News!! News!! A New Shakespeare Annotation Proves Willy a Fraud!!
john_baker
Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
Readers and posters will be interested to know that a period
annotation about Shakespeare has surfaced in a 1594 edition of
Camden's *Remains.*
It has either been overlooked by Strats or *suppressed.*
It was noticed earlier this year by an Oxfordian scholar, Paul
Altrocchi, who announced his discovery at the Seventh Annual
Edward De Vere Conference at Concordia University, Porland, Oregon, in
April, which I attended and presented a paper on the manuscript of
Henry IV.
Dr. Altrocchi has an article on this in the new issue of *Shakespeare
Matters," under the title "Sleuthing an Enigmatic Latin Annotation..."
at http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm
(Yes that's my essay, not Kathman's, on "Shakespeare's Moral
Philosophy," boasted about on their home page, adapted from the
earlier version posted here. Kathman doesn't believe Willy had a
moral philosophy, or rather he believes Willy was a business man who
wrote the plays for spare pence not out of Platonic duty. " Not for
fame but for gain," is how these egg suckers put it.)
But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
annotation is "enigmatic" and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
says and also what it means persists.
I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
primary material.
Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
what it says.
Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
Huntington thinks it says and means.
"[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planè nostro ( and William
Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
headlines there."
Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
headlines.
Let's take them in reverse order. Any new period information about
Shakespeare is headline stuff. So this annotation qualifies. Stats
will be loath to mention it, but it is front-page news.
Second as you will see from the scan there are no parenthesis around
the first word, nor is it lower case.
The all important forth word has an indecipherable letter in it that
can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
suggests is doubtful from first blush.
As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
may be "plani" without an accent. If so the reading changes to "Et
Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planèi nostro" which means something like
"And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."
Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.
As usual I'll take either reading.
Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
strongly divided.
Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and
remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth
word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
declinations or tenses of the other Latin words sensible. In fact it
is the only way to make these words make a sentence.
Alan Nelson and William Streitberger both agree with Tabor and The
Huntington, as does Peter Farey.
A group of scholars at Portland State University isn't so certain and
appear to be leaning towards the more radical reading. They are
working under the direction of Professor Emeritus Rod Diman, who has
more than thirty years in reading Latin works from this period.
Professor Diman's first opinion leaned towards the "Rescio" reading
and I am waiting on his final opinion, augmented by several scholars
who are experts in this hand.
So there is News here. Good news for anti-Strats.
Someone living at the time of Shakespeare, more than likely while he
was alive, someone evidently living in Stratford, and who could thus
use the word "nostro" or "our" to include Shakespeare and themselves
on the Stratford page, checked Camden's _Remains_ to see what it had
to say about Stratford and its citizens and discovered that it didn't
mention Willy. From this the Annotator either concluded Willy was
thus a fraud or a charlatan, the meaning of "plani" or, alternatively,
the Annotator concluded that Camden had missed Willy and added his
name as a famous actor. Actor not writer.
Think about this Thread Travelers. Marvel at this. Someone living
in Stratford c. 1615, someone literate enough to read and write Latin,
someone who knew William Shakespeare as a member of his or her own
community, writes into this list of distinguished persons of Stratford
Shakespeare's name, but not as their Terence or as their Seneca, but
as their Roscius.
Or only as a famous actor.
Clearly the Annotator didn't know that William Shakespeare was also a
writer and thus didn't include this honor, then as now so much higher
than mere acting, along with his name! Reflect on it.
This is the smoking gun anti-Stratfordians have searched for through
the centuries.
This is _conclusive_ evidence for my hypothesis, offered here a year
or so ago here, that until the First Folio appeared in 1623 no one
thought of the rustic Actor as an author. And thus there was no
authorship question until the appearance of the First Folio.
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com
"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler
Peter Groves
news:3f37ae71....@News.localaccess.com...
> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
>
> Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
>
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
> But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
> annotation is "enigmatic"
Only to those who can't read Latin.
> and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
> says and also what it means persists.
>
Only for those who can't read Latin
> I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
> primary material.
>
> Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
> what it says.
>
> Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> Huntington thinks it says and means.
>
> "[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro ( and William
> Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> headlines there."
>
But, amusingly, Faker (with his double Ph.D in Classical languages) knows
better:
> Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
> headlines.
>
>
> As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
> may be "plani" without an accent. If so the reading changes to "Et
> Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planči nostro" which means
Nothing at all: it's gibberish.
> something like
> "And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."
>
> Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
> Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
> trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
> our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
> Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
> Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.
>
So if someone calls Faker an idiot, it means he or she *doesn't* also
believe him to be an ignoramus?
> As usual I'll take either reading.
>
> Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
> scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
> Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
> strongly divided.
>
> Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
> posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and
> remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth
> word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
> declinations or tenses of the other Latin words sensible.
Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
On his website Faker says: "The forth word contains an blotched and
indecipherable second letter, that might be either an "e" or an "o". The
fifth word might actually be "plani" and not "plane" with an accent. So it
is possible the Latin annotation actually reads:
Et Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio plani nostro
If it does, then it would translate more along the lines of:
And [thus] I know our William Shakespear to be an impostor.
So it could have been "Rescio" for "rescisco" meaning "I know" or "I
ascertain"."
And why exactly would "planus" be in the genitive (or, for that matter, the
nominative plural)?
"Rescisco" can mean "uncover what has been concealed", but no part of it
looks like "rescio", and even if it did it would make no sense in the
context. The closest you could get would be "Et Gulielmo Shakespear nostro
quem rescii planum [esse]", "And to/for/by our William Shakespear whom I
have found out [to be] an impostor."
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse ["For our Baker, whom
we have discovered to be a fraud"].
baker_the_faker
Peter, Peter, Poor Little Baby....
I see you're still unable to give an objective evaluation to an
argument without resorting to name calling.
My educational status, which as far as I know you're still in
the dark about, has nothing to do with the facts in this case.
Sadly you're like many Stratfordians who think they can cast doubt
on rivals by kicking them in the shins....
Here's the issue.
Someone writing while Willy was alive, someone who
lived in Stratford, calls him an actor and not an author...
That's great news to me....and bad news for your team.
So keep having fun at my expense if it makes you feel better, Peter.
I'd suggest some tree climbing or mountain climbing but I'm betting
you can't buckle your shoes without help...
Meanwhile just to make a point. I'm going to publish below the text
of an e-mail about the annotation from someone who both reads the
hands and Latin.
Contrary to your opinion experts here have many questions as to both
what it reads and what it means...
And just for the record I'm happy with either reading since neither
calls Willy an author...!!! (:} )
Cheers!
--------------pasted e-mail---------name redacted--------
It is conceivable that this is a list of names--"planc'" could be
"Planctus," who is, like Roscio, associated with Cicero, though I
can't see how he would be connected with Shakespeare, nor is the "p-"
word in the same case (dative / ablative / vocative) as the others
(the terminal suspension would suggest a "-us" rather than an "-o"
ending). Further, if it is simply a list, why are the first three
words (and perhaps the last) in an oblique case at all (and a case not
matched by the fourth word)--the case endings suggest a sentence
rather than a list.
I would argue for "Rescio" despite the fact that the second letter is
very round and "o" shaped: it seems to be a round smudge rather than a
clear letter--so the second letter could be almost any vowel (though
"i" or "u" seem less likely--I'm not seeing minim strokes here--than
"a," "e," or "o"); reading it as "Rescio" gives us a subject and verb
for a sentence and doesn't leave us hunting for Ciceronian
explanations.
"Nostro" is possible for the last word, but so many of the letter
forms there are ambiguous (all but the "o" at the end) that it is
impossible to make any claims there with confidence: it looks to me as
much like "mir[c]lo" (thus my "miraculo" suggestion) as "nostro" (I
don't see the second letter as an "o": you have a series of minims
preceding the squiggle that could be an "s" or an "r"; the minims
could be "vu," "mi," "nu," "vi," "vu," "ni," etc., but not, I think,
"no"). The last three letters could very well be "tro," but what is
the large curled shape on the left of the "t"? That would seem an odd
sort of "t" cross stroke; it looks more to me like a suspended "c"
followed by an "l" or "s." So "vis[c]tro" is possible, but I can't
think of a word for which this could be an abbreviation.
So, I'm still puzzled,
Peter Groves
Peter G.
<baker the faker> wrote in message
news:3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com...
ScreenWriter33
Stratfordian lately...but, if I'm not mistaken...Roscius wore a mask, didn't
he? And the audience would beg him to remove the mask, revealing his
deformities, so that they could hear his beautiful voice better.
Someone will probably take this and run with it....
David Kathman
Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
>Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
>Peter G.
Boy, what a shocker.
I think this annotation is actually pretty interesting, but
Baker's incompetence is painful to watch.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
><baker the faker> wrote in message
>news:3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com...
[snip blather]
john_baker
wrote:
Not that I've heard of....the books simply say he was afforded a
special right to sell seats in the theater and grew rich and famous
because of it...
I'd love to learn about the story of a mask...for obvious reasons.
baker
lowercase dave
> Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
> Peter G.
Peter, I don't read Latin, but I used to, and I have some friends who
can, and I own a Latin dictionary, so... It does seem like Baker's got
the goods, but if you say it's wrong, I'll take your word for it,
because you are clearly more objective in the matter, and you're an
expert Latinist. So can you state exactly what YOU think the words
say? Baker seems to think that either way, William is referred to as
either an actor, or an impostor, which come to think of it are more or
less the same. (An actor is a plausible impostor, no?) Thank you.
Yours for b.s.-free newsgroup,
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
john_baker
<Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
>Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
>Peter G.
Peter!!! You took the words right out of my mouth, but I didn't wish
to be that impolite to a scholar of your status. You'd think a guy
with a name like "Peter" wouldn't brandish round a pejorative slur
like "dickhead."
I tried, dear friend, to address all of your points, both here and on
the web page. If I missed one it must not have appeared as a point
to me, more like a dullness.
I don't doubt that your knowledge of Latin far exceeds mine. Just as
my knowledge of Bovine Sewage and BSE likely exceeds yours. (D.
Carleton Gajdusek and I would entreat you to stay away from beef over
there., good buddy. CJD is icky stuff, that's Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease and the human form of Mad Cow Disease. Bulls don't get it, I
guess, so I'm safe...but you my dear friend are obviously in harm's
way.)
All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount
the conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and
then as to how it translates.
Think of me here as a reporter. I'm just bringing you news, unless
you knew about this and have been keeping it under wraps.
Naughty boy!
I'm entirely willing to agree with the conservative take on this,
i.e., that the annotation just calls Willy an actor....
But I would like a full forensic work up on the annotation inorder to
see if we can find and "e" under the second letter in the forth word.
Which is, at best, indecipherable paleographically. .
Meanwhile, can you translate this for us dear Peter and tell us errant
truants who wrote it, it would be a kindness. I have a vague
suspicion it might have something to do with our differences, which I
suggest we should set aside, before someone steps on your head...
"O te hominem felicem, quod nihil habes, propter quod quisquam tibi
tam longe mentiatur! Nisi quod iam etiam ubi causa sublata est,
mentimur consuetudinis causa...."
Need a hint? Shakespeare and I read this guy before we go to sleep...
If you can't handle it, I'll translate it if I live through the
night....
(:} )
Vale
john_baker
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Peter
>Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>>
>>Peter G.
>
>Boy, what a shocker.
>
>I think this annotation is actually pretty interesting, but
>Baker's incompetence is painful to watch.
Then just close your eyes and hold your nose...
(:} }
It is interesting isn't it Dave? And here you guys have
missed it for all these years...
Maybe by kicking me you'll find this bitter pill easier to
swallow...???
(:}) I don't care. So long as it's only on paper and not in the
flesh...(:{ )
And keep it straight Dave, I'm just REPORTING the facts.
Paul discovered it, presented a paper on it in April, following up the
"W.S. is a fraud" reading and then on reflection reversed himself.
I don't care how you read it, _either_ reading is anti Stratfordian.
Someone living there at the time thought of Willy just as an actor.
AND IT'S IN PERFECT TWO PART HARMONY WITH
WHAT DR JOHN WARD HAD TO SAY ABOUT WILLY....JUST A FEW
DECADES LATER: A MAN WITHOUT ANY ART AT ALL WHO "SUPPLIED" THE STAGE
WITH TWO PLAYS A YEAR....
I LOVE IT. (;])
Hope your summer is ok.
Have you read that book on English Provincial society by Peter Clark
yet?
How many pages were in it?
john
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
>><baker the faker> wrote in message
>>news:3f382a71....@News.localaccess.com...
>
>[snip blather]
John Baker
Peter Groves
news:545b95a7.03081...@posting.google.com...
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
news:<7yWZa.28907$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
> Peter, I don't read Latin, but I used to, and I have some friends who
> can, and I own a Latin dictionary, so... It does seem like Baker's got
> the goods, but if you say it's wrong, I'll take your word for it,
> because you are clearly more objective in the matter, and you're an
> expert Latinist. So can you state exactly what YOU think the words
> say?
I've already done so (the "points" that Baker failed to address). Since he
couldn't deal with them (knowing as much Latin, I suspect, as my cat) he
omitted my entire post inn his reply.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
Toby Petzold
be met with the usual public jeering and private consternation.
I think the Roscio interpretation is the likelier one, but neither is
of any help to our uncranked opponents.
Your scans are excellent and the implications are even more so.
Thanks.
Toby Petzold
Terry Ross
>
> All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> to how it translates.
This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*, and
it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
very great expense.
The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
Stratford.
Atrocchi tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say
something about that later), but he does seem to have found an early
reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
before.
Baker's account of Altrocchi's essay is remarkably unreliable, even for
Baker. I have never called anybody on this newsgroup a liar, and I'm not
going to start now, but nobody should accept Baker's word for anything on
this matter. His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
contents of Altrocchi's essay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman
> can, and I own a Latin dictionary, so... It does seem like Baker's got
> the goods, but if you say it's wrong, I'll take your word for it,
> because you are clearly more objective in the matter, and you're an
> expert Latinist. So can you state exactly what YOU think the words
> say? Baker seems to think that either way, William is referred to as
> either an actor, or an impostor, which come to think of it are more or
> less the same. (An actor is a plausible impostor, no?) Thank you.
>
>
> Yours for b.s.-free newsgroup,
>
> David More
Obviously, Peter thinks the scholar's translation (which I don't have
at hand, so may not have exactly right), "certainly our Roscius," is
correct. Can't mean that the annotator thought Shakespeare was the
leading actor of the time because none of the records identifying
Shakespeare as an actor have his address on them. But it IS odd that
all those who reveal The Truth always do so indirectly. No "William
Shakespeare, surely an imposter," for them, or--perish
forbid--"William Shakespeare (actually Kit Marley)." The idea is
always to reveal and conceal The Truth at the same time. Make sure
everyone knows without letting anybody know. Schizpiracy. Very
reasonable.
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Terry Ross wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>
> >
> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> > to how it translates.
>
> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
> essay by Paul Altrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
>
> The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*, and
> it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
> from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
> to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
> who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
> the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
> very great expense.
>
> The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
> annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
> the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
> counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
> Stratford.
>
> Altrocchi tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say
David L. Webb
> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
Welcome back, Faker. What have you been doing -- spending all your
time listening to the Franck Organ Symphony?
> Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
>
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
>
> Readers and posters will be interested to know that a period
> annotation about Shakespeare has surfaced in a 1594 edition of
> Camden's *Remains.*
>
> It has either been overlooked by Strats or *suppressed.*
Doubtless the latter. (We discussed how best to avoid its disclosure
at this year's Shakespeare Authorship Coverup Conspirators' Conclave,
but the Grand Master decided that the most effective way to discredit it
would be simply to permit people with credibility like yours to
promulgate it.)
> It was noticed earlier this year by an Oxfordian scholar, Paul
> Altrocchi, who announced his discovery at the Seventh Annual
> Edward De Vere Conference at Concordia University, Porland, Oregon, in
> April, which I attended and presented a paper on the manuscript of
> Henry IV.
>
> Dr. Altrocchi has an article on this in the new issue of *Shakespeare
> Matters," under the title "Sleuthing an Enigmatic Latin Annotation..."
