Well, they've always wanted to be taken seriously by the academic establishment.
TR
Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells, The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
Cambridge University Press, 5 b/w illus. Not yet published - available from May 2013, $80 hardback, $28.99 paper.
Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare? The authorship question has been much treated in works of fiction, film and television, provoking interest all over the world. Sceptics have proposed many candidates as the author of Shakespeare's works, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford. But why and how did the authorship question arise and what does surviving evidence offer in answer to it? This authoritative, accessible and frequently entertaining book sets the debate in its historical context and provides an account of its main protagonists and their theories. Presenting the authorship of Shakespeare's works in relation to historiography, psychology and literary theory, twenty-three distinguished scholars reposition and develop the discussion. The book explores the issues in the light of biographical, textual and bibliographical evidence to bring fresh perspectives to an intriguing cultural phenomenon.
Table of Contents
General introduction Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
Part I. Sceptics: Introduction to Part One Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
1. The unreadable Delia Bacon Graham Holderness
2. The case for Bacon Alan Stewart
3. The case for Marlowe Charles Nicholl
4. The life and theatrical interests of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford Alan H. Nelson
5. The unusual suspects Matt Kubus
Part II. Shakespeare as Author: Introduction to Part Two Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
6. Theorizing Shakespeare's authorship Andrew Hadfield
7. Allusions to Shakespeare to 1642 Stanley Wells
8. Shakespeare as collaborator John Jowett
9. Authorship and the evidence of stylometrics MacDonald P. Jackson
10. What does textual evidence reveal about the author? James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen
11. Shakespeare and Warwickshire David Kathman
12. Shakespeare and school Carol Rutter
13. Shakespeare tells lies Barbara Everett
Part III. A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?: Introduction to Part Three Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
14. 'This palpable device': authorship and conspiracy in Shakespeare's life Kate McLuskie
15. Amateurs and professionals: regendering Bacon Andrew Murphy
16. Fictional treatments of Shakespeare's authorship Paul Franssen
17. The declaration of reasonable doubt Stuart Hampton-Reeves
18. 'There won't be puppets, will there?': 'Heroic' authorship and the cultural politics of Anonymous Douglas M. Lanier
19. 'The Shakespeare establishment' and the Shakespeare authorship discussion Paul Edmondson
Afterword James Shapiro
A selected reading list Hardy Cook.
On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:33:24 PM UTC-8, tom....@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, they've always wanted to be taken seriously by the academic establishment.
> TR
> Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells, The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
> Cambridge University Press, 5 b/w illus. Not yet published - available from May 2013, $80 hardback, $28.99 paper.
> Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare? The authorship question has been much treated in works of fiction, film and television, provoking interest all over the world. Sceptics have proposed many candidates as the author of Shakespeare's works, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford. But why and how did the authorship question arise and what does surviving evidence offer in answer to it? This authoritative, accessible and frequently entertaining book sets the debate in its historical context and provides an account of its main protagonists and their theories. Presenting the authorship of Shakespeare's works in relation to historiography, psychology and literary theory, twenty-three distinguished scholars reposition and develop the discussion. The book explores the issues in the light of biographical, textual and bibliographical evidence to bring fresh perspectives to an intriguing cultural phenomenon.
> Table of Contents
> General introduction Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
> Part I. Sceptics: Introduction to Part One Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
> 1. The unreadable Delia Bacon Graham Holderness
> 2. The case for Bacon Alan Stewart
> 3. The case for Marlowe Charles Nicholl
> 4. The life and theatrical interests of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford Alan H. Nelson
> 5. The unusual suspects Matt Kubus
> Part II. Shakespeare as Author: Introduction to Part Two Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
> 6. Theorizing Shakespeare's authorship Andrew Hadfield
> 7. Allusions to Shakespeare to 1642 Stanley Wells
> 8. Shakespeare as collaborator John Jowett
> 9. Authorship and the evidence of stylometrics MacDonald P. Jackson
> 10. What does textual evidence reveal about the author? James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen
> 11. Shakespeare and Warwickshire David Kathman
> 12. Shakespeare and school Carol Rutter
> 13. Shakespeare tells lies Barbara Everett
> Part III. A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?: Introduction to Part Three Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
> 14. 'This palpable device': authorship and conspiracy in Shakespeare's life Kate McLuskie
> 15. Amateurs and professionals: regendering Bacon Andrew Murphy
> 16. Fictional treatments of Shakespeare's authorship Paul Franssen
> 17. The declaration of reasonable doubt Stuart Hampton-Reeves
> 18. 'There won't be puppets, will there?': 'Heroic' authorship and the cultural politics of Anonymous Douglas M. Lanier
> 19. 'The Shakespeare establishment' and the Shakespeare authorship discussion Paul Edmondson
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 13:33:24 -0700 (PDT), tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>Well, they've always wanted to be taken seriously by the academic establishment.
