saint George) was tortured & executed at Nicomedia Apr.23, 303.
G.S.(Gulielmus Shakspere) was christened in Stratford on Apr.23, 1564.
G.S.(Gulielmus Shakspere) was poisoned in Stratford on Apr.23, 1616.
Pacifist Miguel Cervantes "died" in poverty in Madrid on Apr.23, 1616.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like William Shakspere
RAPHAEL (the painter) died on his April birthday:
------------------------------------------------------------
April 6:
------------------------------------------------------------
648 -BC- Earliest total solar eclipse; chronicled by Greeks
1199 Richard I, the Lion-hearted, King of England (1189-99), dies
1327 Italian poet Petrarch 1st sets eyes on his beloved Laura
1348 Italian poet Petrarch's Laura, dies of plague
1483 Italian Raphael, [Raffaello Sanzio], born/christened?
1520 Italian Raphael, dies on his 37th birthday
1528 German painter Albrecht Durer dies in Germany
1590 Francis Walsingham, English secretary of state, dies
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presumeably Raffaello Sanzio was named for the pacifist Angel Raphael:
http://www.multimedia.calpoly.edu/libarts/smarx/Publications/prophet.html
<<In Books 11 and 12 [of Paradise Lost], while revealing the future of
his
descendants to an Adam chastened by sin and death, Raphael delivers a
sermon
condemning the martial values of the heroic age:
For in those days Might only shall be admir'd,
And Valor and Heroic Virtue call'd;
To overcome in Battle, and subdue
Nations, and bring home spoils with infinite
Man-slaughter, shall be held the highest pitch
Of human Glory . . .
Thus Fame shall be achiev'd, renown on Earth
And what most merits fame in silence hid.
(11:689-699)
And later, Raphael refuses to celebrate the military victories of the
Lord of
Hosts and His generals from Moses to Solomon:". . .and at length they
come, /
Conducted by his Angel, to the land / Promised to Abraham and his
seed--the rest
/ Were long to tell: how many battles fought / How many kings destroyed,
and
kingdoms won"(12:258-63). From the perspective of the second half of
Paradise
Lost, the glories of triumph celebrated in the Old Testament are
themselves
reduced to temptations, "the fair appearing good.">>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Terry Ross
> >On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Neuendorffer wrote:
> >
> >> If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
> >> the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
> >> words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive
> >> as to believe that a mere commoner could get away with
> >> that sort of thing in the 16th century.
>
> Terry Ross wrote:
>
> >Mere commoner historians beat Shakespeare to it. The archbishop's Salic
> >Law speech is taken from Shakespeare's sources. According to W. G.
> >Boswell-Stone in *Shakespeare's Holinshed*, Halle in his version had
> >quoted the archbishop directly, while Holinshed shortened the speech and
> >put it into indirect discourse.
>
> >For some anti-Stratfordians, similarities of expression between
> >Shakespeare and candidate X are meant to impress us as evidence that
> >candidate X was the real Shakespeare. Since some passages in Shakespeare
> >are much more similar to passages in Holinshed than any passages in
> >Marlowe or Oxford are to Shakespeare, these anti-Stratfordians should
> >shift their allegiance to the "real author" Ralph Holinshed.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> "RALPH" Holinshed!
>
> Is that what "NORTON" calls him?
>
> (Why not "RALPHY BOY?")
Thomas "Ed" Norton might have pronounced it "Rafe." The name "Raphael"
never occurs in Shakespeare, but "Ralph" does:
-----
The Taming of the Shrew; Act 4, Scene 1
GRUMIO Nathaniel's coat, sir, was not fully made,
And Gabriel's pumps were all unpink'd i' the heel;
There was no link to colour Peter's hat,
And Walter's dagger was not come from sheathing:
There were none fine but Adam, Ralph, and Gregory;
The rest were ragged, old, and beggarly;
Yet, as they are, here are they come to meet you.
------
And surely you haven't forgotten National Soccer Hall of Fame inductee
Raphael "Ralph" Tracy: Member of the United States team at the 1930 World
Cup in Uruguay; played all three games in that World Cup, but forced to
leave game against Argentina with a broken leg.