> at http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm
>
> (Yes that's my essay, not Kathman's, on "Shakespeare's Moral
> Philosophy," boasted about on their home page,
Thanks for clarifying that. From what I've seen of the Shakespeare
Fellowship's online discussion groups, the group consists largely of
afficionados of nutcase scenarios so ludicrous that they are regarded as
risible even by most "maintstream" Oxfordians. Mr. Streitz's "Super DT
Theory" -- that Oxford was the Queen's son (posthumously conceived,
judging by the dates) as well as her lover, that Oxford's first child
was actually fathered by Burghley on his own daughter, that the Earl of
Rutland was his twin brother, etc. -- is fairly typical fare for that
forum, so I'm sure that your contribution is most welcome there.
> adapted from the
> earlier version posted here. Kathman doesn't believe Willy had a
> moral philosophy, or rather he believes Willy was a business man who
> wrote the plays for spare pence not out of Platonic duty. " Not for
> fame but for gain," is how these egg suckers put it.)
Whom are you quoting, Faker?
> But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
> annotation is "enigmatic" and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
> says and also what it means persists.
>
> I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
> primary material.
>
> Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
> what it says.
Because you don't read Latin yourself?
> Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> Huntington thinks it says and means.
>
> "[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro ( and William
> Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> headlines there."
There needs no ghost come from the grave (nor even any fraud come
from the Concordia conference) to tell us this.
> Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
> headlines.
>
> Let's take them in reverse order. Any new period information about
> Shakespeare is headline stuff. So this annotation qualifies. Stats
> will be loath to mention it, but it is front-page news.
>
> Second as you will see from the scan there are no parenthesis [sic] around
> the first word, nor is it lower case.
>
> The all important forth [sic] word has an indecipherable letter in it that
> can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
> suggests is doubtful from first blush.
>
> As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
> may be "plani" without an accent.
"MAY be"?
> If so
If frogs had wings, they could fly.
> the reading changes to "Et
> Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planči [sic] nostro"
Do you mean "plani"?
> which means something like
"Something like"?!
> "And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."
If I were you I wouldn't go around calling others frauds, Faker. In
view of your history, it's very poor salesmanship.
> Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
> Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
> trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
> our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
> Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
> Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.
Huh? If someone refers to Mozart as a child piano virtuoso, Faker
concludes that he could not have been a composer? If someone refers to
Witten as the best theoretical physicist of his generation, Faker infers
that he could not be a mathematician?
> As usual I'll take either reading.
>
> Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
> scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
> Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
> strongly divided.
>
> Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
> posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and
> remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth [sic]
> word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
> declinations or tenses
"Declinations or tenses"?
> of the other Latin words sensible. In fact it
> is the only way to make these words make a sentence.
>
> Alan Nelson and William Streitberger both agree with Tabor and The
> Huntington, as does Peter Farey.
Nelson, Tabor, Farey, and Streitberger all agree, and Reimer is the
ONLY dissenter? I would not call that "strongly divided"; rather, it
looks more like near unanimity among the scholars consulted.
> A group of scholars at Portland State University isn't so certain and
> appear to be leaning towards the more radical reading.
If they have't committed themselves, the way you imagine that they
"appear to be leaning" is of little consequence. Why not await their
opinion when they produce one?
> They are
> working under the direction of Professor Emeritus Rod Diman, who has
> more than thirty years in reading Latin works from this period.
>
> Professor Diman's first opinion leaned towards the "Rescio" reading
> and I am waiting on his final opinion, augmented by several scholars
> who are experts in this hand.
>
> So there is News here. Good news for anti-Strats.
>
> Someone living at the time of Shakespeare, more than likely while he
> was alive, someone evidently living in Stratford, and who could thus
> use the word "nostro" or "our" to include Shakespeare and themselves
> on the Stratford page, checked Camden's _Remains_ to see what it had
> to say about Stratford and its citizens and discovered that it didn't
> mention Willy. From this the Annotator either concluded Willy was
> thus a fraud or a charlatan, the meaning of "plani"
Huh?
> or, alternatively,
> the Annotator concluded that Camden had missed Willy and added his
> name as a famous actor. Actor not writer.
>
> Think about this Thread Travelers. Marvel at this. Someone living
> in Stratford c. 1615, someone literate enough to read and write Latin,
> someone who knew William Shakespeare as a member of his or her own
> community, writes into this list of distinguished persons of Stratford
> Shakespeare's name, but not as their Terence or as their Seneca, but
> as their Roscius.
>
> Or only as a famous actor.
>
> Clearly the Annotator didn't know that William Shakespeare was also a
> writer and thus didn't include this honor, then as now so much higher
> than mere acting, along with his name! Reflect on it.
>
> This is the smoking gun anti-Stratfordians have searched for through
> the centuries.
I doubt it -- anti-Stratfordians have a tendency to employ smoking
guns to deliver self-inflicted wounds.
David L. Webb
wrote:
> Peter, Peter, Poor Little Baby....
>
> I see you're still unable to give an objective evaluation to an
> argument without resorting to name calling.
On the contrary -- Peter Groves explained clearly what was
grammatically amiss in your reading; that you addressed none of his
objections doubtless reflects your own incomprehension. But foreign
languages are definitely not your strength.
> My educational status, which as far as I know you're still in
> the dark about,
No, nobody is in the dark about that any longer, at least not since
Tom Reedy's discovery of your fraud. The matter is further clarified by
the fact you obligingly display stark ignorance and incompetence in
virtually every field, from mathematics to natural science to languages
to music. Nobody continues to harbor any illusions that you enjoy any
"educational status" whatever.
> has nothing to do with the facts in this case.
>
> Sadly you're like many Stratfordians who think they can cast doubt
> on rivals by kicking them in the shins....
>
> Here's the issue.
>
> Someone writing while Willy was alive, someone who
> lived in Stratford, calls him an actor and not an author...
Peter already answered that, devastatingly: "So if someone calls
Faker an idiot, it means he or she *doesn't* also believe him to be an
ignoramus?"
> That's great news to me....and bad news for your team.
This is hardly a ringing endorsement of your "reading," Faker.
> So, I'm still puzzled,
Evidently.
john_baker
Terry,
Thanks for getting some of the points straight. Good team work, buddy!
But you're way off base on the rest.
And you'll have to allow that I did spell Paul's name correctly while
you haven't.(:})
Now let's move though this. 1) I've _never_ seen Paul's essay, but I
did hear him present his first paper on this in April. Is that clear?
I cited the location and publication date, but I haven't seen the
essay.
I even asked his editor for a copy or link and didn't get it. Bill
told me it would be posted, but I didn't see it when I visited their
pages, i.e., Shakespeare Matters.
Do you have a link, if so what is it?
I'd love to read the paper, but as I told Paul I'm not nearly as
interested in his opinion about this annotation as I am about the
annotation itself.
Is that clear? It's the annotation, not what we say about it, that is
most important at this time.
And I have published a scan of it, after the Huntington suggested that
I post it.
Just for the record I _begged_ the Huntington to post it
themselves...but they didn't want to...they wanted me to post it...
2) I cited what the Huntington claims is the reading and their
translation and not what Paul says it is, since the _only_ translation
I've had from Paul was the one that said Shakespeare was a "fraud",
i.e., the one I _heard_ in April, along with 30 other papers.
I made this clear in my report.
I'd didn't report than Roger S. and I stood on the stage, after this
paper and while the scan was projected on the wall (back projected).
Roger quickly suggested the forth word was "Roscio"...I simply gave my
opinion on the hand...c. 1615...English transititional hand...plus or
minus 20 years...
So I think the only "mistake" I made is in the edition.
You say it is in the 1590 edition, I've had it down as the 1594
edition, I'll take either one.
I'll have to check to see where that mistake came from, Terry, but I
do remember double checking it, so I have some sort of reason for
thinking this date.
In fact here are the e-mails about it from and to The Huntington
asking for the plates. You'll see I cited the 1594 edition here and
they didn't correct it even when they sent me the plates...??
Since I've not seen the title page...the plate is only of the
annotation...I don't know which edition it came from. But if Paul says
it is the 1590 edition it's ok by me. He oughta know.
To'John Baker' <mar...@localaccess.com>
Cc"Robertson, Mary" <mrobe...@huntington.org>
SubjectRENew Discovery about Shakespeare
Dear Mr. Baker
I ve been around this inscription at length with Dr. Altrocchi. It
reads [et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planè nostro ( and William
Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
headlines there.
Sincerely,
Stephen Tabor
Curator of Early Printed Books
Huntington Library
1151 Oxford Road
San Marino, CA 91108
(626) 405-2179; fax (626) 449-5720
sta...@huntington.org http//www.huntington.org/
-----Original Message-----
From John Baker [mailto...@localaccess.com]
Sent Tuesday, June 29, 2003 144 PM
To sta...@huntington.org
Subject New Discovery about Shakespeare
Steve,
We've corresponded before about the Perkins Copy of the Second Folio.
I just sent this to Mary, but she may be
away for the summer, so I'm sending a revised version directly to you.
This book must be under your authority.
It is one of your printed copies of the1594 edition of William
Camden's Remaines of a greater Worke concerning Brittaine.
The one which was used as the exemplar for the widely circulated
scholar's microfilm.
In it, on the page dealing with Stratford on Avon, is a Latin remark
in what looks to me like an Elizabethan Secretary hand, which
translates out something along the lines of "This William Shakespeare
[is] plainly our native imposter." Or ~ "I know this W.S. to be our
impostor."
On the other hand it just might read "William Shakespeare our [famous]
native actor is [~omitted]? here." I don't like this reading as much
as the one above, but it sill just alludes to him as an actor, not as
an author, so I'll take it either way.
Is it possible you might have your staff e-mail me a digital photo of
the gloss to this page? Is there an original owner's name associated
with the copy? Perhaps a name inscribed on the inside that doesn't
show up on the microfilm...or even one that does...which Paul missed?
For now, if a digital isn't possible, could you just look at it and
transcribe it out letter for letter? It's short, so should be simple.
While I am begging favors, might your or one of your experts furnish
an impromptu opinion on the hand, ink and just how the translation
might read?
The good news is that I am not the scholar who first noticed this. It
was spotted by a neurosurgeon and Oxfordian....Prof. Paul Altrocchi,
M.D., Clinical Professor of Neurology (retired), Stanford Medical
School; Stanford, California in his paper given this spring up here in
Portland, "What Did William Camden Say? Why and When Did He Say It?"
Has Paul been in touch with you? He's a nice guy. This could be big.
john baker
PS I'm suppose to present a paper in Cambridge at the end of the week,
on Marlowe as Arbella Stuart's tutor, but can always be reached here
by e-mail. jb
John Baker
http//www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>
>>
>> All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
>> conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
>> to how it translates.
>
>This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
>essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
>Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
>translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
Not the point Terry, I NEVER said I quoted what Paul says, I quoted
the entire text
of what the Huntington says...can't you read????
>
>The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*,
see above about the confusion of the dates....it comes out of the
Huntington who had
every opportunity to correct it...
>and
>it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
>from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
>to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
>who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
>the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
>very great expense.
>
>The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
>annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
>the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
>counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
>Stratford.
>
>Atrocchi (sic) tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say
>something about that later), but he does seem to have found an early
>reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
>before.
Yes he does and that's the point, Terry and you got it thanks to
me....
>
>Baker's account of Altrocchi's (sic) essay is remarkably unreliable, even for
>Baker.
Terry!!!!Where does it say I've read Paul's essay? I only cite it as
just published!!!
I corresponded with both Paul and Bill Boyle, his editor, about it. I
even asked Bill
for a copy, not seeing it on the Shakespeare Matters page. You've
linked another
site...one I didn't mention and didn't know about....so you've seen
the essay.
Again I haven't....I'll link it today if I get a chance or tonight if
I don't.
I have never called anybody on this newsgroup a liar, and I'm not
>going to start now, but nobody should accept Baker's word for anything on
>this matter. His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
>the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
>contents of Altrocchi's essay.
Particularly not me!! Something I've never claimed to have done. I'm
just directing threaders to the primary source here. I don't care
what Paul reads or what you read, I'm just urging threaders to read
the primary source and come up with their own conclusions.
That's the way I think things should be done.
You on the other hand like to approach the primary materials through
someone...I don't. That's one of the major differences
between us...
Viva la difference!
(:} )
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
John Baker
john_baker
Petzold) wrote:
Thanks Toby, Terry has pointed out that the edition is that of 1590,
not 1594...but the Huntington shares responsibility for that mistake.
I did beg them to publish these scans themselves..but they did want to
and suggested that I do it....the bid scan is from Paul's editor Bill
Bolye, but I have the full sized Huntington plate here and could do
as well if I wanted to sit and wait on the machine to do the work.
And you are quite right either reading is bad news of the Willy
boys....
Here is someone who knew the rustic, but only knew him as an
actor..big news...
john
David L. Webb
Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>
> >
> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> > to how it translates.
> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
> essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
Faker's distortions were a commonplace when he was posting regularly,
prior to his "sabbatical."
> The annotation is in a copy of the 1590 edition of Camden's *Remains*, and
> it is a comment on a passage about Stratford, which (in the translation
> from Camden that appears in Altrocchi's essay) "owes all of its reputation
> to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury,
> who built the church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate of London who began
> the stone bridge over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, not without
> very great expense.
>
> The word "alumnis" ("foster sons") in Camden is underlined. The
> annotation thus adds a third foster son to Camden's pair. According to
> the annotator, the great actor William Shakespeare certainly should be
> counted with John of Stratford and Hugh Clopton as notable foster sons of
> Stratford.
>
> Atrocchi tries to give an Oxfordian spin to the annotation (I'll say
> something about that later), but he does seem to have found an early
> reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
> before.
That is indeed interesting.
> Baker's account of Altrocchi's essay is remarkably unreliable, even for
> Baker.
That's about as damning as one can get!
> I have never called anybody on this newsgroup a liar, and I'm not
> going to start now,
I try not to call interlocutors liars as well. However, the practice
of scholarship is predicated upon an assumption of good faith. Scholars
may disagree vehemently concerning the interpretation or implications of
data, but if a scholar presents data, his or her colleagues are entitled
to assume the objective component of the report to be factually
accurate. Regrettably, if there is any h.l.a.s. participant who has
forfeited by his behavior the right to that presumption of good faith,
it is surely Faker, so I doubt that anyone will assume that his account
is reliable.
> but nobody should accept Baker's word for anything on
> this matter.
There are a great many matters on which one should not accept Faker's
word, ranging from his supposed "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem to
the existence of supposed recordings of the (nonexistent) Franck Organ
Symphony to Faker's own (nonexistent) educational attainments.
(Awareness of these other distortions contributes to a sense of relief
concerning Faker's claims to have pottered about with hydrogen bombs.)
> His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
> the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
> contents of Altrocchi's essay.
One wonders what Altrocchi thinks of Faker's distortions.
Elizabeth Weir
> I misspelled Paul Altrocchi's name in my earlier post.
Well then you'll just have to be dry humped by Webb, Ross.
Elizabeth.
Elizabeth Weir
[...]
> Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).
Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor
of his era, and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius"
it's unlikely that the Camden annotator is also going to call the
Corn Hoarder--hardly famous as an actor--"Roscius."
I get the impression that the Corn Hoarder, trained at his
middleman father's side, was more a middleman in the
theatre, a play script scalper, a money lender, and factotum.
He was reared in trade and probably made a good living on the
side the way Philip Henslowe did--by pawn brokering--and like
Henslowe he invested in a bawdy house next to the Blackfriars.
In other words, a hustler.
Fripps' minute survey of the Stratford record shows that when
the Corn Hoarder returns to Stratford "a thirty pound gentleman,"
he's still a hustler and after siding with the despised Combes against
the Corporation, not one well-liked enough to be "nostro" anything.
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
"Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
> Note that the dickhead doesn't address any of my points. I wonder why.
>
> Peter G.
I don't.
Terry Ross
> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> [...]
>
> > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
*Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
Roscius.
>
> I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
>
> Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
> liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
> more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).
What does it do for Baker's position that Tarlton had been called a
"Roscius"? What does it do for Baker's position that Burbage was also
called a Roscius? What does it do for Baker's position that John Davies
described William Ostler as "the Roscius of these times"? Neither Tarlton
nor Alleyn nor Burbage nor Ostler held a trademark as the one and only
English "Roscius."
>
> Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor of his era,
> and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius" it's unlikely
> that the Camden annotator is also going to call the Corn Hoarder--hardly
> famous as an actor--"Roscius."