>TR
>Shakespeare Beyond Doubt: Evidence, Argument, Controversy, edited by Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells, The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
>Cambridge University Press, 5 b/w illus. Not yet published - available from May 2013, $80 hardback, $28.99 paper.
>Did Shakespeare write Shakespeare? The authorship question has been much treated in works of fiction, film and television, provoking interest all over the world. Sceptics have proposed many candidates as the author of Shakespeare's works, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and Edward De Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford. But why and how did the authorship question arise and what does surviving evidence offer in answer to it? This authoritative, accessible and frequently entertaining book sets the debate in its historical context and provides an account of its main protagonists and their theories. Presenting the authorship of Shakespeare's works in relation to historiography, psychology and literary theory, twenty-three distinguished scholars reposition and develop the discussion. The book explores the issues in the light of biographical, textual and bibliographical evidence to bring fresh perspectives to an intriguing cultural phenomenon.
>Table of Contents
>General introduction Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
>Part I. Sceptics: Introduction to Part One Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
>1. The unreadable Delia Bacon Graham Holderness
>2. The case for Bacon Alan Stewart
>3. The case for Marlowe Charles Nicholl
>4. The life and theatrical interests of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford Alan H. Nelson
>5. The unusual suspects Matt Kubus
>Part II. Shakespeare as Author: Introduction to Part Two Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
>6. Theorizing Shakespeare's authorship Andrew Hadfield
>7. Allusions to Shakespeare to 1642 Stanley Wells
>8. Shakespeare as collaborator John Jowett
>9. Authorship and the evidence of stylometrics MacDonald P. Jackson
>10. What does textual evidence reveal about the author? James Mardock and Eric Rasmussen
>11. Shakespeare and Warwickshire David Kathman
>12. Shakespeare and school Carol Rutter
>13. Shakespeare tells lies Barbara Everett
>Part III. A Cultural Phenomenon: Did Shakespeare Write Shakespeare?: Introduction to Part Three Paul Edmondson and Stanley Wells
>14. 'This palpable device': authorship and conspiracy in Shakespeare's life Kate McLuskie
>15. Amateurs and professionals: regendering Bacon Andrew Murphy
>16. Fictional treatments of Shakespeare's authorship Paul Franssen
>17. The declaration of reasonable doubt Stuart Hampton-Reeves
>18. 'There won't be puppets, will there?': 'Heroic' authorship and the cultural politics of Anonymous Douglas M. Lanier
>19. 'The Shakespeare establishment' and the Shakespeare authorship discussion Paul Edmondson
>Afterword James Shapiro
>A selected reading list Hardy Cook.
Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Essex is
intriguing.
But I say be fair to The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust for their
significant contribution to the Shakespeare Authorship Attribution
Controversy, unless this $80 tomb serves only to muddy the waters.
Nice of these mediocrities to let Dave Kathman write something for their book. But, who knows, perhaps twenty years after my book on the subject they may come close to equaling it, so far as the authorship argument is concerned.
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Bob Grumman wrote:
> Nice of these mediocrities to let Dave Kathman write something for their book. But, who knows, perhaps twenty years after my book on the subject they may come close to equaling it, so far as the authorship argument is concerned.
> --Bob
Bob,
Today you believe Will Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Based on the above comment, you are as delusion as Art, Paul and the many others who believe it didn't. You are a legend in your own mind. Your mediocrities comment is a classic example of projection.
On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
-- John W Kennedy
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected."
-- G. K. Chesterton
Ah, Robin, nice to know you've read my book and therefore are competent to state that what I wrote about it in comparison to the estabniks' book is delusional. Nonetheless, if you were a responsible critic of such as I, you really ought to show evidence in support of your contention.
Oh, unless my delusion was in believing that such mediocrities might equal my book, so far as the authorship debate is concerned.
(By the way, you might work on your clarity; I'm pretty sure I know what you were trying to say, but you didn't do a very good job of it. For instance, am I as delusional as Art because "Today I believe Will Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare?" In any case, I consider being delusional far better than being stupid.)