The Comedy of Errors; Act 2, Scene 1
DROMIO OF EPHESUS Am I so round with you as you with me,
That like a football you do spurn me thus?
You spurn me hence, and he will spurn me hither:
If I last in this service, you must case me in leather.
------
King Lear; Act 1, Scene 4
KENT Nor tripped neither, you base football player.
--------
Neuendorffer
> > >
> > >> If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
> > >> the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
> > >> words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive
> > >> as to believe that a mere commoner could get away with
> > >> that sort of thing in the 16th century.
> >
> > Terry Ross wrote:
> >
> > >Mere commoner historians beat Shakespeare to it. The archbishop's Salic
> > >Law speech is taken from Shakespeare's sources. According to W. G.
> > >Boswell-Stone in *Shakespeare's Holinshed*, Halle in his version had
> > >quoted the archbishop directly, while Holinshed shortened the speech and
> > >put it into indirect discourse.
> >
> > >For some anti-Stratfordians, similarities of expression between
> > >Shakespeare and candidate X are meant to impress us as evidence that
> > >candidate X was the real Shakespeare. Since some passages in Shakespeare
> > >are much more similar to passages in Holinshed than any passages in
> > >Marlowe or Oxford are to Shakespeare, these anti-Stratfordians should
> > >shift their allegiance to the "real author" Ralph Holinshed.
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > "RALPH" Holinshed!
> >
> > Is that what "NORTON" calls him?
> >
> > (Why not "RALPHY BOY?")
> Thomas "Ed" Norton might have pronounced it "Rafe."
RAPHAEL => God Has Healed
JASON => Healer
ALTHEA => Healer
RALPH => Wolf Counselor
RAUL => Strong Wolf Counselor
RUDOLPH => Famous Wolf
WOLFGANG => Path of a Wolf
ADOLPH => Wolf
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross wrote:
> The name "Raphael" never occurs in Shakespeare,
> but "Ralph" does:
> -----
> The Taming of the Shrew; Act 4, Scene 1
>
> GRUMIO Nathaniel's coat, sir, was not fully made,
> And Gabriel's pumps were all unpink'd i' the heel;
> There was no link to colour Peter's hat,
> And Walter's dagger was not come from sheathing:
> There were none fine but Adam, Ralph, and Gregory;
> The rest were ragged, old, and beggarly;
> Yet, as they are, here are they come to meet you.
>
> ------
> And surely you haven't forgotten National Soccer Hall of Fame inductee
> Raphael "Ralph" Tracy: Member of the United States team at the 1930 World
> Cup in Uruguay; played all three games in that World Cup, but forced to
> leave game against Argentina with a broken leg.
Yes, I had . . . and don't call me Shirley.
http://www.multimedia.calpoly.edu/libarts/smarx/Publications/prophet.html
and his seed--the rest/ Were long to tell: how many battles fought / How
many kings destroyed, and kingdoms won"(12:258-63). From the perspective
of the second half of Paradise Lost, the glories of triumph celebrated
in the Old Testament are themselves reduced to temptations, "the fair
appearing good.">>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
> If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
> the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
> words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive as to
> believe
> that a mere commoner could get away with that sort of thing in the 16th
> century.
So now you're saying that _all_ history plays by _all_ Elizabethan
playwrights _must_ _be_ the work of disguised noblemen?
In that case, I nominate Edmund Blackadder as the best candidate.
> It takes MORE than a university education to appreciate
> Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
Little Johnny came home in a state of amazement. "Ancient Romans were
_much_ smarter than we are, Daddy. They could even speak Latin."
Neuendorffer
>
> > If, in fact, it HAD been an accurate record of an historical event then
> > the Stratman wouldn't be in the EXTREMELY awkward position of having put
> > words in the mouths of a King & Archbishop. Are you so naive as to
> > believe that a mere commoner could get away
> > with that sort of thing in the 16th century.
>
> So now you're saying that _all_ history plays by _all_ Elizabethan
> playwrights _must_ _be_ the work of disguised noblemen?
>
> In that case, I nominate Edmund Blackadder as the best candidate.