It may be news to you that there are numerous contemporary references to
Shakespeare as an actor; Altrocchi seems to have found another one.
Terry Ross
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:27:34 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>
> Terry,
>
> Thanks for getting some of the points straight. Good team work, buddy!
> But you're way off base on the rest.
>
No doubt.
> And you'll have to allow that I did spell Paul's name correctly while
> you haven't.(:})
That I do -- and I was the first to notice.
>
> Now let's move though this. 1) I've _never_ seen Paul's essay, but I
> did hear him present his first paper on this in April. Is that clear?
>
It was not at all clear from your post that you had NOT read the essay.
> I cited the location and publication date, but I haven't seen the essay.
So you now tell us. It is available to all members of the Shakespeare
Fellowship. I have asked them to make it publicly available, because if
what Altrocchi has found really is a hitherto overlooked contemporary
reference to Shakespeare, that would be noteworthy.
>
> I even asked his editor for a copy or link and didn't get it. Bill told
> me it would be posted, but I didn't see it when I visited their pages,
> i.e., Shakespeare Matters.
So join the Shakespeare Fellowship, or wait until the essay is made freely
available on the site, as I have been told will soon happen.
>
> Do you have a link, if so what is it?
>
I have a link, but the file is password protected.
> I'd love to read the paper, but as I told Paul I'm not nearly as
> interested in his opinion about this annotation as I am about the
> annotation itself.
>
> Is that clear? It's the annotation, not what we say about it, that is
> most important at this time.
One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!" If the annotation is legit,
then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
Shakespeare's acting career.
Here is some of what I said on the SF forum, where I asked that the essay
be made available to non-subscribers:
=====
I think this is the most important piece that has appeared yet in SM. The
Marlite James Baker has seriously misrepresented Altrocchi's essay on
hlas, and I have posted a few corrections (including a correction to my
own misspelling of Altrocchi's name). I would like to notify the readers
of SHAKSPER about Altrocchi's essay in order to learn whether anybody else
had come across the annotation and to hear what people made of it. Is it
authentic? Can it be dated with any degree of plausibility and precision?
Paul Altrocchi's kind of Oxfordianism might be a bit of an issue -- that
is, some readers would be distracted by his taking it for granted that
Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works and his assumption that "there is no
evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a famous actor and little or no
valid evidence that he was an actor at all." In the context of the
Shakespeare Fellowship, these may not be extraordinary assumptions, but
some readers might respond more to the Oxfordian elements of the essay
than to the more central factors of his finding the annotation, his
tenacity in seeking enlightenment, and his making the find public.
I think too much of the essay is devoted to responding to a misreading and
mistranslation that readers don't need to be told about (I admire
Altrocchi's keeping the name of his Latinist secret, but since the
original misreading was a blind alley, there is no reason to send the
reader down it at all). The main thing in the essay is Altrocchi's
discovery (if indeed he is the first person to notice the annotation)
itself.
We don't know as much as we'd like about Shakespeare's reputation as an
actor, and that is why any newly discovered comment is particularly
welcome. It is no surprise to find Burbage or Armin called a "Roscius,"
but we think of Shakespeare as more of a supporting actor, even though he
played important roles in his own and some of Jonson's works. Altrocchi
cites the opinion of Mary Robertson (a handwriting expert at the
Huntington) that the annotation's hand looks like something that would
have been used in the period from 1620 to 1650. This is later than I would
have otherwise thought, because I would have assumed that while an
author's reputation can persist and grow after long death, an actor's
reputation would probably fade more quickly. Of course, as Altrocchi
notes, referring to Shakespeare as a great actor rather than as a great
writer is itself interesting (and would be less surprising if the
annotation dated from the 1590s than from the 30 years later). In any
event, I would like to hear what the Shakespeare scholars who don't
subscribe to *Shakespeare Matters* have to say, and the quickest way to
get feedback would be to make Altrocchi's discovery available to
non-subscribers and to notify SHAKSPER."
============
>
> And I have published a scan of it, after the Huntington suggested that
> I post it.
>
> Just for the record I _begged_ the Huntington to post it
> themselves...but they didn't want to...they wanted me to post it...
>
>
> 2) I cited what the Huntington claims is the reading and their
> translation and not what Paul says it is, since the _only_ translation
> I've had from Paul was the one that said Shakespeare was a "fraud",
> i.e., the one I _heard_ in April, along with 30 other papers.
>
You should have read his essay first.
>
> I made this clear in my report.
What is clear is that you should have read his essay first.
>
> I'd didn't report than Roger S. and I stood on the stage, after this
> paper and while the scan was projected on the wall (back projected).
> Roger quickly suggested the forth word was "Roscio"
Well good for Roger! Altrocchi thanks Roger for steering him in the right
direction, and Roger's suggestion was obviously very helpful.
> ...I simply gave my
> opinion on the hand...c. 1615...English transititional hand...plus or
> minus 20 years...
That would seem to be in the neighbourhood; obviously it couldn't be before
1590, the date of the book. A Huntington expert suggest 1620-50 as a
likely period for that hand.
>
> So I think the only "mistake" I made is in the edition.
>
I am glad you are now owning up to the fact that you have not read the
essay -- suppressing that was your largest mistake by far.
> You say it is in the 1590 edition, I've had it down as the 1594
> edition, I'll take either one.
You may as well get it right if you can. Altrocchi says "1590" throughout
his essay, as you would know if you had read it.
>
> I'll have to check to see where that mistake came from, Terry, but I
> do remember double checking it, so I have some sort of reason for
> thinking this date.
>
There WAS a 1594 edition of Camden, but Altrocchi says the annotation was
in a copy of the 1590 edition.
> In fact here are the e-mails about it from and to The Huntington asking
> for the plates. You'll see I cited the 1594 edition here and they
> didn't correct it even when they sent me the plates...??
That was perhaps over-polite of them.
>
> Since I've not seen the title page...the plate is only of the
> annotation...I don't know which edition it came from. But if Paul says
> it is the 1590 edition it's ok by me. He oughta know.
Read his essay.
Jimbosir
>then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
>Shakespeare's acting career.
Quite true. And it says NOTHING about
Shakespeare as an author (despite what
Baker and others claim)!
MENTOR (:-)
john_baker
>One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
>view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
>that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!"
Terry, get real. Why should I care what you or Paul thinks this
annotation says or means???
It's a _primary_ record. I'm quite capable of reaching my own
opinion about it.
I'm not overheated at all, I've been sitting on it since APRIL!!!
(:})
> If the annotation is legit,
>then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
>Shakespeare's acting career.
>
Wrong, it another clear record that Willy was ONLY known as an Actor.
Which is why I'm not much interested in your ability to form an
opinion about this important new record.
Here's a person who lived in Stratford, a person who knew Willy but
who didn't know he was an Author!!!! Talk about big news Terry. This
is big stuff.
>
>Here is some of what I said on the SF forum, where I asked that the essay
>be made available to non-subscribers:
>
Good and I also see you think this is an important discovery, so we
agree on two points.
This makes my day. (:} )
john_baker
<david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0308120552060.6521@mail>,
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
>>
>> >
>> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
>> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
>> > to how it translates.
>
>> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
>> essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
>> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
>> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
>
> Faker's distortions were a commonplace when he was posting regularly,
>prior to his "sabbatical."
Just note for the record Spiderman, that I also wrote I was
intentionally misspelling the word sabbatical as a joke (:}) Glad
you liked it.
I've had a series of medical problems with my memory called TGA which
have been, let's say
interesting. You can look up the condition of the net, the full name
is Transient Global Amensia...not fun hun...did we ever do lunch...I
saw your picture on Lowercase Dave's pages, and like it much better
than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})
snip
>> reference to Shakespeare that so far as I know had not been noticed
>> before.
>
> That is indeed interesting.
And it is my entire point!!!
>
> That's about as damning as one can get!
I like it Webb...but it isn't as bad as Terry makes it out. Evidently
my only real mistake
was in the year of the edition, Terry claims it's 1590, while I had
down 1594....the Huntington sent by the plates when I requested the
1594 edition...but they don't include the title page, so I
really don't know which edition it is in....(:{)
>
> I try not to call interlocutors liars as well. However, the practice
>of scholarship is predicated upon an assumption of good faith. Scholars
>may disagree vehemently concerning the interpretation or implications of
>data, but if a scholar presents data, his or her colleagues are entitled
>to assume the objective component of the report to be factually
>accurate. Regrettably, if there is any h.l.a.s. participant who has
>forfeited by his behavior the right to that presumption of good faith,
>it is surely Faker, so I doubt that anyone will assume that his account
>is reliable.
You'll be wrong. As a matter of fact everyone is now on my line....
> There are a great many matters on which one should not accept Faker's
>word, ranging from his supposed "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem
I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you think Math is a Science
(:})
>> His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
>> the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
>> contents of Altrocchi's essay.
>
> One wonders what Altrocchi thinks of Faker's distortions.
A good point Webb...He's not too happy with me. But I promised I'd
not post until his essay was posted and I explained that my interest
was in the primary material, not in his opinion about it. I like Paul,
we've had lunch together and I expect we'll do it again sometime.
He's his last e-mail to me:
SubjectReThat annotation
ToJohn Baker <mar...@localaccess.com>
John -
(1) It is not clear to me why you are doing this. I have not
encountered
such activities before.
(2) It is obvious that you sent sub-optimal scans to your expert.
The
deciphering was not intelligible to me until I had precise photographs
taken by the Huntington.
(3) Why not wait until the article is published, which should be
within
the next 3 weeks?
Cheers,
Paul
I corrected the scan problem by forwarding his editor's scan...and I
have posted both of them on
my web page. There isn't much difference and the new scan didn't
change the opinion of the scholar in question...which goes to show
there are always two sides...
Cheers!!
john_baker
But this isn't the point Terry and you KNOW it (:] )
The point is that the annotator didn't think of Willy as a writer of
plays like Plautus or Terence...that's the point. Do forget it. You
aren't going to claim that you have TGI also are you?
john
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
> http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
John Baker
john_baker
<david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3f37ae71....@News.localaccess.com>, john baker wrote:
>
>> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
>
> Welcome back, Faker. What have you been doing -- spending all your
>time listening to the Franck Organ Symphony?
No Spiderman, I've been solving Fermat again.
The division here is not just SR and I. I've reported that
RD and his crew also lean towards the more radical reading.
I'm not invested in it. But it is a new fact.
Someone alive in Stratford who knew Willy thought of him ONLY as an
actor.
Someone who was interested enough to pen or quill his name into the
history books and who if he had but known that he was also an Author
would surely have put it there.
I know you know this and just like pulling my chain...so have at it,
Spiderman...
But remember no web is perfect....(: }and none can take a good
baking....
Cheers
Tom Reedy
<snip>
>
> Paul Altrocchi's kind of Oxfordianism might be a bit of an issue -- that
> is, some readers would be distracted by his taking it for granted that
> Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works and his assumption that "there is no
> evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a famous actor and little or no
> valid evidence that he was an actor at all." In the context of the
> Shakespeare Fellowship, these may not be extraordinary assumptions, but
> some readers might respond more to the Oxfordian elements of the essay
> than to the more central factors of his finding the annotation, his
> tenacity in seeking enlightenment, and his making the find public.
Indeed, his article is a good representation of what would probably happen
if "smoking gun" evidence such as antistratfordians say is missing from
Shakespeare's records were to appear.
Altrocchi says the annotation "does confirm the remarkable early success of
what Oxfordians view as William Cecil's clever but monstrous connivance:
forcing the genius Edward de Vere into pseudonymity and promoting the
illiterate grain merchant and real estate speculator, William Shaksper of
Stratford, into hoaxian prominence as the great poet and playwright, William
Shakespeare."
(I think I detect the style of Roger Stritmatter in those overwrought lines.
It almost reads as a caricature of Oxfordianism.)
It's a shame such a discovery will open the discoverer up to ridicule
because of his obviously naive and gullible belief woven throughout his
paper. It's hard to believe an M.D. could be that simple; I'd bet he recants
after some experience with the literary community his discovery will bring
him.
TR
Toby Petzold
> > Do you have a link, if so what is it?
> >
>
> I have a link, but the file is password protected.
AHA! So, the thock plittens!
Toby Petzold
Owes his soul to the company store
john_baker
NEWS!!! Terry Ross Supports _Baker's_ Reading over P. Groves of
"Rescio," _Baker_ Wins Round Two on a KTO!!!!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:12:06 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
>> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>> [...]
>>
>> > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
>> > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
>
>The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
>as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
>*Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
>Roscius.
>
>>
>> I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
Unlike the learned Professor of Latin, Peter Groves, who called me "a
dickhead," I knew that "rescio" is a form of the Latin word
"rescisco", which means "I know" or "I apprehend. "
I also know the fact it was capitalized in the annotation is
_meaningless_, since these folks capitalized indiscriminately.
So I certain agree with Ms. Weir and Mr. Ross and The Oxford Latin
Dictionary that is is Professor Groves who was mistaken, not John
Baker...which is surpising....
(:} )
Thanks for the support gang!!!
john
Elizabeth Weir
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > [...]
> >
> > > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> > > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
>
> The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
> as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
> *Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
> Roscius.
Lewis and Short shows the same. Aulus Gellius used rescio and
rescisco interchangeably in Attic Nights.
> > I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
> >
> > Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
> > liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
> > more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).
>
> What does it do for Baker's position that Tarlton had been called a
> "Roscius"? What does it do for Baker's position that Burbage was also
> called a Roscius? What does it do for Baker's position that John Davies
> described William Ostler as "the Roscius of these times"?
> Neither Tarlton nor Alleyn nor Burbage nor Ostler held a trademark
> as the one and only English "Roscius."
That doesn't dilute my argument.
Rowe wrote:
His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times,
amongst those of the other Players, before some old
Plays, but without any particular Account of what sort
of Parts he used to play; and tho' I have inquired I
could never meet with any further Account of him this
way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost
in his own Hamlet.
Rowe isn't describing "a Roscius."
And, in light of the fact that the Corn Hoarder did not have
the Strachey letter taken together with Rowe's remark, we have
to consider that Rowe's Ghost may have been Francis Bacon.
Spedding has some reference that refers to Bacon in the role of the
"Sorcerer"--possibly Prospero since Prospero does nothing but spout
Bacon's philosophy--in a production at the Inns of Court.
Bacon was the greatest "orator in many ages" and could hold a
courtroom spellbound according to Jonson so there's no reason
why Bacon shouldn't act. He was "comely" so looks were no problem
and he was definitely involved in the theatre as his Puritan mother's
frantic letters attest.
> > Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor of his era,
> > and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius" it's unlikely
> > that the Camden annotator is also going to call the Corn Hoarder--hardly
> > famous as an actor--"Roscius."
>
> It may be news to you that there are numerous contemporary references to
> Shakespeare as an actor; Altrocchi seems to have found another one.
Rowe wasn't impressed.
Toby Petzold
> Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.55.0308121440030.4917@mail>...
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> > > > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
> >
> > The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
> > as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
> > *Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
> > Roscius.
>
> Lewis and Short shows the same. Aulus Gellius used rescio and
> rescisco interchangeably in Attic Nights.
There was a time in my studies I would have known that. It's some sort
of phonetic principle that Latin-speakers (if not all speakers) fall
back into where they like to elide over duplicated consonantal
formations. But it's a legitmiate phenomenon. Is there a term for
that, Dr. Kathman?
> > > I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
> > >
> > > Not Roscius nor Aesope, those admyred tragedians that have
> > > liued ever since before Christ was borne, could euer performe
> > > more in action than famous Ned Allen" (Pierce Penilesse, 1592).
> >
> > What does it do for Baker's position that Tarlton had been called a
> > "Roscius"? What does it do for Baker's position that Burbage was also
> > called a Roscius? What does it do for Baker's position that John Davies
> > described William Ostler as "the Roscius of these times"?
> > Neither Tarlton nor Alleyn nor Burbage nor Ostler held a trademark
> > as the one and only English "Roscius."
>
> That doesn't dilute my argument.
>
> Rowe wrote:
>
> His Name is Printed, as the Custom was in those Times,
> amongst those of the other Players, before some old
> Plays, but without any particular Account of what sort
> of Parts he used to play; and tho' I have inquired I
> could never meet with any further Account of him this
> way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost
> in his own Hamlet.