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:59:53 PM UTC-4, Robin G. wrote:
> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:05:00 AM UTC-7, Bob Grumman wrote:
> > Nice of these mediocrities to let Dave Kathman write something for their book. But, who knows, perhaps twenty years after my book on the subject they may come close to equaling it, so far as the authorship argument is concerned.
> Bob,
> Today you believe Will Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Based on the above comment, you are as delusional as Art, Paul and the many others who believe it didn't. You are a legend in your own mind. Your mediocrities comment is a classic example of projection.
<jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make >anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or >scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
IMO.
On Oct 7, 5:37 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> Ah, Robin, nice to know you've read my book and therefore are competent to state that what I wrote about it in comparison to the estabniks' book is delusional. Nonetheless, if you were a
> responsible critic of such as I, you really ought to show evidence in support of your contention.
Robin showed just as much evidence of your delusional state as you
showed to demonstrate that Charles Nicholl, MacDonald P. Jackson, Kate
McLuskie, Alan Nelson, Carol Rutter et al. are "mediocrities." But no
doubt you've read everything they've written, yes? You can cite
chapter and verse of Nicholl's work to demonstrate his mediocrity?
Please do so.
--
S.O.P.
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
> IMO.
I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
-- John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
>>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
>>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
>> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
>> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
>> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
>> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
>> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
>> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
>> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
>> IMO.
>I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to >seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I >could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his >best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed >the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to >my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
Essaying to write poetry sounds difficult; must be those poetry
contestants could get into a pastoral mood and play with it.
Surprising to me that Raleigh could do that.
Oh well, if you won't get down with tinkly lyrics, maybe I'll search
the Internet for a famous attempt or two. Must be some beside Donne
who contributed to the pastime?
>>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
>>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>>>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>>>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>>>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>>>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>>>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>>>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
>>>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
>>>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
>>> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
>>> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
>>> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
>>> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
>>> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
>>> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
>>> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
>>> IMO.
>>I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to >>seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I >>could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his >>best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed >>the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to >>my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
>Essaying to write poetry sounds difficult; must be those poetry
>contestants could get into a pastoral mood and play with it.
>Surprising to me that Raleigh could do that.
>Oh well, if you won't get down with tinkly lyrics, maybe I'll search
>the Internet for a famous attempt or two. Must be some beside Donne
>who contributed to the pastime?
2) Shakespeare has a few lines of Marlowe's poem sung by a character
in The Merry Wives of Windsor;
3) in 1996 a film of Shakespeare's R III turns Marlowe's poem into a
1930s torch song;
4) the editor at the above site opines about re-creation of the poem,
that: "Nowadays we talk about one group "covering" another group's song, and that certainly happened to "The Passionate Shepherd to His
Love." When it works, we don't exactly get a new song, but we don't
just hear the old one either."
5) American poet William Carlos Williams has a poem agreeing with
Raleigh instead of Marlowe:
Raleigh Was Right
We cannot go into the country
for the country will bring us no peace
What can the small violets tell us
that grow on furry stems in the long grass among lance shaped leaves?
Though you praise us and call to mind the poets who sung of our loveliness
it was long ago!
long ago! when country people would plow and sow with flowering minds and pockets at ease —
if ever this were true.
Not now. Love itself a flower with roots in a parched ground.
Empty pockets make empty heads.
Cure it if you can but do not believe that we can live today in the country
for the country will bring us no peace
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 22:35:26 -0400, John W Kennedy
> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-08 01:07:16 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
>>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>>>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>>>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>>>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>>>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>>>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>>>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
>>>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
>>>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
>>> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
>>> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
>>> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
>>> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
>>> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
>>> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
>>> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
>>> IMO.
>> I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to
>> seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I
>> could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his
>> best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed
>> the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to
>> my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
> Essaying to write poetry sounds difficult; must be those poetry
> contestants could get into a pastoral mood and play with it.
> Surprising to me that Raleigh could do that.
What with living in a bustling metropolis like Sherborne and all.
-- John W Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
>>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
>>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>>>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>>>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>>>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>>>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>>>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>>>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
>>>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
>>>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
>>> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
>>> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
>>> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
>>> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
>>> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
>>> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
>>> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
>>> IMO.
>>I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to >>seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I >>could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his >>best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed >>the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to >>my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
>Essaying to write poetry sounds difficult; must be those poetry
>contestants could get into a pastoral mood and play with it.
>Surprising to me that Raleigh could do that.