"History has known many great liars: Copernicus, Goebbels, St. Ralph
the Liar, but there have been none quite so vile as. . ."
> > It takes MORE than a university education to appreciate
> > Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
>
> Little Johnny came home in a state of amazement. "Ancient Romans were
> _much_ smarter than we are, Daddy. They could even speak Latin."
Little Hamnet came home in a state of amazement. "Ancient Romans were
_much_ smarter than we are, Daddy. They could even read & write."
--------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
P. A. Stonnell
wrote:
>
>> Neuendorffer wrote
<snip>
>
>> I don't think it takes a SUPERINTELLIGENT general public to understand
>> Canterbury's speech. Just because you have contempt for the average man,
>> it doesn't mean that someone need a university education to appreciate
>> Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
>
> It takes MORE than a university education to appreciate
> Shakespeare's plays--or to understand his dialogue.
>
>Art Neuendorffer
Well, now I feel down right insultated. If I can't understand or
appreciate the plays <not having been to univeristy at all), what do
you suggest I should be studing?
Formal education is not an iducation of intellengence and any one who
thinks so, is just showing how even a degree is no measure of
intellengence and comon sense.
Peggy A. Stonnell
@snerpa.is Svana R. Guðmundsdóttir
Ben Jónsson rhimed "save" with Raph".
A Grace by Ben Jonson,extempore,before King James.
Our king and queen,the Lord-God bless
The Paltzgrave,and the Lady Bess
And God bless every living thing
That lives and breaths,and loves the king.
God bless the Council of Estate
And Buckingham,the fortunate,
God bless them all,and keep them save,
And God bless me,and God bless Raph.
The King wanted to know who Raph was and Ben told him that ´twas the drawer
at the Swan tawern,by Charing cross,who drew him good canary.For this the
king gave him 100 pounds.
Greetings
Svana.
Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com> wrote in article
<376ECBDD...@erols.com>...
Neuendorffer
>
> Just a note,out of place..
> Ben Jónsson rhimed "save" with Raph".
> A Grace by Ben Jonson,extempore,before King James.
> Our king and queen,the Lord-God bless
> The Paltzgrave,and the Lady Bess
> And God bless every living thing
> That lives and breaths,and loves the king.
> God bless the Council of Estate
> And Buckingham,the fortunate,
> God bless them all,and keep them save,
> And God bless me,and God bless Raph.
>
> The King wanted to know who Raph was and Ben told him that ´twas the drawer
> at the Swan tawern,by Charing cross,who drew him good canary.For this the
> king gave him 100 pounds.
-------------------------------------------------------------
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > RAPHAEL => God Has Healed
> > JASON => Healer
> > ALTHEA => Healer
> >
> > RALPH => Wolf Counselor
> > RAUL => Strong Wolf Counselor
> > RUDOLPH => Famous Wolf
> > WOLFGANG => Path of a Wolf
> > ADOLPH => Wolf
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > RAPHAEL => God Has Healed
> The King wanted to know who RAPH was and Ben told him that ´twas the
> drawer at the Swan tawern,by Charing cross,who drew him good CANARY.
CANARY, n. [F. Canarie, L. Canaria insula one of the Canary islands,
said to be so called from its LARGE DOGS, fr. CANIS.] 1. Wine made in
the Canary Islands; sack.
WOLF, n.;[OE. wolf, wulf, AS. wulf; akin to OS. wulf, D. & G. wolf,
Icel. [=u]lfr, Sw. ulf, Dan. ulv, Goth. wulfs, Lith. vilkas, Russ.
volk', L. lupus, Gr. ly`kos, Skr. v[.r]ka; also to Gr. "e`lkein to draw,
drag, tear in pieces.] 1. (Zo["o]l.) Any one of several species of wild
and savage carnivores belonging to the genus {CANIS} and closely allied
to the COMMON DOG.
>From Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary (easton)
WOLF Heb. zeeb, frequently referred to in Scripture as an emblem of
treachery and cruelty. Jacob's prophecy, "Benjamin shall ravin as a
wolf" (Gen. 49:27), represents the warlike character of that tribe (see
Judg. 19-21).