>
> Rowe isn't describing "a Roscius."
True dat!
> And, in light of the fact that the Corn Hoarder did not have
> the Strachey letter taken together with Rowe's remark, we have
> to consider that Rowe's Ghost may have been Francis Bacon.
Uh, er, um...
<snip>
> > > Considering the fact that Alleyn was the most famous actor of his era,
> > > and that Alleyn is known in numerous sources as "Roscius" it's unlikely
> > > that the Camden annotator is also going to call the Corn Hoarder--hardly
> > > famous as an actor--"Roscius."
It may have just been a generic compliment for an actor. Or, it may
have been an annotation made by someone with more than a superficial
knowledge of what such a reference might imply about that actor. Hmm.
Better call up the Florida Supreme Court.
> > It may be news to you that there are numerous contemporary references to
> > Shakespeare as an actor; Altrocchi seems to have found another one.
>
> Rowe wasn't impressed.
Well, it's a bad break for Stratfordia because certain of us
detractors never argued against Shakspere being an actor in the first
place. Sure, let him go shake and pound the boards a little in Old
London-town. He has pretensions and ego enough. Besides, he's The
Money: why not have him fill in a minor role here and there to save on
extras? He's not making anything off the playwriting credit except
getting his name out there, so what the hell?
Toby Petzold
Terry Ross
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:20:56 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> >One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
> >view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
> >that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!"
>
> Terry, get real. Why should I care what you or Paul thinks this
> annotation says or means???
You needn't care at all about what I say; if you cared at all about what
Paul Altrocchi says, you would have taken the trouble to read his essay.
Your misuse of the words "proves" and "fraud" warns us not to take
seriously any "proof" claim you make about any subject whatsoever.
>
> It's a _primary_ record. I'm quite capable of reaching my own
> opinion about it.
You cloaked yourself as a bring of news and a demonstrator of proofs. As
it turns out, you were neither, since you had not read the essay and you
offered no proofs. I doubt that you are able to reach "your won opinion"
about it. Altrocchi initially thought that the annotation suggested
Shakespeare was a fraud; when he consulted experts and followed Roger's
tip and looked into the matter further, he changed his mind. Your mind is
determined in advance to see any interpretation of the annotation as
"proof" of "fraud," which suggests that your Marlitism is in control of
your reasoning powers.
>
> I'm not overheated at all, I've been sitting on it since APRIL!!!
> (:})
>
Maybe it's time to get the bed sores treated.
> > If the annotation is legit,
> >then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
> >Shakespeare's acting career.
> >
>
> Wrong, it another clear record that Willy was ONLY known as an Actor.
It could not be that, since it does not refer to his either as an author
or as a non-author. It does not say he is a great actor who does not
write. We have some references to Shakespeare as an actor that do not
also refer to him as a writer, some to him as a writer that do not mention
his acting, and some that refer to both. The fact that not all of his
talents are noted by every observer does NOT mean that those talents are
thereby proven not to exist. We do not look at references to him as a
writer and conclude, "Oh, so he WASN'T an actor after all."
> Which is why I'm not much interested in your ability to form an
> opinion about this important new record.
We all knew that coming in. You told the group that there was "proof"
that Shakespeare was a "fraud." The annotation is no such proof
whatsoever. You deliberately mislead this group into supposing that you
had read Altrocchi's article, which suggests that the real fraud in this
case is entirely your own.
>
> Here's a person who lived in Stratford, a person who knew Willy but
> who didn't know he was an Author!!!! Talk about big news Terry. This
> is big stuff.
We do not know who the annotator was or where the annotator lived. We do
not know that the annotator ever lived in Stratford. I have not checked
the microfilm of the Huntington copy to see whether there are other
annotations that appear to be in the same hand; have you? Before
declaring that the annotator must have lived in Stratford, I should think
that any serious investigator would have wanted to check the book.
>
>
> >
> >Here is some of what I said on the SF forum, where I asked that the essay
> >be made available to non-subscribers:
> >
>
> Good and I also see you think this is an important discovery, so we
> agree on two points.
There is another point on which we could agree. There is still room for
amateurs, even antistratfordians, to make genuine and meaningful
contributions to literary history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Bob Grumman
> amongst those of the other Players, before some old
> Plays, but without any particular Account of what sort
> of Parts he used to play; and tho' I have inquired I
> could never meet with any further Account of him this
> way, than that the top of his Performance was the Ghost
> in his own Hamlet.
>
> Rowe isn't describing "a Roscius."
Ah, but the annotator, writing about a hundred years before Rowe, IS.
And he places him in Stratford. Tough luck, wack.
--Bob G.
Terry Ross
> Baker to Ross, on gaining access to the Shakespeare Fellowship:
>
> > > Do you have a link, if so what is it?
> > >
> >
> > I have a link, but the file is password protected.
>
> AHA! So, the thock plittens!
The Shakespeare Fellowship has generously agreed to make the essay
available to all:
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Latin_annotation.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Toby Petzold
> >
> > > > Do you have a link, if so what is it?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have a link, but the file is password protected.
Petzold:
> > AHA! So, the thock plittens!
Ross, obviously continuing the charade:
> The Shakespeare Fellowship has generously agreed to make the essay
> available to all:
> http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Latin_annotation.pdf
D'oh!
Toby Petzold
In his finest Homer Simpson voice
lowercase dave
John Baker wrote in message news:<3f39a364...@News.localaccess.com>...
> ...I saw your [meaning David Webb's] picture on Lowercase Dave's pages, and like it much better
> than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})
David Webb's photo isn't on my website. Other than that...and the date
confusion, nice work, the legwork, the scanning. Keep it up and you'll
win the Farey --I mean the Fausty--Award for distinguished posting in
a newsgroup under fire. Suggest changing your name to Fakir.
<http://skepdic.com/fakir.html>
Qustion: 1) couldn't the annotation have been written years after the
date of the printed book?
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Tom Reedy
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, it was written:
<snip>
> > > If the annotation is legit,
> > >then it adds one more piece of evidence for the significance of
> > >Shakespeare's acting career.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong, it another clear record that Willy was ONLY known as an Actor.
>
> It could not be that, since it does not refer to his either as an author
> or as a non-author. It does not say he is a great actor who does not
> write. We have some references to Shakespeare as an actor that do not
> also refer to him as a writer, some to him as a writer that do not mention
> his acting, and some that refer to both.
Besides the First Folio and a wealth of other references, one of the most
explicit is that of Sir Richard Baker. A contemporary of Shakespeare and a
friend of John Donne, he published *Chronicle of the Kings of England* in
1643. Sir Richard was a avid fan of the theater, also writing *Theatrum
Redivium, or the Theatre Vindicated.* In the *Chronicle,* for Elizabeth's
reign he notes statesmen, seamen, soldiers and literary figures who are
mostly theologians with the exception of Sidney. In conclusion he says,
"After such men, it might be thought ridiculous to speak of Stage-players;
but seeing excellency in the meanest things deserves remembering . . . For
writers of Playes, and such as had been Players theselves, William
Shakespeare and Benjamin Jonson, have specially left their Names recommended
to Posterity."
<snip>
> > Good and I also see you think this is an important discovery, so we
> > agree on two points.
>
> There is another point on which we could agree. There is still room for
> amateurs, even antistratfordians, to make genuine and meaningful
> contributions to literary history.
After it is investigated and if found to be genuine, I think it will
probably deserve to be included in "How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote
Shakespeare: The Historical Facts," at
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html.
TR
richard kennedy
excelled as a comic actor, check your encyclopedia and search it out.
In other words, the annotator is saying that the Stratford man was a
clown. Kennedy
john baker wrote in message news:<3f37ae71....@News.localaccess.com>...
> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
>
> Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
>
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
>
> Readers and posters will be interested to know that a period
> annotation about Shakespeare has surfaced in a 1594 edition of
> Camden's *Remains.*
>
> It has either been overlooked by Strats or *suppressed.*
>
> It was noticed earlier this year by an Oxfordian scholar, Paul
> Altrocchi, who announced his discovery at the Seventh Annual
> Edward De Vere Conference at Concordia University, Porland, Oregon, in
> April, which I attended and presented a paper on the manuscript of
> Henry IV.
>
> Dr. Altrocchi has an article on this in the new issue of *Shakespeare
> Matters," under the title "Sleuthing an Enigmatic Latin Annotation..."
> at http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/NewsletterMain.htm
>
> (Yes that's my essay, not Kathman's, on "Shakespeare's Moral
> Philosophy," boasted about on their home page, adapted from the
> earlier version posted here. Kathman doesn't believe Willy had a
> moral philosophy, or rather he believes Willy was a business man who
> wrote the plays for spare pence not out of Platonic duty. " Not for
> fame but for gain," is how these egg suckers put it.)
>
> But the dust has yet to settle, because, as the title implies, the
> annotation is "enigmatic" and doubt as to what the Latin annotation
> says and also what it means persists.
>
> I've posted a web page on this, which provides a good scan of the
> primary material.
>
> Those who can read it or who read Latin are welcome to weigh in on
> what it says.
>
> Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> Huntington thinks it says and means.
>
> "[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro ( and William
> Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> headlines there."
>
> Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
> headlines.
>
> Let's take them in reverse order. Any new period information about
> Shakespeare is headline stuff. So this annotation qualifies. Stats
> will be loath to mention it, but it is front-page news.
>
> Second as you will see from the scan there are no parenthesis around
> the first word, nor is it lower case.
>
> The all important forth word has an indecipherable letter in it that
> can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
> suggests is doubtful from first blush.
>
> As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
> may be "plani" without an accent. If so the reading changes to "Et
> Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planči nostro" which means something like
> "And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."
>
> Now either of those readings is or should be of concern to
> Stratfordians. The second reading ends the authorship debate by
> trumping it. The first reading, "And William Shakespeare, certainly
> our Roscius," only adds fuel to the authorship question because the
> Annotator doesn't see poor Willy as a famous playwright like Plautus,
> Seneca or Terence, but simply as a famous actor like Roscius.
>
> As usual I'll take either reading.
>
> Now for the controversy: I've passed the annotation around to various
> scholars, some of whom you'll recognize, such as Stephen R Reimer,
> Peter Farey and Alan Nelson. And guess what? Scholarly opinion is
> strongly divided.
>
> Professor Steven Reimer at the University of Alberta who has just
> posted the annotation on his web page, the most extensive and
> remarkable one in the world on Elizabethan hands, thinks the forth
> word is "Rescio" and notes that this is the only way to make the
> declinations or tenses of the other Latin words sensible. In fact it
> is the only way to make these words make a sentence.
>
> Alan Nelson and William Streitberger both agree with Tabor and The
> Huntington, as does Peter Farey.
>
> A group of scholars at Portland State University isn't so certain and
> appear to be leaning towards the more radical reading. They are
> working under the direction of Professor Emeritus Rod Diman, who has
> more than thirty years in reading Latin works from this period.
>
> Professor Diman's first opinion leaned towards the "Rescio" reading
> and I am waiting on his final opinion, augmented by several scholars
> who are experts in this hand.
>
> So there is News here. Good news for anti-Strats.
>
> Someone living at the time of Shakespeare, more than likely while he
> was alive, someone evidently living in Stratford, and who could thus
> use the word "nostro" or "our" to include Shakespeare and themselves
> on the Stratford page, checked Camden's _Remains_ to see what it had
> to say about Stratford and its citizens and discovered that it didn't
> mention Willy. From this the Annotator either concluded Willy was
> thus a fraud or a charlatan, the meaning of "plani" or, alternatively,
> the Annotator concluded that Camden had missed Willy and added his
> name as a famous actor. Actor not writer.
>
> Think about this Thread Travelers. Marvel at this. Someone living
> in Stratford c. 1615, someone literate enough to read and write Latin,
> someone who knew William Shakespeare as a member of his or her own
> community, writes into this list of distinguished persons of Stratford
> Shakespeare's name, but not as their Terence or as their Seneca, but
> as their Roscius.
>
> Or only as a famous actor.
>
> Clearly the Annotator didn't know that William Shakespeare was also a
> writer and thus didn't include this honor, then as now so much higher
> than mere acting, along with his name! Reflect on it.
>
> This is the smoking gun anti-Stratfordians have searched for through
> the centuries.
>
> This is _conclusive_ evidence for my hypothesis, offered here a year
> or so ago here, that until the First Folio appeared in 1623 no one
> thought of the rustic Actor as an author. And thus there was no
> authorship question until the appearance of the First Folio.
richard kennedy
see, which is a way out for the Strats.
This is G o o g l e's cache of
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/comedian.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we
crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current
page without highlighting.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:oyEOU58xOfYJ:www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/comedian+roscius+clown&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible
for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: roscius clown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
English Dictionary Computer Dictionary Thesaurus Dream Dictionary
Search Dictionary:
comedian
Pronunciation: ku'meedeeun
WordNet Dictionary
Definition: [n] a professional performer who tells jokes and
performs comic acts
[n] an actor in a comedy
Synonyms: comic
See Also: actor, Alfred Hawthorne, Arthur Marx, Arthur Stanley
Jefferson Laurel, Benny Hill, Bob Hope, buffoon, Burns, Buster Keaton,
Chaplin, Charlie Chaplin, Chico, clown, comedienne, Dudley Moore,
Dudley Stuart John Moore, Durante, Fields, gagman, George Burns,
Groucho, Hardy, Harpo, Harry Lauder, Herbert Marx, Hill, histrion,
Hope, Jimmy Durante, joker, jokester, Joseph Francis Keaton, Julius
Marx, Keaton, Lauder, Laurel, Leonard Marx, Leslie Townes Hope,
Martin, Marx, merry andrew, Moore, Nathan Birnbaum, Oliver Hardy,
performer, performing artist, player, role player, Sir Charles Spencer
Chaplin, Sir Harry MacLennan Lauder, Stan Laurel, standup comedian,
Steve Martin, thespian, top banana, W. C. Fields, William Claude
Dukenfield, Zeppo
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Definition: \Co*me"di*an\, n. [Cf. F. com['e]dien.]
1. An actor or player in comedy. ``The famous comedian,
Roscius.'' --Middleton.
2. A writer of comedy. --Milton.
Thesaurus Terms
Related Terms: banana, buffoon, burlesquer, card, caricaturist,
choreographer, clown, comedienne, comic, cutup, dramatist, dramatizer,
dramaturge, droll, epigrammatist, farcer, farceur, farceuse, farcist,
fool, funnyman, gag writer, gagman, gagster, genteel comedian, hoke
comic, humorist, ironist, jester, joke writer, joker, jokesmith,
jokester, lampooner, librettist, light comedian, low comedian, madcap,
melodramatist, mimographer, monodramatist, parodist, play doctor, play
fixer, playwright, playwriter, prankster, punner, punster, quipster,
reparteeist, satirist, scenario writer, scenarioist, scenarist,
scriptwriter, slapstick comedian, stand-up comic, tragedian, wag,
wagwit, wisecracker, wit, witling, zany
COPYRIGHT © 2000-2003 WEBNOX CORP. HOME | ABOUT HYPERDICTIONARY
David L. Webb
> NEWS!!! Terry Ross Supports _Baker's_ Reading over P. Groves of
> "Rescio," _Baker_ Wins Round Two on a KTO [sic]!!!!
What is a "KTO," Faker? Korsakoff-traceable oversight? Are you
really as uninformed about boxing as about everything else?
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:12:06 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter Groves" <Monti...@NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote in message
> >> news:<SFVZa.28814$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > Of course, because "Rescio" isn't a word in Latin (unless it's a proper
> >> > noun), dative or ablative of <Rescius>.
> >The Oxford Latin Dictionary has an entry for "rescio," which it describes
> >as a back-formation of "rescisco." The word also appears in Cooper's
> >*Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae* -- as does a lengthy entry for
> >Roscius.
> >> I think it argues for Baker's position that Alleyn was "Roscius."
> Unlike the learned Professor of Latin, Peter Groves, who called me "a
> dickhead,"
That was indeed excessive, Faker -- everyone knows that your
"scholarship" comes not from a Dick but from a john.
> I knew that "rescio" is a form of the Latin word
> "rescisco", which means "I know" or "I apprehend. "
>
> I also know the fact it was capitalized in the annotation is
> _meaningless_, since these folks capitalized indiscriminately.