As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
> >>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
> >>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
> >>>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
> >>>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
> >>>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
> >>>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
> >>>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
> >>>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
> >>>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
> >>>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
> >>> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
> >>> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
> >>> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
> >>> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
> >>> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
> >>> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
> >>> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
> >>> IMO.
> >>I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to
> >>seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I
> >>could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his
> >>best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed
> >>the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to
> >>my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
> >Essaying to write poetry sounds difficult; must be those poetry
> >contestants could get into a pastoral mood and play with it.
> >Surprising to me that Raleigh could do that.
> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
would make of that.
--
S.O.P.
>> >>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:48:50 -0400, John W Kennedy
>> >>> <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On 2012-10-06 00:07:02 +0000, bookb...@yahoo.com said:
>> >>>>> Sir Walter Raleigh gets "short shrift": too bad. Leaving Raleigh out
>> >>>>> is a mistake, because his colorful role in so many Elizabethan
>> >>>>> missions is enlightening. His response to Marlowe in the poetry
>> >>>>> contest, alone, is enough to rank him with Shakespeare, perhaps as a
>> >>>>> collaborator, and his association with Spencer and Esse
>> >>>> Oh dear God, no! One competent, mildly bawdy lyric could not make
>> >>>> anyone comparable to Shakespeare, no matter how well it rhymes or
>> >>>> scans. Even I can approach closer to Shakespeare's strengths than that.
>> >>> Love to see your effort in that poetry contest--a maiden's reply, if
>> >>> you please. Come even close to evoking Raleigh's sound and sense
>> >>> management, point-by-point argument with feminine memes, and I would
>> >>> be more impressed than a tongue-in-cheek scholarly send up.
>> >>> That would be worth an "A" for the attempt. Imitate Marlowe's
>> >>> shepherd and it would still get an "A-", because his poem, while
>> >>> commendable and memorable, is a little less contrived and stumbling,
>> >>> IMO.
>> >>I did not say that I could write a tinkly and trivial lyric written to
>> >>seduce some ideal Phyllis dancing with her lambs. Rather, I said that I
>> >>could approach near Shakespeare's blank verse when he is writing at his
>> >>best, or if not quite so very near, at least nearer than that! (Indeed
>> >>the last time I essayed to write some dialog at high pitch, I found to
>> >>my chagrin that it emerged in verse I had not in the least intended.)
>> >Essaying to write poetry sounds difficult; must be those poetry
>> >contestants could get into a pastoral mood and play with it.
>> >Surprising to me that Raleigh could do that.
>> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
>> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
>> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
>> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
>> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
>> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
>The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
>preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
>lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
>alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
>newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
>and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
>expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
>and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
>do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
>resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
>Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
>would make of that.
I may have been carried away by fancying an imaginary woods where one
plays pastoral, acting out behaviors of rustic shepherds, probably as
an excuse to flit naked from tree to tree and encounter dancing
shepherdesses, willy-nilly. Wouldn't be surprised if the rich and
famous didn't get up to that. Because pastoral tradition mixed hetero
and homo tendencies from the get-go, this ambiguity would continue to
play, I'm sure.
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 8, 11:48 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
> >> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
> >> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
> >> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
> >> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
> >> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
> >The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
> >preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
> >lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
> >alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
> >newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
> >and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
> >expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
> >and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
> >do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
> >resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
> >Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
> >would make of that.
> I may have been carried away by fancying an imaginary woods where one
> plays pastoral, acting out behaviors of rustic shepherds, probably as
> an excuse to flit naked from tree to tree
"Flit naked from tree to tree"? Are you sure you're not confusing
"rustic shepherds" with "bats"?
> and encounter dancing shepherdesses, willy-nilly.
Lord. The Elizabethans were subject to the whims of the weather, and
at that time the climate was in a phase now known as the "Little Ice
Age." Even nowadays the weather in England is rarely conducive to
naked frolics in the woods, but in Shakespeare's day, parading about
in the buff in the English weather was an effective way to show that a
character was out of his bloody mind.
Arcadia was (and is) a region of Greece, which famously has a much
warmer climate than northern Europe. When Shakespeare wanted to depict
young, scantily-clad lovers running about in the woods, he preferred a
Mediterranean setting such as the Athens of "A Midsummer Night's
Dream": compare the enchanting forest scenes in that play to
Falstaff's comeuppance in Windsor Forest in "The Merry Wives of
Windsor" - the English countryside was no place for enchantment.