----------------------------------------------------------
Walt Whitman on Shakespeare:
<<Conceiv'd out of the fullest heat and pulse of European feudalism,
personifying in unparallel'd ways the medieval aristocracy, its
towering spirit of ruthless and gigantic caste,
its own peculiar air and arrogance (no mere imitation) one of the
wolfish earls so plenteous in the plays themselves, or some born
descendent and knower, might seem to be the true author of those
amazing works... I am firm against Shaksper.>>
> > RALPH => Wolf Counselor
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
> >
> >> > RAPHAEL => God Has Healed
> >> > JASON => Healer
> >> > ALTHEA => Healer
> >> >
> >> > RALPH => Wolf Counselor
> >> > RAUL => Strong Wolf Counselor
> >> > RUDOLPH => Famous Wolf
> >> > WOLFGANG => Path of a Wolf
> >> > ADOLPH => Wolf
> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> > RAPHAEL => God Has Healed
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------
Caius Marcius wrote:
>
> ...1953's "Don't Give Up the Sheep" [was] the first cartoon in [Chuck]
> Jones' third series with [Wile E. Coyote] - or a character who
> distinctly resembles him. For in these cartoons, the Coyote has been
> reclassified as a Wolf, a distinction that is only visible in that the
> Wolf's nose is usually red. He has also picked up a new name, Ralph
> Wolf (the name of a veteran studio artist), and a new adversary, a
> chunky sheepdog named Sam whose eyes are entirely covered by his bangs.
> For the most part, these several films consist of blackout vignettes in
> which the Wolf tries -and fails - to steal sheep from the white dogs'
> flock; the sheepdog is an even-tempered and stolid guardian, presiding
> over his herd from a top a cliff, who does not hesitate to violently
> punish the Wolf for his attempted poachings
Topcliff <=> punish
Get it, got it, good!
http://www.nonstick.com/characters/ralphwlf.html
> - SteveSchneider, That's All Folks: p. 230-231
---------------------------------------------------------------
That's ALL Folks!
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://renaissance.dm.net/heraldry/blazons.html
<<Southampton (Wriothesley):
azure, a cross or between four falcons close argent.
(Motto: ung par tout, tou par ung:
one for ALL, ALL for one [honest!] )>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARlo/one for all for one/hiRAM
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E o n L I E B E G E T T
E{r o f}T {H} e S E I N S U I N G
S O N N {E} T S (M) R W H{a l l}H A
P P I {N}e S S E (A) N D T H A T E
T E {R}n I T I E P (R)o M I S E D
B {Y}o U R E V E R l(I) V I N G P
O.E. T W I S H E T H T (H) E W E L
L |W] I S H I N G A D V E N T U R
E |R] I N S E T T I N G {f o r} T H
T O T H E O N L I [E| B E G E T T E R
O F T H E S E I N [S| U I N G S O N N
E T S M R W H A L [L|H] A P P I N E S
S E A N D T H A T [E|T] E R N I T I E
P R O M I S E D B [Y|O] U R E V E R L
I V I N G P O E T(W) |I] S H E T H T H
E|W]E L L W I S H(I) N G A D V E N T
U|R]E R I N S E T(T) I N G F O R T H
------------------------------------------------------------
The 1609 Sonnets dedication to the mysterious "Mr. W.H."
TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
*THESE* INSUING *SONNETS*
Mr W H *ALL* HAPPINESSE
AND THAT ETERNITIE
PROMISED
*BY*
OUR *EVER*-LIVING POET
WISHETH
*THE* WELL-WISHING
ANVENTURER IN
SETTING
*FORTH*
appears to be to V&A dedicatee "Henry Wriothesley"
(& possibly Henry Earl of Oxford)
whose motto was: "one for all, all for one."