>
> So I certain [sic] agree with Ms. Weir and Mr. Ross and The Oxford Latin
> Dictionary that is is [sic] Professor Groves who was mistaken, not John
> Baker...which is surpising [sic]....
>
> (:} )
>
> Thanks for the support gang!!!
You're welcome to all the support you can muster from Elizabeth
Weird, who doesn't know a word of Latin and who therefore comically
assumes that "Verulam means 'state of truth' in Latin...." -- Elizabeth
is about as accomplished a linguist as you are, Faker. (See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0207230408.4765cd39%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>.) I certainly would not read Terry Ross's
post as "support[ing] _Baker's_ reading," but I suppose that where
support is not expressed, it must be invented by sheer force of wishful
thinking.
David L. Webb
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:20:56 -0400, Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
>
> >One thing that certainly is NOT important is your overheated view -- the
> >view of someone who now confesses that he has not even read the essay --
> >that the annotation "Proves Willy a Fraud!!"
> Terry, get real. Why should I care what you or Paul thinks this
> annotation says or means???
>
> It's a _primary_ record. I'm quite capable of reaching my own
> opinion about it.
Nobody doubts that -- just as you are quite capable of reaching your
own comic conclusions about the Apollo lunar landing and Fermat's Last
Theorem.
> I'm not overheated at all,
Indeed, "half-baked" is more the _mot juste_.
[...]
Lynne
> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
> essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
>
>
Terry,
I thought it might be helpful to everyone if I posted the url to the
Altrocchi article here:
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Latin_annotation.pdf
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
Alan Jones
"Lynne" <kosi...@ican.net> wrote in message
news:8e6ba82f.0308...@posting.google.com...
Two points arising from reading the whole of that article:
Roscio, which in isolation could be a verb, must here be a noun or pronoun
in the dative case, matching the grammatical form of the parallel names in
the printed matter here annotated in MS. And though capitalisation of nouns
at this period is irregular, I can't recall having seen a verb capitalised -
it seems unlikely. So I think "Roscius" is correct.
Roscius was indeed an actor. But, very significantly as a parallel to
Shakespeare, he was promoted to the equestrian class on account of his
eminence. The annotator may have thought that similarity worthy of implicit
comment - Shakespeare as an eminent theatrical figure who had gained the
rank of gentleman. In the First Folio, Shakespeare is (though no doubt only
through courtesy) listed first among the actors who performed the plays, and
one assumes that his Court service was regarded as primarily to do with
acting and management. Some antiStratfordians have asserted that writing
plays was regarded as a mean task unfit for the nobility: perhaps (but only
perhaps) serving royalty by playing regal parts was seen as work of greater
prestige. I don't think that referring to WS as "our Roscius" need imply
that he was an actor and nothing more.
By the way, the suggestion is an earlier posting that "noster" has to
indicate a living person and a local resident is not valid: "Roscius noster"
could most reasonably mean "the Roscius of our time", or perhaps "of our
nation".
Alan Jones
richard kennedy
it. If Milton said clearly that Roscius was not only a comic figure,
but a writer as well, then we'd want to know where MIlton got his
information. Check it out, Ross.
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
John W. Kennedy
> I think this annotation is actually pretty interesting, but
> Baker's incompetence is painful to watch.
I thought it amusing that he doesn't understand how "&" could be
transcribed as "[et]", even though it has been explained to him, and
consequently goes haring off after a pair of phantom "parenthesis" [sic
bis].
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction
together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the
works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together
as the "sea-story" and then criticizing _that_.
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
John W. Kennedy
> I've already done so (the "points" that Baker failed to address). Since he
> couldn't deal with them (knowing as much Latin, I suspect, as my cat) he
> omitted my entire post inn his reply.
It's amazing how screwed-up some people can be on the subject of Latin.
I once got outright flamed for knocking down an attempt to defend the
non-word *ignorami by making up imaginary rules of Latin grammar
(complete with imaginary citations from Gildersleeve). And then, of
course, there is all the madness over "homo" (as I pointed out to Lizzie
of late).
Mark Steese
> NEWS!!! NEWS!!!
>
> Check out the story and the scan of the annotation at:
>
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
[snip]
> Someone living at the time of Shakespeare, more than likely while he
> was alive, someone evidently living in Stratford, and who could thus
> use the word "nostro" or "our" to include Shakespeare and themselves
> on the Stratford page, checked Camden's _Remains_ to see what it had
> to say about Stratford and its citizens and discovered that it didn't
> mention Willy. From this the Annotator either concluded Willy was
> thus a fraud or a charlatan, the meaning of "plani" or, alternatively,
> the Annotator concluded that Camden had missed Willy and added his
> name as a famous actor. Actor not writer.
It never ceases to amaze me how often anti-Shakespeareans stumble over
the rock of Ben Jonson, often without realizing they have done so. Your
and Peter Farey's assumption that the annotator lived in Stratford
because he referred to 'our' Shakespeare (from the web page: "We both
agree the use of "nostro" (our) on this particular page and in this hand
implies the annotation was written by someone living in Stratford") is
problematic when considered in the light of the famous marginal note in
Jonson's _Timber: or Discoveries_, "De Shakespeare nostrat."
Your assumption that the annotation was made during Shakespeare's
lifetime ("If Shakespear had recently died, the writer would have
qualified his remarks with a phrase meaning 'our recently departed
townsman' [recens or nuper decedere or mori] or, if long gone, a phrase
suggesting this would have been included, such as 'immortal' i.e.,
'immortalis'") is disproven by the same passage in _Timber_: Jonson is
clearly writing after Shakespeare's death ("for I loved the man, and do
honour his memory"), yet 'nostrat.' is a good enough descriptor.
Others have already pointed out the defects in your knowledge of Latin
and the fallacy of your assumption that a reference to Shakespeare as an
actor necessarily excludes the possibility that he was also known to be
a playwright. Once again an anti-Shakespearean smoking gun turns out to
be a broken water-pistol.
-Mark Steese
--
What a deal of cold business doth a man misspend the better part of life
in! In scattering compliments, tendering visits, gathering and venting
news, following feasts and plays, making a little winter-love in a dark
corner. -Ben Jonson
Bob Grumman
> and the fallacy of your assumption that a reference to Shakespeare as an
> actor necessarily excludes the possibility that he was also known to be
> a playwright.
>
Yes. The probability is that he was primarily known as an actor part
of whose value was that he supplied his company with material rather
than as a playwright who acted, the way Condell (was it) would have
been known as an actor part of whose value was that he kept the
company books rather than as a bookkeeper who acted.
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
> Qustion: 1) couldn't the annotation have been written years after the
> date of the printed book?
The annotation could have been made how much later than the pub. date
(1590), correct? Not that it makes much difference to Baker's
argument, but it calls into question the notion that William was a
well-known actor in 1590, which seems doubtful.
David More
<http://www.marlovian.com>
David L. Webb
> [...] I
> saw your picture on Lowercase Dave's pages, and like it much better
> than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})
Faker, see if you can manage, for once in your life, to get at least
something right. Dave's web page has a picture of TERRY ROSS, not of
me. You owe it at least to Terry to get this right: while it is indeed
flattering for me to be confused with Terry Ross, it is not flattering
for Terry to be mistaken for me, even by a hopeless incompetent and
hapless fraud whom no one takes seriously anyway.
[...]
> I like it Webb...but it isn't as bad as Terry makes it out. Evidently
> my only real mistake
> was in the year of the edition, Terry claims it's 1590, while I had
> down 1594....the Huntington sent by the plates when I requested the
> 1594 edition...but they don't include the title page, so I
> really don't know which edition it is in....(:{)
That wasn't your "only real mistake," Faker, as many others have
pointed out.
> > I try not to call interlocutors liars as well. However, the practice
> >of scholarship is predicated upon an assumption of good faith. Scholars
> >may disagree vehemently concerning the interpretation or implications of
> >data, but if a scholar presents data, his or her colleagues are entitled
> >to assume the objective component of the report to be factually
> >accurate. Regrettably, if there is any h.l.a.s. participant who has
> >forfeited by his behavior the right to that presumption of good faith,
> >it is surely Faker, so I doubt that anyone will assume that his account
> >is reliable.
> You'll be wrong. As a matter of fact everyone is now on my line....
> > There are a great many matters on which one should not accept Faker's
> >word, ranging from his supposed "solution" of Fermat's Last Theorem
> I'm still waiting for you to tell us why you think Math is a Science
> (:})
I don't; however, my university and virtually all others do, so I
adhere to their categorization of my discipline. In any event, since
you are as ignorant of mathematics as you are of natural science, it
really makes no difference.
> >> His post and website are full of mistakes and distortions on
> >> the issue, and nobody should assume that he has accurately represented the
> >> contents of Altrocchi's essay.
> > One wonders what Altrocchi thinks of Faker's distortions.
> A good point Webb...He's not too happy with me.
I'm not surprised.
> But I promised I'd
> not post until his essay was posted and I explained that my interest
> was in the primary material, not in his opinion about it. I like Paul,
> we've had lunch together and I expect we'll do it again sometime.
>
> He's [sic] his last e-mail to me:
>
> SubjectReThat annotation
> ToJohn Baker <mar...@localaccess.com>
>
> John -
>
> (1) It is not clear to me why you are doing this. I have not
> encountered
> such activities before.
Remarkable! Even Dr. Altrocchi, acccustomed as he is to interacting
with all manner of cranks at the Shakespeare Fellowship, has not
encountered such activities before!
> (2) It is obvious that you sent sub-optimal scans to your expert.
> The
> deciphering was not intelligible to me until I had precise photographs
> taken by the Huntington.
>
> (3) Why not wait until the article is published, which should be
> within
> the next 3 weeks?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
> I corrected the scan problem by forwarding his editor's scan...and I
> have posted both of them on
> my web page. There isn't much difference and the new scan didn't
> change the opinion of the scholar in question...which goes to show
> there are always two sides...
>
> Cheers!!
Terry Ross
> graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase dave) wrote in message news:<545b95a7.0308...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Qustion: 1) couldn't the annotation have been written years after the
> > date of the printed book?
>
> The annotation could have been made how much later than the pub. date
> (1590), correct?
According to Altrocchi, the Huntington's Mary Robertson believes that
characteristics of the handwriting "'suggest that our annotation was most
likely written between 1620 and 1650.'" If there are more annotations in
the book by the same person, it may be able to date the annotation with
more confidence and precision.
> Not that it makes much difference to Baker's argument, but it calls into
> question the notion that William was a well-known actor in 1590, which
> seems doubtful.
Baker has no argument on this point.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ross Visit the SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP home page
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> David More
> <http://www.marlovian.com>
>
john_baker
dave) wrote:
>You still got it, John, whatever it is. :)
>
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3f39a364...@News.localaccess.com>...
>
>> ...I saw your [meaning David Webb's] picture on Lowercase Dave's pages, and like it much better
>> than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})
>
>David Webb's photo isn't on my website.
Thanks to Webb, I know that now, but you can tell readers that the
photo of Ross does NOT have an enclosed capition and that beside it
are bios about _both_ Ross and Webb...I didn't read the one about
Ross, which says the picture is of him, just the one about Webb and
then looked at the picture and ASSumed it was Spiderman...big
deal....I liked the website by the way...
>Other than that...and the date
>confusion, nice work, the legwork, the scanning. Keep it up and you'll
>win the Farey --I mean the Fausty--Award for distinguished posting in
>a newsgroup under fire. Suggest changing your name to Fakir.
><http://skepdic.com/fakir.html>
>
>Qustion: 1) couldn't the annotation have been written years after the
>date of the printed book?
>
As a forgery it could have been written in there just before it was
photographied for the microfish...and it is likely to have been
written in there c. 1615 which would be 25 years after the book
was published...
We don't know this for certain, of course, and it is just an
impression from the use of "nostro", which suggests Willy was
still alive...the annotator doesn't says "our immortal W.S...."
So I think this writer knew Willy and knew him as an Actor and
that both of them were from Stratford....if it had been post 1623
and he'd never known Willy, he'd have written "nostro Plauto.."or
whatever the form is...for Plautus's name....
(:} )
>
>David More
><http://www.marlovian.com>
john_baker
<a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Lynne" <kosi...@ican.net> wrote in message
>news:8e6ba82f.0308...@posting.google.com...
>> >
>> > This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
>> > essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
>> > Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
>> > translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Terry,
>>
>> I thought it might be helpful to everyone if I posted the url to the
>> Altrocchi article here:
>>
>> http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Latin_annotation.pdf
>
>Two points arising from reading the whole of that article:
>
>Roscio, which in isolation could be a verb, must here be a noun or pronoun
>in the dative case, matching the grammatical form of the parallel names in
>the printed matter here annotated in MS. And though capitalisation of nouns
>at this period is irregular, I can't recall having seen a verb capitalised -
>it seems unlikely. So I think "Roscius" is correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but relating this back to the printed
material is a bit of a jump. The annotation may be an addition to the
book and thus a stand alone. As for the capitalisation, Nelson and I
just went over this this morning. Here's what I wrote back to him:
But to answer your question I get that from Dawson and our friend
Laetitia Skpton...now Yeandle....and from all those primary
manuscripts we keep looking into...there you'll be reading
along and all of a sudden in the middle of a line is an upper case
letter.
Yeandle suggests we ignore them once we've established the writer's
pattern, "the scribe...uses a form of capital C as initial c, and he
does the ame with capital A. Since these capitals have no
significance and since their initials are in the main minuscules, we
do not preserve, in the transcript, C and A." 104. (Elizabethan
Handwriting 1500 - 1650 A Manual)
Also this manual requires us to us brackets [] when a letter is in
question, as the second letter in that word is....if the second letter
was clear, there wouldn't be a question here...
>
>Roscius was indeed an actor. But, very significantly as a parallel to
>Shakespeare, he was promoted to the equestrian class on account of his
>eminence. The annotator may have thought that similarity worthy of implicit
>comment - Shakespeare as an eminent theatrical figure who had gained the
>rank of gentleman. In the First Folio, Shakespeare is (though no doubt only
>through courtesy) listed first among the actors who performed the plays, and
>one assumes that his Court service was regarded as primarily to do with
>acting and management. Some antiStratfordians have asserted that writing
>plays was regarded as a mean task unfit for the nobility: perhaps (but only
>perhaps) serving royalty by playing regal parts was seen as work of greater
>prestige. I don't think that referring to WS as "our Roscius" need imply
>that he was an actor and nothing more.
>
>By the way, the suggestion is an earlier posting that "noster" has to
>indicate a living person and a local resident is not valid: "Roscius noster"
>could most reasonably mean "the Roscius of our time", or perhaps "of our
>nation".
You've lost me. The scan doesn't show "noster" but "nostro". This
just means "our" and suggests, along with the fact it is on this page,
that the Annotator was from Stratford and knew Willy...
As for the spin on Roscius...it is painfully obvious that if the
Annotator knew W.S. to have also been a great writer he would have
said this...because he was going to the trouble to write Willy into
the history books.
So the implication is that he didn't know Willy to
be a great writer, but just a great actor, one who had grown rich on
special favors...like Roscius, some threaders may not know that this
fame led to the phrase "lex Roscia" "a law giving the quities special
seats in the theatre" and that the real Rocius was accused of
murdering his father.
It is also possible that the word might mean, as Dave pointed out,
"imitatio", i.e., Roscianus...right?
If, that is, it wasn't "Rescio"...or I know....
Bottom line this is a new discovery. It doesn't allude to Willy as
an author, but simply as an actor.
I like it!
baker
>Alan Jones
john_baker
<reed...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Terry Ross" <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.4.55.0308121544190.23814@mail...
><snip>
>
>>
>> Paul Altrocchi's kind of Oxfordianism might be a bit of an issue -- that
>> is, some readers would be distracted by his taking it for granted that
>> Oxford wrote Shakespeare's works and his assumption that "there is no
>> evidence that Shakespeare of Stratford was a famous actor and little or no
>> valid evidence that he was an actor at all." In the context of the
>> Shakespeare Fellowship, these may not be extraordinary assumptions, but
>> some readers might respond more to the Oxfordian elements of the essay
>> than to the more central factors of his finding the annotation, his
>> tenacity in seeking enlightenment, and his making the find public.
>
>Indeed, his article is a good representation of what would probably happen
>if "smoking gun" evidence such as antistratfordians say is missing from
>Shakespeare's records were to appear.