> Wouldn't be surprised if the rich and famous didn't get up to that.
They had their quirks, but as I said, they preferred an indoor setting
for their sex games.
> Because pastoral tradition mixed hetero
> and homo tendencies from the get-go, this ambiguity would continue to
> play, I'm sure.
<sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 1:20 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 8, 11:48 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
>> >> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
>> >> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
>> >> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
>> >> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
>> >> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
>> >The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
>> >preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
>> >lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
>> >alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
>> >newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
>> >and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
>> >expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
>> >and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
>> >do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
>> >resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
>> >Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
>> >would make of that.
>> I may have been carried away by fancying an imaginary woods where one
>> plays pastoral, acting out behaviors of rustic shepherds, probably as
>> an excuse to flit naked from tree to tree
>"Flit naked from tree to tree"? Are you sure you're not confusing
>"rustic shepherds" with "bats"?
>> and encounter dancing shepherdesses, willy-nilly.
>Lord. The Elizabethans were subject to the whims of the weather, and
>at that time the climate was in a phase now known as the "Little Ice
>Age." Even nowadays the weather in England is rarely conducive to
>naked frolics in the woods, but in Shakespeare's day, parading about
>in the buff in the English weather was an effective way to show that a
>character was out of his bloody mind.
>Arcadia was (and is) a region of Greece, which famously has a much
>warmer climate than northern Europe. When Shakespeare wanted to depict
>young, scantily-clad lovers running about in the woods, he preferred a
>Mediterranean setting such as the Athens of "A Midsummer Night's
>Dream": compare the enchanting forest scenes in that play to
>Falstaff's comeuppance in Windsor Forest in "The Merry Wives of
>Windsor" - the English countryside was no place for enchantment.
>> Wouldn't be surprised if the rich and famous didn't get up to that.
>They had their quirks, but as I said, they preferred an indoor setting
>for their sex games.
>> Because pastoral tradition mixed hetero
>> and homo tendencies from the get-go, this ambiguity would continue to
>> play, I'm sure.
>What ambiguity?
Pastoral poetry as it originated with the Greeks was evidently
alternately homosexual and heterosexual, and AIUI, has followed
several traditions since, sometimes idealizing a more biblical type,
such as David with his sheep and lyre, or allegorical figures they
used in satires of the court, and so on. Lots of ways Shakespeare has
to play on this, which he does in the sonnets.
When Spencer dedicated Colin Clout Come Home Again to Raleigh in 1591,
he explains that he needs defense from the consequences of associating
his Faerie Queene with Elizabeth, which evidently was being read as a
satire. The site at http://www.bartleby.com/213/1116.html explains
that
(quote)
in the form of an allegorical pastoral, called Colin Clout’s Come Home
Again, he gave expression to his views about the contemporary state of
manners and poetry. While exalting the person of the queen, with
imagery never surpassed in richness, and paying noble compliments to
those of her courtiers who had duly appreciated the beauties of The
Faerie Queene, he reflects severely, through the mouth of Colin Clout,
on the general state of courtly taste, especially in respect of love
poetry:
Not so, (quoth he) Love most aboundeth there. For all the walls and windows there are writ, All full of love, and love, and love my deare, And all their talke and studie is of it. Ne any there doth brave valiant seeme Unlesse that some gay Mistresse badge he beares: For with lewd speeches, and licentious deedes, His mightie mysteries they do prophane, And use his ydle name to other needs. But as a complement for courting vaine. (unquote)
On Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:35:22 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> On Oct 7, 5:37 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > Ah, Robin, nice to know you've read my book and therefore are competent to state that what I wrote about it in comparison to the estabniks' book is delusional. Nonetheless, if you were a responsible critic of such as I, you really ought to show evidence in support of your contention.
> Robin showed just as much evidence of your delusional state as you
> showed to demonstrate that Charles Nicholl, MacDonald P. Jackson, Kate
> McLuskie, Alan Nelson, Carol Rutter et al. are "mediocrities." But no
> doubt you've read everything they've written, yes? You can cite
> chapter and verse of Nicholl's work to demonstrate his mediocrity?
> Please do so.
> --
> S.O.P.
Actually Bob's book, although it has a few holes, is quite good. He could have used the services of a good copy editor (and if he had done so it would have been publishable by a mainstream press), but his arguments are clear and his style is a lot breezier than his sometimes convoluted and hard-to-follow HLAS style.