(The "all" being: "Knights of the Helmet" Freemasons.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E o n L I E B E G E T T
E{r o f}T{H}e S E I N S U I N G
S O N N{E}T S(M)R W H{a l l}H A
P P I{N}e S S E(A)N D T H A T E
T E{R}n I T I E P(R)o M I S E D
B{Y}o U R E V E R l(I)V I N G P
O.E.T W I S H E T H T(H)E W E L
L|W]I S H I N G A D V E N T U R
E|R]I N S E T T I N G{f o r}T H
T O T H E O N L I[E|B E G E T T E R
O F T H E S E I N[S|U I N G S O N N
E T S M R W H A L[L|H]A P P I N E S
S E A N D T H A T[E|T]E R N I T I E
P R O M I S E D B[Y|O]U R E V E R L
I V I N G P O E T(W)I]S H E T H T H
E|W]E L L W I S H(I)N G A D V E N T
U|R]E R I N S E T(T)I N G F O R T H
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Caius Marcius
>> > JASON => Healer
>> > ALTHEA => Healer
>> >
>> > RALPH => Wolf Counselor
>> > RAUL => Strong Wolf Counselor
>> > RUDOLPH => Famous Wolf
>> > WOLFGANG => Path of a Wolf
>> > ADOLPH => Wolf
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------
>> > RAPHAEL => God Has Healed
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
...1953's "Don't Give Up the Sheep" [was] the first cartoon in [Chuck]
Jones' third series with [Wile E. Coyote] - or a character who
distinctly resembles him. For in these cartoons, the Coyote has been
reclassified as a Wolf, a distinction that is only visible in that the
Wolf's nose is usually red. He has also picked up a new name, Ralph
Wolf (the name of a veteran studio artist), and a new adversary, a
chunky sheepdog named Sam whose eyes are entirely covered by his bangs.
For the most part, these several films consist of blackout vignettes in
which the Wolf tries -and fails - to steal sheep from the white dogs'
flock; the sheepdog is an even-tempered and stolid guardian, presiding
over his herd from a top a cliff, who does not hesitate to violently
punish the Wolf for his attempted poachings
- SteveSchneider, That's All Folks: The art of Warner Brothers'
Animation p. 230-231
I'll leave it to Art to do the necessary exegesis on this (surely the
reference to "poaching" is not without significance). As an Oxfordian,
he knows all about "Looney" Tunes.
- CMC
Neuendorffer
The Angel RAPHAEL only appears in the Apochryphal book TOBIT
The only Biblical book with a pet DOG:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobit, chapter 3
17: And RAPHAEL was sent to heal the two of them: to scale away the
white films
of Tobit's eyes; to give Sarah the daughter of Raguel in marriage to
Tobias the
son of Tobit, and to bind Asmodeus the evil demon, because Tobias was
entitled
to possess her. At that very moment Tobit returned and entered his house
and
Sarah the daughter of Raguel came down from her upper room.
Tobit, chapter 11
2: Then RAPHAEL said to Tobias, "Are you not aware, brother, of how you
left
your father?
3: Let us run ahead of your wife and prepare the house.
4: And take the gall of the fish with you." So they went their way, and
the DOG
went along behind them.
5: Now Anna sat looking intently down the road for her son.
6: And she caught sight of him coming, and said to his father, "Behold,
your son
is coming, and so is the man who went with him!"
7: RAPHAEL said, "I know, Tobias, that your father will open his eyes.
8: You therefore must anoint his eyes with the gall; and when they smart
he will
rub them, and will cause the white films to fall away, and he will see
you."
Neuendorffer
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The Angel RAPHAEL only appears in the Apochryphal book TOBIT
> > The only Biblical book with a pet DOG:
>
-----------------------------------
>
> Ah, but what of the TURTLE?
<<We would never recommend keeping turtles as pets, besides carrying
salmonila most states have laws against keeping any wildlife as a pet.
They require sunlight and access to a large variety of foods in their
diet (e.g., pizza). Frequently if a turtle is kept in captivity for too
long it will stop eating and suffer from malnutrition and mutation.>>
----------------------------------------------------------
Song of Solomon
2:11 For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;
2:12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of
birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our
land;
Jeremiah
8:7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and
the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of
their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Caius Marcius
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Angel RAPHAEL only appears in the Apochryphal book TOBIT
> The only Biblical book with a pet DOG:
Ah, but what of the TURTLE?
- CMC