>
>Altrocchi says the annotation "does confirm the remarkable early success of
>what Oxfordians view as William Cecil's clever but monstrous connivance:
>forcing the genius Edward de Vere into pseudonymity and promoting the
>illiterate grain merchant and real estate speculator, William Shaksper of
>Stratford, into hoaxian prominence as the great poet and playwright, William
>Shakespeare."
>
>(I think I detect the style of Roger Stritmatter in those overwrought lines.
>It almost reads as a caricature of Oxfordianism.)
>
>It's a shame such a discovery will open the discoverer up to ridicule
>because of his obviously naive and gullible belief woven throughout his
>paper. It's hard to believe an M.D. could be that simple; I'd bet he recants
>after some experience with the literary community his discovery will bring
>him.
That's a good one Terry!!!
I've had lunch with Dr. Paul and he's NOT recanting anything.
He's the oldest Oxfordian in the group. Not in age, but in time of
allegiance.
But he did tell me I told him enough about Marlowe in five minutes to
make his case sensible...(:} )
This guy just came back from the Antarctic and there is nothing simple
about him.
The only thing simple on this net is your paradigm about this rustic
hempen homespun Roscianus or "imitatio"....
I'm the guy who has attended all three conferences, Sk, Oxford and
Marlowe and given papers at two of them....three if you count our
table at the Shakespeare conference in Seattle where the debates went
on for hours and days.
And I can say with confidence that the most intellectual conference is
the Oxford one, nothing simple about those folks
They've laid a main rail and are full steam ahead on it...it may be
the wrong track, but it's well laid and well manned...
And Paul will NOT be recanting....
jb
>TR
Elizabeth Weir
> <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.GSO.4.55.0308120552060.6521@mail>,
> > Terry Ross <tr...@bcpl.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Baker blared,
> >>
> >> >
> >> > All I've done here is REPORT the story of this discovery and recount the
> >> > conflicting scholarly views as to how the annotation reads and then as
> >> > to how it translates.
>
> >> This is simply not true. Baker has not REPORTED but has DISTORTED. The
> >> essay by Paul Atrocchi that appears in *Shakespeare Matters* gives the
> >> Latin as "et Guglielmo Shakespear Roscio plane nostro," which is
> >> translated "and certainly to our Roscius, William Shakespeare."
> >
> >prior to his "sabbatical."
>
> Just note for the record Spiderman, that I also wrote I was
> intentionally misspelling the word sabbatical as a joke (:}) Glad
> you liked it.
>
> I've had a series of medical problems with my memory called TGA which
> have been, let's say
> interesting. You can look up the condition of the net, the full name
> is Transient Global Amensia...not fun hun...did we ever do lunch...I
> saw your picture on Lowercase Dave's pages, and like it much better
> than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})
I'm sorry to hear about your medical problem, Baker. I note that
Webb doesn't care.
Faker, see if you can manage, for once in your life, to get at least
something right. Dave's web page has a picture of TERRY ROSS, not of
me. You owe it at least to Terry to get this right: while it is indeed
flattering for me to be confused with Terry Ross, it is not flattering
for Terry to be mistaken for me,
What can that possibly mean?
even by a hopeless incompetent and hapless fraud whom no
one takes seriously anyway.
That shows great sensitivity.
john_baker
No living person speaks or reads Latin as well as the Romans.
It is dead language and cannot be approached as a living one may be.
In a living language we can ask for clarification and receive it. In
a living languages things are in flux and always changing.
It can, for example, be explained to a Russian why blackberries are
red when they are green.
Moving from these points, I think I can say without fear of
contradiction that Marlowe knew Latin at least as well as Professor
Groves and, unless I'm mistaken, had both the university credentials
and publication history to prove it.
So I would like to call Marlowe into the box to help us out here.
Here he is in Edward II, where he contrives to have a Latin note read
aloud by Mortimer:
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
Now there is nothing uncertain about the reading, as there is about
the recent Latin annotation regarding Shakespeare.
Here the reading is secure. Every letter is clear. Every letter is in
the right place. But because of the nature of Latin this seemingly
simple sentence has TWO meanings.
We might consider the English phrase, "present no more," which is
famous in a modern poem's title by Emily Dickinson. How did you read
it? As a verb, as a noun or as an adjective? Here two words are
pounced the same and one is pounced differently. All three words are
spelled the same, whereas with "compliment" and "complement" they are
spelled differently but pounced, frequently or infrequently depending
upon locale or region, the same.
Try all three meanings in that poem to see which works best, but in
fact we'll never know which she meant.
This is the problem with,
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
Why? because according to Marlowe, today's substitute Latin teacher,
it has TWO meanings, and they are opposite meanings. Here's what he
teaches us:
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
Fear not to kill the king tis good he die.
But read it thus, and that's another sense:
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
Kill not the king tis good to fear the worst.
Ok? Is the lesson clear? Latin and English both have double
meanings. I'm sure it is the same with Russian and other languages as
well.
So the Latin annotation which has been discovered in the Latin edition
of Camden's Britannia (1590) must be regarded with due caution.
Here's a link to Paul's article on it. Now open to all of us freely.
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Newsletter/Latin_annotation.pdf
If you want a better scan, and you should, you'll have to visit here:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/annotation.htm
Now let's follow Paul's essay and turn to the first reading and
translation of this, said to have been by a Latin Professor. He read
the first word as "Is" and the forth word as "Rescio" and the fifth
word as "plani".
ALL of these readings remain possible, so there is actually a dispute
about how the annotation reads.
If it reads this way, then the annotation says, "Thus I find out that
William Shakespeare is an imposture."
Now the Latin scholar has not been identified, Paul tells us in a
note, "because he was so wrong!"
But was he?
As I have reported, scholarly opinion is divided here. Stratfordians
don't wish to read it this way, because it will be the end of their
staw boy.
Worse, as we have just seen, the reading of Latin is never as certain
the reading of a living language.
Several of our Strtfordian threaders have attempted to tie the
annotation into the text. Now period writers had a very good way of
doing this, much as we do today. They stuck in a cross or an x on the
line in question and added a note after a similar mark (x) in the
margin.
This book does not evidence that. So it would seem to me that the
annotation was written as a stand-alone line, i.e., as a sentence, as
the first Latin Professor took it to read.
So pardon me if I stick with my initial impression here.
This annotation is ambiguous.
It is even more ambiguous than "black berries are green when they are
red" and "Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.," the readings of
which are certain.
It is more ambiguous because the reading is uncertain.
I've looked closely at the scans. One day soon will look at the book
itself. The first word might be "Is" or even "It" or it could be an
ampersand. I don't know.
The second letter of the forth word could easily be "e" and not "o"
and will not be known until it is x-rayed or forensically tested.
And the same is true for the forth word's final letter, it may be
either an "i" or an "e" with an accent, i.e., "plani" or "plane".
Again only an x-ray or a microscopic examination will tell us.
So the dust has not settled.
And Baker is not out in left field here. In fact I get to add a new
name to the list of those who have a different opinion about the
reading.
I'm happy with either reading and, as a proponent of the usefulness of
multiple working hypotheses, I think it is premature to conclude which
reading is correct.
Both readings should remain open to objective minds.
I when I took a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Science, my Dissertation
focused on this theory of multiple working hypotheses and I direct the
reader to the original author on this subject at:
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BC/chamberlin.html
So I have some knowledge here.
To help keep this record clear to new readers, I refused to defend
that, my first dissertation, after the fools in my department sacked
my major professor, but that doesn't change the fact I once "took a
Ph.D." or wrote a dissertation on the subject of the utility in
scientific and scholarly inquiries of multiple working hypotheses.
Today I have several Ph.D.s. But please don't let this intimidate
you.
One is in the hot tub, and one upstairs in my bedroom. And tonight I'm
to have an M.D.
So wish me luck. (:} )
Cheers!
Terry Ross
Uh, that "good one" did not come from me but from Tom Reedy, the author of
the post to which you are responding.
richard kennedy
it's solid historical fact, I think we'll have to go with the notion
that the annotator was calling the Stratford man a clown. And
certainly you don't call the maker of Hamlet and Lear, etc. etc. a
'Roscius', comparing him with that great antique clown. Moreover, how
to explain why the monument speaks of Virgil, Nestor, and Socrates,
none of them worth much for comedy. There's more to this than meets
the funnybone.
My suggestion is that Kathman or Ross get busy finding out where
Milton got his information that Roscius was a writer. That would help
them somewhat if it were true. Otherwise, the NEWS is bad news for
them. It would be like complimenting Noel Coward for being a known
actor, with no mention of him as a writer, same for Sam Shepard, Jean
Cocteau, or Antonin Artaud.
At the moment, the principals here are in a sort of stunned denial,
and I understand how they feel. When I was about five years old, I had
the same experience about Santa Claus.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<david.l.webb-89DD...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
Alan Jones
<john baker> wrote in message news:3f3baf81...@News.localaccess.com...
The annotator has underlined "alumnis", evidently wishing to add WS's name
to the two alumni mentioned in the printed text. That's why WS's name is in
the dative case, like theirs (Ioanni, Hugoni, alumnis).
> As for the capitalisation, Nelson and I
> just went over this this morning. Here's what I wrote back to him:
>
> But to answer your question I get that from Dawson and our friend
> Laetitia Skpton...now Yeandle....and from all those primary
> manuscripts we keep looking into...there you'll be reading
> along and all of a sudden in the middle of a line is an upper case
> letter.
Perhaps you can cite an instance from the period assumed as that of the
annotation (mid to late 17th century, I think?) where a **verb** is
capitalised in a prose sentence?
If you wish "Roscio/Rescio" to be a verb, you need to show how it relates
grammatically to the other words. It doesn't: there is no word in the
required accusative case. The form "rescio" (abbreviated from "rescisco") is
very rare: indeed, Lewis & Short's dictionary says "the primitive form,
rescio, is assumed by Gell. 2, 19, 4, but **is not confirmed by any
example**". A verb "roscio" seem not to exist at all. No, I'm sure the word
is the actor's name.
Yes, the form here is the dative "nostro", but I was using the usual look-up
form "noster" as it would appear in a dictionary. It could just mean "our",
but commonly indicates familiarity or affection. I can find no evidence that
it applies only to the living or to a local resident. Since Roscius is the
Roman example of a man of the theatre raised to a higher rank, and thus
parallel to WS, a suitable translation might be "our English Roscius".
> As for the spin on Roscius...it is painfully obvious that if the
> Annotator knew W.S. to have also been a great writer he would have
> said this...because he was going to the trouble to write Willy into
> the history books.
It's not at all obvious. What is one comparing? As I suggested, he may
simply have been grasping for a classical parallel, a man of the theatre who
on that account became famous and won advancement. And you're assuming that
the annotator would have taken the modern line that acting plays is less
elevated than writing them: perhaps he didn't.
> So the implication is that he didn't know Willy to
> be a great writer,..
No such implication.
>.. .but just a great actor, one who had grown rich on
> special favors...like Roscius, some threaders may not know that this
> fame led to the phrase "lex Roscia" "a law giving the quities special
> seats in the theatre" and that the real Rocius was accused of
> murdering his father.
>
> It is also possible that the word might mean, as Dave pointed out,
> "imitatio", i.e., Roscianus...right?
I don't follow this at all. "Roscianus" (which appears three times in the
whole of Latin literature) would mean pertaining to Roscius or in the style
of Roscius: an example cited is "Rosciana imitatio senis" meaning "a
portrayal of an old man as Roscius would perform it". What is the point of
this comment?
> If, that is, it wasn't "Rescio"...or I know....
>
> Bottom line this is a new discovery. It doesn't allude to Willy as
> an author, but simply as an actor.
That is true but not significant in the sense that you want it to be.
Alan Jones
Peter Groves
This is really quite funny: Faker doesn't understand why the noun phrase is
in the dative case, and doesn't even know what the dative is, as the
following exchange shows:
[snip]
> >
> >By the way, the suggestion is an earlier posting that "noster" has to
> >indicate a living person and a local resident is not valid: "Roscius
noster"
> >could most reasonably mean "the Roscius of our time", or perhaps "of our
> >nation".
>
>
[Faker}:
> You've lost me. The scan doesn't show "noster" but "nostro". This
> just means "our"
And yet the bozo presumes to have an opinion about the meaning of a Latin
phrase. You've got to give him marks for self-confidence, at least.
--
Peter G., Pistori nostro quem rescivimus planum esse.
Jimbosir
"It would be like complimenting Noel Coward for being a known actor. with no
mention of him as a writer..." Statement
proves only that someone liked Coward's
acting; it does not prove that the person
was aware or unaware that Coward was also a writer. MENTOR (:-)
John W. Kennedy
> Unless someone can find out why Milton said Roscius was a writer, and
> it's solid historical fact, I think we'll have to go with the notion
> that the annotator was calling the Stratford man a clown. And
> certainly you don't call the maker of Hamlet and Lear, etc. etc. a
> 'Roscius', comparing him with that great antique clown.
Roscius was not a clown, he was an actor who excelled in comedy, which
is not the same thing at all.
What is disturbing is that there is clear internal evidence from your
first posting on the subject that you have read the following, from the
Britannica of 1911:
ROSCIUS GALLUS, QUINTUS (c. 126-62 B.C.), Roman actor, was
born, a slave, at Solonium, near Lanuvium. Endowed with a
handsome face and a manly figure, he studied the delivery
and gestures of the most distinguished advocates in the
Forum, especially Q. Hortensius, and won universal praise
for his grace and elegance on the stage. He especially
excelled in comedy. Cicero took lessons from him. The two
often engaged in friendly rivalry to try whether the orator
or the actor could express a thought or emotion with the
greater effect, and Roscius wrote a treatise in which he
compared acting and oratory. Q. Lutatius Catulus composed
a quatrain in his honour, and the dictator Sulla presented
him with a gold ring, the badge of the equestrian order, a
remarkable distinction for an actor in Rome, where the
profession was held in contempt. Like his contemporary
Aesopus, Roscius amassed a large fortune, and he appears
to have retired from the stage some time before his death.
In 76 B.C. he was sued by C. Fannius Chaerea for 50,000
sesterces, and was defended by Cicero in a famous speech.
So it seems probable that, once again, you _know_ the truth, but prefer
to tell a lie instead, hoping that it will deceive the gullible.
Of course, if you had the least vestige of culture, you would know that
Roscius was, far and away, the most famous of Roman actors, whose name
has been proverbial for over two thousand years.
Richard Nathan
The site you wuote from below doesn't say the Milton called Roscius a
"writer of comedy."
The site is saying the Milton defined the word "comedian" as "a writer
of comedy."
stai...@charter.net (richard kennedy) wrote in message news:<32b2d000.03081...@posting.google.com>...
Alan Jones
<john baker> wrote in message
[...]
>
> Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
>....because of the nature of Latin this seemingly
> simple sentence has TWO meanings.
But it isn't "a sentence" - it's two quite separate sentences, visually, but
not grammatically, run into one. The ambiguity depends simply on where you
place the necessary sentence division.
[...]
>... according to Marlowe, today's substitute Latin teacher,
> it has TWO meanings, and they are opposite meanings.
> Here's what he
> teaches us:
>
> Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
> Fear not to kill the king tis good he die.
> But read it thus, and that's another sense:
> Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
> Kill not the king tis good to fear the worst.
Quite so. The first sense emerges if we punctuate as "Edwardum occidere
nolite timere. Bonum est". which actually means "Fear not to kill Edward. It
is good". Alternatively we can read "Edwardum occidere nolite. Timere bonum
est" which means "Do not kill Edward. It is good to be fearful". (Marlowe's
own versions are rather less literal.)
> Ok? Is the lesson clear? Latin and English both have double
> meanings.
Certainly, when they are ambiguously constructed by accident or design! The
Marlowe example depends on nothing more than lack of punctuation.
[...]
> Now let's follow Paul's essay and turn to the first reading and
> translation of this, said to have been by a Latin Professor. He read
> the first word as "Is" and the forth word as "Rescio" and the fifth
> word as "plani".
>
> ALL of these readings remain possible, so there is actually a dispute
> about how the annotation reads.
>
> If it reads this way, then the annotation says, "Thus I find out that
> William Shakespeare is an imposture."