That his criticism of mainstream scholars is juvenile and obviously motivated by a good deal of resentment and jealousy does nothing to besmirch his work at all--I look at it as the authorship version of Ezra Pound's idiotic views. There is nothing mediocre about the work of any of those named above.
The refreshing feature of the book is his willingness to call insane thinking what it is. The part he could have left out is his idiosyncratic general theory of human psychology, but I suspect that without that he wouldn't have written it.
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 1:20 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>>> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 8, 11:48 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
>>>>> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
>>>>> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
>>>>> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
>>>>> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
>>>>> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
>>>> The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
>>>> preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
>>>> lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
>>>> alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
>>>> newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
>>>> and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
>>>> expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
>>>> and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
>>>> do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
>>>> resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
>>>> Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
>>>> would make of that.
>>> I may have been carried away by fancying an imaginary woods where one
>>> plays pastoral, acting out behaviors of rustic shepherds, probably as
>>> an excuse to flit naked from tree to tree
>> "Flit naked from tree to tree"? Are you sure you're not confusing
>> "rustic shepherds" with "bats"?
>>> and encounter dancing shepherdesses, willy-nilly.
>> Lord. The Elizabethans were subject to the whims of the weather, and
>> at that time the climate was in a phase now known as the "Little Ice
>> Age." Even nowadays the weather in England is rarely conducive to
>> naked frolics in the woods, but in Shakespeare's day, parading about
>> in the buff in the English weather was an effective way to show that a
>> character was out of his bloody mind.
>> Arcadia was (and is) a region of Greece, which famously has a much
>> warmer climate than northern Europe. When Shakespeare wanted to depict
>> young, scantily-clad lovers running about in the woods, he preferred a
>> Mediterranean setting such as the Athens of "A Midsummer Night's
>> Dream": compare the enchanting forest scenes in that play to
>> Falstaff's comeuppance in Windsor Forest in "The Merry Wives of
>> Windsor" - the English countryside was no place for enchantment.
>>> Wouldn't be surprised if the rich and famous didn't get up to that.
>> They had their quirks, but as I said, they preferred an indoor setting
>> for their sex games.
>>> Because pastoral tradition mixed hetero
>>> and homo tendencies from the get-go, this ambiguity would continue to
>>> play, I'm sure.
>> What ambiguity?
> Pastoral poetry as it originated with the Greeks was evidently
> alternately homosexual and heterosexual, and AIUI, has followed
> several traditions since, sometimes idealizing a more biblical type,
> such as David with his sheep and lyre, or allegorical figures they
> used in satires of the court, and so on. Lots of ways Shakespeare has
> to play on this, which he does in the sonnets.
> When Spencer dedicated Colin Clout Come Home Again to Raleigh in 1591,
> he explains that he needs defense from the consequences of associating
> his Faerie Queene with Elizabeth, which evidently was being read as a
> satire. The site at http://www.bartleby.com/213/1116.html explains
> that
> (quote)
> in the form of an allegorical pastoral, called Colin Clout’s Come Home
> Again, he gave expression to his views about the contemporary state of
> manners and poetry. While exalting the person of the queen, with
> imagery never surpassed in richness, and paying noble compliments to
> those of her courtiers who had duly appreciated the beauties of The
> Faerie Queene, he reflects severely, through the mouth of Colin Clout,
> on the general state of courtly taste, especially in respect of love
> poetry:
> Not so, (quoth he) Love most aboundeth there.
> For all the walls and windows there are writ,
> All full of love, and love, and love my deare,
> And all their talke and studie is of it.
> Ne any there doth brave valiant seeme
> Unlesse that some gay Mistresse badge he beares:
> For with lewd speeches, and licentious deedes,
> His mightie mysteries they do prophane,
> And use his ydle name to other needs.
> But as a complement for courting vaine.
> (unquote)
I know not whether the website or the original is to be blamed, but that text is mangled beyond comprehension.
And is loue then (said Corylas once knowne
In Court, and his sweet lore professed there?
I weened sure he was our God alone,
And only woond in feilds and forests here.
Not so (quoth he) loue most aboundeth there.
For all the walls and windows there are writ,
All full of loue, and loue, and loue my deare,
And all their talke and studie is of it.
Ne any there doth braue or valiant seeme,
Vnlesse that some gay Mistresse badge he beares:
Ne any one himselfe doth ought esteeme,
Vnlesse he swim in loue up to the eares.
But they of loue and of his sacred lere,
(As it should be) all otherwise deuise,
Then we poore shepheards are accustomd here,
And him do sue and serue all otherwise.