I expect you mean "imposter". But how do you extract the meaning from your
reading? You have to explain away the nominative form of "is", the dative of
WS's name and "nostro", the genitive of "plani", and the use of a putative
verb "rescio" that doesn't appear in any actual Latin text. And what could
have provoked the annotator to have inserted what you propose at this point
in the text, to which it seems totally irrelevant?
> Now the Latin scholar has not been identified, Paul tells us in a
> note, "because he was so wrong!"
>
> But was he?
>
> As I have reported, scholarly opinion is divided here.
I might believe that if I knew the names of the scholars on each side of the
dispute.
[...]
>... as we have just seen, the reading of Latin is never as certain
> the reading of a living language.
We haven't seen that at all. Because of the many clues Latin gives as to how
the words of a sentence are related, Latin is characteristically
crystal-clear. An exception will almost always be, as in your Marlowe
example, a sort of verbal trick.
> Several of our Strtfordian threaders have attempted to tie the
> annotation into the text. Now period writers had a very good way of
> doing this, much as we do today. They stuck in a cross or an x on the
> line in question and added a note after a similar mark (x) in the
> margin.
>
> This book does not evidence that.
How do you account for the underlining of the relevant word "alumnis", and
the parallel datives?
"So it would seem to me that the
> annotation was written as a stand-alone line, i.e., as a sentence, as
> the first Latin Professor took it to read.
So parse it for us. How does your restored reading of the Latin yield the
sense you attribute to it?
[...]
> ...the reading is uncertain.
>
> I've looked closely at the scans. One day soon will look at the book
> itself. The first word might be "Is" or even "It" or it could be an
> ampersand. I don't know.
>
> The second letter of the forth word could easily be "e" and not "o"
> and will not be known until it is x-rayed or forensically tested.
>
> And the same is true for the forth word's final letter, it may be
> either an "i" or an "e" with an accent, i.e., "plani" or "plane".
>
> Again only an x-ray or a microscopic examination will tell us.
As regards the letter forms, that is true. But the readings "is, R/rescio,
plani" don't make sense, whereas "et/&, Roscio, plane" do. If a more
detailed examination showed the first group to be correct, then there would
be nonsense, not ambiguity.
Alan Jones
richard kennedy
are some scraps. If it is entirely required I could go back and find
the urls, but for now this will serve. The first paragraph here, you
will see in caps, says that Rocius wrote a treatise, evidently nothing
more than that. Take note that he retired early from the stage, like
the Stratford man, and was wealthy.
Take note that he knew Cicero, and received honors, unlike the
Stratford man.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSCIUS GALLUS, QUINTUS (c. 126—62 B.C.), Roman actor, was born, a
slave, at Solonium, near Lanuvium. Endowed with a handsome face and
manly figure, he studied the delivery and gestures of,the most
distinguished advocates in the Forum, especially Q. Hortensius, and
won universal praise for his grace and elegance on the stage. He
especially excelled in comedy. Cicero took lessons from him. The two
often engaged in friendly rivalry to try whether the orator or the
actor could express a thought or emotion with the greater effect, and
ROSCIUS WROTE A TREATISE IN WHICH HE COMPARED ACTING AND ORATORY. Q.
Lutatius Catulus composed a quatrain in his honour, and the dictator
Sulla presented him with a gold ring, the badge of the equestrian
order, a remarkable distinction for an actor in Rome, where the
profession was held in contempt. Like his contemporary Aesopus,
Roscius amassed a, large fortune, and he appears to have retired from
the stage some time before his death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This next tells us that we haven't got that treatise, or book. It's
unlikely that the annotator had this unread book in mind when
mentioning Rocius. The annotator would have known Rocius as an actor,
an orator, and nothing else.
ROSCIUS EVEN WROTE A BOOK ON THIS SUBJECT, BUT IT HAS UNFORTUNATELY
NOT COME DOWN TO US. He kept a school of declamation, which was
attended by the ablest orators of his time. The passion for the
theatre is said to have come to Rome from Egypt, and Batyllus, the
greatest actor of the Augustan period, was from Alexandria. See on
this subject a curious dissertation, 'De Luxu Romanorum,' in Grævius,
Thesaurus Antiq. Rom., tom. viii.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puttenham doesn't help us much except to note Rocius as a "buffoon".
That may be the meaning of the annotator, to say that Shakespeare was
a comic actor, remembered for that more than anything else to boost
Stratford in Camden's book. More strange indeed is that Camden didn't
mention Shakespeare.
Puttenham: The arte of English poesie, 1589.
Now by the chaunge of a vizard one man might play the king and the
carter, the old nurse and the yong damsell, the marchant & the
souldier or any other part he listed very conveniently. There be
that say Roscius did it for another purpose, for being him selfe the
best Histrien or buffon that was in his dayes to be found, insomuch as
Cicero said Roscius contended with him by varietie of lively gestures,
to surmount the copy of his speach, yet because he was squint eyed and
had a very unpleasant countenance, and lookes which made him
ridiculous or rather odious to the presence, he devised these vizards
to hide his owne ilfavored face. And thus much touching the Comedy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again the coupling of Rocius with comedy, nothing more. A book
for sale:
37. (Garrick, David) The English Roscius. Garrick's Jests; or, Genius
in High Glee. Containing all the Jokes of the Wits of the Present Age,
viz. Mr. Garrick, Ld. Lyttleton, Mr. Fox.... 11, [1], 144 pp.
Copper-engraved frontis. (12mo) 6- 3/4x4, later 3/4 calf & marbled
boards. London: Charles Steele & A. Milne, c.1770. Spine worn with
head chipped, foot lifting; mostly mearginal stain to early leaves, a
few short tears to frontis., bookplate, else good. (50/80).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a good find, but not a great find so far as we know of this. It
has always seemed peculiar that Camden didn't mention Shakespeare of
Stratford, who surely should have been listed with Archbishop John and
Clopton. If for nothing else, it's good that this news is freshly set
out for those interested in the authorship question.
David L. Webb
Faker, we have already seen on numerous occasions that you are
utterly incompetent at determining who wrote anything, even material
written two days ago and plainly signed, so nothing you do surprises
anyone any more. However, permit me to point out that the person to
whom you are responding is NOT Terry Ross, but rather Tom Reedy (Tom
quoted some text from Terry's post, but the lines to which you address
yourself below are Tom's, not Terry's.)
I realize that some anti-Stratfordians experience daunting, even
insuperable difficulties in telling Tom Reedy from Terry Ross, despite
the fact that the two men's styles are utterly dissimilar. Perhaps
you're just trying to keep up with the Stritmatters -- Dr. Stritmatter
cannot tell Tom from Terry nor Mary Tudor from Mary Queen of Scots, nor
can he distinguish between Oxford's sister Mary Vere (who was married to
Peregrine Bertie) and his half-sister Katherine Vere (who was not,
_pace_ Dr. Stritmatter). However, I fear that you still lag far behind
him: Dr. Stritmatter's academic credentials are real -- not invented,
like yours; his thesis, such as it is, is also real, unlike yours.
> I've had lunch with Dr. Paul and he's NOT recanting anything.
>
> He's the oldest Oxfordian in the group. Not in age, but in time of
> allegiance.
>
> But he did tell me I told him enough about Marlowe in five minutes to
> make his case sensible...(:} )
Are you sure that you didn't misunderstand? He might have used the
word "indefensible."
> This guy just came back from the Antarctic and there is nothing simple
> about him.
Indeed -- unlike you, he can probably tell Tom Reedy from Terry Ross.
> The only thing simple on this net is your paradigm about this rustic
> hempen homespun Roscianus or "imitatio"....
There's also the guy who thinks that Franck wrote an Organ Symphony.
> I'm the guy who has attended all three conferences, Sk, Oxford and
> Marlowe and given papers at two of them....
Since we now know what the locution "took a Ph.D." means in Fakerian,
it is not difficult to guess what "give papers" might mean in that same
idiom -- it probably means either that you surrendered the contents of
the convention center wastebaskets to the recycling center, or that you
handed out leaflets to any hapless soul who blundered into your
vicinity. (Had you said that you had "delivered a paper," I would
conclude that you had undertaken a newspaper delivery route.)
> three if you count our
> table at the Shakespeare conference in Seattle where the debates went
> on for hours and days.
What Shakespeare conference in Seattle?
> And I can say with confidence that the most intellectual conference is
> the Oxford one, nothing simple about those folks
>
> They've laid a main rail
I know that you boast of your copulations with trees and
photocopiers, but rails?!
> and are full steam ahead on it...it may be
> the wrong track, but it's well laid and well manned...
>
> And Paul will NOT be recanting....
>
> jb
>
>
>
> >TR
"TR" is Tom Reedy, Faker.
Richie Miller
> Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> Huntington thinks it says and means.
>
> "[et] Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro ( and William
> Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> headlines there."
This is a big headline, for those of us who have thrown off the deceptive
mantle of an authorship controversy and now enjoy the pure fun of embracing
Shakespeare. And why not state the literal translation in the order the words
appear, so there is no chance for fudging the meaning:
et Gulielmo Shakespear Roscio planč nostro
and William Shakespear Roscius certainly ours
I hate it when people try to make English-sounding sentences out of
translations. Just give me the bare facts and get out of the way.
>
> Fortunately Tabor is wrong about the reading, the meaning and the
> headlines.
What are these headlines you are talking about?
>
> Let's take them in reverse order. Any new period information about
> Shakespeare is headline stuff. So this annotation qualifies. Stats
> will be loath to mention it, but it is front-page news.
Sorry, but this is the sensationalized brainwashing tactic of an Ogburn (or
two). Strats would be turning cartwheels if they knew this existed before you
posted it.
>
> Second as you will see from the scan there are no parenthesis around
> the first word, nor is it lower case.
It is the period equivalent of and "&", according to those who know better than
I...like a pro at the Huntington.
>
> The all important forth word has an indecipherable letter in it that
> can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
> suggests is doubtful from first blush.
To me it looks like an "e", but the "R" is capitalized, so that is pretty
strong evidence for "Roscius". The writer also realized he was misspelling it
and tried to correct it, not knowing that 400 years later people would kill
each other over whether he was calling Shakespeare a "Roscio" (Roscius) or a
"Rescio" (Fraud? with a capital "F"?).
>
> As for the fifth word, which Tabor reads as "plane" with an accent, it
> may be "plani" without an accent. If so the reading changes to "Et
> Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio planči nostro" which means something like
> "And [thus] I know our William Shakespeare to be a fraud."
>
Wouldn't that be "our Fraud"?
RM
ex authorship hack
Alan Jones
"Richie Miller" <hl...@omencity.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19a76dfbc...@text.giganews.com...
> john baker wrote
> > Here's what Stephen Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books for The
> > Huntington thinks it says and means.
> >
> > Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius ). The annotator is adding him to
> > the list of Stratfordian worthies mentioned in the text. Sorry, no
> > headlines there."
>
> This is a big headline, for those of us who have thrown off the deceptive
> mantle of an authorship controversy and now enjoy the pure fun of
embracing
> Shakespeare. And why not state the literal translation in the order the
words
> appear, so there is no chance for fudging the meaning:
>
> and William Shakespear Roscius certainly ours
>
> I hate it when people try to make English-sounding sentences out of
> translations. Just give me the bare facts and get out of the way.
The "bare facts" include the grammar and the idiomatic use of word order, in
both of which Latin and English differ. Tabor's version would, I think, be
agreed as fair by any Latinist.
[...]
> > The all important forth word has an indecipherable letter in it that
> > can be read either as "Rescio" or "Roscio" so the reading Tabor
> > suggests is doubtful from first blush.
>
> To me it looks like an "e", but the "R" is capitalized, so that is pretty
> strong evidence for "Roscius". The writer also realized he was
misspelling it
> and tried to correct it, not knowing that 400 years later people would
kill
> each other over whether he was calling Shakespeare a "Roscio" (Roscius) or
a
> "Rescio" (Fraud? with a capital "F"?).
The word alleged to mean "fraud" is 'plani' (from 'planus', a juggler: this
assumes that the accent on the word is in fact the dot of an 'i'). No one
has explained how this genitive-case word relates syntactically to the rest
of the annotation.
Alan Jones
Peter Farey
opinion. I had not seen either
Artrocchi's essay or Nelson's further comments.
<quote>
As far as the transcript is concerned:
1) Although I agree with you (obviously) that the first word
has no parentheses nor lower case 'e', I am still fairly
sure that it is 'Et'. A 't' with the 'horizontal cross'
coming from the bottom of the vertical - as this does-
was very common, and (although it's not very distinct) I
have no problem with the first letter as capital 'E'.
2) No doubts about 'Gulielmo Shakespear' of course.
3) I still find 'Roscio' not only to fit, but also to be
the most likely reading. What would your 'Rescio' mean?
4) I had thought that it was 'plano', dative or ablative
for 'planus' (as I suggested, 'humble' if an adjective
or 'impostor/charlatan' if a noun), but now think they
are right about it being an 'e' at the end (with or
without an 'accent'). What are you suggesting, 'plani'?
If so, is that "impostor's" (genitive singular) or
"impostors" (nominative plural)? Neither of these
would fit in with your meaning.
5) I have no problem with 'nostro'. (And what you say
about the other 'o's - all at the end of a word - does
not seem to apply to the first one in this case)
I would therefore tend to go along with their transcript
(but with 'Et' at the beginning), and their translation.
"And William Shakespeare, certainly our Roscius". It
would be very helpful to know exactly what the Stratford
section as a whole said, of course.
What I find intriguing, nevertheless, is that the 'nostro'
in this context seems to imply its having been written by
someone from Stratford, and (as you point out) it refers
only to his being famous as an *actor*, not as a writer.
</quote>
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
David L. Webb
The lesser Kennedy has already demonstrated time and time again that
he cannot read; thus we can probably attribute this boner, like many of
his others, to sheer incompetence rather than to intentional deceit.
The ability to lie with even modest success requires at the very least a
functioning memory.
Bob Grumman
> in this context seems to imply its having been written by
> someone from Stratford, and (as you point out) it refers
> only to his being famous as an *actor*, not as a writer.
>
I think "Roscius" is best understood to mean "man of the stage." To
call Shakespeare a poet would be to give him no credit for being an
actor, which was almost certainly what he was first known for. To
call him a Roscius would be to call him an actor/orator, and most
orators were presumed to have written their own material. In any
case, it's silly to expect a man making an ephemeral note to be
complete. Or that any piece of evidence supporting the Stratfordian
position would be enough for a Shakespeare-rejecter. Call him a
Virgil, and the rejecter wants to know why his being a playwright was
ignored. Collect his plays in a folio volume and Baker wants to know
where the poems are. Call him William Shakespeare on a title-page,
and 98% of wackdom notices that his address wasn't included.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
richard...@att.net (Richard Nathan) wrote:
> Kennedy, you pathetic moron!
>
> The site you wuote from below doesn't say the Milton called Roscius a
> "writer of comedy."
>
> The site is saying the Milton defined the word "comedian" as "a writer
> of comedy."
Indeed -- but the lesser Kennedy has long since demonstrated his
incapacity to use a dictionary.
Thus, the subject line is amusing -- but it certainly is not news.
[...]
> > Webster's 1913 Dictionary
> > Definition: \Co*me"di*an\, n. [Cf. F. com['e]dien.]
> > 1. An actor or player in comedy. ``The famous comedian,
> > Roscius.'' --Middleton.
> >
> > 2. A writer of comedy. --Milton.
[...]
Terry Ross
> > What I find intriguing, nevertheless, is that the 'nostro'
> > in this context seems to imply its having been written by
> > someone from Stratford, and (as you point out) it refers
> > only to his being famous as an *actor*, not as a writer.
> >
> > Peter F.
>
> I think "Roscius" is best understood to mean "man of the stage."
It's more specific than that. A Roscius is a famous actor (perhaps a
famous comic actor).
> To call Shakespeare a poet would be to give him no credit for being an
> actor, which was almost certainly what he was first known for. To call
> him a Roscius would be to call him an actor/orator, and most orators
> were presumed to have written their own material.
The annotator did not call him "our Demosthenes" but "our Roscius." Look
at the people who were called a "Roscius" and what do you find they have
in common? They were actors.
> In any case, it's silly to expect a man making an ephemeral note to be
> complete. Or that any piece of evidence supporting the Stratfordian
> position would be enough for a Shakespeare-rejecter. Call him a Virgil,
> and the rejecter wants to know why his being a playwright was ignored.