For with lewd speeches and licentious deeds,
His mightie mysteries they do prophane,
And vse his ydle name to other needs,
But as a complement for courting vaine.
So him they do not serue as they professe,
But make him serue to them for sordid vses.
Ah my dread Lord, that doest liege hearts possese;
Auenge thy selfe on them for their abuses.
-- John W Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it to Windows?
> On Sunday, October 7, 2012 9:35:22 PM UTC-5, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 5:37 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> > > Ah, Robin, nice to know you've read my book and therefore are competent to state that what I wrote about it in comparison to the estabniks' book is delusional. Nonetheless, if you were a responsible critic of such as I, you really ought to show evidence in support of your contention.
> > Robin showed just as much evidence of your delusional state as you
> > showed to demonstrate that Charles Nicholl, MacDonald P. Jackson, Kate
> > McLuskie, Alan Nelson, Carol Rutter et al. are "mediocrities." But no
> > doubt you've read everything they've written, yes? You can cite
> > chapter and verse of Nicholl's work to demonstrate his mediocrity?
> > Please do so.
> Actually Bob's book, although it has a few holes, is quite good. He could have used the services of a good copy editor (and if he had done so it would have been publishable by a mainstream press), but his arguments are clear and his style is a lot breezier than his sometimes convoluted and hard-to-follow HLAS style.
> That his criticism of mainstream scholars is juvenile and obviously motivated by a good deal of resentment and jealousy does nothing to besmirch his work at all--I look at it as the authorship version of Ezra Pound's idiotic views. There is nothing mediocre about the work of any of those named above.
> The refreshing feature of the book is his willingness to call insane thinking what it is. The part he could have left out is his idiosyncratic general theory of human psychology, but I suspect that without that he wouldn't have written it.
If one agrees that people who pursue phantom "real" Shakespeares are
guilty of "insane thinking," then I suppose one might enjoy Mr.
Grumman's book. I personally find that the term "insane thinking"
lacks utility. To be sure, some of the anti-Strats have also been
insane - but some people who believe in God have also been insane. The
majority of believers in both cases are quite sane. Indeed, that's
what makes the anti-Strat persuasion (and belief in God!) interesting:
the unsolved puzzle of how people's minds can perceive the world more
or less as it is in most respects and yet fail completely in certain
areas.
--
S.O.P.
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 8, 1:20 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> >> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 8, 11:48 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
> >> >> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
> >> >> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
> >> >> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
> >> >> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
> >> >> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
> >> >The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
> >> >preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
> >> >lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
> >> >alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
> >> >newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
> >> >and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
> >> >expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
> >> >and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
> >> >do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
> >> >resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
> >> >Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
> >> >would make of that.
> >> I may have been carried away by fancying an imaginary woods where one
> >> plays pastoral, acting out behaviors of rustic shepherds, probably as
> >> an excuse to flit naked from tree to tree
> >"Flit naked from tree to tree"? Are you sure you're not confusing
> >"rustic shepherds" with "bats"?
> >> and encounter dancing shepherdesses, willy-nilly.
> >Lord. The Elizabethans were subject to the whims of the weather, and
> >at that time the climate was in a phase now known as the "Little Ice
> >Age." Even nowadays the weather in England is rarely conducive to
> >naked frolics in the woods, but in Shakespeare's day, parading about
> >in the buff in the English weather was an effective way to show that a
> >character was out of his bloody mind.
> >Arcadia was (and is) a region of Greece, which famously has a much
> >warmer climate than northern Europe. When Shakespeare wanted to depict
> >young, scantily-clad lovers running about in the woods, he preferred a
> >Mediterranean setting such as the Athens of "A Midsummer Night's
> >Dream": compare the enchanting forest scenes in that play to
> >Falstaff's comeuppance in Windsor Forest in "The Merry Wives of
> >Windsor" - the English countryside was no place for enchantment.
> >> Wouldn't be surprised if the rich and famous didn't get up to that.
> >They had their quirks, but as I said, they preferred an indoor setting
> >for their sex games.
> >> Because pastoral tradition mixed hetero
> >> and homo tendencies from the get-go, this ambiguity would continue to
> >> play, I'm sure.
> >What ambiguity?
> Pastoral poetry as it originated with the Greeks was evidently
> alternately homosexual and heterosexual, and AIUI, has followed
> several traditions since, sometimes idealizing a more biblical type,
> such as David with his sheep and lyre, or allegorical figures they
> used in satires of the court, and so on. Lots of ways Shakespeare has
> to play on this, which he does in the sonnets.