> Collect his plays in a folio volume and Baker wants to know where the
> poems are. Call him William Shakespeare on a title-page, and 98% of
> wackdom notices that his address wasn't included.
>
Don't let the possible uses that you suspect antistratfordians may make of
the annotation distort your own reading of it. We have some references to
Shakespeare as an actor, some to him as a writer, and some to him as both.
I wouldn't worry whether antistratfordians might wish to isolate the
references to Shakespeare as an actor and announce that he was nothing but
an actor.
I think the annotation suggests that Shakespeare's reputation as an actor
may have been more substantial and longer-lived than we might have
thought. He has pride of place among the actors listed in the First
Folio, but we may tend to think that his friends and fellows made him a
bit more important as an actor than he really was. He is very prominently
listed as an actor in two of Jonson's plays -- the first line of actors in
*Every Man in His Humour* names Shakespeare and Burbage; the first line of
actors for *Sejanus* names Burbage and Shakespeare. Davies in an epigram
calls him "Our English Terence" -- thus praising him as a writer of comedy
-- but the poem itself describes how he "played kingly parts in sport"
(Davies calls Shakespeare's fellow William Ostler a "Roscius"). Have we
underrated Shakespeare as an actor?
Toby Petzold
> > > What I find intriguing, nevertheless, is that the 'nostro'
> > > in this context seems to imply its having been written by
> > > someone from Stratford, and (as you point out) it refers
> > > only to his being famous as an *actor*, not as a writer.
That is to be agreed with on both counts. Several other actors of the
day come in for the same epithet.
Grumman:
> > I think "Roscius" is best understood to mean "man of the stage."
What a typically ambivalent interpretation. And why isn't the word
wack in that sentence?
Ross:
> It's more specific than that. A Roscius is a famous actor (perhaps a
> famous comic actor).
Assuming that everyone who used the name of Roscius to make
comparisons to contemporary players meant the same thing by it, it
seems slightly more likely that it was just a generic tag for "famous
actor." Although that doesn't rule out a more sophisticated allusion
(a la "Our English Terence").
> > To call Shakespeare a poet would be to give him no credit for being an
> > actor, which was almost certainly what he was first known for.
Is that some sort of excuse? Would you describe B. Clinton as the most
successful attorney general in the history of the state of Arkansas?
When it came time for Altrocchi's Annotator to describe "Shakespear,"
the guy called him an actor because that's what he knew him as. It is
a telling allusion.
> > To call
> > him a Roscius would be to call him an actor/orator, and most orators
> > were presumed to have written their own material.
This reminds me of the time I wrote a column about what a piece of
shit Louis Farrakhan was and some sister wrote my editor, saying that
"a man must be a very strong black man to tell it like it is..." I'll
let you plumb that one yourself and get a whiff of your own logical
processes.
> The annotator did not call him "our Demosthenes" but "our Roscius." Look
> at the people who were called a "Roscius" and what do you find they have
> in common? They were actors.
True dat.
> > In any case, it's silly to expect a man making an ephemeral note to be
> > complete.
Why are you trying to make an excuse where no offense has been given?
> > Or that any piece of evidence supporting the Stratfordian
> > position would be enough for a Shakespeare-rejecter.
What a baby.
> > Call him a Virgil,
> > and the rejecter wants to know why his being a playwright was ignored.
No, call him a Virgil and someone asks why is he being called a
Virgil?
> > Collect his plays in a folio volume and Baker wants to know where the
> > poems are. Call him William Shakespeare on a title-page, and 98% of
> > wackdom notices that his address wasn't included.
> >
>
> Don't let the possible uses that you suspect antistratfordians may make of
> the annotation distort your own reading of it. We have some references to
> Shakespeare as an actor, some to him as a writer, and some to him as both.
> I wouldn't worry whether antistratfordians might wish to isolate the
> references to Shakespeare as an actor and announce that he was nothing but
> an actor.
Well, it's the scenes that men shake that thunder after them.
> I think the annotation suggests that Shakespeare's reputation as an actor
> may have been more substantial and longer-lived than we might have
> thought. He has pride of place among the actors listed in the First
> Folio, but we may tend to think that his friends and fellows made him a
> bit more important as an actor than he really was.
Sure. He was The Money, like the apothecary in the R&J performance in
Shakespeare in Love.
> He is very prominently
> listed as an actor in two of Jonson's plays -- the first line of actors in
> *Every Man in His Humour* names Shakespeare and Burbage; the first line of
> actors for *Sejanus* names Burbage and Shakespeare. Davies in an epigram
> calls him "Our English Terence" -- thus praising him as a writer of comedy
> -- but the poem itself describes how he "played kingly parts in sport"
Which probably means he acted as a lark.
> (Davies calls Shakespeare's fellow William Ostler a "Roscius"). Have we
> underrated Shakespeare as an actor?
Oh, no, no: he was an artless dodger; the happiest imitator of nature
there ever was.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
>
> It's more specific than that. A Roscius is a famous actor (perhaps a
> famous comic actor).
> > To call Shakespeare a poet would be to give him no credit for being an
> > actor, which was almost certainly what he was first known for. To call
> > him a Roscius would be to call him an actor/orator, and most orators
> > were presumed to have written their own material.
>
> The annotator did not call him "our Demosthenes" but "our Roscius." Look
> at the people who were called a "Roscius" and what do you find they have
> in common? They were actors.
I'm trying to make a point (perhaps the same one Greg was) that
"Roscius" may have meant more--at least in some cases--than just great
actor. I haven't yet found a good way to express my case well. "Man
of the stage" (and I should have said, 'oustanding man of the stage"),
for me, would mainly mean actor. But it would suggest other
qualities, including the writing of one's own material--as the actual
Roscius apparently did as the orator he was also said to be (I think).
Yes. I thought of all these indications (and his being listed first
on one of the two King James documents, and second on the other) when
this subject came up again. I'm pretty sure I've myself posted
reasons Shakespeare may well have been considered a prominent actor by
his contemporaries. What I'm trying to get at is the possibility that
a man calling Shakespeare a Roscius might have thought he was doing
more than calling him a great actor. I agree he was definitely
calling him a great actor. I agree that that is all he need to have
been calling him for the purposes of . . . the Trust.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
> On 13 Aug 2003 07:04:59 -0700, graydo...@netscape.net (lowercase
> dave) wrote:
>
> >You still got it, John, whatever it is. :)
> >
> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3f39a364...@News.localaccess.com>...
> >
> >> ...I saw your [meaning David Webb's] picture on Lowercase Dave's pages,
> >> and like it much better
> >> than the one I think I remember from your university page....(:})
> >David Webb's photo isn't on my website.
> Thanks to Webb,
You're welcome.
> I know that now, but you can tell readers that the
> photo of Ross does NOT have an enclosed capition [sic]
I have never seen a photo that did.
> and that beside it
> are bios [sic]
There is certainly no "bio" of Terry or of me on the page in question.
> about _both_ Ross and Webb...I didn't read the one about
> Ross, which says the picture is of him,
Just how hard is it to figure out whose picture it is when the
identity of the subject is plainly disclosed in the accompanying text?
> just the one about Webb and
> then looked at the picture and ASSumed it was Spiderman...big
> deal....
Faker cannot tell Terry Ross from Tom Reedy, so expecting him to be
able to tell a photo of Terry from one of me, even when the photo is
quite plainly labeled, is doubtless setting one's expectations of Faker
far too high. In any event, Faker is evidently blithely unconcerned
with factual accuracy.
> I liked the website by the way...
[...]
> >Qustion: 1) couldn't the annotation have been written years after the
> >date of the printed book?
> As a forgery it could have been written in there just before it was
> photographied [sic] for the microfish [sic]
What is a "microfish," Faker? An anchovy? A pilchard?
> ...and it is likely to have been
> written in there c. 1615 which would be 25 years after the book
> was published...
>
> We don't know this for certain, of course, and it is just an
> impression from the use of "nostro", which suggests Willy was
> still alive...
Huh? So when an American refers to Twain as "our national humorist"
or to Copland as "our greatest composer," Faker infers that both men are
alive?
> the annotator doesn't says "our immortal W.S...."
>
> So I think this writer knew Willy and knew him as an Actor and
> that both of them were from Stratford....if it had been post 1623
> and he'd never known Willy, he'd have written "nostro Plauto.."or
> whatever the form is...for Plautus's name....
I am always astounded at the inerrant insight into others' psychology
that is so generously bestowed upon the self-deluded.
Mark Steese
news:879fd39e.03081...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
> Is that some sort of excuse? Would you describe B. Clinton as the most
> successful attorney general in the history of the state of Arkansas?
> When it came time for Altrocchi's Annotator to describe "Shakespear,"
> the guy called him an actor because that's what he knew him as. It is
> a telling allusion.
It is a telling allusion; it suggests that Shakespeare's reputation as
an actor was greater than previously supposed. It's hardly surprising
that he wasn't referred to as a writer: it has long been known that
Shakespeare didn't acquire a general reputation as a great poet until
the eighteenth century. (Most of the seventeenth-century references to
him as a writer were made by other writers.) Shakespeare's poetry was
out of style in the 1600s: the popular poets of the age were Jonson,
Donne, Marvell, Milton, Dryden -- satirists and metaphysicians.
Shakespeare belonged to the Elizabethan Era; when his sonnets were
published in 1609, they were barely noticed -- the vogue for sonnet
sequences had long passed. Joseph Sobran found it odd that in 1623
Jonson was praising Shakespeare above Marlowe, Lyly, and Kyd, but
Shakespeare belonged to their age more than he did to Jonson's; he never
picked up on the popular trends of the early Jacobean theater, such as
satires and city comedies -- he didn't take up the revenge drama again,
either.
It may not seem credible to a modern reader who has been persistently
reminded of Shakespeare's greatness since childhood, but the fact is
that in the 17th century hardly anyone thought Shakespeare's works were
great poetry.
John Baker knew what he was doing: this annotation can't be turned to
anti-Shakespearean purposes unless it's mistranslated.
-Mark Steese
--
What a deal of cold business doth a man misspend the better part of life
in! In scattering compliments, tendering visits, gathering and venting
news, following feasts and plays, making a little winter-love in a dark
corner. -Ben Jonson
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
If Faker has had a medical problem, I am genuinely very sorry to hear
about it; having endured various vexing and painful health problems for
several years, I can certainly sympathize. However, as in the case of
Faker's claims to have pottered about with hydrogen bombs, to have
"taken" a Ph.D., etc., one is never quite sure when he is being candid.
> Faker, see if you can manage, for once in your life, to get at least
> something right. Dave's web page has a picture of TERRY ROSS, not of
> me. You owe it at least to Terry to get this right: while it is indeed
> flattering for me to be confused with Terry Ross, it is not flattering
> for Terry to be mistaken for me,
>
> What can that possibly mean?
It means that it is an affront to the former to confuse the erudite
and witty Terry Ross with an ignorant amateur like myself. Even Faker
ought to be able to read the text accompanying the photo.
> even by a hopeless incompetent and hapless fraud whom no
> one takes seriously anyway.
>
> That shows great sensitivity.
I would that it were otherwise, but the hopelessness of Faker's
incompetence has been convincingly demonstrated on many occasions by
Faker himself -- not only by his misunderstanding of the rudiments of
Latin grammar or elementary mathematics, but also by his inability to
work out the alphabetical order on a record jackets and even his
inability to read the text labeling Terry's picture. One hoped, of
course, that his "sabbatical" would have produced a new, improved Faker
capable of reading, arguing rationally, etc., but thus far the results
have been disappointing. As for the haplessness of his fruad, it is
rather silly to claim to have a Ph.D. and even to name the putative
granting institution when such matters of public record can be easily
checked, as Tom Reedy did in a matter of minutes.
Peter Farey
> The "bare facts" include the grammar and the idiomatic use of
> word order, in both of which Latin and English differ. Tabor's
> version would, I think, be agreed as fair by any Latinist.
One for the 'Latinists', please.
For those of us whose learning of Latin was both minimal and
*very* long ago, it seems strange to find that adverb 'plane'
coming between the (dative) adjective 'nostro' and the noun
to which it refers, I would have expected it to be either at
the end of the annotation, or immediately after the word 'Et'.
As far as you know, would this be an acceptable word order in
17th century Latin?
Abigail Ann Young
In England in the 17th century, many people writing Latin were
consciously imitating classical Latin style and models. The 'nesting' or
'bracketing' observed here (adv between adj and noun) is a common
feature of classical style. It was one way, in a periodic sentence, to
indicate which phrase an adverb should be construed with. In the same
way, possessive phrases (ie, Latin genitives) are sometimes bracketed
between a modifying adj and its noun.
AAY
--
Abigail Ann Young (Dr), Associate Editor/ Records of Early English
Drama/
Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W/ Toronto Ontario Canada
Phone (416) 585-4504/ FAX (416) 813-4093/ abigai...@utoronto.ca
List-owner of REED-L <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed-l.html>
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html => REED's home page
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html => our theatre resource
page
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~young => my home page
Peter Farey
Thanks Abigail. Very interesting!
Paul Crowley
news:Xns93DA8D444FFFC...@216.168.3.44...
> It is a telling allusion; it suggests that Shakespeare's reputation as
> an actor was greater than previously supposed.
There are plenty of contemporary records about
actors. One obscure handwritten footnote is not
going to alter the picture -- in any way at all.
> It's hardly surprising
> that he wasn't referred to as a writer:
This is supposedly written by a local vicar --
the whole point is that he was local. He was
a fairly literate cleric (unlike most in the region)
who read Latin and made notes in Latin. So he
would have known of the man's local reputation
-- among the more educated . Given that Stratford
was a long way from the London theatres, much
of that knowledge would have come from
publications -- of his plays and poems. These
would have circulated among, and been discussed
by, literate locals . . along the lines of: "See what
our man has done . . "
> it has long been known that
> Shakespeare didn't acquire a general reputation as a great poet until
> the eighteenth century. (Most of the seventeenth-century references to
> him as a writer were made by other writers.
Almost the only records we have of comments
on poets and playwrights come from printed
works. Who authored printed works? Why --
writers! So the great bulk of extant comments
are going to come from writers. Who else,
you dope?
> Shakespeare's poetry was
> out of style in the 1600s: the popular poets of the age were Jonson,
> Donne, Marvell, Milton, Dryden -- satirists and metaphysicians.
>
> Shakespeare belonged to the Elizabethan Era; when his sonnets were
> published in 1609, they were barely noticed -- the vogue for sonnet
> sequences had long passed. Joseph Sobran found it odd that in 1623
> Jonson was praising Shakespeare above Marlowe, Lyly, and Kyd, but
> Shakespeare belonged to their age more than he did to Jonson's; he never
> picked up on the popular trends of the early Jacobean theater, such as
> satires and city comedies -- he didn't take up the revenge drama again,
> either.
Yes. All that is quite curious. It should lead
you to realise that he produced virtually ALL
his work under Elizabeth.
> It may not seem credible to a modern reader who has been persistently
> reminded of Shakespeare's greatness since childhood, but the fact is
> that in the 17th century hardly anyone thought Shakespeare's works were
> great poetry.
Since none of his poetry (as such) was
published before 1599 except V&A and
Lucrece, that is scarcely surprising. But
his reputation as a playwright started to
grow after 1598, and never stopped
growing. IF the Stratfordian story had the
least basis in fact, then a well-read local
vicar would have known all about it.
Paul.
Bob Grumman
> > published in 1609, they were barely noticed -- the vogue for sonnet
> > sequences had long passed. Joseph Sobran found it odd that in 1623
> > Jonson was praising Shakespeare above Marlowe, Lyly, and Kyd, but
> > Shakespeare belonged to their age more than he did to Jonson's; he never
> > picked up on the popular trends of the early Jacobean theater, such as
> > satires and city comedies -- he didn't take up the revenge drama again,
> > either.
How about the problem plays? I thought they were considered Jacobean.
> Yes. All that is quite curious.
Not at all--to those of use who know anything about writers. Rarely
is a writer not of his own generation throughout his writing career.
Yeats is almost unique in having been able to jump from the first
generation he wrote out of into a second--Ezra Pound's--although he
didn't follow Pound very far, and retained of his former way of
writing.
--Bob G.