There's nothing ambiguous about that: it's plain as day that some of
the sonnets are addressed to men and others to women. Indeed, in his
sonnets Shakespeare carefully avoids ambiguity with regard to sex
roles - the poet mourns the fact that he cannot love the fair youth
physically. The sonnets' power would dissipate if Shakespeare had made
the poet and fair youth's relationship ambiguous.
--
S.O.P.
<sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 5:29 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:28:22 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 8, 1:20 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), "Sneaky O. Possum"
>> >> <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 8, 11:48 am, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >> As an aside, I wonder if 1) there was a secret pastoral society in
>> >> >> London for gentlemen to play lasciviously about as shepherds in the
>> >> >> woods; 2) the mysterious society continues in the US as the secret
>> >> >> club for the rich and famous (Henry Kisenger) that meets periodically
>> >> >> in some private grounds in California, where they cavort about and can
>> >> >> do anything they like? Place could be named "Arden"?
>> >> >The answers are "no" and "no," respectively. Elizabethan gentlemen
>> >> >preferred the stews of London when they were in the mood to play
>> >> >lasciviously, and the latter-day "secret club for the rich and famous"
>> >> >alluded to - i.e., the Bohemian Club - was created by San Francisco
>> >> >newspapermen in the 1870s as a club for local journalists, artists,
>> >> >and similarly disreputable types (hence "Bohemian"): eventually it
>> >> >expanded its membership to include socially prominent San Franciscans,
>> >> >and once they got their foot in the door the nobs took over, as nobs
>> >> >do. In its present incarnation the Bohemian Club bears more
>> >> >resemblance to Camp North Star than the Countess of Pembroke's
>> >> >Arcadia. One wonders what Henry George, who was one of the founders,
>> >> >would make of that.
>> >> I may have been carried away by fancying an imaginary woods where one
>> >> plays pastoral, acting out behaviors of rustic shepherds, probably as
>> >> an excuse to flit naked from tree to tree
>> >"Flit naked from tree to tree"? Are you sure you're not confusing
>> >"rustic shepherds" with "bats"?
>> >> and encounter dancing shepherdesses, willy-nilly.
>> >Lord. The Elizabethans were subject to the whims of the weather, and
>> >at that time the climate was in a phase now known as the "Little Ice
>> >Age." Even nowadays the weather in England is rarely conducive to
>> >naked frolics in the woods, but in Shakespeare's day, parading about
>> >in the buff in the English weather was an effective way to show that a
>> >character was out of his bloody mind.
>> >Arcadia was (and is) a region of Greece, which famously has a much
>> >warmer climate than northern Europe. When Shakespeare wanted to depict
>> >young, scantily-clad lovers running about in the woods, he preferred a
>> >Mediterranean setting such as the Athens of "A Midsummer Night's
>> >Dream": compare the enchanting forest scenes in that play to
>> >Falstaff's comeuppance in Windsor Forest in "The Merry Wives of
>> >Windsor" - the English countryside was no place for enchantment.
>> >> Wouldn't be surprised if the rich and famous didn't get up to that.
>> >They had their quirks, but as I said, they preferred an indoor setting
>> >for their sex games.
>> >> Because pastoral tradition mixed hetero
>> >> and homo tendencies from the get-go, this ambiguity would continue to
>> >> play, I'm sure.
>> >What ambiguity?
>> Pastoral poetry as it originated with the Greeks was evidently
>> alternately homosexual and heterosexual, and AIUI, has followed
>> several traditions since, sometimes idealizing a more biblical type,
>> such as David with his sheep and lyre, or allegorical figures they
>> used in satires of the court, and so on. Lots of ways Shakespeare has
>> to play on this, which he does in the sonnets.
>There's nothing ambiguous about that: it's plain as day that some of
>the sonnets are addressed to men and others to women. Indeed, in his
>sonnets Shakespeare carefully avoids ambiguity with regard to sex
>roles - the poet mourns the fact that he cannot love the fair youth
>physically. The sonnets' power would dissipate if Shakespeare had made
>the poet and fair youth's relationship ambiguous.
Then I wonder how you understand MND, its pastoral setting, several
masques on the theme of weddings, and extreme identity confusion
between man and animal? Do you think the court masques of Elizabeth
and James, with court taking part, were not bi-sexual, James's labeled
homo-erotic?
